Bangalore District Court
(In C.C.1015 vs (In All Five Cases) Mr. Rajkumar Appasab ... on 1 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015
PRESENT: Smt. B.SHARADHA, B.Sc., LL.B
XXI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE
C.C.No.10150, 10170, 10174, 10181 & 10182/2014
COMPLAINANT:
(In C.C.10150, 10170 Mr. R. Krishna @ Rajkrishna S/o.
& 10182/2014) Late. N. Rajanna, Aged about 46
years, R/o. No.308, 12th Cross, 4th
Main, MPM Layout, Mallathahalli,
Bangalore-560 095.
COMPLAINANT:
(In C.C.10174 & Mr. B.G. Srinivasa S/o. B.K.
10181/2014) Govinda Shetty, R/o. No.69,
Tejaswini Apartments, 5th Cross,
4th Main, Vallabhanagara, D.K.
Sandra, Bangalore-62.
V/s.
ACCUSED:
(In all five cases) Mr. Rajkumar Appasab Patil Ugar
S/o. Sri Appasab Patil, Aged
about 37 years, Proprietor of Shri
Padmavathi Movies, Ugar-
Budruk, Athani Taluk, Belgaum
District- 591 320.
-: C O M M O N J U D G M E N T :-
All these five complaints are filed under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
2. The accused in all the five cases is Sri. Rajkumar
Appasab Patil Ugar. Whereas the complainant in
C.C.10150/2014, C.C.10170/2014 & C.C.10182/2014 is Sri. R.
2 C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
10181 & 10182/2014
Krishna @ Rajkrishna and the complainant in C.C.10174/2014
& C.C.10181/2014 is Sri. B.G. Srinivas. For the sake of
convenience and to avoid repetition all these cases are taken up
together.
3. The brief facts of the case of the complainant in
C.C.10150/2014, C.C.10170/2014 & C.C.10182/2014 is that
the accused is known to him and the accused approached the
complainant for financial assistance. The complainant with the
intention of helping the accused gave a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
each on two occasions and Rs.15,00,000/- on another occasion,
by way of cash during January 2012. For discharging the said
dues, the accused issued the cheque bearing No.286055 dated
03.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of
Mysore, SP Personal Banking Branch, Gandhinagara, Bangalore
referred in C.C.10150/2014, another cheque bearing
No.671828 dated 27.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
drawn on State Bank of India, Ugar Budruk Branch referred in
C.C.10170/2014 and another cheque bearing No.674327 dated
27.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of
India, Ugar Budruk Branch referred in C.C.10182/2014. When
the said cheques were presented for encashment, they came to
be dishonoured with the shara as "Insufficient Funds". Hence,
legal notice was issued to the accused calling upon him to pay
the cheques amount within the stipulated period. Inspite of
service of notice, the accused neither paid the cheques amount
nor replied. Hence, claims that the accused has committed an
offence punishable U/s.138 of NI Act.
4. The brief facts of the case of the complainant in
C.C.10174/2014 & C.C.10181/2014 is that the accused is
known to him and the accused approached the complainant for
C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
3 10181 & 10182/2014
financial assistance. The complainant with the intention of
helping the accused gave a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each on two
occasions by way of cash during February 2012. For
discharging the said dues, the accused issued the cheque
bearing No.286058 dated 23.08.2012 for a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, SP Personal
Banking Branch, Gandhinagara, Bangalore referred in
C.C.10174/2014 and another cheque bearing No.286056 dated
07.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on drawn on
State Bank of Mysore, SP Personal Banking Branch,
Gandhinagara, Bangalore referred in C.C.10181/2014. When
the said cheques were presented for encashment, they came to
be dishonoured with the shara as "Insufficient Funds". Hence,
legal notice was issued to the accused calling upon him to pay
the cheques amount within the stipulated period. Inspite of
service of notice, the accused neither paid the cheques amount
nor replied. Hence, claims that the accused has committed an
offence punishable U/s.138 of NI Act.
5. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant
and by perusing the documents and hearing the arguments,
case was registered against the accused for an offence
punishable U/s.138 of NI Act and summons was issued to the
accused. The summons issued to the accused has been duly
served in all the five cases. The accused in all the five cases
appeared before the court through his counsel on the next date
of hearing and filed bail application U/s.436 of Cr.P.C. The
accused was enlarged on bail and plea was recorded separately
in all the five cases. The accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried, when the substance of the accusation was
read over and explained to the accused. Hence, posted the case
for complainant evidence.
4 C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
10181 & 10182/2014
6. The complainant R. Krishna @ Rajkrishna in
C.C.10150/2014, 10170/2014 & 10182/2014 got examined
himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 in
C.C.10150/2014, Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 in C.C.10170/2014 and in
C.C.10182/2014 separately and closed his side of evidence.
The complainant B.G. Srinivas in C.C.10174/2014 &
10181/2014 got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked
Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 in C.C.10174/2014 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 in
C.C.10181/2014 separately and closed his side of evidence.
7. The statement of the accused was recorded U/s.313
Cr.P.C. in all the five cases. The accused in his 313 statement
in all the five fives denied the incriminating evidence appearing
against him and submitted that he has got defence evidence.
8. The accused got examined himself as DW-1 in all the
five cases and got marked Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-8 in
C.C.10150/2014, Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-7 in C.C.10170/2014, Ex.D-1
to Ex.D-4 in C.C.10174/2014, Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5 in
C.C.10181/2014 and Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-7 in C.C.10182/2014
separately and closed his side of evidence.
9. Heard the arguments of both the learned advocate for
the complainant and the accused and the case was posted for
judgment.
10. After going through the evidence, documents and the
records, the points that arise for my consideration are:-
i) In C.C.10150/2014
1) Whether complainant proves that the and
accused has issued postdated cheque bearing
No.286055 dated 03.08.2012 for a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of
C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
5 10181 & 10182/2014
Mysore, SP Personal Banking Branch, Gandhi
Nagara, Bangalore to discharge his liability?
2) Whether the complainant proves that the
accused has committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
3) What order?
ii) In C.C.No.10170/2014
1) Whether complainant proves that the accused
has issued a cheque bearing No.671828 dated
27.08.2012 for sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn
on State Bank of India, Ugar Budruk Branch to
discharge his liability?
2) Whether the complainant proves that the
accused has committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
3) What order?
iii) In C.C.No.10174/2014
1) Whether complainant proves that the accused
has issued a cheque bearing No.286058 dated
23.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn
on State Bank of Mysore, SP Personal Banking
Branch, Gandhi Nagara, Bangalore to
discharge his liability?
2) Whether the complainant proves that the
accused has committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
3) What order?
iv) In C.C.No.10181/2014
1) Whether complainant proves that the accused
has issued a cheque bearing No. 286056 dated
07.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn
on State Bank of Mysore, SP Personal Banking
Branch, Gandhi Nagara, Bangalore to
discharge his liability?
2) Whether the complainant proves that the
accused has committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
3) What order?
6 C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
10181 & 10182/2014
v) In C.C.No.10182/2014
1) Whether complainant proves that the accused
has issued a cheque bearing No. 674327 dated
27.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn
on State Bank of India, Ugar Budruk Branch to
discharge his liability?
2) Whether the complainant proves that the
accused has committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
3) What order?
11. On going through the records, documentary evidence
and by hearing the arguments of both sides I proceed to answer
the above points as follows:
Point No 1 : In the Negative
(In all five cases)
Point No.2 : In the Negative
(In all five cases)
Point No.3 : As per the final order,
(In all five cases)for the following:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 (IN ALL THE FIVE CASES):
12. All these points are taken up together to avoid
unnecessary repetitions and for the sake of convenience.
13. The complainant in C.C.10150/2014,
C.C.10170/2014 & C.C.10182/2014 claims that the accused is
known to him and the accused approached the complainant for
financial assistance. The complainant with the intention of
helping the accused gave a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each on two
occasions and Rs.15,00,000/- on another occasion, by way of
cash during January 2012. For discharging the said dues, the
accused issued the cheque bearing No.286055 dated
03.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of
C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
7 10181 & 10182/2014
Mysore, SP Personal Banking Branch, Gandhinagara, Bangalore
referred in C.C.10150/2014, another cheque bearing
No.671828 dated 27.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
drawn on State Bank of India, Ugar Budruk Branch referred in
C.C.10170/2014 and another cheque bearing No.674327 dated
27.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of
India, Ugar Budruk Branch referred in C.C.10182/2014. When
the said cheques were presented for encashment, they came to
be dishonoured with the shara as "Insufficient Funds". Hence,
legal notice was issued to the accused calling upon him to pay
the cheques amount within the stipulated period.
14. The complainant in C.C.10174/2014 &
C.C.10181/2014 claims that the accused is known to him and
the accused approached the complainant for financial
assistance. The complainant with the intention of helping the
accused gave a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each on two occasions
by way of cash during February 2012. For discharging the said
dues, the accused issued the cheque bearing No.286058 dated
23.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of
Mysore, SP Personal Banking Branch, Gandhinagara, Bangalore
referred in C.C.10174/2014 and another cheque bearing
No.286056 dated 07.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
drawn on drawn on State Bank of Mysore, SP Personal Banking
Branch, Gandhinagara, Bangalore referred in C.C.10181/2014.
When the said cheques were presented for encashment, they
came to be dishonoured with the shara as "Insufficient Funds".
Hence, legal notice was issued to the accused calling upon him
to pay the cheques amount within the stipulated period.
15. In support of the case of the complainants, the
complainant R. Krishna @ Rajkrishna in C.C.10150/2014,
8 C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
10181 & 10182/2014
10170/2014 & 10182/2014 got examined himself as PW-1 in
all the three cases separately and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5
in C.C.10150/2014, Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 in C.C.10170/2014 and
in C.C.10182/2014. The complainant B.G. Srinivas in
C.C.10174/2014 & 10181/2014 got examined himself as PW-1
and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 in C.C.10174/2014 and
Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 in C.C.10181/2014 separately.
16. Among them Ex.P-1 is the cheque in all the cases and
Ex.P-2 is the endorsement issued by the banking authorities by
assigning reasons for the dishonour of the cheques. The
contents of Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 remain undisputed in all the five
cases. In the Ex.P-1 cheque in C.C.10170/2014, the cheque
number appears to be over printed. But, it has not been
disputed. The bank endorsement Ex.P-2, legal notice Ex.P-3
and the complaint in C.C.10170/2014 reflects the cheque
number as 671828 and it is not in dispute. Hence, such over
print has not been taken into consideration as it has not been
disputed by the other side. The complainant by placing Ex.P-1
& Ex.P-2 in all the five cases proved that the cheques relied
upon by the complainant have been dishonoured by the
banking authorities.
17. The complainant Sri. Rajkrishna in C.C.10150/2014,
C.C.10170/2014 & C.C.10182/2014 and the complainant Sri.
B.G. Srinivas in C.C.10174/2014 & C.C.10181/2014 claims
that the accused is known to them and approached them for
financial assistance. In order to help the accused, Sri.
Rajkrishna paid loan of Rs.35,00,000/- in January 2012 and
Sri. B.G. Srinivas paid loan of Rs.20,00,000/- in February 2012
to the accused. The accused in order to repay the said loan
amount, issued three cheques marked as Ex.P-1 in
C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
9 10181 & 10182/2014
C.C.10150/2014, C.C.10170/2014 & C.C.10182/2014 in
favour of the complainant therein and issued two cheques
marked as Ex.P-1 in C.C.10174/2014 & C.C.10181/2014 in
favour of the complainant therein. The said cheques came to be
dishonoured on their presentation for encashment. Even after
receiving the legal notice, the accused failed to pay the cheques
amount within the stipulated period.
18. The accused disputed the case of the complainant and
also disputed his liability to make payment towards the
complainant. The accused got examined himself as DW-1 in all
the five cases separately and got marked certain documents in
support of his defence. The accused has not disputed the
cheque Ex.P-1 and the signature therein. When the accused
admits the cheque and his signature, there exists statutory
presumption U/s.118 & 139 of N.I. Act. The accused shall rebut
the presumption.
19. The accused in order to rebut the presumption as said
earlier, got examined himself as DW-1 and got marked certain
documents. The accused claims that he is the director of the
Kannada film "Tsunami" and the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna
has financed the said film "Tsunami" as the producer. The
complainant Sri. Rajkrishna has obtained his seven blank
signed cheques. Out of them, the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna
by misusing his three blank signed cheques, filed three
complaints against him through Sri. B.G. Srinivas and by
misusing his two blank signed cheques, himself filed two
complaints against him.
20. The facts elicited during the cross-examination of the
complainant and the suggestions made during the cross-
10 C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
10181 & 10182/2014
examination of the accused in the form of admission, leads to be
inference that the accused is director of the Kannada film
"Tsunami". As per the contents of Ex.D1-C.D., the complainant
Sri. Rajkrishna is the proprietor of Sai Lakshmi Constructions
and he presented the film "Tsunami". Even in the Ex.D-2
Chitra Sanje dated 22.05.2008 also it is clearly mentioned as
M/s. Sai Lakshmi Constructions has also joined their hands in
the production of the Kannada film "Tsunami". Ex.D1-C.D.,
and Ex.D2 Chitra Sanje are the documents confronted during
the cross-examination of the PW-1. The complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna has clearly identified the wordings "Rajkrishna
Arpisuva" in the Ex.D-1-C.D., as Ex.D-1(a) and also the said
Sri. Rajkrishna has admitted that he along with the accused
held press meet and identified the Ex.D-2 as the report released
in the press meet. The said documents shows that the
complainant Sri. Rajkrishna and the accused participated in the
production and presentation of the Kannada film "Tsunami".
21. The complainant Sri. Rajkrishna in his cross-
examination dated 26.02.2015 at page No.9 & 10 clearly admits
that he has entered into the partnership agreement with the
accused during January 2012 for the distribution of the income
going to be received from the Kannada film "Tsunami". The
complainant also admits that they have entered into agreement
for the distribution of the income received from Kannada film
"Tsunami" and they have opened joint bank account in the
name of M/s. Padmavathi Movies under the partnership
agreement. The complainant Sri. Rajkrishna further admits
that he has withdrawn Rs.75,000/- from the said joint account.
Even though the accused has admitted his signature and the
cheques in all the five cases, the accused has disputed his
liability in making payment of the said cheques amount. The
C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
11 10181 & 10182/2014
accused claims that the cheques in all the five cases are
obtained from him for the purpose of the distribution of the
income going to be received from the Kannada film "Tsunami"
after its release. The accused further claims that the
complainant Sri. Rajkrishna has obtained all the rights of the
Kannada film "Tsunami" and the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna
has instructed him not to show his name as producer in the
Kannada film "Tsunami" to avoid income tax. The accused also
claims that at the instruction of the complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna, by using the photograph of the complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna, it was mentioned as "¸Á¬Ä ®Qëäà PÀ£ïìlæPÀë£ïì£À gÁdPÀȵÀÚ
C¦ð¸ÀĪÀ" in the Kannada film "Tsunami". The accused further
claims that even though the complainant was under the
obligation of the releasing the Kannada film "Tsunami", after
purchasing all the rights of the said Kannada film "Tsunami",
the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna has made him to release the
film "Tsunami". After its release, the Kannada film "Tsunami"
failed. Inspite of it, the complainant has failed to return his
blank signed cheques.
22. The complainant Sri. Rajkrishna in his cross-
examination dated 26.02.2015 at page No.9 & 10 admits that
the T.V. rights, Satellite rights and Broadcasting rights of the
Kannada film "Tsunami" are transferred in his favour. But, the
complainant Sri. Rajkrishna claims that the film distribution
rights are not transferred in his favour. Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-5 are
the documents produced by the accused to prove his defence.
Ex.D-4 & Ex.D-5 are the letters written by M/s. Prasad Film
Laboratories in favour of the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna. As
per the contents of Ex.D-4, the producers of the Kannada film
"Tsunami" informed Prasad Film Laboratories that they have
12 C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
10181 & 10182/2014
availed financial assistance from the complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna for the production of the Kannada film "Tsunami"
and as a security to the said finance, copy rights of distribution,
exhibition, exploitation of the Kannada film "Tsunami" in all
gauges, dimensions and in all medias etc., including the rights
of television, telecasting, satellite television broadcasting, cable
television, video and other rights of the Kannada film "Tsunami"
are transferred in favour of the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna. As
per Ex.D-5, Prasad Film Laboratories has written a letter to the
complainant Sri. Rajkrishna informing the selling of negative
and all other rights including distribution, exhibition, dubbing
and remake of the Kannada film "Tsunami" in favour of the
complainant Sri. Rajkrishna. The complainant Sri. Rajkrishna
has not disputed the contents of Ex.D-4 & Ex.D-5 during the
cross-examination of the DW-1. The complainant/PW-1 Sri.
Rajkrishna in his cross-examination at page No.9 & 10 admits
the transfer of rights of the Kannada film "Tsunami" as
mentioned in Ex.D-4 & Ex.D-5. Hence, by relying upon the
Ex.D-4 & Ex.D-5, I proceed to hold that the accused by placing
the said documents proved and established that the negative
and all other rights of the Kannada film "Tsunami" has been
transferred in favour of the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna.
23. During the cross-examination of the complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna at page No.5 dated 15.09.2014, he admits that the
accused borrowed loan for producing the film and also says that
he has not obtained any documents from the accused while
lending loan. But, the facts elicited during the cross-
examination of the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna as discussed in
previous paragraphs, leads to the conclusion that the accused
got the rights of the Kannada film "Tsunami" transferred to his
name prior to its release and also opened a joint account with
C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
13 10181 & 10182/2014
the accused in the name of M/s. Padmavathi Movies for the
purpose of sharing the income i.e., going to be derived from the
Kannada film "Tsunami" after its release. Hence, the contention
of the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna that he lend the loan in
favour of the accused for producing the film without obtaining
any documents cannot be accepted.
24. The complainant in his cross-examination dated
16.10.2014 at page No.7 replied to the suggestion as under:
".......... ¸ÀÄ£Á«Ä avÀæ ¤ªÀiÁðt¢AzÀ £ÀµÀÖªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ
JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ DgÉÆæUÉ £ÀµÀÖªÁzÀgÉ CzÀÄ vÀ£ÀUÉ
¸ÀA§AzÀs«®è JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ........."
25. The said evidence of the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna
leads to the conclusion that the Kannada film "Tsunami" has
failed after its release. The complainant Sri. Rajkrishna claims
that he is not concerned with the failure of the Kannada film
"Tsunami". The complainant Sri. Rajkrishna has not denied the
suggestion that the Kannada film "Tsunami" has failed on its
release. Hence, the said evidence of the complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna, leads to the conclusion that the Kannada film
"Tsunami" has failed on its release. The complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna further admits he has withdrawn Rs.75,000/- from
the joint account of M/s. Padmavathi Movies. The accused
claims that the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna has obtained his
blank signed cheques as security to the amount invested by him
in producing the Kannada film "Tsunami" under the impression
that he may not share the profits/income derived by releasing
the film "Tsunami". If the facts elicited during the cross-
examination of the PW-1 is appreciated in totality, it clearly
leads to the inference that the complainant has financed for the
14 C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
10181 & 10182/2014
production of the Kannada film "Tsunami" and the accused has
directed the said film and it has failed on its release. The
complainant Sri. Rajkrishna has withdrawn Rs.75,000/- from
the joint account of M/s. Padmavathi Movies, collected by
releasing the Kannada film "Tsunami".
26. As discussed previously, even though the complainant
Sri. Rajkrishna has stated that he has not collected any
documents from the accused while financing the Kannada film
"Tsunami", it cannot be accepted as he has admitted the
transfer of the rights of the Kannada film "Tsunami" prior to its
release. Thereby it leads to the conclusion that the complainant
Sri. Rajkrishna has obtained security for having financed the
Kannada film "Tsunami" directed by the accused. The
complainant Sri. Rajkrishna claims that he lend the loan of
Rs.35,00,000/- in all (from three cases, C.C.10150/2014,
C.C.10170/2014 & C.C.10182/2014) in favour of the accused
without obtaining any documents from him. When the
complainant has obtained security by way of transfer of rights
and by opening the joint account in the name of M/s.
Padmavathi Movies for the purpose of sharing the income going
to be derived by releasing the Kannada film "Tsunami", the
contention of the complainant that he lend the loan of
Rs.35,00,000/- without obtaining any documents from the
accused cannot be believed.
27. The accused disputed the loan transaction with the
complainant Sri. Rajkrishna and Sri. B.G. Srinivas claiming
that he never borrowed the loan from them. The accused claims
that Sri. Rajkrishna has invested amount in producing the
Kannada film "Tsunami" by obtaining his blank signed cheques
for security purpose and also by getting all the rights of the said
C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
15 10181 & 10182/2014
film transferred in his name. Since, the said Kannada film
"Tsunami" has failed on its release, the complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna by misusing his three blank signed cheques, came
up with these complaints and also by misusing the other two
cheques, filed the other two similar cases against him through
his friend Sri. B.G. Srinivas.
28. The complainant Sri. B.G. Srinivas has filed
C.C.10174/2014 & C.C.10181/2014 with the same complaint
averments. The complainant Sri. B.G. Srinivas also filed this
complaint against the accused alleging that the accused
borrowed loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from him and for the purpose
of repayment of the said loan, issued two cheques for a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- each referred in C.C.10174/2014 &
C.C.10181/2014 and they came to be dishonoured on its
presentation for encashment. The complainant Sri. B.G.
Srinivas, during his cross-examination dated 15.09.2014 failed
to identify the accused who was sitting in the open court. The
complainant Sri. B.G. Srinivas during his subsequent cross-
examination dated 16.10.2014 claims that the accused was in
make-up when he used to see him and he was the Hero in the
said Kannada film "Tsunami". After the lapse of two years, the
appearance of the accused is different. Hence, he was not able
to identify the accused on the previous date of hearing i.e., on
15.09.2014. In this regard, the accused was also subjected to
the cross-examination. The accused in his cross-examination
dated 16.04.2015 at page No.5 admits that his physical
appearance has changed from 2012 to 2015. The accused also
admits that his facial appearance has changed. Even for a
while if it is presumed that due to the change in the facial
appearance and due to drastic change in the physic of the
accused, the complainant Sri. B.G. Srinivas has failed to
16 C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
10181 & 10182/2014
identify the accused, it has to be taken into consideration that a
person who is well known and much familiar can be identified
by his features and total physical appearance, even if there is
such a huge major change in the physical appearance of that
person.
29. The complainant B.G. Srinivas in his cross-
examination dated 15.09.2014 claims that the accused was
known to him from the past three months prior to the alleged
loan transaction. The complainant B.G. Srinivas has replied
that he came to know the accused through his friend Sri.
Rajkrishna. The complainant B.G. Srinivas has not denied the
suggestion that the accused is not a close friend of him. These
facts lead to the conclusion that the complainant B.G. Srinivas
and accused are not long standing friends and they are not
known to each other from past several years. For the same
reason, the complainant B.G. Srinivas has failed to identify the
accused who was sitting in the open court, as he has seen the
accused very few times just prior to the alleged loan
transaction.
30. The complainant B.G. Srinivas claims that he lend the
loan of Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of the accused at the instance
of his friend Sri. Rajkrishna, even without obtaining any
documents for the alleged loan transaction, even though the
accused was not very familiar to him. No person will lend the
huge amount of loan of Rs.20,00,000/- without obtaining any
documents from him that too to a person who is not very close
and familiar to him, merely for the reason that such person is
the friend of his friend. The complainant B.G. Srinivas in his
cross-examination pleaded ignorance about the exact date on
which he lend the loan in favour of the accused.
C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
17 10181 & 10182/2014
31. The complainant Sri. B.G. Srinivas also claims that by
receiving money from his mother and by collecting the amount
from others, in one week he lend the loan of Rs.20,00,000/- in
favour of the accused to produce film. The said complainant
also pleaded ignorance about the name of the film which was
produced by the accused. If the evidence of the complainant
Sri. B.G. Srinivas is appreciated in totality, it clearly leads to the
inference that the complainant Sri. B.G. Srinivas claims that he
lend the huge loan of Rs.20,00,000/- by collecting the amount
from others in favour of a person who is not either close or
familiar to him for producing the film, even without knowing the
name of the film going to be produced by investing such huge
amount. It is highly unimaginable and beyond the preview of
the normal attitude of an ordinary person. When the accused is
not a close friend or a well known person to the complainant,
the evidence of the complainant that he lend the loan of such a
huge amount by borrowing from others to produce a film even
without knowing the name of the film, leads to the suspension
regarding the case of the complainant. The fact that the
complainant Sri. B.G. Srinivas has failed to identify the accused
who was sitting in the open court and the fact that the accused
is not a well known person to the complainant and inspite of it
he lend the huge amount of loan without obtaining any
documents towards the loan transaction and even without
enquiring the name of the film going to be produced by
investing such amount leads to the suspicion regarding the case
of the complainant.
32. The accused disputed the case of both the
complainants claiming that the cheques collected by the
complainant Sri. Rajkrishna have been misused for the purpose
of filing these five false cases against him. Out of which, 2
18 C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
10181 & 10182/2014
cheques are filled in the name of the complainant Sri. B.G.
Srinivas who is the close of complainant Sri. Rajkrishna and
made use of them for filing two complaints against him through
Sri. B.G. Srinivas. As discussed in previous paragraphs, if the
oral evidence of both the complainants Sri. Rajkrishna and Sri.
B.G. Srinivas is appreciated in totality it clearly leads to the
inference that the accused and Sri. B.G. Srinivas are not very
familiar to each other. The complainant Sri. Rajkrishna has
obtained the rights of the film "Tsunami" and opened the joint
account in the name of M/s. Padmavathi Movies for collecting
the income going to be derived by releasing the Kannada film
"Tsunami", even prior to its release. Inspite of it, the
complainant Sri. Rajkrishna claims that he has not obtained
any documents from the accused for having lend the loan of
Rs.35,00,000/-. The accused in his examination-in-chief
claims that apart from producing the Kannada film "Tsunami",
he had no other transaction with the complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna. The evidence of the accused to that effect remain
undisputed. As discussed previously, the complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna admits the production of the Kannada film
"Tsunami" and claims that the present transaction is different
from the said film production.
33. Even for a while if it is presumed that the present
transaction is different from the film production transaction
that took place between the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna and
the accused, when the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna has
obtained various security documents regarding the transfer of
rights of the Kannada film "Tsunami" and for sharing the
income going to be derived by releasing the film, the contention
of the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna that he has lend the loan of
Rs.35,00,000/- without obtaining any documents cannot be
C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
19 10181 & 10182/2014
believed. When the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna admits that he
transacted with the accused while producing the film by taking
precautions for the amount invested by him in the film
production, the case of the complainant that he lend the loan of
such a huge amount in favour of the accused without obtaining
any documents in proof of the said transaction cannot be
believed. As per the Ex.D-4 & Ex.D-5 in C.C.10150/2014,
C.C.10170/2014 & C.C.10182/2014, the complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna has obtained security for the financial assistance
extended by him for producing the Kannada film "Tsunami" in
the year 2008 and Ex.D-5 is the another document in respect of
the same film in the year 2011. But, the complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna claims that he lend the loan of Rs.35,00,000/- in
favour of the accused in January 2012 without obtaining any
documents. When the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna has
obtained documents for the financial transaction with the
accused that took place for the production of the Kannada film
"Tsunami", he has to explain the circumstances in which he has
failed to obtain the documents for having lend the loan of
Rs.35,00,000/- in the year 2012. When the complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna has obtained the documents in the year 2008 &
2012 in connection with the financial transaction with the
accused, the contention of the complainant that he lend the
loan without obtaining any documents in the year 2012 is
unbelievable. When earlier financial transaction between them
was under documentation, the complainant has to explain as to
why he has failed to obtain documents for his subsequent
transaction.
34. Ex.D1-C.D., and Ex.D2 paper publication dated
22.05.2008 shows that the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna has
joined his hands in the production of Kannada film "Tsunami"
20 C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
10181 & 10182/2014
and he himself presented it. The facts elicited during the cross-
examination of the accused shows that there was no agreement
between the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna and accused, to the
effect that the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna has to release
Kannada film "Tsunami". The accused voluntarily says that
since the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna has got transferred all
the rights of the Kannada film "Tsunami", he should have
released the Kannada film "Tsunami". The suggestion made to
the accused during his cross-examination in C.C.10150/2014,
C.C.10170/2014 & C.C.10182/2014 at page No.6 dated
25.05.2015 is as under:
"......... ¸ÀzÀj PÀgÁj£À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÉà avÀæ
©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀÄÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj........."
35. The said suggestion in the form of admission also
leads to the conclusion that the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna
has produced the Kannada film "Tsunami". But, it is not in
dispute that the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna has not released
the Kannada film "Tsunami". The facts elicited during the
cross-examination of the accused and the evidence of the
accused that the complainant Sri. Rajkrishna made him to
release the Kannada film "Tsunami" and he released the said
film by investing Rs.17,00,000/- also leads to the conclusion
that the complainant by making the accused to release the film,
came up with these complaints claiming that the accused
borrowed loan, for producing the Kannada film "Tsunami". But,
the contents of Ex.D1-C.D. and Ex.D2 newspaper, Ex.D4 &
Ex.D5 letter addressed by the Prasad Film Laboratories and the
suggestions made during the cross-examination of the witness
referred above leads to the conclusion that the complainant Sri.
C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
21 10181 & 10182/2014
Rajkrishna has extended financial assistance for producing the
Kannada film "Tsunami".
36. The accused also replied the legal notice as per Ex.D-1
and in the said reply notice also the accused has taken up the
very same defence claiming that himself and complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna have jointly produced the Kannada film "Tsunami"
and at that time for security purpose obtained his blank signed
cheques and also transferred all the rights of the Kannada film
"Tsunami" by opening the joint account in the name of M/s.
Padmavathi Movies. Ex.D-3 is the postal acknowledgement
card relied upon by the accused to prove the due service of the
reply notice. Even though the accused has replied the legal
notice, both the complainants have not opted to place the same
before the court. Thereby the complainants have suppressed
the said fact. The accused by placing the reply notice, proved
that he has taken up his defence at the earliest point of time.
The complainants in both the cases, even after knowing the
specific defence taken up by the accused, failed to prove the
alleged loan transaction with the accused.
37. As said earlier, the oral evidence of the accused that
he had no other transaction with the complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna apart from the film production remains undisputed.
By considering the documents obtained by the complainant Sri.
Rajkrishna for the purpose to the security of the amount
invested in the film production, I proceed to hold that the facts
elicited by the accused during the cross-examination of
complainant Sri. Rajkrishna and Sri. B.G. Srinivas is sufficient
to rebut the presumption that exists in favour of the cheques
Ex.P-1 in all the five cases. When the accused has rebutted the
presumption, it is for the complainants to prove their case
22 C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174,
10181 & 10182/2014
against the accused. The complainant in both the cases have
not produced any documents to show the loan transaction
between themselves and the accused. Unless the complainant
in both the cases proves the existence of liability as on the date
of the cheques, it cannot be said that those cheques are issued
for discharging the existing liability. Unless the cheques are
issued for discharging the liability, it will not constitute an
offence as required Section 138 of N.I. Act. From all these
discussion, I proceed to hold that the complainants have failed
to prove that the cheques referred in all the five cases are issued
for discharging the liability. Hence, I proceed to answer point
No.1 in all the five cases in the Negative.
POINT NO.2: (IN ALL THE FIVE CASES):
38. For the reasons discussed while answering point No.1
and in view of my findings on point No.1 in all the five cases,
proceed to answer Point No.2 in the Negative in all the five
cases.
POINT NO.3: (IN ALL THE FIVE CASES):
39. To this point, I made the following:
ORDER
The accused in C.C.10150/2014, C.C.10170/2014, C.C.10174/2014, C.C.10181/2014 & C.C.10182/2014 is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec 138 of N.I. Act.
The bail bond of the accused in C.C.10150/2014, C.C.10170/2014, C.C.10174/2014, C.C.10181/2014 & C.C.10182/2014 stands cancelled.
C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174, 23 10181 & 10182/2014 Ordered to keep the original common judgment in C.C.10150/2014 and to keep the true copies of the judgment in C.C.10170/2014, C.C.10174/2014, C.C.10181/2014 & C.C.10182/2014.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 1st Day of December, 2015) (B.SHARADHA) XXI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE IN C.C.10150/2014 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW-1 : Rajkrishna DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P-1 : Cheque
Ex.P-2 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P-3 : Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P-4 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P-5 : Postal Acknowledgment
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
DW-1 : Rajkumar Appasab Patil DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D-1 : C.D.
Ex.D-2 : Paper Publication
Ex.D-1 : Reply Notice
Ex.D-2 : Postal Receipt
Ex.D-3 : Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.D-4 & 5 : Letters
Ex.D-6 : Complaint
Ex.D-7 : Copy of Sale Deed
Ex.D-8 : Encumbrance Certificate
ANNEXURE IN C.C.10170/2014 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW-1 : Rajkrishna 24 C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174, 10181 & 10182/2014 DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P-1 : Cheque
Ex.P-2 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P-3 : Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P-4 : Postal Acknowledgment
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
DW-1 : Rajkumar Appasab Patil DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D-1 : Reply Notice
Ex.D-2 : Postal Receipt
Ex.D-3 : Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.D-4 & 5 : Letters
Ex.D-6 : Copy of Sale Deed
Ex.D-7 : Encumbrance Certificate
ANNEXURE IN C.C.10174/2014 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW-1 : B.G. Srinivas DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P-1 : Cheque
Ex.P-2 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P-3 : Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P-4 : Postal Acknowledgment
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE: DW-1 : Rajkumar Appasab Patil DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D-1 : Reply Notice
Ex.D-2 : Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.D-3 : Copy of Sale Deed
Ex.D-4 : Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.D-5 : Evidence of Rajkrishna in C.C.10150/14
ANNEXURE IN C.C.10181/2014 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW-1 : B.G. Srinivas C.C. No. 10150, 10170, 10174, 25 10181 & 10182/2014 DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P-1 : Cheque
Ex.P-2 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P-3 : Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P-4 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P-5 : Postal Acknowledgment
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
DW-1 : Rajkumar Appasab Patil DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D-1 : Reply Notice
Ex.D-2 : Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.D-3 : Copy of Sale Deed
Ex.D-4 : Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.D-5 : Evidence of Rajkrishna in C.C.10150/14
ANNEXURE IN C.C.10182/2014 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW-1 : Rajkrishna DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P-1 : Cheque
Ex.P-2 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P-3 : Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P-4 : Postal Acknowledgment
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
DW-1 : Rajkumar Appasab Patil DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D-1 : Reply Notice
Ex.D-2 : Postal Receipt
Ex.D-3 : Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.D-4 & 5 : Letters
Ex.D-6 : Copy of Sale Deed
Ex.D-7 : Encumbrance Certificate
(B.SHARADHA)
XXI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.