Bangalore District Court
Sri. Arasappa.A vs Sri. Shashi Kumar.H on 9 June, 2020
1 C.C.No.19659/2018 J
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated:- This the 9th day of June, 2020
Present: Sri.S.B.HANDRAL, B.Sc., L.L.B(SPL).,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.19659/2018
Complainant : Sri. Arasappa.A,
S/o. Arase Gowda,
Aged about years,
R/at No.438, 4 Main,
th
Brahmaputra River Road,
Srinagara,
Bengaluru -560 050.
(By Sri. Shiva Kumar., Adv.,)
- Vs -
Accused : Sri. Shashi Kumar.H,
S/o. Hanumantappa,
Aged about years,
Residing of Naykanapalya
Village, V.G.Doddi Post,
Madabal Hobli,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
Working at :
Post Master, Kumbalagodu
Sub-Post Office,
Kumbalagodu,
2 C.C.No.19659/2018 J
Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru -560 074.
(By Sri. M/s. Lawnex Associates.,
Adv.,)
Case instituted : 3.7.2018
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 9.6.2020
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that, Accused is known to him from last several years and he is his friend , during the course of his acquaintance with the Accused, the Accused approached him during the month of November 2016 and requested him to accommodate hand loan of Rs.3 Lakhs for his urgent financial difficulties and family necessities and sought for the hand loan and believing his hones, assurances and promises, 3 C.C.No.19659/2018 J he has lend and paid a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs to the Accused, at the time of availing the hand loan, Accused assured him that he would return the said loan within one year from the date of borrowel and after availing the loan, the Accused did not keep his promise to repay the said hand loan amount and he demanded the amount from the Accused, the Accused has paid Rs.50,000/- by way of cash in the month of December 2017 and requested to remaining amount will pay within 4 months. The complainant further contends that, after repeated reminders towards balance amount, the Accused has issued a cheque bearing No.699627 dated:
30.4.2018 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Veeregowdanadoddi Branch, towards the repayment of the loan, and the Accused had assured him that he will keep sufficient amount in his account and as per the assurance of the Accused, he presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker, the same came to be returned dishonoured as "Drawers Signature Differs" dated: 16.5.2018, thereafter he got issued legal notice to the Accused on 2.6.2018, calling upon him to pay the cheque amount to him within 15 days 4 C.C.No.19659/2018 J from the date of receipt of the notice and the said notice went to the Accused resident address and also working address by registered post, but the notice sent to office address was duly served and the notice sent to his residential address was returned 'Party not in station'. Hence he has filed this present complainant against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Before issuing process against the accused, the Complainant has filed his affidavit-in-lieu of his sworn statement, in which, he has reiterated the averments of the complaint. In support of his oral evidence, P.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.P.1 to P.15 i.e, Original Cheque, dated: 30.4.2018 is as per Ex.P.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused as per Ex.P.1(a), the Bank memo as per Ex.P.2, the office copy of Legal Notice as per Ex.P.3, postal receipts as per Ex.P.4 & P.5, returned legal notice as per Ex.P.6, postal envelope as per Ex.P.7, postal receipt as per Ex.P.8, postal acknowledgement as per Ex.P.9, Pay slip as per Ex.P.10, two Official Memorandum as per Ex.P.11 and P.12, statement 5 C.C.No.19659/2018 J of accounts as per Ex.P.13 and Bank pass book pertaining to his wife as per Ex.P.14, vakalathnama as per Ex.P.15 and signature of the complainant as per Ex.P.15(a).
4. Prima-facie case has been made out against the accused and summons was issued against the accused in turn he has appeared before the court and got enlarged on bail and the substance of the accusation has been read over to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. As per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of the Indian Bank Association Vs., Union of India, reported in 2014 (5) SCC 590, after recording the plea of the Accused, as he intended to set out his defence, the case came to be posted for the Cross-examination of complainant.
6. Thereafter, the statement of the accused as required under Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against his and has chosen to lead his rebuttal evidence subsequently the Accused has 6 C.C.No.19659/2018 J examined as DW.1 and on his behalf he has produced and marked the documents i..e Notarised copy of the Aadhar card of DW.1 as per Ex.D.1, Reply notice as per Ex.D.2, postal receipt as per Ex.D.3, returned legal notice as per Ex.D.4, postal envelope as per Ex.D.5 and postal receipt as per Ex.D.6.
7. Heard by learned counsel for the complainant and the Accused and perused the written argument and decisions submitted by the learned counsel for the Accused and the decision submitted by the learned counsel for the Accused i.e. (1) AIR 2008 SC 1325 in case of Krishna Janaradhan Bhat Vs.Dattatraya G. Hegde., 2) 2007 AIR SCW 6736 in case of John K. John Vs. Tom Varghese and another., 3) ILR 2008 KAR 4629 in case of Shiva Murthy Vs. Amruthraj., 4) 2001(1) KCCR 212 in case of B.P.Venkatesulu Vs. K.P.Mani Nayar., 5) 2010 (5) AIR Kar.R.756 in case of Amzad Pasha Vs. H.N. Lakshmana., (6) 2009 (1) DCR 420 in casse of Anjana Balkrishna Shewale Vs. Chayya Baban Jagdale and Anr., (7) 2009 (1) DCR 422 incase of Binod Kumar Lall Vs.State of Jharkhan and another., (8) ILR 2008 Kar 4629 in case of 7 C.C.No.19659/2018 J Sanjay Mishra Vs. Ms. Kanishka Kappor & Nikki & anr., reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4629., 9) 2010 (3) AIR Kar R 207., (10) 2015(5)KCCR 990 in case of L.Raju Vs. Gurappa Reddy., (11) ILR 2007 KAR 2709 in case of M.Senguttuvan Vs. Mahadevaswamy., (12) ILR 2009 KAR 172 in case of A.Viswanatha Pai Vs. Vivekananda S.Bhat., (13) ILR 2009 KAR 2331 in case of B.Indramma Vs. Eshwar., (14) ILR 2014 KAR 6572 in case of H.Manjunath Vs. A.M. Basavaraju., (15) 2015 AIR SCW 64., (16) 2016(5) KCCR 1341 inccase of Smt. Threja Vs. Smt. Jayalaxmi., (17) AIR 2019 SC 1983 incase of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa.
8. On the basis of complaint, evidence of complainant and documents the following points that are arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued cheque bearing No. 699627 dated:
30.4.2018 for Rs. 2,50,000/-
drawn on Canara Bank, Veeregowdanadoddi, Bengaluru to discharge legally recoverable debt to the complainant and when the complainant has presented cheque for encashment through his banker but the said cheque has been 8 C.C.No.19659/2018 J dishonoured for the reasons "Drawers signature differs" on 16.5.2018 and the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 2.6.2018 and inspite of it the accused has not paid the cheque amount within prescribed period there by the accused has committed an offence U/s.138 of the Negotiable instruments Act?
2. What Order?
9. The above points are answered as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
..
REASONS
10. Point No.1: Before appreciation of the facts and oral and documentary evidence of the present case, it is relevant to mention that under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to establish guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts however, a proceedings U/s.138 of N.I.Act is quasi criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond all reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions as envisaged U/s.118, 139 and 136 of 9 C.C.No.19659/2018 J N.I.Act. An essential ingredient of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act is that, whether a person issues cheque to be encashed and the cheque so issued is towards payment of debt or liability and if it is returned as unpaid for want of funds, then the person issuing such cheque shall be deemed to have been committed an offence. The offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act pre-supposes conditions for prosecution of an offence which are as under:
1. Existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and issuance of cheque in discharge of said debt or liability;
2. Cheque shall be presented for payment within specified time i.e., from the date of issue before expiry of its validity.
3. The holder shall issue a notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer within one month from the date of receipt of information of the bounced cheque and
4. The drawer inspite of demand notice fails to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice.
If the above said conditions are satisfied by 10 C.C.No.19659/2018 J holder in due course gets cause action to launch prosecution against the drawer in respect of bounced cheque and as per Sec.142(b) of the N.I. Act, the complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arise to file complaint.
11. It is also one of the essential ingredient of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act that, a cheque in question must have been issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I.Act envisages certain presumptions i.e., U/s.118 presumption shall be raised regarding 'consideration' 'date' 'transfer' 'endorsement' and holder in course of Negotiable Instrument. Even Sec.139 of the Act are rebuttable presumptions shall be raised that, the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally recoverable or enforceable debt and these presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in cases of negotiable instrument, but the said presumptions are not conclusive and are rebuttable one, this proportion of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in catena of decisions.
11 C.C.No.19659/2018 J12. In the present case the complainant got examined as PW.1 by filing his affidavit evidence wherein he has reiterated the entire averments of the complaint, and in his evidence testified that, the Accused approached him in the month of November 2016 and requested to provide hand loan of Rs.3 Lakhs for his urgent financial necessities and he had given the said amount to the Accused at the time of availing loan the Accused promised to repay the said amount within one year, thereafter despite of several request made by him the Accused paid only Rs.50,000/- by way of cash in the month of December 2017 and requested time of four months to pay remaining amount and after repeated reminders, finally the Accused offered a cheque i.e Ex.P.1 dated: 30.4.2018 for sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to him towards repayment of the remaining balance loan amount and as per his assurance and promise he has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker but the same cheque was dishonoured with reasons Drawer Signature Differs' vide memo dated: 16.5.2018. The complainant/PW.1 further testified that, he had issued legal notice to the Accused through his counsel on 2.6.2018 by 12 C.C.No.19659/2018 J RPAD and the notice sent to his office address was duly served and notice sent to his residential address was returned "Party not in station" but even after receipt of the notice the Accused neither made the payment nor replied to his notice.
13. In support of the oral evidence of the complainant, he produced and marked the documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.15 Original Cheque, dated: 30.4.2018 is as per Ex.P.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused as per Ex.P.1(a), the Bank memo as per Ex.P.2, the office copy of Legal Notice as per Ex.P.3, postal receipts as per Ex.P.4 & P.5, returned legal notice as per Ex.P.6, postal envelope as per Ex.P.7, postal receipt as per Ex.P.8, postal acknowledgement as per Ex.P.9, Pay slip as per Ex.P.10, two Official Memorandum as per Ex.P.11 and P.12, statement of accounts as per Ex.P.13 and Bank pass book pertaining to his wife as per Ex.P.14, vakalathnama as per Ex.P.15, signature of the complainant as per Ex.P.15(a).
14. In the present case, there is dispute 13 C.C.No.19659/2018 J between the complainant and Accused with regard to their acquaintance, but it is not in dispute that, the cheque in question i.e. Ex.P.1 to belongs to the account of the accused. The Accused has disputed his signature which is appearing at Ex.P.1(a). But it is not in dispute by the Accused that, the cheque in question presented for encashment and dishonoured for the reason of "Drawers Signature Differs" on 16.5.2018, since as matter on record, proved by return memo dated: 16.5.2018 i.e. Ex.P.2 issued by the concerned bank, therefore it is a matter on record and has been proved that, the cheque in question was presented within its validity period and dishonoured as per the bank endorsement issued by the banker of accused. It is also not in dispute that, after dishonour of the cheque in dispute and receipt of bank memo within 30 days from the date of receipt of bank memo, a legal notice was caused as per Ex.P.3 to the Accused calling upon him to pay amount covered under the dishonoured cheque. The Accused has also not disputed service of the legal notice upon him as he was issued reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant as per Ex.D.2 and D.4. Hence, the complainant has complied the 14 C.C.No.19659/2018 J mandatory requirements as required U/s.138(a) to
(c) of Negotiable Instruments Act.
15. It is the specific defence of the Accused that, he has denied the claim made by the complainant in this case and also denied the transaction in question and issuance of cheque towards transaction in question. It is also the specific defence of the Accused that, three of his blank cheques bearing Nos. 699627, 699628, 699629 issued by the Canara bank, Veeragowdanadoddi Branch were misplaced during the year 2016 itself and subsequently the complainant by misusing the cheque in question and has filed this false complaint against him, hence on this back ground the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant and Accused has to be examined as to whether the Accused has rebutted presumption available to the complainant.
16. It is the specific defence of the Accused that, the signature found on the disputed cheque i.e Ex.P.1(a) is not the signature of the Accused and the complainant by misusing the cheque has filed this 15 C.C.No.19659/2018 J false complaint against him. The Accused except the denial of his signature nothing has been placed before this court to show that, the signature found on the cheque i.e. Ex.P.1(a) is not of his signature, therefore mere denial is not sufficient to hold that, the signature found on the disputed cheque is not of his signature. In this regard, it is a relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in 1999 (3) SCC 376 in the case of "L.C. Goyal Vs. Suresh Joshi (Mrs) and others"., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that " Drawer denied his signature on the cheque and pleaded that, he could not be held responsible unless opinion of handwriting expert was obtained, but when cheque was bounced for want of fund, the plea of forged signature cannot be accepted". It is true that, the cheque in dispute has been dishonoured for the reason "Drawers signature differs" but it is not the defence of the Accused that, as on the date of presentation of the cheque he was having sufficient funds in the bank to honour the disputed cheque and the Accused has not produced any document to show that, as on the date of presentation of the cheque he was having sufficient 16 C.C.No.19659/2018 J balance amount in his bank account and if the cheque was presented and same will be honoured, but the Accused has not produced any document to show that, in case the cheque was presented for encashment that will be honoured as he was having sufficient funds in his account, in such circumstances, though the cheque in dispute dishonoured for the reason of "Drawer signature differs" it cannot be held that, the Accused was having sufficient funds in his account, as on the date of presentation of the cheque for encashment, therefore the defence taken by the Accused that, the complainant has misused the cheque by forging his signature cannot be acceptable one. In addition to that, it is a relevant here to refer the admissions of the Accused in respect of conduct of the Accused in making his signature. The Accused /DW.1 at page No.1 of his cross-examination has categorically admitted that, he has received the notice which was sent to Kumbalagudu post office by putting his signature on it, i.e., on the postal acknowledgement which is at Ex.P.9. It is also admitted by the Accused/DW1 that, there is a difference in signature found on Ex.P.9 acknowledgement and signature 17 C.C.No.19659/2018 J found on his vakalath which is admitted in this case and the said signature is at Ex.P.15(a). Hence, the above admissions of the Accused makes it clear that, the Accused is having habit of putting his signature on different types on different documents when such being the habit of the Accused he may be put his signature on the cheque on different style and that may cause dishonour for the reason of "Drawer Signature Differ", therefore in such circumstances, the defence taken by the Accused, that the signature found at Ex.P.1(a) is not of his signature cannot be acceptable one, on the contrary an inference can be drawn against the Accused that, the Accused might have put his signature with an intention to not to honour the cheque in dispute for the reason of signature differ, but the said conduct of the Accused cannot be acceptable one, however an adverse inference can be drawn against the Accused that, the Accused knowingly has issued the cheque in question by putting his signature. Apart from that, the Accused has not made any efforts to examine the bank manager to show that, signature found at Ex.P.1(a) cheque is not of his signature, since the burden of proving is upon the Accused as he has 18 C.C.No.19659/2018 J denied the signature in his defence , therefore mere denial of the signature of the Accused on the cheque is not sufficient to hold that, the signature found at Ex.P.1(a) is not the signature of the Accused. The banker of the Accused is more competent person to say whether it is the signature of the Accused or not by referring the specimen signature of the Accused. In the instant case, though the banker of the Accused mentioned that, drawer signature differs but the Accused has not examined the bank manager to prove his defence that, signature found at Ex.P.1(a) is not of his signature by referring the specimen signature maintained by his banker. On this ground also the defence taken by the Accused cannot be acceptable one. It is also important to note here that, the cheque in question is with the possession of the complainant but the Accused has not produced any evidence to show that, how the cheque in question came or entered into the hands of complainant , in such circumstances it is also one of the strongest circumstances to corroborate that, the signature found on the cheque i.e. Ex.P.1(a) is that of the Accused and it can be held that, the possession of the cheque with the complainant 19 C.C.No.19659/2018 J suggest an inference of endorsement and delivery inchoate instrument which impliedly admits the issuance of the cheque in favour of the complainant. This proposition of law finds supports from the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 2010(I) KCCR 176 ion the case of Siddappa Vs. Manjappa and in another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India decided in Crl.Appeal No.664/2012 dated: 19.9.20198 in the case of " M.Abbas Haji Vs. T.M.Channakeshava" wherein it is held that "
the Accused has to explain how the cheque entered into the hands of complainant'. Hence in the present case also the Accused has failed to explain how and in what circumstances the cheque in question was entered into the hands of the complainant by producing cogent and convincible evidence. Therefore the denial of the signature by the Accused is only self serving denial of his signature that cannot be a good defence to come to conclusion that, signature found at Ex.P.1(a) is not that of the Accused and the complainant discharge his initial burden that the signature found at Ex.P.1(a) is that of the Accused.20 C.C.No.19659/2018 J
. 17. It is also the defence of the Accused that, he has denied the claim made by the complainant and source of income or financial capacity of the complainant and also denied the lending of loan amount to him. It is relevant here to mention that, the learned counsel for the defence has cross- examined the complainant in length but nothing has been elicited to discredit or discard his evidence, instead of eliciting anything materials from the complainant the Accused rather concentrated his defence on production of documents in respect of source of income of the complainant and also complainant has not produced the documents to show that, he is getting salary amount and has not produced the documents for having advance the loan amount in question to the Accused, but the suggestions made to the complainant in respect of the above said defence have been categorically denied by the complainant. The complainant/PW.1 in his cross-examination has specifically stated that, on 1.11.2016 the Accused approached him seeking loan from him for his personal necessities and on 8.11.2016 he has paid the loan amount to the Accused by way of cash which was kept in his house 21 C.C.No.19659/2018 J and also some amount drawn from the bank and he has drawn an amount of Rs.1 Lakh on 7.11.2016 and Rs.50,000/- on 8.11.2016 and remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was with him and the said amount has been paid to the Accused. The complainant/PW.1 has also specifically stated that, there were no talks between him and Accused in respect of payment of interest towards the loan amount given to the Accused but the Accused had agreed to return the said loan amount within one year and he requested the Accused to repay the loan amount in the month of December 2017 at that time he has paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- and requested four months time to pay remaining balance loan amount. The complainant/PW1 further stated that, the Accused has issued the cheque in question on 25.4.2017 with a request to present the same on 30.4.2017 and as per the instructions of the Accused he has presented the cheque on 30.4.2018 and the said cheque was returned to him on 16 .5.2018. It is true that, the complainant/PW.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not produced the document to show that, he is getting salary of Rs.30,000/- p.m. and there is no 22 C.C.No.19659/2018 J hindrance for him in getting the documents from the Accused for having advancing the loan amount to the Accused at the time of lending of the loan amount. It is also admitted that, either in the legal notice or in the complaint he has not stated the date of lending of the loan amount as stated by him in the cross-examination. It is also admitted that, there is no hindrance for him to examine his aunt, wife, his brother's wife. It is settled law that, only on the admissions of the complainant regarding non production of the document to prove his source of income and failure to take the documents from the Accused at the time of receiving the loan amount itself does not invalidates the entire transaction, as admittedly the Accused has not disputed the cheque in question belongs to his account and signature found on the cheque is that of his signature, in such circumstances, the initial burden casted on the complainant has been proved by him now the burden is upon the Accused to rebut the presumption available to the complainant as U/s.118a and 139 of the N.I. Act, therefore mere non examination of the wife, aunt and wife of the brother of the complainant is not fatal to the case of the 23 C.C.No.19659/2018 J complainant unless the Accused rebutted the presumptions available to the complainant. On careful perusal of the entire cross-examination of the Accused nothing has been elicited from the complainant to prove the defence of the Accused and how and in what manner the cheque in question came in possession of the complainant, except bare denial nothing has been elicited in the cross- examination of PW.1, hence nothing has been elicited to discard the evidence of the complainant.
18. It is relevant here to mention that, as it is stated in the above that, the complainant in his cross-examination admitted that, he has not collected the documents from the Accused to show that, he has lent loan amount in question to the Accused and it is also true that, complainant has not produced any document to show his source of income to lend the loan amount to the Accused, but as it is already held in the above that, the complainant proved that the cheque in question i.e Ex.P.1 belongs to the Accused and signature found at Ex.P.1(a) is that of the signature of the Accused and also proved that, the cheque in question was 24 C.C.No.19659/2018 J presented within its validity period and the same was dishonoured for the reason of "Drawers Signature Differs" as per Ex.P.2 and thereafter the legal notice caused by him through RPAD to the Accused and the said notice was served on him and the Accused issued reply by denying the claim made by the complainant in the legal notice, in such circumstances, it can be held that, the complainant has discharged his initial burden by complying the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of N.I. Act and initially the presumptions are available in favour of the complainant U/s.118a and 139 of the N.I. Act. Consequently it is for the Accused to rebut the said presumptions available in favour of the complainant to show that, the cheque in question was not issued either to the complainant or towards discharge of any legally recoverable debt by producing cogent and convincible evidence but not mere suggestions or even by plausible explanation. In such circumstances, when the presumptions U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act are available to the complainant, even the said presumption can be drawn to the extent of existence of legally recoverable debt or liability against the Accused, unless and 25 C.C.No.19659/2018 J until the said presumptions are rebutted by the Accused even the documents are not produced by the complainant with regard to loan transaction in question. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decisions reported in 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 between 'M/s.Devi Tyres V/s.Navab Jan' and in 2011 ACD 1521 (KAR) between 'Smt. Usha Suresh V/s. Shashidharn', in 2010 SC 1898 between 'Rangappa Vs. Mohan' and 2011 ACD 1412 (KAR) between 'N.Hasainar Vs. M.Hasainar, S/o. Ibrahim'. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above decision i.e., 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 at para No.6 was pleased to hold that issuance of cheque itself was adequate proof of existence of debt or liability. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India i.e. Hon'ble Three Judges Bench Decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan ., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - S.139 -
Presumption under - scope of - Held, presumption mandated by S. 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally
enforceable debt or liability - However such 26 C.C.No.19659/2018 J presumption is rebuttable in nature - Criminal Trial - Proof - Presumptions - Generally. Further held that "Signature on the cheque was his, statutory presumption under S.139 comes into play and the same was not rebutted even with regard to the materials submitted by complainant Appellant not able to prove "lost cheque" theory - Apart from not raising a probable defence appellant was also not able to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability - hence, his conviction by High Court, held, proper. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, reported in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2018 DT 15-03-2018 between ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR held that "Negotiable Instruments Act facts like source of funds are not relevant if the Accused has not been able to rebut the presumption. It is further held that " When such a presumption is drawn, the facts relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the Accused has been able to 27 C.C.No.19659/2018 J rebut the presumption or not". In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "
Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption under - burden to prove - the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence U/s.s.138 of NI Act. It is also held that, " the accused has failed to lead any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, a finding returned by both the Trial Court and High Court. Both courts not only erred in law but also committed perversity when the due amount is said to be 28 C.C.No.19659/2018 J disputed only on the account of discrepancy in the cartons, packing materials or the rate to determine the total liability as if the appellant was proving his debt before the civil court. Therefore it is presumed that, the cheque in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques received the same in existing debt". It is also held that, " the Trial court and the High Court proceeded as if, the appellant is to prove a debt before civil Court wherein, the plaintiff is required to prove his claim on the basis of evidence to be laid in support of his claim for the recovery of the amount due. A dishonour of cheque carries statutory presumption of consideration. The holder of cheque in due course is required to prove that, the cheque was issued by the Accused and that when the same presented , it was not honoured Since there is a statutory presumption of consideration, the burden is on the Accused to rebut the presumption that, the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability ". It is also relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported 29 C.C.No.19659/2018 J in ILR 2019 KAR 493 in the case of Sri.Yogesh Poojary Vs. Sri.K.Shankara Bhat, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, the presumption mandated by Sec.139 of N.I Act includes the presumption that, there existed a legally enforceable debt or liability, however such presumption is rebuttable in nature". In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Shri.V.R.Shresti Vs. Shri. Bhaskara.P. in Crl. Appeal No. 2109/2017 dated: 15.10.2019 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "the Accused has not given any reply to the notice and also in the cross-examination, he categorically admits that, the cheque has bounced on account of no sufficient fund in the bank account of the Accused. Mere non producing of the document before the court with regard to the source of income to advance a loan is not a ground to dismiss the complaint. The Accused ought to have rebutted the contention of the complainant by producing cogent evidence before the court and mere denial is not enough".30 C.C.No.19659/2018 J
19. Therefore on careful reading of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and High Court of Karnataka in the above referred decisions makes it very clear that, once the holder in due course i.e. the complainant proved that, the cheque in question belongs to the drawer and signature appearing on the cheque is that of the drawer i.e., Accused and complied the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of N.I.Act, a presumptions U/s.118a and 139 of N.I.Act indeed does extend to the existence of legally recoverable debt and when such presumption is drawn, the facts relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence regarding source of funds were not of relevant unless the Accused rebutted the presumption available to the complainant as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court of Karnataka in the above decisions. In the present case also the complainant has complied the mandatory requirements and has proved that, the Accused has issued the cheque in question in his favour and the Accused has admitted the cheque belongs to him and signature appearing on the cheque is that of his 31 C.C.No.19659/2018 J signature and legal notice issued by complainant was served on the Accused, in such circumstances, presumptions have to be drawn towards existence of legally enforceable debt as per Sec.139 of N.I.Act.
20. Therefore, for the above said reasons the defence taken by the Accused that, the complainant has not produced the documents to show that, he was having source of income or funds to lend the loan amount to the Accused as on the date of lending of the loan amount and has not collected the documents for having advancing the loan amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the Accused at the time of alleged lending of loan amount cannot be acceptable one. The defence taken by the Accused appears that, the complainant has to prove his claim by producing his evidence as if it is required for proving his debt before the Civil Court, but same cannot be permissible in a proceedings initiated U/s.138 of N.I. Act, as held by the Hon'ble Apex court of India in the above referred decisions, therefore in view of the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions it is presumed that, cheque in question was drawn for consideration as the Accused has 32 C.C.No.19659/2018 J admitted the cheque in question belongs to him and signature found on the cheque in question is also that of his signature. Therefore for the above said reasons the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the defence at para No. I (a) to (h) and para No. II to IV cannot be acceptable one and with due respect to the principles law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court of India and High Court of Karnataka relied upon by the learned counsel for the defence are not applicable to the defence of the Accused taken in this case as the facts and circumstances of this case and facts ad circumstances of the decisions relied upon by the defence counsel are not one and the same.
21. The Accused in order to rebut the presumptions available to the complainant U/s.118(a) and 139 of N.I. Act and to substantiate his defence himself examined as DW.1. The Accused /DW.1 in his evidence deposed that he does not know the complainant and never approached him and in turn the complainant never lend loan to the tune of Rs.3 Lakhs and he never issued any cheque to the complainant as alleged by the complainant.
33 C.C.No.19659/2018 JThe Accused /DW.1 further deposed that, he had lodged a complaint stating that, three of his blank cheques bearing No. 69627, 699628 and 699629 issued by the Canara Bank, Veeragowdanadoddi Branch, without his signature on it were misplaced during the year 2016 itself and he does not know how the complainant got those blank cheque and subsequently filled the same and presented the same for encashment , at no point of time he had obtained any loan from the complainant and issued the cheque. The Accused /DW.1 further deposed that, he was working in the post office at Kambalagudu from past several years and the complainant came to his working place and enquired with his officials about his working in that office and later the complainant issued legal notice which was served on him and he had given reply to the said notice on 20.6.2018 and the said reply notice was returned to him on 5.7.2018 for the reasons "Door Locked Intimation delivered on 23.6.2018 and 25.6.2018".
22. In support of oral evidence of the Accused, he has produced notarised copy of his Aadhar card , copy of the reply dated: 19.6.2018 issued by him 34 C.C.No.19659/2018 J through his advocate as per Ex.D.2. postal receipt as per Ex.D.3, returned legal notice as per Ex.D.4, postal cover as per Ex.D.5, postal receipt as per Ex.D.6.
23. According to the Accused , his main defence is that, during the year 2016 his three blank cheques without his signatures bearing Nos. 699627 (i.e. Ex.P.1 in this case), 699628, 699629 issued by Canara Bank, Veeregowdanadoddi branch, were misplaced for which he had lodged a complaint and he does not know how the complainant got those blank cheque and subsequently filled the same and has willfully presented same for encashment i.e. as per the defence of the Accused the alleged misplaced cheques were misused by the complainant by filling the same and presented for encashment. In order to prove his defence the Accused has not produced the document to show that, he has filed or lodged the complaint in respect of alleged misplace of his three blank cheques without his signatures, except the oral say of the Accused, nothing has been produced before the court to substantiate his defence. The Accused /DW.1 in his cross-
35 C.C.No.19659/2018 Jexamination has specifically admitted that, he has filed the complaint before the Magadi Police regarding misplace of his cheques and no hindrance for him to produce the document regarding filing of the complaint before the Magadi police. It is also admitted by the Accused that, he has not given any instructions to his bank authority by stating that his cheques were misplaced and also admitted that, he has not taken any legal action against the complainant even after receipt of legal notice and also receipt of notice of this case. It is also admitted by the Accused that, he has received message through his mobile regarding bouncing of cheque i.e. has received the message i.e., cheque was bounced for reason of signature mismatch and even after receipt of notice has not filed the complaint before the concerned police. Therefore if really the three blank cheques that too without signatures were misplaced by him and same were misplaced by complainant and a complaint was lodged to that effect, definitely the Accused would have produced the documentary proof to show that, during the year 2016 itself has filed the complaint regarding misplace of his three blank cheques, in the absence 36 C.C.No.19659/2018 J of such documentary proof the oral evidence of the Accused cannot be acceptable or accepted to believe his defence. It is an admitted fact that, as per reply given by the Accused i.e as per Ex.D.2 and D.4 according to the Accused complainant has presented the cheque in question for encashment by claiming that, the cheque in question has been issued by him towards repayment of balance loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- out of Rs.3 Lakhs received by him, if the claim made by the complainant is false one or the cheque in question has been misused by the complainant as alleged by the Accused in his defence i.e the complainant got filled up the cheque and presented for encashment though there is no transaction between him and the Accused , definitely the Accused would have initiated legal action against the complainant either by lodging the complaint before the concerned police station or before the court of law alleging that, the complainant has misused his cheques and atleast he would have issued instructions to his bank authorities regarding alleged misplace of the cheque and requested for making stop payment in case if the alleged misplaced cheques were presented for encashment, 37 C.C.No.19659/2018 J but no such efforts have been made by the Accused even after receipt of legal notice issued by the complainant and even notice of filing of this case, therefore the conduct of the Accused in non taking of action against the complainant for alleged misuse of the cheque in question may draw an adverse inference against the Accused that, the Accused has not initiated any action against the complainant only for the reason that, the cheque in question has been issued by him to the complainant towards discharge of the transaction in question i.e. legally recoverable debt. If really the complainant misused the cheque of the Accused as alleged by him in his defence no person should be kept mum even after notice of alleged misuse of the cheque by the complainant without taking any action about alleged misuse of the cheque, on this count also the defence taken by the Accused cannot be acceptable one. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2018 SC 3601 in a case of T.P.Murugan(dead) Thr. Lrs.V. Bhojan Vs. Posa Nandi, rep. Thr. Lrs. PA holder, T.P. Murugan V. Bhojan, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that " Negotiable 38 C.C.No.19659/2018 J Instruments Act (26 of 1881) Ss.118, 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption as to enforceable debt- cheques allegedly issued by accused towards repayment of debt- Defence of accused that 10 cheques issued towards repayment of loan back in 1995 - behavior of accused in allegedly issuing 10 blank cheques back in 1995 and never asking their return for 7 years, unnatural - Accused admitting his signature on cheques and pronote, presumption under S.139 would operate against him - Complainant proving existence of legally enforceable debt and issuance of cheques towards discharge of such debt- Conviction, Proper". Hence by applying the said principles of law to the present facts of the case in the present case also the accused has not made any efforts to get return of cheque alleged to have been misplaced during the year 2006 and the cheque in question has been misused by the complainant by filling the same and presenting the said cheque to the bank , under such circumstances, the said unnatural conduct of the accused in non taking of action, an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused that, the 39 C.C.No.19659/2018 J cheque in question issued by the accused towards discharge of the liability and presumption U/s.139 of N.I. Act would operate against him, as he has admitted the signature and cheque in question is belongs to him. In another decision reported in 2015 (4) KCCR 2881 (SC) in the case of T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that, "NEGOTIABLE ISNTRUCEMTNS Act, 1881- Section 138 and 139
- acquittal - If justified- Accused not disputing issuance of cheque and his signature on it - Plea that it was issued long back as security and that loan amount was repaid - Not supported by any evidence - Fact that date was printed, would not lend any evidence to case of accused- Acquittal not proper. Hence in the present case also it is the main defence of the Accused that the cheque in dispute alleged to have been issued towards security to the complainant and the complainant by misusing the said cheque has filed this complaint but the Accused has admitted the issuance of cheque and his signature on the said cheque and also taken defence that, the cheque was issued towards 40 C.C.No.19659/2018 J security but no documents or proof given by the Accused to prove his defence in such circumstances by applying the principles of law laid down in the above decision the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one. Hence, the principles of law laid down in the above decisions are aptly applicable to the case on hand, since in this case also the complainant proved that he has lent an amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs to the Accused and the accused in turn issued cheque in question for discharge of Rs.2,50,000/- i.e remaining balance loan amount, on the other hand, the Accused has also failed to produce cogent and convincible evidence to rebut the statutory presumption in support of his defense in such circumstances the defense taken by the accused cannot be acceptable one.
24. The Accused has also taken the defence that, during the year 2016 his three cheques have been misplaced for that he had lodged the complaint stating that, his three cheques without his signature have been misplaced and he does not know how the complainant got those blank cheques 41 C.C.No.19659/2018 J and subsequently filled the same and has presented the same for encashment and by misusing the said cheque and for wrongful gain has filed this false complaint against him. It is true that, the complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that, ink used in respect the signature on the disputed cheque and ink used for other contents of the writings is different ink but only on that ground, it cannot be held that the cheque in question has been forged by the complainant or the contents of the cheque have been got written or filled in by the complainant and signature found on the cheque is not of the Accused. Apart from that, from the admissions of the complainant and perusal of Ex.P.1 cheque though it appears that, there is difference in ink comparing the signature and the rest of the contents in cheque i.e Ex.P.1 but, the complainant has not admitted that, the cheque is not issued to him and contents are not filled up by the Accused, in such circumstances whether the difference in ink in writings of cheque amounts to material alteration or not is tobe taken into consideration. Even for sake of discussion, if the defence of the Accused is taken into consideration that, even in such circumstances 42 C.C.No.19659/2018 J also if it is assumed that, the contents of the subject cheque are not filled in by the Accused, unless and until the Accused has proved his defence by producing cogent and convincible evidence, it cannot be held that, the contents of the cheque have been filled in by the complainant. In this regard, it is a relevant here to refer a decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in a case of Crl. Appeal No. 1664/2003 C/w. Crl.Apeepal No. 1663/2003 dated: 18.6.2008 in the case of R.Mallikarjuna Vs. H.R.Sadashivaiah wherein the Hon'ble High Court at para No.19 held that " But, the question is, whether that renders instrument unenforceable. In this regard, it must be observed that, this court similar circumstances in the case of S.R. Muralidar Vs. Ashok G.Y. reported in 3001 (4) KAR. LJ K. 122 referring to the provisions of Sections 20, 138, 139, and 140 of the Act and after interpreting alteration and filling up of the cheque observed thus :
"The trial court has made much about the difference in ink. Admittedly, Accused cheque is issued bearing signature of the Accused. It is the contention of the defence that, blank cheques 43 C.C.No.19659/2018 J issued for the business transactions have been illegally converted as a subject matter to this case fastening false liability........ It is not objectionable or illegal in law to receive a inchoate negotiable instrument duly signed by the maker despite the material particulars are kept blank if done with an understanding and giving full authority to the payee to fill up the material contents as agreed upon. Such a course of action in law cannot vitiate the transaction nor can invalidate the negotiable instrument issued and such transaction fully begins the maker of the negotiable instrument to the extent it purports to declare........ The fact that, a document executed is inchoate with regard to some of the material particulars would not render such contract invalid nor make the instrument illegal or inadmissible. Voluntarily, if a person were to deliver an inchoate instrument authorizing the receiver to fill up the material contents as agreed upon, the cheque does not get tainted as in admissible nor it amounts to tampering with the material particulars...... In the present case there is no 44 C.C.No.19659/2018 J categorical defence version, it is only by conjunctures and surmises, a case is made out from the difference in ink between the signature of the cheque and the other handwritten contents. Hence, in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the same were aptly applicable to the case on hand and the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one as the instrument i.e., cheque in question cannot be rendered unenforceable merely because the contents have been filled by different ink, as it would not render such instrument illegal or inadmissible, the complainant certainly can base action on it. It is also relevant here to refer another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2019 SC 2446 in the case of Birsingh Vs. Mukesh Kumar., wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that, "presumption U/s.139 is presumption of law, distinguished from presumption of facts and also held that, presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with presumption of innocence which requires prosecution to prove case against the Accused and also held that obligation on the 45 C.C.No.19659/2018 J prosecution may discharged with the help of presumptions of law and presumption of fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing reasonable plausibility of non existence of presumed fact." In the present case though the Accused has denied the contents of the cheque in question and his signature but he did not proved his defence or produced any documents or satisfactory evidence to rebut the presumptions as available U/s.139 of the N.I.Act, under such circumstances in view of the above principles of law, it can be presumed even on fact also that the complainant has proved his case by discharging his burden and complying the mandatory provisions. In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex court has also held that, "presumption as to legally enforceable debt is rebuttable, the signed blank cheque if voluntarily presented to payee towards payment payee may fill up amount and other particulars and it in itself would not invalidate cheque and onus would still be on the accused to prove that, cheque was not issued or discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence." In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India 46 C.C.No.19659/2018 J decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption under - burden to prove - the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence U/s.s.138 of NI Act. In such circumstances even if it is assumed that, the complainant admitted that, he is not aware of the contents of cheque in question were filled in by the Accused, in such circumstances also in view of the principles of law laid down in the above decision that itself would not invalidates the cheque in question and it can be presumed that, the said 47 C.C.No.19659/2018 J cheque has been issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt.
25. It is important to not here that, in this case the cheque in question issued by the Accused dishonoured for the reason of "Drawer signature differs". As it is already held that, the Accused has miserably failed to prove that, the signature found on the cheque is not of his signature and it has been forged by the complainant by filing this case, in such circumstances also if the cheque was dishonoured on the ground that signatures of drawer did not match or Drawer signature differs, in such circumstances also the penal provision U/s.138 is attracted and that will constitute an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble apex Court of India reported in (2012) 13 SCC 375 in the case of Laxmi Dyechem Vs. State of Gujarath and others., wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that, " A. Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws - Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 - Ss. 138 and 142- Applicability - Dishonour of cheque on the ground that signatures of Drawer did not match 48 C.C.No.19659/2018 J specimen signatures available with the bank - Endorsement " Drawers signatures differs from specimen supplied" and - Or " No image found signature" and/ or "Incomplete signature/ illegible" on return /dishonour of cheque , held attracts S.138 - Plea for strict construction of penal provision U/s.138 where dishonour necessarily constitute an offence for only one of two contingencies envisaged under the provision rejected". Hence, In view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court of India, in this case also though the cheque in question dishonoured for the reason of "Drawer Signature Differs" but it can be held that, the cheque in question has been issued with a view to preventing the cheque from being honoured the dishonoured would become an offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Therefore the Accused has committed an offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
26. Therefore considering all these aspects of the case and totality of the circumstances and on careful and meticulous appreciation of evidence 49 C.C.No.19659/2018 J adduced on behalf of the complainant and accused the complainant has successfully established beyond all reasonable doubt that, he has lent an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the Accused and in turn the Accused has paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- out of the loan amount and also issued the Ex.P.1 cheque in question in his favour towards discharge of the remaining balance loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and thereafter the complainant has presented the said cheque through his banker and same was returned dishonoured with an endorsement of "Drawers Signature Differs" and thereafter he got issued legal notice to the accused and the said notice was served on him, inspite of it, the Accused did not paid the cheque amount, hence the complainant filed the present complaint against the accused. On the other hand, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption available infavour of the complainant with regard to the existence of legally recoverable debt under Ex.P.1 Cheque. Therefore accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act, accordingly for the above said reasons this point is answered in the Affirmative.50 C.C.No.19659/2018 J
27. Point No.2: Negotiable Instrument Act was enacted to bring credibility to the cheque and the very purpose of enactment is to promote the use of negotiable instrument, while to discourage the issuance of cheques without having sufficient funds in their accounts. Such being the case the intention of the legislature is that, complainant be suitable compensated while accused be punished for his act. Hence while awarding the compensation the said fact is to be kept in mind and suitable compensation is awarded to the complainant certainly it will not cause injustice to the accused, accordingly the complainant is entitled for the compensation as ordered by the court and for the said reasons, it is just and proper to pass the following :-
ORDER Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,65,000/= (Rupees Two Lakhs and Sixty Five Thousand only) within one month from the date of order, in default he shall under go simple 51 C.C.No.19659/2018 J imprisonment for a period of (3) three months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Further acting U/sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.2,60,000/= (Rupees Two Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on recovery a sum of Rs.5,000/= (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
His Bail bond stands cancelled.
. Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer online, printout taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of June, 2020).
(SRI.S.B. HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.52 C.C.No.19659/2018 J
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant:-
P.W.1 : Sri.Arasappa.A;
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.P-1 : Original Cheque;
Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of the Accused;
Ex.P-2 : Bank Memo
Ex.P-3 : Office copy of the Legal Notice;
Ex.P-4 & P-5 : postal receipts;
Ex.P-6 : Returned legal notice;
Ex.P.7 : Postal cover;
Ex.P.8 : Postal receipt;
Ex.P.9 : Postal acknowledgement;
Ex.P.10 : Salary slip
Ex.P.11 & : Official Memorandum;
&
P.12
Ex.P.13 : Bank statement;
Ex.P.14 : Bank pass book;
Ex.P.15 : Vakalath of Accused;
Ex.P.15(a) : Signature of Accused
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused:-
DW.1 : Sri. Shashi Kumar.H;
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Notarised copy of the Aadhar card of DW.1;53 C.C.No.19659/2018 J
Ex.D.2 : Reply notice;
Ex.D.3 : postal receipt;
Ex.D.4 : returned legal notice;
Ex.D.5 : postal envelope;
Ex.D.6 : postal receipt.
(SRI.S.B.HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
54 C.C.No.19659/2018 J
9.6.2020 As per the Notification of Hon'ble
High Court i.e. modified Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) -
District Judiciary dated: 28th May
2020 and as per the directions of
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
dated: 3.5.2020 i.e. para No.31,
today the case is posted for
Judgment, Counsel for
complainant and Accused are
called out, Both counsels for
Complainant and Accused are
absent.
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,65,000/= (Rupees Two Lakhs and Sixty Five Thousand only) within one month from the date of order, in default he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of (3) three months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
55 C.C.No.19659/2018 JFurther acting U/sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.2,60,000/= (Rupees Two Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on recovery a sum of Rs.5,000/= (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
His Bail bond stands cancelled.
. Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C.
XVI ACMM, B'luru.