Bangalore District Court
Ancy Joseph vs Swetha.A.L on 18 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 18th day of September - 2021
PRESENT: SRI. N.K.SALAMANTAPI, B.A., LL.B.,
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.26949/2018
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : Ancy Joseph,
W/o.Anthony Joseph,
Aged about 54 years,
No.356, 4th Main Road,
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bengaluru-60.
(Rep. by M/s. Tomy Sebastian Associates,
Advocates)
V/S
Accused : Swetha.A.L,
W/o.Govindaraju,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.16, 7th Cross, Gandhi Nagar,
K.S.Town, Bengaluru-60.
Also at No.38, 8th Main Road,
Kengeri Upanagar, Gandhi Nagar,
Bengaluru-60.
(Rep.by Sri.K.Venkatesh Murthy, Adv.)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Acquitted.
DATE OF ORDER : 18.09.2021.
(N.K.SALAMANTAPI)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
Judgment 2 C.C.No.26949/2018
JUDGMENT
The complainant has presented the instant complaint against the accused on 07.09.2018 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of two cheques amount of Rs.21 lakhs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant was a housewife and she lived with her husband Mr.Anthony Joseph. During January 1990 to February 2000, she worked in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh as a Nurse and during the month of February 2000, she returned to India and joined her husband. In the month of April 2015, the accused approached the complainant's husband and looked two rented premises, one for her family and another for herself. As per rental agreement, the accused required to pay sum of Rs.1,18,000/- as advance, but she paid Rs.10,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount within 1 month, the complainant's husband obliged same and she took the possession of the said two premises. After few days of taking possession, the accused started to visit the complainant's house frequently in the absence of complainant's husband and she spent considerable time in the complainant's house and they developed close relationship with each other.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.26949/2018 The complainant has further contended that by the end of May, the accused asked the complainant to lend sum of Rs.30,000/- and said that on payment of the same, she would be able to release the bid amount invested in a chit fund and she pleaded with complainant not to inform her husband about the transaction. Considering the relationship, at the first instance, the complainant gave 50 grams weighing gold chain to accused and the accused had pledged the same and the copy of pledged receipt gave to the complainant. Thereafter, the accused paid the balance advance deposit to the complainant's husband. Once again the accused approached the complainant and stated that she got a relationship with one Wasim, their family refused her, hence she intents to obtain divorce from her first husband- Govindaraj, she would require sum of Rs.5 lakhs. The complainant refused the same, at that time, the mother of accused
- Leelamma requested the complainant to lend her gold jewellery and as security she gave her property documents without making any agreement. The complainant has given Necklace, Bangles, Ear rings, Studs, Jumki, Pearls, Rings and Dollars approximately weighing 600 grams ornaments to the accused and the accused has pledged the same with Manapuram Finance Limited, Bengaluru.
Judgment 4 C.C.No.26949/2018 The complainant has further contended that after repeated demands made by the complainant to return the jewellery, but the accused gave evasive answers and tried to avoid the complainant. The complainant has also pledged 9 grams jewellery with Muthoot Finance and she transferred sum of Rs.73,500/- to accused's account from her account maintained in Kerala. The complainant has informed the same to her husband. Thereafter, the complainant's husband asked the accused to return the jewelleries, at that time she told the complainant's husband that since she did not have the required funds to release the jewelleries, the financial institution had decided to auction the jewellery, hence she filed a case in O.S.No.1318/2017 against the financial institution before the court of Hon'ble CCH-65, Bengaluru City. The complainant and her husband realized, the accused had applied for divorce with her husband - Govindaraj and she is living separately from him due to martial issues. In order to conduct the case, the accused had further taken jewellery weighing 75 grams from the complainant and pledged and the same with one Mahesh, who was the friend of accused and that apart the complainant also gave sum of Rs.3 lakhs to the accused by borrowing it from her family friend by name Jolly W/o Abraham.
Judgment 5 C.C.No.26949/2018 The complainant has further contended that herself and her husband would have problems with the accused, because random men would visit her house during odd hours, when the complainant and her husband objected the same, the accused introduced one Naveen Kumar as her business associate and stated that he will help to release the jewellery. The case instituted by the accused against the financial institution was dismissed and in the month of April 2018, the accused vacated the premises and promised, she will return the amount within a month, but she did not return the same. The complainant and her husband came to know that the accused has also cheated to their neighbours viz., Ashwini, Latha, Puttamma, Lakshmamma and Manju. In the month of March 2018, accused, her mother Leelamma and their henchmen Naveen Kumar came to the complainant's house and abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences if she asked her for the jewellery. Thereafter, the complainant got lodged a complaint on 15.07.2018 before the Station House Officer of Kengeri Police Station. Subsequently, the accused approached the complainant and requested not to persue the complaint and issued two cheques bearing Nos.999195 and 999196 dated 18.07.2018 drawn for Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/-
Judgment 6 C.C.No.26949/2018 respectively, both the cheques are drawn on Punjab National Bank, Mahalaxmi Layout, Bengaluru in favour of complainant.
Believing her representation, when the complainant has presented the said cheques for encashment through her banker viz., State Bank of India, Kengeri Branch, Bengaluru on 30.07.2018, the same came to be dishonoured with an endorsement dated 02.08.2018 stating "Account Blocked". Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 07.08.2018 by way of R.P.A.D. calling upon her to repay the cheques amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice and the same was duly served upon accused on 09.08.2018. Despite, the accused neither paid the cheques amount nor replied to the legal notice. Thus, she committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, filed the present complaint.
3. After receipt of the private complaint, my predecessor in office took the cognizance and got registered the PCR and recorded the sworn statement. Since made out prima-facie grounds to proceed against the accused for the alleged offence, got issued process.
Judgment 7 C.C.No.26949/2018
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared through her counsel and obtained bail. As required, complaint copy was supplied to the accused. Thereafter, accusation was read over and explained to accused, wherein, she denied the same and claimed to have the defence.
5. To prove the case of the complainant, she herself choosen to examine as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P39. The PW.1 was subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the accused. In the cross-examination of PW.1, accused counsel got confronted nine documents and same are marked as Exs.D1 to D9.
6. Thereafter, incriminating evidence made against the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied the same. In this case, the accused has not choosen to enter into witness box.
7. Both side counsels have addressed their arguments.
8. On going through the rival contentions, based on the substantial evidence available on record, the following points would arise for determination:
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond the reasonable doubt that the accused got issued Judgment 8 C.C.No.26949/2018 Exs.P1 and P2-cheques bearing Nos.999196 and 999195 to the complainant towards discharge of legal recoverable debt or liability and the said cheques were dishonoured?
2) What Order?
9. On appreciation of materials available on record, my findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT No.1: The complainant has filed this complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused stating that the accused and her family members stayed in her rented premises as tenants. The accused has approached and requested her to give hand loan in order to clear her liabilities and to release the bid amount invested in a chit fund, at that time, the complainant did not have required funds, hence, she gave her golden ornaments to the accused weighing approximately 600 grams on several occasions and the accused has pledged the same in various financial institutions and also the complainant has paid some amount in cash to the accused. Thereafter, the complainant repeatedly asked the accused to return the jewellery, but the accused has Judgment 9 C.C.No.26949/2018 given evasive answers and also tried to avoid the complainant. Hence, she lodged the complaint on 15.07.2018 before the Kengeri Police Station. Subsequently, the accused requested the complainant not to persue the complaint and towards discharge of legally recoverable debt, she got issued two cheques bearing Nos.999195 and 999196 dated 18.07.2018 for Rs.9 lakhs and Rs.12 lakhs respectively, both the cheques are drawn on Punjab National Bank, Mahalaxmi Layout, Bengaluru in her favour. When the said cheques were presented for encashment through her banker viz., State Bank of India, Kengeri Branch, Bengaluru on 30.07.2018, the same were dishonoured returned with remarks "Account Blocked". Hence, she got issued legal notice to the accused and calling upon her to repay the cheques amount, but she has not repaid the cheques amount of Rs.21,00,000/-. Hence, she prayed to punish the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
11. To attract Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, complainant should prove that; (1) the accused has issued cheques for discharge of legally recoverable debt. (2) The same were presented through her banker. (3) They were dishonoured on presentation. (4) The notice in terms of provisions was served on the accused and (5) Despite service of notice neither any Judgment 10 C.C.No.26949/2018 payment was made nor other obligations, if any were complied within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice.
12. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit and herself examined as PW.1, wherein, she has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. In support of her contention, she relied upon the documents at Exs.P1 to P39. Among them, cheques bearing Nos.999196 and 999195 for sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- dated 18.07.2018, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Mahalaxmi Layout, Bengaluru are marked as Exs.P1 and P2. The signatures of appears on the cheques are marked as Exs.P1(a) and P2(a). Exs.P3 and P4 are the Bank Endorsements issued by State Bank of India, the contents of Exs.P3 and P4 disclose that the cheques bearing Nos.999196 and 999195 drawn for Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- were dishonoured for the reasons "Account Blocked situation covered in 2125". Ex.P5 is the Legal Notice dated 07.08.2018, the recitals of Ex.P5 discloses that the complainant has issued this notice to the accused through her counsel. By issuing this notice, complainant called upon the accused to repay the cheques amount of Rs.21,00,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Ex.P6 is the Postal receipt. Ex.P7 is the postal acknowledgment card. Ex.P8 is the covering letter dated Judgment 11 C.C.No.26949/2018 09.08.2018. Ex.P9 is the postal receipt. Ex.P10 is the postal acknowledgment card. Ex.P11 is the sales bill dated 23.01.2004 issued by Bhima Jewels in favour of complainant herein regarding purchase of gold ornaments. Ex.P12 is the Estimate-S dated 13.04.2007 regarding purchase of locket gold ornament. Exs.P13 and P14 are the bills issued by Alapatt Jewellers pertaining to purchase of golden ornaments. Ex.P15 is the Sales/Purchase Estimation for 916 Hallmarked gold ornaments bill dated 27.08.2012. Exs.P16 & P17 are the estimates regarding purchasing of gold ornaments. Exs.P18 to P21 are the bills pertaining to purchasing of gold ornaments. Ex.P22 is the Estimate-S. Ex.P23 is the receipt dated 30.05.2015 issued by Manappuram Finance Limited regarding obtaining of gold loan by the accused herein. Ex.P24 is the acknowledgment dated 14.07.2018 issued by Station House Officer, Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru to complainant herein regarding lodging of complaint against the accused herein. Ex.P25 is the copy of police complaint lodged by accused herein. Ex.P26 is the certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.1318 of 2017 on the file of Hon'ble CCH-65, Bengaluru. Ex.P27 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.1318 of 2017 filed by accused herein against Mannapuram Finance Limited. Ex.P28 is the bank account Judgment 12 C.C.No.26949/2018 passbook pertaining to complainant herein issued by Catholic Syrian Bank. Ex.P29 is the private complaint. Ex.P29(a) is the signature of complainant. Ex.P30 is the Notarized copy of experience certificate pertaining to complainant herein issued by Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Health, Directorate General of Health, Riyad Region. Exs.P31 and P32 are the Notarized copies of Passport pertaining to complainant herein. Ex.P33 is the Notarized copy of bank account passbook pertaining to one Aju Joy issued by Catholic Syrian Bank. Ex.P34 is the Notarized copy of Identity Card pertaining to complainant herein. Ex.P35 is the copy of reply notice dated 07.08.2018 issued by complainant herein through her counsel to the advocate of accused. Ex.P35(a) is the same copy of reply notice at Ex.P35. Exs.P36 and P37 are the postal receipts and Exs.P38 and P39 are the postal acknowledgment cards. The PW.1 was subjected to the cross-examination by the advocate for the accused.
Section 118 (a) of Negotiable Instruments Act provides that:
"Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: (a) of consideration; that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, Judgment 13 C.C.No.26949/2018 was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."
Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act provides that:
"It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."
13. In order to rebut the presumption available under Sections 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in this case, the accused has taken her defence that she did not take any golden ornaments and amount from the complainant. She resided in the house of complainant on rental basis, at that time, the husband of complainant and complainant have taken her signed blank cheques and receipts of golden ornaments from her house without her knowledge and they have misused the Exs.P1 and P2 cheque and filed false case against her. Hence, she is not liable to pay the cheques amount to the complainant and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant in the present case. Hence, she prayed for acquittal.
14. In support of her contention, the accused has relied upon the documents at Exs.D1 to D9. Among them, Exs.P1 and P2 are Rental Agreements entered into between L.P.Anthony Joseph, Judgment 14 C.C.No.26949/2018 who is the husband of complainant herein and accused in respect of two houses on monthly rent basis. Ex.D3 is the true copy of police complaint dated 13.07.2018 lodged by accused herein before the Kengeri Police Station against complainant herein and other 3 persons. Ex.D4 is the acknowledgment dated 14.07.2018 issued by the Station House Officer, Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru to accused herein. Ex.D5 is the copy of notice dated 27.07.2018 issued by accused herein through her counsel to the complainant herein and other 3 persons. Exs.D6 and D7 are the postal receipts. Exs.D8 and D9 are the postal acknowledgment cards. The learned counsel for accused in support of defence taken by the accused, he has relied upon the decisions as under:
a) Crl.A.No.2043 of 2013 (@ SLP )Crl.) No.9505 of 2011) in the case of John K Abraham V/s. Simon C Abraham and another.
b) AIR 2019 SC 1983 in the case of Basalingappa V/s. Mudibasappa.
c) 2020 (3) KCCR 2373 in the case of Vishal V/s. Prakash Kadappa Hegannawar.
d) 2007 Crl.L.J. 3846 in the case of G.Veeresham V/s. S.Shiva Shankar and another.
e) AIR 2008 SC 1325 in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat V/s. Dattatraya G. Hegde.
f) C.C.No.26561 of 2018 in the case of Ashwini V/s.
Swetha.A.L. Judgment 15 C.C.No.26949/2018
15. While appreciating the materials on records and evidence, this court has gone through the decisions stated supra apart from the other decisions.
16. On going through the rival contentions of the parties, it made clear that the accused in this case has seriously attack on the claim put forth by the complainant. On going through the materials it discloses that the complainant has brought the present case against the accused based on the questioned cheques at Exs.P1 and P2. Therefore, it needs to draw the presumption as per Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. This presumption is rebuttable in nature. Therefore, by virtue of the above said sections stated, it made clear that it requires to draw statutory presumption in favour of complainant in respect of discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt. Therefore, as per those sections, it made clear that it is the initial onus on the accused to prove her case based on the principles of 'Preponderance of Probabilities'.
17. The standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of the accused is 'Preponderance of Probabilities'. Inference of 'Preponderance of Probabilities' can be drawn, not only from the Judgment 16 C.C.No.26949/2018 materials brought on record by parties, but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they relies.
18. On going through the above, it made clear that it is the initial burden on the accused to prove her probable defence in order to rebut the statutory presumption as well as the case put forth by the complainant. On going through the rival contentions of the parties, it made clear that the accused has not admitted the claim of complainant including the alleged liability accrued as per Exs.P1 and P2-cheques and she denied the same by cross- examining to PW.1. It is significant fact to note that with regard to the cheques are concern, the accused took up the defence by way of suggestion to PW.1
19. On perusal of Exs.P12 to P17 - Estimates and bills, it discloses that they are golden ornaments estimates and purchasing bills, but the said documents does not disclose, who is the purchaser of golden ornaments. Exs.P18 to P21 are also receipts. The said documents are in Arabic Language. The PW.1, during the trial of case, she did not try to produce the translate copies of Exs.P18 to P21 before this court. Ex.P23 is the receipt issued by Manappuram Finance Limited, regarding pledging of one Necklace. The said document discloses the Judgment 17 C.C.No.26949/2018 pledger name as accused herein, not the name of complainant. In the present case on hand, the complainant's contention is that during her stay in Saudi, she has invested her income on purchasing the gold jewellery totally weighing of 600 grams and said jewellery were given to the accused to clear her liabilities by pledging her gold ornaments. In order to prove the said contention, she has not produced cogent and convincing evidence before the court.
20. The complainant has produced her bank account passbook pertaining to Catholic Syrian Bank. It does not disclose that the complainant gave amount to the accused. The contention of complainant that she borrowed sum of Rs.3 lakhs from her family friend by name Jolly W/o Abraham and same was given to accused. In order to prove the said contention, the complainant has not taken witness summons to the said Jolly for examination in support of her case. In this case, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to believe the version of complainant that the accused received total amount of Rs.21 lakhs by way of cash and pledging the golden ornaments which belongs to complainant. Therefore, in the absence of such convincing evidence before the court, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the accused has issued the alleged Exs.P1 and P2 cheques to the complainant for Judgment 18 C.C.No.26949/2018 discharge of legally recoverable debt and she is liable to pay sum of Rs.21 lakhs to the complainant.
At this stage, this court has gone through the decision reported in Criminal Appeal No.2402 of 2014, between K.Subramani V/s K.Damodara Naidu, in the said ruling the Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the Judgment of Trial Court acquitting the accused on the ground of capacity to pay the amount of cheque. In the above said ruling the Trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the complainant had no source of income to lend sum of Rs.14,00,000/-. In the appeal the Hon'ble 1st Appellate Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to give an opportunity to complainant to prove the same. The accused went in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the order of the 1 st Appellate Court and upheld the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court.
21. In view of the above decision, the complainant must prove her financial capacity to lend huge amount of Rs.21,00,000/- to the accused. In the present case on hand, when the accused has made out a probable defence by adducing the documentary evidence and making cross-examination to the complainant, the burden shifts on the complainant to prove that she was the owner Judgment 19 C.C.No.26949/2018 of golden ornaments total weighing 600 grams and she gave the said jewellery and cash to the accused. In the absence of relevant documents, the contention of complainant cannot be accepted. Complainant has not examined any witnesses in support of her contention.
22. On perusal of the certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.1318/2017, wherein the accused herein has filed the said suit against financial institution seeking for permanent injunction restraining them from selling the golden ornaments in public auction. If the complainant was absolute owner of the said golden ornaments, definitely, she would have filed the suit against the said financial institution, seeking for permanent injunction restraining them from conducting the public auction in respect of golden ornaments as stated in the present complainant. But in the present case, she did not do so, from this it is clear that she was not the absolute owner of the golden ornaments as stated in the complaint.
23. The complainant stated that she worked as a Nurse in Saudi Arabia, Riyad, wherein she was getting monthly salary of Rs.30,000/- and she served there 10 years and she further stated that at that time, she purchased the golden ornaments. But she Judgment 20 C.C.No.26949/2018 did not say, how much monthly salary she has invested for purchasing the golden ornaments in Saudi Arabia. The receipts produced by the complainant did not speak that golden ornaments as mentioned in the complaint were purchased by her. Therefore, it is difficult to come to conclusion that the accused has taken golden ornaments worth of Rs.21 lakhs from the complainant. Mere because of the complainant possessed the questioned cheques at Exs.P1 and P2, it does not mean that they were issued by the accused for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt. From the above discussions, it is very much clear that the complainant has failed to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing cogent and convincing evidence before the court. Thus, the accused has rebutted the legal presumptions available under Sections 139 and 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for acquittal. In this case, the service of legal notice sent by the complainant to the address of accused is not in dispute.
24. On overall appreciation of the material facts available on record, it discloses that the complainant has failed to prove with cogent evidence as to the lending of cash as well as golden ornaments to the accused. Thus, that fact itself is sufficient to infer that accused is able to rebut presumptions available in Judgment 21 C.C.No.26949/2018 favour of complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
In a decision reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3366 (M.S.Narayana Menon Alian Mani V/s. State of Kerala and another). The Hon'ble Apex court held that:
"Once the accused discharges the initial burden placed on him the burden of proof would revert back to the prosecution".
25. In this case on hand, the complaint failed to prove the alleged transaction, it can gather the probability that the accused is not liable to pay Exs.P1 and P2 cheques' amount of Rs.21,00,000/- and it is not legally recoverable debt. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record it is crystal clear that accused has made out a probable case which clearly rebut the presumptions arisen in favour of complainant. Accused has proved that Exs.P1 and P2 cheques were not issued on 18.07.2018 in favour of complainant for discharge of legally recoverable debt of Rs.21,00,000/-. The accused has taken her defence at the earliest point of time, while recording of accusation and statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by way of denial. The evidence placed on record clearly probablized that complainant has failed to prove that accused issued the cheques for discharge Judgment 22 C.C.No.26949/2018 of liability of Rs.21,00,000/-. The complainant has not produced needed evidence to prove that amount of Rs.21,00,000/- is legally recoverable debt. Therefore, as discussed above, the complainant has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answered the Point No.1 in the Negative.
26. Point No.2: In view of my findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of September - 2021) (N.K.SALAMANTAPI) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : Ancy Joseph Judgment 23 C.C.No.26949/2018
List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Exs.P1 & P2 : Original Cheque Exs.P1(a) & P2(a) : Signatures of accused Exs.P3 & P4 : Bank endorsements Ex.P5 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P6 : Postal receipt Ex.P7 : Postal acknowledgment card Ex.P8 : Letter of Legal notice Ex.P9 : Postal receipt Ex.P10 : Postal acknowledgment card Exs.P11 to P23 : Bills/Estimates and receipts Ex.P24 : Acknowledgment Ex.P25 : Complaint Ex.P26 : CC of order sheet in O.S.No.1318/17 Ex.P27 : CC of plaint in O.S.No.1318/2017 Ex.P28 : Bank passbook Ex.P29 : Private complaint Ex.P29(a) : Signature of complainant Ex.P30 : Notarized copy of Experience certificate Exs.P31 & P32 : Notarized copy of passport Ex.P33 : Notarized copy of bank passbook Ex.P34 : Notarized copy of ID card Ex.P35 & P35(a) : Copy of reply notice Exs.P36 & P37 : Postal receipts Exs.P38 & P39 : Postal acknowledgment cards
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
- None -
List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
Exs.D1 & D2 : Rental agreements
Ex.D3 : True copy of complaint
Ex.D4 : Acknowledgment
Ex.D5 : Legal notice
Exs.D6 & D7 : Postal receipts
Exs.D8 & P9 : Postal acknowledgment cards
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 24 C.C.No.26949/2018
18.09.2021.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment
Judgment 25 C.C.No.26949/2018
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
***** ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.