Bangalore District Court
Sri Ravi Shankar vs Mr. C.Sathis Kumar on 14 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2015
PRESENT: SRI. NAGARAJEGOWDA.D, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.
C.C.No.32770/2014
Complainant : Sri Ravi Shankar,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No.539,
1st floor, " Srinidhi",
53rd cross, 3rd block,
Rajajinagara,
Bangalore -10.
(By Sri SVS Law chambers,Adv.)
V/s.
Accused : Mr. C.Sathis Kumar,
Son of Chenniah,
Aged major,
R/at No.16, 1st main,
1st cross, Cholurpalya,
Magadi Road,
Bangalore - 23.
(By Sri Srinivas & Asso.Adv.)
Date of Institution 25-9-2014.
Offence complained of U/s 138 of N.I.Act.
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Accused is acquitted
Date of Order : 14.09.2015.
2 C.C.No.32770/2014
The complainant filed the private complaint u/s 200 of
Cr.P.C alleging that, the accused person has committed an offence
punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act.
REASONS
The brief facts of the complainant case is as follows:-
2. The complainant and accused are the friends known each
other since several years, The accused and the complainant were
both into business of trading granites and in this regard, the
complainant had supplied granites blocks procured from different
quarries and supplied to the accused on credit basis. In turn
accused had supplied the same to different factories like Amogh
Granites, Paxal Granites, and Sri Vinayaka Granites etc. During
the year 2011, the credits of the accused towards complainant
were incrased upto 25 lakhs and the payments were due to
complainant by the accused. When complainant was in dire need
of funds for his business hence the complainant started
demanding the accused person for the return of the said amount
but accused used to postpone the same on one or other reasons.
Finally the accused persons agreed to pay the aforesaid
outstanding amount due of Rs.23,00,000/- and accordingly in
3 C.C.No.32770/2014
order to clear the liability, issued cheque No.789229 dated 19-6-
2014 for Rs.23,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank , National
Law school of India University, Nagarabhavi Bangalore - 72 with
the assurance that the said cheque will be honoured on its
presentation on 23-7-2014. After giving intimation to the accused,
the complainant presented the aforesaid cheque for encashment
through his bankers Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Rajajinagara
branch, but the said cheque returned unpaid with an
endorsement to that effect ' "Funds insufficient" on 24-7-2014.
Immediately the complainant approached the accused intimating
about the dishonour of the cheque and asked to pay the amount
but the accused did not cared to pay the said amount and hence
, the complainant left with no alternative got issued legal notice
on 20-8-2014 to the accused, calling upon the accused to pay the
cheque amount . The said notice is returned unserved to the
accused with the shara" intimation delivered" unclaimed but the
accused has not complied the notice and thus accused committed
the offence punishable u/s. 138 of NI Act and punish the accused
in accordance with law and to award suitable compensation as
per Sec.357 of Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice and equity.
4 C.C.No.32770/2014
3. The accused appeared before this court and contest this
case by denying the entire case of complainant at the time of
recording of Plea of Accusation . In order to prove the case of
complainant, he adduced his oral evidence as PW-1 by way of
affidavit and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and this PW-1 has been
fully cross examined by the accused counsel and thus
complainant closed her side evidence.
4. There afterwards, the accused examined u/s.313 of
Cr.P.C. in which, he totally denied the entire case of complainant .
He in support of his denial, he submits his side no defence
evidence and thus closed his side defence evidence.
5. In support of the case of complainant, learned counsel
for the complainant submitted written arguments by narrating
the facts and circumstances of the case and relied on the
decisions reported in: 2013(5) KCCR 3716, 2012(2) DCR 313 and
2014(3) DCR 132. Accordingly, prays for convicting the accused in
accordance with law.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
accused and he submits that complainant had not proved the
alleged guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence,
accused is entitled for acquittal.
5 C.C.No.32770/2014
7. In order to prove the case of complainant, the
complainant adduced his oral evidence as PW-1 filed by way of
affidavit. In which, he reiterated complaint contention and got
marked Ex.P1 cheque and identified the signature of the accused
as per Ex.P1(a). Further got marked Ex.P2 is an endorsement
issued by the bankers stating that Ex.P1 cheque is dishonoured
due to ""Funds insufficient". Ex.P3 is the copy of legal notice .
This notice does contain the signature of the complainant except
his counsel . Ex.P4 is the RPAD postal receipt. Ex.P5 is the RPAD
postal cover is returned with the postal shara " Intimation
delivered unclaimed " etc. As per the case of complainant , inspite
of issuance of notice , the accused did not reply or comply the
notice .
8. The accused has denied the entire case of complainant .
In support of his denial, the accused counsel cross-examined the
PW-1. The relevant portion of the cross-examination reads as
under:
£Á£ÀÄ UÁæ£ÉÊmï mÉæÃrAUï PÀ¼ÉzÀ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄnjÃAiÀįïì£ÀÄß
¸Àwñï PÀA¥À¤UÉ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ §UÉÎ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖ®è. E¥ÀàvÀÆägÀÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ ªÀiË®åzÀ
ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆæUÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä zÁR¯É E®è. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ UÁæ£ÉÊmï ¥ÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
EnÖ®è. DgÉÄÁæAiÀÄÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà mÉæÃrAUï CxÀªÁ UÁæ£ÉÊmï ¥ÁåPÀÖj EnÖ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ
6 C.C.No.32770/2014
PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß EnÖ®è. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà CAUÀr EnÖ®è D ªÀģɬÄAzÀ¯Éà UÁæ£ÉÊmï£ÀÄß
Rjâ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ mÉæÃrAUï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ZÉPï£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀiÁr®è. CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀt PÀÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV®è.
CªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ZÉPï£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî.
On the basis of the cross-examination of PW-1 in order to
show there was a Granite supply transaction between the
complainant and the accused , the complainant has not produced
any documentary evidence except alleged cheque in question and
this accused has not issued alleged cheque for discharge of legal
liability. Hence, it is the duty of the complainant to prove his case
beyond all reasonable doubt but he failed to do so. Though the
accused did not stepped into the witness box to depose about his
case but it is the duty of the complainant to prove his case
beyond all reasonable doubt .
9. In support of the case of complainant, learned counsel for
the complainant submitted written arguments by narrating the
facts and circumstances of the case and also relied on the
following decisions reported in :
2013(5) KCCR 3716 ( S.A.Suryanarayana Vs
M.S.Devendrappa) In which the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka held that .... Legally enforceable debt or
7 C.C.No.32770/2014
liability - signature on cheque admitted to be that of
accused- presumption envisaged under sec. 118 can
legally be inferred that cheque was made in return
for consideration on date which bears- Court is
required to presume that holder of the cheque
received it for discharge of any debt or liability.
2012(2) DCR 313 between Junagadhi Power
Project Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. ) in
which Gujarath High court held that .. Dishonour of
cheque - scope of provision- Held any cheque which
is returned unpaid, which has been issued on
account for discharge of any whole or part of any
debt or other liability, it can be said that the offence
under sec. 138 of NI Act is made out.
2014(3) DCR 132 ( Vijay Power Generators Ltd.
Vs. Annai Engineering works and Ors.) In which
Delhi High court held that - Where accused failed to
discharge statutory onus placed on him to prove that
cheque in question were without consideration, then
passing conviction is justified..
On the basis of the decision coupled with the case of
complainant, the complainant failed to produce cogent and
convincing evidence to show for discharge of legal liability , the
accused issued cheque in question , same is dishonoured due to
"Funds insufficient" etc.. As per the cross-examination of PW-1,
the accused had given rebuttal evidence to the case of
8 C.C.No.32770/2014
complainant and hence, the case of complainant create doubtful
whether he really made transaction with the accused amounting
to Rs.23,00,000/- without giving corroborative evidence. Hence,
accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
Acting u/s 265 of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted from the alleged offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act.
Accused is set at liberty. His bail bond and surety bond shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of September, 2015) (NAGARAJEGOWDA.D) XXII ACMM, Bangalore city.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 : Ravi shanker Witness examined for the accused:
Nil :
List of Documents marked for the Complainant:
9 C.C.No.32770/2014Ex.P1 : Cheque Ex.P1a : Signature of the accused Ex.P2 : Endorsement Ex.P3 : Legal notice Ex.P4 : Postal receipt Ex.P5 : Postal cover
List of Documents marked for the accused:
nil :
XXII ACMM, Bangalore.