Bangalore District Court
Sri. G. Chikkachowdappa vs Sri. R. Venkatachalapathi @ R on 29 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 29th day of December 2021
Present : Sri Siddaramappa Kalyan Rao, B.A., LL.B.,
XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
CC.No.14508 of 2018
COMPLAINANT/S: Sri. G. Chikkachowdappa,
S/o. Late Guleppa,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at No:1020, 3rd cross,
Papaiah Layout,
Maruthinagara,
Yelahanka,
Bengaluru - 560 064.
(Represented by
Sri. M. Rajesh., Advocate)
- Vs -
ACCUSED: Sri. R. Venkatachalapathi @ R.
Venkatachalamaiah.,
S/o. Ramaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at: Thimmasandra,
Chinthamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District.
(Represented by
Ms. Geeta.R.Shindhe., Advocate)
Offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
2 CC.No.14508/2018
Final Order Convicted
******
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed under section 200 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case is that:
The complainant and accused are intimate friends and they are known to each other. Hence, accused approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/- before witness on 20/11/2014 and lent a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- by way of cash for purchase of land, construction of house, developing of school and other urgent necessities etc. Accused has promised to repay the same within six months. Accused failed to repay the same as per his promise. Finally accused issued cheque on 28/03/2018 bearing No:962895 drawn on Karnataka Bank 3 CC.No.14508/2018 Limited, CBS Branch, Chinthamani for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of the complainant.
3. It is further contended that as per the instructions of accused, complainant presented the cheque on 28/03/2018 for realization through his banker Canara Bank, Maruti Nagar Branch, Bengaluru and the same was dishonoured for the reasons "Funds insufficient" on 10/04/2018. Complainant having no other choice issued legal notice to the accused by RPAD on 25/04/2018. The acknowledgement is not returned back. Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint before Post Master, CMM Court Complex, Bengaluru. The accused has not replied to the notice nor gave the cheque amount in favour of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is filed on 23/05/2018.
4. After filing of the complaint, this court has taken the cognizance of offence under section 138 of N.I Act and registered a Private complaint. After recording the sworn 4 CC.No.14508/2018 statement of the complainant, this court has registered the criminal case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Summons issued to the accused. The accused appeared through his counsel and enlarged on bail. There afterwards, plea of accusation was read over and explained to accused in the language known to him and he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. When the case was posted for recording of statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has denied the entire incriminating evidence appearing against him. The accused is examined as D.W.1 and has lead his side evidence and got marked 9 documents as per Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9 in support of his defence.
6. In order to prove the case, complainant is examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12.
5 CC.No.14508/2018
7. It is the specific defence of the accused that the accused is working as Head Master in Ravi Vidyaniketan High School, Konapalli, Chintamani-25 and he is residing at No:248, Chintamani Town, 4th Ward, Chikkaballapur-25 and not residing at the address mentioned in the complaint averments i.e., he is not residing at Thimmasandra, Chinthamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. Hence the notice issued at Ex.P.3 is not served on accused. Hence, Section 138(b) of N.I.Act has been not complied. It is further defence of the accused that accused has never seen the complainant before the stage of evidence. It is the further defence of the accused that accused has not taken any loan amount from any person and not issued any cheque for repayment of loan amount. When enquired as to the cheque involved in this case, accused found that the entire cheque series was missing. Hence, cheque is not issued by accused and the signature does not belongs to the accused and the other writings also are not written by the accused and for missing of the entire cheque book, accused has written letter to the Bank Manager, Karnataka 6 CC.No.14508/2018 Bank Ltd, Chintamani and informed the same. It is the further defence of the accused that complainant has stolen the cheque and also the complainant has no financial capacity to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to accused. Hence, on the above said grounds prays to dismiss the complaint.
8. Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
9. The following points arose for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that there is existence of legally recoverable debt as stated in the complaint?
2. If so, whether the complainant proves that Ex.P.1 cheque is issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt by the accused?
3. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
4. What order?7 CC.No.14508/2018
10. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the affirmative;
Point No.2 : In the affirmative;
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative;
Point No 4 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
POINTS NO.1 AND 2:
11. These points are taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
12. It is the specific case of the complainant that complainant and accused are intimate friends and they are known to each other. Hence, accused approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/- before witness on 20/11/2014 and lent a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- by way of cash for purchase of land, construction of house, developing of school and other urgent necessities etc. Accused has promised to repay the same within six months. Hence, as per the promise, accused failed to repay the above said amount. Finally, accused issued Ex.P.1 8 CC.No.14508/2018 cheque bearing No:962895 dated 28/03/2018 drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, CBS Branch, Chinthamani for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. When the above said cheque was came to be presented through his Banker Canara Bank, Maruti Nagar Branch, Bengaluru and the same was dishonoured for the reasons "Funds insufficient" on 10/04/2018 as per Ex.P.2 memo.
13. To substantiate the above said contention, the complainant is examined as PW-1 and has marked the documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12.
Ex.P.1 is the cheque of Karnataka Bank Limited, Chinthamani Branch dated 28/03/2018 bearing No:962895 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- issued to Chikkachowdappa i.e., the complainant and it is issued by Venkatachalapathi i.e, the accused. Ex.P.2 is the memo of Canara Bank dated 10/04/2018 with respect to cheque bearing No:962895 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and the above said cheque is came to be dishonoured for the 9 CC.No.14508/2018 reasons "Funds insufficient". Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice issued to accused dated 25/04/2018. Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt. Ex.P.5 is the representation given by complainant advocate to the Post Master of CMM Court Complex with regard to non-receipt of acknowledgement with respect to No:RK945221222IN. Ex.P.6 is the reply issued by Post Master, CMM Court Complex, Bengaluru stating that acknowledgement transaction No:RK945221222IN of 25/04/2018 is settled on 15/05/2018 and the article is delivered on 27/04/2018. Ex.P.7 is the Vakalathnama of R.Venkatachalapathi. Ex.P.7(a) is the signature of R.Venkatachalapathi i.e, the accused. Ex.P.8 is the RTC Extract of land bearing Sy.No:22/1 of Matahalli Village measuring 2 acres 1 gunta to the extent of 27 guntas standing in the name of complainant. Ex.P.9 is the RTC Extract of land bearing Sy.No:10 for the year 2014-15 measuring 17 guntas standing in the name of complainant. Ex.P.10 is the RTC Extract of land bearing Sy.No:10/3 for the year 2021-22 measuring 17 guntas standing in the name of complainant. 10 CC.No.14508/2018 Ex.P.11 is the RTC Extract of land bearing Sy.No:22/1 for the year 2021-22 measuring 2 acres to the extent of 27 guntas standing in the name of complainant. Ex.P.12 is the order passed by Director of BMTC, Bengaluru with regard to cancellation of payment of pension installment pertaining to G. Chikkachowdappa i.e., the complainant.
14. On the other hand, accused is examined as D.W.1 and got marked 9 documents as per Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.9. Ex.D.1 is the Aadhar Card of Venkatachalapathy S/o. Late Ramaiah i.e, the accused, wherein his address is mentioned as 4th Ward, Tank Bund Road, Chintamani, Chikkaballapur. Ex.D.2 is the Ration Card of Venkatachalapathi i.e, the accused, wherein the address is mentioned as Tank Bund Road, Chintamani, 4th Ward, Chintamani Taluk. Ex.D.3 is the representation letter given by Head Master of Ravi Vidya Niketan Primary and High School i.e., R.Venkatachalapathi who is the accused in this case to the Bank Manager of Karnataka Bank, Chinthamani to not to honour the cheques with respect to 11 CC.No.14508/2018 account bearing Nos:1422500101667201 and 1422500102965101. Ex.D.4 to Ex.D.9 are the Attendance Registers of Ravi Vidya Niketan High School.
15. To substantiate the above said contention, the complainant is examined as PW-1, and he has reiterated the complaint averments in his affidavit evidence and he during his cross-examination has deposed that accused is the friend of the complainant since from the last 15 years. He has further denied the suggestion that accused is not known to complainant. Hence, the complainant has not at all advanced an amount Rs.15,00,000/- as contended by complainant to accused. He further deposed that the house of the accused is situated at Thimmasandra and it is a village. Further, to show that accused is residing at Thimmasandra address, accused who is examined as D.W.1, he during his cross-examination admits that he is owning a house property and other property at Thimmasandra, but only contends that it is belonging to his parents and he is not residing at the above said 12 CC.No.14508/2018 address and only his parents are residing and he is residing at Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 address at Tank Bund Road and not at Thimmasandra address. However, in view of the admission of the accused during his cross-examination that his parents are residing at the Thimmasandra address, this itself goes to show that accused is residing along with his parents at Thimmasandra i.e., the address in the cause title of the complaint averments. He has further deposed before the court saying that he has not taken any security agreement from accused at the time of lending of loan amount to accused. He further deposed that accused runs school at Konapalli, Chintamani in the name of Ravi Vidyanikethan Primary and High School. This itself goes to show that complainant is known to accused and they both are friends and the defence taken by the accused that he has seen the accused only at the time of leading evidence is not believable.
16. He has further deposed before the court stating that on 20/11/2014 complainant has given an amount of 13 CC.No.14508/2018 Rs.15,00,000/- to accused and further on perusal of the complaint averments, in the complaint averments also, it has been specifically stated by the complainant that an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- has been given to accused on 20/11/2014 and the same fact has been reiterated by PW- 1 during his cross-examination. He further deposed that Ex.P.1 cheque is written by the accused in the house of the complainant and further denied to the suggestion that Ex.P.1(a) signature does not belong to the accused. However, to show that Ex.P.1(a) belongs to the accused, during the course of cross-examination of D.W.1, the counsel for complainant has suggested that the signature of the accused is appearing at Ex.P.7 Vakalathnama and signature is also appearing at Ex.P.7(a) and accused has admitted that his signature is appearing at Ex.P.7 and it is marked as Ex.P.7(a). Further, on close perusal and comparison of the signature appearing on Ex.P.1(a) and Ex.P.7(a) which is the signature of the accused on Vakalathnama, it goes to show that both are one and the same. That means the signature of the accused appearing 14 CC.No.14508/2018 at Ex.P.1(a) belongs to the accused. He has further deposed before the court stating that accused himself has written the date and name on Ex.P.1, for this suggestion accused has denied the same. Further, on close perusal of Ex.P.1, it reveals that different ink is appearing other than Ex.P.1(a) i.e., the other writings on Ex.P.1 cheque.
17. In this regard, I rely upon the decision reported in Crl. Appeal No:230-31 of 2019, decided between Bir Singh V/s. Mukesh Kumar dated 06/02/2019 wherein at Para No:40 it has been clearly held that :-
"Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt".
Even if the cheque is given for payment of said debt, the provision of Section 138 of N.I.Act attracts. Further, he has denied to the suggestion that the complainant has 15 CC.No.14508/2018 stolen the cheque and filled the cheque according to his convenience. Hence, on perusal of the above said cross- examination, it reveals that the complainant has stood by the averments what has been stated in the complaint and nowhere his evidence is shaken. In the present case, the defence that has been raised by the accused is that he is not residing at Ex.P.3 address wherein notice is issued and he is residing at Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 address at 4th Ward, Tank Bund Road, Chintamani address and not at the address mentioned at Ex.P.3.
18. However, during the course of cross-examination of D.W.1, he has admitted that his parents are residing at Thimmasandra address and he is owning land and other properties and this itself goes to show that accused is also residing along with his parents and the notice which is issued at Ex.P.3 is came to be served on Ex.P.6 wherein the reply has been issued by the Post Master, CMM Court Complex, Bengaluru that the acknowledgement bearing No:RK945221222IN which is issued on 25/04/2018 is 16 CC.No.14508/2018 came to be delivered on 15/05/2018 as "Article delivered"
on 27/04/2018. That means as per section 138(b) of N.I.Act, the notice is came to be duly received by the accused. Further, as per as per the Circular issued by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide Ref.No:126/2021 dated 25/11/2021, the Postal Track consignment showing as "Item Delivery confirmed" is deemed to be served. That means the notice issued as per Ex.P.3 is duly served on the accused as per Ex.P.6 and Section 138(b) of N.I.Act is also complied by the counsel for complainant. It is further defence of the accused that he has never seen the face of the complainant before the stage of evidence. However, the complainant during his cross-examination has specifically stated that he is the friend of the complainant from the last 15 years and he has lent a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for his urgent necessities and also for construction of house and for development of school. He has further deposed that before joining to the duty at Ravi Vidyaniketan School, the accused was working as a member and later on he resigned and working as a Head Master in Ravi 17 CC.No.14508/2018 Vidyaniketan School. This itself goes to show that complainant is known to the accused and they are friends and they are known to each other since from several years.
Thus, the oral evidence of the complainant falsifies the contention taken by the accused that he has never seen the face of the complainant.
19. Further, with regard to contention that the complainant has stolen the cheque, however to the above said aspect, the accused has not taken any steps such as lodging of complaint against the accused to the Police station or giving representation to the Bank or issuance of legal notice with regard to losing of Ex.P.1 cheque. But to this aspect, no any steps have been taken by the accused. Moreover, he has produced 9 documents marked from Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9 and none of the documents come to the aid of the accused showing that accused has lost the cheque and he lodged a complaint with regard to loss of cheque. However, on perusal of the Ex.D.3 representation given by the accused to the Bank Manager, Karnataka 18 CC.No.14508/2018 Bank Ltd., Chintamani, it is dated 04/07/2018. Further, on perusal of Ex.P.3 legal notice, it is issued to accused on 25/04/2018, whereas the present complaint is came to be lodged before the Bank Manager of Karnataka Bank on 04/07/2018 i.e., after lapse of 3 months the above said representation has been given by the accused i.e., only when the legal notice is came to be served on accused as per Ex.P.6. That means, only to avoid from payment of the cheque amount, the above said representation has been given after 3 months. This itself goes to show that only to avoid from the payment of the cheque amount the above said representation marked at Ex.D.3 dated 04/07/2018 has been given by the accused. Hence, the above said defence is also not proved by production of documentary evidence. The other defence which has been taken by the accused is that the complainant is not having financial capacity to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to accused. However, On perusal of the documents marked at Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.12, it goes to show that complainant is owning some agricultural land and he is also working in BMTC. This 19 CC.No.14508/2018 itself goes to show that he is having some income from agricultural land and also having salary. Further, he was worked in BMTC. This itself goes to show that the financial condition of the complainant is healthy. Further, the another defence which has been raised by the accused is that he admits Ex.P.1 cheque belongs to him, but the signature appearing on Ex.P.1(a) does not belong to him. Further, during the course of cross-examination of PW-1, Ex.P.7 vakalathnama was marked by counsel for complainant and his signature is appearing at Ex.P.7(a). On close comparison of Ex.P.7(a) and Ex.P.1(a), it seems to be one and the same. The accused has signed to Ex.P.1 cheque and has given to the custody of the complainant.
20. Further, the other defence which has been raised by the accused is that the other writings at Ex.P.1 cheque does not belong to the accused. The accused has not taken any steps to refer Ex.P.1 cheque to the Hand Writing Expert stating that the above said writings does not belong to him. Hence, in view of non-taking of any steps, this 20 CC.No.14508/2018 court has to give a finding based on the available evidence before the court. Hence, as discussed above, the signature appearing at Ex.P.1(a) and the signature appearing on Ex.P.7(a) appears to be one and the same. This itself goes to show that the signature of the accused is appearing at Ex.P.1(a). Further, the accused admits that Ex.P.1 cheque belongs to his account. This itself goes to show that Ex.P.1 cheque has been given by the accused in favour of complainant. Hence, on perusal of the above said defences which has been taken by the accused, the above said defences are without any documentary evidence and it seems that only to avoid from the payment of the cheque amount the above said defence is taken by the accused and it is just a plausible explanation taken only to avoid from the payment of the cheque amount. Though the evidence of the accused has been rebutted by cross-examining PW-1 and also by leading evidence, but it is not convincing, trustworthy and reliable. On the other hand, the evidence of the complainant clubbed with the documentary evidence goes to show that, accused has issued Ex.P.1 cheque for 21 CC.No.14508/2018 discharge of debt and it has been obtained by him for construction of house, developing of school and other urgent necessities etc. Hence, the complainant has proved that Ex.P.1 cheque is issued by accused in favour of complainant for discharge of debt. Hence, in view of my above discussion, I answer Point No.1 and 2 in the "Affirmative".
POINT No.3:-
21. It is the specific contention of the complainant that the complainant and accused are intimate friends and they are known to each other. Hence, accused approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/- before witness on 20/11/2014 and lent a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- by way of cash for purchase of land, construction of house, developing of school and other urgent necessities etc. In discharge of the said debt, accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque bearing No:962895 on 28/03/2018 drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, CBS Branch, Chinthamani for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. When the 22 CC.No.14508/2018 complainant presented the cheque on 28/03/2018 for realization through his banker Canara Bank, Maruti Nagar Branch, Bengaluru, the same was dishonoured for the reasons "Funds insufficient" on 10/04/2018 as per Ex.P.2 memo. Complainant having no other choice issued legal notice to the accused on 25/04/2018 as per Ex.P.3 and the said notice was sent by RPAD as per Ex.P.4 postal receipt. The said notice is duly served on the accused on 27/04/2018 as per Ex.P.6 Postal Track consignment as "Article delivered". The accused has failed to make payment of the cheque amount nor issued any reply notice. Hence, the present complaint is filed on 23/05/2018.
22. In this regard, it is relevant to peruse Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which reads as under:-
"Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.--Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank 23 CC.No.14508/2018 unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
23. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless--
a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of 24 CC.No.14508/2018 the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
24. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "debt of other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
25. On going through the said provision of law, it is clear that in order to establish and to prove the fact that the accused has committed an offence under section 138 of N.I.Act, the essential requirements i.e., legally recoverable debt, issuance of the cheque, presentation of the said cheque within the stipulated period for encashment, the dishonour of the said cheque and the issuance of the legal notice within the stipulated period calling upon the accused in making the payment of the said cheque amount is within the stipulated period are to be proved by the complainant.
26. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the accused has issued Ex.P.1 25 CC.No.14508/2018 cheque bearing No:962895 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- dated 28/03/2018. When the said cheque was presented to the Bank for encashment, the said cheque was dishonoured for the reasons "Funds insufficient" as per Ex.P.2 memo dated 10/04/2018. Thereafter, the complainant has issued legal notice through his advocate as per Ex.P.3 on 25/04/2018 and the said notice is sent by RPAD as per Ex.P.4 postal receipt and the said notice is duly served on the accused on 27/04/2018 as per Ex.P.6 Postal Track consignment as "Article delivered". Hence, as per Circular issued by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide Ref.No:126/2021 dated 25/11/2021, the Postal Track consignment showing as "Item Delivery confirmed" is deemed to be served. That means the notice issued as per Ex.P.3 is duly served on the accused as per Ex.P.6 track consignment details and Section 138(b) of N.I.Act is also complied by the counsel for complainant. The evidence placed on record shows the failure of the accused to pay the above said cheque amount within stipulated period as per section 138(c) of the Act. The present complaint has 26 CC.No.14508/2018 been filed on 23/05/2018 which is well within the period of limitation. In view of this, the complainant has satisfied the entire requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act.
27. On going through the entire oral and documentary evidence and as observed supra, the complainant has proved the existence of legally recoverable debt and issuance of cheque towards discharge of the said debt and also issuance of the legal notice within stipulated period and the failure of the accused to make payment of the said cheque amount within stipulated period. Under such circumstances, I hold that the complainant has clearly proved the existence of legally recoverable debt and also the issuance of cheque towards the discharge of said debt.
28. When the complainant proved that accused has issued Ex.P.1 cheque towards discharge of his liability, he is liable to pay the money as provided U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. The accused can be punishable with imprisonment for a 27 CC.No.14508/2018 term which may be extended upto 2 years or with fine which may be extended to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. The accused is liable to pay the cheque amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in discharge of his liability in favour of complainant. Hence in view of my above discussion, I answer Point No.3 in "Affirmative". POINT No.4:-
29. In the result I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Only) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The same shall be paid by the accused within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of the said fine amount, a sum of Rs.14,90,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh 28 CC.No.14508/2018 Ninety Thousand Only) has been awarded to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (One) year.
The rest of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is ordered to be adjusted to the State as fine.
The cash surety amount of
Rs.7,000/- already deposited by the
accused on 11/03/2019 is forfeited to the State.
Office is directed to supply copy of Judgment to the accused free of cost forthwith. (Dictated to the Stenographer on computer, print out taken by her is verified, corrected and then Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 29th day of December 2021).
(Siddaramappa Kalyan Rao) XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
29 CC.No.14508/2018ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Sri. G. Chikkachowdappa.
List of documents exhibited on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement.
Ex.P.3 : Legal notice.
Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt.
Ex.P.5 : Letter sent to Post Master for
non-receipt of
acknowledgement.
Ex.P.6 : Reply from Post Master for
non-receipt of
acknowledgement.
Ex.P.7 : Vakalathnama.
Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11 : RTC Extracts.
Ex.P.12 : Order passed by Director of
BMTC, Bengaluru.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused :
DW.1 : Sri. R. Venkatachalapathi @ R. Venkatachalamaiah.
30 CC.No.14508/2018List of documents exhibited on behalf of the accused :
Ex.D.1 : Aadhar Card of the accused.
Ex.D.2 : Ration Card of the accused.
Ex.D.3 : Stop payment letter to Bank.
Ex.D.4 to Ex.D.9 : Copy of Attendance Register of
the accused.
XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
31 CC.No.14508/2018Date: 29/12/2021 Complainant - MR Accused - RGS Judgment Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Only) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The same shall be paid by the accused within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of the said fine amount, a sum of Rs.14,90,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh 32 CC.No.14508/2018 Ninety Thousand Only) has been awarded to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (One) year.
The rest of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is ordered to be adjusted to the State as fine.
The cash surety amount of Rs.7,000/- already deposited by the
accused on 11/03/2019 is forfeited to the State.
Office is directed to supply copy of Judgment to the accused free of cost forthwith.
XII A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.