Bangalore District Court
Smt. C. Kalpana vs Smt. Chandrakala. V on 5 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 5th day of March 2015
PRESENT: SRI. NAGARAJEGOWDA.D, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Case No. : C.C No. 3567/2014
Complainant : Smt. C. Kalpana,
W/o. G. C. Puttaswamy,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at;No.843, 12th Cross,
3rd Main, Opp: Govt. School,
Nagarabhavi Ist stage,
Chandra layout,
Bangalore-560072.
(By Sri. T. Narayana gowda, Adv.)
Accused : Smt. Chandrakala. V.
W/o. G.C.Gangadhar,
Aged about 40 years,
Dept. of Tele communication,
Dr. Ambedkar Institute of
Technology,
Nagarabhavi road,
Mallathahalli Post,
Bangalore - 560056.
Also at :
R/at.No.102, 2nd H Main road,
11th Block, Nagarabhavi II
stage, l, Bangalore. 43.
(By Sri. R. V. Anand, Adv.)
2 C.C.No. 3567/2014
Date of Institution : 28/08/2013
Offence complained of : U/s 138 of N.I.Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is convicted.
Date of Order : 05.03.2015.
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.
2. As per Ex.P8 complaint, the complainant contended that
the accused has approached the complainant in the month of June
2nd of 2012 for a hand loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- for clearing some
urgent commitments of the accused and her family necessities.
The accused has assured to return said amount within 3 months.
After the lapse of 3 months, the complainant approached the
accused, demanded to repay the said loan amount, the accused
pleaded her inability to pay the loan amount in cash, however the
accused promised to the complainant to pay the loan amount by
way of cheque, as such towards the discharge of her liability, the
3 C.C.No. 3567/2014
accused has issued post dated, filled and signed cheque bearing
No. 539602 dt: 13/06/2013, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Dr.
Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Nagarbhavi road, Bangalore for
a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant and assured
the complainant the said cheque will be honoured on its
presentation. Accordingly, the complainant presented the said
cheque for collection through her Banker "The Karnataka Co-
operative Apex Bank Ltd.," Chandra layout Branch, Bangalore-40
but the same is returned unpaid with endorsement to that effect
'Payment stopped by Drawer', vide memo dt: 2/7/2013.
Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice dt: 24/7/2013,
calling upon the accused to repay the cheque amount. The Legal
notice sent by RPAD was duly received by accused on 27/7/2013.
In spite of service of legal notice, the accused did not reply or
comply the legal notice. Thus, the accused has committed an
offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act and punish the
accused in accordance with law by awarding compensation to the
complainant in the ends of justice and equity.
3. After presenting this case, this court has taken
cognizance of the offence and after recording the sworn statement
of the complainant's side, this court registered the criminal case
4 C.C.No. 3567/2014
against the accused alleging that, she has committed an offence
punishable U/s 138 of N.I. Act. Summons issued to the accused.
The same is served upon the accused. The accused appeared
through her counsel, enlarged on bail and she denied the entire
case of the complainant at the time of recording her plea of
accusation and case to be tried.
4. In support of the case of the complainant, the
complainant adduced her oral evidence as PW.1 and got marked
Ex.P1 to P8 and this PW-1 has been fully cross-examined by the
accused counsel and thus, complainant closed her side evidence.
5. Thereafter, the case was posted for recording statement of
accused person under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, in which the accused
totally denied the entire case of the complainant. In support of her
denial case, she adduced her oral evidence as DW-1 on oath and
no documents have been marked. This DW-1 has been fully cross-
examined by the complainant counsel and thus, accused closed
her side evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments of both complainant counsel
and accused counsel on merits.
5 C.C.No. 3567/2014
7. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the following points arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the complainant proves that, beyond all
reasonable doubt for payment of loan advanced
by the complainant, the accused issued a
cheque bearing No. 539602 dt: 13/06/2013
drawn on Syndicate Bank, Dr. Ambedkar
Institute of Technology, Nagarbhavi road,
Bangalore for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, the
same is dishonoured due to 'Payment stopped
by drawer' and in spite of issuance of legal
notice, the accused did not comply or reply to
the notice and thus, she has committed an
offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
8. My answer to the above points are as follows:
1) In the Affirmative.
2) As per final Order,
For the following:
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1: In support of the case of the complainant,
she adduced her oral evidence as PW-1, filed by way of affidavit, in
which, she reiterated the contents of complaint and got marked
Ex. P1, is the Cheque alleged to be issued by the accused and
identified the signature of the accused as Ex.P1.a. This issuance
of cheque in favour of complainant for discharge of legal liability
6 C.C.No. 3567/2014
has been disputed by the accused. Further got marked Ex.P-2 is
the endorsement issued by the Banker stating that cheque is
dishonoured due to 'Payment stopped by Drawer'. Ex.P-3 is the
copy of legal notice. The legal notice sent to the accused by RPAD
as per Ex.P-4 and 5 RPAD postal receipt, among the said RPAD
notices, one of RPAD notice duly served to the accused as per
Ex.P6 postal acknowledgement. Another RPAD notice was
returned unserved with endorsement to the effect that Addressee
Left; returned to sender etc. as per Ex.P-7, notice is at Ex.P7.a.
Ex.P-8 is the complaint which is under dispute.
10. The accused denied the case of complainant. In support
of her denial, the accused counsel cross-examined PW-1 and in
the cross-examination he tried to elicit that she knows the
accused, but she denied that accused did not obtained any loan
amount from her, but in the month of January 2012, the accused
obtained loan amount of Rs. 20,000/- at that time she obtained
signed blank cheque as security. After repayment of said loan
amount, the complainant did not returned the said cheque, but
filled up said cheque and presented to the Bank and got it
dishonoured etc., and she denied that there is difference in ink on
Ex.P1 cheque and signature. Except total denial to the case of
7 C.C.No. 3567/2014
complainant, nothing has been brought out to show that the
alleged the cheque in question has been misused by the
complainant.
11. In support of denial case of accused, the accused lead
her oral evidence as DW-1 on oath, in which, she has stated as per
Ex.P3 legal notice in that address she is residing up to 2012, from
March onwards she changed the said house and the complainant
do not know the present address of this accused. She admitted
that the cheque and signatures found on the cheque belongs to her
Bank account, but the alleged cheque has been given to the
complainant. Except signature which is given in blank at the time
of obtaining loan amount of Rs. 20,000/- in the month of January
2012, but till today she did not return the said amount. In the
end of year 2012, the complainant made galata with this accused
and the signature found on Ex.P6 postal acknowledgement is not
belongs to her and she did not have any necessity to raise loan
from this complainant and the complainant has no capacity to pay
the said amount etc., in the cross-examination of PW1, she denied
the contents of cheque has been written by herself and accused
has not received any legal notice for dishonour of cheques, in spite
of legal notice sent to her college address she has stated false etc.,
8 C.C.No. 3567/2014
Except denial to the case of complainant contention, the accused
failed to give rebuttal evidence to the case of complainant. On the
basis of the above said facts and circumstances the complainant
has proved the alleged guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt. The accused failed to give rebuttal evidence to the case of
complainant to show that the alleged cheque has been mis-used by
the complainant, except denial to the case of complainant the
accused failed to give cogent and convincing evidence to disprove
the case of complainant. In the circumstances, the accused is
liable for conviction in accordance with law. The complainant has
not claimed any interest on the cheque amount. Hence, the
complainant is entitled for compensation to the extent of cheque
amount. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in Affirmative.
12. POINT NO.2: For the above said reasons, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
Acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only).
9 C.C.No. 3567/2014If fine is realized, pay a sum of Rs. 1,98,000/- (One lakh and Ninety eight thousand only) to the complainant as compensation, the same shall be paid to her within the period of 30 days.
The rest of the amount Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand only) is ordered to be adjusted to the State Exchequer.
In default of payment of this compensation amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) year.
Office is directed to furnish the copy of this Judgment at free of cost to the accused.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of March 2015) (NAGARAJEGOWDA.D) XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City.
*** ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 Smt. C. Kalpana.10 C.C.No. 3567/2014
Witness examined for the accused:
-Nil-
List of Documents marked for the Complainant: Ex.P1. Cheque Ex.P1(a) Signature of accused Ex.P2 Endorsement Ex.P3 Legal notice Ex.P4 & P5 2 Postal receipts. Ex.P6. Postal Ack. Ex.P7. Un-served postal covers. Ex.P7.a. Postal endorsement. Ex.P8. Complaint.
List of Documents marked for the accused:
Nil XXII ACMM, Bangalore.11 C.C.No. 3567/2014
05.03.2015 Compt.
Accd.
For Judgment Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order with the following operative portion ORDER Acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only).
If fine is realized, pay a sum of Rs. 1,98,000/- (One lakh and Ninety eight thousand only) to the complainant as compensation, the same shall be paid to her within the period of 30 days.
The rest of the amount Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand only) is ordered to be adjusted to the State Exchequer.
12 C.C.No. 3567/2014In default of payment of this compensation amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) year.
Office is directed to furnish the copy of this Judgment at free of cost to the accused.
XXII ACMM, Bangalore.