Bangalore District Court
M/S R.B.Steel & Alloys (India)(P) Ltd vs M/S Pranee Infrastructure (P)Ltd on 5 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BENGALURU
: PRESENT :
M.Vijay, BAL, LLB.
XXXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
DATED IS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022.
C.C.No.54564/2016
COMPLAINANT : M/s R.B.Steel & Alloys (India)(P) Ltd.,
Having its Regd. At "Golulam", No.3C,
804, 9th Main, 3rd Cross, HRBR, 1st
Block, Kalyannagar,
Bangalore560043.
Represented by its Manager
Administration,
Mr.Rajeev Bisht.
.Vs.
ACCUSED : M/s Pranee Infrastructure (P)Ltd.,
Having its Regd. Office at No.108,
9th Main, 4th Cross,
Chikka Ramaiah Layout,
Varanasi Main Road, Akshaya Nagar,
Ramamurthy Nagar,
Bengaluru560036.
2. Mr. Kalla Venkateshwarlu
Managing Director,
M/s Pranee Infrastructure (P)Ltd.,
Having its Regd. Office at No.108,
2
C.C.No.54564/2016
9th Main, 4th Cross,
Chikka Ramaiah Layout,
Varanasi Main Road, Akshaya Nagar,
Ramamurthy Nagar,
Bengaluru560036.
3. Mrs. Kalla Sreedevi Director,
M/s Pranee Infrastructure (P)Ltd.,
Having its Regd. Office at No.108,
9th Main, 4th Cross,
Chikka Ramaiah Layout,
Varanasi Main Road, Akshaya Nagar,
Ramamurthy Nagar,
Bengaluru560036.
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.
2. The factual matrix of the case are as follow The complainant claims to be private limited company and consignee of M/s DEVASHREE ISPAT Pvt., Ltd., Hyderabad its consignor engaged in business of manufacturing of quality Iron, Steel and TMT bars of different shape and size, further, it used to supply the materials to its customers as per the guidelines of M/s DEVASHREE ISPAT Pvt., Ltd., and A1 is its one of such 3 C.C.No.54564/2016 customers, A2 is the MD of A1, A3 is one of the directors of A1 was looking after the to day affairs of A1 company.
3. The A2 used to place order for supply of structural steel i.e., TMT bars of various size and shape from the complainant, in pursuance of it, the complainant had supplied the materials to the accused under various invoices, inturn, the accused issued delivery challan in token for having received of the goods and it has maintained the running and current account in it with regard to transaction between it, accordingly, as per the books of account maintained by it, the accused was due of Rs.18,00,720/ towards its liability, the accused allegedly issued a cheque, but, it was dishonored. However, later on the accused apologized to it and sought time to clear outstanding. Further, on its repeated demand, the A2 being the manager director of A1 voluntarily issued fresh cheque bearing No.203974 dated 07.12.2015 drawn on ICICI Bank, Kasthurinagar Branch, Bangalore for sum of Rs.18,00,720/ with an assurance that, the cheque would be honored.
4. Believing the assurance of A2, the complainant presented the complainant through banker ICICI Bank 4 C.C.No.54564/2016 kasthurinagar Branch, Bangalore for encash, but it was returned unpaid for "Funds Insufficient" vide memo dated 16.12.2015 immediately, the complainant approached the accused, but, the accused again apologized and requested the complainant to represent it, with an assurance that, the cheque would be honored, accordingly, again the cheque was presented, but, even for the second time the cheque was returned for "funds insufficient" vide bank memo dated 12.02.2016 and learnt that, the accused intentionally issued the cheque without having sufficient amount in his account, in order to deceiving the complainant, accordingly complaint was constrained to issue legal notice demanding the accused to pay the cheque amount on 18.01.2016 despite service of legal notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of its service. Accordingly, the complainant alleged that, the accused towards supply of material i.e., discharge of legally enforceable outstanding liability had issued cheque in its favour without maintaining sufficient balance in its account and failed to pay the cheque amount even after service of legal notice. Accordingly, alleged that the accused No.2 being the managing director of A1 and A3 being the one 5 C.C.No.54564/2016 of the directors who was incharge of day to day affairs of business of A1 are vicariously liable for the acts and conduct of A1, accordingly, prays to punish the accused No.1 to 3 for an o/p/u/s 138 of N.I.Act.
5. The court took cognizance for an offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act, based on the complaint, sworn statement and documents filed by the complainant, criminal case ordered to be registered against the accused for an offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
6. In pursuance of summons, the A2 and 3 appeared through their counsel and they were on court bail. Plea has been recorded, A2 and 3 have pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. One Rajiv Bisht has been examined by the complainant on it side as P.W.1 and placed reliance on Ex.P1 to P.30. Upon closure of complainant side evidence, the A2 and 3 were examined u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., both have denied the incriminating materials on record, the A2 examined as D.W.1 and placed reliance on Ex.D.1 to 6.
7. Heard both the sides. The separate written arguments have been filed both the sides.
6C.C.No.54564/2016
8. Perused the materials on record, the following points arise for my determination.
1. Whether the complaint proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused have committed an o/p/u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?"
2. What Order?
9. My findings to the above points are follows;
Point No1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for forgoing;
REASONS
10. The complainant claims to be consignee of M/s Devasree Ispat Pvt., Ltd., and its consigner engaged in business of manufacturing of quality Iron, Steel and TMT Bars of different shapes and size, as per the guidelines of its consigner, the complainant company used to supply the material to its customers and accused is one of its customers and had due of Rs.18,00,720/ towards supply of Iron, Steel and TMT Bars. Towards discharge of the same, allegedly the A2 being the managing director of A1 company has issued cheque bearing No.203974 dated 07.12.2015 drawn on ICICI Bank, Kasturinagar Branch, 7 C.C.No.54564/2016 Bangalore, for sum of Rs.18,00,720/, but, on its presentation the cheque came to be dishonored for "funds Insufficient" despite service of notice, the accused have not paid the cheque amount, accordingly, this complaint.
11. Per contra, the accused denied the existence of legally enforceable debt and the issuance of cheque towards discharge of legally enforceable debt as claimed by the complainant and also denied the service of legal notice, further, the accused contends that,the accused have made some payment to the complainant through RTGS, but due to technical problem with the bank, the RTGS payment were returned to them. Thereafter, they contacted the P.W.1 who was incharge of the complainant company's affairs at Bangalore told them, to make payment to Devasree Ispat and P.W.1 is not the employee of complainant, but, is the employee of Devasree Ispat for that, email correspondence held in between the accused and one of the directors of Devasree Ispat, which evidencing the fact, accordingly, accused contends that, TMT company and Devasree Ispat are the group of company of the complainant, hence, despite payment of amount, the complainant have misused their security 8 C.C.No.54564/2016 cheque issued at the time of starting of supply of Steel, Iron and TMT bars, accordingly, claims to be an innocent.
12. So, considering the rival contentions, it is worth to not the undisputed facts, between the parties, the business transactions between the complainant and accused from long time is not in dispute, A2 and 3 are the directors of A1, but, the accused denied the existence of legally enforceable debt and issuance of cheque claimed by the complainant was not for enforceable liability and also denied the service of legal notice. Therefore it is burden on the complainant to prove the compliance of section138A to C and also existence of legally enforceable debt and issuance of cheque in question towards discharge of legally enforceable debt.
13. Firstly, so far as statutory notice is concerned, the representative of complainant company Sri.Rajiv Bista examined as P.W.1 placed reliance on the copy of the legal notice, Ex.P.4 postal receipt, postal track consignment and stated that, the notices sent to the accused company were duly served on 01.02.2016. but, the accused denies the same and claims that, the legal notices were not served upon them. However, during the 9 C.C.No.54564/2016 course of cross examination, the accused D.W.1 has clearly admitted that address of accused No.1 as follows;
"It is true to suggest that, the address mentioned in Ex.D.2 i.e., M/s Pranee Infrastructure Pvt., Ltd., 108, 4th cross, Puttaramaiah Layout, Varanasi Main road, Akshyanagar, Ramurthinagar, Bangalore36 is the correct addres of mine and same address has been correctly shown in the legal notice as well as cause title"
14. So, on unequivocal admission of the A2, clearly proved the complainant has correctly addressed statutory notice as per Ex.P.4 and 5, and as per Ex.P.6 postal track consignment the article or the notice were duly served on 01.02.2016. Despite of his admission and documents the accused claims that, the legal notice was not served on the ground that, the company shifted the office, but doesn't know the exact address of A1 company. So, it is clearly stands proved that, the complainant has correctly addressed the statutory notice and as per Ex.P.6 and P.7 the notice was duly served upon the company and as 10 C.C.No.54564/2016 such, it is burden on the accused to disprove that the legal notice was not served upon, but, except denial the service of legal notice in contrary to postal documents nothing has produced to show that, statutory notice was not served. As such, the contention of the accused about non service of legal notice cannot be acceptable. Accordingly, the complainant has proved the issuance of statutory notice Ex.P.4 within time and it was duly served upon the A1 to 3, as such the complainant has complied section 138A to C.
15. So far as, the existence of liability and issuance of cheque in question towards discharge of legally enforceable liability is concerned, the complainant company has examined its representative as P.W.1 and placed reliance on cheque, bank return memos, tax invoices, freight letters, weigh bridge receipts, the P.W.1 has reiterated complaint averments that, the business relationship held in between the accused and the complainant company from long time, accordingly, the complainant had maintained current and running account of the accused, as per its books of accounts, the outstanding of the accused was Rs.18,00,720/ towards 11 C.C.No.54564/2016 discharge of the outstanding for supply of steel, Iron, TMT bars to the A1 company had issued the Ex.P.1 cheque for sum of Rs.18,00,720/, but it was unpaid for "funds Insufficient". The accused subjected the P.W.1 for cross examination, wherein the accused claimed that, P.W.1 is not the employee of complainant company, but, he is the employee of Devasree Ispat of Hyderabad. But, the P.W.1 denied the same, for that, the complainant produced Ex.P.1 produced copy of resolution passed by the board of directors of complainant company on 10.02.2016, wherein, it clearly discloses that, P.W.1 is its manager of administration. Therefore, the contention of the accused is not acceptable.
16. Besides that, the accused suggested, the cheque in question Ex.P.2 issued to the complainant company as security while it was started the business transaction with the complainant company and the accused does not disputed the Ex.P.2 pertains to the A1 company and signature found on the Ex.P.2 cheque is of A2 who is the authorized signatory. However, the accused denies the issuance of cheque in question towards the outstanding amount of Rs.18,00,720/. but, in view of their admission 12 C.C.No.54564/2016 as rightly argued by the counsel for the complainant by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalamani Tex and another V/s P.Balasubramanya by reaffirming the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in Rangappa V/s Mohan that;
"Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accept and admit the signature on the 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 presumption referred to in Sec.139 of N.I.Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption."
17. Accordingly, in view of the admission of the accused, it is mandatory upon the court to draw the presumption u/s 139 and 118A of N.I.Act in favour of the complainant that, until and unless contrary is proved the cheque in question was received by the complainant 13 C.C.No.54564/2016 toward discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability. Accordingly, the initial presumption has been drawn in favour of the complainant that, the accused have issued Ex.P.2 cheque for sum of Rs.18,00,720/ towards discharge of legally enforceable liability. However, the said presumption is rebutable in nature, therefore, the onus is on the accused to prove that, the claimed liability was not existence or did not exist and cheque in question not issued towards discharge of legally enforceable liability.
18. the learned counsel for the accused argued that, P.W.1 is not the employee of complainant company, he is the employ of Divyasree Ispat, used to coordinate with the local dealers of RB steel and alloys (India Ltd.), TMT company and Divyasree Ispat is the group of company of the complainant, accordingly, initially the accused made some payments to the complainant through RTGS, however, due to some technical problem with the bank RTGS payments were returned to us, thereafter, we contacted P.W.1 Rajiv Bisht, he told them to make payment to Divyasree Ispat through RTGS, accordingly, the accused claims to have paid some payment through 14 C.C.No.54564/2016 RTGS, to Divyasree Ispat, Hyderabad and by cash to P.W.1. In this regard, the accused relied upon Exs.D.1 to 6, the email correspondence held in between director of complainant company and the A2. Accordingly, they have transferred Rs.16,50,000/ to Divyasree Ispat through RTGS, but, the P.W.1 falsely denied it, accordingly, the counsel for the accused argued despite accused have paid amount to the Divyasree Ispat company which is group of company's of complainant filed false case.
19. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant argued that, the accused during the course of cross examination admits that, the accused used to place its order with the complainant company and the accused used to make payments to the complainant company, the amount alleged to have been sent to Divyasree Ispat is identically different company, as such though the accused has claims that, they paid cash to authorized person, no document have been produced, to show the payments made through RTGS to any company. As such, in view of admission of transaction and invoices raised by the complainant, the accused failed to establish the alleged 15 C.C.No.54564/2016 payment of Rs.16,50,000/ to the complainant company or to the P.W.1. Accordingly, prays to convict the accused.
20. So, considering the rival submissions, I have carefully perused the material on record, significantly the accused not disputing the invoices raised by the complainant at Ex.P.8 to P.21 and also freight receipts, weigh bridge receipts Ex.P.22 to 30 and also outstanding claimed by the complainant. So, the business relationship with the complainant by the accused is not in dispute and also outstanding amount as claimed by the complainant is not disputed, but, the accused contends, the P.W.1 was an employee of Divyasree Ispat, as per his instruction an amount of Rs.16,50,000/ transferred to the account of Divyasree Ispat company, as Divyasree Ispat and TMT company is the group of company of the complainant. Same was suggested to the P.W.1, but, the P.W.1 denies and produced Ex.P.1 resolution copy wherein it clearly discloses, the complainant is manager administration of complainant company, but, not an employee of Divyasree Ispat as suggested by the accused. Therefore, the contention of accused that the P.W.1 was coordinating the 16 C.C.No.54564/2016 local dealers as an employee of Divyasree Ispat cannot be acceptable.
21. Further, the accused specifically taken discharge plea that, as per the instruction of P.W.1, they have made payments of Rs.16,50,000/ towards outstanding through RTGS to the account of Divyasree Ispat. But, same has been denied by the P.W.1. So, it is well settled law that, the party who pleads the discharge of outstanding must prove the same, therefore, it is burden on the accused to prove their contention of payment of Rs.16,50,000/ to Divyasree Ispat as per instruction of P.W.1 which is the group company of complainant. But, A2 stated that, initially he transferred an amount through RTGS to the complainant towards invoices raised by the complainant, but, due to technical problem, whatever the amount paid through RTGS were returned to them. But to substantiate it, the accused not produced any statement of account.
22. That apart, the accused claimed that, as per the instruction of P.W.1 they paid some amount to Divyasree Ispat and some amount by way of cash to the P.W.1. but to substantiate the alleged payment of cash to the P.W.1 towards claimed amount, the accused has not produced 17 C.C.No.54564/2016 any material to that effect as the A1 is registered company must have account to that effect. In addition to that, the accused claims that, the TMT company and Divyasree Ispat is the group of company's of complainant. But P.W.1 denies the same and also employee of Divyasree Ispat company. The accused in order to substantiate its contention has produced the email correspondence held in between it and one of the directors of complainant company Narendra Kumar Chowdary i.e., Ex.D.2 to 5 along with certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Based on these documents the accused suggested to P.W.1 that, payment for tune of Rs.16,50,000/ were made to Divyasree Ispat. But, the P.W.1 denies the same, however, the accused produced Ex.D.2 to 6 in his evidence, which discloses that, one of the directors of the complainant company has tagged his message to P.W.1 requesting A2 not to pay further payment to Divyasree Ispat with respect to dues of complainant. However, it does not discloses the accused have paid the claimed amount further, the accused contends that, because of P.W.1 was working as an employee of Divyasree Ispat, the director of the complainant has tagged his message to P.W.1, as such whatever the payment made to Divyasree 18 C.C.No.54564/2016 Ispat which is the group of complainant company, accordingly, they claims to have discharged the claimed amount. But, during the course of cross examination, it is elicited that, initially, the accused used to make payments to the complainant company through RTGS. However, due to technical problem with a bank RTGS payments were returned to them. Further D.W.1 says that, accused company has paid some amount by way of cash and then the complainant given principal company account, accordingly they transferred the payment to the account of principal company of the complainant. However, the accused has not produced any statement of account nor receipt to substantiate either the payment made to the principal company account or to the P.W.1.
23. Further the D.W.1 clearly admitted, he has receipts to substantiate his payment by cash to P.W.1, but not produced the same. So, though he claims there are receipts but, failed produce the same, which stands proved that, payments by way of cash as claimed by the accused is nothing but false and even the complainant specifically asked the A2, about how much the amount paid through RTGS and by cash But, the accused not 19 C.C.No.54564/2016 certain about payments made to the principal company, even it is elicited that, the accused used to place it order through email to the complainant company and also making payments directly to the complainant company, but as per the instruction of P.W.1, they made payments to Divyasree Ispat. However, during the course of cross examination he clearly admits :
"It is true to suggest that, RB steel and alleged Divyasree Ispat are different companies the said companies the witnesses voluntaries that, Divyasree Ispat with a principal company of complainant and complainant company is its distributor, but, I do not remember whether the complainant had requested me in writing to make payment to Divyasree Ispat",
24. So it is clear that, during the course of its business, the accused used to make payment to the complainant account. But, only on the instruction of P.W.1, the accused claims to have made payments to Divyasree Ispat, but admitted that, there was no written instruction from the side of complainant company to make payment. Even the accused, though claims the P.W.1 is an employee 20 C.C.No.54564/2016 of Divyasree Ispat, but, nothing document produced to show that, he was working as coordinator in Bangalore, as an employee of Divyasree Ispat. The accused to prove the contention of P.W.1 that he was working at Divyasree Ispat company relied upon the copies print out of email correspondence Ex.D.2 to 6. wherein it can be seen that, Ex.D2 email correspondence was held in between one Ramesh Adiga and A2, likewise, Ex.D.3 email correspondence held in between the P.W.1 Rajiv and A2, but the name of the company has been shown as TMT, likewise in Ex.D.4 also disclose the same and Ex.D.5 e mail correspondence held in between one Narendra Chowdary and the A2, merely because, the mail correspondence was tagged with P.W.1 mail it does not meant that, the accused had made payments to Divyasree Ispat, because the accused not proved that, the said mail has been officially sent by the complainant company and Narendra Chowdry is actively involving the day to day business of complainant company. Therefore, based on Ex.D. 2 to 5 court cannot believe the contention of the accused that, P.W.1 was an employee of Divyasree Ispat, as they are not admissible document with regard to P.W.1 and also the alleged repayment. Therefore, except these 21 C.C.No.54564/2016 mails and oral say of the accused, absolutely there is no material on record to prove that the accused have paid outstanding amount to complainant. In absence, any documentary evidence, the contention of the accused that P.W.1 is employee of Divyasree Ispat and as per the instruction of P.W.1, accused company has made payment of Rs.16,50,000/ to the Divyasree Ispat company towards the material supplied by the complainant company cannot be acceptable. Therefore in absence of that, the accused has failed to prove the alleged payment.
25. Considering the entire materials on record, the accused company has admitted that, Ex.P.2 cheque pertains to A1 company, A2 is the authorized signatory of A1, A3 is one of the directors of A1 company, despite the complainant claims that, the A3 also involved in day to day affairs of A1 company the A3 has not challenged or denied that, she did not have any role to play about the claimed transaction and day to day business of A1, as such as per section 141 of NI. Act., A3 being the one of the directors was responsible for business of A1 and also liable for this claim as the accused does not dispute cheque in question pertains to A1 company. However, 22 C.C.No.54564/2016 they contends that, the cheque was issued for a security, but when, why what purpose the cheque was issued has not been stated by the accused and not produced document to that effect. Accordingly, the defense of the accused cannot be acceptable, as held supra the accused does not disputes the business relationship with the complainant and also the invoices raised by the Ex.P.8 to 21 and its outstanding amount of Rs.18,00,720/ but they claims that, they have have made payments to Divyasree Ispat company as per the instruction of P.W.1 who was the coordinator and employee of Divyasree Ispat at Bangalore with the complainant company, which is groups of company of complainant along with TMT company, but to substantiate the alleged payments of Rs.16,50,000/ to Divyasree Ispat company and also Divyasree Ispat, TMT company are the groups of company of complainant nothing has produced, therefore in absence of that, the arguments about the complainant averments that, the complainant company is a consignee of Divyasree Ispat as such the contention of the complainant about different entitle cannot be acceptable is concern, it is well settled law that, merely because a consignor of complainant company it doesn't mean that, 23 C.C.No.54564/2016 they are one and the same, as admitted by the accused, accused company used to place its order with complainant company and also make payments to the complainant company, therefore in absence of payment to the complainant company question of alleged Devasree Ispat, TMT company are groups of company does not arise, as such I do not found any valid force in the arguments of the accused. Hence, in view of the admission of the accused that, they had outstanding towards supply of Iron, Steel and TMT bars by the complainant for tune of Rs.18,00,720/ so, the accused claims that, they have paid the amount of Rs.16,50,000/ transferred and some amount by cash to the P.W.1 but failed to establish the payments as claimed. Accordingly, they failed to establish that the claimed liability not exist and cheque in question issued to security for business transaction. Hence, failed to brought out believable suitable materials to dislodge the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant has successfully proved the guilt of the accused. Hence the A1 to 3 is found guilty of o/p/u/s 138 of N.I.Act.
24C.C.No.54564/2016
26. So, far as sentence and compensation is concern, it is well settled law an offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act is primarily compensatory in nature, Punitive is secondary. Therefore, considering above settled principal with the facts and circumstances of the case admittedly as per Ex.P.8 to P 21 complainant company has supplied materials to the accused for a worth of Rs.18,00,720/ in the year 2015, since then the accused company withheld the payments to the complainant company. Therefore, considering the nature of transaction duration of pendency, I am of the opinion that, if the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.19,05,720/ that would meet the ends of justice, accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.19,05,720/ out of that the complainant is entitled for sum of Rs.19,00,720/ as a compensation as per Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. 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 answered the above point in "Affirmative".
27. Point No.2: In view of above finding to Point No.1, I proceed to pass following;
25C.C.No.54564/2016 ORDER Acting under section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused No.1 to 3 convicted of the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
The accused Nos.1 to 3 sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.19,05,720/ (Rupees Nineteen lakh five thousand seven hundred and twenty only) in default, the accused No.2 and 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 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/Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C., the complainant is entitled for Rs. 19,00,720/.
The bail bonds and surety bond of the accused No.2 and 3 shall stand cancelled. Office is directed to furnish a free copy of the judgment to the accused u/s 363(1) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 5th day of February, 2022) (M.Vijay), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.
26C.C.No.54564/2016 ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 : M/s R.B.Steel & Alloys (India)(P) Ltd.,
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Certified true copy of minutes Ex.P.2 : Original cheque Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P.3 : Bank return memo Ex.P.4 : Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P.5 : Three postal receipts Ex.P.6&7 : Two postal track copies Ex.P.8 to 21 true copies of 14 invoices Ex.P.8(a) to 21(a) Seal and signature of the accused Ex.P.22 to 25 4 fright letters Ex.P.26 five weightbridge receipts
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 : Mr.Kalla Venkateshwarulu
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 : Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.D.2 to 6 five email copies (M.Vijay), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.27
C.C.No.54564/2016 (Order pronounced in the open court vide separate Judgment) 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.53,05,000/ (Rupees Fifty three lakh five thousand only) in default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 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/Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. the complainant is entitled for Rs.53,00,000 /.28
C.C.No.54564/2016 The bail bonds and surety bond of the accused shall stand canceled.
Office is directed to furnish a free copy of the judgment to the accused.
XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.