Judgment :- The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent herein / complainant had filed a case in C.C.No.87 of 2004, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore, against the revision petitioner herein / accused for the offence under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the accused ordered a machinery viz., 'JCP V 3D' with its accessories on 22.07.2002. As per the order of the accused, the complainant supplied the machinery with its accessories on 30.07.2002, worth about Rs.13,13,000/-, to the accused. In that aspect, the accused has to pay the balance amount of Rs.8,13,000/- to the complainant. Therefore, the accused had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,35,500/- as part payment, drawn on City Co-operative Bank of Mumbai, Banthra Mount Road, dated 15.02.2003, in favour of the complainant. The same was presented for collection in the complainant's account on 24.07.2003, and it was returned unpaid with the endorsement of "exceeds arrangement" in the account of accused. 2. Thereafter, the complainant had observed all legal formalities and filed the above said case. On the side of the complainant, P.W.1 was examined and seven documents were marked viz., Ex.P1-Board of resolution letter, Ex.P2-cheque, Ex.P3-return memo, Ex.P4-debit advice, Ex.P5-lawyer's notice, Ex.P6-acknowledgment card and Ex.P7-reply notice. After being questioned, the accused had denied that he is guilty. On the side of the accused, one witness was examined as D.W.1. and eight document were marked, viz., Ex.R1-letter for replacement, Ex.R2-delivery notice, Ex.R3-Octrai Tax Receipt, Exs.R5 to R8, letters and Ex.R9-lawyer's notice. 3. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that he was authorized by the company as per Board of Resolution letter to represent the case and thathe knows the accused. The accused has to pay a sum of Rs.8,13,000/- to the complainant's company. Hence, the accused had issued a cheque, drawn on Citizen Co-operative Bank Ltd., for a sum of Rs.1,13,500/-, dated 15.02.2003. He further stated that the same was presented in his account viz., ICICI Bank, Coimbatore Branch on 24.07.2003, and the same was returned on 02.08.2003, with the endorsement of "exceeds arrangement made by accused". P.W.1 further stated that in support of his evidence, he had marked the above mentioned exhibits. 4. He further stated that the same was presented in his account viz., ICICI Bank, Coimbatore Branch on 24.07.2003, and the same was returned on 02.08.2003, with the endorsement of "exceeds arrangement made by accused". P.W.1 further stated that in support of his evidence, he had marked the above mentioned exhibits. 4. D.W.1, the accused, had adduced evidence that the complainant company had given a quotation for a sum of Rs.13,13,000/-, out of which he has paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- through his bankers viz., Citizen Co-operative Bank, Bombay Branch and the bank had paid Rs.5,00,000/-to the complainant company directly. Further for the balance amount, he had issued six post dated cheques dated 15.09.2002, 15.10.2002, 15.11.2002, 15.12.2002, 15.01.2003, 15.02.2003. D.W.1 further stated that the complainant imported the machinery from America and the same was launched by the complainant company in August 2002. After installing the machinery, from the starting onwards, the machinery has not functioned properly. For the rectification of the defect in the machinery, the complainant's company arranged for machines several times and they were not able to rectify the same. The said six cheques were not presented for collection till the month of March 2003. Finally, on 15.01.2003, and 15.02.2003, the complainant presented the cheque for collection at Coimbatore. 5. D.W.1 further stated that he had informed the complainant through phone and letter that the machinery was not functioning properly. Then, the company has agreed to replace the defective machinery and had installed another low quality machinery in November and had taken the above said defective machinery on the same day. On 31.10.2002, the complainant company had issued a delivery note and issued a receipt dated 15.11.2002 and also issued a receipt dated 07.12.2002 for receiving the amount. The same was marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P2 reveals that the complainant had issued a letter to note that the machinery was worth about Rs.5,00,000/-and it was the delivery note. Supporting his evidence, he had marked the above mentioned documents. 6. On considering the evidence of both sides and on perusing the exhibits which were marked by both the parties and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side, the learned Magistrate has held that the accused had not proved the payment of the loan due and observed that if any one sign's the cheque for any amount, he is liable to pay the same. As such, it was observed that the accused had not paid the cheque amount. Therefore, the accused was found guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegation of the accused was that the machinery was not functioning. The Magistrate opined that for getting remedy, he has to sort out the grievance before the Consumer Court. Hence, the Magistrate awarded compensation of a sum, which was twice of the cheque amount to the complainant payable by the accused and also imposed a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. In default of payment of compensation, the accused was to undergo further period of rigorous imprisonment of one year. 7. Against the conviction and sentence, the accused filed an appeal in C.A.No.181 of 2009, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore. While the appeal was pending, the accused had filed C.M.P.No.54 of 2010, under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. stating that during trial before the trial Court, a certified copy of the judgment passed in C.C.No.445/S/2003, on the file of XXII Chief Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Andheri, Mumbai was filed, but the lower Court failed to mark it as a document. Hence, the accused has prayed for allowing further evidence and mark the said judgment before the trial Court. 8. The above said petition had been resisted by the complainant stating that the accused had not disputed the issuance of the cheque towards discharge of the loan amount. The complainant further stated that the production of documents at this stage would lead to De nova enquiry. The accused had categorically admitted before the trial Court that he had issued six post dated cheques in favour of the complainant in order to discharge the liability. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the said petition. 9. On considering the arguments of both parties, and on perusing the averments made on both sides, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the revision has been filed by the accused. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the learned appellate judge failed to understand that all the six cheques are related to the same transaction for the purchase of machinery from the complainant. On the basis of dishonoured cheques, a complaint was filed before the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Mumbai. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the learned appellate judge failed to understand that all the six cheques are related to the same transaction for the purchase of machinery from the complainant. On the basis of dishonoured cheques, a complaint was filed before the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Mumbai. The judgment of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri is a relevant document for deciding the issue, but the same was not marked before the trial Court. The learned counsel further submits that the accused has undergone training and apprenticeship in 1992 under the second respondent company. The father of the accused also underwent training in the same company in the year 1960. Only because of the relationship, the accused has not chosen to collect the six cheques. The said machinery worth about Rs.13,13,000/-had been replaced by another machine, which is worth about Rs.5,00,000/-. The learned counsel further submits that the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner to personal liberty and to live with human dignity under Article 21 of Constitution of India are involved in the matter. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the case in C.C.No.87 of 2004 had been filed on different cheques and on different causes of action. Like that, C.C.No.445/S/2003 had been filed on the file of XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri, Mumbai is for a different cheque and different cause of action. Therefore, the certified copy of the judgment of Andheri Court is not relevant to mark it as additional evidence at this stage. As it was not necessary, the learned appellate judge had dismissed the said petition. In order to create multiple proceedings, the above revision has been filed. The initial payment is only for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was made by the Bank. For the balance amount, the accused had issued six equated post dated cheques. As such, there is no excess claim against the accused. The machinery defect has been subsequently rectified and a new machine was handed over to the accused. Without paying any money of his own, the accused possesses and is operating the machine on the amount released by the Bank. The learned counsel further submits that in order to evade payment, the accused has made a false allegation stating that the machine is a defective one. Without paying any money of his own, the accused possesses and is operating the machine on the amount released by the Bank. The learned counsel further submits that in order to evade payment, the accused has made a false allegation stating that the machine is a defective one. The revision petitioner's personal and fundamental rights has not been affected since the dealing involved here is purely a business matter which involved money. Actually, there is no 'lacuna' in the judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, additional evidence for marking the Andheri Court judgment is irrelevant. 12. On considering the arguments advanced by both sides and on perusing the impugned judgment of the appellate Court, this Court is of the considered view that for requirements for creating criminal liability, the complainant must show, (a) that a cheque was issued; (b) the same was presented; (c) but it was dishonoured; (d) a notice in terms of the said provision was served on the person sought to be made liable and (e) despite service neither any payment nor other obligations were complied within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice; (f) the main dispute between the complainant and accused is regarding machinery defect and this should be sorted out before the Consumer Court and (g) regarding dispute of payment arrears, it has to be sorted out before a Civil Court, but in the instant case has been filed only for the purpose of cheque dishonour. In order to establish the same, the complainant had established the five aspects which have been listed as (a) to (e) above. 13. From the forgoing discussions, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said impugned order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore in C.M.P.No.54 of 2010 in C.A.No.181 of 2009, dated 19.08.2010 and hence it is confirmed, and the revision is dismissed. This Court directs the learned appellate judge to dispose the above appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without being influenced by this Court's discussions. 14. Resultantly, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in C.M.P.No.54 of 2010 in C.A.No.181 of 2009, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore, dated 19.08.2010 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Accordingly ordered.