M/S. Regma Ceramics Ltd., ... vs Anoob M.P., Palkkad, Kerala ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5229 Tel

                               1



             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.843 of 2010
JUDGMENT:

1. The complaint filed by the appellant against respondents 1

and 2/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act was dismissed and the respondents 1 and 2

were acquitted vide order dated 08.02.2010 in CC.No.3 of 2009

passed by the XIV Additional Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same,

present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the appellant is that it is a public limited

company and during the course of business, the respondents 1

and 2 purchased marble on a regular basis and there was an

outstanding of Rs.21,72,804-25 ps as per the statement of

account. To discharge the said outstanding, the cheque in

question for the said amount was given to the complainant

company. The said cheque, when presented for clearance was

returned unpaid for the reason of 'payment stopped by the

drawer'. Aggrieved by the stoppage of payment, legal notice was

sent to the respondents 1 and 2 asking them to make good the

amount covered by the cheque. Having received the said notice,

the respondents 1 and 2 gave reply notice and refused to make

any payment, for which reason, complaint was filed.

3. P.W.1, who was the representative of the appellant

company was examined on its behalf and during the course of

examination, Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. The 1st respondent,

who is the proprietor of M/s.Chaitanya Marbles examined

himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D6 during the course

of trial.

4. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents 1 and 2

for the following reasons; i) Under Ex.D1 four signed blank

cheques were given at the time of appointment of accused as

dealer of the company; ii) The complainant company issued a

letter in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 dated 23.06.2007

and the contents therein are correct, which is Ex.D2; iii)

Further, the goods that were damaged were returned by the

respondents 1 and 2, but they have not deducted the amount,

and not shown in Ex.P8 statement; iv) The company has not

filed any invoices to substantiate that the goods were given; v)

P.W.1 did not have any personal knowledge about the

transactions between the appellant and the respondents 1 and

2 as they have taken place in Kerala; vi) Though there was an

agreement between the appellant and the respondents 1 and 2

regarding the transactions, the said agreement was not filed

into the court; vii) the court does not have territorial jurisdiction

since notice was issued from the Head Office, which is within

the limits of Police Station, Abids, as per the Judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hanuman Electronics

Pvt. Ltd., v. National Panasonic India Private Limited1,

wherein it is held that place of notice from which it is sent from

does not confer territorial jurisdiction.

5. Though the company has examined P.W.1, who is its

representative, the said representative does not have any

personal knowledge about the transactions that have taken

2009(1) SCC 720

place between the appellant and the respondents 1 and 2 in the

State of Kerala. Admittedly, the transaction of supplying goods

and the retuning of goods have taken place in Kerala. For the

reason of the entire transactions being taken up at Kerala, the

appellant company ought to have filed the invoices and other

documentary evidence in support of their claim of outstanding

covered by the cheque.

6. It is not disputed that four cheques were given as security

at the time of granting dealership. Unless it is shown by the

appellant company that when the goods were returned by the

respondents 1 and 2 as damaged and when returning such

goods is admitted, the appellant ought to have filed

documentary evidence in support of it's claim that goods after

being returned, were replaced. The statement of P.W.1, who did

not have personal knowledge of the transaction stating that

damaged goods were replaced, cannot be considered.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna

Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh2 held that under the Indian

criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental

protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation.

Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and

secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation.

Both these facets attain even greater significance where the

accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment

of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the

accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false

implication. But then, this has to be established on record of

the Court.

8. All the transactions, admittedly have taken place in the

State of Kerala and the cheque was also issued at Kerala. The

Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of

Hanuman Electronics Private Limited v. National Panasonic

India Private Limited (supra), wherein it was held that sending

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

of notice from a particular place would not confer territorial

jurisdiction cannot be disputed.

9. Both, on the ground of appellant failing to make out a case

that the amount mentioned in cheque was in fact outstanding

and also for the reason of lack of jurisdiction, the appeal fails.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 20.10.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.843 of 2010

Date: 20.10.2022.

kvs