Bangalore District Court
M/S. Cherry Agencies Private vs M/S. Urs Tyre World on 7 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL., CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.
Present: Sri.N.Muniraja. B.A., L.L.B.,
Dated: This the 7th Day of June 2019.
C.C.No.27073/2018
Complainant M/S. CHERRY AGENCIES PRIVATE
LIMITED,
A company incorporated under the Indian
companies Act of 1956,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Sri. Rajesh Agrawal,
Having their registered
office at No. 115,
Lalbagh Fort Road,
Minerva Circle,
Bengaluru 560004.
The complainant company is represented
by its
General Manager, HR,
Admin & Power of Attorney Holder,
Sri. Balachandran SS
At No. 115, Lalbagh Fort Road,
Minerva Circle,
Bengaluru 560004.
(Rep by Sri.D.N.Manjunath.,Adv)
Vs.
Accused M/S. URS TYRE WORLD,
Being a proprietary concern of
Sri. Manohar Urs,
Carrying on business at Manu Complex,
Opp: Karkhane School,
Mysore Road,
Malavalli,
Karnataka 5617430.
(Rep by Sri.S.L. Prabhu Raj Urs.,Adv)
Offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
2 C.C.No.27073/2018 J
Final Order Convicted
Judgment Date 07/06/2019
******
JUDGMENT
The complainant company filed this complaint against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Brief facts of the complainant case are as follows:
The complainant is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, engaged in the business of wholesale dealer in tyres, tubes, motor spare parts, curing bags, envelops, flaps, tube patches, footwear, tyre valve and other allied goods. The accused being the proprietor of M/s. Urs Tyre World had approached the complainant in the year 2016 to act as clearing and forwarding agent by storing and distributing the products of the complainant at his business places and thereafter agreed to act as an agent of the 3 C.C.No.27073/2018 J complainant on commission basis. The complainant and accused entered into clearing and forwarding Agreement on 05/04/2016. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the accused was bound to store and sell the products of the complainant both in wholesale and retail and raise bills in the name of the complainant company and the accused deposit all the cash collection, cheques to the account of the complainant received towards the sales and distribution of the goods and report the sales and stocks on daily basis. In the course of the said business the accused sold the products of the complainant stored at his business place and as per the books of accounts maintained by the complainant, as on 11/07/2018 the accused was found due in a sum of Rs.1,37,535/- in the form of cash sales and payments not received for bills totally amounting to Rs.5,28,170/- and in total the accused was due for a sum of Rs.6,65,705/-. After repeated requests by the complainant, the accused had issued cheque bearing No. 053890 dated: 30/06/2018 for a 4 C.C.No.27073/2018 J sum of Rs.3,64,705/- drawn on syndicate Bank, Malavalli Branch, Mandya District for payment of part of the out standing amount. As per the assurance of the accused the complainant presented the said cheque through M/s. Axis Bank, J.C. Road, Bengaluru and the same came to be dishonoured on 03/07/2018 as "Funds Insufficient". The complainant through its representatives brought to the notice of the accused the factum of dishonour of the cheque and called upon him to pay the amount. In spite of the said demand and request, the accused failed to pay the due amount. The complainant without any alternative got issued legal notice to the accused on 12/07/2018 through RPAD and speed post and the accused has not claimed the said notice and has not paid the cheque amount. Hence, this complaint.
3. Sworn statement of the General Manager and GPA Holder of the complainant company recorded as PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 11 5 C.C.No.27073/2018 J documents and after taking cognizance for the offence U/sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ordered summons to the accused. In pursuance of summons the accused appeared through his advocate and he enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation readover to the accused and he pleads not guilty. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 (Indian Bank Association & Ors V/s. Union of India & Ors), Sworn statement of the complainant is treated as evidence of the complainant. The accused filed an application U/sec. 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act R/w sec. 311 of Cr.P.C for seeking permission for cross- examination of the complainant and the same allowed. The accused cross-examined the PW1. On closure of the complainant side evidence statement of the accused recorded U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has led defense evidence as DW1 and no documents are got marked.
6 C.C.No.27073/2018 J
4. Heard the learned counsels for the complainant and accused and I perused the records.
5. The points that would arise for my consideration are as follows:
(i) Whether the complainant proves that the accused issued Ex.P.6 cheque towards discharge of legally enforcible debt or liability and the said cheque dishonoured.?
(ii) Whether the complainant proves that after dishonour of cheque, served notice to the accused in compliance of Sec.138(b) of the N.I Act?
(iii) What order?
6. My answer to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : In the Affirmative Point No.3: As per the final order, for the following.
REASONS
7. Point No.1: PW1 who is the General Manager and GPA Holder of the complainant company in his evidence affidavit has reiterated the 7 C.C.No.27073/2018 J contents of the complaint averments. On behalf of the complainant produced Ex.P1 Certified copy of Board Resolution and Ex.P2 certified copy of GPA to show that PW1 is authorized to represent the complainant company. In the course of cross- examination of PW1 and in the defense evidence the accused not dispute the said Ex.P1 & 2 documents and authority of PW1 to represent the complainant company. As borne out from the cross-examination of PW1 and defense evidence of the accused, the contention of the accused is that at the time of entering into business agreement with the complainant, he had issued two blank cheques to the complainant for security purpose and the complainant has misused the said cheques.
8. The accused in the course of cross-
examination of PW1 and in his defense evidence not disputes the fact that Ex.P6 cheque belongs to his account. The accused in the course of cross- examination admits that the signature on Ex.P6 8 C.C.No.27073/2018 J cheque belongs to him. Though the accused contended that he had issued blank cheques at the time of entering into an agreement with the complainant, but issuance of cheque infavour of the complainant is not in dispute. Since, the accused admits his signature on Ex.P6 cheque, presumption U/sec. 139 of the N.I. Act raises in favour of the complainant that the accused issued the said cheque to the complainant towards discharge of any debt or liability. The burden shifts on the accused to rebut said presumption. The complainant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2001 SC 2895 (K.N. Beena V/s Muniyappan and Another) wherein it is held that Burden of proving that cheque had not been issued for any debt or liability is on the accused. Denial averments in reply by the accused are not sufficient to shift burden of proof on to the complainant. The accused has to prove in trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. With this back ground let me appreciate the evidence on record 9 C.C.No.27073/2018 J whether the accused is able to rebut the presumption U/sec. 139 of the N.I. Act raises in favour of the complainant.
9. The learned counsel for the accused referring to the cross-examination of PW1 has argued that PW1 in the course of cross-examination has stated that he has to verify the records about when the agreement taken place between the complainant and accused and details of transactions and how many C & F agencies are attached to complainant company and to say about the exact monthly turnover of the accused with the complainant company and whether the accused made deposit of Rs.7,00,000/- at the time of entering agreement with the complainant company and therefore PW1 has no personal knowledge about the transaction of the accused . PW1 in the course of cross-examination has clearly denied the made suggestions on behalf of the accused to the effect that he has no personal knowledge about the transactions. It has come in 10 C.C.No.27073/2018 J the cross-examination of PW1 that he is working in the complainant company since more than 12 years. PW1 has clearly stated in the cross-examination that he has accounting knowledge about the transactions taken place between the complainant company and the accused. Therefore he has having knowledge about the transaction of the accused with the complainant company. In the course of cross- examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused suggested that it is true that he is having personal knowledge of about the contents of sworn statement filed by him in this case. From the said suggestion it is crystal clear that the accused admits the fact that PW1 is having personal knowledge about the contents of sworn statement. It is pertinent to note that the contents of sworn statement of PW1 are replica of the complaint averments and the very sworn statement of PW1 is treated as the evidence. Therefore it can be said that PW1 is having personal knowledge about the transactions of the accused with the complainant company. No doubt it is true 11 C.C.No.27073/2018 J that PW1 in the course of cross-examination to some of the questions posed on behalf of the accused stated that he has to verify the records. It may be mentioned that the complainant is a company. In the course of cross-examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused himself by way suggestion admits that there are so many sections in the complainant company for convenience of administration purpose. Since the complainant is a company it is not possible for PW1 to remember all the transactions of the company and he has to verify the records to ascertain about the transactions of the clients of their company. So PW1 has got due knowledge through documents about the transactions of the accused. Therefore the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that PW1 has no personal knowledge about the accused cannot be accepted.
10. As borne out from the cross-examination of PW1 and defense evidence of the accused it is not in dispute that the complainant company is carrying on 12 C.C.No.27073/2018 J the business of Tyres, Tubes and allied products and the accused is the proprietor of M/s. Urs Tyre World. Further the accused not disputes the business transactions with the complainant company. The accused in his defense evidence as well as cross- examination admits that the complainant company is doing wholesale business of tyres and tubes and he is doing business with the complainant company and he is the C & F agent of the complainant company and entered C & F agreement on 05/04/2016 with the complainant. The accused in the course of cross- examination clearly admits that there is C & F agreement between himself and complainant company and as per the said agreement he has to sell the products of the complainant company and deposit the sale proceeds to the account of the complainant and for that he is entitle for commission. He further admits every day he has to deposit the sale proceeds to the complainant company. So it is clear that there is no disputes with 13 C.C.No.27073/2018 J regard to the business transactions of the accused with the complainant company.
11. It is the case of the complainant that the accused is due of Rs.1,37,535/- in the form of cash sales and due of Rs.5,28,170/- towards the bills and in total he is due of Rs.6,65,705/-. The complainant to substantiate the above said dues by the accused has produced Ex.P3 extract of cash in hand book and Ex.P4 Ledger Account extract for the period of 01/04/2018 to 11/07/2018. The complainant produced Ex.P5 Certificate U/sec.65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act pertaining to Ex.P3 & 4 documents. PW1 in the course of cross-examination has stated that they are maintaining two accounts one is cash transactions and another one is debit and credit including stocks supplied to the accused. In the course of cross-examination of PW1 and in the defense evidence the accused contended that the complainant was not providing the account extracts to the accused. PW1 has clearly denied the 14 C.C.No.27073/2018 J suggestion made on behalf of the accused in this regard and stated that the accused used to visit their company every month and they have given statement of accounts to him. In the entire cross-examination of PW1 and in the defense evidence on behalf of the accused not specifically disputes the genuineness of Ex.P3 & 4 accounts Extracts. In the course of cross- examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused made suggestion to the effect that there were no transactions between the complainant company and accused from 01/04/2018 to 31/07/2018. Of course PW1 has specifically denied the said suggestion. The accused in the course of cross-examination admits that for the period of 01/04/2018 to 31/03/2019 the products worth of Rs.5,37,774.80 belongs to the complainant are with him. So the said admission of the accused destroys the suggestion made on behalf of the accused in the course of cross-examination of PW1 that there were no transactions between the complainant company from 01/04/2018 to 31/07/2018. The accused in the course of cross- 15 C.C.No.27073/2018 J examination of PW1 and in the defense evidence contended that he had issued notice to the complainant to furnish the account extract. PW1 has stated that the complainant company issued reply notice for the said notice. More over the accused issued the said notice seeking furnish the account extract after filing of this complaint. The accused in the course of cross-examination has stated that he has not maintained the accounts pertaining to the sale of the products of the complainant and payments made to the complainant and the complainant has maintained the accounts. It is pertinent to note that when the accused has not maintained the separate accounts pertaining to the sale of products and payments made to the complainant and the complainant has maintained the accounts, in such circumstances there are no reasons to disbelieve Ex.P3 & 4 Statement of accounts maintained by the complainant. More over as noticed above, the accused not specifically disputes the genuineness of Ex.P3 & 4 Statement of 16 C.C.No.27073/2018 J Accounts relied upon by the complainant. As per Ex.P3 Statement of accounts the accused is due of Rs.1,37,535/- towards cash and as per Ex.P4 the accused is due of Rs.5,28,170/- towards the payment of bills. The accused in the course of cross- examination has tried to contend that he made deposits to the complainant company by way of cash. Of course, on behalf of the complainant denied the said statement of the accused. The accused has not placed any materials to show that he has made deposits to the complainant company by way of cash. If really the accused made deposits to the complainant company by way of cash definitely the accused would have claimed receipts for the said cash payments. It is not at all the defense of the accused that the complainant refused to issue receipts in respect of cash payments made by him. The accused in the course of cross-examination clearly stated that prior to filing of this complaint he has not issued notice to the complainant claiming the accounts maintained by the complainant is not 17 C.C.No.27073/2018 J proper and for not issuing receipts for cash payments. If really the accounts maintained by the complainant is not proper and the accused paid cash payments definitely the accused would have issued notice to the complainant.
12. The contention of the accused is that at the time of entering into C & F agreement with the complainant, he had issued two blank cheques to the complainant for security purpose and the complainant misused the said cheques. In support of the said contention the accused relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2018 (4) KCCR 3674 (Branch Manager, PCA and RD Bank Ltd., Belthangady V/s. Suresh Das). Of course PW1 has specifically denied the suggestion made on behalf of the accused and in the course of cross-examination of the accused also on behalf of the complainant clearly denied the said version of the accused that he had issued blank cheques for security purpose at the 18 C.C.No.27073/2018 J time of entering into business agreement. It is pertinent to note that the accused in the course of cross-examination of PW1 and in his defense evidence has not specifically denied the liability of payment of Rs.6,65,705/- claimed by the complainant and also not denied the liability of payment of Ex.P6 cheque amount to the complainant. More over it is not at all the defense of the accused that he has paid the entire amount and he is not due any thing to the complainant company. If the accused issued blank cheques to the complainant for security purpose he would have issued "Stop Payment" instructions to the bank and issued notice to the accused for return of the cheques alleged to be issued for security purpose. But the accused has not made any efforts in this regard. The accused in the course of cross- examination of PW1 and in his defense evidence has not specifically denied the writings of Ex.P6 cheque. It has come in the cross-examination of the accused that he is B.Com Degree holder and he is a business 19 C.C.No.27073/2018 J man. So the accused is not a prudent man. Since the accused is an educated person and business man he knows the consequences of issuance of blank cheques for security purpose. If the really the accused issued blank cheques to the complainant for security purpose definitely would have taken steps in the matter. Non taking of steps by the accused for return of the cheques leads to draw an adverse inference against him. Therefore the accused fails to prove his contention that he had issued blank cheques to the complainant at the time of entering of agreement. The decision cited above by the accused will not come to his aid because in the cited case it was loan transaction and the complainant has not produced the account extracts relating to the loan account of the accused. But here is a case, as discussed above the business transaction of the accused with the complainant is an undisputed fact. Further the complainant has produced the account extracts as per Ex.P3 & 4 pertaining to the business transaction of the accused. The accused has cited 20 C.C.No.27073/2018 J decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2001 Crl.LJ.745 (B.P. Venkatesulu V/s K.P. Mani Nair) I have gone through the said decision. The facts and circumstances of the cited case are footing different to the case on hand. Therefore, the said decision will not come to the aid of the accused.
13. As per Ex.P.7 Bank endorsement the cheque in question dishonoured for the reason "Funds insufficient" in the account of the accused. It is not at all the defense of the accused that, at the time of presentation of Ex.P.6 cheque there were sufficient funds in his account to meet Ex.P.6 cheque amount. No such defense is fourth coming from the accused side. Moreover, there is a presumption under section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with regard to bank endorsement. The complainant by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence proved that, the accused issued Ex.P.6 cheque towards discharge of debt and the said cheque 21 C.C.No.27073/2018 J dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. Though the accused cross examined the PW.1 at length and led defense evidence, but fails to probablize his defense version that he had issued blank cheques to the complainant at the time of entering into agreement for security purpose and the complainant mis-used the said cheques and there by he fails to rebut the presumption U/s.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In view of my above discussion I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. Point No.2.:- It is the case of the complainant that, after dishonour of the cheque issued notice to the accused on 12/07/2018 through RPAD demanding the accused to pay the cheque amount and the accused has not claimed the said notice. The complainant to prove the factum of issuance of the notice to the accused through RPAD after dishonour of the cheque and the return of the said notice as not claimed produced Ex.P.8 office 22 C.C.No.27073/2018 J copy of the notice dated 12/07/2018, Ex.P.9 and 10 postal receipts and Ex.P.11 returned postal cover. In the course of cross examination of PW.1 and in the defense evidence the accused not disputes the issuance of notice by the complainant after dishonor of the cheque and knowledge about the said notice. The accused in the course of cross examination admits that, the complainant sent Ex.P.8 notice to the address mentioned in the complaint and notice served on him and he has not issued reply notice to Ex.P.8 notice. So it is clear that, the accused is having knowledge about the issuance of Ex.P.8 notice by the complainant after dishonour of the cheque. It is pertinent to note that, as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Suprme Court of India the notice sent through registered post to the correct address of the sendee and returned such notice with with postal shara as "Not claimed" the said notice deemed to have been served to the sendee. Here is a case as noticed above the accused admits that, the complainant sent Ex.P.8 notice to the address 23 C.C.No.27073/2018 J mentioned in the complaint. Further the accused not disputes the correctness of address mentioned in Ex.P.8 notice. Therefore the Ex.P.8 notice deemed to have been served on the accused. The materials placed on record by the complainant clearly establishes that, after dishonour of cheque the complainant sent notice to the accused through registered post demanding the accused to pay the dishonoured of cheque amount and the said notice served on the accused and thereby the complainant has complied the mandatory requirement of section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence, I answer Point No.2 in the Affirmative.
15. POINT NO.3 In view of my findings on Points No.1 and 2 the complainant established that, the accused issued Ex.P.6 cheque towards discharge of debt and liability and the said cheque dishonored for want of sufficient fund in the account of the accused and after dishonour of cheque the complainant complied the mandatory requirement of 24 C.C.No.27073/2018 J section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act by issuing demand notice. Therefore the accused is liable for punishment for the offense punishable U/s.138 of NI Act. In cheque bounce cases apart from punishment to the accused, compensation can also be awarded to the complainant with respect to dishonoured cheque. Here is a case Ex.P.6 cheque is dated 30/06/2018 and the amount covered there under is of Rs.3,64,705/-. The accused issued Ex.P.6 cheque towards payment of the goods supplied by the complainant company and for commercial transaction. If Ex.P.6 cheque honored when it was presented for encashment the complainant would have utilized the said amount for its business purpose and would have got substantial profit. But the act of the accused caused loss to the complainant and dragged complainant to the court. The complainant has spent nearly one year for redressal. It is under these circumstances, the complainant has to be suitably compensated in the matter.
25 C.C.No.27073/2018 J
16. During the course of proceedings at the stage of the further chief examination of accused/DW.1 the accused filed an application for extension of time for one month for deposit of the compensation amount. The complainant filed objections to the said application opposing the claim of the accused. After the accused pleads not guilty for the substance of accusation, the complainant filed an application U/s.143(a) of the NI Act seeking directions to the accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation. The accused opposed the said application. After hearing both the side this court as per the order dated 12/02/2019 allowed the said application filed U/s.143(A) of the NI Act by the complainant and ordered the accused to pay interim compensation of 10% of the cheque amount to the complainant and directed him to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of the said order. Subsequently on 11/04/2019 the accused filed application for 26 C.C.No.27073/2018 J extension of time of one month to deposit interim compensation amount. The said application was allowed by this court and granted further one month time to the accused to deposit interim compensation amount. But even after the accused not deposited interim compensation amount, rather he has filed an application seeking extension of time to deposit the interim compensation amount. As per section 143(a)(3) of the NI Act the interim compensation shall be paid within 60 days from the date of order or within further period not exceeding 30 days. Here is a case already 60 days time was granted to the accused and accused has also availed further 30 days time to deposit the interim compensation amount. There is no provision for extension of further time to the accused to deposit the interim compensation amount. Under these circumstances the application filed by the accused for extension of time to deposit interim compensation amount is not sustainable under law.
27 C.C.No.27073/2018 J
17. The complainant filed an application U/s.421(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. seeking issue of Fine Levy Warrant against the accused for not depositing of the interim compensation amount. The accused in his objections filed to the said application contended that he has made deposit of Rs.7,00,000/- with the complainant at the time of entering into business agreement and the complainant can adjust the interim compensation amount from the said deposit amount. In the course of cross examination PW.1 has stated that, he has to verify the records whether the accused made deposit of Rs.7,00,000/-. In the course of cross examination of the accused on behalf of the complainant contended that, after deducting the deposit amount of Rs.7,00,000/- the accused is due of the present outstanding. The accused has not deposited the interim compensation amount within the stipulated time. No doubt it is true that, as per section 143(a)(5) of NI Act the complainant can recover the interim compensation amount under section 421 of Cr.P.C. as if fine amount. It may be 28 C.C.No.27073/2018 J mentioned that, since this case is riped for final disposal there is no need to invoke the provision of section 421 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for recovery of the interim compensation amount. The factum of non payment of interim compensation amount by the accused will be taken into consideration while awarding compensation amount to the complainant towards cheque in question. Under these circumstances application filed U/s.421(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. by the complainant does not survives for consideration. As discussed above the accused issued the cheque to the complainant towards discharge of debt and the said cheque dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused and the complainant has complied the mandatory requirement of the section 138(b) of NI Act. In the result I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant company against the accused is allowed.29 C.C.No.27073/2018 J
Consequently acting U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.4,00,000/-. In default of payment of the said fine amount the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
Out of said fine amount ordered to pay Rs.3,95,000/- to the complainant as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.5000/- shall go to the State.
The application filed by the
accused for extension of time for
deposit the interim compensation
amount and application U/s.421(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. by the complainant for issue of Fine Levy Warrant against the accused are disposed off.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced in open court by me on this the 07 th day of June, 2019) (N.Muniraja) XXVII A.C.M.M., Bangalore.30 C.C.No.27073/2018 J
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW1 : BALACHANDRAN S. Documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : C/c of Board Resolution
Ex.P.2 : C/c of GPA
Ex.P.3 : Extract of cash transaction for a
period of 01/04/2018 to
11/07/2018.
Ex.P.4 : Ledger account extract for a
period of 01/04/2018 to
11/07/2018
Ex.P.5 : Certificate U/sec. 65B of Indian
Evidence Act in respect of Ex.P3
& 4 documents.
Ex.P.6 : Cheque
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P. 7 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P.8 : Office copy of Notice dt:12/07/2018
Ex.P.9 & 10 : Postal receipts
Ex.P.11 : Returned Postal cover
Ex.P11(a) : Copy of notice contained in Ex.P11
postal cover.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
DW1 : MANOHAR URS 31 C.C.No.27073/2018 J Documents marked on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
XXVII A.C.M.M Bangalore.32 C.C.No.27073/2018 J
07/06/2019 Comp:DNM Acc: SLP For Judgment (Order typed vide separate sheet) ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant company against the accused is allowed.
Consequently acting U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.4,00,000/-. In default of payment of the said fine amount the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.33 C.C.No.27073/2018 J
Out of said fine amount ordered to pay Rs.3,95,000/- to the complainant as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.5000/- shall go to the State.
The application filed by the accused for extension of time for deposit the interim compensation amount and application U/s.421(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. by the complainant for issue of Fine Levy Warrant against the accused are disposed off.
(N.Muniraja) XXVII A.C.M.M., Bangalore