Bangalore District Court
Supplied The Same Since 20.12.2013 ... vs Has Committed An Offence Punishable ... on 21 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Present:-
Present:- Sri. A.V. Patil, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl)
XLII A.C.M.M
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 21st day of April, 2018
CC.No. 8455/2017
8455/2017
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1. Sl.No. of the case : C.C.No.8455/2017
2. The date of commence of Evidence : 16.03.2017
3. The date of Institution : 09.10.2014
4. Name of the Complainant : M/s Wavetech Telecom
Private Limited
No.447, 1st A Main, 5th Cross,
Rajarajeswari Layout,
Gnana Bharathi,
Nagadevanahalli,
Bangalore-560 056.
Represented by its Director
C.H. Srinivasa Raju.
5. Name of the Accused : 1. UNITEL MEDIA Private Limited
No.32, Next to S-HIG B-6,
4th cross, 3rd Main Road,
KHB 5th Phase,
Yelahanka New Town
Bangalore-560 064.
represented by its Director
Sri. G. Suresh Babu.
2 CC.No. 8455/2017
2. Sri. G. Suresh Babu
S/o Mahadevaiah,
Aged about 43 years
Director,
Unitel Media Private Limited
No32, Next to S-HIG B-6
4th Cross, 3rd main road,
KHB 5th Phase,
Yelahanka New Town
Bangalore-560 064.
3. Lakshmi Radhika
Wife of G. Suresh Babu
Aged about 38 years
Director,
Unitel Media Private Limited
No32, Next to S-HIG B-6
4th Cross, 3rd main road,
KHB 5th Phase,
Yelahanka New Town
Bangalore-560 064.
6. The offence complained
of or proved : U/s.138 of N.I. Act
7. Plea of the accused on
his examination : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Order : Accused are convicted
9. Date of such order : 21.04.2018.
JUDGMENT
[[ [[
1. This case has been registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant u/s 200 of Cr.P.C 3 CC.No. 8455/2017 for the offence punishable u/s 138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act.
2. The gist of the complainant's case is that :
The complainant is dealing in Telecom and IBS components.
The first accused is a Private Limited Company and second and third accused are the Directors of the accused No.1 Company who are in charge in actual control and managing the affairs of the company. Second and third accused have placed order for purchase of Telecom and IBS components. Accordingly complainant supplied the same since 20.12.2013 under different bills. Accused are in due of Rs.9,60,235/-. Towards payment of the aforesaid amount accused have issued cheque bearing No.126189 for a sum of Rs.8,04,497/- dated 14.08.2014, drawn on Kundalahalli Gate, BEML Layout, Bangalore. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment on 14.08.2014 through his banker i.e., HDFC, Rajarajeswari Nagar, Bangalore. However, the said cheque was dishonoured for the reasons 'Payment Stopped'. Therefore on 27.08.2018 complainant got issued legal notice to the accused through RPAD informing the accused about the dishonour of cheque and calling upon them to pay the amount covered under the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice. It was received by the accused on 01.09.2014.
Even after receipt of legal notice accused neither paid the cheque 4 CC.No. 8455/2017 amount nor issued any reply. According to complainant, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly the complainant filed the complaint on 09.10.2014.
3. In pursuance of the summons, the accused has appeared through Counsel and got enlarged on bail by executing necessary documents. The copy of the complaint was furnished to the accused, as required under law. The learned 14th ACMM recorded plea on 01.12.2016 and explained to the accused in their vernacular, for which accused have pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. In view of the order passed by learned Counsel for 14th ACMM case is transferred to this Court.
4. In order to prove the case, the Director of the complainant Company examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 8. Then the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. came to be recorded on 27.03.2017, wherein the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was read over the explained to the accused. To prove the defence accused, accused No.2 examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to 9.
5. Perused the Synopsis filed by learned Counsel for complainant, written arguments filed by the learned Counsel for accused and material placed on record.
5 CC.No. 8455/2017
6. On the basis of the above facts, the following points arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the complainant proves that the accused No.2 and 3 being the Directors of accused No.1 issued cheque No.126189 dated 14.08.2014 for a sum of Rs.8,04,497/- drawn on HDFC, Near Kundanahalli Gate, BEML Laout, Bengaluru in favour of complainant towards discharge legal recoverable debt, on presentation for encashment, cheque was returned for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and inspite of receipt of legal notice, the accused failed to pay the cheques amount within the statutory period and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following REASONS
8. Point No.1 :- In order to prove the case, the Director of the complainant company Sri. C.H. Srinivas Raju has filed affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and examined himself as PW1. He has reiterated the complaint allegations made in the complaint on oath. He also got marked documents Ex.P1 to 8. Ex.P1 is the authorization letter, Ex.P2 is the cheque, Ex.P3 is the Bank memo, 6 CC.No. 8455/2017 Ex.P4 is the office copy of the legal notice, Ex.P4(a) to 4(c) are postal receipts, Ex.P4(d) to (f) are postal acknowledgements, twenty nine tax invoices are together marked as Ex.P5, twenty eight deliver challans are together marked as Ex.P6, two form vats are together marked as Ex.P7, Ex.P8 is the complaint. In the cross examination accused have put up the specific defence that the total amount of the invoices does not tally with the amount mentioned in the disputed cheques. The Vat forms are not properly filled. Entire details of invoices are not shown in Ex.P7. The mis placed cheque of the accused has been misused by the complainant and filed false compliant.
9. In order to prove his defence, accused No.2 examined as DW1 and has stated that he did business with the complainant Company for the period of one year. As he received the complaint against the work performance of the complainant he stopped the business with the complainant. He paid the amount to the complainant as per the work done by him. Settlement took place between them and as per the said settlement he was to pay Rs.13,24,000/-. Accordingly he had paid an amount of Rs.8 lakhs through bank and remaining amount was paid through cash. As he lost cheque in his office intimation was given to his banker for stop payment. He is not due to pay any amount to the complainant. In support of his contention he has produced Ex.D1 7 CC.No. 8455/2017 to D9. Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are the endorsement given by HDFC bank, Ex.D3 to 5 are the statement of account issued by HDFC bank, Ex.D6 is the E-mail copy, Ex.D7 is the copy of invoice sent through e-mail, Ex.D8 is the e--mail dated 23.07.2014, Ex.D9 is the CD. In the cross examination DW1 has stated that he has no documents to show about the payments made to the complainant through cash. The disputed cheque pertains to the account of accused No.1. No compliant has failed before the police with regard to the loss of cheque and has not given any publication in that regard in daily news paper.
10. This is all the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the parties to the case.
11. The learned Counsel for complainant filed Synopsis and furnished the entire details of Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The total amount of the invoices is Rs.34,82,882/-. The disputed cheque was issued for Rs.8,04,497/- and there is no dispute with regard to the business transaction. Accused No.2 and 3 being the Directors of accused No.1 placed orders for purchase of Telecom and IBS components. Towards payment of dues accused issued the disputed cheque in favour of complainant. On presentation of said cheque for collection it was dishnoured. Even after receipt of the legal notice accused neither issued reply nor paid the cheque 8 CC.No. 8455/2017 amount. The ingredients of Sec.138 and 142 of N.I Act are duly complied with. The accused No.2 and 3 not disputed the cheque in question pertains to the account of accused No.1 and both are in charge and actual managing the affairs of the Company. In view of the same the presumption is in favour of the complainant. The accused has not placed any rebuttal evidence. In the cross examination of PW1 accused has taken the contention that the lost cheque of the accused has been misused by the complaint and filed the false complaint. Contrary to the said contention in the Discharge Application filed by the accused on 01.06.2015 claimed that the accused No.2 has given some blank cheques for the purpose of security in business and by misusing the cheque the complainant filed this false complaint. There are two contradictory defences taken as the manner in which the disputed cheque travels to the hands of the accused. That apart, nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of PW1 with regard to the settlement as claimed by the accused. Even no suggestions have been made in this regard. However, in the defence evidence the accused has introduced the story of settlement. The material placed on record is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, prayed to convict the accused. In support of his contention has placed reliance on the following citations:
1.2012 (1) AIR Kar R 739 (Smt. Umadevi Kumar v/s 9 CC.No. 8455/2017 Goverdhan Dass) 2.2012 (1) Kar R 743 ( B. Jayarama Shetty v/s Biviyas Finance and Leasing Ltd, Kundapura) 3.2015 (1) KCCR 235 (Lale Patel v/s Sharanbasappa) 4.2015 (1) KCCR 240 (The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Belgaum v/s Basappa and Another)
5. ILR 2001 KAR 4127 (S.R Muralidar v/s Ashok G.Y)
6.ILR 2001 KAR 4136 (H.V. Srinivas and Others v/s Air Force Station)
7.AIR 2001 Supreme Court 676 ( M/s Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd v/s M/s Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd and others)
8.AIR 2001 Supreme Court 682 (West Bengal Electricity Board v/s Patel Engineering Co.Ltd and others)
9.AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1161 (Shri Ishar Alloys Steels Ltd v/s Jayaswala NECO Ltd)
10.AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1165 (Cipla Ltd v/s Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and others)
11.AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3906 (Mohan Wahi v/s Commissioner Income-Tax Varanasi and others)
12.AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2895 (K.N Beena v/s Muniyappan and another)
13.AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3762 (K Bhakaran v/s Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another)
14.AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3769 (General Insurance Corporaton of India v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay)
15.AIR 2004 Supreme Court 408 ( Goa Plast (P) Ltd v/s Chico Ursula D'Souza)
16.AIR 2004 Supreme Court 416 (Maharashtra Ekta 10 CC.No. 8455/2017 Hawkers Union and antoher v/s Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai and another) 17.2002 (5) Kar.L.J 516 (Smt. Bhavani v/s D.C Doddarangaiah and another) 18.2002 (5) Kar.L.J 518 (Ashish Suman and others v/s National Law School of India University, Bangalore and others)
19.AIR 2015 Supreme Court 2240 (T. Vasanthakumar v/s Vijayakumari)
20.AIR 2015 Supreme Court 2243 (Surya Vadanan V/s State of Tamil Nadu and Others)
12. The learned Counsel for accused filed the written arguments and has stated that the accused had short term business with the complainant. The complainant was sub contractor in supplying the IBS services and accused stop the business with the complainant due to poor service. On 11.05.2014 Final settlement was entered into between the complainant and accused before the auditor. As per the said agreement accused has to pay an amount of Rs.13,22,475/- to the complainant. As per the said settlement the accused had paid an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-through different cheques and remaining of Rs.5,22,475/- through cash. Absolutely nothing is due to pay the accused to the complainant. The lost cheque has been misused by the complainant and has filed this case. Accused never issued the disputed cheque for the discharge of debt. The evidence brought on record by the accused is sufficient to establish that the complainant has misused the lost 11 CC.No. 8455/2017 cheque. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused by dismissing the complaint. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the following citations:-
1. 2003(1) ALD (Cri) 475 (Mr. Uma Maheshwar Reddy & Anr V/s R. Srinivas Rao)
2. 2004(2) ALD (Cri) 445, (Nagisetty Nagaiah v/s State of A.P & Anr)
3. ILR 2003 KAR 155 (M.Lakshmipathi v/s Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore)
4. AIR 2007 (NOC) 1987 (DEL) (M/s Pine Product Industries & Anr v/s R.P Guptha and Sons & Anr) I have gone through the citations relied on by the learned Counsel for complainant and accused in support of their respective contentions and kept in mind the views taken in the said citations while appreciating the evidence and coming to the final conclusions. I respectfully agree with the views taken in the said citations
13. In the light of the arguments now the question before the Court is whether the complainant has proved that the accused No.2 and 3 being the Directors of the accused No.1 has issued Ex.P2/cheque towards the repayment of the legally enforceable debt. If the answer is in affirmative then the question arises for consideration whether accused rebut the presumption? To ascertain the same the oral & documentary evidence placed on 12 CC.No. 8455/2017 record by the parties to the present case has to be taken into consideration.
14. Before considering the case on merits, it is necessary to note that in a ratio lay down by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2010(1) DCR 706 (Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan). In said citation the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed about the various citations and in para No.15 held that;
".........Furthermore, Furthermore, the very fact that the accused had failed to reply to the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Act leads to the interference that there was merit in the complainant's version. Apart from not raising a probable defence, the appellant-accused was not able to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability...............Since ...............Since the accused did admit that the signature on the cheque was his, the statutory presumption comes into play and the same has not been rebutted even with regard to the materials submitted by the complainant............"
15. The above referred citation of Hon'ble Apex Court of India is decided by bench consisting of Three Judges. In the light of principle laid down in the above case let me appreciate the present facts of the case.
16. In this case accused have not disputed Ex.P2/cheque belongs to the account accused No.1 and the signature on it. In 13 CC.No. 8455/2017 view of the principle lay down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the above referred decision the complainant discharged his initial burden. By virtue of section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant being the holder of the cheques is entitled to invoke presumption that Ex.P2/cheque has been issued for discharging the legally subsisting liability. In view of the principle laid down in the above referred citation of Hon'ble Apex Court, the burden lies on accused to lead the rebuttal evidence to disprove the fact that he has not issued Ex.P2/cheque to the complainant for discharge of debt or liability.
17. Now whether the said presumption is rebutted by the accused is to be seen? To disprove the case of the complainant accused No.2 examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to 9.
18. At outset it is necessary to note that prior to filing of the complaint the complainant issued legal notice to the accused as per Ex.P4, postal receipts are produced at Ex.P4(a) to (c) and postal acknowledgments are produced at Ex.P4(d) and 4(f). Accused has not disputed the receipt of legal notice. Even after receipt of legal notice, accused has not issued any reply. No defence put forth by the accused soon after receipt of legal notice from the complainant. If really the complainant and accused entered into agreement, in that case as a prudent man accused could have 14 CC.No. 8455/2017 issued the reply after receipt of legal notice by quoting the agreement particulars. Nothing was prevented the accused to issue reply notice. Non issuance of reply is fatal to the case of accused.
19. In order to prove his case, complainant examined himself as PW1 and has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. Even though PW1 is subjected to cross examination nothing has been elicited to impeach the credibility of the witness with regard to the transaction took place between the complainant and accused. The accused has not disputed the case of the complainant to the effect that the complainant supplied the telecom and IBS components. The accused has taken the contention that complainant misused the lost cheque and filed complaint. This contention of the accused is contrary to the stand taken in the application filed by the accused No.2 in Discharge Application. The learned Counsel for complainant drew the attention of the Court with regard to the contention taken by the accused when he filed the discharge application u/s 245(2) of Cr.P.C dated 01.06.2015. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion is extracted and reproduced here:-
"Accused No.2 had given some blank cheques for purpose of security in business to the complainant and subsequently matter was settled and the payments 15 CC.No. 8455/2017 were made. After receiving all all payments the complainant is filing these kind of various false cases to extract money illegally".
illegally It is evident from the above contention taken by the accused in the discharge application filed u/s 245(2) of Cr.P.C to the effect that the accused No.2 has given some blank cheques for the purpose of security and subsequently the matter was settled and the accused made payments. Even after receipt of the entire payment the complainant fails to return the cheque which was collected towards security.
20. As noted supra in trial accused has taken the contention that complainant has misused the lost cheque and filed complaint. The contention taken by the accused in the trail and in the application filed u/s 245(2) of Cr.P.C is inconsistent and contrary to each other. It appears that the accused does not sure as to how the disputed cheque travels to the hands of the complainant. At one breadth he claims that the disputed cheque was given towards security and in another breadth claims that lost cheque has been misused by the complainant.
21. Further it is worth to note that the accused has given instruction to his banker with regard to the stop payment as per Ex.D1 dated 13.04.2017. As per the said letter the accused 16 CC.No. 8455/2017 intimated to his banker via net banking on 01.04.2014 for stop payment of disputed cheque as lost of cheque book. It means the complainant has given stop payment intimation to his banker way back on 01.04.2014. Whereas, the discharge application was filed by on 01.06.2015 claiming that the disputed cheque was collected by the complainant towards security in the business transaction. Ex.D1 is contrary to the stand taken by the accused No.2 in Discharge Application filed u/s 245(2) of the Cr.P.C on 01.06.2015. If really the cheque was lost as claimed in Ex.D1, accused could have claimed the very same contention in the discharge application too. Likewise if really the cheque was issued towards security as claimed in the discharge application the accused could have intimated same reason to his banker. But the accused has taken the different stands which are inconsistent to each other as to how the disputed cheque travels to the hands of the complainant. Therefore, mere giving stop payment to his banker itself is not sufficient to disprove the case of the complainant. On the contrary inconsistent stand taken by the accused as to how the cheque travels to the hands of the complainant is sufficient to draw the inference against the accused.
22. That apart, it is also important to note that if really accused lost the cheque as claimed in Ex.D1 nothing was prevented the accused to lodge the complainant about the loss of cheque. 17 CC.No. 8455/2017 Admittedly accused has not taken any steps in that regard. The accused came to know that the lost cheque is within the custody of complainant after receipt of legal notice. At least soon after receipt of legal notice accused could have taken legal action against the complainant. But in the instant case of the accused has not initiated legal action against the complainant and this conduct show the falsity of the case of the accused.
23. According to the accused the settlement was entered between the complainant and accused in front of the auditor and as per the said settlement the accused had made entire payment. In the light of the arguments of both the side, now the question is whether the accused is able to establish the settlement entered into between the complainant and accused. As noted supra, in the cross examination of PW1 the accused has no where whispered about the settlement said to have entered into between the complainant and accused. Even no suggestion is made to PW1 in that regard. As noted supra, prior to filing of the complaint, the accused has issued the legal notice and same is received by the accused. It is material to note that soon after receipt of legal notice accused fails to place put forth his defence. In other wards first time the accused had taken the contention about the settlement at the time of defence evidence. It appears that after thought first time accused taken such defence while giving his 18 CC.No. 8455/2017 evidence. In the absence of the defence in the cross examination of PW1 mere a self interested testimony of the accused itself is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the settlement arrives between the parties. Even no positive evidence placed on record by the accused about arriving of settlement between complainant and accused as claimed by the accused. Accused fails to demonstrate the settlement said to have entered in to between them and complainant. In the absence of such defence by issuing reply notice or in the cross examination of PW1, only interested oral testimony of accused is no way sufficient to rebut the presumption. For the foregoing reasons the theory of settlement is totally absurd. The said contention remains intact without any proof.
24. It is necessary to note that it is the specific defence of the accused that the complainant has misused the lost cheque of accused and by misusing the same filed this false complaint. If really the complainant misused the cheque as stated by the accused, as a prudent person accused No.2 and 3 could have initiated legal action against the complainant. As admitted by DW1 accused have not initiated any legal action against the complainant for the alleged missutilization of the cheque.
25. Non initiating the legal action and non issuing reply are the 19 CC.No. 8455/2017 strongest circumstances to draw inference against the accused. As noted supra it is settled that the presumption has to be rebutted by cogent proof and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. On appreciation of material on record in the considered opinion of this Court, the evidence placed on record by the accused is not sufficient to rebut presumption. Hence, it cannot be said that the accused has rebutted the presumption.
26. The word 'unless contrary is proved' is discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2011 Crl.L.J 4647 (SC). It is observed that "the accused is under the obligation to prove his case in trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability to the satisfaction of the Court". 'Unless contrary is proved' means the presumption has to be rebutted by proof and not by a bare explanation which is mere plausible. The said fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that the reasonable man could act on the supposition that is exist. Therefore, unless explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provisions cannot be said to be rebutted. On appreciation of evidence on record the explanation of accused is not supported by proof. Hence, I have no hesitation to say that the accused fails to rebut presumption. Hence, it cannot 20 CC.No. 8455/2017 be said that the accused has rebutted the presumption. On facts the citations relied on by the learned Counsel for accused on not applicable to the present facts of the case.
27. In this case, the Court has to peruse whether mandatory requirements of Sec.138 and 142 of N.I. Act are complied with or not to take cognizance of complaint for the commission of crime punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. It should be ascertained from the date of issuance of cheque, presentation of cheque, communication of Bank endorsement, issuance of legal notice for payment of cheque amount, service of notice and date of institution of complaint. Ex.P2/cheque is dated 14.08.2014 presented to the bank for encashment and received the intimation of dishonour of cheque as per Ex.P3 dated 16.08.2014 for the reason 'Payment stop'. Complainant got issued notice on 27.08.2014 and it was served upon the accused on 01.09.2014. Complaint is filed on 09.10.2014. It is evident from the available material that the cheque presented for encashment within the validity time, notice demanding the cheques amount and filing of complaint before the Court after service of notice are within the period of specified by law.
28. On appreciation of entire evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the accused has miserably failed to prove the fact that 21 CC.No. 8455/2017 he has not issued disputed cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt. On the contrary, the complainant has proved that the accused has issued cheque/Ex.P2 for sum of Rs.8,04,497/- towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and on presentation of the cheque, it were dishonored. Even after service of legal notice, the accused has not paid the cheque amount. Hence, in the considered view of this Court, the complainant has proved that the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, I answer the above point No.1 in the affirmative.
29. Point No.2 No.2::- Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act if a person found guilty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or both. From the material on record, it appears that the accused No.2 is aged about 46 years and accused No.3 is aged about 35 years. Considering the age and quantum of cheque, if the accused No.2 and 3 are sent to jail, it would cause problem to the accused as well as to their family members. Having regards to the quantum of cheque, age, the prevailing rate of interest in business transaction, money value and litigation expenses, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The accused No.1 is found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.22 CC.No. 8455/2017
Acting u/s 264 of Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 and 3 being the Directors of accused No.1 Company are hereby convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.11,09,000/-, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.11,09,000/- a sum of Rs.
11,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant towards compensation u/s 357 of Cr.P.C. and the balance amount of Rs.
9,000/- shall be remitted to the State.
The bail bonds executed by the accused No's.2 and 3 stand cancelled.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused No.2 and 3.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, taken print out corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the open Court this the 21st day of April, 2018) (A.V.Patil) XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
Complainant PW1 : Mr.C.H Srinivas Raju Witnesses examined for the accused:-
accused
DW1 : Mr. G Suresh Babu
Documents exhibited by the Complainant:-
Complainant
Ex.P1 : Authorization letter
23 CC.No. 8455/2017
Ex.P2 : Cheque
Ex.P3 : Bank memo
Ex.P4 : Office copy of the legal notice
Ex.P4(a) to (c) : Postal receipts
Ex.P4(d) to (f) : Postal acknowledgements Ex.P5 : Tax invoices Ex.P6 : Delivery challans Ex.P7 : Form Vat Ex.P8 : Complaint Documents exhibited by the Accused:
Accused:-
Ex.D1 & 2 : Endorsement given by HDFC Bank
Ex.D3 to 5 : Statement of accounts
Ex.D6 : E-mail dated 16.06.2014
Ex.D7 : Copy of invoices sent through e-mail
Ex.D8 : E-mail dated 23.07.2014
Ex.D9 : CD
XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
24 CC.No. 8455/2017
Judgment pronounced in the
open court vide separate order.
O R D E R
The accused No.1 is found guilty of
the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
Acting u/s 264 of Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 and 3 being the Directors of accused No.1 Company are hereby convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.11,09,000/-, in default shall undergo 25 CC.No. 8455/2017 simple imprisonment for four months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.11,09,000/- a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant towards compensation u/s 357 of Cr.P.C. and the balance amount of Rs. 9,000/- shall be remitted to the State. The bail bonds executed by the accused No's.2 and 3 stand cancelled. Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused No.2 and 3. XLII A.C.M.M, Bangaluru.