TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he evidence of the complainant further revealed that the total cost agreed between the complainant and the accused for dairy equipment was Rs. 10,25,000/-. The invoice (Exh.42) also establishes this fact. It is not in dispute that Rs. 7,40,000/-was paid by the accused to the complainant, and only Rs. 2,85,000/-was due from the accused. The cheque (Exh.39) is Rs. 4,95,000/-which is more than the outstanding amount from the accused. The complainant admitted this fact in his cross-examination. The complainant's case is not substantiated by documentary evidence. The total amount due of Rs. 12,93,875/-could not be proven by any bill on record. The complainant's admission during cross-examination that the cheque amount exceeded the out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he remaining 10% was to be paid on commissioning of the equipment in the accused firm. The accused then accepted and confirmed the order. As per the purchase order, the complainant manufactured the dairy equipment and delivered it to the accused firm. 3. For the payment of the cost of this equipment, accused No. 2 issued a cheque bearing No. 450382 dated 14.6.2004 for Rs. 4,95,000/-drawn on the Mahad Co-operative Urban Bank Limited in favour of the complainant. The cheque was deposited by the complainant in Janaseva Sahakari Bank Limited, Bhosari, MIDC Branch, Pune, on 17.06.2004. It returned unpaid on 05.07.2004 for the reason not arranged for . This fact was intimated to the complainant on 24.07.2004 by his banker. The complainant sen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the appellant, Mr Rahul Vijaymane; Mr Tukaram Shendge, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2; and Mr HJ Dedhia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/ State. Perused the impugned judgment, grounds in appeal memo, evidence and material on record. 8. The cross-examination of the complainant shows that the cheque amount exceeded the outstanding amount. The complainant stated that it was subsequently decided in the agreement that 90% of the amount would be paid at the time of dispatching machinery from his premises. However, this agreement was not placed on record. 9. The evidence of the complainant further revealed that the total cost agreed between the complainant and the accused for da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lumn in this proforma invoice, there is no reference to Sales Tax. As per the letter (Exh.43), the complainant provided details of the outstanding amount. According to this letter, the sales tax amount was Rs. 1,58,875/-and interest was Rs. 1,10,000/-. Based on this letter, it appears that including the bill amount of Rs. 10,25,000/-, sales tax of Rs. 1,58,875/-and interest amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-, the total outstanding amount was Rs. 12,93,875/-and out of which the complainant had received the payment of Rs. 7,40,000/-. As per this letter, an amount of Rs. 5,53,875/-was due and payable by the accused to the complainant. The cheque amount is more than the outstanding amount, and therefore, in such circumstances, the learned trial Court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
