Bangalore District Court
And To Proceed In Accordance With Law vs I Shall Examine The Probability Of ... on 29 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES & ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JANUARY 2020
PRESENT: Smt. K.UMA., B.A.L.,LL.B.,.
VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& ACMM, Bengaluru.
C C NO. 1711 OF 2018
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.1973
1. Sl. No. of the case : C. C. No.1711 of 18
2. The date of commission of
the offence : -
3. Name of the Complainant : Sri. S.Shashibushan Reddy,
S/o Shivarama Reddy,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at No.38, 2nd Cross,
DEE Enclave,
Near Godwin School
Sahakaranagar Post,
Bengaluru-560 092.
(By M/s.Southern Law
Associates, Advocate)
4. Name of the Accused : Sri. Thippe Gowda,
S/o Krishna Gowda,
Aged about 50 years,
Sree Lakshinarashima Swamy
Nilaya, No.60, 1st B Main Road,
2
SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18
Venkate Gowda Layout,
Hebbal Kempapura,
Bengaluru-560 024.
(By Sri.A.V.Raghavendra &
others, Advocates.)
5. The offence complained : Under Section 138 of the
of or proves Negotiable Instruments
Act
6. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.
and his examination
7. Final order : Accused is Acquitted.
8. Date of such order : On 29-01-2020
for the following;
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed against the Accused under Sec.200 of Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance of the offence taken on presentation of the private complaint and ordered to register the criminal case, as there were prima facie materials to proceed against the Accused.
3
SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18
2. The brief facts of the Complainant's case is that; It is the contention of the Complainant that, he himself and the accused were well known to each other for the past 10 years. Out of this friendship, the accused in the year 2009, had approached him for financial help for the procurement of building materials, agreeing to repay the same along with reasonable interest. Accordingly, in the month of March 2009, he paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused by way of account payee cheque and also some amount by way of cash and the same was acknowledged by the accused. But after the receipt of said amount, the accused failed to pay the interest to him. In this regard, in spite of several requests and demand for repayment of principal amount as well as interest amount, the accused when on postponing the same on one or the other grounds and finally in the month of December 2017, he issued a post dated cheque bearing No.355007 dated 25.01.2018, for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Bhuvaneshwarinagar, Bengaluru in his favour.
4
SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18
3. On presentation of said cheque through his banker i.e. Syndicate Bank, Central Account Office, Sahakaranagar branch, Bengaluru, for encashment, but the same was returned with an endorsement "Insufficient Funds" on 31.01.2018. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued legal notice on 14.02.2018 through RPAD under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the NI Act"), to the Accused to make payment of the cheque amount. Despite due notice, Accused failed to pay the amount covered under cheque within statutory period of notice of demand. Hence, this complaint.
4. On being served the summons and on issuance of warrant the Accused appeared through her counsel and got released him on bail. Plea of the Accused recorded by explaining the substances of accusation. Accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. The Accused filed application under Section 145(2) of N.I Act, seeking permission to cross-examine Complainant and to proceed in accordance with Law. 5
SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 Accordingly, the application is allowed and the Accused is permitted to cross-examine Complainant/PW-1.
5. The Complainant in support of the case got examined himself as PW-1 and produced nine documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. After closure of Complainant's evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the Complainant. The Accused has denied the prosecution version in toto. The Accused got examined him as DW1 and no documents got marked
6. Heard arguments of both the parties.
7. The learned counsel for Accused has also relied on the following list of citations in support of the case.
• LAWS (GAU) 2013 10 21 • LAWS(DLH) 2012 8 470 • LAWS (KAR) 2015 2 1 • Crl.Appeal No.302 of 2010 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
8. Following points that arise for my consideration;
1. Whether Complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused has 6 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What order?
9. My findings to the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1: The Complainant - Sri. SHashi Bhushan Reddy in proof of his contention, got examined himself as PW1, who filed affidavit in-lieu of oral examination-in-chief. PW1 has deposed in consonance with the averments of the complaint. According to PW1 the cheque - Ex.P1 has been issued by the Accused towards repayment of hand loan. The cheque on presentation returned as "Insufficient Funds" as per the bank endorsement produced at Ex.P2. Hence, he got issued legal notice which is produced at Ex.P3 through RPAD vide postal receipt and courier receipt marked at Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, which was served on the Accused as per Ex.P6 - Postal acknowledgement. PW-1 has produced his bank statement at 7 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 Ex.P7 and on demand Pro-Note at Ex.P8. This is the evidence placed by the Complainant.
11. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the Complainant, it reveals that the complaint is filed well within time in accordance with the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act. Moreover, there is no dispute with regard to taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N I Act.
12. With this evidence of Complainant and defence of Accused, I shall examine the probability of defense put forth by the Accused in the light of principles enunciated in the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatreya G Hegde, reported in 2008 (4) SCC 54. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus; Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption in regard to the second aspect of the matter. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that, the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability. 8
SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18
13. The learned counsel for Accused during course of arguments has relied on following decisions; LAWS(DLH) 2012 8 470 Vipul Kumar Gupta Vs. Vipin Gupta The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision has held thus;
"During the Cross examination, the appellant admitted that he is an Income Tax payee and maintains books of accounts regularly about his Income and Expenditure but he had not shown the loan given to the respondent/accused. He neither did mention, either in the complaint or in the evidence, the date, month or the year when he was approached by the respondent/accused for the grant of loan nor did he obtain any receipt from the respondent/accused of having taken the loan."
LAWS(GAU) 2013 10 21 Amulya Patowary Vs. Amarendra Choudhury The Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in its decision has held thus;
"The cheque, as the learned lower appellate Court has pointed out, was issued more than 3(three) years after the loan had been obtained. In other words, according to the learned trial Court, the cheque in question, was issued on a date beyond the prescribed period of 9 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 limitation for recovery of the loan, which had been taken by the Accused on 21.03.2003."
LAWS (KAR) 2015 2 1 B.Shivaram Vs. M.V.Venkatesh The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its decision has held thus;
"It is true that, the accused admitted his signatures on the two cheques but he has disputed borrowing of Rs.3.00 lakh and issue of the cheques in discharge of the said amount. During the course of evidence, it has come on record that the other writings in the cheques are in different ink. Considering all these materials on record, the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the complainant was not at all having financial capacity to advance Rs.3.00 lakh to the accused and ultimately, acquitted by the accused by dismissing the complaint."
14. It is necessary to point out the mandatory presumption to be raised in respect of negotiable instrument as contemplated under Negotiable Instruments Act. Indisputably, a mandatory presumption is required to be raised in terms of 10 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 Section 118 (b) and Section 139 of the Act. Section 138 of the Act has three ingredients viz.:
1. that there is a legally enforceable debt;
2. that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes a legally enforceable debt; and
3. that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds.
15. At the outset, an essential ingredient of Section 138 of N I Act is that the cheque in question must have been issued towards legally enforceable debt. Under Section 118 of the Act, a presumption shall be raised regarding consideration, date, transfer, endorsement and regarding holder in the case of negotiable instruments. Even under Section 139 of the Act, a rebuttable presumption shall be raised that, the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of legally enforceable debt. These presumptions are mandatory provisions that are required to be raised in case of negotiable instruments. 11
SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18
16. On going through the citations cited by the Accused and arguments canvassed by them, it is relevant to point out that in the present nature of cases the court has to determine whether version of Complainant is true or the theory put-forth by the Accused is true?.
17. Keeping in mind the position of law as stated supra, let me deviate to appreciate the evidence of PW-1 deposed during cross-examination. On appreciation of the evidence of the Complainant deposed during cross-examination, it indicates that, he is a Software Engineer since 2003. One AshwathNarayana is his uncle through whom he came in contact with the Accused. The Accused had requested for financial help through his uncle in the month of March 2009. As on the date of payment of money to the Accused he did not get any documents for having advanced loan to the Accused. He is an Income Tax Assessee as the Income Tax deducted from his salary and he did not personally submit Income Tax Returns.
18. On further appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 deposed during cross-examination, it reveals that, PW-1 has 12 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 deposed that he has documents to establish that, he had funds in the month of March 2009. However, according to PW-1, he had paid money to the Accused by way of cheque as well as through cash and he do not have documents to show that he had money with him at home. PW1 has deposed that, he demanded Accused fro repayment of loan on many occasions from the year 2009 till December 2017. He did not issue any notice to the Accused for repayment of loan. PW1 has deposed that, it is true what he stated in Complaint about issuance of cheque after payment of money to the Accused after 8 years.
19. On further appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 deposed during cross-examination, it reveals that, he is not aware of the fact that, the loan has to be repaid within 3 years from the date of lending loan. He did not demand and waited for repayment of loan by the Accused as he was having belief. PW1 has deposed that, there is a difference in ink as well as style in writing the cheque and ink used to put the signature on the cheque. PW1 has denied to the suggestion given to the effect that, the Accused did not do any money transactions with him 13 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 as well as the cheque which was given towards security in the bank where his uncle Ashwath Narayana Reddy was working and the cheque has been misused by Ashwath Narayana Reddy and through him the case has been filed against the Accused.
20. On further appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 deposed during cross-examination, it reveals that, the Ex.P7, Syndicate Bank Statement is for the year 2009. PW1 has deposed that, he do not remember the date of execution of Ex.P8 On Demand Pro note. PW1 has deposed that, the Accused has executed On Demand Pro Note in the month of December 2017. PW-1 has deposed that, as per Ex.P8 On Demand Pro Note there is an entry to show that, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid on 01.12.2017 and the same thing is not stated in complaint, affidavit or in legal notice. The On demand Pro Note has been written by his uncle Ashwath Narayana Reddy and the address is not mentioned in the DP note. None has signed has witness to the said document. All further possible suggestions have been denied by this witness.
14
SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18
21. On the other hand the Accused in proof of his defense got examined him as DW1. In chief- examination DW1 has deposed that, he is not aware of the Complainant. After appearing before the court he came to know that, the Complainant herein is Son-in-Law of Ashwath Narayana Reddy. DW1 has deposed that, as deposed by Complainant no money is transferred to his bank account and the say of Complainant is false. DW1 has deposed that, he did not issue any bond or cheques to the Complainant. The cheque and the surety bond which is produced in this case was issued by him to the bank at the time of borrowing loan. The said document has misused in this case. Accordingly, he prays for his acquittal. It is relevant to note that, the complainant did not cross-examine DW-1, to disprove the defence raised by the accused.
22. On over all appreciation of the evidence of Complainant and Accused with documentary evidence, it is evident that, according to Complainant, he lent loan to the Accused in the month of March 2009. The disputed cheque said to have been issued by the Accused in the month of December 15 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 2017 cheque dated 25.01.2018 i.e. to say, the cheque has been issued after lapse of 8 years. According to Accused, he raised housing loan and that time, he issued the disputed cheque towards security and the said cheque has been misused by the Complainant's uncle namely, Ashwathnarayana Reddy, who was Manager of the Syndicate Bank. According to Accused, he cleared the bank loan and enquired bank officials to return the cheque but the same is not returned. This story of accused is not substantiated with any documentary proof, hence, the same cannot be believable. The Accused did not submit any documents in support for having raised housing loan.
23. It is relevant to point out that, the Accused did not take any action against the Complainant nor against the bank officials, about misuse of cheques if the version of Accused is true. After bouncing of cheque, the Complainant had sent legal notice. The same has been served on Accused and no doubt the Accused did not dispute the address mentioned in the legal notice and nor he replied to the legal notice. Therefore, the defense put forth by the Accused is not trust worthy. The 16 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 Accused did not put forth probable defense before the court. As appreciated herein above, according to the Complainant himself, had lent loan to the accused in the year March 2009. The learned counsel for defense as contended that, the Complaint is filed under Section 138 of NI Act, which not legally recoverable debt and the same is time barred debt. According to accused, the cheque is not issued for legally recoverable debt.
24. In this connection, on going through the decision, in case of A.V.Murthy V/s Nagabushan, the Honb'le Apex Court, has set aside the order passed by the learned Senior Judge and the High court and remanded matter to the magistrate to proceed with the Complaint in accordance with law. In the para 7, the Honbl'e Apex court as held that;
"In view of Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, 1872 and in the presence of documentary evidence, which might amount to acknowledgement reviving the period of limitation, the present case was not one where the cheque was drawn in respect of a debt or liability, which was completely barred from being enforced under law. However, these are matters to be 17 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 agitated before the Magistrate by way of defence of the respondent. But at this stage of the proceedings, to say that the cheque drawn by the respondent was in respect of a debt or liability, which was not legally enforceable, was clearly illegal and erroneous."
The said observation of Honb'le Apex Court is not on merits and the Apex court did not laid any law in respect of time barred debt. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the present case as facts and circumstances of the said case and the present case facts differs. The Honb'le Apex Court in its decision has held that, a belief of non existence of such a date or liability would be agitated as the defense before the trial court.
25. The learned counsel for Accused has relied on a decision of Honbl'e High Court of Karnataka in case of D.Shivaram V/s Venkatesh reported in laws (KAR) 2015 21. The Honbl'e High Court has observed that, "the other writings in the cheques are in different ink. Therefore, the say of Complainant is not believable".
18
SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18
26. In this case, the alleged transactions involved huge amount. Therefore, the initial burden is on the Accused and it is equally necessary to know as to how the Complainant advanced such huge amount to Accused. In this regard, it is not out of place to rely on the decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 278 (John K John V/s Tom Verghees and another) in this decision, the Honb'le Supreme Court has observed that;
"The presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act, could be raised in respect of some consideration and burden is on the Complainant to show that, he had paid amount shown in the cheque. When ever there is huge amount shown in the cheque, though the initial burden is on the Accused, it is equally necessary to know how the Complainant advance the huge amount".
27. At this stage, it is not out of place to place reliance on a decision reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 99 in the case of K.Subramani Vs. K. Damodara Naidu. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision has held thus;
"Legally recoverable debt not proved as complainant could not prove source of income from which alleged loan was made to accused."19
SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 As held in the above decision, the Complainant did not furnish his bank account or documents to establish he had sufficient funds to make payment of amount. As per the principles laid down in the above 2 decisions, it is incumbent upon the Complainant to prove his financial capacity.
28. The On demand Pro-Note produced at Ex.P8, is issued in the year 2017, by acknowledging receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- on 01-12-2017 and the same is disputed by the accused. The Complainant did not show account of the amount said to have been paid to the accused. Therefore, it means the said alleged amount is unaccounted amount. In this connection it is not out of place to place a reliance on a decision reported in 2014(3) DCR 760 (Vijay Kundanlal Sharma V/s Satyavan Bikaji Jadvan and another) the Honb'le court has held that;
"Un accounted cash amount is not legally enforceable debt or liability within the meaning of explaining to section 138 of N.I.Act.
In the instant case, as stated herein above, the Complainant did not produce any documents to show how the cheque amount is 20 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the decisions cited herein above clearly applicable to the case on hand.
29. On appreciation of entire evidence of both Complainant and Accused, the Accused has created some shadow of doubt in the case of Complainant. It is law that, it is not necessary to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The degree of proof has to be explained, as held in the decision reported in 2011(3) KCCR 1825 (United Distributors Mangalore V/s Geetha K Ray), the Hon'ble Court has held that, "The Accused in an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act is not expected to prove his defense beyond reasonable doubt as he expected by Complainant in criminal trial."
30. In another case reported in 2011(1) DCR 135 (Mssrs, Barclay Bank PLC V/s. Rajkumar Sharma), the Hon'ble Court has held that, "In cases under Section 138 of N.I.Act, if two views are possible then version in favour of Accused is to be accepted."
21
SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 As per the principles laid in the above 2 cases, the Accused has clearly rebutted the presumption which lies in favour of Complainant. The Complainant failed to prove his case with cogent evidence. The Accused has laid rebuttable evidence through oral and documentary evidence, which supports his stand at the same time, it creates genuine doubt in the case of Complainant and the same is reasonable doubt. The burden shifted on the Complainant to clear all these doubts. But the Complainant has failed to do so.
31. In Rangappa V/s Mohan case, the Honb'le Supreme Court has held that, to rebut the presumption of Section 139 of N.I. Act, the standard of proof for doing so is that of preponderance of probability. Therefore, if Accused is able to raise the probable defense, which creates doubt about existence of legally enforceable debt or liability, the presumption can fail. The Accused can deny all the materials submitted by the Complainant in order to raise such a defense, the Accused need to adduce the evidence of his or her own.
22
SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18
32. No doubt the cheque is primary loan document to prove the liability. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, initial presumption under Section 118(A) and 139 of N I Act, would raise in favour of the Complainant that, the said instrument was issued by the Accused for consideration to discharge legally enforceable debt. This presumption is rebuttable presumption. The Accused by placing the cogent and acceptable materials rebutted the said presumption. Even if presumption is not rebutted in order to attract Section 138 of N.I. Act, the debt has to be a legally enforceable debt as is clear from the explanation to Section 138, which provides that, for the purpose of said section the debt or other liability means legally enforceable debt or other liability.
33. At this point let me rely on a decision in case of in the case of K.V.Subba Reddy Vs. N. Raghava Reddy. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its decision has held thus;
"On consideration of aforesaid judgments, I find that the view taken by Kerala High Court in Sasseriyil Joseph's case, has been confirmed by the Supreme 23 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 Court in Special leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1785/2001.
There are no reasons for me to differ from the view taken by the Kerala High Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to appeal(Crl.) No.1785/2001.
In the case on hand, even if the averments of complaint and evidence of complainant are accepted at thief face value, dishonored cheque was issued on 30.10.2001 to discharge the debt, which has become due on 20.05.1997. Therefore, I hold dishonored cheque was issued to discharge time barred debt".
34. At this point let me rely on another decision in case of in the case of K.N.Raju Vs. Manjunath K.V. (LAW (KAR) 2018 333). The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its decision has held thus;
"Admittedly, Ex.P12 was executed on 29.10.2004 and the cheques in question bear the dates as 28.05.2008. Learned counsel for the 24 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 respondent/ accused pointed out that as on the date mentioned in the cheque the amount alleged to have been borrowed by the accused under Ex.P12 had already become time barred debt and hence, it an not be said that as on the date the cheque bear, there was a legally enforceable debt was in existence."
35. It is relevant to note that, on going through the facts and circumstances of the above cited cases and the facts of the present case are similar, in connection to time barred debt. The observations made in the above two cases are squarely applicable to the present case on hand. As stated in the above two cases, where the debt is time barred debt, hence, the cheque can not be said that as on the date the cheque bear, and there was legally enforceable debt was in existence.
36. Further it is relevant to rely on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2001 Crl.L.J. 24 (Sasseriyil Joseph V/s Devassia), wherein it is held that, "Section 138 of the Act, is attracted only if there is legally recoverable debt and it 25 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 cannot be said that, time barred debt is legally recoverable debt".
37. In the instant case, as discussed supra the loan was lent by the complainant was in the year 2009 and the cheque was issued in the year 2018. That is to say almost after 8 years, the disputed cheque said to have been issued by the accused. Therefore, I can not consider that the cheque is issued for legally recoverable debt. The complainant did not take any kind action against the accused for about 5 years. Furthermore, the complainant did not produce any documents to show that he had sufficient means to advance loan to the accused as on the date of lending loan. All these facts leads to doubt with regard to existence of debt as on the date of issuance of cheque.
38. It is relevant to state that the Complainant deposed during cross examination that the subject cheque was issued by the Accused in repayment of loan. In this connection it is not out of place to rely on a decision reported in 2010(2) K.L.J. 284 26 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 in the case of B. Girish Vs. S. Ramaiah. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its decision has held thus;
"In the case on hand, it is the specific defence of the Accused that there was no monetary transaction between him and the Complainant and that he has not received any loan from the Complainant at any point of time and the cheque was not issued for discharge of any debt or liability. Admittedly, the Complainant had no financial capacity to pay Rs.50,000/- nor he had any savings. In the absence of any evidence placed by the Complainant, it is highly difficult to believe that he had borrowed money from a Credit Co-operative Society and others for the purpose of lending the loan to the Accused. In addition to this, except the cheque in question, there is no other documentary evidence to show that the Complainant had lent Rs.50,000/- to the Accused and the Accused had acknowledged the receipt of the same. No contemporary documents have come into existence. When a substantial amount of Rs.50,000/- was lent, it is reasonable to expect that the creditor would insist on the debtor to execute some document evidencing such transaction. Absence of any such documentary evidence would create great amount of doubt about the genuineness of the transaction.27
SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 Section 269 (ss) of the Income - Tax Act, 1961 insists that all transactions involving Rs.20,000/- and above, should be through 'account payee cheques'. All these circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned Magistrate are sufficient to hold that the defence of the Accused is highly probable and that the Accused has rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act".
39. As observed in the above decision, it is incumbent upon the Complainant to support his financial capacity and payment of money through bank to Accused with documentary proof. If at all the Complainant had paid money to Accused, then it must be an unaccounted amount.
40. It is relevant to point out that Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, provides for the initial presumption in favour of the Complainant unless the contrary is proved. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. In the instant case the initial presumption has been rebutted by the probable defense taken by the Accused by cross-examining PW-1, as appreciated supra. In the result, I am of the considered opinion 28 SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18 that the Complainant has failed to prove that the Accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answer point No. 1 in the negative.
41. POINT No.2:- In the light of the reasons on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the Accused is hereby Acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond and surety bond of the Accused is hereby stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer through online, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 29th day of January 2020).
(K.UMA ) VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, Bengaluru.
29
SCCH-2 CC.1711 of 18
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:
PW1 : Sri. S.Shashibushan Reddy,
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of Accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo
Ex.P.3 : Copy of Legal notice
Ex.P.4 & P5 : Postal receipt and Courier receipt
Ex.P.6 : Postal acknowledgement
Ex.P.7 : Bank Statement
Ex.P.8 : On Demand Pro-Note.
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
DW1 : Sri.Thippe Gowda LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:
-NIL-
(K.UMA ) VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, Bengaluru