Bangalore District Court
No.98/2 vs Level -8 on 12 May, 2023
1
KABC0C0304812022
IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, 5MAYO HALL, BENGALURU
PRESENT
SRI.OONKAR MURTHY K.M.,
B.Sc., L.L.M.,
XIV Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru
DATED ON THIS 12 th DAY OF MAY 2023
CASE NO C.C. NO.58905/2022
M/s. Manipal Hospital Pvt., Ltd.,
(Formerly Columbia Asia Hospitals Pvt.,
Ltd.,)
Having its Regd., Office at: The Annexe,
COMPLAINANT No.98/2, Rustom Bagh, Off. HAL Airport
Road, Bengaluru - 560 017.
Having its Branch at :
Manipal Hospital Pvt., Ltd.,
Whitefield
Sy. No.10P & 12P, Varthur Kodi,
Ramagondanahally Village, Varthur Hobli,
2
Whitefield, Bengaluru East Taluk-560 066.
Represented by its Authorized Signatory
Mr. Shahid Parveez
Cell No.97388 77557
E-mail: [email protected]
(By Sri. M. Jagadeesh - Adv.,)
1) M/s. Fossil Liquid & Minerals Exim Pvt.
Ltd.
Having registered office at 57/11, Vradavan
Building, R.B Mehta Road, Ghatkopar (East)
Mumbai - 77.
Having Corporate Office at Vibgyor Towers,
ACCUSED Level -8, G-Block, C-62, Bandra Kurla
Complex, Mumbai - 400 098, India.
2) Mr. Shankarachari Ramesh Kumar @
S.Ramesh Kumar
S/o. Shankarachari .N
Aged about 42 years,
Director : M/s. Fossil Liquid & Minerals Exim
Pvt. Ltd.
Having registered office at 57/11, Vradavan
Building, R.B Mehta Road, Ghatkopar (East)
Mumbai - 77.
Also Having Office cum Residence at
3
No.350, 16 th Main Road, BES College,
Jayanagar, 4 th 'T' Block, Bengaluru - 41.
Cell No.93113 35399
Email ID : [email protected]
(By Sri. B.N. Anjan Kumar - Adv.,)
OFFENCE U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
PLEA OF THE
ACCUSED Pleaded not guilty
FINAL ORDER
Accused is convicted
Digitally signed by
ONKARMURTHY
ONKARMURTHY K M
KM
Date: 2023.05.12
16:16:44 +0530
(OONKAR MURTHY K.M)
XIV ADDL. C.M.M.,
BENGALURU
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused under Sec.200 Cr.PC alleging the offense punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
4The brief facts of the complaint are as follows ;
2. The complainant is reputed Multi Specialty Hospital having engaged in providing Health Care and related service to the patients. The accused No.1 company through its Director Mr.Shankarachari Ramesh Kumar vide undertaking/promissory note dtd.14.10.2020 had acknowledged to settle the outstanding bill of Rs.23,25,000/- incurred towards treatment of deceased Mr.Sridhara.B.L, whose medical records are maintained with name CAHW-0000265735. Towards partial discharge of the said legally recoverable liability, the accused has issued two cheques bearing No.000100 dtd.5.11.2020 and No.000101 dtd.15.11.2020 for Rs.2,50,000/- each drawn at Kotak Mahindra Bank, M.G. Road branch, Mumbai. The complainant has presented the said cheques for encashment through its banker i.e., RBL Bank, Prestige Towers branch, Bengaluru. But the said cheques have been returned dishonored for the reason "funds insufficient" vide return memo dated 21.01.2021. Thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice 5 dtd.19.02.2021 to the accused calling upon the accused to repay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of its receipt. The said notice is served on the accused on 22.02.2021. In spite of it, the accused has neither replied to the notice nor has repaid the cheque amount. Therefore, the accused has committed the offense punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Hence, this complaint.
3. On filing of the complaint, cognizance has been taken for the offense punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and a private complaint was initially registered in PCR. No.53444/2021. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded by way of affidavit. On hearing the complainant and considering the documents on record, summons was issued to the accused by registering the criminal case in C.C. No.58905/2022. Later in response to the summons issued, the accused has appeared before the court through his counsel. The accused has been enlarged on bail. Plea of the accused has been recorded.
6The accused has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried for which the matter was posted for trial.
4. The sworn statement of the complainant which has been recorded as PW.1 is treated as his examination-in-chief in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 - Indian Bank Association and others Vs Union of India and others-[W.P. (civil) No.18/2013]. To prove the guilt against the accused, the complainant has relied on the documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. The incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the complainant have been brought to the notice of the accused and his statement under Sec.313 of Cr.PC was recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating circumstances and contends that he has repaid all the dues. Further to substantiate his contention, the accused has examined himself as DW.1 and has got marked a document at Ex.D1 on his behalf.
75. Heard the arguments of both the counsels. The counsel for the complainant has also filed his written arguments.
6. The complainant has relied on the following decisions;
i) M/s.Escorts Limited Vs Rama Mukherji-Crl.Appeal.No.1457 of 2013;
-AIR 2013 SCW 5477
ii) Gorantla Venkateswara Rao Vs Kolla Veera Raghava Rao & Another - (2005 (2) ALD (CRI)
840.
iii) T. Vasanthakumar Vs Vijayakumari
- (2015 (4) KCCR 2881 (SC).
iv) Triyambak .S Hegde Vs Sripad -
(Crl. A. No.849-850/2011 dtd.23.09.2021)
7. Perused the materials on record. The points that arise for my consideration are:-
1) Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued two cheques bearing No.000100 dtd.5.11.2020 and No.000101 dtd.15.11.2020 for Rs.2,50,000/- each drawn at Kotak Mahindra Bank, M.G. Road 8 branch, Mumbai for discharge of legally recoverable debt and the said cheques were dishonored for the reason "funds insufficient". In spite of issuance of legal notice dated 19.2.2021, accused has failed to repay the loan amount and thereby the accused has committed the offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act, 1881?
2) What Order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under;
Point No.1 : In Affirmative,
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following.,
REASONS
9. Point No.1: In support of its contention, the complainant hospital has examined its representative i.e., one Sri.Shahid Parveez as PW.1. In his chief- examination, he has reiterated the entire averments of the complaint. Further to substantiate his contentions, has produced original two cheques bearing No.000100 dtd.5.11.2020 and No.000101 dtd.15.11.2020 for Rs.2,50,000/- each drawn at Kotak Mahindra Bank, 9 M.G. Road branch, Mumbai at Ex.P1 and P2 respectively. Ex.P3 and P4 are the Bank endorsement dtd.21.1.2021 showing that the said cheques have been dishonored for the reason "funds insufficient". Ex.P5 is the Legal notice dtd.19.2.2021 issued by the complainant to the accused demanding repayment of the cheque amount. Ex.P6 is the postal receipt showing dispatch of the said legal notice on 19.2.2021 to the address of the accused mentioned in the legal notice. Ex.P7 is the postal acknowledgment showing service of the said notice to the accused No.1 on 22.2.2021. Ex.P8 is the undertaking/promissory note stated to be executed by the accused along with one Sudhindra B.S (son of the deceased Shridhar B.L) in favour of the complainant's Hospital agreeing to pay the outstanding treatment bill of Rs.23,25,000/-. It is relevant to mention here that the fact of issuance of alleged two cheques is also mentioned in the said undertaking produced at Ex.P8. Ex.P9 is the acknowledgment issued by Station House Officer, Whitefield Police Station in respect of the complaint lodged by the complainant's 10 hospital against the accused in respect of payment of cheque amount. Ex.P10 is the copy of the said complaint dtd.3.3.2020 addressed to the Station House Officer, Whitefield Police Station, Bengaluru. Ex.P11 is the patient bill in respect of patient by name Mr. Shridar B.L who is stated to have been admitted in the complainant hospital from 11.7.2020 till 14.10.2020 and total treatment bill is shown to be Rs.45,18,966/-. After deducting the amount paid, the balance is shown to be Rs.23,05,000/-. Ex.P13 is the certificate of incorporation pursuant to change of name wherein the said certificate disclose that the name of the complainant Colombia Asia Hospital Ltd., has been changed to Manipal Hospitals Pvt., Ltd., w.e.f 26.10.2021. Ex.P14 is the letter of authorization showing that PW.1- Sri.Shahid Parveez is authorized to prosecute this matter. Ex.P15 is the certificate of PW.1 filed U/s.65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of the electronically generated patient bill produced at Ex.P11. Ex.P16 is also the certificate of PW.1 filed U/s.65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of the 11 electronically generated document i.e., certificate of incorporation produced at Ex.P13. Ex.P17 is the copy of Aadhaar Card of accused No.2/DW.1 and the same is marked upon his admission in the cross-examination.
10. To substantiate his contention, the accused has examined himself as DW.1. In his chief- examination, DW.1 states that he being the Director of accused No.1 Company was distributing fruits, water and food to the needy people during covid-19 patients. On 14.10.2020, the relatives deceased patient by name Sridhara B.L requested him to pay the hospital bill stating that the hospital authorities are not returning the dead body without paying the bills. Later he had spoken to the hospital management who have intimated him about pending bill to the tune of Rs.30 to Rs.35 lakhs. Later he left stating that he cannot pay that amount. Again he was called through patient relatives and told him to settle for Rs.5 lakhs. When he expressed his inability they asked him to pay the said Rs.5 lakhs in two installments of Rs.2,50,000/- each 12 and have collected the alleged cheques. Further states that they have also obtained his signatures on the undertaking at Ex.P8. Even after executing Ex.P8, hospital authorities did not hand over the dead body. Later at 4.19 p.m he has transferred Rs.2,50,000/- twice, in all Rs.5 lakhs from his bank account to the hospital account. He has also produced statement of his bank account at Ex.D1 to show such payment made by him. Further states that when he demanded to return back the cheque, the authorities by stating that their accounts office is closed, have not returned it. He has repeatedly sought for return of the cheque, but the complainant without returning it, have filed this false case.
11. On considering the arguments of the counsel for the accused, the suggestions made in the cross- examination of PW.1 and evidence of DW.1, the defense of the accused can be deduced as follows;
i) Hospital authorities have blackmailed the patients relative without giving dead body of deceased Mr.Sridhara B.L and 13 have forcefully got executed undertaking at Ex.P8 and have obtained the alleged cheques.
ii) Even though he is neither a relative nor known to the patient Mr.Sridhara B.L, he has paid Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant hospital only to help the said patient relative during covid-19 pandemic.
iii) Accused has paid the cheque amount of Rs.5 lakhs after execution of the undertaking at Ex.P8 and issuance of the alleged cheque. But the complainant has not returned the cheque and has misused it by filing this false case.
iv) Patient Mr.Sridhara B.L was referred to complainant's hospital by BBMP and some amount has been paid by BBMP.
v) There is discrepancy in total bill due and do not match with the cheque amount
vi) There is no existence of legally enforceable debt.
vii) There is no authority to PW.1 for prosecuting the matter.
1412. The counsel for the complainant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Gorantla Venkateswara Rao Vs Kolla Veera Raghava Rao & Another (supra) wherein at para 25 has observed as follows;
Para 25. In Hiten P. Dalai v. Bratindranath Banerjee 2001 (2) Andh LD (Crl) 234 : 2001 Cri LJ 4647 (SC), the Supreme Court while dealing with Sections 138 and 139 of the Act held that whenever a cheque was issued to the complainant for a specific amount, there is a presumption that it is towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. In the event of dispute, the burden is on the accused to prove that there was no subsisting liability as on the date of issuing of cheque and the proof must be sufficient to rebut the presumption and mere explanation is not sufficient. The Supreme Court further held as follows (Paras 21 & 22 of Cri LJ) :
Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. It introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused. Such a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which describes provisions by which the Court "may presume" a certain state of 15 affairs. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact.
In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exists, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw that statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, "after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists". Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the Court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'. (emphasis supplied)
13. The counsel for the complainant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Vasanthakumar Vs Vijayakumari (supra) wherein at para 9 has held as follows;
16Para 9. This Court has held in its three judge bench judgment in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441: [LQ/SC/2010/528] :
"The presumption mandated by Section 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. This is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the respondent complainant."
(emphasis supplied)
14. The counsel for the complainant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Triyambak .S Hegde Vs Sripad (supra) wherein by relying on its decision in Basalingappa Vs Mudibasappa, (2019)5 SCC 418 at para 14 has observed as follows;
Para 25......
Para 26. Applying the preposition of law as noted above, in facts of the present case, it is clear that signature on the cheque having been admitted, a presumption shall be raised under Section 139 that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability. The question to be looked into is as to whether any probable defence was raised by the accused.(emphasis supplied) 17
15. From the above decisions the principles that emerge is that the presumption under Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is a presumption of law and not the presumption of fact. The presumption has to be raised in all the cases once the factum of issuance of cheque and its dishonour is established. U/s.118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a presumption in respect of passing of consideration in favour of the complainant. The onus of proof to rebut the presumption lies on the accused. The accused need not rebut the presumption beyond all reasonable doubt. But the accused has to place sufficient materials to convince the court that his case is more probable when it is compared with the case of the complainant. Accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability.
16. In the case on hand, the complainant has established the factum of issuance of cheque and its dishonour. Therefore, this court shall raise a 18 presumption that the accused has issued cheque towards discharging the legally enforceable debt. After raising initial presumption it is for this court to consider whether the presumption has been rebutted by bringing in cogent materials on record with reference to the defense raised by the accused.
Defense - Existence of legally recoverable debt :
17. The counsel for the accused has argued that document at Ex.P8 was got executed by blackmailing patient relative without handing over the dead body of deceased Sridhara B.L and therefore the said document is void. Further has argued that even though the accused has not related to patient deceased Sridhara B.L, only to help his relatives, he has issued the alleged cheque as a security and therefore the same cannot be termed as legally enforceable debt U/s.138 of N.I. Act. Also contends that after issuing of alleged cheques and after execution of Ex.P8, the accused has transferred cheque amount of Rs.5 lakhs which is depicted in the bank statement at Ex.D1. But the 19 hospital authorities have not returned the alleged cheques. Therefore he is not liable to pay any amount under the alleged cheques.
18. The complainant has produced document at Ex.P8 executed by the accused which is titled as "undertaking/promissory note for payment of the outstanding bill payment". The terms of the said document disclose that the accused on behalf of himself and accused No.1 company along with one Sudindra B.S who is son of deceased patient Sridhara B.L have undertaken to pay the complainant hospital a sum of Rs.23,25,000/- towards the heath care services availed by deceased Sridhara B.L. Para 5 also disclose that the present accused is the family friend of the deceased patient and his son Sudindra B.S In the said undertaking, at para 15, the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- each under RPT No.225031 and 225033, in all Rs.5 lakhs by the accused is also mentioned. Further it is also mentioned that the accused has issued the alleged 20 cheques at Ex.P1 and P2 towards part payment of remaining bill over due.
19. Bill produced at Ex.P11 pertaining to the patient deceased Sridhara B.L disclose that total cost of treatment from 11.7.2020 to 14.10.2020 is shown to be Rs.45,18,966/-. After deducting the payments made, including Rs.5 lakhs which is already paid by the accused under Ex.D1, total balance remaining is shown as Rs.23,05,000/-. There is no such contention of the accused that the amount paid by him has not been reflected in the said bill produced at Ex.P11. When the amount of Rs.5 lakhs paid by the accused is deducted with the total bill as on 14.10.2020 and the undertaking at Ex.P8 clearly disclose the alleged cheques at Ex.P1 and P2 are dated 5.11.2020 and 15.11.2020, the defense of the accused that amount of Rs.5 lakhs which is paid him under Ex.D1 is towards the cheque amount do not find any substantiation. The terms of the undertaking at Ex.P8 clearly disclose that the accused has issued the alleged two cheques apart 21 from the payment of Rs.5 lakhs made by him. When the document disclose that he is the family friend of the deceased patient, the contention of the accused that he has issued cheques only to help the relatives of the deceased during Covid-19 pandemic cannot be believed. Moreover in the cross-examination, DW.1 has clearly stated that he has not extended similar help to any other persons except the patient Sridhara B.L. He admits his signature on Ex.P8 and also admits issuance of copy of his Aadhar card at Ex.P17 which also bears the signature of the accused. Therefore his contention that he has issued cheque to help some unknown person has no substantiation. Except oral assertions that the document at Ex.P8 and cheques were issued due to the pressure of the hospital authorities, there is nothing on record to believe the said version. Further in the cross-examination, DW.1 admits the receipt of legal notice dtd.19.02.2021 at Ex.P5. Even though DW.1 states that he has issued reply to the said notice, no such reply notice is produced before the court. The fact of non-issuance of reply notice is also a strong 22 circumstances which goes against contention that Ex.P8 and alleged cheques were issued due to coercion. Even though it is stated that patient Sridhara B.L referred to complainant's hospital by BBMP and some amount paid by BBMP, nothing is brought on record to show that BBMP has paid any amount to the complainant hospital authorities. Therefore the contention of the accused that there is discrepancy in quoting the total due and also do not match with the cheque amount holds no water. Ex.P1 and P2 coupled with the documents produced at Ex.P8 and P11 clearly show that there was total due of Rs.23,05,000/- as on 14.10.2020 after deducting all the money paid by the accused and relatives of the deceased Sridhara B.L. Therefore, the contention that there is no existence of legally recoverable debt holds no water.
Defense - There is no authority to PW.1 for prosecuting the matter :
20. The complainant has produced the letter of authority at Ex.P14 showing that the Director of Manipal Hospital (Formerly Columbia Asia Hospital) has 23 authorized PW.1/Mr.Shahid Parveez- Senior Associate, Billing to represent and attend the legal proceedings in this matter. He has been authorized to sign, present, mark and verify all pleadings and documents, affidavits, medical records etc., which may be required for representing the Company in this case. He has been authorized to perform all such acts and deeds that are essential, incidental and ancillary for the present case on behalf of the Company. The said Letter of Authorization clearly shows that PW.1 has been authorized to prosecute the present matter. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said Authorization.
Therefore, the contention of the accused that there is no authorization to PW.1 for prosecuting this matter holds no water.
Defense: cheque issued for the liability of unknown person
21. Even though if it is presumed that the accused has issued the cheque for the liability of unknown person who is not related to him, it is settled that even such cheque issued towards others liability 24 also attracts the offense punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. Act. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd., vs Beena Shabeer & Anr, - (Crl. A. No.797 of 2002), wherein it is held that;
The language, however, has been rather specific as regards the intent of the legislature. The commencement of the Section stands with the words "Where any cheque". The above noted three words are of extreme significance, in particular, by reason of the user of the word "any" the first three words suggest that in fact for whatever reason if a cheque is drawn on an account maintained by him with a banker in favour of another person for the discharge of any debt or other liability, the highlighted words if read with the first three words at the commencement of Section 138, leave no manner of doubt that for whatever reason it may be, the liability under this provision cannot be avoided in the event the same stands returned by the banker unpaid. The legislature has been careful enough to record not only discharge in whole or in part of any debt but the same includes other liability as well. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the High Court, neither been dealt with or even referred to in the impugned judgment.
The issue as regards the co-extensive liability of the guarantor and the principal debtor, in our view, is totally out of the purview of Section 138 of the Act, neither the same calls for any 25 discussion therein. The language of the Statute depicts the intent of the law- makers to the effect that wherever there is a default on the part of one in favour of another and in the event a cheque is issued in discharge of any debt or other liability there cannot be any restriction or embargo in the matter of application of the provisions of Section 138 of the Act: 'Any cheque' and 'other liability' are the two key expressions which stands as clarifying the legislative intent so as to bring the factual context within the ambit of the provisions of the Statute. Any contra interpretation would defeat the intent of the legislature. The High Court, it seems, got carried away by the issue of guarantee and guarantor's liability and thus has overlooked the true intent and purport of Section 138 of the Act. The judgments recorded in the order of the High Court do not have any relevance in the contextual facts and the same thus does not lend any assistance to the contentions raised by the respondents.
(emphasis supplied) Therefore the contention that the cheque was issued for the liability of unknown person who is not related to him and therefore offense U/s. 138 of N.I. Act is not attracted holds no water.
Conclusion:
2622. Under all these circumstances, the complainant has clearly proved that the alleged cheques have been issued by the accused towards discharge of legally recoverable debt and the same have been presented within its life time for encashment. The said cheques have been dishonoured under the bank endorsement dtd.21.1.2021 for the reason "funds insufficient". The complainant has issued legal notice on 19.02.2021, which is served on the accused on 22.02.2021. The present complaint is filed on 7.4.2021 which is well within the prescribed period. Under the circumstances, the complainant has complied all the essential ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I. Act. On the contrary, the accused has failed to prove his defense that Ex.P1, P2 and Ex.P8 were executed by him under coercion by the hospital authorities. Also has failed to show that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs paid by him was towards the alleged cheques. Under the circumstances, the accused has miserably failed to rebut the statutory presumption available U/s.118(a) and 139 of N.I. Act in favour of the complainant.
27Therefore, the accused is found guilty for the offense punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, I hold Point No.1 in Affirmative.
23. Point No.2: The punishment prescribed for the offense U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is imprisonment for a period which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, nature, year of the transaction, nature of the instrument involved, cost of litigation and the rate of interest proposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (1) SCC 260 (R.Vijayan Vs Baby), this court is of the considered view that it is just and desirable to impose fine of Rs.6,25,000/- and out of the said amount, it seems to be proper to award a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- as compensation to the complainant as provided U/s.357(1) (b) of Cr.PC and the remaining sum of Rs.5,000/- shall go to the State. In view of the discussions made while answering Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following.., 28 ORDER In exercise of power vested under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., I hereby convict the accused for the offense punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.6,25,000/- (Six Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) for the offense punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
In exercise of powers vested under section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., out of fine amount a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- (Six Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and the remaining Rs.5,000/-
(Five Thousand only) shall go to the State.
29The bail bond of the accused stands canceled. The cash security deposited by the accused is ordered to be continued till expiry of the appeal period.
Free copy of the judgment shall be supplied to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed thereof, computerized and print out taken by him is verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th day of May, 2023) Digitally signed by ONKARMURTHY K ONKARMURTHY M KM Date: 2023.05.12 16:17:00 +0530 (OONKAR MURTHY K.M) XIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU 30 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined by complainant:
PW.1 : Sri. Shahid Parveez List of Documents marked by complainant:
Ex.P1 and P2 : Two Cheques Ex.P1(a) & 2(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P3 and P4 : Bank endorsements Ex.P5 : Legal Notice Ex.P6 : Postal receipt Ex.P7 : Postal acknowledgement Ex.P8 : Undertaking/Promissory Note for Payment of the Outstanding Bill Payment Ex.P9 : Acknowledgement Ex.P10 : Complaint dtd.3.3.2021 Ex.P11 : Patient Bill Ex.P12 : Details of Bank Account Ex.P13 : Certificate of Incorporation pursuant to change of name Ex.P14 : Letter of Authorization Ex.P15 : Certificate U/s.65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.P16 : Certificate U/s.65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.P17 : Copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P17(a) : Signature of the accused 31 List of Witnesses examined by defence:
DW.1 : Sri. S. Ramesh Kumar List of Documents marked by defence:
Ex.D1 : Bank statement Digitally signed by ONKARMURTHY ONKARMURTHY K M KM Date: 2023.05.12 16:16:52 +0530 (OONKAR MURTHY K.M) XIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU