Bangalore District Court
Violet W/O Fredrick vs Ratheesh S/O Shaker on 8 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BENGALURU
: PRESENT :
M.Vijay, BA (Law), LLB.
XXXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020.
C.C.No.55784/2017
COMPLAINANT : Violet w/o Fredrick,
Aged about 48 years
residing at No 16, 6th A cross,
6th Main
C.V.Raman nagar
Kagadespur,
Bangalore 560 093,
.Vs.
ACCUSED : Ratheesh s/o shaker
Aged about 33 years
Deepa House
No.130, 4th cross
Near BHEMAL hospital
Jagadish nagar
Bangalore 560 078.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this private complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2C.C.No.55784/2017
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant has averred that, the accused is her family friend and wellknown to each other. Based on that acquaintance, the accused allegedly approached her for hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/ in the 1st week of June 2016, to meet his urgent family requirements and necessities. Accordingly, in order to help in distress condition of the accused, she allegedly paid cash of Rs.1,50,000/ to the accused on 15.06.2016, on receipt of the same, the accused allegedly promised and assured her to repay it within 3 months. Further, it is alleged that, she made a demand for return or repayment of hand loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/, but after several requests and demands made by her, the accused instead of paying the cash, has allegedly issued a cheque bearing No.179635 dtd:09.01.2017 for Rs.1,50,000/ drawn at SBI, Kodihalli, Vimanapura, Bengaluru and requested her to present it. Accordingly, through her banker i.e., Indian Bank, New Thippasandra Branch, Bengaluru, she presented it, but for her utter shock, the cheque issued by the accused was bounced for 3 C.C.No.55784/2017 "Funds Insufficient". In this regard her banker had issued an endorsement dtd:17.01.2017. Immediately, she approached the accused and brought to the notice about the dishonor, but her efforts were went on vain. Accordingly, she constrained to issue a legal notice through RPAD on 07.02.2017 for repayment of amount, but, despite it was dispatched for correct address, the accused had not claimed the notice. In this regard the postal authority had issued intimation to her that the intimation had been delivered to the accused on 10.02.2017 and 11.02.2017. So, despite its service, the accused neither replied to the notice nor complied the demand, accordingly, she alleged that, the accused despite knowing the insufficient funds in his account, with an intention to defraud her, had dishonestly issued the cheque and it was bounced. Accordingly she alleged, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit, the documents placed by the complainant along with the complaint the court took cognizance of 4 C.C.No.55784/2017 an offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act and ordered to register a criminal case against the accused for the offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
4. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and he was on court bail. Plea has been recorded; accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the case, the complainant got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.5(a).
6. On closure of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating materials on record and adduced his defence evidence by examining himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 & 2 documents on his behalf, wherein he denied the transaction, issuance of Cheque, disputed the service of notice i.e., compliance of Sec.138B of N.I.Act, further, he specifically contended that, Ex.P.1 Cheque is a stale Cheque was valid up to the year 2009 and it is 5 C.C.No.55784/2017 useless Cheque kept in his house and he does not know , how the Cheque was gone into the hands of the complainant. On these grounds he claims to be innocent.
7. Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the materials on record, the following point arises for my determination;
"Whether the complainant has proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?"
8. On that basis my finding on the above point is in the "Affirmative" for the following;
REASONS
9. The specific case of the complainant is, that the accused was working as Father in a Church. He is her family friend, had approached her for friendly hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/ in the 1st week of June' 2016 to meet the family requirements of the accused. So, on considering the request, she allegedly advanced Rs.1,50,000/ to the accused on 6 C.C.No.55784/2017 15.06.2016. On receipt of it, the accused allegedly agreed to return it within 3 months. Accordingly, after completion of the agreed time, when she made a demand, the accused allegedly issued the cheque bearing No.179635 dtd:09.01.2017 to her for Rs.1,50,000/ drawn on SBI, Kodihalli Branch, on its presentation it was bounced, despite issuance of demand notice to the correct address, the accused did not claim it and not came forward to repay the loan amount.
10. On the other hand, the accused admitted the cheque belongs to him, but, specifically denied the alleged transaction with complainant and issuance of cheque, existence of legally recoverable debt, denied the service of demand notice, specifically contended the cheque is older one valid upto 2009. In other words, the cheque is non CTS cheque. Accordingly, he specifically alleged the complainant had taken away the Ex.P.1 cheque which was kept in his house as unused and filed this false case,it was came to his knowledge only when he was brought before the court under warrant. On these grounds prays for acquittal.
7C.C.No.55784/2017
11. So, considering the rival contentions, it is clear that, the accused has denied the alleged transaction and issuance of the cheque for legally recoverable debt. Therefore, it is burden on the complainant to prove the alleged transaction and issuance of cheque for legally recoverable debt and compliance of Sec.138B.
12. The complainant herself got examined as P.W.1 and reiterated the complaint averments in her examination in chief affidavit and placed reliance on the original cheque, bank endorsement, legal notice, postal receipt, returned postal cover as Ex.P.1 to 5 and specifically stated, the address given in the cause title is the correct address of the accused and she dispatched the legal notice to the known correct address of the accused. Therefore, prayed to presume the fact that, the notice was duly served on the accused even though the accused had not claimed the demand notice.
13. The accused vehemently cross examined the P.W.1 and specifically posed a question to the effect 8 C.C.No.55784/2017 that, the address shown in cause title i.e., Deepa House, No.130, 4th Cross, Near Bhemal Hospital, Jagadish Nagar, Bangalore5600 78 is not his residential address and his correct residential address is as per the address shown in Ex.D.1 and 2 i.e., No.130, 4th Main, Jagadish Nagar, New Thippasandra PO, Bangalore560075, but not as shown in the cause title. For that, he specifically posed question to the the P.W.1 that his address is as per the address shown in Ex.D.1, but the complainant specifically denied the same and stated that the address of shown in the cause title is the residential address of the accused.
14. Further, the accused in his examination in chief evidence specifically stated that he is residing at No.130, 4th Main, Jagadish Nagar, New Thippasandra PO, Bangalore560075 and placed reliance on Ex.D.1 copy of the driving license and Ex.D.2 copy of the Aadhar and reiterated that the address shown ni the cause title is wrong, incorrect, as such the complainant has not complied Sec.138B of N.I.Act.
9C.C.No.55784/2017
15. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the Ex.P.3 to 5 are clearly establishes the fact that the accused was residing in the residential address shown in a cause title. The said fact corroborates the endorsement of postal authority that the accused had not claimed the legal notice dispatched to the correct address, the postal authority had written a shara that the "accused did not claim" but not "No such address is found ''. That apart, the notice or summons issued by this court was also not claimed by the accused which was also issued by this court to the very same address. Therefore, the accused was very much residing in the said address as shown in the cause title,only to avoid or to evade or escape from the liability the accused claimed that the complainant has not complied Sec.138B. Therefore, as per Sec.27 of General Clauses Act, since it is dispatched to the correct address, the presumption may be drawn in favour of the complainant that notice deems to have been served and there is no contrary evidence on record. Accordingly, prays to presume the fact of service of demand notice. Percontra, the counsel for the 10 C.C.No.55784/2017 accused argued that; the accused is residing in the address shown in Ex.D.1 and 2, the residential address shown in cause title is not the correct address of the accused, therefore, Sec.138B has not been complied by the complainant. Accordingly, prays to acquit the accused.
16. Considering the rival arguments, I have carefully perused the materials on record. According to the complainant, the residential address of the accused was Deepa House, No.130, 4th Cross, Near Bhemal Hospital, Jagadish Nagar, Bangalore5600 78. On the contrary, as per the accused, the address claimed by the complainant is not in existence and it is not his residential address, further, his correct residential address is as per Ex.D.1 and 2 i.e. No.130, 4th Main, Jagadish Nagar, New Thippasandra PO, Bangalore 560075. So, at this stage, it is relevant to extract the address to which the complainant had dispatched the demand notice Ex.P.3 i.e., "Ratheesh s/o Shaker, Deepa House, No.130, 4th Cross, Near BHEMAL hospital, Jagadish nagar, Bangalore 560078". It is also necessary to note the shara or endorsement of 11 C.C.No.55784/2017 the postal authority that "Not Claimed". So, it is very clear that as per the postal shara the addressee was very much presence or the address given by the complainant was very much correct and the person or the addressee was very much available in the said address, as such, it can be safely inferred that the postal authority did not find that the residential address of the accused shown in Ex.P.3 and cause title was wrong or incorrect.
17. That apart, the accused is not disputing his name and his father name mentioned in Ex.P.3 and cause title of the complainant, therefore, the complainant has correctly mentioned the name and father name of the accused.
18. Further, it is not the case of the accused that, the complainant have managed the postal authority to return the notice on a shara of "not claimed", even he has not made any effort to produce evidence in contrary to the shara of postal authority to show that the postal official had colluded with the complainant for endorsing such shara. So, as per postal shara, 12 C.C.No.55784/2017 the accused did not claim the notice, which means the accused was very much available in the address shown on the postal cover and the address given in the cause title is correct. However, on the contrary the accused placed reliance of Ex.D.1 and 2 to prove his specific contention that his correct residential address is shown in Ex.D.1 & 2. Therefore, according to the accused, the address shown in cause title is not correct.
19. On this above aspect, I carefully perused the Ex.D.1 the copy of the driving license, the Ex.D.2 the copy of Aadhar. On careful comparison of these documents with the cause title, which clearly reflects that, the door number of the accused residential house is '130' is one and the same or in other words there is no dispute with regard to door number of house. Further, it is also not in dispute, the residential house situated at Jagadeesh Nagar, the said fact of situation of residential house in Jagadish Nagar has been depicted in both these documents. That apart, the name and father name of the accused mentioned in the Ex.P.5 and the cause title is not in 13 C.C.No.55784/2017 dispute. So, the only the difference is road number and house name i.e., the complainant claims the house of the accused was situated in 4th Cross but the accused claims that it is situated in 4th Main. However, both are claiming the house of accused is situated at Jagadish Nagar and door number is '130'. Further, Ex.D.1 was issued on 05.09.2012 which was 5 years old document from the date of the case and Ex.D.2 also contains the residential address as shown in Ex.D.1 which does not itself are the documents to believe the address shown by the complainant in the cause title is wrong because the accused must establish his house number is not '130' and not situated at Jagadish Nagar and the endorsement issued by the postal authority is not correct. Further, the identity of the accused so far as his name, his father name, occupation of the accused are concerned is not in dispute. So, when there is no dispute about the identity mere mentioning of "4th Cross" instead of "4th Main", the contention of the accused that the address given by the complainant is incorrect cannot be acceptable. In the absence of cogent evidence to show that, the address claimed by 14 C.C.No.55784/2017 the accused and the complainant are different or not one and the same. Therefore, the accused has failed to prove his contention that the address shown in cause title is wrong and "Incorrect". On failure to prove the same, as held supra, based on the shara issued by the postal authority the accused did not claim the notice but it is not the endorsement of postal shara that the accused was not available in the said address. Therefore, as there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the accused, door number, locality, occupation and the shara of postal authority on returning the summons issued by this court that, the residential address of the accused as per the cause title that it was returned with a shara that "the door was locked" would further strengthens the claim of the complainant that the residential address of the accused shown in cause title is correct address and the notice was dispatched to the correct address.
20. So, once the notice is dispatched to the correct address, as per Sec.27 of General Clauses Act, it has to be presumed that notice was duly served, even though it is returned with a shara "Not claimed". At 15 C.C.No.55784/2017 this stage, it is relevant to extract Sec.27 of General Clauses Act.
"Meaning of service by post. Where any central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression `serve' or either of the expressions `give' or `send' or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post"
the above provision of law and burden on this aspect has been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr wherein it is held that;
16C.C.No.55784/2017 "The context envisaged in Section 138 of the Act invites a liberal interpretation for the person who has the statutory obligation to give notice because he is presumed to be the loser in the transaction and it is for his interest the very provision is made by the legislature. The words in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act show that payee has the statutory obligation to `make a demand' by giving notice. The thrust in the clause is on the need to `make ademand'. It is only the mode for making such demand which the legislature has prescribed. A payee can send the notice for doing his part for giving the notice. Once it is despatched his part is over and the next depends on what the sendee does."
"No doubt Section 138 of the Act does not require that the notice should be given only by `post'. Nonetheless the principle incorporated in Section 27 can profitably be 17 C.C.No.55784/2017 imported in a case where the sender has despatched the notice by post with the correct address written on it. Then it can be deemed to have been served on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such nonservice. Any other interpretation can lead to a very tenuous position as the drawer of the cheque who is liable to pay the amount would resort to the strategy of subterfuge by successfully avoiding the notice."
21. So, if notice is dispatched to the correct address even though the addressee was not claimed or did not claim, it is to be presumed that notice was duly served. Therefore, the contention of the accused about non compliance of Sec.138B cannot be acceptable. So, the complainant has complied Sec.138B is within time by dispatching the demand notice Ex.P.3 to the correct address of the accused.
22. Further, so far as transaction is concerned, the P.W.1 has categorically stated, on 15.6.2016 she paid 18 C.C.No.55784/2017 cash of Rs.1,50,000/ to the accused in her house for its repayment, the accused has allegedly issued the Ex.P.1 cheque dtd:09.01.2017 for Rs.1,50,000/. On the contrary, the accused specifically denied the transaction and issuance of cheque. However, the accused admitted the Cheque is belongs to him and not denied the signature Ex.P.1(a) either in cross examination of P.W.1 or in his examination in chief. Further, the accused in his examination in chief has stated that the Ex.P.1 cheque is belongs to him and it is a useless cheque, he obtained a new cheque from bank and kept the Ex.P.1 cheque at his house as it was useless, the complainant used to visit his house and he did not know how the Ex.P.1 cheque gone in to the hands of the complainant, it came to his knowledge only when he was brought before the court under warrant and alleged that the cheque Ex.P.1 was misused by the complainant. However, it is specific case of the complainant that the accused had issued the cheque on 09.01.2017 by filling all the contents with signature for Rs.1,50,000/. So, there is no specific denial from the accused that the signature Ex.P.1(a) is not that of him. However, for 19 C.C.No.55784/2017 the first time in the cross examination of D.W.1 when the complainant confronted the cheque, he admitted the cheque Ex.P.1 belongs to him and he voluntarily further says the signatures is not belongs to him. However, it is not the case of the accused that the Ex.P.1(a) is forged. When such being the fact, when there is no specific denial and also there is an endorsement issued by the bank that the cheque was not dishonored for the reason that "signatures either differs" or "incomplete" or "not that of" specimen signatures of the accused held by the bank as per Ex.P.2. So, it can be easily inferred that, the cheque and signature found on the cheque are belongs to the accused. That apart, even on comparison of the signature found on the cheque, the Vakalath and deposition i.e., material on record, it can be easily inferred that, the signature Ex.P.1(a) is of the accused alone hence, the complainant has proved the cheque and signature found on the cheque is that of the accused.
23. So, once it is proved that the Cheque and the signature found on the Cheque is belongs to the 20 C.C.No.55784/2017 accused, it shall be presumed that the Cheque Ex.P.1 had issued for consideration and for legally recoverable debt as per Sec.139 & Sec.118A of N.I.Act. Therefore, at this juncture the court relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Rangappa .Vs. Mohan wherein, the Apex Court has held that;
"Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accept and admit the signature on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Sec.139 of N.I.Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to in Sec.139 of N.I.Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption."
24. In view of the above dictum, the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption. In order to rebut the same, the accused thoroughly crossexamined the P.W.1 and made several suggestions i.e., over writing 21 C.C.No.55784/2017 of figure No.'1', Cheque drawn year is mentioned as "20017", therefore, there is overwriting, material alteration, according to him it is clearly discloses the Ex.P.1 Cheque is a stale Cheque, which is valid up to 2009, and alleged the Cheque was taken away by the complainant when it was kept in his house as it was useless.
25. So far as overwriting in Cheque is concerned, the accused during the course of crossexamination of P.W.1, specifically suggested that there is a over writing in particularly the number '1', and there is no initial or chota signature of the accused in that place where the correction or overwriting is occurred, further, he specifically contended that the cheque is not of the year 2017 and it was valid up to 2009, same is categorically denied by the P.W.1 and specifically stated that, the cheque was issued on 09.01.2017 i.e., in the year 2017. Further, the claimed over writing i.e., figure No. '1' is concerned, although the P.W.1 admitted the overwriting, but, she categorically stated that the accused had issued a completed Cheque to her, in other words, accused 22 C.C.No.55784/2017 himself filled the contents of the Cheque and issued to her. So, on her admission I have carefully perused the Ex.P.1 Cheque which clearly reflects that the claim of the complainant is for Rs.1,50,000/. In Ex.P.1 Cheque, in the words column specifically "One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only" has been mentioned, in the figure or number column Rs.1,50,000/ has clearly mentioned. However, the figure '1' has been overwritten, the same is admitted by the P.W.1, but, she specifically stated the contents of the Cheque was filled by the accused only, so even though the figure No.'1' is overwritten, it is not contrary to the amount written in the words. Therefore, the said overwriting neither it is material alteration nor it is contrary to the amount mentioned in the words. Therefore, the said over writing is not fatal to the case of the complainant.
26. Further, with respect to stale or non CTS Cheque is concerned, the counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the complainant has admitted the year of the drawn date has been mentioned as 20017, therefore, according to him, it is 23 C.C.No.55784/2017 a stale Cheque it's valid up to 2009, same has been misused by the complainant and filed this false case is not maintainable under law.
27. On the contrary, the counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has specifically stated the questioned Cheque was issued in the year 2017 but not prior to 2009 and she categorically stated the contents of Cheque were filled by the accused himself and issued to her. Therefore, even though it is non CTS or stale Cheque as per the endorsement, the questioned Cheque was dishonored for "Funds Insufficient" but not because of validity of the Cheque as such, he argued that the complaint is very much maintainable.
28. On careful perusal of evidence with the arguments of both the sides on this aspect, it reveals that it is true that the complainant has admitted that the year of the drawn date in Ex.P.1 has been written as 20017. However, as per Ex.P.2 the questioned Cheque was not dishonored because of validity of the Cheque or because of non CTS Cheque. But, on 24 C.C.No.55784/2017 careful scrutiny of Ex.P.1 Cheque it clearly noticed that Ex.P.1 Cheque is a non CTS Cheque, because, it does not contain the required standards of CTS 2010, the said CTS system, was introduced firstly in the year 2010 as per the notification of RBI dtd:22.01.2010. The special feature of CTS Cheques are as follows;
(a) The branch address and IFSC code should be mentioned on the top left side of the Cheque,
(b) An imprint of CTS2010 on the left side of the Cheque leaf must be mentioned.
29. So, on careful comparison, the Ex.P.1 does not contain the required standard of CTS 2010. As such, it can be easily concluded that the Ex.P.1 Cheque is a non CTS Cheque. However, which does not itself is not a ground to reject the claim of the complainant that it is not comes with the purview of Sec.138 of N.I.Act, because, as per the complainant, the Ex.P.1 Cheque was issued by the accused in the year 2017 by filling all the contents of the Cheque and it is not in dispute the Cheque Ex.P.1 is belongs to the accused. However, he specifically contended that it is 25 C.C.No.55784/2017 a useless Cheque which was kept in his house, complainant had taken away and misused it, however, to substantiate the same or in other words wrongfully taken away without his consent, the accused has not produced any iota of evidence to show how his Cheque has gone into the hands of the complainant. So, it remained as suggestion, as such, the contention of the accused that the complainant had illegally taken away of the Ex.P.1 Cheque cannot be acceptable. As it is the specific case of the complainant that the accused had issued this Cheque in the year 2017 and her case is corroborating the evidence of the accused, because, the accused in his examination in chief has deposed that, the Ex.P.1 Cheque is useless Cheque, as such he obtained new Cheques from his bank and he kept the Ex.P.1 Cheque at his house. So, it is clear that the Ex.P.1 was in the exclusive custody of the accused and it is not his case that the non CTS Cheques which were in his custody had been surrender to its bank, so, unless and until he proves that prior to 2017 the custody of the Cheque was wrongfully or illegally obtained by the complainant, the contention of the 26 C.C.No.55784/2017 accused cannot be acceptable because, the drawn date is 09.01.2017 so, as per Sec.118B, the drawn date mentioned in the Cheque has to be presumed that the Cheque was issued on the drawn date unless the contrary is proved. Therefore, the presumption shall be drawn that, it was issued on 09.01.2017. Unless the contrary is proved. So, the burden is on the accused to show it was not issued on 09.01.2017 and it was illegally taken away by the complainant. But, to substantiate the same, the accused has not produced any documents to show, he has taken any legal action against the complainant for alleged stolen of the Cheque. Because he is not a layman, he being the Pastor in Church having fullest knowledge about consequences that cheque held by an individual , and even after filing of this case, he has not taken any legal action against the complainant either for alleged misuse of Cheque or for stolen from his house. In the absence of that, specifically about misuse of Cheque cannot be acceptable. Therefore, the accused has failed to prove the alleged stolen of useless Cheque by the complaint in his home, so, defence set by the accused is not probable and 27 C.C.No.55784/2017 acceptable, hence, presumption u/s 139 of N.I.Act act is not rebutted, accordingly, the complainant has proved that the Cheque was issued for legally recoverable debt. Further, the issuance of stale Cheque for legally recoverable debt cannot be ruled out and it is not excluded from the purview of Sec.138 of N.I.Act. In other words, the issuance of stale Cheque for legally recoverable debt does not bars the court to take cognizance of offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act or issuance of stale Cheques does not attracts the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Therefore, the complainant has proved that the accused has issued the Ex.P.1 Cheque for legally enforceable debt of Rs.1,50,000/, same was dishonored hence, complainant has proved all the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, the accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
30. So far as sentence and compensation is concerned, the material on record clearly revealed that it is a friendly loan, the Cheque was issued i.e., of Rs.1,50,000/ and the intention of the complainant 28 C.C.No.55784/2017 is only to recover the Cheque amount. Therefore, considering the nature of transaction, duration of the pendency and nature of transaction, I am of the opinion that if fine of Rs.1,80,000/ is imposed on the accused that would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,80,000/ out of the fine amount received the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,70,000/ as a compensation under Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/ is to be appropriated to the State. In case of default, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Accordingly I answer the above point in "Affirmative". In the result, following;
ORDER
Acting under section 255(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,80,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand) in default, the accused shall 29 C.C.No.55784/2017 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Out of the fine amount received, Rs.10,000/ is to be appropriated to the State and by way of compensation as per the provision U/s 357(1) of Cr.P.C. the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,70,000/.
The bail bonds and surety bond of the accused shall stand cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish a free copy of the judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 8th day of December, 2020) (M.Vijay), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 : Violet W/o Fredrick
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Original cheque
30
C.C.No.55784/2017
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P.2 : Bank return memo Ex.P.3 : Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt Ex.P.5 : Unserved postal cover Ex.P.5(a) : Unserved postal cover opened in the ope court and notice therein marked
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 : Ratheesh S/o Shaker
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 : Notarized copy of Driving License Ex.D.2 : Notarized copy of Aadhar Card (M.Vijay), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.