AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Ashok Kumar, J.—This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore made in
STC No. 2260 of 1997.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant, the revision petitioner herein, filed a complaint against the accused for an alleged offence under Sections 138 and 142 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. The gist of the complaint is that the accused entrusted their goods to be transported to Canada by Air for which
purpose the accused issued Ex.P-2 cheque. The bill raised by the complainant for transporting the consignment is Ex.P-1. When the cheque was
presented on 31.12.1996 to the Bank, it was returned with an endorsement insufficient funds in the account of the accused. The returned memo is
Ex.P-3. Therefore, the complainant issued Ex.P-4 statutory notice and Ex.P-5 is the acknowledgment card for having received the said notice by
the accused. Ex.P-6 is the reply sent on behalf of the accused. On behalf of the complainant P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and on behalf of the
accused-D.W.1, Muthusamy the partner of the second accused (A-2) was examined. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
adduced on both sides, the Learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the alleged offence against the accused is not proved and
therefore acquitted the accused. Aggrieved over the said judgment and decree, this appeal has been filed by the complainant.
Mr. S. Kalyana Raman, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the signature in the cheque has been admitted by the
accused, the transactions are not disputed by the accused and if there is any liability on the part of the complainant for belated delivery of the
goods, separate proceedings could have been initiated and thus the offence alleged against the accused has been proved and that the presumption
has not been rebutted.
Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused would contend that the complainant delivered the goods entrusted to him belatedly at
Canada, as a result of which the buyer at Canada refused to take the goods and claimed damages of 25% and apart from delivering the goods
belatedly the complainant gave a false information that the goods have been delivered even on 17.11.1996, which was patently false and by the
late delivery of the goods entrusted to the complainant, the accused has suffered huge loss and therefore he has issued a notice claiming damages
for which there was no reply from the complainant and therefore he is not liable to pay the amount to the complainant.
The fact that goods were entrusted by the accused to the complainant for which Ex.P-1 bill was raised for a sum of Rs. 1,58,522/- for which
Ex.P-2, a cheque for Rs. 1,51,021/-, was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant and the cheque when presented bounced are
undisputed facts. It is also the admitted case of the complainant that the goods delivered to him did not reach the destination in time. According to
the accused because of the late delivery of the goods the buyer at Canada refused to receive the goods and also claimed damages at 25% from the
accused. Further the accused has also contended that the complainant has not only delivered the goods belatedly, but gave a false information by
Fax and SMS that the goods were delivered on 17.11.1996, which was patently false. Therefore, according to the accused, the complainant is
liable to pay the damages which are much more than the amount under the cheque issued by him.
The learned Counsel appearing for the complainant would contend that if the accused is entitled for any damages for late delivery of the goods
and also for furnishing of false information, he can approach the Civil Court for damages and cannot dishonour the cheque issued by him. In this
context, the notice Ex.D-2 sent by the accused to the complainant assumes importance and in Ex.D-2 notice the accused has stated all the facts,
which resulted for huge loss due to the late delivery of the goods and also the false information given by the complainant and the receipt of Ex.D-2
notice is accepted by P.W.1 complainant in his evidence and he has also stated that he has not replied for the said Ex.D-2 notice.
Normally, no prudent man will go to Civil Court nowadays because of the long delay of disposal of Civil cases in the Original side and Appellate
side and also in execution proceedings. When remedy is available on hand to dishonour the cheque for the amount payable by the complainant, it is
the wisdom of the accused to use that remedy inspite of going to the Court.
In the above circumstances, I do not find any defect in the judgment of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore in acquitting the
accused and therefore this appeal deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed.