TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 761
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 05.01.2001. As such, now it is known as 'Himalyan Plastic Limited'. All the liabilities, rights, assets etc. of M/s. Himalyan Plastic Private Limited have been taken over by M/s. Himalyan Plastic Limited. The Complainant-Company has its registered office and works at Chambaghat, Tehsil, and District Solan H.P. Sh. Madan Sharma is the Managing Director of the Complainant-Company and being Managing Director of the Company, he has executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. Sita Ram Verma, S/o. Sh. Sant Ram, R/o. Tehsil and District Solan HP and gave him the powers to act on behalf of the Company. Sh. Sita Ram Verma is competent and entitled to sign, verify and file the complaint on behalf of the Complainant-Company and to depose on oath by appearing in Court as also to engage service of counsel and to do all other lawful acts, deeds and things which may be necessary for the said purpose. The Complainant-Company deals in the business of manufacturing and sale of HDPE Pipes, fittings, sprinkler, drip irrigation systems, PIR (Silicon coated) HDPE Telecom. Duct. The accused was earlier purchasing the above material on credit basis form the Complainant-Company as p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment within 15 days from 23.09.2002. It has, therefore, been prayed that the accused may be summoned, dealt with and punished as per provisions of Section 138 of the Act. 3. The complaint was dismissed by the learned trial Court after due trial. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of learned trial court, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., wherein at the time of hearing learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the appeal by reserving liberty to him to approach the competent Court of law. The permission, as prayed for, was granted and the appeal was returned back to the learned counsel along with documents. 5. Thereafter, the appellant has maintained the instant appeal before this Court. 6. I have heard Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jitender Pal, learned counsel for the respondent-accused and also gone through the records of the case. 7. Mr. Romesh Verma learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned trial court in para-14 of its judgment has held the complaint to be not maintainable because it was filed after the prescribed period of limitat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en on that count also, the complaint was not maintainable. He further argued that Sita Ram Verma in his cross examination specially admitted that he has no knowledge with regard to the transaction, and the time of transaction, with the respondent-accused, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this count also. 9. Mr. Jitender Pal, learned counsel for the respondent-accused has cited various judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts viz. 1999 (2) Civil Court Cases 553 (P & H), titled as Meeta Rai Vs. Gulshan Mahajan; 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 504 (SC, titled as M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.; 2007 (2) Civil Court Cases 803 (Madras), titled as Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. Bhojarajan; 2007 (4), Civil Court Cases 385, titled as Director, Maruti Feeds & Farms Private Limited, Dharwad Vs. Basanna Pattekar; 2010 (1) Civil Court Cases 381 (Rajasthan) (DB), titled as M/s. United Construction Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.; 2011 (2) Civil Court Cases 690 (SC), titled as Milind Shripad Chandurkar Vs. Kalim M. Khan & Anr.; 2011 (3) Civil Court Cases 619 (Kerala), titled as Santhi Vs. Mary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on date is that after the presentation of the cheque even after the second time and its dishonoring, the complaint can be maintained after issuing notice as per the provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same process will start after dishonor of the cheque for the second time as if it has dishonored for the first time till the time the Negotiable Instruments is valid. 13. The cheque should have been issued for consideration and the complainant is required to prove the consideration when in defence it is the case of the accused that the cheque was given not for consideration but as a security only. 14. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records of the case wherein Sita Ram Verma, has stated that he was authorized officer of the Complainant-Company and the Company earlier was known as Himalyan Plastic Pvt. Ltd., but now a days it is Himalyan Plastic Ltd. and he was authorized by Sh. Madan Lal Sharma, who was the Managing Director of the Company. In his deposition he has stated that the Complainant-Company deals in the business of manufacturing and sale of HDPE pipes, fittings, sprinkler, drip irrigation system....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the complaint as he was working with the Company. Then the second question arises whether the onus which shifted on the complainant that the cheque was not issued for consideration and it was only a security amount has been discharged. The answer is that onus was not discharged as the Company which is supposed to maintain the accounts of which are to be maintained in the regular course of business for all intents and purposes should have shown the sale and those documents should have been produced by the complainant company in the Court, as the sale would have been the consideration for the cheque. Failure of the same shows that the cheque was only issued as a security. The witnesses of the complainant nowhere able to prove that the cheque was for the supplies made and it was for consideration. 20. In these circumstances, this Court holds that after applying the law that the findings as recorded by the learned court below call for no interference even after re-appreciating the evidence. 21. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258, that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other ....