Bangalore District Court
Smt. N.Jayasudha vs Sri. R.Krishnappa on 7 March, 2020
1 C.C.No.4899/2015 J
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated:- This the 7th day of March, 2020
i.
Present: Sri.S.B.HANDRAL, B.Sc., L.L.B(SPL).,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.4899/2015
Complainant : Smt. N.Jayasudha,
W/o. Late Mohan Reddy,
Residing at No.29,
Royalshelters, 2nd cross,
3rd Phase,
Devarachikkanahalli,
IBM Post,
Bengaluru -560 076.
(Rep. by Sri K. Vijaya Kumar.,
Advs.,)
- Vs -
Accused : Sri. R.Krishnappa,
S/o. Ramaiah,
Residing at No.5,
2nd cross, Krishna Layout,
Devarachikkanahalli,
IBM Post,
Bengaluru -560 076.
(Rep. by Sri. Rasheed Khan., Adv.,)
Case instituted : 29.11.2014
2 C.C.No.4899/2015 J
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is acquitted
Date of order : 7.3.2020
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that, she and her husband and Accused are well known to each other and in view of close relationship with her husband, the Accused approached her and her husband and has taken a hand loan of Rs.25 Lakhs in the month of February 2013 for the business purpose and assured to repay Rs.50 Lakhs within a period of six months as the Accused is in dire need of money, but he did not keep his promise and failed to repay the said amount within six months, her husband during his life time approached the Accused on several days and demanded for repayment of the loan amount but Accused did not repay the said amount and her 3 C.C.No.4899/2015 J husband died on 12.9.2014 by writing the suicide note and subsequently in the last week of September 2014 Accused approached her and issued a post dated cheque bearing No. 412079 dated: 7.10.2014 drawn on Corporation bank, Sarakki layout branch, Bengaluru in her favour and requested to present it on the day mentioned in the cheque by assuring that cheque would be honoured on its presentation, believing the words of the Accused she accepted the cheque and presented for realization through her banker i.e Karnataka Bank, HSR Layout branch, Bengaluru but the said cheque came to be returned dishonoured with a shara "Account Blocked"
dated: 11.10.2014 after dishonour of the cheque she intimated the same to the Accused at that time the Accused requested her that, he would pay the cash within a period of one week due to financial crisis not able to honour the cheque and after lapse of two weeks she approached the Accused requested to repay the cheque amount but has give evasive reply, thereafter she got issued legal notice to the Accused on 7.11.2014 through her counsel by RPAD and speed post calling upon the Accused to discharge is part of the liability and Accused has not received, the notice sent by Speed post and also sent by RPAD 4 C.C.No.4899/2015 J and RPAD returned with a shara 'Not claimed', hence the Accused has willfully deliberately and negligently issued the cheque and has committed offence punishable U/s.138 and 142 of N.I. Act and she also lodged a complaint against the Accused and his friends with regard to the suicide of her husband has inspite of request and demand made by her husband Accused did not paid the amount and due to cheating committed by the Accused and other friends, her husband committed suicide and by writing a suicide note and the police had already registered the case in Crime No. 646/2014 for the offences punishable U/s.306 and 34 of IPC, hence the Accused issued cheque without depositing sufficient amount in his account and she has filed this present complainant against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Before issuing process against the accused, the Complainant has filed her affidavit-in-lieu of her sworn statement, in which, she has reiterated the averments of the complaint and produced original documents.
5 C.C.No.4899/2015 J4. Prima-facie case has been made out against the accused and summons was issued against the accused in turn he has appeared before the court and got enlarged on bail and the substance of the accusation has been read over to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. The complainant herself got examined as PW.1 by filing her affidavit evidence in lieu of oral evidence wherein she has reiterated the entire averments of the complaint. In support of her oral evidence, she has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.P.1 to P.11 i.e, Original Cheque dated: 7.10.2014 as per Ex. P.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused as per Ex.P.1(a), Bank Memo as per Ex.P.2 , the office copy of the Legal Notice as per Ex.P.3, Postal Receipts as per Ex.P.4 and P.5 respectively, copies of two returned legal notices as per Ex.P.6 and P.7, RPAD covers as per Ex.P.8 and P.9, two postal receipts as per Ex.P.10 and P.11, subsequently certified copies of the charge sheet filed in Crime No. 646/2016 by Mico Layout PS, FIR, complaint are marked as per Ex.P.12 to P.14 respectively, certified copy of the order sheet in 6 C.C.No.4899/2015 J S.C.No.881/2017 as per Ex.P.15, true copy of the statement of accounts of her husband's account in Andra Bank, as per Ex.P.16, original bank pass book of Sri.Y.H.Anand as per Ex.P.17, certified copy of the sale deed dated: 11.9.2009 as per Ex.P.18.
6. The complainant has also examined one witness by name Sri.Y.H.Anand as PW.2 on her behalf and closed her side.
7. Thereafter, the statement of the accused as required under Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and has not chosen to lead his rebuttal evidence.
8. Heard the arguments of both learned counsels for the complainant and the Accused and perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Accused i.e.1) ILR 2007 KAR 2709 in case of "M.Senguttuvan Vs. Mahadeva Swamy;
2) ILR 2009 KAR 2331 in case of " B. Indramma Vs. Sri.Eshwara' 3) 2010 (3) KCCR 1950 in case of " Amzad Pasha Vs. H.N.Lakshmana.
7 C.C.No.4899/2015 J9. On the basis of complaint, evidence of complainant and documents and having heard the arguments of both learned counsels for the complainant and the accused, the following points that are arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued cheque bearing No. 412079 dated: 7.10.2014 for Rs.50 Lakhs; drawn on Sarakki Layout Branch, Bengaluru to discharge legally recoverable debt to the complainant and when the complainant has presented a cheque for encashment through her banker but the said cheque has been dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" on 11.10.2014 and the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 7.11.2014 and inspite of it the accused has not paid the cheque amount within prescribed period there by the accused has committed an offence U/s.138 of the Negotiable instruments Act?
2. What Order?
10. The above points are answered as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:8 C.C.No.4899/2015 J
REASONS
11. Point No.1: Before appreciation of the facts and oral and documentary evidence of the present case, it is relevant to mention that under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to establish guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts however, a proceedings U/s.138 of N.I.Act is quasi criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond all reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions as envisaged U/s.118, 139 and 136 of N.I.Act. An essential ingredient of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act is that, whether a person issues cheque to be encashed and the cheque so issued is towards payment of debt or liability and if it is returned as unpaid for want of funds, then the person issuing such cheque shall be deemed to have been committed an offence. The offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act pre-supposes three conditions for prosecution of an offence which are as under:
1. Cheque shall be presented for payment within specified time i.e., from the date of issue or before expiry of its validity.
2. The holder shall issue a notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer within 9 C.C.No.4899/2015 J one month from the date of receipt of information of the bounced cheque and
3. The drawer inspite of demand notice fails to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice.
If the above said three conditions are satisfied by holder in due course gets cause action to launch prosecution against the drawer of the bounced cheque and as per Sec.142(b) of the N.I. Act, the complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arise to file complaint.
12. It is also one of the essential ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act that, a cheque in question must have been issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I.Act envisages certain presumptions i.e.,U/s.118 a presumption shall be raised regarding 'consideration' 'date' 'transfer' 'endorsement' and holder in course of Negotiable Instrument. Even Sec.139 of the Act are rebuttable presumptions shall be raised that, the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally recoverable or enforceable debt and these presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are 10 C.C.No.4899/2015 J required to be raised in cases of negotiable instrument, but the said presumptions are not conclusive and or rebuttable one, this proportion of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in catena of decisions.
13. In the present case the complainant has examined as PW.1 by filing her affidavit evidence wherein she has reiterated the entire contents of the complaint. The complainant/ PW.1 testified that, herself , her husband and Accused are well known to each other and in view of the close relationship of the Accused with her husband, the Accused approached her husband and her as he was in dire need of money had taken hand loan of Rs.25 Lakhs in the month of February 2013 for the business purpose and assured to repay the amount of Rs.50 Lakhs within a period of six months but he did not repaid the same within six months, her husband during his life time approached the Accused on several days and demanded repayment of the loan amount and subsequently the Accused did not repaid the said amount her husband died on12.9.2014 by writing the suicide note, thereafter 11 C.C.No.4899/2015 J in the last week of October 2014 the Accused approached her and issued a post dated cheque bearing No. 412079 dated: 7.10.2014 drawn on Corporation bank, Sarakki layout branch, Bengaluru in her favour and requested to present it on the day mentioned in the cheque by assuring that cheque would be honoured on its presentation. The complainant/PW.1 further testified that, believing the words of the Accused she accepted the cheque and presented for realization through her banker i.e Karnataka Bank, HSR Layout branch, Bengaluru but the said cheque came to be returned dishonoured with a shara "Account blocked" date:
11.10.2014 after dishonour of the cheque she intimated the same to the Accused at that time the Accused requested her that, he would pay the cash within a period of one week due to financial crisis not able to honour the cheque and after lapse of two weeks she approached the Accused requested to repay the cheque amount but has given evasive reply, thereafter she got issued legal notice to the Accused on 7.11.2014 through her counsel by RPAD and speed post calling upon the Accused to discharge his part of the liability and Accused has not received the notice sent by Speed post and also 12 C.C.No.4899/2015 J sent by RPAD and RPAD returned with a shara 'Not claimed' and has not paid the cheque amount.
14. In support of oral evidence the complainant has produced documents i.e., Original Cheque dated:7.10.2014 as per Ex.P.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused as per Ex.P.1(a), Bank Memo as per Ex.P.2 , the office copy of the Legal Notice as per Ex.P.3, Postal Receipts as per ex.P.4 and P.5 respectively, copies of two returned legal notices as per Ex.P.6 and P.7 , RPAD covers as per Ex.P.8 and P.9, two postal receipts as per Ex.P.10 and P.11, subsequently certified copies of the charge sheet filed in Crime No. 646/2016 by Mico Layout PS, FIR ,complaint are marked as per Ex.P.12 to P.14 respectively, certified copy of the order sheet in S.C.No.881/2017 as per Ex.P.15, true copy of the statement of accounts of her husband's account in Andra Bank, as per Ex.P.16, original bank pass book of Sri.Y.H.Anand as per Ex.P.17, certified copy of the sale deed dated: 11.9.2009 as per Ex.P.18.
15. The complainant has also examined one witness by name Sri. Y.H. Anand as PW.2 who in his 13 C.C.No.4899/2015 J evidence stated that, he know the complainant and her deceased husband since complainant is his wife's sister and during the month of May 2012 the deceased husband of the complainant approached him seeking financial assistance and requested to pay sum of Rs.50 Lakhs as hand loan, accordingly he has transferred the said amount to the deceased husband of the complainant by way of RTGS on 14.6.2012 and thereafter in the month of July 2013 he requested the deceased husband of the complainant for return of the hand loan received from him but the deceased husband of the complainant informed him that, one Krishnappa is liable to pay him a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs and assured him that, as soon as he receives money from Krishnappa he would pay to him.
16. The Accused in his defence has denied the liability in question and issuance of cheque in question towards discharge of liability in question as claimed by the complainant in the complaint. It is also defence of the Accused that, the deceased husband of the complainant during his life time was conducting the chit business and he used to collect the cheques from the persons who were invest the 14 C.C.No.4899/2015 J money in chit business and even after repayment of the chit money the deceased husband of the complainant misused the cheques without returning the said cheques which were collected by him during the chit transaction and the old cheque of the Accused has been misused by the complainant by filing this complaint, though the Accused is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.
17. It is settled law that, once the issuance of the cheque infavour of holder in due course is admitted by the drawer, presumption can be drawn about the existence of legally recoverable debt U/s.139 of N.I. Act, terms in favour of holder in due course. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa Vs. Mohan case reported in 2010(11) SCC 441, has held that, "issuance of the cheque would create a presumption with respect to legally enforceable debt in favour of the payee of the cheque", however, the said presumption is rebuttable. It is also relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India decided in Crl. Appeal No.363/2019 dated: 9-4-2019 in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring the earlier 15 C.C.No.4899/2015 J decisions of Hon'ble Apex court held that " (i). once the execution of cheque is admitted sec.139 of the Act mandates a presumption that, the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability (ii) the presumption U/s.139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the Accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. (iii) to rebut the presumption, it is open for the Accused to rely on evidence led by him or Accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise probable defence. inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely (iv) That is not necessary for the Accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, sec. 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden (v) it is not necessary for the Accused to come in the witness box to support his case". Hence, in view of the preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the above referred decisions it is clear that, signature on the 16 C.C.No.4899/2015 J cheque having been admitted, a presumption shall be raised U/s.139 of N.I. Act that, cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability. But it is also to be examined in to as to whether a probable defence was raised by the Accused. It is also held that, the Accused in order to raise probable defence it is open for him either to rely on the evidence led by him or he can also rely on the material submitted by the complainant and it is not necessary for him to come in the witness box in support of his defence. Therefore in the present case, it is to be examined as to whether the Accused has rebutted the presumption successfully or not by examining oral and documentary evidence adduced by the both parties.
18. On careful perusal of the averments of the complaint and evidence of the complainant and her witness i.e. PW.2 makes it clear that, according to the complainant the Accused during the life time of her deceased husband approached her and her deceased husband during the month of February 2013 has received a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs as hand loan for his business purpose and assured to repay an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs within a period of 6 17 C.C.No.4899/2015 J months, but he did not repay the said amount within six months and during the life time of husband of the complainant, he approached the Accused on several days requested for repayment of the said amount as agreed by the Accused and subsequently husband of the complainant died on 12.9.2014 by writing suicide note. It is also the specific claim of the complainant that, after death of her husband the Accused approached her in the last week of October 2014 had issued a post dated cheque for sum of Rs.50 Lakhs i.e Ex.C.1 in question in her favour and requested her to present it on the day mentioned in the cheque. It is also the contention of the complainant that, after receiving the cheque from the Accused she has presented the same for encashment through her banker but the said cheque was dishonoured with a shara of Account closed on 11.10.2014. Thereafter she got issued legal notice to the Accused on 7.11.2014 through RPAD and speed post but the said notice was returned with a shara as not claimed. On the other hand, the Accused has admitted the cheque in question i.e Ex.P.1 belongs to his account and signature found on the cheque is that of his signature. It is also not in dispute that, the cheque 18 C.C.No.4899/2015 J in question was presented within its validity period for encashment and same was dishonoured for the reason of Account blocked vide bank memo dated:
11.10.2014 i.e. as per Ex. P.2,hence as a matter on record the cheque in question was dishonoured for the reason of Account blocked.
19. In relation to the service of notice the Accused in his evidence has denied the service of legal notice issued by the complainant to him. The complainant in order to prove service of notice upon the Accused, has produced the documents i.e copy of the legal notice, RPAD cover along with postal receipt and acknowledgement copy of complaint given to the post master of concerned post office which are at Ex.P.3 to P.11. On perusal of the Ex.P.8 i.e., the RPAD returned cover with an endorsement of "N/C R/S" i.e. not claimed returned to sender. Hence, it goes to show that, the legal notice caused by the complainant through RPAD returned with postal endorsement of "Not claimed Returned to sender". The learned for accused during the course of cross-examination of complainant has disputed the door number mentioned in the legal notice and RPAD cover and 19 C.C.No.4899/2015 J postal acknowledgement by the complainant i.e. D.No.5 by suggesting that, the complainant has shown the house number of the Accused as No.12E, 2nd cross, Krishnappa Layout, Devarachikkanahalli, Bengaluru in the complaint lodged against the Accused in crime No. 646/2014 of Mico Layout Police Station, the complainant though she has admitted that, she has mentioned the above said address of the Accused in the complaint lodged against the Accused in Crime No. 646/2014 and also admitted that, one Babu Reddy is residing in the house No. 5, but the complainant stated that, she do not know the exact door number of the Accused.
Even for sake of discussion, if it is assumed that, the Accused is residing in house number 12E as stated by the complainant in the complaint lodged against the Accused but the house number has been wrongly mentioned as No.5 instead of No.12E, it cannot be held that, the Accused is not residing in the address as shown by the complainant in the legal notice and RPAD, postal acknowledgement as mentioned by the complainant, as the Accused has not disputed the other/rest of contents of the address of the Accused mentioned by the complainant, except the door number and even it is 20 C.C.No.4899/2015 J not suggested by the Accused that, he is/was not residing in the address mentioned in the notice and sent the notice to the Accused through RPAD, therefore only on that ground it cannot be held that, the notice which has been sent by the complainant through RPAD to the Accused has not been served on him, on the contrary when the Accused has denied the postal endorsement and return of document to the complainant, in such circumstances, the duty casted upon the Accused to rebut the presumption by establishing either by examining the post man or other competent authorities of the concerned post office as to why and for what reason the article has been returned to the complainant. in this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka decided in Crl. Revision Petition No. 219/2019 dated: 12.11.2019 in the case of Smt. Prabhavathi K.R and another Vs. Sri. Lokesh wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that " "The Accused specifically contended that, the house number is 2317 but in the notice house number has been mentioned as 2371. But the other contents have not been denied by the Accused. I am conscious of the fact that, in Bengaluru if a 21 C.C.No.4899/2015 J single digit is changed, under such circumstances, there will be long gap and it is very difficult for any postman to identify the house and deliver the said registered document to the addressee but when the complainant made out a case that, as per Ex.P.6 the notice has been duly served then under such circumstances the duty cast upon the Accused to rebut the presumption by establishing either by calling the postman or the other competent personalities who were in the post office as to whom and what place the said article has been delivered." Hence in the present case also the complainant though she has admitted that, one Baburao's House is existing with the house door No. 5 and the door number of the Accused is No.12E instead of No.5, only on that ground it cannot be held that, the notice which has been sent by the complainant through RPAD to the Accused has not been served on him, unless the accused examined the postman or other competent authorities of concerned post office in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above referred decision. In addition to the above, it is relevant here to refer the decision reported in 22 C.C.No.4899/2015 J 2007 AIR SCW 3578 in the case of C.C.Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and another., wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that " the drawer of the cheque is permitted to deposit the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of his appearance before the court in pursuance of the service of summons on him and in such situation, his defence of non service of the legal notice cannot be available to him'. Hence, in view of the said principles of law, even for sake of discussion, though there is no cogent and reliable documentary proof to substantiate the claim of the complainant with regard to address of the Accused to show there is due service of the legal notice on the Accused, in view of settled position of law by virtue of the above said decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, the Accused is not entitled to the technical defence of the alleged non service of the legal notice.
20. It is also relevant here to mention that the Accused except the denial of his address during the course of cross-examination has not produced any documents to show that, as on the date of issuance of the notice and return of the notice he was/is not residing in the address mentioned by the 23 C.C.No.4899/2015 J complainant on RPAD cover and it is also not the defence of the Accused that, the address shown by the complainant is not of his correct address . The Accused has also not produced any documents on his behalf to disprove the address mentioned by the complainant in the legal notice, and on RPAD cover is not of his correct address or he was/is not residing in the said address as on the date of issuance of notice or return of notice. Therefore in view of the said reasons it can be held that, the Accused has admitted his address mentioned by the complainant in the legal notice as well as RPAD cover as that of his correct address. Even it is not the defence of the Accused that, the postal endorsement found on Ex.P.7 is not issued by the concerned postal authorities or has been created by the complainant and the Accused has not examined concerned postal authorities to disprove the endorsement found on Ex.P.7 RPAD cover is not issued by the postal authorities. Therefore in view of non disputing of the address of the Accused in the legal notice as well as on the RPAD cover makes it clear that, the Accused has admitted that, the legal notice caused by the complainant was issued to his correct address through registered post, in such 24 C.C.No.4899/2015 J circumstances, it can be held that, the notice sent by the complainant to the correct address of the Accused is presumed to have been served on him U/s. 27 of General Clauses Act. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2011 ACD 1572 (KAR) in the case of Jayamma Vs. Lingamma, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, "Notice sent at correct address returned unclaimed - is deemed to be served. In another decision reported in 1998 KAR 1841 in the case of Shridhar M.A. Vs. Metalloy Steel Corporation and 1999 Cri.L.J. 4606 "K. Bhaskaran Vs. Vaidhanbalan., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was concerned with the question as to when the service of notice could be inferred and it was held that if there is an endorsement like 'not available in the house' 'house locked' 'shop closed' 'unclaimed' the service should be deemed to have been effected. It is also relevant here to refer the decision reported in 2008(4) Civil code cases 027 (SC) "M/s. Indo Automobiles Vs., M/s. Jai Durga Enterprises and others." wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, notice sent by registered post with acknowledgement to a correct 25 C.C.No.4899/2015 J address-service of notice has to be presumed. Therefore in view of the principles of law in the above decisions, it can be safely held that, the service of notice on accused in this case is presumed to have been served on him since in this case also the complainant has issued notice to the accused to his correct address through registered post and the said notice was returned with an endorsement of "Not claimed Returned to sender", hence the notice issued by the complainant through registered post is held to be proper service. Therefore, the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the accused in the argument that, the notice issued by the complainant was not served on the accused and the complainant has not complied the mandatory requirements of Sec.138(b) of N.I.Act and complaint is not maintainable cannot be acceptable one and with due respect to the principles of law laid down in the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka relied upon by counsel for defence is not applicable to defence of Accused as facts of the present case are not similar.
21. It is a specific case of the complainant that, the Accused during the life time of her 26 C.C.No.4899/2015 J deceased husband approached her and her deceased husband during the month of February 2013 has received a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs as hand loan for his business purpose and assured to repay an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs within a period of 6 months, but he did not repay the said amount within six months and during the life time of husband of the complainant , he approached the Accused on several days requested for repayment of the said amount as agreed by the Accused and subsequently husband of the complainant died on 12.9.2014 by writing suicide note. It is also the specific claim of the complainant that, after death of her husband the Accused approached her in the last week of October 2014 had issued a post dated cheque for sum of Rs.50 Lakhs i.e Ex.P.1 in question in her favour and requested her to present it on the day mentioned in the cheque. It is also the contention of the complainant that, after receiving the cheque from the Accused she has presented the same for encashment through her banker but the said cheque was dishonoured with a shara of Account blocked on 11.10.2014.
27 C.C.No.4899/2015 J22. In order to prove the fact of lending of loan amount of Rs.25 Lakhs by her deceased husband to the Accused, except the cheque in question the complainant has not produced any documents. The complainant/PW.1 in her cross- examination admitted that, she know one Madhusudhan, S/o.Venkatesh Reddy and she do not know the financial transaction between her husband and the said Madhusudhan and her husband borrowed an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs from one Srinivas Murthy S/o.Rama Reddy and an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs from one Hanumappa Reddy and during the life time of her deceased husband he has not repaid the said amount to the above said persons and also denied the suggestions made to her that, her husband has committed suicide due to torture given by the said persons for repayment of the loans amount advanced by them to her husband. The complainant has also admitted that, she has lodged a complaint against the Accused and others before the Mico Layout Police station in Crime No.646/2014 and the said case is pending before the Sessions court for enquiry.
.
28 C.C.No.4899/2015 J23. It is also relevant here to refer the admissions of the complainant in her cross- examination. The complainant/PW.1 in page No.1 of her cross-examination admitted as under:
£À£Àß UÀAqÀ wÃjPÉÆAqÀ 2 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ §A¢zÁÝUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ §gÉ¢nÖzÀAvÀºÀ £ÉÆÃmï §ÄPï£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÝ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀA¥ÉÃè mï PÉÆmÁÖV¤AzÀ FUÀ®Æ £À£ÀUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀjUÉ ªÁådå £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀÄvÀÛªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ fêÀAvÀ EgÀĪÁUÀ¯ÃÉ CgÉÆæAiÉÄà ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀÝ£ÀÄ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉ PÉÆnÖzÀ£Ý ÀÄ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ wÃjPÉÆAqÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¨ÁAQUÉ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæUÉ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è DzÀgÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ £ÀqÀÄªÉ ªÀ媺 À ÁgÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸éÀvÀB ºÉüÀÄvÁÛg.É
2. DgÉÆæUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß 2012 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è PÉÆqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è «ªÁ¢vÀ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝ£ÀÄ.
3. ¤¦ 3 £ÉÆÃnù£À°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸É¥ÉÖA§gï 29 C.C.No.4899/2015 J 2014 gÀ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀ°è ¥ÉÇøïÖ qÉÃmÉqï ZÉPïÌ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî EgÀÄvÀÛz.É £À£Àß ¸Àé ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ 2 £Éà ¥ÁågÁzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ CPÉÆÖA§gï 2014 gÀ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀ°è ¥ÉÇøïÖ qÉÃmÉqï ZÉPÀÌ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÀÉAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
24. The complainant/Pw.1 further at page No.5 of her cross-examination admitted that :
«ªÁ¢vÀ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛg.É .............................. ........................................ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ wÃjPÉÆAqÀ 4 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ «ªÁ¢vÀ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÁåAQUÉ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÉÃÛ £É) «ªÁ¢vÀ ZÉPÀÌ£À £ÀA§gï £É£À¦gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¸ÀvÀÛ £ÀAvÀgÀ ZÉQÌ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¢£ÁAPÀ ªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ §gÉ¢zÀÄÝ DzÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ §gÉ¢zÉÝãÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
3. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ §ÄQÌ£À M¼ÀUÀqÉ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼£À ÀÄß EnÖzÀÝgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÛ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¹QÌgÀÄvÀÛz.É Hence, the above admissions of the complainant makes it clear that, the complainant 30 C.C.No.4899/2015 J though in her legal notice , complaint and evidence stated that, the Accused was approached her and her deceased husband and has taken a hand loan of Rs.25 Lakhs in the month of February 2013 for his business purpose, but the complainant in her cross-
examination herself stated that, in the year 2012 amount was paid to the Accused , hence it goes to show that, the complainant is not specific on which date or year the alleged loan amount of Rs.25 Lakhs has been paid to the Accused, the complainant at one breath stated that, in the month of February 2013 the Accused has received loan amount but another breath stated that, the loan amount was lent in the year 2012, in such circumstances a serious doubt arises with regard to lending of huge alleged loan amount of Rs.25 Lakhs to the Accused. It is also relevant here to mention that, the complainant in her legal notice and complaint has specifically stated that, at the time of borrowing the loan amount the Accused agreed to pay Rs.50 Lakhs within a period of 6 months but during life time of her husband did not repay the said amount subsequently her husband died on 12.9.2014 by writing a suicide note and thereafter in the last week of September 2014 Accused approached her and 31 C.C.No.4899/2015 J issued a post dated cheque i.e Ex.P.1 dated:
7.10.2014 but whereas the complainant in her sworn statement and also examination-in-chief by stated that, the Accused had approached her in the last week of October 2014 had issued a post dated cheque i.e.,Ex.P.1 dated: 7.10.2014 to her, hence the date of alleged handing over of the cheque to the complainant as stated by the complainant in her legal notice, complaint and as stated by her in her evidence are inconsistent to each other, the complainant is also not sure in which month the Accused allegedly approached her and issued the alleged post dated cheque to her, as per legal notice issued by complainant is taken into consideration, it goes to show that, the Accused allegedly approached her in the last week of September 2014 but as per her evidence it goes to show that the Accused allegedly approached her in the last week of October 2014, therefore which version of the complainant is to be true and acceptable one is only known to the complainant for the reason best know to her, in such circumstances a doubt arises about the date of handing over of the alleged post dated cheque by the Accused to the complainant as per her own versions.32 C.C.No.4899/2015 J
25. It is also important to note here that, the complainant in her cross-examination admitted that, the Accused has issued the cheque in question to her husband during his life time but the said cheque has been presented by her after the death of her husband. It is also admitted that, the amount was given to the Accused in the year 2012 at that time the Accused was given the cheque in question to her husband. Hence, as per the admissions of the complainant the cheque in question was issued by the Accused in favour of her deceased husband during her life time only that too in the year 2012 but the complainant in her legal notice, complaint and evidence stated that, her husband died on 12.9.2014 by writing suicide note and subsequently after death of her husband the Accused approached her in the last week of September/October 2014 has issued post dated cheque dated; 7.10.2014 i.e., Ex.P1 and requested her to present on the date mentioned in the cheque, hence it goes to show that the complainant herself negativates her claim by admitting the fact that, the cheque in question was issued to her husband during his life time. It is also important to note here that, if the admissions of the complainant are taken to consideration that, the 33 C.C.No.4899/2015 J cheque in question was issued by the Accused to her husband in the year 2012 itself during his life time, the entire claim made by the complainant in her legal notice, complaint and evidence that after death of her husband the Accused issued post dated cheque i.e Ex.P.1 in her favour is false one i.e she herself negativates her claim by admitting the fact that, the cheque in question was given to her husband during his life time. If the averments of the complaint are taken into consideration i.e. the cheque in question was issued by the Accused to her after the death of her husband i.e in the last week of September 2014, then the complainant would not have stated in her cross-examination that, the cheque in question was issued by the Accused to her husband in the year 2012 during his life time, in such circumstances it can be held that, the complainant has miserably failed to prove that, the Accused has issued a post dated cheque in question to her either in the last week of September 2014 as stated in her legal notice and complaint or in the last week of October 2014 as stated in her evidence in her favour towards discharge of the alleged repayment of the amount as agreed by him i.e. total amount of Rs.50 Lakhs.
34 C.C.No.4899/2015 J26. It is also important to note here that, the complainant in her complaint and evidence stated that, inspite of several request and demand made by her husband during his life time the Accused did not paid the said amount as agreed by him and due to cheating committed by the Accused and his other friends her husband written a suicide note and died, after his death the Accused approached her and issued a post dated cheque i.e Ex.P.1 in her favour for sum of Rs.50 Lakhs and requested to present it on the day mentioned in the cheque and thereafter she has presented the said cheque through her banker but it was dishonoured for the reason Account blocked and that after dishonour of cheque she has intimated about the same to the Accused and in turn the Accused requested her that, he will pay the cash within a period of one week due to financial crisis not able to honor the cheque and after lapse of two weeks again she approached him and requested to repay the amount but he gave evasive reply and postponing to pay the said amount to her. But as already mentioned in the above that, the complainant in her cross-examination has admitted contrary to it to the suggestion made to her that, the mentioning of issuance of post dated 35 C.C.No.4899/2015 J cheque by the Accused in the last week of September 2014 in Ex.P.3 notice is false and also admitted that, she has not stated at para No.2 of her affidavit evidence that the Accused has issued post dated cheque in the last week of October 2014. hence, the admissions of the complainant itself goes to show that, she herself negativates her own claim or falsify her claim made in the legal notice, complaint, in her evidence in respect of alleged issuance of post dated cheque i.e Ex.P.1 in her favour by the Accused either in the last week of September or October 2014. Therefore the complainant has categorically admitted that, she has not stated in her legal notice i.e Ex.P.3 and in her affidavit i.e. filed in lieu of sworn statement at para No2. that, the Accused has given a post dated cheque in the last week of September or October 2014, in such circumstances it can be held that, the Accused has not issued post dated cheque i.e Cheque in question infavour of the complainant either in the last week of September 2014 or in the last week of October 2014 in favour of the complainant as alleged by her in her legal notice and also in the complaint and evidence. It is also relevant here to mention that, the complainant herself 36 C.C.No.4899/2015 J admitted that, her husband died on 8.9.2014 and she has lodged a complaint against the Accused and others in respect of death of her husband and after lodging the complaint till today the disputes were running between her and the Accused and after death of her husband till today she has not met the Accused and the Accused has also met her, therefore in view of the said admissions of the complainant the claim of the complainant cannot be acceptable one i.e. after death of the husband of the complaint Accused approached her and issued the post dated cheque in question i.e Ex.P.1 in her favour and requested her to present the same on the day mentioned in the cheque and as per the request she has presented the said cheque and after dishonour of the cheque she approached the Accused and intimated the same at that time the Accused requested her to pay the amount within one week and even after lapse of two weeks she approached the Accused and at that time the Accused gave evasive reply and postponing to pay the amount. If really the Accused approached the complainant and issued the cheque and after dishonour of the cheque the complainant approached the Accused and requested to pay the 37 C.C.No.4899/2015 J cheque amount and in turn the Accused requested the time to repay the amount then the complainant would have stated the same in her cross- examination but on the contrary, she admitted that, after death of her husband either she met the Accused or the Accused met her till today, in such circumstances the claim made by the complainant in respect of issuance of the cheque in question by the Accused and Accused requested her to present the said cheque on the day mentioned in it, created a serious doubt and cannot be acceptable one.
27. It is also relevant her to mention that, the complainant herself negativates her contention that, by admitting in her cross-examination that the cheque in question was given by the Accused to her husband during his life time. It is also admitted that, the cheque in question was got written and handed over to her husband and after 4 days from the date of death of her husband she has presented the said cheque in question to the bank for encashment, if that being the real fact then the question of issuing of the post dated cheque in question by the Accused in favour of the complainant after death of her husband and in turn she has presented the said 38 C.C.No.4899/2015 J cheque on the date mentioned in it does not arise at all and the question of mentioning the name of the complainant in the cheque in dispute also does not arise at all, in such circumstances a serious doubt creates in respect of issuance of cheque in question in favour of the complainant. It is also important to note here that, the complainant herself admitted that, her husband has kept the cheques in a book and after death of her husband the cheques have been secured from the said book and after death of her husband she had written the date on the cheque in question, hence it goes to show that, the cheque in question has not been issued by the Accused infavour of the complainant, if really the Accused has issued a post dated cheque by mentioning the date as 7.10.2014 in favour of the complainant then the question of writing the date on cheque by the complainant does not arise at all and if the admission of the complainant is taken into consideration it can be held that, the cheque in question has been secured by the complainant which was kept in the book by her husband during his life time and the cheque has been secured only after the death of the husband of the complainant but it has not been issued by the Accused as stated 39 C.C.No.4899/2015 J by her.
28. It is important to note here that, according to the complainant the Accused has borrowed a loan of Rs.25 Lakhs in the month of February 2013 from her deceased husband and assured to pay Rs.50 Lakhs within a period of six months. But the complainant has not produced any documents to show that, the Accused has executed documents for having received such huge amount, it discloses that, no interest was charged on huge loan amount, but it is stated that, Accused has agreed to pay Rs.50 Lakhs within six months from the date of borrowel, i.e almost double of the alleged loan amount that too within span of six months, hence no prudent man can agree to pay double amount of the loan amount i.e., huge amount of Rs.50 Lakhs within 6 months from the date of borrowel, in such circumstances, the fact of alleged lending of loan amount i.e. huge amount of Rs.25 Lakhs without charging interest and without getting execution of documents from the Accused such huge loan was advanced by the husband of the Accused creates serious doubt with regard lending of loan amount to the Accused. In this regard, it is relevant here to 40 C.C.No.4899/2015 J refers the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in 2007 AIR SCW 6736 in the case of "
John, K. John V. Tmp Vaghese and Anr" wherein it is held that " Discharge of Debt- rebuttal of presumption under sec.139 - court can take notice of conduct of parties - Respondent alleged to have borrowed huge sum from appellant - Complainant despite suit for recovery of defaulted amount filed against him by appellate - No document executed - Amount advanced carrying no interest - Finding of fact by High Court tht respondent did not issue cheque in discharge of any debt and discharged burden of proof cast on him under sec. 139 - Being not perverse cannot be interfered within under Art.136 Constitution of India - Art 136".
Hence the principles of law held by Hon'ble Apex Court of India are aptly applicable to the case on hand in this case also though huge amount of Rs.25 Lakhs allegedly lend to the Accused but no interest was charged, on the contrary it is stated that, within six months Accused has agreed to pay Rs.50 Lakhs i.e doubt o the loan amount that too within 6 months which is unbelievable i.e conduct was not that of prudent man and alleged loan was advanced 41 C.C.No.4899/2015 J without taking any documents i.e., why no instrument was executed although a huge amount was alleged paid to the Accused as held by Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the above decision, in such circumstances a serious doubt arises about lending of loan amount as claimed by the complainant.
29. The Accused during the course of cross- examination of complainant has taken specific defence that, he has not issued the cheque in question to the complainant towards discharge of alleged loan amount and the husband of the complainant has collected the blank signed cheque in respect of chit transaction and the complainant has misused his old cheque and has filed this complaint. It is relevant here to mention that, on careful perusal of the legal notice, complaint and evidence of the complainant it appears that, the complainant, nowhere stated the exact date of lending of loan amount to the Accused and though stated that, in the month of February 2013 alleged loan amount was lend to Accused but in the cross- examination stated that, her husband has lent the loan amount to the Accused in the year 2012, hence the complainant has not proved that, on which date 42 C.C.No.4899/2015 J month or year the alleged loan was lent to the Accused. It is also important to note that, the complainant has not stated exact date, month and year and exact place of issue of cheque in question to the complainant either in legal notice, complaint and in evidence. It is stated in the complaint and evidence that, the husband of the complainant was died on 12.9.2014 and after his death in the last week of September 2014, the Accused approached her and issued a post dated cheque dated:
7.10.2014 to her, but the very complainant in her cross-examination admitted that, the Accused has given disputed cheque during the year 2012 to her husband during his life time and her husband was kept the said cheque inside the book and same was secured after 2 days of his death and she had written the date on the cheque and after fourth day of death of her husband she has presented the cheque for encashment. Hence, it goes to show that, the complainant has miserably failed to prove that, the exact date, month and year of lending of alleged loan amount to the Accused and exact date, month and year and place of issue of cheque in question by the Accused and in view of admission of the complainant makes it clear that, prior to the death of 43 C.C.No.4899/2015 J her husband, he has collected the cheque from the Accused and after his death, the cheque in dispute was secured by the complainant and complainant herself has filled up the date on disputed cheque and has presented the same for encashment. Even it is not the case of the complainant that, Ex.P.1 cheque was issued by the Accused as blank cheque and has consented for filling up the date or latter the complainant has filled up date with the consent of Accused. Even on bare perusal of the cheque i.e. Ex.P.1 makes it clear that, except the signature all other entries on the cheque are in different handwritings, date are in different inks, therefore a serious doubt created in respect of issue of cheque in questions by the accused for discharge of the alleged loan transaction as contended by the complainant. Therefore the complainant has miserably failed to prove that, the cheque in question i.e. Ex.P.1 was issued by the Accused, on the other hand, an inference can be drawn against the complainant that, the cheque in question might be collected by the deceased husband of complainant during his life time, as per the defence of Accused and latter after his death the wife of complainant has secured from the book in which 44 C.C.No.4899/2015 J cheque was kept by her husband as admitted by her in his cross-examination and by filling the contents and has presented the said cheque for encashment.
In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2019 SC 1983 in the case of "Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa" wherein it is held that "(A) Negotiable Instrument Act (26 of 1881) S.135, S.139, S. 118(a)Dishonour of cheque - Non- mentioning of Date of issuance of cheque by complainant in complaint as well as in his evidence - complainant not satisfactorily explaining contradictions in complaint visa-a vis- his examination-in-chief and cross- examination". In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in (2014) 2 SCC 236 in the case of John K. Abraham Vs. Simon C.Abraham and another"., wherein it is held that "In the present case complainant not aware of the date when substantiate amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was advanced by him to the appellant/Accused, respondent/complainant has failed to produce relevant documents in support of alleged source for advancing money to the Accused-
complainant also not aware as to when and 45 C.C.No.4899/2015 J where the transaction took place for which the cheque in question was issued to him by Accused - Complainant also not sure as to who wrote the cheque and making contradictory statement in this regard in view of said serious defects/lacuna in evidence of complainant, Judgment of High Court reversing acquittal of Accused by trial court, held was perverse and could not be sustained acquittal restored". Hence, the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court of India are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case, i.e. in this case also complainant has not stated specific date on which her deceased husband advanced substantive amount of Rs.25 Lakhs and has not mentioned specific date and place on which date and place the cheque in question was issued by Accused. The complainant at one breath contends that, Accused has got written the cheque in question and handed over to her deceased husband during the year 2012 and another breath in her cross-examination stated that, after the death of her husband i.e. 12.9.2014, subsequently the Accused approached her in the last week of September 2014 has issued a post dated cheque dated:7.10.2014 hence there are serious 46 C.C.No.4899/2015 J lacuna/defects in the evidence of complainant as to lending of alleged loan amount and issue of cheque by the Accused towards discharge of alleged debt in question, in such circumstances, it can be held that, the Accused has rebutted the presumption by raising probable defence.
30. It is also relevant here to refer the Ex.P.14 i.e. copy of the complaint lodged by the complainant herein against the present Accused and others before the police inspector, Mico Layout P.S. Bengaluru alleging that the Accused and others., have borrowed loan amount from his deceased husband, later they did not returned the said amount and have harassed her husband and have also refused to return the loan amount received by them and gave life threat to her husband and due to their threat and non returning of loan amount, her husband has committed suicide by taking poison, on the basis of said complaint the concerned police have registered the case against the Accused and others for the offence punishable U/s.306 R/w Sec.34 of IPC and filed charge sheet against the Accused and others and said case is pending before the Hon'ble Sessions Court for trial, this fact is also 47 C.C.No.4899/2015 J admitted by the complainant in her cross- examination. But on careful perusal of the entire complaint averments i.e. Ex.P.14, though the complainant alleged against the Accused stating that, he has borrowed Rs.25 Lakhs from her deceased husband and agreed to return an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs, but in her cross-examination, she has admitted that, the Accused during the life time of her husband the Accused has issued written cheque to her husband and after his death, the cheque was secured by her from the book of her deceased husband, when the complainant herself admitted that, the Accused has given cheque to her husband during his life time but what presented her to discloses the said fact in her complaint filed before the police, hence a serious doubt arises about issuing of cheque in question by the Accused towards repayment of the alleged debt. The cause of death of husband of the complainant i.e. as per contents of Ex.P.14 is the husband of complainant has committed suicide due to harassment of Accused and life threat of Accused in respect of non payment of loan amount borrowed by him, when such being the fact, then the question of issue of cheque by the Accused during the life time of 48 C.C.No.4899/2015 J deceased husband of Accused does not arise at all, in such circumstances a serious doubt arises about issue of cheque in question by the Accused towards repayment of loan amount in question.
31. Therefore, on careful scrutiny of over all evidence of the complainant and Accused as it is already held and come to the conclusion that, the complainant has miserably failed to prove that her husband has lend an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs to the Accused by way of cash and in order to repay the said loan amount the Accused has issued the cheque in question i.e., Ex.P.1 infavour of the complainant, and there are no proof regarding the lending of loan amount and issue of cheque in question to the complainant, apart from, when the complainant herself has failed to establish her case beyond all reasonable doubt, she cannot be permitted to find fault in the defence of the Accused. Hence the standard of proof is expected from side of the complainant is proof beyond all reasonable doubt and in the present case complainant has failed to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubt on the contrary the Accused has successfully rebutted the presumption available infavour of the complainant 49 C.C.No.4899/2015 J U/s.118 and 139 of N.I. Act by taking reasonable and probable defence, accordingly for the above said reasons this point is answered in the 'Negative'.
32. Point No.2: In the light of discussions made at above point and for the said reasons this point is answered in the negative and it is just and proper to pass the following :-
ORDER The complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Acting U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Personal bond and surety bond executed by the Accused stands cancelled.
(Directly dictated to the Stenographer online, printout taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of March, 2020).
(SRI.S.B. HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.50 C.C.No.4899/2015 J
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant:-
P.W.1 : Smt. Jayasudha, P.W.2 : Sri.Y.H. Anand;
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque;
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the Accused;
Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo;
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of the Legal Notice;
Ex.P.4 & P.5 : Postal Receipts;
Ex.P.6 & 7 : Returned Legal Notices
Ex.P.8 & 9 : RPAD covers;
Ex.P.10 & 11 : Postal receipts;
Ex.P.12 to : certified copies of the charge sheet filed
P.14 in Crime No. 646/2016 by Mico Layout
PS, FIR, complaint
Ex.P.15 : certified copy of the order sheet in
S.C.No.881/2017
Ex.P.16 : true copy of the statement of accounts of
her husband's account in Andra Bank
Ex.P.17 : original bank pass book of
Sri.Y.H.Anand;
Ex.P.18 : certified copy of the sale deed dated:
11.9.2009
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused:-
- Nil-51 C.C.No.4899/2015 J
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-
- Nil-
(SRI.S.B.HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.52 C.C.No.4899/2015 J
7.3.2020 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER The complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Acting U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act. Personal bond and surety bond executed by the Accused stands cancelled. XVI ACMM, B'luru.