Bangalore District Court
Sri.B.T.Muniramaiah vs Sri.Shantharaju.M on 21 November, 2019
1 C.C.No.5622/2014 J
THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated:- This the 21st day of November, 2019
Present: Sri.S.B.HANDRAL, B.Sc., L.L.B(SPL).,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.5622/2014
Complainant : Sri.B.T.Muniramaiah,
S/o. Thimmaiah,
Aged about 42 Years,
R/at.No.114,
Prateeksha Nilaya,
5th Cross, Kaveri Nagar,
Near Monotype Bus stop,
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 070.
(Rep. by Sri. Niranjan Ganig.N,
Adv.,)
- Vs -
Accused : Sri.Shantharaju.M,
S/o. Muniyappa,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at.No.23, Vaishnavi layout,
Uttarahalli,
Subramanyapura,
Bengaluru - 560 061.
(Rep. by Sri.V.Chandra., Adv.,)
Case instituted : 04.02.2014
2 C.C.No.5622/2014 J
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 21.11.2019
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, accused is his friend and had approached him for financial assistance of Rs.10 Lakhs in the month of December 2011 and he paid the said amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the accused on 27/12/2011 in cash by withdrawing the said amount from his bank account i.e, Hanumanthnagar Co-operative Bank, Hanumanthanagar Branch, Bengaluru. The accused in turn has acknowledged the receipt of said amount through on demand pronote dated 27/12/2011. The accused towards discharge of the said amount has issued a cheque bearing No.194793 dated 21/11/2013 drawn on the HDFC bank, Banashankari 3rd stage Branch, Bengaluru. The 3 C.C.No.5622/2014 J complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker but the said cheque was returned dishonoured for the reason "Payment Stopped by the drawer" on 23.11.2013. Thereafter he got issued legal notice to the accused on 21.12.2013 through RPAD and speed post calling upon him to pay the cheque amount but though the accused has received said notice neither replied nor paid the cheque amount to him, hence the dishonour of cheque by the accused has been malafide, intentional and deliberate. Hence the complainant has filed this present complainant against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Before issuing process against the accused, the Complainant has filed his affidavit-in-lieu of his sworn statement, in which, he has reiterated the averments of the complaint along with original documents.
4. Prima-facie case has been made out against the accused and summons was issued against the accused in turn he has appeared before the court 4 C.C.No.5622/2014 J and got enlarged on bail and the substance of the accusation has been read over to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. The complainant himself examined as PW.1 and he has filed his affidavit, in which he has reiterated the complaint averments. The complainant earlier has produced 8 documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to P8 subsequently has produced other documents which are marked as Ex.P9 to 14. The original cheque dated 21.11.2013 is as per Ex.P1 and signature of the accused on the said cheque identified by the complainant is as per Ex.P1(a). Bank memo issued by the accused banker is as per Ex.P2. Copy of the legal notice is as per Ex.P3. Two postal receipts are as per Ex.P4 and 5. Postal acknowledgment is as per Ex.P6. Original on demand promissory note and consideration receipt is as per Ex.P7 and signatures of the accused on Ex.P7 identified by the complainant are at Ex.P7(a) and 7(b). complaint and signature of the complainant are at Ex.P8 and P8(a). Statement of account pertaining to the complainant bank account i.e., Hanumanthnagar Co-operative Bank account 5 C.C.No.5622/2014 J statement for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.07.2019 is as per Ex.P9. Income Tax returns documents for the year 2011-12, 2009-10, 2010-11 and balance sheet are marked as Ex.P10, Ex.P12 to
14. Certificate filed by the complainant U/s.65 of Indian Evidence Act is at Ex.P11.
6. Thereafter, the statement of the accused as required under Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and has not chosen to lead his rebuttal evidence.
7. Heard and perused the written arguments of both learned counsels for the complainant and the accused and perused materials on record and decisions relied upon by both sides.
8. On the basis of complaint, evidence of complainant and documents and having heard the arguments of both learned counsels for the complainant and the accused, the following points that are arise for consideration are:-
6 C.C.No.5622/2014 J1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued a cheque for Rs.10,00,000/= bearing No.194793 dated:- 21.11.2013 drawn on HDFC Bank, BSK 2nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru to discharge legally recoverable debt to the complainant and when the complainant has presented a cheque for encashment through his banker but the said cheque has been dishonoured for the reasons "payment stopped by the drawer"
on 23.11.2013 and the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 21.12.2013 and inspite of it the accused has not paid the cheque amount within prescribed period there by the accused has committed an offence U/s.138 of the Negotiable instruments Act?
2. What Order?
9. The above points are answered as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2:As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1 : Before appreciation of the facts and oral and documentary evidence of the present case, it is relevant to mention that under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to 7 C.C.No.5622/2014 J establish guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts however, a proceedings U/s.138 of N.I.Act is quasi criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond all reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions as envisaged U/s.118, 139 and 136 of N.I.Act. An essential ingredient of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act is that, whether a person issues cheque to be encashed and the cheque so issued is towards payment of debt or liability and if it is returned as unpaid for want of funds, then the person issuing such cheque shall be deemed to have been committed an offence. The offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act pre-supposes three conditions for prosecution of an offence which are as under:
1. Cheque shall be presented for payment within specified time i.e., from the date of issue or before expiry of its validity.
2. The holder shall issue a notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer within one month from the date of receipt of information of the bounced cheque and
3. The drawer inspite of demand notice fails to make payment within 15 days from 8 C.C.No.5622/2014 J the date of receipt of such notice.
If the above said three conditions are satisfied by holder in due course gets cause action to launch prosecution against the drawer of the bounced cheque and as per Sec.142(b) of the N.I. Act, the complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arise to file complaint.
11. It is also one of the essential ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act that, a cheque in question must have been issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I.Act envisages certain presumptions i.e.,U/s.118 a presumption shall be raised regarding 'consideration' 'date' 'transfer' ' endorsement' and holder in course of Negotiable Instrument. Even Sec.139 of the Act are rebuttable presumptions shall be raised that, the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally recoverable or enforceable debt and these presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in cases of negotiable instrument, but the said presumptions are not conclusive and or rebuttable one, this proportion of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of 9 C.C.No.5622/2014 J India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in catena of decisions.
12. In the present case the complainant got examined as PW.1 by filing his affidavit evidence wherein the complainant has reiterated the entire averments of the complaint. The complainant/PW1 testified that, accused is his friend and in the month of December 2011 has approached for financial assistance of Rs.10,00,000/- towards purchase of property and has paid the said amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the accused by way of cash by withdrawing from his bank account from Hanumanthanagara Co- operative Bank, Bengaluru and the accused acknowledged receipt of the said amount and executed on demand promissory note dated 27.12.2011. The complainant/PW1 further testified that, the accused issued a cheque i.e., Ex.P1 in his favour for Rs.10 Lakhs and he has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker but the said cheque was dishonoured for the reason of "Payment Stopped by Drawer" on 23.11.2013. The complainant/PW1 further testified that, he got issued legal notice dated 21.12.2013 demanding 10 C.C.No.5622/2014 J payment of the cheque amount within 15 days through RPAD and speed post and it was served on the accused on 24.12.2013 but he has not paid the amount or replied to the notice.
13. In support of his oral evidence the complainant earlier has produced 8 documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to P8 subsequently has produced other documents which are marked as Ex.P9 to 14. The original cheque dated 21.11.2013 is as per Ex.P1 and signature of the accused on the said cheque identified by the complainant is as per Ex.P1(a). Bank memo issued by the accused banker is as per Ex.P2. Copy of the legal notice is as per Ex.P3. Two postal receipts are as per Ex.P4 and 5. Postal acknowledgment is as per Ex.P6, original on demand promissory note and consideration receipt is as per Ex.P7 and signatures of the accused on Ex.P7 identified by the complainant are at Ex.P7(a) and 7(b), complaint and signature of the complainant are at Ex.P8 and P8(a). Statement of account pertaining to the complainant's bank account i.e., Hanumanthnagar Co-operative Bank account statement for the period from 01.04.2011 to 11 C.C.No.5622/2014 J 31.07.2019 is as per Ex.P9. Income Tax returns documents for the year 2011-12, 2009-10, 2010-11 and balance sheet are marked as Ex.P.10, Ex.P12 to
14. Certificate filed by the complainant U/s.65 of Indian Evidence Act is at Ex.P11.
14. In the present case, there is no dispute between the complainant and accused in respect of their acquaintance. It is also not in dispute by the accused that, the cheque in dispute i.e., Ex.P1 belongs to the account of accused and signature appearing on Ex.P1 i.e., Ex.P1(a) is also that of the accused and the said cheque has been presented to the bank for encashment and returned as "Payment Stopped by Drawer" is also not in dispute as a matter on record, proved by return memo i.e., Ex.P2 issued by the accused banker dated 23.11.2013, thereafter it is a matter on record and has been proved that, cheque in question was presented within its validity period and dishonoured as per bank memo. In relation to the service of legal notice Ex.P3, the accused has not disputed his address as shown by the complainant in legal notice and on postal receipts, postal acknowledgment i.e., Ex.P4 to 12 C.C.No.5622/2014 J P6. It is also not in dispute that, even after service of notice the accused has not paid cheque amount, in dispute, finally the complainant has failed this complaint within the limitation period, hence the only question remaining for determination is whether the legal, valid and enforceable debt is in existence and the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of the said debt or liability. Hence from careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant and Ex.P1 to 14 makes it clear that, the complainant has proved that, the cheque in dispute i.e., Ex.P1 was issued by the accused and the signature thereon is that of the accused i.e., Ex.P1(a), therefore the cheque was presented to the bank and returned as Unpaid for the reason of "Payment Stopped by Drawer" as per Ex.P2, therefore the complainant has got issued legal notice to the accused and the said notice was served on him, even after service of the said notice, the accused denied the loan amount advanced by the complainant as contended by him.
15. The accused during the course of cross- examination of complainant/PW1 has taken specific 13 C.C.No.5622/2014 J defence that, the legal notice issued by the complainant has not been served upon him and also taken defence that, he never borrowed Rs.10 Lakhs from the complainant and issued cheque in question infavour of the complainant towards discharge of said loan. It is also specific defence of the accused that, he has not executed on demand pronote but the cheque in question was collected by the complainant prior to 2000 and also collected blank signed stamp papers and on demand pronote and consideration receipts and same have been misused by the complainant and filed this case, therefore on these back drop the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant has to be examined.
16. Since, the Accused in his defence denied the issuance of notice by the complainant and service of the said notice upon him, in order to prove the service of the notice on the Accused the complainant relied upon the documents i.e. copy of the legal notice dated: 21.12.2013 postal receipts and postal acknowledgements i.e. Ex.P.3 to P.6. According to the complainant, after dishonour of the cheque in question he got issued legal notice to the 14 C.C.No.5622/2014 J Accused on 21.12.2013 by demanding him to pay the amount covered under the dishonoured cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice through RPAD and speed post and the said notice was duly served upon the Accused on 24.12.2013. The learned counsel for the Accused during the course of cross-examination of the complainant/ PW.1 has made a suggestion to the complainant that, the legal notice caused by him was not received by the Accused, except the said suggestion the Accused has not made any single suggestion or question to the complainant in respect of the postal receipts and acknowledgements which are at Ex.P.4 to P.6. the learned counsel for the Accused has also not denied the address mentioned by the complainant in the legal notice as the said address is not the correct address of the Accused or the Accused is not residing in the address shown by the complainant in the legal notice and postal receipt and acknowledgements and even has not disputed the receipt of legal notice through registered post and acknowledgement i.e. as per Ex.P.6, hence in view of the same, the Accused is estopped from denying the service of notice upon him. In addition 15 C.C.No.5622/2014 J to that, the Accused has not produced any documents to show that, as on the date of issuance of the legal notice through registered post by the complainant he was not residing in the address given by the complainant in the legal notice, therefore an adverse inference can be drawn against the Accused that, as on the date of issuance of the legal notice by the complainant the Accused was residing in the address shown by the complainant in the legal notice as well as on the postal acknowledgement and the said notice was received by the Accused. Hence for the said reasons it can be held that the legal notice issued by the complainant to the correct address of the Accused or otherwise it can be presumed U/s.27 of the General Clauses Act that, the notice is sent to the correct address, the same shall be presumed to have been duly served. But in the present case the Accused has not disputed the postal acknowledgement i.e. Ex.P.6, in such circumstances it can be held that, the complainant has proved that, the legal notice caused by the complainant was duly served on the Accused.
17. Hence from careful perusal of the oral and 16 C.C.No.5622/2014 J documentary evidence of the complainant i.e., Ex.P.1 to P.13 makes it clear that, the complainant has proved that, the cheque in question i.e. Ex.P.1 issued by the Accused and the signature on the Ex.P.1 i.e. cheque is that of the accused, thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused and the said notice was served on the Accused, has not given any reply or complied with the terms of the notice, therefore the complainant has discharged his initial burden casted upon him and a presumption can be drawn in his favour as available U/s.118 and 139 of N.I Act. Consequently it is for the Accused to rebut the said presumptions and to show that, the cheque in question was not issued either to the complainant or towards any legally recoverable debt or liability, by producing cogent and convincible evidence but not mere suggestions or even plausible explanations.
18. In the present case, the Accused has taken specific defence that, he has not borrowed any loan amount from the complainant and the complainant has no financial capacity to lend the alleged loan amount to him and has not produced any 17 C.C.No.5622/2014 J documents to prove that, the Accused has acknowledged the receipt of alleged loan in question and promised him that, he would repay the alleged amount and also denied the documents produced by the complainant by contending that, cheque in question was not issued towards repayment of alleged loan. The Accused has also taken specific defence that, the complainant along with one Basavaraja, Krishnappa and Anandappa was running a chit business, in which the complainant has collected his 16 signed blank cheques along with signed blank stamp papers and signed blank on demand pronote and consideration receipt prior to the year 2000.
19. The complainant in order to establish the loan amount advanced to the Accused and his financial capacity, has produced on demand and consideration receipt executed by the Accused in his favour in the presence of the witnesses which is at Ex.P.7 and statement of accounts pertaining to his bank account of the Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank Ltd., for the period from 1.4.2011 to 15.4.2014 which is at Ex.P.9 and income tax returns 18 C.C.No.5622/2014 J documents for the assessment year of 2011-12, 2009-10 and 2010-11 which are at Ex.P.10, P.12 and P.13. On careful perusal of the Ex.P.7 i.e., on demand and consideration receipt executed by the Accused in favour of the complainant wherein it is mentioned that, the Accused on 27.12.2011 has received an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs as a hand loan by agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to the complainant in the presence of witnesses. The Accused during the course of cross-examination of the complainant though he has denied the contents of the Ex.P.7 i.e. On demand and Consideration receipt but has not disputed his signature appearing at Ex.P.7(a) and Ex.P.7(b), hence in view of admitted fact by the Accused it can be held that, the Accused has admitted his signatures found at Ex.P.7(a) and P.7(b) i.e., on the On demand and Consideration receipt, hence when the Accused has admitted his signature on the on demand and consideration receipt it can be presumed that, he has admitted the contents of the on demand and consideration receipt, unless the Accused proved the contrary that, the said contents of the on demand and consideration receipt are created by the 19 C.C.No.5622/2014 J complainant, but except the denial of the contents of the On demand and consideration receipt, the Accused has not produced any rebuttable evidence to disbelieve or discredit the contents of the Ex.P.7 i.e. On demand and Consideration receipt. Apart from that, the complainant in his cross-examination has specifically stated that, he has lent an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the Accused on 27.12.2011 for the purpose of purchasing the property by him and the Accused in turn has executed on demand promissory note in the presence of one G.R.Gopinath and Sathish. It is also stated by the complainant in his cross-examination that, the Accused has brought the written on demand and consideration receipt and denied a suggestion made to him that, there is a difference in ink in respect of signature and rest of the contents in Ex.P.7 and except the signature on Ex.P.7 the rest of the contents are written by him. The complainant has also denied a suggestion put to him that, he has misused a blank signed on demand and consideration receipt collected by him from the complainant at the time of advancing the loan prior to the year 2000. Therefore, on careful perusal of the cross-examination of the complainant by the 20 C.C.No.5622/2014 J Accused on Ex.P.7 i.e. On demand and consideration receipt, nothing has been elicited to believe the defence of the Accused that, Ex.P.7 as either it is created by the complainant or blank signed on demand and consideration receipt given by the Accused is misused by the complainant as contended by the Accused in his defence.
20. In support of documentary evidence i.e. Ex.P.7 the complainant has examined the two witnesses who were signed to Ex.P.7 as a witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3. The PW.2 and PW.3 in their affidavit evidence filed in lieu of examination in chief have specifically stated that, they knows the complainant and Accused since several years and the complainant running the business of dry- cleaning at Shastri Nagar, Thyagarajnagar, Bengaluru and Accused also running business of Share Trading. The PW.2 and 3 further stated that, the Accused approached the complainant for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.10 Lakhs towards purchase of property and Accused agreed to repay the said amount, the complainant paid the said amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the Accused by way 21 C.C.No.5622/2014 J of cash and the same was acknowledged by the Accused at Complainant's shop. The PW.2 and 3 further stated that, the Accused at the time of availing the said amount has executed on demand promissory note along with consideration receipt on 27.12.2011infavour of the complainant and the Accused has been duly signed on the said on demand promissory note and consideration receipt and taken the cash of Rs.10 Lakhs from the complainant and thereafter they have also signed as a witness on the demand promissory note.
21. The learned counsel for the Accused has cross examined the PW.2 and PW.3 in length but during the course of cross-examination has not disputed the signatures of the Accused and signatures of the PW.2 and PW.3 on demand note and consideration receipt. The PW.2 and PW.3 during the course of their cross-examination they have specifically stated that, on 27.12.2011 they visited the complainant's business hop at that time, the Accused was also came there and received an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs infront of them and executed the on demand pronote infavour of the 22 C.C.No.5622/2014 J complainant and they have also signed as witness to the on demand promissory note. The PW.2 and PW.3 have specifically stated that, the Accused has taken the loan amount from the complainant towards purchase of property by him and at the request of the complainant and Accused they had signed to pronote. The PW.2 in his cross-examination has stated that, the complainant brought the amount from the bank by availing loan on his house property and has given to the said amount to the Accused. The PW.2 and PW.3 have specifically stated in their cross-examination that, the Ex.P.7 on demand and consideration receipt was brought by the Accused and it was written document at the time of putting their signature to the said document. The PW.2 and PW.3 have denied a suggestion made to them that, themselves, one Krishnappa, Basavaraju, Anandappa and complainant together were doing chit transaction and in respect of the chit transaction the Accused had given blank signed cheques, on demand pronote and blank signed stamp papers infavour of the complainant towards security and the said documents have been misused by them and filed this case and deposing falsely 23 C.C.No.5622/2014 J before the court. Therefore on entire perusal of the cross-examination of the PW.2 and PW.3, nothing has been elicited to believe the defence of the Accused that, the complainant along with PW.2 and PW.3 and other persons have misused the blank signed on demand promissory note and consideration receipt given by the Accused to the complainant and PW.2 and PW.3 have also colluded with the complainant and created the Ex.P.7, in such circumstances, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 sufficient to hold that, in their presence the Accused had received a loan amount of Rs.10 Lakhs from the complainant and in turn has executed the on demand and consideration receipt i.e Ex.P.7 in their presence towards acknowledgement of receipt of the said amount and the Accused has duly signed to the Ex.P.7 in the presence of PW.2 and PW.3.
22. The complainant has also produced his statement of accounts pertaining to his bank account of Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru for the period of 1.4.2011 to 15.4.2014 which is at Ex.P.9 and also produced the Income tax returns submitted by him for the 24 C.C.No.5622/2014 J Assessment year of 2009-10 to 2011-12 which are at Ex.P.10 and P.12 and P.13. The learned counsel for the Accused during the course of cross-examination of the complainant has not disputed the Ex.P.9, 10, 12 and P.13 i.e. the bank Statement and I.T.R.records of the complainant but he is only disputing that, the complainant borrowed a loan of Rs.12,75,000/= from the bank is not for the purpose of advancing the loan amount to the Accused but the said loan was borrowed towards to clear his debts, in this regard, the purpose of loan mentioned in Ex.P.9 statement was marked as Ex.D.1 on behalf of the Accused. It is true that, as per Ex.D.1 it appears that, the complainant has borrowed a loan from the concerned bank on 24.12.2011 interest at the rate of 14% for the purpose of clearing the debts. But the Accused has admitted that, as on 24.12.2011 the complainant has borrowed a loan of Rs.12,75,000/= from the concerned bank, therefore it can be held that, as on the date of alleged transaction in this case the complainant was having sufficient source of funds in his bank account. It may be true that, the complainant has availed a loan from the bank for the purpose of clearing his debt but only on the basis of 25 C.C.No.5622/2014 J the purpose of loan mentioned in Ex.P.9 bank statement it can not be held that, the complainant has not paid the loan amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the Accused by withdrawing the amount from his bank account as stated by accused. Even there are possibilities of amount which was availed by the complainant for the purpose of clearing his debt out of the said amount the complainant may lend the loan amount in question to the Accused. The complainant during the course of his cross- examination has specifically denied a suggestion made to him that, the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs which has been withdrawn by him has not been paid to the Accused but it has been withdrawn for the purpose of clearing his debt, hence the very suggestion made by the Accused goes to show that, the Accused has also admitted withdrawal of an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs from the bank by the complainant but he denied that, the said amount has not been advanced to him on the contrary he contends that, the said amount was utilized by the complainant to clear his debt but no such documents have been produced by the Accused to show that, the complainant after withdrawal of Rs.10 Lakhs from his bank has 26 C.C.No.5622/2014 J utilized to clear of his debt, in such circumstances, when the Accused himself admitted that, the complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs from his bank account, the very admission corroborates with the claim of the complainant that, he has lent an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the Accused by withdrawing the said amount from his bank account. In addition to that, the perusal of the Ex.P.9,. P.10 P.12 and P.13 it appears that, the complainant has produced his statement of account and income tax returns documents for the period of 2009-10 and 2011-12, during the said period the complainant was having sufficient source of income to lend loan amount in question. It is true that, there is no mentioning of an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs was paid by the complainant to the Accused in Ex.P.9, P.10, P.12 and P.13, but it does not mean that, as on the date of advancing the loan amount to the Accused the complainant was not having sufficient source of income.
23. The learned counsel for the Accused in the written argument has contended that, the bank has charged interest of 14% to the complainant for the 27 C.C.No.5622/2014 J loan amount, if the complainant extended the alleged loan amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the Accused why he has not charged any interest to the Accused. It is true that, the bank has charged 14% of interest on the loan amount borrowed by the complainant but the complainant has also charged interest of 12% on the loan amount in question and same has been mentioned in on demand and consideration receipt i.e. in Ex.P.9, the complainant has not claimed any interest from the Accused either in his legal notice or in the complaint but it doesn't mean that, he has waived up his claim with regard to interest charged in Ex.P.9 and he nowhere stated that, he has waived up his claim in respect of the interest charged in Ex.P.9. However, in his legal notice he has demanded to Accused to pay the cheque amount of Rs.10 Lakhs by way of demand drafts in his favour within 15 days from the receipt of the notice or otherwise he will be restraining to file a recovery Suit as well as having bounced the cheque, hence it goes to show that, the complainant is intending to file a recovery suit against the Accused as per the document executed by the Accused i.e. Ex.P.9 on demand and consideration 28 C.C.No.5622/2014 J receipt. It is true that the complainant in the complaint and legal notice and affidavit evidence has not stated about the interest charged on the loan transaction in question, but it doesn't mean that, the loan amount advanced by the complainant is interest free loan or the complainant has not charged the interest on the loan transaction in question as contended by the Accused in his defence.
24. The learned counsel for the Accused in his written argument has specifically contended that, the complainant has failed to produce any documentary proof to show that, he had withdrawn the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs from his account and gave it to the Accused and also contended that, the complainant has failed to adduce substantial evidence to show that, he had financial resources or capacity to advance loan amount as he has admitted in his cross-examination that, he is a green card holder i.e. BPL card holder and the said BPL card is issued only to the family which are strictly below the poverty line, hence the complainant has failed to establish his financial capacity. But as it is already 29 C.C.No.5622/2014 J held in the above that the complainant has successfully established his financial capacity by producing his bank statement and also income tax returns document which are at Ex.P.9, P.10, P.12 and P.13 by showing his income in the bank account and also he is an income tax payee as on the date of lending of the loan amount in question, in such circumstances the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the Accused cannot be acceptable one. In addition to that, it is already held in the above that, the complainant has proved that the cheque in question was issued by the accused to him and the signature appearing on the cheque is that of the accused, in such circumstances, even the presumption can be drawn to the extent of existence of debt or liability against the Accused. In this regard it is relevant here to refer the decisions reported in 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 between 'M/s.Devi Tyres V/s.Navab Jan' and in 2011 ACD 1521 (KAR) between 'Smt. Usha Suresh V/s. Shashidharn', in 2010 SC 1898 between 'Rangappa Vs. Mohan' and 2011 ACD 1412 (KAR) between 'N.Hasainar Vs. M.Hasainar, S/o. Ibrahim'. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 30 C.C.No.5622/2014 J the above decision i.e., 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 at para No.6 was pleased to hold that issuance of cheque itself was adequate proof of existence of debt or liability. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in the decision referred above, the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2010 SC 1898 in case of 'Rangappa Vs. Mohan' that, presumptions U/sec.118(a) and 139 of N.I. Act indeed does extend to the existence of legally recoverable debt, of course the said presumption is rebuttable one, the accused has to rebut the presumption by taking probable defence. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India reported in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2018 DT 15-03-2018 between ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATEL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR held that "Negotiable Instruments Act facts like source of funds are not relevant if the Accused has not been able to rebut the presumption. It is further held that "When such a presumption is drawn, the facts relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the Accused has been able to rebut 31 C.C.No.5622/2014 J the presumption or not". In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2019 KAR 493 in the case of Sri.Yogesh Poojary Vs. Sri.K.Shankara Bhat, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, the presumption mandated by Sec.139 of N.I Act includes the presumption that, there existed a legally enforceable debt or liability, however such presumption is rebuttable in nature".
25. In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Shri.V.R.Shresti Vs. Shri. Bhaskara.P. in Crl. Appeal No. 2109/2017 dated: 15.10.2019 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "the Accused has not given any reply to the notice and also in the cross- examination, he categorically admits that, the cheque has bounced on account of no sufficient fund in the bank account of the Accused. Mere non producing of the document before the court with regard to the source of income to advance a loan is not a ground to dismiss the complaint. The Accused ought to have rebutted the contention of the complainant by producing cogent evidence before the court and mere denial is not enough".
32 C.C.No.5622/2014 JHence the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the above referred decision are aptly applicable to the case on hand, since in the present case also the complainant has proved that, he is having sufficient source of income and also lend the loan amount in question to the Accused and the Accused in turn issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant, in such circumstances, this court has drawn a presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt as per Sec. 139 of N.I. Act. Therefore under these circumstances the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the defence i.e., the complainant has not produced any documents to show that he had sufficient source of income to lend the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the accused and complainant has failed to produce any document to prove his source of income to lend the loan amount are not sustainable and acceptable one.
26. It is relevant here to mention that, though the Accused during the course of cross-examination of complainant has taken specific defence by making suggestion that, the complainant along with one Basavaraj, Krishnappa, Andappa was running 33 C.C.No.5622/2014 J chit transaction in which he had issued 16 signed blank cheques along with signed blank stamp papers and signed blank on demand pronote and consideration receipts to the complainant prior to the year 2000 but the said defence was denied by the complainant in order to prove the defence of the Accused he did not entered into the witness box to lead his oral evidence or has not produced any documentary proof to show that, the complainant along with the other persons was running chit transaction and in respect of the chit transaction he has collected 16 signed blank cheques along with signed blank stamp papers and demand pronote and consideration receipt from the Accused, except the suggestion by the Accused to the complainant has not substantiate or establish his defence, therefore the defence taken by the Accused amounts to mere denial of the claim of the complainant but not proved by the Accused by producing cogent and convincible evidence.
27. It is also relevant here to mention that, the Accused in his defence has contended that, prior to the year 2000 the complainant had collected his 16 34 C.C.No.5622/2014 J signed blank signed cheques along with signed blank papers and signed blank one demand pronote and consideration receipt towards security of the chit transaction but the Accused except the suggestion made to the complainant has not produced documents to show that, complainant and other persons were running chit business and he was also subscriber of the said chit business and has paid subscription amount to the chit transaction, in such circumstances it is very difficult to accept the defence of the Accused that, the complainant along with other persons was running chit business. In addition to that, if really the complainant had collected the blank signed cheques, blank signed stamp papers and demand pronote and consideration receipt towards security of the chit transaction prior to the year 2000, the Accused except his oral say has not made any efforts or taken any legal action against the complainant in respect of non returning of said cheques, stamp papers and demand pronote and consideration receipt and since the year 2000 and till filing of this complaint by the complainant the Accused has not made any efforts in getting return of his blank signed cheques and 35 C.C.No.5622/2014 J other documents.
28. It is necessary here to refer a decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court reported in AIR 2009 (NOC) 726 MAD in the case of P. Armugam Vs. P. Veluswamy, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as under:-
" Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Accused admits to have signed cheque and handed it over to complainant - Defence raised by accused that said cheque was issued as a blank cheque intended to be a collateral security for an unregistered chit conducted by complainant - However, no evidence has been adduced by Accused to prove that complainant was running an unregistered chit in which Accused joined as a subscribing member - there is no evidence to prove amount of chit or that Accused was a priced subscriber and the blank cheque had been issued to ensure proper payment 36 C.C.No.5622/2014 J of future subscriptions - can be held that, cheque was issued for payment of loan obtained by accused from complainant - Accused guilty of offence.
29. In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2012 (4) KCCR 2634 in the case of Sri. Prakash @ Jnana Prakash Vs. Ms. T.S. Susheela wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as under:-
NEGOTIABLE ISNTRUCTMETS
ACT, 1881 - Section 138 - Complaint
under - Cheque dishonoured for
"insufficient funds" - Plea of accused as to non -receipt of demand notice, absence of legal liability, misuse of documents given as security in an independent chit transaction -
Convicted by Trial Court- Confirmed by Appellate Court - Revision against- The plea as to misuse of documents would not be believed due to in action of the accused.
37 C.C.No.5622/2014 JHence in view of the principles of law laid down in the above decisions, in the present case also the Accused has not proved that, the complainant has collected his 16 signed blank cheques along with signed blank stamp papers and demand pronote and consideration receipt prior to the year 2000 in respect of chit transaction as alleged by him, in such circumstances, the cheque in dispute was issued by the Accused not in connection with the alleged chit transactions as contended by the accused in his defence.
30. In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2015 (1) KCCR 235 in the case of Lale Patel Vs. Sharanabasappa., wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as under:-
NEGOTIABLE ISNTRUCEMTNS ACT,
1881- section 138 - Dishonour of
cheque for insufficiency of funds - Plea of accused that he had given a blank cheque signed as security for a transaction and complainant filled up the contents and denied existence of any debt or loan - Conviction by Trial 38 C.C.No.5622/2014 J court - Affirmed by Appellate Court - Revision against.
Hence the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above decision clearly held that, if the Accused has taken defence that, the a blank signed cheque has been issued as a security for transaction and the complainant filled up the contents and the accused denied the existence of debt or loan in such circumstances it is for the accused to prove his defence by producing cogent and convincible evidence, if the Accused has not proved the same in such circumstances, it cannot be held that, the cheque in question was issued for the purpose of security in connection with the transaction. In the present case also the Accused has failed to establish his defence to show that, the cheque in question was issued toward security of the chit transactions, under such circumstances the cheque so issued cannot be considered as the one issued as a security and the defence taken by the Accused is untenable one.
31. It is relevant here to mention that, admittedly the Accused has not produced any 39 C.C.No.5622/2014 J document to show that, the complainant was running chit business and he has paid an amount to the Accused towards the chit amount and collected 16 signed blank cheques and other documents from the accused, in such circumstances, the Accused would have made efforts either to issue notice to the complainant or to file complaint against the complainant before the competent authority for non returning of the alleged signed blank cheques and other documents as stated by him in this defence but no such efforts have been made by the Accused since the year 2000. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2018 SC 3601 in a case of T.P.Murugan(dead) Thr. Lrs.V. Bhojan Vs. Posa Nandi, rep. Thr. Lrs. PA holder, T.P. Murugan V. Bhojan, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held as under:-
Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) Ss.118, 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption as to enforceable debt- cheques allegedly issued by accused towards repayment of debt- Defence of accused that 10 cheques issued towards 40 C.C.No.5622/2014 J repayment of loan back in 1995 -
behavior of accused in allegedly issuing 10 blank cheques back in 1995 and never asking their return for 7 years, unnatural
- Accused admitting his signature on cheques and pronote, presumption under S.139 would operate against him -
Complainant proving existence of legally enforceable debt and issuance of cheques towards discharge of such debt-
Conviction, Proper.
Hence by applying the above principles of law to the present facts of the case in the present case also the accused has not made any efforts to get return of blank signed cheques and blank signed stamp papers and on demand pronote an consideration receipt alleged to have been given to the complainant during the year 2000 for security of the amount advanced by the complainant in respect of chit business, under such circumstances, the said unnatural conduct of the accused in non taking of action, an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused that, the cheque in question issued by the accused towards discharge of the liability and 41 C.C.No.5622/2014 J presumption U/s.139 of N.I. Act would operate against him, as he has admitted the signatures and cheques in question belongs to him.
32. It is a relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2019 SC 2446 in the case of Birsingh Vs. Mukesh Kumar., wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that, presumption U/s.139 is presumption of law, distinguished from presumption of facts and also held that, presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with presumption of innocence which requires prosecution to prove case against the Accused and also held that obligation on the prosecution may discharged with the help of presumptions of law and presumption of fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing reasonable plausibility of non existence of presumed fact. In the present case the Accused did not entered into witness box to prove his defence or produced any documents or satisfactory evidence to rebut the presumptions as available U/s.139 of the N.I. Act, under such circumstances in view of the above principles of law, it can be presumed even on fact 42 C.C.No.5622/2014 J also that the complainant has proved his case by discharging his burden and complying the mandatory provisions. In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex court has also held that, presumption as to legally enforceable debt is rebuttable, the signed blank cheque if voluntarily presented to payee towards payment payee may fill up amount and other particulars and it in itself would not invalidate cheque and onus would still be on the accused to prove that, cheque was not issued or discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence. In the present case though the accused has taken specific defence that, the cheque in question was not issued towards repayment of the loan in question but the same was given to the complainant towards security of chit transaction but as it is already held in the above that, the accused has not proved the said fact, in such circumstances even for sake of discussion if it is assumed that the contents of cheque in question was filled up by the complainant in view of the principles of law laid down in the above decision that itself would not invalidates the cheque in question and it can be presumed that, the cheque was filled in by complainant in presence of the 43 C.C.No.5622/2014 J Accused at his request and the said cheque has been issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt.
33. In another decision reported in 2015 (4) KCCR 2881 (SC) in the case of T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held as under;-
NEGOTIABLE ISNTRUCEMTNS Act, 1881- Section s138 and 139 - acquittal - If justified- Accused not disputing issuance of cheque and his signature eon it- Plea that it was issued long back as security and that loan amount was repaid- Not supported by any evidence - Fact that date was printed, would not lend any evidence to case of accused- Acquittal not proper.
Hence in the present case also it is the main defence of the Accused that the cheque in dispute alleged to have been issued in the year 2000 for security of the chit transaction infavour of the complainant and the complainant by misusing the said cheque has filed this complaint but the Accused has admitted the issuance of cheque and his 44 C.C.No.5622/2014 J signature on the said cheque and also taken defence that, the alleged chit amount was repaid to the complainant but no documents or proof given by the Accused to prove his defence in such circumstances by applying the principles of law laid down in the above decision the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one.
34. It is settled law that, the accused can rebut the presumption only on the basis of materials produced by the complainant even without entering into the witness box but in the present case the Accused has failed to substantiate his defence version in order to rebut the presumption available to the complainant and to prove the defense of the accused, under such circumstance, it is for the accused to disprove the case of the complainant or rebut the presumption then only the onus will be shifted on the complainant to prove his case. Admittedly the accused did not entered in to the witness box, therefore an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused that he has failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant. Therefore it is clear that, except having denial of the 45 C.C.No.5622/2014 J case of the Complainant in the cross examination of complainant, the Accused has not taken any interest so as to prove his defence. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in "AIR 2018 SC 3173 in a case of Kishan Rao Vs. Shankargouda" wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss. 138, 139- Dishonour of cheque - Presumption as to - Accused issuing cheque of Rs.2 Lakhs towards repayment of loan to Complainant-
said cheque dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds- Complainant proving issuance of cheque having signatures of Accused - Accused failing to rebut presumption raised against him and no evidence led by him in his support - Acquittal of Accused by High Court in revisional jurisdiction on ground of doubt in mind of Court with regard to existence of loan, improper- Accused, liable to be convicted.
In another decision decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption under - burden to prove - the burden is on the 46 C.C.No.5622/2014 J accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence U/s.s.138 of NI Act.
It is also held that, the accused has failed to lead any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, a finding returned by both the Trial Court and High Court. Both courts not only erred in law but also committed perversity when the due amount is said to be disputed only on the account of discrepancy in the cartons, packing materials or the rate to determine the total liability as if the appellant was proving his debt before the civil court. Therefore it is presumed that, the cheque in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques received the same in existing debt.
It is also held that, once the agent of the respondent has admitted the settlement of the due amount and in the absence of any other evidence the trial court or High Court could not dismiss the complaint only on account of discrepancies in the determination of amount due or oral evidence in the amount due when the written document crystallizes the amount due for which the cheque was issued.
The principles of law laid down in the above decision are aptly applicable to the case on hand, 47 C.C.No.5622/2014 J since in this case also the complainant proved the fact that he has lent an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the Accused and the accused in turn issued cheque for discharge of the said amount as per Ex.P.1. The accused has also failed to enter into witness box to rebut the statutory presumption in support of his defense in such circumstances the defense taken by the accused counsel during the course of cross examination and argument cannot be acceptable one.
35. It is also important to note here that, the Accused has not denied or disputed that the cheque in question as well as the signature therein do belong to him and he has failed to explain as to how his cheque has come to the possession of the Complainant, this would also give rise to an adverse inference against him. This preposition of law finds support from the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2010(1) KCCR 176 in the case of "Siddappa Vs. Manjappa". In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.A.No.664 of 2012 dated: 19.9.2019 in the case of "M.Abbas Haji Vs. T.M.Chennakeshava"
held that, " the Accused has to explain how the 48 C.C.No.5622/2014 J cheque entered into the hands of complainant".
Hence in the present case also the Accused has failed to explain how the cheque in question was entered into the hands of complainant. Therefore for the above said reasons the defense taken by the accused cannot be acceptable one and accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant by adducing cogent and convincible evidence.
36. The learned counsel for the Accused submitted written argument and on careful perusal of the written argument wherein the learned counsel has argued by referring the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant and Accused. The arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the defence are not acceptable, in view of the discussions made by this court in the above while appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and this court come to a conclusion that, the complainant has proved that, he has lent an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the Accused and inorder to repay the said amount the Accused have issued the cheque in question and the said cheque was presented by 49 C.C.No.5622/2014 J the complainant through his banker and same was dishonoured as "Payment Stopped by Drawer" and even after issuance of the notice by the complainant and after service of the notice, he did not repay the said amount and the Accused has miserably failed to prove his defence, in such circumstances the Accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act. The learned counsel for the Accused has relied upon the decisions reported in (1) 2011(2) DCR 696; (2) 2012(1) DCR 385; (3) 2003(2) Crimer 122; (4) 2014(1) DCR 9 ; (5) 2008 Cri.L.J. 434: (6) 2014 (1) DCR 547, (7) 2013 (2) DCR 427; (8) 2015 (3) DCR 132, (9) 2015 (3) DCR 787; (10) 2015 (1) DCR 672, (11) (2014) 2 SCC 236; (12) 2015 (1) DCR 642; (13) 2015 (1) DCR 5. On careful reading of the principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court of India, and High Court of Karnataka in the decisions relied upon by the Accused persons with due respect to the principles of law laid down, the same are not applicable to the case on hand i.e. the defence of the Accused in this case as the facts and circumstances of the present case and facts and circumstances of the decided cases are not one and the same, 50 C.C.No.5622/2014 J therefore the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the defence are not accepted.
37. Therefore considering all these aspects of the case and totality of the circumstances and on careful and meticulous appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant and accused the complainant has successfully established beyond all reasonable doubt that, he has lent a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs to the accused as a hand loan and the accused in turn have issued cheque in question i.e. Ex.P.1 to the complainant towards repayment of the hand loan, thereafter the complainant has presented the said cheque through his banker and same was returned dishonoured with an endorsement of "Payment Stopped by Drawer" and thereafter he got issued legal notice to the accused and inspite of service of the said notice, the Accused did not repaid loan amount borrowed by them, hence the complainant filed the present complaint against the accused. On the other hand, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption available infavour of the complainant with regard to the existence of legally recoverable debt under Ex.P.1 Cheque. Therefore 51 C.C.No.5622/2014 J accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act, accordingly for the above said reasons this point is answered in the Affirmative.
38. Point No.2: Negotiable Instrument Act was enacted to bring credibility to the cheque and the very purpose of enactment is to promote the use of negotiable instrument, while to discourage the issuance of cheque without having sufficient funds in their accounts. Such being the case the intention of the legislature is that, complainant be suitable compensated while accused be punished for his act. Hence while awarding the compensation the said fact is to be kept in mind and suitable compensation is awarded to the complainant certainly it will not cause injustice to the accused, accordingly the complainant is entitled for the compensation as ordered by the court and for the said reasons, it is just and proper to pass the following :-
ORDER Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.52 C.C.No.5622/2014 J
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,25,000/= (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) within one month from the date of order, in default he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of (3) three months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Further acting U/sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.10,15,000/= (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on recovery a sum of Rs.10,000/= (Rupees Ten Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
His Bail bond stands cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer online, printout taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of November 2019).
(SRI.S.B. HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
53 C.C.No.5622/2014 JANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant:-
P.W.1 : Sri. B.T.Muniramaiah,
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.P-1 : Original Cheque;
Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of the Accused;
Ex.P-2 : Bank Memo;
Ex.P-3 : Office copy of the Legal Notice;
Ex.P-4 & P-5 : Postal Receipts;
Ex.P-6 : Postal Acknowledgement;
Ex.P-7 : Original on demand promissory note and
consideration receipt
Ex.P-7(a) & : signatures of the accused
7(b)
Ex.P-8 & 8(a) : complaint and signature of the complainant;
Ex.P-9 : Statement of account pertaining to the complainant bank account i.e., Hanumanthnagar Co-operative Bank account statement for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.07.2019;
Ex.P.10 & : Income Tax returns documents for the
Ex.P.12 to year 2011-12, 2009-10, 2010-11 and
P.14 balance sheet;
Ex.P.11 : Certificate filed by the complainant
U/s.65 of Indian Evidence Act;
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused:-
- Nil-54 C.C.No.5622/2014 J
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-
- Nil-
(SRI.S.B.HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.55 C.C.No.5622/2014 J
21.11.2019 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,25,000/= (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) within one month from the date of order, in default he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of (3) three months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Further acting U/sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.10,15,000/= (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on recovery a sum of Rs.10,000/= (Rupees Ten Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
His Bail bond stands cancelled.
56 C.C.No.5622/2014 JOffice is directed to furnish free certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C.
XVI ACMM, B'luru.