Bangalore District Court
M/S. C.A. Galiakotwala & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Aura Engineering Contracts (P) Ltd on 20 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITON MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA
ROAD, BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 20th day of June-2015
:: PRESENT ::
SRI. MALLANAGOUDA, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXVII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C. NO. 20392/2014
COMPLAINANT:
M/s. C.A. Galiakotwala & Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Office: No.43/1, Sabuvani Building,
N.R. Road, Bangalore - 560 002.
Rep. by its Authorized representative &
P.A. Holder,
Mr. S. Chandra Shekar,
S/o Mr. S.R. Surappa,
Aged about 48 years,
(Rept. by Sri. B.K.M & M.G. Advs.)
V/S
ACCUSED:
1. M/s. Aura Engineering Contracts (P) Ltd.,
# 37/12, 2nd main,
Nagarbhavi Main Road,
Govindarajanagar,
Judgment 2 C.C.20392/2014
Bangalore - 560 040.
Rep. by its Managing Director
Mr. Suresh Babu. T.R.
2. M/s. Aura Engineering Contracts (P) Ltd.,
#37/12, 2nd Main,
Nagarbhavi Main Road,
Govindarajanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040,
Rep. by its Director
Mr. Veena Basavarajaiah
(Rept. by Sri. U.J.H. Adv)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
FINAL ORDER : Accused is acquitted
DATE OF ORDER : 20-06-2015
(MALLANAGOUDA)
XXVII Addl.CMM.,
Bengaluru.
***
:: JUDGMENT ::
This is the case in which the complainant has filed the complaint against the accused under Section.200 Criminal Procedure Code for the offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.Judgment 3 C.C.20392/2014
2. The brief facts of the complainant's case are as under:
The complainant is a Private Limited Company doing business of distributing Valves, Cocks, Elbow, Coupler and other allied products. Accused is also a Private Limited Company, accused No.1 and 2 are Managing Director and Director of accused company, they used to purchase the materials from complainant on credit basis with agreement to pay interest at 24% per annum on delayed payment. At present accused are due Rs.10,68,263.79 to complainant company. To pay the said amount they have issued four cheques bearing Nos.921070 to 921073, all dated: 05-06- 2014 for Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.2,66,809/- respectively drawn on Canara Bank, Vijaya Nagara Branch, Bangalore, but when complainant has presented those cheques to bank for encashment the same have been dishonoured and returned with an endorsement as 'Exceeds Arrangements", after that complainant got issued legal notice dated: 11-06-2014 to accused, but the said notice Judgment 4 C.C.20392/2014 is returned with an endorsement as 'Intimation delivered but not claimed', even after issuance of notice also accused have not paid the cheques amount. Thereby the accused No.1 and 2 being the Managing Director, Director and authorized signatories of the cheques are liable punishment for the offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. After service of summons, accused No.1 and 2 have appeared before this court, but as per order dated: 13-01-
2015 case against accused No.2 namely Veena Basavarajaiah is dropped and trial is conducted against accused No.1 namely Suresh Babu T.R., therefore hereinafter accused No.1 is referred as accused only, he has pleaded not guilty for the offence under Section.138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the trial has been conducted against accused for the said offence.
Judgment 5 C.C.20392/2014
4. On the basis of the above facts, following points have arisen for my consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that to pay the amount payable by the accused company, being the Managing Director of accused company, accused has issued cheques bearing Nos.921070 to 921073, all dated:
05-06-2014 for Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.2,66,809/- respectively drawn on Canara Bank, Vijaya Nagara Branch, Bangalore, but when complainant has presented the said cheque to Bank for encashment, the same are dishonoured and returned with an endorsement as "Exceeds Arrangements", after that complainant got issued legal notice dated: 11-06-2014 to accused, even after issuance of notice also accused has not paid cheque amount. Thereby the accused is liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What order?
5. In support of its case, complainant examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P43 on its behalf. On the other hand, the accused examined Judgment 6 C.C.20392/2014 himself as D.W.1 and got marked documents at Exs.D1 to 58 on his behalf.
6. Heard arguments.
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the negative
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1: It is the case of the complainant that the complainant company deals with distribution of wide range of valves, cocks, elbow, coupler etc., and accused is the Managing Director of accused No.1 Company. He used to purchase materials from complainant on credit basis, accused is due Rs.10,68,263.79, to pay the said amount accused has issued cheque bearing Nos.921070 to 921073, all dated: 05- 06-2014 for Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.2,66,809/- respectively, but when complainant has Judgment 7 C.C.20392/2014 presented those cheques to bank for encashment the same have been dishonoured and returned with an endorsement as 'Exceeds Arrangements", after that complainant got issued legal notice to accused, even after issuance of notice also accused has not paid the cheques amount. Thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
9. Now during evidence P.W.1 namely Chandrashekar who is Manager of the complainant company has filed his affidavit as chief-examination in which he once again restated the facts alleged in the complaint as discussed above. In cross-examination he deposed that he used to supervise all the works of Bengaluru Branch of their company, one Prakash working as Sales Manager, they used to sell the goods of Prince Brand, he admitted the documents at Ex.D1 and D2 as signed by him, however he denied suggestions about supply of low quality materials and misuse of the cheques issued for security purpose. Judgment 8 C.C.20392/2014
10. The complainant has produced documents like Board Resolution, Power of Attorney, cheques, bank endorsement etc.
11. On the other hand accused deposed that as he was doing work in JSS Hospital, Mysore, complainant had supplied materials to Mysore site, however complainant did not issue test certificate at the earliest, but as the materials supplied by the complainant are of low quality, the JSS Hospital authorities have not paid the amount but he paid entire amount to complainant, cheques in question were issued to complainant as security, now they are not liable to pay anything to complainant. In cross-examination he denied suggestions regarding issuance of cheque for payment of amount due by him and creating story regarding low quality materials. The accused has produced documents like account extracts, acknowledgment regarding issuance of undated cheques and invoices etc. Judgment 9 C.C.20392/2014
12. During arguments learned counsel for complainant has argued that when accused himself admitted that the cheques in question are belongs to him and signature in the cheques are also belongs to him, it is necessary to presume that the accused has issued cheques in question for payment of legally dischargeable debt, further more complainant has produced all the documents regarding goods supplied to the accused and amount due infavour of the complainant. Therefore it is necessary to convict the accused. In support of his said arguments he has relied upon the following judgements:
AIR-2013 S.C. 426 Indra Kumar Patodia and Anr V/s.
Reliance Industries Ltd. And Ors.
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138, 141, 142 - Complaint of dishonour of cheque - Need not necessarily be signed by complainant - Complaint sans signature of complainant is maintainable."
** Judgment 10 C.C.20392/2014 AIR-2002 S.C. 182 M/s. M.M.T.C. Ltd., and Another V/s.
M/s. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd., & Anr (A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.142, 138 - Cheque dishonour complaint - Can be made by payee or holder in due course of cheque - Complaint lodged in name and on behalf of appellant company who is payee of cheques - Is maintainable - Fact that complaint was lodged by Manager or Deputy General Manager who had not been authorized by Board of Directors to sign and file complaint on behalf of company - Cannot be a ground for quashing complaint, since defect is curable."
** AIR-2010 S.C. 1898 Rangappa V/s.
Mohan (A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - On account of 'stop payment' instructions sent by accused to Bank in respect.
** KCCR 2010(1) - 176 Siddappa V/s K. Nanjappa Judgment 11 C.C.20392/2014 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -
Section 138, 139, 180 - Dishonour of cheque - Disputed Issuance of cheque to the complaint - It is clear that issuance of cheque is not in dispute. Financial transactions between the parties are not in dispute. The amount for which the chits were contributed is Rs.2,60,000/-. The accused has failed to mention what was the prize amount. Therefore, the admitted facts as such reduce the burden on the complainant to establish that there was transaction between the parties and cheque was issued in this regard. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence as establishing offence under Section.138 of the N.I. Act, in view of presumption under Sections. 180 and 139 of the N.I. Act.
** KAR-2006 - 193 STP Ltd., V/s.
Usha Paints & Decorators, A property concern No.1 and A.V. Ganesh Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - The distinction sought to be made between issuance of cheque for repayment of debt and issuance of cheque as a security for repayment of debt is illusory in law. Any cheque whether issued towards repayment of debt or liability as a security if dishonoured, the drawer of a cheque incurs liability of prosecution under Section.138 of the N.I. Act - The cheque upon the default of the terms if presented and dishonoured, it very much amounts to an offence under Section.138 Judgment 12 C.C.20392/2014 of the N.I. Act. In that view, that acquittal of the accused is bad in law - The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section.138 of the N.I. Act. The accused is sentenced to pay a Fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one year. Out of the fine amount, the complainant shall be paid compensation of Rs.35,000/-.
** 2001 AIR - Kant. HCR-2154 M/s. Devi Tyres V/s.
Nawab Jan (A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Criminal Court cannot embark upon any enquiry that goes behind act of issuance of cheque - If cheque was alleged to be issued for some special reasons and it was not intended to be enacted or honoured - Onus of establishing the same shifts squarely to accused.
** 1998 CRI. L.J. 3228(1) Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan V/s.
V. Radhakrishnan (A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.87, S.118(b) - Material alteration in cheque - Issuance of undated cheque by drawer - No dispute regarding signature, name and amount shown in cheque - Insertion of date in cheque by payee holder of cheque in due course - Can Judgment 13 C.C.20392/2014 be presumed as inserted with implied consent of drawer of cheque - Presumption not rebutted by drawer - Insertion would not amount to material alteration in cheque rendering cheque void.
**
13. On the other hand counsel for accused has argued on three grounds, which are regarding maintainability of complainant for not arraying the company of the accused as a party, non-production of proper authorization by the complainant and for failure of the complainant to produce evidence regarding existence of debt. In support of his said arguments, he has relied upon the following Judgements:
2012(1) DCR - 746 Aneeta Hada V/s.
M/s. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section.7 - Drawer - Means and scope - Held - An authorized signatory of a company becomes a drawer as he has been authorized to do so in respect of the account maintained by the company.
** 2012(1) DCR - 770 Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel V/s.Judgment 14 C.C.20392/2014
State of Gujarat & Anr.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section.138 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section.406/420 and 71 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section.300 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(2) - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 26 - Double jeopardy - Assessment - Held - Test to ascertain whether the two offences are the same is not identity of allegations but the identity of the ingredients of the offence - Motive for committing offence cannot be termed as ingredient of offences to determine the issue of double jeopardy- Plea of autrefois acquit is not proved unless it is shown that judgment of acquittal in the previous charge necessarily involves an acquittal of later charge.
** 2013(1) KCCR - 191 Sri. B.L. Boolani V/s.
Sri. Vasanth Kumar Bangera A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 18810- Sections.138 and 141 - Offence by Company - Complaint filed against Managing Director and Director - Company was not arraigned as an Accused.
** 2013(1) KCCR - 196(DB) K. Madan Kumar and Anr.
V/s.
Rajasekhara Gouda and Ors.Judgment 15 C.C.20392/2014
Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Sections 10, 11, 13 and 75(2) - Dismissal of Petition made under Sections 10, 11 and 13 of Act by debtors in limine - Also dismissed applications made for protection from onslaughts and harassment by creditors - Appeal under Section 75(2) - Petitions did not disclose the names of father of respondents and addresses -Petitions filed in a very casual manner - Petitioners advocate were absent-debts exceeding 20 crores.
** 2013(3) DCR 109 Yogendra Kumar Khullar @ Bittoo V/s.
State of U.P. & Another Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section.138 and 141 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section.482 - Complaint - Legality - Held - Where firm is not impleaded as accused, the complaint is bad in law and is liable to be quashed for want of necessary party.
** 2011(2) DCR 277 Milind Shripad Chandurkar V/s.
Kalim M. Khan & Anr.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section.7, 8, 138 and 142 - Complaint of dishonour of cheque - Maintainability of - Held
- As per Section.142 of N.I. Act, complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act shall be maintainable in the name of 'payee', proprietary Judgment 16 C.C.20392/2014 concern itself or in the name of proprietor of said concern - Mere statement in affidavit in this regard is not sufficient to meet out requirement of law.
** 2011(2) DCR 283 Arun Maheshwari and another V/s.
State of Rajasthan and another Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Cognizance taken - Sought quashing of - Held - From the facts on record it is abduntly clear that the account was closed much before issuance of cheque - And Section. 138 of N.I. Act is not attracted - Whether cheque was issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt or not, is to be proved on the basis of evidence - Petition dismissed.
** 2009(1) DCR 78 Kalim M. Khan V/s.
State of Maharashtra and another Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section.138 - Complaint for dishonour of cheque - Locus standi of complainant - Held - Complainant must proved his Locus Standi to entertain the complaint for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
** Judgment 17 C.C.20392/2014 2009(1) DCR 83 Prakashchand V/s.
Sureshchand Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section.138 Proviso (b) - Service of notice - Legality - Held - No mode of service of notice under Section.138 N.I. Act is prescribed - Receipt of notice by drawer is sufficient.
** 2003(1) DCR 146 C. Antony V/s.
K.G. Raghavan Nair Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section.138- Cheque dishonour - Case of respondent that appellant filled up the cheque in its entirety - Including its signature - But the Court on perusal of cheque found that the difference in body of cheque as well as in the signature of appellant - Held - High Court was in error in reversing the finding of acquittal - Recorded by trial court.
** 2013(1) DCR 417 Kulvinder Singh V/s.
Kafeel Ahmed Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section.138 - Acquittal - Legality - Held - In Judgment 18 C.C.20392/2014 criminal law guilt of accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and if there is a slightest doubt about the commission of an offence then the benefit has to accrue to him.
** 2013(1) DCR 421 M. Amalan Moses V/s.
W. Isravel Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section.138 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 205 - Dispense with presence - Scope - Held - Section 205 Cr.P.C. enjoins that Ld. Magistrate may enquire into or trying the case at any stage of the proceedings and direct the personal attendance of accused and dispense with presence as the case may be.
** 2008 AIR SCW 738 Krishna Janardhan Bhat V/s.
Dattatraya G. Hegde A. Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881)- Presumption under Section.139 merely raises presumption in favour of holder of cheque that same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability - Existence of legally recoverable debt - Is not a matter of presumption under Section.139.
** Judgment 19 C.C.20392/2014 2008 AIR SCW 748 Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh V/s.
Kandi Friends Eduction Trust & Ors.
Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), S.24 - Transfer of suit - Powers under Section.24 cannot be exercised ipse dixit - Application by plaintiff - Assertion made by plaintiff contradicted by defendants - High Court without applying mind to those aspects and without recording any reason/ground allowed application by serving that it would be 'appropriate' to transfer the suit pending in Court of 'A', Civil Judge, at 'R' to Court of 'Y' Additional Civil Judge at 'C' - Order passed by High Court liable to be set aside
- Matter remitted for fresh disposal.
** Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Appeal No.1012/1999 M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani V/s.
State of Kerala & Anr Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section.118(a) - Presumption - Legality of - Held - Applying principle of 'proved' or 'disproved' the court shall presume a negotiable instruments to before consideration unless and until after considering the mater before it either believes that consideration does not exist or considers the non-existence of consideration so probable.
** Judgment 20 C.C.20392/2014 Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Appeal Nos.1222, 1223/2002 Jimmy Jahangir Madan V/s.
Bolly Cariyappa Hindley (D) by Lrs.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section.138 - Criminal Procedure Code 1973 - Section.302 - Proceedings under Section. 138 N.I. Act - Complainant died - Neither L.Rs. nor general power of attorney sought permission under Section 302 Cr.P.C. - Held - Trial Court as well as High Court has erred in allowing proceedings - L.Rs. as well as general power of attorney is on liberty to move application accordingly - Appeal allowed..
** 2013(1) DCR 625 Vijay V/s Laxman & Anr Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section.118 and 139 - Presumption - Scope - Held - When a cheque is issued by a person who has signed on the cheque and the complainant reasonable discharges the burden that the cheque had been issued towards a lawful payment then it is for accused to discharge the burden.
** 2013 (1) DCR 636 M.P. Prakashan Judgment 21 C.C.20392/2014 V/s.
M. Sasi Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section.138- Conviction and sentence - Sought time to pay the due amount - Validity - Held - Considering the willingness of petitioner it is fair to grant some time to the accused to pay the due amount - Petition disposed of accordingly.
**
14. On perusal of evidence of both the parties and arguments of their counsels, it appears that though counsel for accused has argued that the company of the accused is not made as party, by looking to complaint it appears that the M/s. Aura Engineering Contracts Private Limited is shown as accused No.1, therefore the argument of counsel for accused regarding maintainability of complaint without arraying company as accused is incorrect. Regarding another contention of the accused about non-production of proper authorization by the person who filed the complaint and who conducted the proceedings is concerned, by looking to documents marked at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 it appears that the same are copy of the resolution and special Power of Judgment 22 C.C.20392/2014 attorney which are sufficient to show that the person who conducted the proceedings namely S. Chandrashekar has got sufficient authorization by the company. Therefore contention of the accused regarding non-production of proper authorization is also incorrect. Regarding contention of the accused about non-existence of legally recoverable debt is concerned, by looking to Ex.D2 it appears that the said document is acknowledgment dated: 14-09-2013 regarding issuance of cheques in question by the accused infavour of complainant which goes to show that the cheques in question were issued by the accused infavour of the complainant by mentioning the amount without mentioning the dates with conditions that same are to be returned by the complainant after payment of the amount by the accused to complainant through RTGS, therefore it appears that by admitting Ex.D2 accused himself admitted that as on 14-09-2013 he was liable to pay amount mentioned in the cheques and agreed to pay the same through RTGS and take back the cheques, but the accused Judgment 23 C.C.20392/2014 has not produced any evidence to show that after the date mentioned in Ex.D2 accused has paid amount to complainant, therefore it appears that when accused admitted that as on 14-09-2013 he was liable to pay the amount mentioned in the cheques and after the said date he has not paid the amount mentioned in the cheques to complainant, as on the date mentioned in the Ex.D2 accused was liable to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque infavour of the complainant.
15. However, another contention of the accused is that as the complainant has not supplied good quality materials, the materials installed to the building particularly to JSS Hospital, Mysore are being damaged, therefore the Hospital Authorities have not paid the value of the materials, therefore as the complainant has supplied the low quality materials, accused is not liable to pay the amount of the said materials. By looking to documents it appears that the accused has produced documents marked at Ex.D8 to Judgment 24 C.C.20392/2014 Ex.D13 which shows that the Director of the J.S.S. Hospital, Mysore has written a letter to the main Contractor regarding low quality materials and made a request to replace the said materials and in turn accused has also sent e-mails to complainant which shows that though there is evidence to show that as on the date mentioned in Ex.D2 accused had agreed to pay the amount mentioned in the cheques, subsequently there is a civil dispute arisen regarding quality of the materials supplied by the complainant which has to be decided by the competent civil court only, for the said reason only accused has not paid the amount due infavour of the complainant. Therefore, even if complainant has produced evidence to show that at the time of issuing cheque accused was liable to pay the amount mentioned in the cheques, complainant has presented the said cheques to bank, same are dishonored, complainant got issued notice to accused, after issuance of notice also accused has not paid the cheques amount, since accused has produced evidence to show that due to dispute between himself and the Judgment 25 C.C.20392/2014 complainant regarding quality of the materials supplied by the complainant, he has not paid the amount mentioned in the cheques, therefore accused has rebutted the presumptions regarding issuance of cheques for payment of legally dischargeable debt. At the most complainant may approach competent civil court to recover the amount due from the accused, till then it cannot be said that as on the date of the presentation of the cheques accused was liable to pay the amount mentioned in the cheques to complainant, therefore as the accused has produced evidence to rebut the presumption regarding existence of legally dischargeable debt, accused is entitled for acquittal and the complainant is at liberty to recover the amount if any due from the accused by approaching competent civil court. Therefore it is decided to acquit the accused by reserving complainant's rights to recover the amount involved in the cheques by approaching competent civil court. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in the negative.
Judgment 26 C.C.20392/2014
16. POINT NO.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section.265 of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is set at liberty and his bail bond stands cancelled.
It is declared that the complainant is at liberty to recover the amount if any due from the accused by approaching competent Civil Court.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of June-2015.) (MALLANA GOUDA) XXVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Judgment 27 C.C.20392/2014 List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW.1 : S. Chandrashekar List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P1 : Resolution Ex.P2 : Special Power of Attorney Ex.P3,5,7,9 : Cheques Ex.P4,6,8,10 : Return Memo Ex.P11 : Legal Notice Ex.P12 to 16 : Postal receipts Ex.P17 : Postal acknowledgement Ex.P18 to 21 : RPAD Covers Ex.P22to24 : Account Statements Ex.P25to26 : Legal notices Ex.P27 : Postal receipt Ex.P28&29 : Letters Ex.P30 : Certificate Ex.P31&32 : Receipt Vouchers Ex.P33 : Ledger Account Ex.P34 : Certificate Ex.P35 : Tax Invoice Ex.P36&37 : Form 'C' Ex.P38&39 Nil Ex.P40 : Complaint copy Ex.P41to43 : Tax Invoices
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
D.W.1 : T.R. Suresh Babu List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
Ex.D1 : Ledger Account
Ex.D2 : Letter
Ex.D3to6 : Tax Invoices
Ex.D7 : e-Sugam Form
Ex.D8 : Letter
Ex.D9to13 : Gmail letters
Ex.D14to50 : Quality Reports
Ex.D51to53 : Gmail letters
Judgment 28 C.C.20392/2014
Ex.D54 : Statement of Account
Ex.D55&56 : Letters
Ex.D57 : Certificate
Ex.D58 : Compact Disk (C.D.)
XXVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.Judgment 29 C.C.20392/2014
Judgment pronounced in the open court.
Operative portion of the judgment.
ORDER Acting under Section.265 of Cr.P.C., accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is set at liberty and his bail bond stands cancelled.
It is declared that the complainant is at liberty to recover the amount if any due from the accused by approaching competent Civil Court.
(MALLANA GOUDA) XXVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.