Bangalore District Court
M/S.Iris Computers Limited vs M/S.Y 2 K Systems & Services on 20 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 20th day of April, 2022
Present:
Sri H.K. Naveena, LL.M.
XXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore.
C.C.No.5851/2016
Complainant : M/s.IRIS Computers Limited.
No.108, Prestige Center Point,
Cunningham Road,
Bangalore 560 052.
Rep.by its Accounts Execu`tive
B.V.Srinivas
S/o.late M.R.Venkatakrishniah.
(By Sri CSC Advocate )
V/s
Accused : 1. M/s.Y 2 K Systems & Services,
302, Laxmi Chamber,
D223, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092.
Rep. By its Proprietor.
2. Mr.Vikas Mehra,
Proprietor,
M/s.Y 2 K Systems & Services,
302, Laxmi Chamber,
D223, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092.
[
Also at :
Mr.Vikas Mehra,
Proprietor,
Mr.Y 2 K Systems & Services,
C 6/1, Mangla Apartment,
53, I.P.Extension, Delhi - 110092.
(By Sri BC Advocate )
2
C.C.No.5851/2016
1. Date of 04.01.2016
Commencement of
offence
2. Date of report of 29.02.2016
offence
3. Name of the M/s.IRIS Computers Limited.
Complainant
4. Date of recording of 07.03.2022
evidence
5. Date of closing of 07.03.2022
evidence
6. Offence Complained of 138 N.I.Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 and 2 are Convicted
8. Complainant CSC
Represented by
9. Accused defence by BC
JUDGMENT
The complainant filed the complaint under Sec.200 Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act (For short N.I.Act).
2. The brief facts of the complainant case is as under:
The complainant carries business in computers, printers and its peripherals. The accused No.1 is the Proprietorship concern and represented by its Proprietor accused No.2 and carries on the business in computers, computer software, laptop, printers and peripherals etc. The 3 C.C.No.5851/2016 accused made credit purchase of computer software, laptop, printers and peripherals etc., worth Rs.6,82,500/ vide Tax Invoice NO.N 10122=1507113 dt.09.07.2015 . The accused in discharge of part of liability issued cheque bearing No.205074 dt.04.01.2016 for Rs.5,17,514/ drawn on the Khattri Co operative Urban Bank Ltd, Karkardooma, Delhi in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented said cheque for realisation through his banker i.e HDFC Bank, Bangalore, and the same was dishonored for the reason "Payment stopped by drawer ". On receipt of said intimation, the complainant got issued legal notice dt.01.02.2016 to pay the outstanding amount. Iinspite of service of notice, the accused failed to pay the outstanding amount to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the complaint against the accused. Hence, this complaint.
3. After filing of the complaint, cognizance taken and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant. The complainant has complied all the statutory requirements under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Thereafter, the case is registered against the accused and summons issued. The accused 4 C.C.No.5851/2016 appeared through their Advocate and released on bail. Copy of the complaint furnished to the accused. Plea recorded and read out to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of the case, the complainant examined its Authorized Representative as PW 1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. After completion of complainant evidence, opportunity was given to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances u/s.313 Cr.P.C. Inspite of grant of sufficient opportunities, the accused has not availed the opportunity. As per the guidelines of Indian Bank Association case, the accused failed to file any application for evidence also. In view of the guidelines in Crl.R.P.No.437/2010 (R.V.Kulkarni V/s.Dakshina Murthy), the accused has failed to avail the opportunity to answer incriminating circumstances under Sec.313 Cr.P.C Heard arguments and perused the material on record. [ 5. On the basis of the contents of the complaint the following points arise for my consideration. :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused issued 5 C.C.No.5851/2016 cheque bearing No.205074 dt.04.01.2016 for Rs.5,17,514/ drawn on the Khattri Co operative Urban Bank Ltd, Karkardooma , Delhi in favour of the complainant towards discharge of legal liability?
2. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act?
[
3. What order ?
6. My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1&2 :In the Affirmative. Point.No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
7. Point Nos.1 & 2: Both these points are interconnected with each other. In order to avoid repetition of facts, both the points have been taken up together for consideration.
8. The case of the complainant is that the complainant carries business in computers, printers and its peripherals. The accused No.1 is the Proprietorship concern and represented by its Proprietor accused No.2 and carried on the business in computers, computer software, laptop, 6 C.C.No.5851/2016 printers and peripherals etc. The accused made credit purchase of computer software, laptop , printers and peripherals etc., worth Rs.6,82,500/ vide Tax Invoice NO.N 10122=1507113 dt.09.07.2015. The accused in discharge of part of liability issued cheque bearing No.205074 dt.04.01.2016 for Rs.5,17,514/ drawn on the Khattri Co operative Urban Bank Ltd, Karkardooma, Delhi in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented said cheque for realisation through his banker i.e HDFC Bank, Bangalore, and the same was dishonored for the reason "Payment stopped by drawer ". On receipt of said intimation, the complainant got issued legal notice dt.01.02.2016 to pay the outstanding amount. Inspite of service of notice, the accused failed to pay the outstanding amount to the complainant.
9. In support of the complaint averments, the complainant has produced five documents as ExP1 to P.5. Ex.P.1 is the Board Resolution. Ex.P.2 is the cheque. Ex.P.3 is the bank endorsement. Ex.P.4 is the copy of the legal notice. Ex.P.5 is the track consignment letter. 7
C.C.No.5851/2016
10. In support of the accused contention, he has neither produced any documents nor stepped into the witness box.
11. In support of the documentary evidence the Authorized representative of the complainant is examined as PW 1 and reiterated the complaint averments. He has also identified all the documents. The accused has not chosen to cross examine PW 1 and deny the complaint averments. Therefore the oral and documentary evidence of PW 1 remains unchallenged.
12. The accused appeared through Advocate and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the accused has not chosen to produce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence. Therefore, the oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant remains unchallenged. After completion of evidence of PW 1, the accused has failed to avail the opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. As per the guidelines in Crl.R.P.No.437/2010 (R.V.Kulkarni V/s.Dakshina Murthy), the accused has failed to avail the 8 C.C.No.5851/2016 opportunity to answer incriminating circumstances under Sec.313 Cr.P.C .
13. On careful perusal of the material on record specially the cheque in question and the demand notice, they clearly go to reveal that the accused has issued the cheque in question ie Ex.P.2 in favour of the complainant in discharge of legal liability. Despite of service of notice, the accused though appeared before this court but has not cross examined PW1 in order to rebut the burden casted upon him. Absolutely , there is nothing on the part of the accused person in order to disprove the case of the complainant. The cheque in question which is marked as Ex.P.2 belongs to the accused and the accused issued the same in discharge of his legal liability. Therefore, the complainant has proved that the accused issued the cheque in question towards discharge of his legal liability.
14. The complainant has presented said cheque for encashment within time. The cheque has been dishonored for the reason "Payment stopped by Drawer". The complainant has issued legal notice well within time. Inspite of service of 9 C.C.No.5851/2016 notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant has proved the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
15. The complainant has proved the complaint averments by placing oral and documentary evidence. The complainant has proved that the cheque in question is issued by the accused towards discharge of legal liability. Therefore, the court can raise presumption mandated under Sec.139 of N.I.Act as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2010(11) SCC 441 (Rangappa V/s Mohan). Once the cheque relates to the account of accused and he accepts and admits the signature on 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 accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumption.
16. In the light of the above discussion and the material placed on record, the court is of the opinion that the complainant has proved existence of legal liability and also proved that the accused has issued the cheque in question towards discharge of his legal liability. The complainant has 10 C.C.No.5851/2016 proved the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Therefore considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the available evidence on record, the court comes to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. The complainant is entitled for compensation under Sec.357 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the complainant has proved point Nos. 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
17. Point No.3 : The complainant has proved point Nos.1 and 2 . Therefore , in the light of the above finding on point Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting u/s. 255(2) of Cr.p.c., the accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. The accused No.2 is sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.5,27,514/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred and Fourteen only) In default of payment of fine, shall undergo SI for 6 months. 11
C.C.No.5851/2016 Acting under Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., out of the fine amount, the complainant is entitled for Rs.5,22,514/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand and Five Hundred and Fourteen only) towards compensation amount.
Acting under Sec.357(1) (a) of Cr.P.C., the remaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand only) is to be remitted to the state.
Copy of the judgment shall be furnished to the accused free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April , 2022).
(H.K.NAVEENA ) XXV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : B.V.Srinivas
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Board Resolution.
Ex.P2 : Cheque
Ex.P3 : Bank Endorsement
12
C.C.No.5851/2016
Ex.P4 : Office Copy of legal notice
Ex.P5 : Track Consignment Letter.
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED: Nil
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
Nil (H.K.NAVEENA ) XXV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.