On learned counsel for appellant/complainant informing no instructions, this Court has caused service on 26.07.2017 through the registry through e-mail address of the complainant company informing the date of hearing as today. There is still no representation.
2. This appeal arises against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, passed in C.C.No.7572 of 2002 on 03.06.2005.
3. Appellant/complainant has filed C.C.No.7572 of 2002 on the file of learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondents herein informing that they purchased goods from appellant and had issued a cheque bearing No.380700 dated 17.05.2002 in a sum of Rs.95,409/- towards repayment of borrowing, which upon presentation was returned unpaid for the reason 'insufficient funds'. Appellant/complainant caused statutory notice in keeping with section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and preferred the complaint.
4. Before the trial Court, appellant/complainant examined three witnesses and marked ten exhibits. None were examined on behalf of defence nor were any exhibits marked. On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 03.06.2005, acquitted respondents. There against, the present appeal has been filed.
5. In acquitting respondents, trial Court has found that one K.S.Krishnamurthy was shown to be the Power Agent of the complainant company and the complaint was also signed by him. Ex.P1, Power of Attorney dated 20.02.2003 has been executed by Director of complainant company in favour of K.S.Krishnamurthy. The primary contention of respondents/accused was that the complaint was preferred on 11.11.2002, in which the said K.S.Krishnamurthy has signed in the capacity of authorised signatory. After three months of preference of complaint only, the said K.S.Krishnamurthy has been given power to represent the company and hence, the complaint signed by the said K.S.Krishnamurthy in the capacity of Authorised Signatory was unsustainable and was not maintainable. Trial Court found the contention of respondents/accused acceptable and it further found that in Ex.P1 - Power of Attorney it has been mentioned that the same is valid only upto 31.12.2004 or till the service of K.S.Krishnamurthy, whichever is earlier. Given such position, in the absence of fresh Power of Attorney, the said K.S.Krishnamurthy was not authorised to represent the company. The next contention of respondents/ accused was that they were not liable to complainant company. Trial Court found, that Ex.P3, invoice, bears the name of the company by name 'Guava Glass Fibre Limited'. Though it was the contention of complainant that their company name was mentioned in the middle of invoice, no document has been produced to establish that respondents have purchased goods from their company. For the aforesaid reasons and for other reasons, trial Court found that complainant has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment under challenge.
The Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed.
31.07.2017 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No To The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
C.T.SELVAM, J gm Criminal Appeal No.600 of 2005 31.07.2017