2022 (6) TMI 1031

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed by the learned XIV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/accused, learned Counsel for the second respondent/complainant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. Perused the record. 3. The second respondent/complainant filed a private complaint, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the revision petitioners/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. It is stated in the complaint that A-1 is a company represented by its Managing Director A-2, and A-3 and A-4 are the Directors of A-1 company. The complainant company is manufacturing vari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an amount of Rs. 1,18,56,030/- in favour of the complainant company. When the complainant company presented the cheque for collection with its banker on 24.12.2012, the same was dishonoured and returned unpaid for the reason 'insufficient funds' vide cheque return memo dated 24.12.2012. Thereupon, the complainant company got issued a legal notice dated 17.01.2013 calling upon A-1 to A-4 to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The notice was served on A-1 company on 21.01.2013. A-2, A-3 and A-4 have not claimed the notices, as per the postal endorsement. The legal notices were also sent A-1 to A-4 to their factory address and they were returned undelivered with an endorsement 'refused'. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ge, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 22.03.2016 dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment dated 31.03.2016 passed by the trial court in C.C. No. 288 of 2013. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed the present revision. 8. The trial court at page 9 of its judgment observed at para 14 that the complainant through the evidence of P.W. 1, corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, proved that A-1 company placed purchase order with the complainant company under Exs. P-14 and P-15 to deliver the batteries to Lighton Welspun Contractors Pvt., Ltd., Navi Mumbai; that under invoices Exs. P-16 and P-17 in the name of A-1 company batteries were delivered under Exs. P-19 to P-21 delivery challans to the above said ....