Bangalore District Court
Sri.J.Stephen Raj vs Smt.K.S.Harini on 1 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BENGALURU
: PRESENT :
M.Vijay, BA (Law), LLB.
XXXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021.
C.C.No.54231/2017
COMPLAINANT : Sri.J.Stephen Raj
S/o Jasuraj Mariyappan
Aged 31 years
Occupation Business
No.22/1, 18th Cross,
Lakshmipuram, Ulsoor,
Bangalore - 560 008.
.Vs.
ACCUSED : Smt.K.S.Harini
W/o K.R.Sampath
Aged 36 years,
Occupation: House Wife
R/at No.4234, 2nd Cross,
Girinagara,
Bangalore - 87.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this private complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2C.C.No.54231/2017
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant averred that, he and the accused are well known to each other from many years, due to that acquaintance, the accused approached him for hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/ for the purpose of her business. Accordingly, he advanced loan of Rs.10,00,000/ by cash to the accused in his house on 10.06.2015. On receipt of it, the accused agreed to repay it within 6 months with nominal interest. However, after receipt of the loan, the accused become defaulter. Hence, he demanded her for repayment of loan. Finally, on 08.02.2017, the accused allegedly issued a cheque bearing No.106579 drawn on Syndicate Bank N.R.Colony, Branch, Bengaluru for Rs.10,00,000/ in his favour with an assurance to present it would be honoured. Based on her assurance, he presented it in his banker Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Indiranagara Branch, Bengaluru on the very same day i.e., 08.02.2017, but, as per the memo dtd:09.02.2017 it was returned with a shara of "Funds Insufficient". Hence, within stipulated time he caused the legal notice on 3 C.C.No.54231/2017 06.03.2017 to the accused through RPAD and it was served on 07.03.2017, for that the accused issued untenable reply. Accordingly, he alleges the accused has committed the offense punishable under Sec.138 for not paying the amount within 15 days after the service of notice, despite issuance of cheque for Rs.10,00,000/ towards the discharge of legally recoverable debt borrowed on 10.06.2015 from him. Hence, he constrained to file this complaint seeking punishment of the accused for the offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act and also for compensation.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit, the documents placed by the complainant along with the complaint the court took cognizance of an offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act and ordered to register a criminal case against the accused for the offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
4. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared through her counsel and she was on court bail. Plea has been recorded; accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4C.C.No.54231/2017
5. To prove the case, the complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and 2 witness as P.W.2 and 3 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.9.
6. On closure of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., she denied the incriminating materials on record and adduced her defense evidence by examining herself as D.W.1 along with one witness as D.W.2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 9 documents on her behalf. The accused specifically denied the alleged transaction and issuance of her cheque and specifically contended that the cheque Ex.P.1 i.e., questioned cheque is belongs to her and signature found there on is belongs to her. However, it was obtained by her cousine G.D.Ravi for security to the car loan from her husband Sampath Kumar. In the year 2014, her cousine Ravi and Raghupathi i.e., the proprietor of P.P. Finance where the complainant was working have been allegedly misused her signed blank cheque obtained by her cousine from her husband and filed this false complaint with false claim. In this regard, soon after the receipt of the legal notice caused by the 5 C.C.No.54231/2017 complainant, she approached Girinagara police with a complaint. Accordingly, she claims, she has not at all issued Ex.P.1 cheque for legally enforceable debt and had no transaction whatsoever with the complainant. Hence, there is no existence of legally recoverable debt. Accordingly, claims to be innocent.
7. Heard both the sides. The learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on; 2007 Cri.L.J. 2312 to 2313, AIR 2015 SC 2240 to 2243, 2018 Cr.R.856 (S.C.) 856 to 860, 2018(1) DCR 258 to 264, 2018(1) Cr.R.401 (Kant) 401 to 406, 2019 Cr.R.105 (Kant) 105 to 109, 2014 Cr.R.594 (Kant) 594 to 600, 2019 Cr.R.22 (Kant) 22 to 27, 2019 Cri.L.J.(SC) 2400 to 2413.
8. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on; AIR 2019 SC 1983, 2015 AIR SCW 64, 2015(5) Kar, L.J.457. Perused the materials on record, the following point arises for my determination;
6C.C.No.54231/2017 "Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had issued the cheque bearing No.106579 dtd:08.02.2017 for Rs.10,00,000/ for legally recoverable debt and same was bounced and despite of demand notice, the accused failed to repay the legally recoverable debt, thereby the accused has committed the offense punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?"
9. On that basis my finding on the above point is in the "Affirmative" for the following;
REASONS
10. The complainant specifically averred that, he is a cloth businessman sold sarees, chudidaars and other cloths to the accused. On that acquaintance on 10.06.2015, the accused approached him in his house with her husband and pleaded financial help of Rs.10,00,000/. Considering her request, he advanced Rs.10,00,000/ by cash to the accused in presence of Murugan, Vijaya Kumar. On receipt of it, the accused agreed to repay it with nominal interest within 6 months, but despite completion of 6 months, the accused has not turned up with payment.
7C.C.No.54231/2017 Finally, she issued the cheque for Rs.10,00,000/ bearing No.106579 drawn on Syndicate Bank N.R.Colony, Branch on 08.02.2017, same was dishonoured as per memo dtd:09.02.2017. Immediately, he caused legal notice within stipulated time, but, the accused issued untenable reply by denying the claimed enforceable debt.
11. Inter alia, the accused admitted the cheque and signature found on the cheque belongs to her. However, denied loan transaction, issuance of the cheque to the complainant for alleged discharge of legally enforceable debt and specifically contended her cousine one G.D.Ravi had obtained her cheque through her husband Sampath Kumar for the purpose of security to car loan in the year 2014 but, her cousine G.D.Ravi and Raghupathy i.e., proprietor of P.P. Finance have colluded with each other and misused the questioned cheque and filed this false complaint claiming as if she had borrowed loan of Rs.10,00,000/ from the complainant and issued this cheque towards the discharge of loan liability.
8C.C.No.54231/2017
12. Considering the rival contentions, the accused denied the existence of legally enforceable debt, loan transaction and the issuance of alleged cheque towards the legally enforceable debt.
13. So, the initial burden is on the complainant to prove the alleged loan transaction and issuance of cheque for legally enforceable debt. To prove the same, the complainant herself got examined as P.W.1 and also examined Murugan, Vijaya Kumar and placed reliance on the questioned cheque, return memo, D.P.Note, legal notice, reply, judgment passed by this court against the husband of the accused in C.C.No.54515/2017.
14. The P.W.1 has reiterated the complaint averments in his examination in chief affidavit. He placed reliance on the questioned cheque Ex.P.1, Ex.P.7 & 8, on demand promissory note alleged to have executed by the accused on the date of advancement of loan i.e., on 10.06.2015.
9C.C.No.54231/2017
15. The accused vehemently crossexamined the P.W.1 wherein she made several suggestions with regard to financial capacity of the complainant i.e., how he accumulated Rs.10,00,000/ cash to lend the alleged money to the accused, Raghupathy and P.W.1 colluded each other by misusing the cheque issued by his cousine for car loan. Further, the date, name and amount of the cheque has been allegedly filled by the P.W.1 and specifically suggested, the Raghupathy has filed this case through the P.W.1. All these suggestions have categorically denied by the P.W.1 and stated that his father has paid Rs.10,00,000/ to him in the year 2015, he had the same and paid to the accused. But, he cant produce any document to show that he held a cash with him. However, the accused though he has specifically asked the P.W.1 about the source of money, but, not denied the financial capacity of the complainant to lent the claimed amount.
16. Further, it is elicited that, P.W.1 was working as a collector in P.P.Finance under Raghupathy, his monthly salary was Rs.10,000/ and also the 10 C.C.No.54231/2017 criminal case registered against the husband of the accused in C.C.No.54667/2015 has been dismissed. That apart, the P.W.1 admitted, he filed several cheque bounce cases i.e., C.C.No.52926/2017, C.C.No.54116/2017, C.C.No.54092/2017, C.C.No. 54230/2017 as per Ex.D.1 to 4. However, he specifically stated, all the cases filed by him were ended in settlement, but, specifically denied the present case has been filed on behalf of the Raghupathy by colluding with the Raghupathy. However, during the entire cross examination, she has not brought out any materials on record to prove that, the cheque in question i.e., Ex.P.1 was with the custody of one Raghupathy i.e., in P.P. Office and later, it was issued by Raghupathy to complainant to file this false case. Further, the accused has not denied the cheque and signature Ex.P.1(a) is not that of her. So, when such being the evidence on record, it is clear that, the accused has not denied the questioned cheque Ex.P.1 and signature found thereon. However, she denied the transaction, but, to substantiate the transaction, the complainant has examined P.W.2 and 3.
11C.C.No.54231/2017
17. The P.W.2 Murugan deposed that, the complainant is his friend. On 10.06.2015 in presence of him and one Vijaya Kumar, the complainant has lent Rs.10,00,000/ to the accused by cash on the very same day, on receipt of the amount, the accused executed a promissory note i.e., Ex.P.7(a) and 8(a) to the accused by agreeing to repay Rs.10,00,000/ cash with interest within the period of 6 months from the date of its receipt.
18. Another witness P.W.3 also deposed the execution of promissory note by receiving Rs.10,00,000/ cash by the accused from the complainant on 10.06.2015 and identified the signatures of the accused found on Ex.P.7 and 8. The accused vehemently cross examined these witnesses, but, failed to elicit any materials to strengthen her defense that the Ex.P.7 and 8 are created documents. So, both these witnesses have categorically stated that in presence of them, the complainant has lent Rs.10,00,000/ cash on 10.06.2015 to the accused and got executed the Ex.P.7 and 8. It is true that the Ex.P.7 promissory 12 C.C.No.54231/2017 note is not a compulsory attestable document. However, the accused denied the signature found on Ex.P.7 and 8 but, during the course of marking of these signatures through the witnesses i.e., P.W.2 and 3 and also P.W.1, the accused not at all objected for marking of the signatures Ex.P.7(b) and Ex.P.8(b), but, during the course of cross examination, the accused denied her own signature on Vakalath. However, she admits the Ex.P.7 reply notice issued in pursuance of the legal notice of the complainant, the Ex.P.6 wherein in para No.12 of the reply notice, she categorically stated;
"Our client represents to us to state that it is clearly shows that your client has colluded with one Mr.Raghupathy and also your client misused the above cheque mentioned in your legal notice and your client and P.Raghupathy cheated our client by taking undue advantage of blank signed cheques and on demand promissory note."
19. So, as per this recital in reply notice issued by the accused herself, claimed the issuance of blank 13 C.C.No.54231/2017 signed cheques and demand promissory note to one Raghupathy of P.P.Finance. So, in one way the accused claims the signature Ex.P.8(b), 7(b) are not belongs to her. However, in her reply notice, she claims that she had issued the blank signed cheques and promissory note to one Raghupathy that has been misused by the complainant. So, though she specifically denied her signature, but, admitted in her reply that issuance of promissory note to one Raghupathy. However, she has not produced any documents to show that the issuance of blank signed cheques and on demand promissory note, in the absence of that, it is stands proved that Ex.P.7(a) and 8(b) are the signatures of the accused and same are identified by the P.W.2 and 3. As such, the complainant has proved the execution of promissory note by the accused. So, in view of her admission that cheque Ex.P.1 and signature Ex.P.1(a) are belongs to her. As rightly argued by the counsel for the complainant, the presumption shall be drawn in favour of the complainant that until & unless the contrary is proved, the cheque issued for legally enforceable debt in favour of the holder of the cheque.
14C.C.No.54231/2017 Accordingly, in view of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa .Vs. Mohan, initial presumption has been drawn in favour of the complainant that the Ex.P.1 cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt.
20. However, the presumption is a rebuttable one. Therefore, the onus is on the accused to prove her contention that there was no existence of legally enforceable debt and not issued questioned cheque for legally recoverable debt and the complainant has misused the cheque which was issued by her cousine to one Raghupathy for car loan by colluding with the Raghupathy.
21. To substantiate her case, the accused got herself examined as D.W.1 wherein she specifically stated the cheque in question is belongs to her and signature is that of her. However, her husband by obtaining her blank signed cheque had issued to her cousine G.D.Ravi for the purpose of the car loan in turn her cousine Ravi and Raghupathy who were friends have misused her cheque, she do not know the bank affairs, only after receipt of legal notice 15 C.C.No.54231/2017 Ex.P.5, she came to know the alleged misuse of cheque by the complainant through Raghupathy. She did not borrow any loan amount from the complainant as claimed by he complainant, immediately, she approached Girinagara Police and complained about the alleged misuse of her cheque as per Ex.D.6, the complainant was working in P.P.Office under Raghupathy have been misused her cheque and filed this false complaint as per instruction of the Raghupathy. Further, she does not know the whereabouts of her cousine. Similar case has been filed by one Raghupathy against her husband in C.C.No.54667/2015 as per Ex.D.9 which was ended in acquittal for Rs.20,00,000/. So, she denied entire allegation made by the complainant.
22. However, during the course of cross examination, it is elicited that, she does not have any document to show that her cheque issued for security to the car loan of Mr.Ravi i.e., her cousine even, she failed to state on which date, month, she issued her cheques towards the security to the loan. Further, she admits her signature found on Ex.P.1 cheque and 16 C.C.No.54231/2017 signature i.e., Ex.P.1(a) is that of her. Further, the complainant has specifically posed question about her complaint lodged against the complainant soon after the receipt of the legal notice from the complainant Ex.D.6 and 7, but, except complaining to the police no document is produced to show that what action had taken by the police in pursuance of her complaint as per Ex.D.6 and 7 to strengthen her case about alleged misuse. So, mere marking of complaint itself is not a proof for her contention that her Cheque Ex.P.1 was issued by G.D.Ravi to one Raghupathy for car loan. Further, she categorically admitted that as per Ex.P.9 i.e., C.C.No.54515/2017 wherein the husband of the accused has been convicted in a cheque bounce case.
23. So, considering the entire testimony, though she specifically claimed that her husband has issued her blank signed cheques to her cousine for car loan, she failed to produce any document to substantiate her contention that (a) when did her cousine obtain loan,
(b) from where her cousine obtained car loan, (c) what are all the documents have been obtained by the 17 C.C.No.54231/2017 financier to provide a car loan, (d) what are all documents were obtained as a security, for that absolutely there is no material on record except her oral say. So, in the absence of that her evidence is not sufficient to believe that Ex.P.1 cheque had issued by her husband for security to the car loan of her cousine G.D.Ravi. That apart, to substantiate it was issued in favour of one G.D.Ravi i.e., her cousine is concerned, the accused though she claimed the issuance of her cheque to her cousine but, has specifically stated her cousine is absconding so, the examination of said Ravi is necessary to prove her contention that, she had issued cheque to her cousine Ravi.
24. Further, to strengthen her defense, she examined her husband Mr.Sampath Kumar who too deposed that his cousine one Ravi had obtained his 2 signed blank cheques pertaining to Andhra Bank and 3 signed blank cheques of his wife i.e., the accused pertaining to the Syndicate Bank from him, in turn, his cousine by obtaining his and his wife's cheques totally 2 signed blank cheques of him and 3 signed 18 C.C.No.54231/2017 blank cheques pertaining to his wife i.e., accused to Raghupathy i.e., the proprietor of P.P.Finance for security to the car loan. Later on, there was differences arose in between Ravi and Raghupathy on that basis his cousine is absconding due to fear since 5 years, by misusing the cheques, the Raghupathy has filed criminal case against him and his wife one of such kind of cases filed against him in C.C.No.54667/2015 filed by Raghupathy has been dismissed and in C.C.No.54515/2017 an appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Appellate Court. However, during the crossexamination P.W.2 stated that he don't have any document to show that he and his wife have issued their cheques to his cousine for car loan. Further, he admitted as per Ex.D.6, his wife has not made any complaint against Raghupathy and his cousine. That apart he admits, neither he nor his wife have taken any legal action against his cousine Ravi and proprietor Raghupathy.
25. So, considering his testimony, except his oral say no documents produced on record to believe that his cousine has obtained the Ex.P.1 cheque from him 19 C.C.No.54231/2017 for security to the car loan. So, in the absence of documentary evidence any amount of oral say doesn't prove the contention of the accused about issuance of Ex.P.1 cheque to a car loan because, it is their specific case that her cousine had issued her cheque Ex.P.1 for car loan to a financier namely P.P.Finance. So, she knew the financier and she know the proprietor of the financier and she specifically stated for the purpose of car loan, she issued the cheque to her cousine Ravi. When such being her specific contention, she ought to have proved when, where and what are all the documents secured from Ravi, how much the loan amount, what are all the documents have been obtained for car loan and who were all stood as a surety, for that, absolutely there is no material on record to prove her contention. In the absence of that, merely because she lodged the complaint soon after receipt of the legal notice as per Ex.D.6 which itself does not prove her contention about the issuance of her cheque to her cousine Ravi, unless and until she proves the custody of Ex.P.1 cheque by Raghupathy in P.P.Office from 2014 till presentation of the alleged cheque. So, in the 20 C.C.No.54231/2017 absence of crucial materials, mere contention of the accused without proof cannot be acceptable as it is well settled law that rebuttable presumption though does not necessary to prove with strict proof or beyond reasonable doubt but, even though it is preponderance of probabilities, the evidence brought on record by the accused must be capable to accept under the eye of law. So, considering the entire materials on record, the evidence brought on record by accused is not sufficient to prove her contention since she has failed to prove the custody of the cheque initially by her cousine G.D.Ravi in turn the custody of her cheque obtained by Raghupathy from her cousine Ravi for the security to car loan. Therefore, in view of failure to prove the issuance of her cheque for security to a car loan, by her cousine obtaining from her husband, the accused failed to probablise her defense.
26. The learned counsel for the accused has specifically argued about the financial capacity of the complainant that the complainant has not produced any document to show that he held cash of 21 C.C.No.54231/2017 Rs.10,00,000/ in the year 2015 i.e., alleged date of advancement, proof of his income Rs.50,000/ p.m., complainant has filed several Cheque bounce cases as per Ex.D.1 to 4 which are admitted, as such the complainant failed to establish his financial capability to lent the amount. Accordingly, he prays to acquit the accused as the accused rebutted the presumption. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the decision; AIR 2019 SC 1983, 2015 AIR SCW 64, 2015(5) Kar.L.J. 457
27. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has proved the Cheque and signature of the accused as well as advancement of loan in presence of Vijaya Kumar, K.Murugan witnesses as per Ex.P.7 and 8, in reply notice of the accused specifically admitted about the issuance of Cheque as well as promissory note, defence about the issuance of questioned Cheque to the cousine of the accused has not been proved as such, once the accused admitted the signature and the Cheque, presumption shall be drawn in favour of the complainant, the non production of document for 22 C.C.No.54231/2017 proof of the income, ITR is immaterial as the accused failed to rebut the presumption, in support of his arguments he placed reliance on the decisions; 2007 Cri.L.J. 2312 to 2313, AIR 2015 SC 2240 to 2243, 2018 Cr.R.856 (S.C.) 856 to 860, 2018(1) DCR 258 to 264, 2018(1) Cr.R.401 (Kant) 401 to 406, 2019 Cr.R.105 (Kant) 105 to 109, 2014 Cr.R.594 (Kant) 594 to 600, 2019 Cr.R.22 (Kant) 22 to 27, 2019 Cri.L.J.(SC) 2400 to 2413.
28. Considering the rival contention with the arguments, I have carefully perused the materials available on record, it is well settled law that whenever the accused challenges the financial capability of the complainant to lent an amount the complainant must prove his financial capacity but, here in this case, though the accused crossexamined the P.W.1 with regard to the financial capacity, nowhere in the entire crossexamination of P.W.1 he denies the financial capacity of the complainant instead, he crossexamined the P.W.1 about how the P.W.1 has accumulated the amount, P.W.1 though not produced the document to prove that his father 23 C.C.No.54231/2017 had given him Rs.10,00,000/, which has not at all been questioned by the accused. Further, the accused herself suggested the complainant was working in a P.P.Finance and drawing salary, that apart, the complainant has proved the payment or advancement of amount in presence of K.Murugan and Vijaya Kumar, their evidence not at all been shaken. In addition to that, the very suggestion of the accused to the P.W.1 by referring Ex.D.1 to 4 clearly stands proved that the complainant had advanced loans not only to the accused and also to others which stands proved that in one way the accused suggested the P.W.1 that the complainant held money but filed on behalf of Raghupathy. However, her suggestion not proved that all the cases referred in Ex.P.1 to 4 have been filed by the complainant on behalf of Raghupathy. In the absence of that, as per Ex.D.1 to 4 the complainant advanced loans to so many people and which were ended in settlement. In another way without denying the financial capacity during the course of argument relied upon the decisions about the financial capacity which is quiet contrary to his suggestions. Therefore, 24 C.C.No.54231/2017 the contention of the financial incapability of complainant cannot be acceptable. As such, the decision relied by the accused i.e,. Basavalingappa's Case K.Subramani .Vs. Damodar Naidu in my humble view are not applicable to the case in hand as in the above cases the complainants were Government Officials unable to prove their financial capacity at the time of lending the loan as they had borrowed loans from banks and others. But, the facts and circumstances of the present case, is quiet different than the other case.
29. In another decision i.e., 2005(5) KLJ 457 is concerned, the complainant has filed to establish the existence of liability but, so far as the present case the complainant has proved the alleged advancement of loan through promissory note in presence of witnesses as such, in my humble view the above decision is not applicable to the case in hand. As such, as rightly argued by the counsel for the complainant once the Cheque and signature proved by the complainant, presumption shall be drawn in favour of the complainant as settled by the Hon'ble 25 C.C.No.54231/2017 Apex Court unless the contrary is proved. In contrary, the accused failed to rebut the presumption i.e., issuance of alleged Cheque with signature to her cousine for car loan in the year 2014. As such, considering the entire materials on record, the complainant has proved that he advanced Rs.10,00,000/ to the accused in presence of Murugan, Vijaya Kumar on 10.06.2015 towards the discharge of loan, the accused has issued the Ex.P.1 questioned Cheque on 08.02.2017, same was dishonoured due to "Insufficient Funds" in the account of the accused. Later on, despite service of notice, the accused failed to pay the claimed amount. Accordingly, the complainant has proved the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, the accused is found guilty of the offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
30. So far as sentence and compensation is concerned, the material on record clearly revealed that it is a friendly loan, the Cheque was issued i.e., of Rs.10,00,000/ on 08.02.2017 and the intention of the complainant is only to recover the Cheque 26 C.C.No.54231/2017 amount. Therefore, considering the nature of transaction, duration of the pendency, I am of the opinion that if fine of Rs.11,05,000/ is imposed on the accused that would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.11,05,000/ out of the fine amount received the complainant is entitled for Rs.11,00,000/ as a compensation under Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. and remaining amount of Rs.5,000/ is to be appropriated to the State. In case of default, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Accordingly I answer the above point in "Affirmative". In the result, following;
ORDER
Acting under section 255(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.11,05,000/ (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Five Thousand) in default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
27
C.C.No.54231/2017
Out of the fine amount received,
Rs.5,000/ is to be appropriated to the State and by way of compensation as per the provision U/s 357(1) of Cr.P.C. the complainant is entitled for Rs.11,00,000/.
The bail bonds and surety bond of the accused shall stand cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish a free copy of the judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 2nd day of March, 2021) (M.Vijay), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 : Sri.J.Stephen Raj
P.W.2 : Sri.K.Murugan
P.W.3 : Sri.M.D.Vijaya Kumar
28
C.C.No.54231/2017
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Original cheque Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2 : Bank return memo. Ex.P.3 : Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt Ex.P.5 : Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P.6 : Reply notice dtd:20.03.2017 Ex.P.7 & : Demand promissory note and consideration Ex.P.8 receipt Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of Judgment in
C.C.No.54515/2020 dtd:02.03.2020.
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 : Smt.K.S.Harini D.W.2 : Sri.K.R.Sampath
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 to : Certified copies of complaints Ex.D.4 Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of demand promissory note Ex.D.5(a) : Signature of the complainant Ex.D.6 : Copy of the complaint Ex.D.7 : Acknowledgement issued by police Ex.D.8 : Certified copy of complaint and order sheet of C.C.No.54141/2016 Ex.D.9 : Certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.54667/2015 (M.Vijay), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.