Bangalore District Court
Smt. Jayashree.A vs Sri.Yarehalli Chikkamuthaya on 16 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 16th day of July, 2018
Present:- Smt. Saraswathi.K.N, B.A.L., LL.M.,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.21564/2014
Complainant : Smt. Jayashree.A,
D/o. Lakshman Gowda,
Aged about 40 Years,
W/k. House wife,
R/at No.7, 6th Cross,
R.R.Layout,
Bhannergatta Road,
Bengaluru - 560 076.
(Rep. by Sri.R.Nagaraja Reddy.,
Adv.,)
- Vs -
Accused : Sri.Yarehalli Chikkamuthaya
Padmanabha,
S/o. Chikkamuthaiah @
Thammaiah,
Aged about 30 Years,
Working in Real Estate,
R/at.Chikka Muthaiahna
Doddi Village,
Harohalli Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
And also at
No.690, 14th Cross, 2nd Phase,
Opp:V.E.T.College, J.P.Nagar,
Bengaluru -560 078.
(Rep. by Sri., Prashanth, Jayakumar &
Ors., Advs.,)
2 C.C.21564/14 J
Case instituted : 5.7.2014
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I. Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is acquitted
Date of order : 16.7.2018
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, the Accused and she are known to each other from several years. The former was working in Manipal Hospitals, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru, as Nursing In-charge from five years and recently she has resigned her job due to health reasons. The Accused is doing the business of real estate i.e., buying and selling of lands in and around Bengaluru and Bengaluru Rural District.
3. The Complainant has further submitted that, the Accused approached her for a hand loan of Rs.20 Lakhs for his business and accordingly, she paid the said amount to the Accused in the month of February 2014, which he had assured to repay within four months. After the stipulated period of time, when she approached him and sought for the 3 C.C.21564/14 J repayment of the loan amount, the Accused has issued the following four cheques in her favour:-
i) The cheque bearing No.344472 for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs dated 23.4.2014 drawn on the Canara Bank, J.P.Nagar, 2nd Phase Branch, Bengaluru;
ii) The cheque bearing No.344473 for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs dated 23.4.2014 drawn on the Canara Bank, J.P.Nagar, 2nd Phase Branch, Bengaluru;
iii) The cheque bearing No.344474 for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs dated 23.4.2014 drawn on the Canara Bank, J.P.Nagar, 2nd Phase Branch, Bengaluru; and
iv) The cheque bearing No.344475 for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs dated 23.4.2014 drawn on the Canara Bank, J.P.Nagar, 2nd Phase Branch, Bengaluru.
assuring that they would be duly honored on their presentation on their due dates.
4. As per the instructions of the Accused, when she presented the said cheques for encashment through her Banker on 23.4.2014, they came to be returned dishonoured with a reason "Funds Insufficient" on 25.4.2014. Though she informed this fact to the Accused, he did not respond to the same. Hence left with no other option, she got issued the legal notice to the Accused by RPAD to his both the 4 C.C.21564/14 J addresses on 24.5.2014 calling upon him to pay the cheques amount to her within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the legal notice. But inspite of the due receipt of the same, the Accused has neither replied nor has he paid the cheques amount to her. Hence the present complaint.
5. The Complainant submits that, the dishonour of the cheques by the Accused has been malafide, intentional and deliberate. Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of the Accused, she has filed the present complaint praying that the Accused be summoned, tried and punished in accordance with Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
6. The Pre-summoning evidence has been led by the Complainant on 5.8.2014. Prima-facie case has been made out against the Accused and he has been summoned vide order of the same date.
7. The Accused has appeared before the Court on 30.12.2015. He has been enlarged on bail and the substance of the accusation has been read over to him, to which he has pleaded not guilty and has claimed the trial.
8. In the post-summoning evidence stage, the GPA Holder of the Complainant has examined him as P.W.1 and has filed his affidavit, wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
5 C.C.21564/14 J
9. P.W.1 has produced and relied upon the following documentary evidence:-
The General Power of Attorney as per Ex.P.1, the 4 Original Cheques dated: 23.4.2014 as per Ex.P.2 to P.5 respectively, the signatures on the said cheques identified by P.W.1 as that of the Accused as per Ex.P2(a) to P5(a) respectively, 4 Bank Memos as per Ex. P6 to P9, the office copy of the Legal Notice as per Ex.P10, the two Postal Receipts as per Ex.P11 & P12 respectively, the Postal Acknowledgements as per Ex.P13, the returned Notice as per Ex.P.14, the Postal Envelope as per Ex.P15 and the Postal Receipt as per Ex.P16.
10. The statement of the Accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence found against him and has chosen to lead his rebuttal evidence.
11. The Accused has led his rebuttal evidence by examining himself on oath under Sec.315 of Cr.P.C., as D.W.1.
12. In his evidence, the gist of the defence of the Accused is that, he did his graduation in B.Com from 2003 to 2006 in Bengaluru and thereafter he joined his P.G in Accounts from January 2007 in Australia. He completed his master degree in Accounts in January 2010. After the completion of his studies in Australia, he worked there for 6 C.C.21564/14 J one year i.e., till December 2010. In the month of March 2011, he shifted to Singapore where he started working. He finished his work commitments in Singapore in October 2012 and thereafter he shifted to Yarehalli in Kanakapura Taluk, where he started his own diary business and he was doing the said business from November 2012 to July 2014. As his business was not doing well, he had to shut the same and then from October 2014 to March 2015, he was working in a firm by name Rivera Manpower Services. As he had the knowledge in business, he quit his job in the said firm and started his own business in Manpower Recruitment and since May 2015 till date he has been doing the same business.
13. Further according to D.W.1, he does not know the Complainant and he had given his eight signed cheques with the amounts written in words and figures written by him to one Kiran Kumar, who was the business partner of his brothr T.Thimmegowda @ Ganesh and his brother and the said Kiran Kumar had the business transactions.
14. According to D.W.1, he did not have any transaction with the said Kiran Kumar and as there was some misunderstanding in business between his brother and Kiran Kumar, the latter used to come their house and cause disturbance to them and hence to stop him from doing so, he had given his eight signed blank cheques and among the said 7 C.C.21564/14 J eight cheques, the Complainant has presented the four cheques which are the disputed cheques in the present case and the remaining four cheques have been misused by one Gracy on the basis of which, she had filed a false case against him, which came to be dismissed for non- prosecution.
15. Thus according to D.W.1, he has met the GPA Holder of the Complainant only once through Kiran Kumar and that the claim of the Complainant that, the former has availed a loan of Rs.20 Lakhs from her and has issued the subject cheques to her towards the alleged repayment of the loan is false. Accordingly he has prayed for his acquittal.
16. In support of his oral evidence, D.W.1 has produced and relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.D1 to 13 which are as follows:-
i) The notarized copy of Convocation Certificate pertaining to his B.Com. Degree as per Ex.D.1;
ii) The notarized copy of Convocation Certificate pertaining to his Master of Accounting post graduation course as per Ex.D.2;
iii) The notarized copy of student Identity card as per Ex.D.3;
iv) The notarized copy of Employment Card of Accused issued by the Government of Singapore as perEx.D.4;
8 C.C.21564/14 J
v) The notarized copy of the Offer Letter from a company of Singapore dated: 19.4.2011 as per Ex.D.5;
vi) The notarized copy of Pass Port as per Ex.D.6, and the relevant page in it as per Ex.D.6 (a);
vii) The notarized copy of the Dairy Training Certificate as per Ex.D.7;
viii) The notarized copy of I.D. Card issued by the Rivera Manpower Solutions as per Ex.D.8;
ix) The attested copy of I.T.Returns concerning the year 2017-18 as per Ex.D.9.
x) The certified copy of the Order Sheet in C.C.No.21745/14 as per Ex.D.10,
xi) The certified copy of the Complaint in C.C.No.21745/14 as per Ex.D.11,
xii) The I.T. Returns for the assessment year 2016-17 as per Ex.D.12,
xiii) The Affidavit u/s 65(B) of the Evidence Act as per Ex.D.13.
Accordingly, he had prayed for his acquittal by dismissing the complaint.
17. D.W.1 has been cross-examined extensively by the learned counsel for the Complainant.
18. The learned counsel for the Complainant has filed his written arguments, in which, he has prayed for the conviction of the Accused on the following grounds:-
9 C.C.21564/14 J
i) That the Complainant has proved his case by examining him as P.W.1 and by relying upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to 18;
ii) The Accused in his cross-examination has admitted that, the cheques in dispute belong to him and that they contain his signatures;
iii) Though the legal notice is duly served upon the Accused, he has not chosen to cause the reply notice.
Accordingly, he has prayed for the conviction of the Accused.
19. The learned Defence counsel has addressed his oral arguments, as well as filed his written arguments, in which, he has prayed for the acquittal of the Accused on the following grounds:-
i) The Accused has examined him as D.W.1 and has got marked the documentary evidence as per Ex.D1 to 13;
ii) There is no service of the legal notice on the Accused, since the office copy of the legal notice at Ex.P10 goes to show that it is dated 24.5.2014, which on perusal goes to show that it is in respect of the cheques in dispute, whereas the returned legal notice at Ex.P14 is dated 24.5.2014, but it is issued on behalf of one Mrs.Gracy 10 C.C.21564/14 J Quadras and not on behalf the present Complainant and it does not relate to the subject cheques at all.
Moreover the postal shara which is evident as per Ex.P15 is "Incomplete Address". This is sufficient to conclude that, there is no service of the legal notice on the Accused;
iii) The Accused has produced the documentary proof to show that he was in foreign countries from 2007 to 2012 and in such circumstance, there was no possibility for him to have any close acquaintance with the Complainant as claimed by her in this case;
iv) P.W.1 admits in his cross-examination that he has no personal knowledge about the Accused, then his claim that his wife has lent Rs.20 Lakhs to the Accused is not only highly doubtful but also false;
v) P.W.1 has miserably failed to prove the source of funds of his wife so as to have allegedly lent a loan of Rs.20 Lakhs to the Accused;
vi) There is ambiguity in the complaint averments, since the Complainant has pleaded in the complaint that after four months from the date of lending, the Accused has issued four cheques to her. That means it must have been issued in the month of June 2014. But all the 11 C.C.21564/14 J subject cheques are dated 23.4.2014. Therefore the case of the Complainant is highly doubtful;
vii) According to the Complainant, no documents of loan executed while advancing a huge loan of Rs.20 Lakhs. This claim is highly suspicious;
viii) It is not the case of the Complainant that she has charged interest on the said loan. Even on this ground, the transaction is highly doubtful.
ix) The Accused has rebutted the presumptions under Sec.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act;
Accordingly he has prayed for the acquittal of the Accused.
20. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
21. Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been enacted to lend credibility to the financial transactions.
The main ingredients of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act are:-
12 C.C.21564/14 J
(i) Drawing up of a cheque by the Accused towards the payment of the amount of money, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or any other liability;
(ii) Return of the cheque by the bank as unpaid;
(iii) The drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money within 15 days of the receipt of the notice under the proviso (b) to Section 138.
The Explanation appended to the Section provides that, the "debt or other liability" for the purpose of this Section means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
22. Apart from this, Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lays down a presumption in favour of the holder of cheque in the following terms:-
"It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that:-
The holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec. 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability".
23. Also, Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act states, "Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-
(a) That every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or 13 C.C.21564/14 J transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;"
24. Thus, the Act clearly lays down the presumptions in favour of the Complainant with regard to the issuance of the cheque by the Accused, towards the discharge of his liability in favour of the Complainant.
25. Under the scheme of the Act, the onus is upon the Accused to rebut the presumptions in favour of the Complainant by raising a probable defence.
26. It is a well settled position of law that the defence of the Accused, if in the nature of a mere denial of the case of the Complainant will not be sufficient to hold it as a probable defence. The bare denial of the passing of consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable must be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the Complainant.
27. It is also a well settled position of law that once the cheque is proved to be relating to the Account of the Accused and he accepts and admits the signature on the said cheque, then the initial presumption as contemplated under Sec. 139 of the N.I.Act has to be raised by the courts in favour of the Complainant. The presumption referred to in Sec.139 of the N.I.Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the Accused is entitled to rebut the said 14 C.C.21564/14 J presumption. What is required to be established by the Accused in order to rebut the presumption is different from each case under given circumstance. But the fact remains that, a mere plausible explanation is not expected from the Accused and it must be more than a plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. The defence raised by the Accused by way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and capable of being accepted by the court.
28. Such being the legal position, it would be pertinent to refer to the defences raised by the Accused to rebut the presumptions in favour of the Complainant in this case.
29. It is pertinent to note that, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the cheques in dispute belong to the Accused and that they bear his signatures. However there is a serious dispute with regard to the acquaintance between the parties as well as with regard to the fact that, there existed the alleged loan transaction of Rs.20 Lakhs as claimed by the Complainant in this case. In such circumstance, when the entire case of the Complainant is seriously denied by the Accused, the onus of establishing the alleged transaction is upon the Complainant. No doubt the moment, the Accused admits the cheques and his signatures thereon, the presumption under Sec.118 of the N.I.Act is to be drawn in his favor. However the said presumption, being rebuttable in nature, the Accused can rebut the same by 15 C.C.21564/14 J raising some probable defence/s so as to be sufficient to rebut the aforesaid presumption available in favor of the Complainant.
30. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the first and the foremost defence raised by the Accused in this case is with regard to his non-acquaintance with the Complainant. In such circumstance, before considering the other aspects, it would be necessary to consider the said defence of the Accused and give a finding with regard to the same.
31. In this regard, it could be seen as per the complaint averments, the Complainant and the Accused are said to be known to each other since several years. However the Accused has categorically denied the same and in order to establish the fact that, he was not at all in India for the period from 2007 to 2012, during the course of his evidence, the Accused has produced the documentary proof as per Ex.D.1 to D.8. These documents go to show that, the Accused had been outside India for his education purpose and for his profession during the aforesaid period. Therefore though the transaction in question, according to the Complainant, he is said to have taken place in the month of February 2014, there is no proof either oral or documentary produced by the Complainant in support of her claim that, 16 C.C.21564/14 J prior to the said period, she was in acquaintance with the Accused.
32. It is further pertinent to note that, the proximity of relationship between the parties has also been elicited in the cross-examination of the GPA holder of the Complainant/ P.W.1, who in his cross-examination has claimed that, the Accused is known to his wife through him. However, PW.1 has claimed that, he knows the Accused through his brother Ganesh Thimmegowda, but he has further claimed that, he does not have any personal knowledge about the fact that, the Accused was doing real estate business, which according to him was represented to him by the Accused.
33. However, when P.W.1 claims that, the Accused is known to his wife through him, then at least the former is bound to prove before this court that, he had close acquaintance with the Accused and that, it was through him that, his wife/Complainant came in contact with the Accused.
34. Further when P.W.1 has specifically claimed in his cross-examination that, he does not know about the personal details of the Accused at all, then except the fact that, the cheque in dispute belongs to the Accused, there is no proof with regard to the further claim of the Complainant that, the Accused is known to her since several years cannot be 17 C.C.21564/14 J believed and accepted by this court. Therefore this defence on the part of the Accused seems to be a probable one.
35. Now coming to the next important technical defence raised by the Accused is the alleged non-service of the legal notice upon him.
36. It is pertinent to note that, as per the complaint averments, the Complainant is said to have caused the legal notice to the two addresses of the Accused through RPAD and it is both pleaded and proved by the Complainant in the complaint and in the affidavit of P.W.1 that, the legal notice has been duly served upon the Accused to one address on 29.5.2014 and that the other to which the legal notice is served is returned, to which, the Accused has caused the reply notice to her.
37. However, it is pertinent to note that, though the Complainant has claimed that, in pursuance of the service of the legal notice, the Accused has caused the reply notice, she has not produced any such reply notice before this court. On the contrary, it is the specific defence of the Accused that, he has not at all been served with the legal notice.
38. In this regard, it could be seen that the Complainant has produced the office copy of the legal notice at Ex.P.10 dated 24.5.2014, which admittedly refers to the 18 C.C.21564/14 J cheques in dispute and it is got issued by the Complainant through her counsel. However, the legal notice through speed post which is returned un-served with the postal shara "Incomplete Address, Returned to Sender" as per Ex.P.15 goes to show that, the legal notice that was found in the said postal envelope, though dated:24.5.2014 was got issued on behalf of one Mrs. Gracy Quadras and not on behalf of the present Complainant and the said legal notice is in respect of four other different cheques dated:24.5.2014, though drawn on the Canara Bank, J.P.Nagar II Phase Branch, Bengaluru for Rs.5 Lakhs each.
39. Therefore it could be seen that, though the mistake in the cheque numbers need not to be seriously considered by the court, but the fact that in Ex.P.14, the name of the Complainant is one Mr.Gracy Quadras and not the present Complainant is sufficient to hold that the Complainant has miserably failed to comply with one of the mandatory requirements of Sec.138(b) of N.I. Act and as such the Postal Shara on the postal envelope at Ex.P.15, corroborated with the documentary evidence, being the legal notice at Ex.P.14 leads to an inference that, there is no service of the valid notice on the Accused as contemplated under law and as such, the technical defence on behalf of the Accused that, there is no service of the legal notice on him seems to be a tenable and acceptable one.
19 C.C.21564/14 J
40. Now coming to the case of the Complainant on merits, as could be seen from the pleading and proof, the Complainant is alleged to have advanced a huge loan of Rs.20 Lakhs to the Accused at one instance, without collecting any documents for security purpose and according to her, she is said to have been advanced a loan of Rs.20 Lakhs to the Accused for his business purpose in the month of February 2014. Further according to the Complainant, towards the repayment of the said loan, the Accused is said to have been issued the subject cheques after the stipulated period of 4 months from February 2014.
41. But it is interesting to note that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Defence Counsel both in the cross- examination of the Complainant as well as in his arguments, when according to her, the Accused is alleged to have issued the cheques in dispute to her after four months from February 2014, then the cheques should have been of the month of June 2014, but the cheques in dispute are admittedly dated: 23.4.2014. In such circumstance, it cannot be accepted and believed that, the Accused would have issued the cheques in dispute to her in the month of June 2014 as claimed by her.
42. Moreover, the GPA holder of the Complainant/ P.W.1 has claimed that, the transaction in question is the first transaction between his wife and the Accused and in 20 C.C.21564/14 J such circumstance, it cannot be believed that, even if the Complainant had possessed the requisite funds to lend such a huge amount to the Accused, she could have done so either without charging any interest or without collecting any security documents from him.
43. Another serious defence of the Accused is with regard to the source of funds with the Complainant as on the date of the alleged transaction in question.
44. In this regard, it is elicited from P.W.1 that, his wife was working in the Manipal Hospitals and she was not an income tax assessee, but he does not know about her monthly salary and he has categorically answered that, he could not produce the salary slip of his wife pertaining to the said period. Therefore when the Accused has seriously disputed the alleged loan transaction as well as the financial capacity of the Complainant, it could be seen that except the self serving testimony of P.W.1, there is no cogent and reliable proof placed before the court in order to come to the conclusion that, as on February 2014, the Complainant had the requisite source of funds, so as to have advanced a huge loan of Rs.20 Lakhs to the Accused. Therefore the absence of material before this court with regard to the source of funds also clearly raises a serious doubt in the entire case of the Complainant.
21 C.C.21564/14 J
45. It could be seen that the defence of the Accused with regard to his signed cheques in the custody of the Complainant is that, there were transactions between his brother Ganesh Thimmegowda and one Kiran and in respect of the said business transaction, the said Kiran is alleged to have collected the cheques in dispute and his four other signed blank cheques from him and thereafter the said Kiran has misused the same by presenting them through the Complainant herein.
46. It is pertinent to note that, though there is no proof regarding the said defence version, when the Complainant has failed to establish her loan transaction of Rs.20 Lakhs with the Accused as claimed by her, then there can be no lapse found in the defence of the Accused, since it is the burden cast upon the Complainant to establish her case beyond reasonable doubt and for this purpose she is not expected to rely upon the weakness in the defence of the Accused.
47. Moreover when the Accused has reiterated the same defence version in his oral evidence before this court with the corroboration of the documentary evidence as per Ex.D.2 toD.9, his evidence has not been challenged by the Complainant, by subjecting the same to the test of cross- examination. As a result, the entire defence theory put forth by the Accused has remained unchallenged. Hence, there is 22 C.C.21564/14 J no reason for this court to find fault in the defence of the Accused and on the other hand, the conduct of the Complainant in not having cross-examined the Accused has given rise to a situation, so as to draw an adverse inference against him. As a result, it is sufficient for this court to hold that, the Complainant has miserably failed to establish her case beyond reasonable doubt and on the other hand, the defence of the Accused is a probable one. Hence the Accused has successfully rebutted the presumptions available in favour of the Complainant u/Sec.118 and 139 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising the power conferred u/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
His bail bond stands discharged.
The cash security of Rs.5,000/= deposited by the Accused on 30.12.2015 is ordered to be refunded to him (if not forfeited or lapsed) after the expiry of the appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of July, 2018).
(SARASWATHI.K.N), XVI Addl.CMM., Bengaluru City.
23 C.C.21564/14 J ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:-
P.W.1 : Sri. Donald Dias (GPA Holder of the Complainant);
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.P-1 : General Power of Attorney; Ex.P-2 to 5 : Original Cheques; Ex.P-2(a) to : Signatures of the Accused; 5(a) Ex.P-6 to P.9 : Bank Memos; Ex.P-10 : The Office copy of the Legal Notice; Ex.P11 & P.12 : Postal Receipts; Ex.P-13 : Postal Acknowledgement; Ex.P-14 : Returned Legal Notice; Ex.P-15 : Postal Envelope; Ex.P-16 : Postal Receipt.
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Accused:-
D.W-1 : Sri.Yarehali Chikkamuthaya Padmanaba
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-
Ex.D-1 : Notarized Copy of the Convocation Certificate of B.Com. Degree;
Ex.D-2 : Notarized Copy of the Convocation Certificate pertaining to Master of Accounting Post-graduation course; Ex.D-3 : Notarized Copy of the Student Identity card of the Accused;
Ex.D-4 : Notarized Copy of the Employment Card
of the Accused issued by the
Government of Singapore;
Ex.D-5 : Notarised copy of the Offer Letter from a
company of Singapore dated: 19.4.2011; Ex.D-6 : Notarized copy of the Passport of the Accused;
24 C.C.21564/14 J Ex.D-6(a) : Relevant Page in the Passport;
Ex.D-7 : Notarized copy of the Dairy Training Certificate;
Ex.D-8 : Notarized copy of the I.D. Card issued by the Rivera Manpower Solutions;
Ex.D-9 : Attested copy of I.T.Returns concerning the year 2017-18;
Ex.D-10 : Certified copy of the Order Sheet in C.C.No.21745/14;
Ex.D-11 : Certified copy of the Complaint in C.C.No.21745/14;
Ex.D-12 : I.T. Returns for the assessment year 2016-17;
Ex.D-13 : Affidavit u/s 65(B) of the Evidence Act.
(SARASWATHI.K.N), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
25 C.C.21564/14 J 16.7.2018 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER By exercising the power conferred u/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
His bail bond stands discharged.
The cash security of Rs.5,000/= deposited by the Accused on 30.12.2015 is ordered to be refunded to him (if not forfeited or lapsed) after the expiry of the appeal period.
XVI A.C.M.M., B'luru.