Bangalore District Court
Pride And Expert Properties Pvt vs No.1 Is A Proprietorship Concern And ... on 6 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Present:- Sri. ABDUL RAHIM HUSSAIN SHAIKH
B.Sc, B.Ed, LLB(Spl), XXVIII A.C.M.M
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2020
C.No.21953/2018
JUDGMENT
1. Sl.No. of the case : C.C.No.21953/2018
2. The date of commence of Evidence : 09.08.2018
3. The date of Institution : 02.06.2017
4. Name of the Complainant : Pride and Expert Properties Pvt Ltd, Being a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its registered office at:
Pride Hulkul, 901, 9th floor, No.116, Lalbagh Road, Near Urvashi Theatre, Bangalore-560027.
Rep by its Authorised Signatory Sri. G.U. Gireesh
5. Name of the Accused : 1. Stark Industries, Being a proprietorship firm Having its office at:
No.70/6, Cheemasandra Vigro Nagar, Bangalore-560049.
Rep by its Proprietor S. Siddarth Rao
2. S. Siddarth Rao Proprietor, Stark Industries 2 CC.No.21953 /2018 R/at No.A-801, Aspen Tower A Wing, Godrej Woodsman Estate, Hebbal, Bellary main road, Bangalore- 560024.
6. The offence complained : U/s.138 of N.I. Act
7. Plea of the accused on his examination : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Order : Accused is Convicted
9. Date of such order : 06.02.2020 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 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 a leading Developer having successfully constructed and developed commercial and residential projects in and around Bangalore. The accused No.1 is a proprietorship concern and accused No.2 is the Proprietor carrying out the management and business activities of the said firm. The complainant is 3 CC.No.21953 /2018 developing a residential complex bearing the name "Pride Enchanta" in property No.320, opposite BHEL factory, Survey No.11/2, Mysore road, Deevitigeramanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bngalore and for the said project entered into two contract agreements both dated:21.04.2017 with the accused No.1 and accordingly issued two orders for supply of fabrication, installation of window grills for block A-B for Rs.10,52,492 and block C-D for Rs.10,32,332/- to Rs.20,84,824/- of the project. It was further agreed between the parties that 20% of the contract price would be paid by the complainant to the accused No.1 at the time of issuing the work orders. It is the case of the complainant that as per the contract he issued a cheque bearing No.770491 dated:08.05.2017 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd, Basaveshwaranagar branch for Rs.4,20,000/- to the accused No.1. It is further case of the complainant that the accused No.1 vide e-mail dated:25.04.2017 agreed that they would commence 4 CC.No.21953 /2018 works on 07.05.2017 as per the work orders and complete the same on or before 29.06.2017. Further it is the case of the complainant that the accused No.1 did not even commence the works as agreed under the work orders and on request to return the advance of Rs.4,20,000/- issued the cheque bearing No.001067 dt:20.03.2018 for Rs.4,20,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Sahakar Nagar branch, which on presentation through its banker Vijaya Bank, Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan branch, Bengaluru for realization was dishonoured for the reason "Payment stopped by drawer" by the banker vide memo dated 23.03.2018. Further it is the case of the complainant that legal notice was issued on 19.04.2018 to the accused calling upon him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days but accused failed to repay the said amount nor has replied to the said notice. It is the contention of the complainant that since accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act accordingly a compliant has 5 CC.No.21953 /2018 filed against the accused u/s 138 of N.I Act.
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. As there is sufficient material, plea was recorded against the accused on 15.11.2018 and explained to the accused in his vernacular, for which the accused has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. In order to prove the case, the DGM- QS & Contracts of the complainant Company Sri. G.U Gireesh examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 13. Then the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. came to be recorded on 30.09.2019, wherein the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was read over the explained to the accused. Accused neither examined nor produced any documents on his behalf.
5. The learned Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is a leading Developer having successfully 6 CC.No.21953 /2018 constructed and developed commercial and residential projects in and around Bangalore. The accused No.1 is a proprietorship concern and accused No.2 is the Proprietor carrying out the management and business activities of the said firm. The complainant is developing a residential complex bearing the name "Pride Enchanta"
in property No.320, opposite BHEL factory, Survey No.11/2, Mysore road, Deevitigeramanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore and for the said project entered into two contract agreements both dated:21.04.2017 with the accused No.1 and accordingly issued two orders for supply of fabrication, installation of window grills for block A-B for Rs.10,52,492 and block C-D for Rs.10,32,332/- to Rs.20,84,824/- of the project. It was further agreed between the parties that 20% of the contract price would be paid by the complainant to the accused No.1 at the time of issuing the work orders. It is the case of the complainant that as per the contract he issued a cheque bearing No.770491 dated:08.05.2017 7 CC.No.21953 /2018 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd, Basaveshwaranagar branch for Rs.4,20,000/- to the accused No.1. It is further case of the complainant that the accused No.1 vide e-mail dated:25.04.2017 agreed that they would commence works on 07.05.2017 as per the work orders and complete the same on or before 29.06.2017 but the accused No.1 did not even commence the works as agreed under the work orders and on request to return the advance of Rs.4,20,000/- issued the cheque bearing No.001067 dt:20.03.2018 for Rs.4,20,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Sahakar Nagar branch, which on presentation through its banker Vijaya Bank, Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan branch, Bengaluru for realization was dishonoured for the reason "Payment stopped by drawer"
by the banker vide memo dated 23.03.2018. There after issued legal notice on 19.04.2018 to the accused calling upon him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days but accused failed to repay the said amount nor has replied to the said notice. It is the contention of the complainant 8 CC.No.21953 /2018 that since accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act accordingly a compliant has filed against the accused u/s 138 of N.I Act and prays to convict the accused.
6. The learned Counsel for accused contended that the complainant without intimating the accused regarding cancellation of the work order as cancelled the same. Further it is contended that for the execution of the said project accused has invested an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for the purchase of materials and due to cancellation of the work order as incurred heavy loss. It is further contended that when the accused requested the complainant to return the security cheque handed over at the time of execution of the contract the complainant by misusing and filling the said cheque as per their convenience filed a false complaint against the accused. Hence accused prays to acquit for the alleged offence under sec.138 of N.I Act.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the material 9 CC.No.21953 /2018 placed on record.
8. On the basis of the above facts, the following points arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the complainant proves that the accused towards discharge of legal recoverable debt and liability issued cheque bearing No.001067 dt:.20.03.2018 for Rs.4,20,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Sahakar Nagar branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant, on presentation for encashment it was returned as 'Payment stopped by drawer" and inspite of receipt of legal notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act?
2) What order?
9. 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
10. POINT NO.1: In order to prove the case, the DGM- QS & contracts of the complainant company Sri. G.U. 10 CC.No.21953 /2018 Gireesh has examined himself as PW1 and deposed that complainant is a leading Developer having successfully constructed and developed commercial and residential projects in and around Bangalore. The accused No.1 is a proprietorship concern and accused No.2 is the Proprietor carrying out the management and business activities of the said firm. Further in the evidence PW1 has produced Ex.P1/authorisation which disclosed that PW1 was duly authorized to contest the case on behalf of the complainant company against the accused. It is pertinent to note that the authority of PW1 has never been challenged by the accused at any point of time in the cross examination of PW1 nor produced cogent evidence and relevant document to disprove the authority. In view of the same the authority Ex.P1 executed by the complainant company in favour of PW1 remains undisputed and unchallenged. It is the case of the complainant/PW1 in his evidence that the complainant company has under taken project for 11 CC.No.21953 /2018 developing a residential complex bearing the name "Pride Enchanta" in property No.320, opposite BHEL factory, Survey No.11/2, Mysore road, Deevitigeramanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bngalore and for the said project had entered into two contract agreements both dated:21.04.2017 with the accused No.1 and accordingly issued two orders for supply of fabrication, installation of window grills for block A-B for Rs.10,52,492 and block C-D for Rs.10,32,332/- to Rs.20,84,824/- of the project. It is also deposed by PW1 that both the parties had agreed that 20% of the contract price would be paid by the complainant to the accused No.1 at the time of issuing the work orders. Further in the evidence complainant/PW1 deposed that as per the contract the complainant company issued a cheque bearing No.770491 dated:08.05.2017 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd, Basaveshwaranagar branch for Rs.4,20,000/- to the accused No.1 which has been duly acknowledged by the accused No.1 who vide e-mail 12 CC.No.21953 /2018 dated:25.04.2017 agreed that they would commence works on 07.05.2017 as per the work orders and complete the same on or before 29.06.2017. In order to prove the said fact the complainant has produced the agreements Ex.P2, Ex.P2(a), Ex.P3, ExP3(a), e-mail regarding the schedule of window grill. On perusal of the said document it is found that the complainant and the accused company had entered into two contract agreement wherein the complainant issued two work orders to the accused No.1 for block A-B for Rs.10,52,492 and block C-D for Rs.10,32,332/- to Rs.20,84,824/- of the project and both parties agreed that the accused would receive 20% of the contract price at the time of issuing the work orders from the complainant. It is very pertinent to note that there is no dispute between the accused and the complainant regarding the said project work and contract agreements since accused has never denied the said contract in the cross examination of PW1 nor produced any cogent 13 CC.No.21953 /2018 evidence denying the same. It is equally important to note that in the cross examination of PW1 the accused counsel have not denied the receipt of 20% of contract price of Rs.4,20,000/- from the complainant nor have produced any cogent evidence and relevant document denying the said fact. From analyzing all these evidence it is crystal clear that the complainant company had entered into an contract agreement for the project of supply of fabrication, installment of window grill A-B and block C-D and had issued the work order to the accused along with advance amount of 20% of project cost i.e., Rs.4,20,000/- to the accused.
11. In the evidence the complainant/PW1 deposed that accused No.1 did not even commence the works as agreed under the work orders and on request to return the advance of Rs.4,20,000/- issued the cheque bearing No.001067 dt:20.03.2018 for Rs.4,20,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Sahakar Nagar branch, which on presentation through its banker Vijaya Bank, Bhartiya 14 CC.No.21953 /2018 Vidya Bhavan branch, Bengaluru for realization was dishonoured for the reason "Payment stopped by drawer"
by the banker vide memo dated 23.03.2018. In order to prove the said fact the complainant has produced the e- mail sent to the accused on 13.07.2017 marked as Ex.P11 and e-mail copy dated:19.12.2017 marked as Ex.P12. On perusal of these two e-mails it is crystal clear that the complainant has informed the accused that inspite of work order dt:21.04.2017 and payment of 20% of advance amount of Rs.4,20,000/- on 08.04.2017 no proper action has been taken in completing the project by the accused. Further in the said document the complainant company has de-scoped CD Tower window grill work and request the accused to execute A- B tower work immediately. Further on perusal of Ex.P12 it is found that the complainant company have issued notice to the accused terminating the work order for MS window grill at A-B Block and C-D block Pride Enchanta Project , Mysore Road, Bangalore requesting to 15 CC.No.21953 /2018 refund the advance amount of Rs.4,20,000/- . The said documents being the computer generated is supported by the affidavit and the certificate u/s 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P13. It is pertinent to note that in the cross examination of PW1 the accused has taken the contention that no such e-mail intimation has been issued to the accused. Per contra, he had invested Rs.8,00,000/- for the purchase of materials for the project. It is vehemently argued by the accused counsel that the accused invested huge amount for completion of the project inspite of that without the knowledge the complainant had terminated the contract by which accused has incurred heavy loss. At this juncture it is pertinent to note that accused has not produced a single document to show that he had started the work on the project and purchased material worth of Rs.8 lakh for the completion of project. Further not produced cogent evidence to prove that the e-mail address mentioned in Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 does not belong to him and he has 16 CC.No.21953 /2018 not received the e-mail regarding termination of contract. In the absence of cogent evidence and relevant document the contention of the accused that he had started working over the project and had invested an amount of Rs.8 lakh and had no knowledge of termination of contract cannot be taken into consideration an accepted. It is the evidence of PW1 that the accused inspite of work orders has not commence the work as per the terms of the work order and after termination of the contract though Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 not replied the e- mails. In view of the same the agreement Ex.P2 and 3 is found to be terminated for the reason that the accused has not complied with the terms of the contract and commence the work. The e-mail copies produced by the complainant has produced Ex.P11 and 12 e-mail copies supported by the certificate u/s 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P13 dt:13.07.2017 and 19.12.2017 terminated the work order of A-B & C-D blocks. Further in the evidence PW1 deposed that after termination of contract 17 CC.No.21953 /2018 they had demanded the accused for the repayment of 20% project amount of Rs.4,20,000/- for which accused had issued a cheque dt:20.03.2018 which on presentation for encashment returned as Payment stopped by the Drawer. To support the same the complainant has produced the cheque Ex.P5 discloses that the accused has issued a cheque to the complainant on 20.03.2018 for an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- with his signature Ex.P5(a) on the said cheque. Further the document Ex.P6/ bank memo produced by the complainant dislcoses that the said cheque on presentation was dishonoured for the reason payment stopped by the drawer. The dictum of law on their point is crystal clear that even the cheque not honoured for stop payment attract the provision of Section 138 of N.I Act.
12. At this juncture I would also like to discuss the dictum of law laid down in (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 232 (Goaplast (P) Ltd, v/s Chico Ursula D' Souza and Anr) In this judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court 18 CC.No.21953 /2018 has laid down the dictum of law that the drawer issuing to a person of post dated cheque and then instructing the bank not to make payment consequently cheque bounce in such circumstances not withstanding the payment stopped prior to the due date of the cheque date held Sec.138 become applicable. Further it is held that if stoppage of payment before the due date of the cheque is allowed to take the transaction out of the purview of sec.138 of the Act, it will shake the confidence which cheque is otherwise intended to inspire regarding payment being available on due date. This ruling is aptly applicable to the present fact and circumstances of the case since it is clearly established that on instruction the bank has issued stop payment of the cheque. It is pertinent to note that accused has not produced any evidence to show that on the date of issuing of the cheque he had sufficient balance in his account. From this it is crystal clear that intentionally 19 CC.No.21953 /2018 accused has issued stop payment in order to defraud the complainant.
13. At this juncture I would like to discuss the ruling reported in :
(1996) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 739 Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corpn Ltd, Secunderabad v/s Indian Technologists & Engineers (Electronics) (P) Ltd and Another On perusal of the said ruling it is found that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the dictum of law that the drawer of the cheque having insufficient fund in his credit cannot escaped liability u/s 138 by issuing stop payment instruction to his bank. It is also held in para-6 that sec.138 intend to prevent dishonest on the part of the drawer of negotiable instrument to draw a cheque without sufficient funds in his account maintained by him in a bank and induce the payee or holder in due course to act upon it Sec.138 draw presumption that one commits the offence if issues the 20 CC.No.21953 /2018 cheque dishonestly.
14. In the cross examination of PW1 the accused counsel had taken the contention that the disputed cheque which was issued for security has been filled as per the convenience by the complainant and a false complaint is filed against the accused. On this point I would like to discuss the dictum of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the fact that merely the cheque has been filled by the complainant would not invalidate the cheque while the burden is still on the accused to rebut the presumption by producing cogent evidence and relevant document.
15. At this juncture I would like to discuss the ruling reported in:
2019 SAR 2446 (Criminal) 309 Supreme Court, ( Bir Singh v/s Mukesh Kumar).
(E) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S, 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption as to legally 21 CC.No.21953 /2018 enforceable debt - Rebuttal - Onus to rebut presumption that cheque issued in discharge of debt or liability is on accused. (Para 36) (G)Negotiable Instruments Act, (26 of 1881), Ss.138, 139 - Presumption as to legally enforceable debt - Rebuttal - 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 - Onus would still be on accused to prove that cheque was not issued for discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence. (Para-38).
(H) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss, 138- Dishonour of cheque - Complainant can fill up amount or particulars in blank cheque. (Para 38). In the cross examination of PW1 the accused counsel has taken the contention that the content and the signature on the disputed cheque Ex.P6(a) is filled by the complainant as per their convenience by the complainant though the 22 CC.No.21953 /2018 cheques have been issued for security. The dictum of law laid down in the above ruling clearly holds that 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
- Onus would still be on accused to prove that cheque was not issued for discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence. (Para-38).
In view of the said dictum of law the contention of the accused that the cheque has been filled as per the convenience in filing a false complaint cannot be considered. When he has not rebutted the presumption of 139 of N.I Act through cogent evidence and relevant document.
16. At this juncture I would also like to discuss the ruling reported in AIR 2018 Hon'ble Supreme Court 3601 (T.P Murugan (Dead) Thr.Lrs.V Bojan AND Posa Nandhi Rep.Thr, POA Holder, T.P Murugan v. Bojan) Accused admitting his signature on cheques and pronote, presumption under S.139 would operate 23 CC.No.21953 /2018 against him-Complainant proving existence of legally enforceable debt and issuance of cheques towards discharge of such debt- Conviction, proper. In this ruling at para-8 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the dictum of law that u/s 139 of the N.I Act, once a cheque has been signed and issued in favour of the holder, there is statutory presumption that it is issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability by referring to K.N.Beena v/s Muniyappan and Another, (2001) 8 SCC 458, para-6 and Rangappa v/s Shrimohan (2010) 11 SCC 411, para 26 . It is further held that the presumption is a rebuttable one, if the issuer of the cheque is able to discharge the burden that it was issued for some other purpose like security for a loan. This ruling is applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case since the accused admits his signature Ex.P5(a) on the disputed cheque Ex.P5 but contended that the said cheque have never been 24 CC.No.21953 /2018 executed for the discharge of legal enforceable debt with the complainant. As per the dictum of law laid down in the above cases the entire burden was on the accused to rebut the said presumption that existed in favour of the complainant, but from above reasons and discussion accused has utterly failed to prove by producing probable defence that he was not in due for the payment of legal enforceable debt for the amount mentioned in the cheque Ex.P5. Per contra, the complainant has proved the case by overwhelming evidence to establish that the cheque/Ex.P5 was issued by the accused towards discharge of an existing liability and legally enforceable debt for the repayment of the advance amount of Rs.4,20,000/- received for the completion of the project.
17. It is the evidence of PW1 that after receiving the memo from the bank regarding dishonour of cheque notice was issued on 16.04.2018 through RPAD which has been duly served to the proper address of the accused. In order to prove the said fact the complainant 25 CC.No.21953 /2018 has produced the notice marked as Ex.P7 and the postal receipts Ex.P7(a) & 7(b) regarding dispatching the notice through RPAD and also produced Ex.P8 the acknowledgment regarding the service of the said notice to the accused. It is pertinent to note that accused has never denied the service of notice nor he has lead any evidence to prove that the notice was not sent to his proper address and on the date of service of the ntice acknowledgment Ex.P8 , he was residing in the address mentioned in the said acknowledgment. On careful perusal of Ex.P8 is found that the said notice has been duly acknowledged by the accused by impressing his signature on the said acknowledgement . From all these documents it is crystal clear that the notice has been duly served to the proper accused of the accused and the same has been duly acknowledged.
18. At this juncture on this point regarding service of notice I would like to reproduce the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in a decision reported in 26 CC.No.21953 /2018 2007 (3) Crimes 120 (SC) (C.C. Alavi Haji V/s Palapetty Muhammed & Anr), 2007 AIR SCW 3578 (C.C.Avavi Haji v/s Palapetty Muhammed & Anor). On perusal the said ruling it is found that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para- 8 that :
Sec.138 of the act does not require that the notice should be given only by 'post', yet in a case where the sender as a dispatched the notice by post with correct address written on it, the principle incorporated in section 27 of the General Clause Act 1897 (for short GC Act) could profitably be imported in such a case. It was held that in this situation service of notice is deemed to have been affected on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non service. Further at para -10 it is held that : The requirement of clause (b) of the 27 CC.No.21953 /2018 provisions of Sec.138 of the Act stands complied with and cause of action to file a complaint arises on the expiry of the period prescribed in clause (c) of the said proviso to Sec.138 for payment by the drawer of the cheque. Nevertheless it would be without prejudice to the right of the drawer to show that he had now knowledge that the notice are brought to his address.
This ruling is aptly applicable to the present case on the hand since the notice Ex.P7 is duly served as per the postal acknowledgment Ex.P8. In view of the same the notice sent through RPAD to the correct address is sufficient to fulfill mandatory requirement of issuing notice in terms of (b) of proviso to u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
19. 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 28 CC.No.21953 /2018 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 it exist. Therefore, unless explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provisions cannot be said to be rebutted. On appreciation of material on record and in the light of the judgments discussed above it is clearly established that the accused has failed to discharge his obligation to rebut the presumption of enforceable debt -liability under section 139 of the N.I Act. Accordingly, I have no hesitation to arrive at the conclusion that accused has utterly failed to rebut the presumption.
20. On appreciation of entire evidence, this court is of 29 CC.No.21953 /2018 the opinion that the accused though challenged the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant, but miserably failed to prove the fact that he has not issued cheques for discharge of legally enforceable debt. On the contrary, the complainant has proved that the accused has issued Ex.P5/cheque towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and on presentation of the cheques, there were dishonored for the reasons 'Payment stopped by drawer'. Even after service of legal notice, the accused has not paid the cheques 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.
21. Point No.2:- From the material on record, it appears that the accused is aged about 38 years and doing business. Considering the age of accused and quantum of the cheque, if the accused is sent to jail, it would cause problem to the accused as well as to her 30 CC.No.21953 /2018 family members. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, prevailing rate of interest in the nationalized Bank and litigation expenses, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
Acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.4,95,000/-, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.4,95,000/- a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant towards compensation u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State.
The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.31 CC.No.21953 /2018
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused. (Dictated to Stenographer directly on the Computer, taken print out corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the open court this the 6th day of February, 2020) (ABDUL RAHIM HUSSAIN SHAIKH) XXVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant:-
PW1 : Sri. G.U. Gireesh Witnesses examined for the accused: Nil Documents exhibited by the Complainant:-
Ex.P1 : Authorization letter
Ex.P2 : A-B block Work order
Ex.P2(a) : A-B Block Price list
Ex.P3 : C-D block work order
Ex.P3(a) : C-D block price list
Ex.P4 : e.Mail
Ex.P5 : Cheque
Ex.P5(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P6 : Bank Memo
Ex.P7 : Office copy of the legal notice
Ex.P7(a)&7(b) : Postal receipts
Ex.P8 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P9 : Legal notice found in the
returned postal cover
Ex.P9(a) : Cover
Ex.P10 : Compliant
Documents exhibited by the Accused:-
Nil XXVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.32 CC.No.21953 /2018
33 CC.No.21953 /2018 Judgment pronounced in the open Court vide separate order.
ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
Acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.4,95,000/-, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.4,95,000/- a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant towards compensation u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State.
The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused.
XXVIII A.C.M.M, Bangaluru. 34 CC.No.21953 /2018 35 CC.No.21953 /2018 36 CC.No.21953 /2018