Bangalore District Court
Radha Krishna Shetty vs Giridhar Srinivas on 1 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 1st day of September - 2016
PRESENT: SRI. S.G.SALAGARE, B.Sc., LL.B.,(Spl)
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.6171/2013
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : Radha Krishna Shetty,
S/o.Ramayya Shetty,
Aged about 58 years,
No.402, Adarsh Rhythm,
Pandrang Nagar,
Off Bannergatta Road,
Bengaluru-76.
(Rep. by Sri.Venkatesh.C, Adv.)
V/S
Accused : Giridhar Srinivas,
Aged, Adult,
Proprietor,
Metro City
Builders and Developers,
# 50, Church Street,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Sri.S.N.Rama Prasad, Adv.)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Convicted.
DATE OF ORDER : 01.09.2016.
(S.G.SALAGARE)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
Judgment 2 C.C.6171/2013
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The accused is the sole proprietor of Metro City Builders and Developers. Accused had undertaken the work of project temple view at Thylagere, Sonnenahalli and Koduguriki Villages of Devanahalli and at various other places. It is stated that, accused approached the complainant and got introduced himself and sought for investment in various projects taken up by him and sought for investment in said projects and requested for financial support. It is stated that, accused personally explained about his projects and guaranteed of returns with profits, accused insisted the complainant to finance and promised about the payment of profits. It is stated that, complainant was earlier working at abroad and on his voluntary retirement saved his earnings, and on the assurance of profits by the accused, complainant invested Rs.28,05,000/- in various projects of accused. It is stated Judgment 3 C.C.6171/2013 that, accused is proprietor of Metro City Builders and Developers and undertakes various projects of constructions of apartments and buildings. The accused has also undertaken other new projects and accused was promised the complainant that he will return the invested amount with profit or with land, building worth more than Rs.1 crore and above. It is stated that, on 01.04.2007 complainant has invested Rs.12,50,000/- by issuing two cheques in favour of accused for Rs.6,25,000/- each. Accused has acknowledged the receipt of amount on 02.04.2007, and to return the amount accused has issued cheque bearing No.722126, dated:02.10.2007 drawn on State Bank of India along with profits of the project amounting of Rs.31,25,000/-. Again on 10.05.2007 accused has approached the complainant and requested to invest Rs.5,00,000/- towards further development of temple view project and promised to return the amount along with profit of Rs.7,50,000/- on 31.07.2007.
Complainant issued two cheques bearing Nos.358889, drawn for Rs.3,30,000/-, drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Fort Mumbai, and another cheque bearing No.850005 drawn for Rs.1,70,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Judgment 4 C.C.6171/2013 Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru to the accused and accused acknowledged the receipt dtd:10.05.2007 and issued cheque bearing No.880163, dated:31.07.2007 drawn on The Federal Bank along with profits of Rs.7,50,000/-. It is stated that, accused made the complainant to believe that temple view project is Mega Five Star Project and includes all amenities and that the said project requires some more financial requirement. Even the complainant's wife is also invested an amount of Rs.8,12,000/- by way of cheques bearing No.00850015, 00850018 and 00850019 to the accused project. Complainant and his wife decided to invest their hard earned money in other projects of accused. It is further stated that, complainant was made to trust the accused and was insisted to further invest the amount of Rs.7,83,000/-, complainant has invested the said amount by way of cheques and cash to the projects of accused. Accused issued several cheques from 07.09.2008 on various banks to the complainant, and accused stated him not to present the said cheques for payment and accused insisted the complainant to re-invest the said amount as he is in requirement of funds for the projects. Once again accused issued two cheques bearing Judgment 5 C.C.6171/2013 Nos.232415 and 225420 drawn for Rs.5,00,000/- each, both cheques drawn on Abu-Dhabi Commercial Bank in favour of complainant as part payment of profit and assured the complainant to present the said cheques for encashment. Complainant has presented the said cheques through his banker for collection, but the said cheques were returned unpaid for the reasons "Funds Insufficient"
in the account maintained by the accused and the same was informed to the accused, and accused assured of payment of the same.
It is further case of complainant that, on 20.12.2010 accused issued a letter to the complainant stating that Rs.45,00,000/- will be paid to him in five different dates and requested him to co-operate in this regard. On 31.01.2011, accused issued one more letter to the complainant stating that, cheque dated:26.11.2010 drawn for Rs.5,00,000/- will be payable on 10.02.2011. However, no payment was made by the accused as assured by him. It is stated that, after repeated demands for return of amount, accused has issued three cheques bearing No.170908, dated:20.06.2012 drawn for Rs.4,00,000/-, Judgment 6 C.C.6171/2013 cheque bearing No.170911, dated:25.07.2012 drawn for Rs.20,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No.170917, dated:30.10.2012 drawn for Rs.25,00,000/- in total Rs.49,00,000/- all the cheques were drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant and assured that the above said cheques will be honoured on their presentation.
It is further case of complainant that, accused instead of clearing entire profit amounts bargained/negotiated and agreed to partially pay the profits of Nandi Hills Project. On 20.11.2012 taking consent of accused, complainant has presented the cheque bearing No.170917, dated:30.10.2012 drawn for Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru through his banker viz., Canara Bank, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru for collection. The said cheque was returned unpaid for the reasons "Account Closed". On 28.11.2012, the complainant brought this fact to the knowledge of accused by issuing demand notice through RPAD and the said notice was duly served upon accused on 30.11.2012. Neither the RPAD cover nor RPAD Acknowledgment has Judgment 7 C.C.6171/2013 returned, and as such complainant counsel has made complaint before the post master on 27.12.2012. After receipt of notice the accused has neither paid the cheque amount nor replied the notice. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and prayed to punish the accused with maximum sentence and to award compensation to the complainant.
3. My predecessor after perusing records, took cognizance of offence, and recorded sworn statement, ordered to register Criminal Case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused after service of summons put his appearance through his counsel and has been enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the court has recorded the plea of accused and the accused has pleaded not guilty of the offence and claims to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.
4. The complainant in order to prove his case, got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked thirty one documents at Exs.P1 to P31 and closed his side. After Judgment 8 C.C.6171/2013 completion of the evidence of complainant, the substance of the evidence has been read over and explained to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating evidence available against him. The accused in order to disprove his case got examined himself as DW.1 and not produced any document in support of his defence evidence.
5. I have heard the arguments of both sides, and perused the materials placed on record.
6. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, he had invested Rs.28,05,000/- in the various projects of accused and in-turn accused to return the profits accordingly as part payment issued Ex.P11-cheque bearing No.170917, dated:30.10.2012 for Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant for discharge of the said amount, and on its presentation, cheque came to be dishonoured for the reasons 'Account Closed' and even after service of notice, the accused has failed to repay the amount and thereby accused is guilty Judgment 9 C.C.6171/2013 of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1: It is alleged that, the accused has received an amount of Rs.28,05,000/- from complainant as investment in his various projects, in consideration of the same accused in order to return the invested amount with profits, has issued three cheques. The cheque bearing No.170917, dated:30.10.2012 issued for part payment of Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant. When said cheque was presented for encashment, same was dishonoured for the reasons 'Account Closed'. Even after issuance of demand notice, accused has not made any arrangement for return of cheque amount. The accused has denied the accusation made against him. Judgment 10 C.C.6171/2013
9. To prove his case, the complainant got examined himself as PW.1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief evidence. In the affidavit, PW.1 has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and in support of his contention; PW.1 has got marked thirty one documents. Among them Certified copy of Statement of account pertaining to complainant savings bank account for the period from 01.04.2007 to 30.07.2007 issued by the Karnataka Bank Ltd., is marked as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 is the certified copy of another statement of account pertaining to complainant savings bank account issued by the Syndicate Bank for the period from 01.04.2007 to 30.06.2007, Ex.P3 is the Certified copy of Bank Pass book of complainant's wife issued by the Canara Bank, Ex.P4 is the Certified copy of letter dated:20.11.2010 issued by accused addressed to the complainant, Ex.P5 is the Certified copy of letter dated:20.12.2010 issued by the accused addressed to the complainant, Ex.P6 is the Certified copy of another letter dated:03.11.2011 issued by the accused in favour of complainant, Ex.P7 is the Certified copy of cheque bearing No.170911, dated:25.07.2012, issued by the accused in favour of complainant, Ex.P9 is the certified copy of Bank Judgment 11 C.C.6171/2013 Endorsement dated:04.09.2012, Ex.P8 is the Certified copy of cheque bearing No.170908, dated:20.06.2012, issued by the accused in favour of complainant, Ex.P10 is the Certified copy of Bank Endorsement dated:29.08.2012, Ex.P11 is the cheque bearing No.170917, dated:30.10.2012 drawn for Rs.25,00,000/-. The said cheque is drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant. The signature of accused is marked as Ex.P11(a), Ex.P12 is the Bank Endorsement issued by the Canara Bank, the contents of Ex.P12 disclose that, the cheque bearing No.170917, dated:30.10.2012 drawn for Rs.25,00,000/- is dishonoured for the reasons 'Account Closed'. Ex.P13 is the Postal Receipt, Ex.P14 is the Demand Notice dated:28.11.2012, the recitals of Exs.P14 disclose that, the complainant has issued this notice to the accused through his counsel. By issuing this notice complainant called upon the accused to repay the cheque amount of Rs.25,00,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Ex.P15 is the complaint dated:27.12.2012 lodged by the complainant counsel before the Post Master, regarding report of delivery of notice sent by RPAD, Ex.P16 is the settled reply dated:27.12.2012 issued by the Postal Judgment 12 C.C.6171/2013 Department to the complainant counsel, Ex.P17 is the Certified copy of Order sheet in C.C.No.26283/2011 on the file of Hon'ble XIV ACMM, Bengaluru, Ex.P18 is the Certified copy of Order Sheet in Crl.A.No.25155/2012 on the file of Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (FTC-III). Exs.P19 to P21 are the Acknowledgments (Form No.2) issued by the Income Tax Department in respect of income tax returns of complainant for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009- 10, Exs.P22 to P24 are the Passports of complainant, Ex.P25 is the Work Agreement entered in to between complainant and Hempel's Marine Paints (Saudi Arabia) With Limited Liability, Ex.P26 is the letter issued by the Hempel's Marine Paints (Saudi Arabia) With Limited Liability in favour of complainant, Ex.P27 is the Statement of account pertaining to complainant savings bank account issued by the ICICI Bank, Ex.P28 is the true copy of SARAL issued by the Income Tax Department and Exs.P29 to P31 are the Acknowledgments (ITR-2) issued by the Income Tax Department in respect of income tax returns of complainant for the Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2009-10. Judgment 13 C.C.6171/2013
10. Complainant filed this complaint against the accused alleging that, accused has issued Ex.P11 cheque for the return of investment made by him in the firm of accused along with profits. When the cheque was presented, same was dishonoured for the reasons 'account closed'. Thus it is alleged that, accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused has led the defence evidence and stated that, there was no any financial transaction between himself and complainant, he has not issued the cheque in favour of complainant. In the defence evidence accused has denied his signature stating that, Ex.P11(a) signature is not signed by him. Accused has denied the execution of the cheque in favour of complainant. Thus the burden lies on the complainant to establish that there was a legally recoverable debt or there was a financial transaction between himself and accused, and accused has issued the cheque Ex.P11 for discharge of his legal liability. To prove this fact complainant has filed his evidence affidavit. In the evidence affidavit PW.1 has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The PW.1 has stated that, he was instigated by the accused to invest the amount in his firm Judgment 14 C.C.6171/2013 namely Metro City Builders and Developers and accused was assured him that, he will get good profit. PW.1 has stated that on 01.04.2007 accused approached him and requested to invest Rs.12,50,000/-. Accordingly, he invested the said amount of Rs.12,50,000/- by issuing two cheques bearing Nos.635143 and 358888 drawn for Rs.6,25,000/- each, both the cheques were drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Fort Mumbai. This fact is evidenced by Ex.P1 and P2. Ex.P1 and P2 are the bank account statement of complainant. Ex.P1 disclose that, on 09.04.2007 complainant has transferred an amount of Rs.6,25,000/- to Mr. Giridhar Srinivas i.e., accused herein through cheque bearing No.635143, Ex.P2 disclose that, on 09.04.2007 complainant has also transferred an amount of Rs.6,25,000/- to G.Srinivas through cheque bearing No.358888.
11. PW.1 has further stated that, his wife also invested money in the firm of accused. To prove this fact complainant has produced the certified copy of the account statement of his wife maintained by Canara Bank. This document disclose that there was sufficient amount in the Judgment 15 C.C.6171/2013 account of the wife of complainant. In the complaint, evidence affidavit and Ex.P14 notice, complainant has stated the cheque numbers through which his wife has paid the amount to accused. But no bank document has been produced to show that, through cheques mentioned in the complaint the wife of complainant has paid Rs.8,12,000/-. It is further stated by the complainant in para No.6 of the complaint that, he has further invested Rs.5 lakhs in the firm of accused by issuing cheque bearing No.358889, drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Fort Mumbai and cheque No.850005, drawn on Canara Bank, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru. It is further contention of complainant that, to return the amount finally accused settled the matter for Rs.50 lakhs. Out of Rs.50 lakhs accused has paid Rs.1 lakh by way of cash and for remaining amount of Rs.49 lakhs accused has issued three cheques bearing No.170908, dated:20.06.2012 drawn for Rs.4,00,000/-, cheque bearing No.170911, dated:25.07.2012 drawn for Rs.20,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No.170917, dated:30.10.2012 drawn for Rs.25,00,000/- and all the cheques were drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru. In total Judgment 16 C.C.6171/2013 accused has issued the three cheques for Rs.49 lakhs. Though in the defence evidence accused has denied the financial transaction with complainant and denied the issuance of cheque Ex.P11 and signature marked at Ex.P11(a), but in the cross-examination of PW.1 dated:02.12.2014 it is suggested by accused counsel that, complainant has invested Rs.28,05,000/- and filed this case for Rs.49 lakhs. This suggestion is admitted by PW.1. This suggestion made it clear that accused has invested Rs.28,05,000/-. Further in the cross-examination of PW.1 dated:24.03.2015 it is suggested by accused counsel to PW.1 that complainant has got filled up the blank cheque given by the accused as per his wish and filed this complaint. In the defence evidence accused has stated that, he has not borrowed any amount from complainant as loan for the formation of layout and he has not issued cheque for return of the said amount. Ex.P11 is the cheque bearing No.170917, dated:30.10.2012 drawn for Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru and in the cross-examination of PW.1, the defence counsel suggests contrary to the defence taken by the accused that, the complainant has filled up the Judgment 17 C.C.6171/2013 blank cheque issued by the accused. At one stretch accused takes the defence that he has not issued the cheque and at another stretch accused suggested that he has issued blank cheque in favour of complainant. This suggestion made to PW.1 and statement made in defence evidence clearly goes to show that, accused is hiding the truth. Thus an inference can safely be drawn that accused has issued cheque Ex.P11 in favour of complainant.
12. Further it is the defence of accused that, he has not signed Ex.P11(a). Accused has also stated that, he has not issued Exs.P4 to P6 in favour of complainant and the signatures appearing in Exs.P4 to P6 are not signed by him. Complainant has produced Ex.P7 and P8 the certified copies of cheques issued by the accused. Complainant has clearly stated in the complaint, examination in chief, sworn statement and the demand notice issued on 28.11.2012 that in order to return the investment amount and profit, accused has issued the cheques bearing No.170908, dated:20.06.2012 drawn for Rs.4,00,000/-, cheque bearing No.170911, dated:25.07.2012 drawn for Rs.20,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No.170917, dated:30.10.2012 Judgment 18 C.C.6171/2013 drawn for Rs.25,00,000/- and all the cheques were drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru.
13. In the cross-examination of PW.1, accused has not made any single suggestion denying the Exs.P7 and P8. Even in the defence evidence accused has not specifically stated that, he has not issued Exs.P7 and P8 in favour of complainant. Exs.P7 and P8 bears the signatures of accused. The signatures made in Exs.P7, P8 and P11 are similar and also similar to the signatures marked in Ex.P4 to P6. Exs.P7, P8 and P11 also shows that, the cheques are in the name of Giridhar Srinivas who is the accused in this case. It is not the defence of accused that, Exs.P7, P8 and P11 are not belongs to him. When the accused has not denied the cheques Exs.P7, P8 and P11, then burden lies on the accused to prove that signatures made on Exs.P7, P8 and P11 are not that of him, because the cheques belongs to accused, and he is the custodian of the above said cheques and he is the proper person to say to whom he has issued the cheques Exs.P7, P8 and P11 and who has signed on them. In the cross-examination of PW.1 the accused counsel has clearly suggested that, complainant Judgment 19 C.C.6171/2013 has misused the blank cheques issued by accused. By suggesting this statement accused has admitted that, Exs.P7, P8 and P11 are given by the accused to the complainant. Further accused has not taken any steps to disprove the signatures appearing on Exs.P7, P8 and P11 are not signed by him. Accused ought to have applied for verification of signature marked at Ex.P11(a) through scientific investigation. But accused has not taken steps for verification of signature marked at Ex.P11(a). It is not the case of accused that, Ex.P11(a) is signed by the complainant himself and got misused it. When accused has not taken steps for disproving that signatures are not made by him, then an inference can be drawn that accused has admitted the signatures. Thus presumption arises under Section 118(a) of N.I.Act that accused has issued the cheque in favour of complainant for payment of invested amount with profit.
14. Admittedly, the complainant has issued the demand notice on 28.11.2012 marked at Ex.P14. The Ex.P13 is postal receipt for having sent the legal notice by complainant. By issuing Ex.P14 complainant has called Judgment 20 C.C.6171/2013 upon the accused to repay the cheque amount. The postal authority has given endorsement that, notice is served on 30.11.2012. This fact is not disputed by the accused and no suggestion is made to PW.1 regarding non service of demand notice. Even in the defence evidence accused has not taken defence that he has not received the legal notice Ex.P14. Thus accused has not disputed the receipt of legal notice as per Ex.P15. Accused has not given reply to the legal notice. Accused had an opportunity to deny the case of complainant at the 1st instance on 30.11.2012 when he received the notice. When the accused has not denied the contents of notice, an inference has to be drawn that accused has admitted the contents of Ex.P14 demand notice.
15. Accused has not adduced any evidence to show that to whom he has issued cheque Ex.P11, on the contrary the suggestion is made by accused that, he has issued blank cheque to the complainant. But accused has not adduced the cogent, convincing evidence as to why he has issued the blank cheque in favour of complainant. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence by the accused, the Judgment 21 C.C.6171/2013 defence taken by the accused cannot be believed and accepted. The materials placed on record clearly probablize that, complainant has invested an amount of Rs.28,05,000/- in the firm of accused and in turn accused to return the invested amount and profit has issued the cheques Exs.P7, P8 and P11 in favour of complainant. Thus accused has failed to rebut the presumption arisen in favour of complainant. Complainant by adducing his oral evidence and by producing the documentary evidence has proved that he has complied the provision of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and also proved the existence of legal transaction between himself and accused. Complainant has proved that he has invested the amount of Rs.28,05,000/- on various dates in the firm of accused and accused in turn has issued three cheques for Rs.49 lakhs. Complainant by producing Ex.P11 has proved that accused has issued the cheque for Rs.25 lakhs for part payment of settled amount of Rs.50 lakhs. Ex.P12 Bank endorsement disclose that, the account of accused was closed and cheque was dishonoured. Accused knowing that, his account is closed, issued the cheque for Rs.25 lakhs in favour of complainant and committed an offence Judgment 22 C.C.6171/2013 punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, in view of the above said reasons, I hold point No.1 in the Affirmative.
16. Point No.2: In view of my findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay total fine amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakhs only). In default accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 01 (one) year.
Out of the total fine amount a sum of Rs.29,90,000/- (Rupees Twenty nine lakhs ninety thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. The balance amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) shall be remitted as fine to the State.Judgment 23 C.C.6171/2013
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of September - 2016) (S.G.SALAGARE) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : Radha Krishna Shetty List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Exs.P1 & P2 : CC of Statements of account
Ex.P3 : CC of Bank Pass Book,
Exs.P4 to P6 : CC of letters dtd:20.11.2010,
20.12.2010 & 03.11.2011
Exs.P7 & P8 : CC of cheques bearing Nos.170911 &
170908
Exs.P9 & P10 : CC of Bank Endorsements
Ex.P11 : Original Cheque
Ex.P11(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P12 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P13 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P14 : Office of the Legal Notice
Ex.P15 : Complaint dtd:27.12.2012
Ex.P16 : Settled Reply
Ex.P17 : CC of order sheet in
C.C.No.26283/2011
Ex.P18 : CC of order sheet in
Crl.A.No.25155/2012
Exs.P19 to P21 : Acknowledgments (ITR-4 & ITR-2)
Exs.P22 to P24 : Passport Books (3 Nos.)
Ex.P25 : Work Agreement
Ex.P26 : Letter dtd:17.05.1983
Ex.P27 : Statement of account
Judgment 24 C.C.6171/2013
Ex.P28 : SARAL
Exs.P29 to P31 : Acknowledgments (ITR-2 & ITR-4)
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
DW.1 : Giridhar Srinivas List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
- Nil -
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.Judgment 25 C.C.6171/2013
01.09.2016.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
*****
ORDER
Judgment 26 C.C.6171/2013
Acting under Section 255(2) of
Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay total fine amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakhs only). In default accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 01 (one) year.
Out of the total fine amount a sum of Rs.29,90,000/- (Rupees Twenty nine lakhs ninety thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
The balance amount of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) shall be
remitted as fine to the State.
The bail bond and surety bond of the
accused stands cancelled.
The office is hereby directed to
supply the copy of this Judgment to the
accused on free of cost.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.