Bangalore District Court
Chikkamariah vs H.Narasimha Murthy on 24 February, 2025
KABC030252502019
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 24th day of February 2025.
PRESENT:SMT.RASHMI H.B., B.A.(LAW)LL.B.,LLM.,
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU CITY.
C.C.No.8233 of 2019
Complainant :- Chikkamaraiah
S/o.Late.Uruta Rangaiah,
Aged about 65 Years,
R/at.No.201, Anjanadri
Apartments, 8th Cross Road,
Narasimha Layout, Industrial
Suburb Near P.F. Office,
Yeshwanthpur,
Bengaluru-560022.
(Rep. By Sri.S.R.S., Advocate)
-V/s-
Accused :- H.Narasimha Murhty
S/o.Late.K.Hanumanthaiah,
Aged about 53 Years,
R/at.No.5, U Block Police
Quarters, R.K.Hegde Nagar,
Bengaluru-560077.
Also at:
Dena Bank, No.24,
S.M.Kalahastinagar,
Prashanthnagar, Peenya,
Bengaluru-560058.
(Rep. By Sri.G.N., Advocate)
2 C.C.No.8233/2019
Date of complaint :- 05-03-2019
Date of Commencement :- 03-04-2019
of evidence
Offence complained :- Section 138 of N.I.Act
Opinion of the Judge :- Accused is found guilty.
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed under section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
02.The brief facts of the complaint is as under:
The complainant is a retired employee of Secretariat, Government of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The accused is son-
in-law of complainant's wife's sister i.e., Smt.Jayamma. The accused is working as Head Constable at Armed Reserve Police, Government of Karnataka. The accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- on 14-11-2016 from the complainant in cash to meet his financial necessities to meet expenses of construction of his house at Dombarahalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk and to purchase gold ornaments for his 3 C.C.No.8233/2019 daughter's marriage and for personal family expenses. After repeated demands, in order to repay the said amount, accused has issued a cheque bearing No.614099 dated 03- 01-2019 for Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Hebbala branch, Bengaluru, in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented said cheque for encashment through his banker State Bank of India, Nandini Layout Branch, Bengaluru on 03-01-2019. The cheque is returned unpaid with bank endorsement dated:04-01-2019 showing cheque is dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient".
Thereafter, the complainant has got issued demand notice to the accused on 03-02-2019. The said notice served to accused on 05-02-2019. Further accused has sent reply notice dated:14-02-2019. But, the accused has failed to make payment of cheque amount. Hence, complainant has filed this complaint on 05-03-2019.
03. After presentation of complaint, this Court took cognizance of offence and recorded the sworn statement of complainant. Thereafter, a criminal case is registered 4 C.C.No.8233/2019 against accused and summons is issued to the accused. The accused appeared through his counsel and he is enlarged on bail. The copies of the complaint and other papers furnished to the accused. Substance of accusation was read over to him. Accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
04. In order to prove the accusation made against the accused, the complainant got examined 4 witnesses as PW1 to 4 and got marked 15 documents as Ex P1 to Ex.P15. Thereafter, statement of accused is recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the accused has denied the incriminating evidence found on record as false and he has submitted he would lead defence evidence. The accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked 4 documents as Ex.D1 to 4.
05. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for complainant and accused. Both parties have filed notes of arguments. Perused entire case record carefully. 5 C.C.No.8233/2019
06. On the basis of contentions raised in the complaint the points that arises for determination of this Court are as follows:
1.Whether the complainant proves that, the accused issued the cheque towards discharge of legally enforceable debt?
2.Whether the complainant proves the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
3.What order?
07. Now, this Court answers to above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative;
Point No.2: In the Affirmative;
Point No.3: As per final order for the following:
:: R E A S O N S ::
08. POINTS No.1 and 2: Since these points are inter-relating with each other, they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and findings.
6 C.C.No.8233/2019
09. This case is tried as summons case. As this matter is tried as summons case, this Court relies on the evidence recorded by learned predecessor in office. In that regard, this Court relies on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mehsana Nagarik Sahkari Bank Ltd., V/s Shreeji Cab Co. & Others reported in 2014(13) SCC 619. Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that de- nova hearing is necessary only when the evidence is recording in summary manner. Therefore, this Court has proceeded with the case on the basis of part evidence recorded previously.
10. Before proceeding with the discussion, in order to prove the guilt of offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, initial burden casts on the complainant to prove the following ingredients:
a) The cheque must have been drawn
for discharge of existing debt or
liability.
b) Cheque must be presented within
validity period.
c) Cheque must be returned unpaid due
7 C.C.No.8233/2019
to insufficient funds or it exceeds the amount arranged.
d) Fact of dishonour be informed to the drawer by notice within 30 days.
e) Drawer of cheque must fail to make
payment within 15 days of receipt of
the notice.
11. In order to prove the case, the complainant, Sri.Chikkamaraiah has examined himself as PW1. The PW1 has filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief reiterating entire complaint averments. In support of his oral evidence, he produced Ex.P1 to 15 documents. The complainant got marked original cheque as Ex.P1, signature of accused as Ex.P1(a), bank memo as Ex.P2, demand notice as Ex.P3, two postal receipts as Ex.P4 and 5, one speed post acknowledgment as Ex.P6, returned postal envelope showing reason " No such Person" as Ex.P7, reply notice as Ex.P8, postal envelope as Ex.P9, Police endorsement issued by Nandini Layout Police station as Ex.P10, copies of complaint before the Nandini Layout Police station as Ex.P11 and Ex.P12, Police acknowledgment 8 C.C.No.8233/2019 as Ex.P13, endorsement of Personal secretary to Economic Advisor of CM as Ex.P14 and Bank Pass Book of complainant as Ex.P15.
12. During cross-examination of PW1, accused specifically took defence that he has availed loan of Rs 1,50,000/- from Meenakshi (PW3) and handed over one signed blank cheque and though he has repaid said loan, his security cheque is misused. The PW1 answered said suggestions as false. PW1 has deposed on 14-11-2016 accused has approached for loan to meet expenses of construction of house and purchase of jewelleries for his daughter's marriage and on the same day complainant has lend the amount in cash at 8.30 am in the presence of his wife, his daughter Meenakshi and his friend Narayan. The PW1 has deposed on 11-08-2014 he has withdrawn the cash amount from his bank account. Further he admitted no agreement of loan or receipt of payment is obtained from accused. PW1 has deposed he does not remember whether he has given new denomination currency notes or 9 C.C.No.8233/2019 his demonetized currency notes. PW1 has expressed his awareness about the demonetization of currency notes on 08-11-2016. The Pw1 has deposed he has given cash amount to accused and all currency notes are related to Rs 500/-.
13. The complainant got examined PW2- Sri Narayan, Pw3- Smt Meenakshi and Pw4-Smt Gowramma. They have filed their respective affidavits in lieu of examination in chief stating in their presence accused has borrowed Rs 7,00,000/- in cash from the complainant. During cross examination of PW2 to 4 they have deposed complainant has lend the amount in cash through currency notes having denomination of Rs 500/- each and no agreement or acknowledgment obtained regarding said transaction. During cross-examination of PW3, she has admitted the fact that accused has availed loan of Rs 1,50,000/- from her on 01-05-2017 and she has paid the amount through RTGS. Further she has admitted Rs 60,000/- is credited to her brothers account by the accused. Further it is suggested his friend Muttuja has transferred Rs 50,000/- to her account. 10 C.C.No.8233/2019 The said suggestions answered as not true.But PW3 has admitted the fact that accused has repaid entire amount of Rs 1,50,000/- to her. The defence suggested when she lend amount of Rs 1,50,000/- she has obtained cheque of accused as security. PW3 denied said suggestions as false.
14. The evidence of PW1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P15 clearly show the complaint is filed within time and all the ingredients of section 138 of N.I.Act. The cheque is issued for legally recoverable debt and it is dishonored for insufficient fund. The said fact is brought to the notice of accused. But till date the accused did not comply the demand of the complainant for payment of amount mentioned in the cheque. Therefore, PW1 has discharged his burden to prove the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
15. Another aspect is to consider whether the Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P1(a) signature belongs to the accused or not. The defense has admitted Ex.P1 cheque belong to 11 C.C.No.8233/2019 accused and it bears his signature. These facts clearly shows that the cheque in dispute is belongs to accused and he has signed the said document. Therefore, presumption under section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act lies in favour of the complainant.
16. As per provision of section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act, the court has to presume liability of the accused and to such amount mentioned in the cheque to discharge legally recoverable debt. The said aspect was denied by the accused. Once the execution of cheque is admitted section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. Thereafter, the onus of proving probable defense of the accused is on accused and standard of proof for rebutting presumption is preponderance of probabilities. To rebut presumption it is open for the accused to rely on evidence or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise probable defense. 12 C.C.No.8233/2019
17. In that regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment reported in 2019(5) SCC 418 in the case of Basalingappa V/s Mudibasappa discussed the manner in which accused could rebut the presumption raised under section 118 and 139 of Negotiable instruments Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa reported in 2019 (5) SCC 418 laid down principles regarding how presumption under section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act can be rebutted.
18. To rebut the presumptions, accused entered into witness box as DW1. DW1 has took specific defence that he has borrowed Rs 1,50,000/- from Pw1 on 01-05-2017 and he has issued a cheque in blank with his signature as security. Further he has paid Rs 60,000/- on 29-12-2018 through RTGS to the account of Linga Mahesh who is brother of PW3. Further his friend Murthuza has transferred Rs 50,000/- to the account of PW3. Further he has paid Rs 40,000/- in cash to PW3 on 10-10-2018. However they did not return the cheque and misused his security cheque to 13 C.C.No.8233/2019 fill up amount and he has no liability to pay the cheque amount to complainant. Therefore he prays to acquit him.
19. In corroboration to his claim, he got marked Reply notice as Ex D1, Postal receipt as Ex D2, Bank passbook as Ex D3, relevant bank entry as Ex D3(a), statement of account as Ex D4.
20. During cross-examination, DW1 has deposed he and his wife constructed a house at Madanayakanahalli in the year 2017 and approximately the cost of construction was Rs 45,00,000/- - Rs 50,00,000/-. He has stated he used to pay his wife from his salary income and they have not obtained loan from bank to construct the house. Further he has explained he has obtained loan of Rs 3,00,000/-from KGID, Rs 4,00,000/- from GPF, Rs 2,50,000/- Personal loan from Bank and availed loan from the siblings of his wife as hand loan. Dw1 has admitted Ex P1 cheque and its signature belong to him.
21. On going through the evidence on record, burden casts on accused to prove the fact that he has given Ex P1 14 C.C.No.8233/2019 cheque in signed blank form to the PW3 to avail loan of Rs 1,50,000/- and said cheque is misused though he has paid entire amount. It is admitted fact by PW3 that accused has availed loan of Rs 1,50,000/- from her and he has repaid the amount. However no admission elicited from the mouth of PW3 that she has obtained a signed blank cheque of accused as security for said loan. No admissions elicited from mouth of PW1 that he has misused security cheque given to PW3. The version of Dw1 is found self serving statement. As a prudent man no person would keep quiet to get back security cheque after repayment of loan or obtain the acknowledgment. But in this case accused did not give notice to PW3 to return the cheque soon after the repayment. Further he did not give police complaint against misuse of cheque by PW1 and PW3. In turn PW1 has lodged complaint before police and accused did not give statement before police that Ex P1 cheque is misused. Further accused did not instruct his bank for stop payment after he paid the loan. In the absence of such actions, the version of accused is found improbable to believe.
15 C.C.No.8233/2019
22. The accused has admitted his signature of cheque. Though he has disputed writings, accused did not propose the person who wrote it. It is evident to note as per version of accused said cheque is given in blank to PW3, who is daughter of complainant. But he failed to prove said fact. On the other hand Dw1 has deposed his house was constructed in the year 2017 without availing home loan from bank and he has spent more than Rs 45,00,000 and he has stated he has availed hand loans from the relatives of his wife. It is evident to note, complainant is uncle of his wife. Therefore financial necessities required by accused as mentioned in the complainant is found more probable to believe. Though accused has stated he had never borrowed any amount from complainant, but he admits the fact that Ex P1 cheque belongs to his bank account and it bears his signature.
23. In the reported judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its reported judgement in 2019(4) SCC 197 in the case of Bir Singh Vs Mukesh Kumar, the 16 C.C.No.8233/2019 Hon'ble court in para 34 and36 has observed position of blank cheque is issued. It reads as follows;-
"34. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The Onus still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.
36. 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 absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt."
24. On applying said proposition of law, in this case complainant has claimed accused has voluntarily issued the cheque to him after his repeated demands after lapse of stipulated time on which accused agreed to repay the amount. But accused disputed said fact contending said cheque was never given to complainant. It is evident to 17 C.C.No.8233/2019 note, as per his own case, accused did not made efforts to get back the security cheque back from PW3. As per his case last payment was made on 28-10-2018 to PW3 and till demand notice sent to him, he did not made efforts to get back the security cheque. Therefore version of security cheque given to PW3 is misused is found self serving statement of Dw1 in his reply notice. Therefore said defence found improbable to believe.
25. Further accused took defence during cross examination of PW1 that payment of any amount more than Rs.20,000/- shall be made through banking instruments only. The PW1 pleaded his ignorance of said provision of law incorporated under section 269 SS of Income Tax Act. At this stage it is relevant to cite the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2002(6) SCC 259 in the case of Assistant Director of Inspection Vs AB Shanthi reported in 2002(6) SCC 259. In the said judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that Section 269 SS of Income Tax Act only provided for the mode of acceptance, 18 C.C.No.8233/2019 payment or repayment in certain cases so as to counteract evasion of tax. Section 269 SS does not declare all transactions of loan, by cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- as invalid, illegal or null and void.
26. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its judgement in Gajanan Kallappa Kadolkar Vs., Appasheb Siddamallappa Kaveri in Crl Rev pet no 2011/2013 dated 18-11-2022 ,held that contravention of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes if the transaction amount is more than Rs.20,000/- such transaction shall be made through cheque or demand draft, does not make the transaction void and it can be called a legally recoverable debt. Therefore the defence of accused does not effect the transaction made by complainant. The non mentioning of the financial transaction in income tax returns would be an act of tax evasion and the said act does not makes the transaction itself as void.
27. The accused took another defence that as per alleged date of lending on 14-11-2016, the RBI has initiated 19 C.C.No.8233/2019 demonetization process with old currency notes having denomination of Rs 500/- and Rs 1000/- and it is not possible to give Rs 7,00,000/- in cash to accused. It is evident to note PW1 to 4 have deposed the complainant has lend the amount in cash through currency notes having denomination of Rs 500/- each to accused. The said version of PW1 to 4 are proves the transaction and no admission elicited from their mouth that such transaction was never took place. Whether accused could accept the demonetized currency notes or not, is to be explained by the Dw1. But Dw1 did not depose about said intentions in his evidence. The borrowing through cash amount including demonetized currency notes were not banned from 08-11-2016 to 31- 12-2016. As per the RBI notifications, the citizens of India were called upon to exchange the old currency notes with new introduced currency notes during said period and proportion exchange of currency notes were allowed. The said process does not shows the entire alleged transaction is void. The intention of borrow and necessities to borrow to the accused is shown in this case. Therefore the said 20 C.C.No.8233/2019 defence of accused is found self serving statement and it does not disprove the evidence of PW1 to 4.
28. In this case accused has disputed the financial capacity of Pw1 to lend huge amount of Rs 7,00,000/-. It is evident to note PW1 has explained from his retirement benefits credited bank account, he got withdrawn the amount in the year 2014 and kept the cash amount. At this stage it is relevant to discuss about judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 193 in the case of APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd vs Shakti International Fashion Linker and Other in para 20 held , which reproduced as follows :
"20. Now so far as the reliance is placed by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused on the decision of this Court in the case of Basalingappa (supra), on going through the said decision, we are of the opinion that the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the accused. In that case before this Court, the defense by the accused was that the cheque amount was given by the complainant to the accused 21 C.C.No.8233/2019 by way of loan. When the proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act the accused denied the debt liability and the accused raised the defense and questioned the financial capacity of the complainant. To that, the complainant failed to prove and establish his financial capacity. Therefore, this Court was satisfied that the accused had a probable defense and consequently in absence of complainant having failed to prove his financial capacity, this Court acquitted the accused. In the present case, the accused never questioned the financial capacity of the complainant. We are of the view that whenever the accused has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant in support of his probable defense, despite the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act about the presumption of legally enforceable debt and such presumption is rebuttable, thereafter the onus shifts again on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and at that stage the complainant is required to lead the evidence to prove his financial capacity, more particularly when it is a case of giving loan by cash and thereafter issuance of a cheque. That is not a case here."
29. On going through said legal proposition, the accused has to make probable defence to disbelieve the case of complainant, then only burden shifts on 22 C.C.No.8233/2019 complainant to prove the financial capacity. It is not mandated on the complainant to prove financial capacity at the first instance. Therefore it is mandated on the accused to make probable defence regarding non existence of loan and misuse of cheques. But in this case accused has failed to make probable defence regarding misuse of cheque. Further accused took inconsistent versions regarding financial capacity of complainant. Therefore , it is not necessary to look into financial capacity of complainant to draw inference regarding defence.
30. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its reported judgement in Tedhi Singh Vs Narayan Dass Mahant reported in 2022(6) SCC 735 in para observed as follows:
"11. We have gone through the nature of the evidence in this case. We also bear in mind the fact that three courts have held in favour of the respondent. In this regard,we bear in mind that though it is true that reply notice was sent by the appellant, therein he admits the case of the respondent that the parties were having a cordial 23 C.C.No.8233/2019 relationship. In the reply notice the appellant has not set up any case that the respondent did not have the financial capacity to advance the loan. Infact even we notice that there is no reference to the loss of the cheque book or signed cheque leaf. No complaint was given of the loss of the cheque book or signed cheque itself either to the police or to the bank."
31. On considering the said proposition, the financial capacity of the complainant is to be disputed at the first instance on service of demand notice by sending reply notice disputing financial capacity is required. But in this case accused did not replied the demand notice. Therefore non production of documents related to financial transaction does not rebut the presumptions raised under section 118, 139 of N.I.Act.
32. It is evident to note accused did not give complaint before police regarding misuse of cheque. Further there is no intimation is given to bank to stop payment or request not to honour the cheques were given by accused. As there is no legal action taken against complainant for 24 C.C.No.8233/2019 alleged misuse of cheque, the version of DW1 found improbable to believe. The cheque is dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient". The accused has contended that there is time barred debt. It is evident to note, to raise said defence, one must admit the transaction and dispute the liability on the basis of limitation. But in this case, complainant asserted transaction taken place on 14-11- 2016 and cheque dated 03-01-2019 is issued to repay the same. The said period does not show it is time barred debt. By raising said defence, accused has indirectly admitted the transaction. Therefore it is highly improbable to believe cheque is mis-used and no action was taken by accused. Therefore the defence of the accused is found as self serving statement. The said defence does not rebut the presumption U/s.139 of N.I.Act.
33. The Full bench judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rangappa vs Sri Mohan reported in 2010(11) SCC 441 held that presumption mandated by section 139 of N.I.Act does indeed include the 25 C.C.No.8233/2019 existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore, once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant that the cheque is issued by accused and the signature, the burden casted on the accused to prove the contrary that cheque is not issued for any debt or other liability. The said proposition of law is laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the P Rasiya vs Abdul Nazer and another. In the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2021 (5) SCC 283 in the case of M/S Kalamani Tex vs P. Balasubramanian. In the para 13 of said Judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"13. Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a plain reading of its judgement that the trail court completely overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under section 118 and section 139 of N.I.A. The statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these "reverse onus" clause become operative. In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the 26 C.C.No.8233/2019 presumption imposed upon him. The point of law has been crystalised by the court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs State of Gujarath..."
34. Considering aforesaid legal proposition, burden casted on accused to disprove the case of complainant and his defence must be found more probable. It is evident to note accused did not give complaint before police regarding misuse of cheque. Further there is no intimation is given to bank to stop payment or request not to honour the cheques were given by accused once he is aware that he does not owe any amount under said cheque to any one. Therefore, defence of accused is found not probable and his evidence is not credible to believe.
35. Once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant that the cheque is issued by accused and the signature, the burden casted on the accused to prove the contrary that cheque is not issued for any debt or other liability. However in this case accused has failed to make probable defence to rebut the presumptions. The defence of 27 C.C.No.8233/2019 accused is found self serving statement and it is not sufficient to rebut the presumptions. Hence, on the basis of the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P1 to 8 documents, the complainant has proved the case and complainant is entitled for recovery of the amount as compensation.
36. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant has able to establish that Ex.P.1 cheque is issued to discharge liability of repayment of Rs.7,00,000/- to complainant by the accused. Ex.P1 is dishonoured for the reason insufficient of funds in the account of accused and complainant is entitled for the cheque amount as compensation. Further, complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The accused is not a repeated offender. Hence, there is no need to award imprisonment term. However, accused is liable to pay the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- to the state towards litigation expenses. Under these circumstances, this Court answers Points No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
28 C.C.No.8233/2019
37. POINT No.3: For the foregoing reasons stated in the Points No.1 and 2, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 7,20,000/- and in case of default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Out of the fine amount Rs 7,10,000/-shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as per section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be defray to the State.
In view of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. bail bonds stand extended for 6 months from this date.29 C.C.No.8233/2019
Supply free copy of Judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and corrected by me th 24 day of February, 2025 and signed, pronounced in the Open Court this ) Digitally signed RASHMI by RASHMI H B HB Date: 2025.02.24 17:37:47 +0530 (SMT.RASHMI H.B.,) XIX ADDL.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
::ANNEXURE::
List of Witnesses examined for Complainant:
PW1 :- Chikkamaraiah, PW2 :- Narayan, PW3 :- Smt.Meenakshi C., PW4 :- Smt.Gowramma.
List of Documents marked for Complainant:-
Ex.P1 :- Original Cheque,
Ex.P1(a) :- Signature of Accused,
Ex.P2 :- Bank Endorsement,
Ex.P3 :- Office copy of the Legal Notice,
Ex.P4 & 5 :- Two Postal Receipts,
Ex.P6 :- One Speed Post Receipt,
Ex.P7 :- Unclaimed Postal RPAD Cover,
Ex.P8 :- Reply Notice,
Ex.P9 :- Unclaimed Postal RPAD Cover,
Ex.P10 :- Endorsement of Nandini Layout Police
Station, Bengaluru City,
Ex.P11 :- Complaint,
Ex.P12 :- Complaint dated:20-02-2019,
Ex.P13 :- Acknowledgment,
Ex.P14 :- Endorsement,
Ex.P15 :- SBI Bank Pass Book.
30 C.C.No.8233/2019
List of Witnesses examined for Accused:
DW1 :- H.Narasimha Murthy.
List of Documents marked for Accused:
Ex.D1 :- Reply Notice, dated:14-02-2019, Ex.D2 :- Postal Receipt, Ex.D3 :- Canara Bank Pass Book, Ex.D3 (a) :- Relevant Entry, Ex.D4 :- Statement of Account.
RASHMI Digitally
RASHMI H B
signed by
HB Date: 2025.02.24
17:37:55 +0530
(SMT.RASHMI H.B.,)
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
31 C.C.No.8233/2019