Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekhar S/O. Basalingappa ... vs Arun S/O. Maruti Revankar on 28 August, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCsH
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF AUGUST 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRL.APPEAL NO.2545/2012
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKAR S/O.BASALINGAPPA GANJI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.BOMMAPUR ONI, HUBLI TOWN.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VITTAL S. TELI, ADV.)
AND:
ARUN S/O.MARUTI REVANKAR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: NO.613, DEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
YELLAPUR 581 359,
NOW AT C/O A.M. KHOT,
PLOT NO.52, JAIPRAKASH HOUSING SOCIETY,
SIROL, AT POST: JAISINGPUR,
DISTRICT: KOLHAPUR,
MAHARASHTRA STATE.
... RESPONDENT
(By SRI. H.R.GUNDAPPA, ADV.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 378(4) OF Cr.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC, HUBLI PASSED IN C.C.NO.340/2009
ON 30.11.2011.
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON: 19.08.2020.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 28.08.2020.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The complaint has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2011 passed in C.C.No.340/2009 on the file of learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli (for short referred to as 'the trial Court'), acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 138 of Negotiable instruments Act (for short referred to as 'the Act').
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Vithal S.Teli for the appellant and the learned counsel Sri.H.R.Gundappa for the respondent.
3. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution before the trial Court are that, the complainant and the accused have entered into an Agreement where under the accused agreed to purchase the shares of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited, owned by the complainant and agreed to pay Rs.3,50,000/- as consideration. Towards payment of the said amount, the cheque bearing No.057130 dated 10.05.2008 was drawn on Syndicate Bank, Yellapur branch for Rs.3,50,000/- and assured the complainant that he will arrange for necessary funds in his account and asked to present the cheque in the second week of May 2007. 4 Accordingly, the complainant presented the cheque in question for encashment through his banker IDBI, Hubli. But the said cheque was dishonored as there was insufficient funds in the account of the accused and the same was informed to the complainant vide letter dated 20.05.2008. The complainant issued legal notice on 24.06.2008 asking the accused to pay the cheque amount. Inspite of information regarding the notice, the same was returned back to the complainant as 'not claimed' on 07.07.2008. Thus it is clear that the accused knowing fully well about the contents of the notice, had not claimed the same. He has neither repaid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Thereby he had committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and requested the trial Court to take cognizance of the offence and to initiate legal action.
5
4. The trial Court took cognizance of the matter and the presence of the accused was secured. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 in support of his contention. The accused got examined himself as DW1 in support of his defence. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that there was no legally enforceable debt and therefore no offence under Section 138 of the Act was made out against the accused. Accordingly, accused was acquitted for the above said offence.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the complainant has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal is 6 illegal, perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the contentions of the parties and it has ignored the agreement entered into between the parties. The trial Court has also ignored the fact that the accused had raised huge loan from KSFC in pursuance of the said agreement and formed an opinion that there was no enforceable debt and proceeded to acquit the accused. The trial Court has also not taken into consideration the fact that the agreement entered into between the parties and issuance of the cheque in question in terms of the agreement, is not at all disputed by the accused. He has also not disputed the fact that the cheque in question was dishonored for want of sufficient funds. Under such circumstances, the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, is complete and the trial Court should have convicted the accused. The impugned judgment 7 of acquittal passed by the trial Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
7. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even though entering into the agreement as per Ex.P7 is admitted and the accused had issued the cheque in question in terms of the agreement, admittedly the complainant has not transferred the shares in favour of the accused. Thereby Ex.P7-agreement is not acted upon. Therefore the trial Court rightly opined that there is no legally enforceable debt and the accused was acquitted. When Ex.P7 was not acted upon by transferring of the shares in favour of the accused, the complainant cannot prosecute the accused for 8 dishonor of the cheque. The complainant should have proceeded against the accused by instituting necessary suits by availing civil remedy. When the complainant has not chosen to do so, he cannot seek interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal as devoid of merits.
8. I have perused the materials on record including the trial Court records.
9. The complainant has examined himself as PW1 in support of his contention raised in the complaint. He has reiterated his contention and in all 15 documents were came to be marked. During cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused, it is elicited that M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited is a registered Company having three directors i.e. the complainant, Channabasappa Ganji and Parash Shreroff. He stated that a resolution was 9 passed in the company to sell its shares. He stated that he was having 28.6%, Parash Shreroff was having 25% and Channabassappa Ganji was having 46.4% of the shares in the Company. Witness admitted that all the shares of the company are still in the names of these three directors. But stated that the accused was inducted in the place of Parash Shreroff and his shares were transferred to the accused. Again he stated that he does not know how many shares were transferred or sold in favour of the accused and on what date. He admitted that he has not produced any resolution passed in the company to the effect that the shares are to be transferred in favour of the accused.
10. Witness stated that he had not submitted transfer certificate to the Registrar of Companies, but volunteered that since the accused has not paid the entire consideration amount, the transfer of shares 10 has not yet been effected. Witness admitted that he has not instituted any civil suit against the accused. Witness denied the suggestion that since he had not transferred the share in favour of the accused as agreed between the parties, there is no legally recoverable debt to prosecute the accused.
11. Ex.P1 is the cheque dated 10.05.2008 drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.3,50,000/- and the cheque was drawn in favour of Syndicate Bank, Yellapur Branch. Ex.P2 is the memo. Ex.P3 is the intimation issued by IDBI, Hubli to the complainant informing returning of the cheque. Ex.P4 is the copy of the legal notice dated 24.06.2008 issued by Sri.S.N.Patil to the accused informing him regarding commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Ex.P5 is the postal receipt. Ex.P6 is the postal envelope returned to addressee as 'not claimed'. Ex.P6(a) is the notice found in Ex.P6. 11
12. Ex.P7 is the memorandum of Agreement entered into between the complainant and the other directors of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited with the accused agreeing to transfer the shares of the company for total consideration amount of Rs.13,00,000/- and the purchaser agreeing to pay the consideration amount over a period of 3 years from the date of agreement and paid Rs.50,000/- as first installment in cash. It was agreed that the purchaser has to pay Rs.50,000/- within one month. It was agreed that within 3 months the accused agreed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- and issued the cheque bearing No.057130 dated 10.05.2008. Accused promised to make payment of the balance agreed amount of Rs.10,50,000/- in three equal installments of Rs.3,50,000/- each, at the end of every month, from the date of agreement. The agreement also refers to issuance of three cheques for Rs.3,50,000/- each 12 promising to pay the said amount at the prescribed period. It is agreed between the parties that seller has to take all responsibility of transferring the shares of Parash Shreroff to the purchaser and to bear the expenses etc., It is also agreed that the purchaser can raise loan from the financial institutions for his intended production in the factory, by pledging the production of the company and seller agreed to assist and co-operate in raising the said funds. It was also agreed that the seller will be having right of re-entry and check up the activities of production etc., till the entire amount of Rs.13,00,000/- is paid. However it was agreed that the seller should not unnecessarily interfere or cause obstruction in the purchaser running the business smoothly. It is further agreed between the parties that the purchaser has to make payment of installment within the stipulated period and if he fails to do so, he is liable to pay interest at 15% per 13 annum for the delayed period and further the seller is entitled to recover the same either by prosecuting the purchaser or by filing Civil suits. The agreement also contains a recital that original copy of the agreement was deposited with Krishna H. Hegde, who is an intermediary and the agreement is to be given to the purchaser on payment of the entire amount agreed under the agreement. If any misunderstanding or dispute arises between the parties, decision of the said Sri.Krishna H. Hegde will be final and binding on both the parties.
13. Ex.P8 is the legal notice dated 28.05.2007 issued on behalf of the complainant to the accused informing regarding the agreement dated 11.01.2005 for purchase of shares of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited and agreeing to pay the price in installment. It is mentioned that on the date of the agreement i.e. on 11.01.2005, the accused had 14 paid Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and agreed to pay balance amount in installment on different dates through the cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, Yellapur branch as detailed in paragraph 3 and 4 of the agreement. The notice referred to the cheque bearing No.057121 for Rs.1,50,000/- and cheque bearing No.057122 for Rs.29,600/-, both dated 31.03.2005 infavour of the complainant as per paragraph 3 of the agreement. It is also referred to the dishonor of the cheques and issuance of the legal notice and called upon the accused to pay the amount and settle the dues.
14. It is stated in the notice that as per the contention at paragraph 4 of the agreement, the accused had issued 3 cheques i.e. cheaque bearing No.057123, 057124 and 057125 for Rs.1,86,400/- each dated 01.01.2006, 01.01.2007 and 01.01.2008 respectively drawn on Syndicate Bank, Yellapur branch towards the payment agreed under the 15 agreement. It is stated that the cheque bearing No.057124 dated 01.01.2007 drawn for Rs.1,86,400/- was dishonored as 'funds insufficient'. The same was informed through the banker i.e. Bank of Baroda on 05.05.2007 with debit note dated 30.04.2007 and calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount.
15. Ex.P9 is the reply notice dated 18.07.2007 issued by the accused to the complainant admitting that the agreement dated 11.01.2005 was entered into agreeing to purchase the shares of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited for Rs.8,38,800/- and payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on the same day and issuance of cheque bearing No.057121 for Rs.1.50,000/- and cheque No.057122 for Rs.29,200/- dated 31.03.2005. It is stated that both these amounts were paid during July 2005 and thus paid 1/3rd of the total consideration amount and calling upon the complainant to transfer 15 shares in 16 his name. It is also mentioned that cheque bearing No.057123, 057124 and 057125 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Yellapur branch were issued with post dates. Issuance of the said cheques were not for existing liability but towards future liability, on condition that the complainant will cooperate as per the terms of the contract. It is stated that on 12.01.2005, the accused was inducted as director of the company and the same was informed and registered with registrar of companies on 28.01.2005 by the complainant but the accused was not provided with title deed and other documents to enable him to raise loan from KSFC for the purpose of purchase of machinery and equipments. When the documents were secured the same were pledged with KSFC in the month of September 2005, since there was delay of about 6 months, the accused could not start his business in time. There was delay in getting the working capital 17 and the accused had sustained loss worth Rs.50,00,000/- and he was made to pay Rs.3,60,000/- as interest to KSFC. The accused stated that the cheques in question were issued believing and reposing faith in the complainant that he will stick and adhere to his words and commitment made in the agreement. The issuance of cheque was not unconditional but it was conditional to the performance of his part of the contract by the complainant. Therefore the accused stated that he is unable to make the payment of the said cheque. However, the accused undertaken to make payment of the balance amount to the complainant and sought for extension of time. It is stated that accused had requested not to present the cheques and offered to issue fresh cheques. The accused sought for breathing time for making payment and threatened to defend himself, if any complaint is filed.
18
16. Ex.P10 is the copy of the General Power of Attorney deed executed by the accused as managing director of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited and constituting the complainant as his power of attorney holder. He being the managing director of the company and to deal with plot No.2 of Tarihal in Sy.No.87 of KIADB Industrial Area along with fixed assets, movable machines etc. to pay outstanding debts raised in his capital as managing director by pledging the property and to do all other acts and deeds as agreed therein.
17. Ex.P11 is the letter dated 30.03.2005 addressed by Meharwade Associates, Chartered Accountants issued to the Assistant Manager, KSFC, Dharwad, informing that the formalities for change of object clause and change of Registered Office clause is completed. Induction of Arun M. Revankar i.e. accused herein, as director and retirement of Parash Shreroff 19 is also completed and informed that a formal understanding was reached between the existing directors of the company i.e. Channabassappa Ganji, Chandrashekhar Ganji (i.e. the appellant herein) shall also retire from the directorship and that the entrustment of the right, title and interest in the company in favour of the incoming director Arun M. Revankar-accused. In that light, initially an indemnity bond from the existing managing director was executed and as stated in the proposed term last sought by Arun M.Revankar-accused, he was only liable and responsible and informing that seeking the other two directors as co-obligant, as the loan does not arise.
18. Ex.P12 is the copy of the letter dated 19.05.2006 addressed by the accused as managing director of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited to the Assistant General Manager, SBI, Hubli 20 asking to expedite the release of the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- towards working capital at the earliest to enable him to start production in the company.
19. Ex.P13 is the copy of the letter dated 17.03.2007 issued by the accused herein as managing director to M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited addressed to the Deputy General Manager, KSFC, Dharwad replying to the notice dated 09.03.2007, informing that the bank had not released the amount in time on lame excuses and therefore there was delay in production resulting in delayed marketing. It is also informed by the accused that the KEB had disconnected the power to the factory and reducing the total workers in the factory from 10 to 4 and informing the KSFC about the steps taken to promote the marketing of the productions produced in the company.
21
20. Ex.P14 is the copy of the letter dated 22.08.2007 issued by KSFC and addressed to the accused informing taking over of the entire unit of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited for non-payment of installment of the loan as agreed. Calling upon to pay the outstanding balance of Rs.4,74,050/- immediately. Copy of this letter is also addressed to the complainant in the instant case and also to Channabassappa Ganji and to the Manager, SBI, Hubli.
21. Ex.P15 is the copy of the endorsement issued by the Special Officer on duty, Office of the Chief Ministers Secretariat, addressed to the accused informing that his representation submitted to the Chief Minister during Janata Darshan has been referred to the Public Education Department, Bengaluru for necessary action.
22
22. Accused examined himself as DW1 and stated that there were negotiations between himself and the complainant with regard to purchase of shares of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited. He paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant as advance amount. His signatures were taken on the blank documents and also on the cheques. The cheques were taken as security. No shares were transferred as agreed and the shares were still in the name of the complainant. The complainant misused the blank cheques and filed false complaint. There is no legally recoverable debt, since the shares are not transferred. During cross examination, witness admitted that an agreement dated 11.01.2005 was entered into for purchase of shares of the company for Rs.13,00,000/- He admitted the agreement as Ex.P7. Even though witness stated that his signatures were taken on some blank documents, he categorically stated that Ex.P7 23 was not blank, when he signed the same. Witness admitted that he agreed to pay Rs.12,50,000/- as per the terms of Ex.P7. He admitted that as per the terms of Ex.P7, he had handed over the cheque Ex.P1 on the date of the agreement but stated that the said cheque was issued as security. He denied the suggestion that he has already taken over the possession of the factory and running the business.
23. Witness stated that Meharwade Associates is the chartered accountant for M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited and he had availed the services of the said Meharwade Associates at the time of purchase of shares and while he becoming the director of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited and also at the time of pledging the assets of the company to KSFC and also at the time of availing additional loan from SBI. He admitted that he visited Meharwade Associates- 24 Chartered Accountant and through him submitted the application along with the documents to KSFC, which are as per Exs.P7 to 11.
24. The accused admitted that KSFC after verifying Exs.P7 to 11 sanctioned the loan. However, he denied the suggestion that while availing the said loan, he was the managing director of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited. He admitted the letters Exs.P9 and 10 written by him to KSFC. He also admitted the legal notice Ex.P4 and address mentioned in the said notice. However, the witness has given evasive answers after admitting the documents.
25. It is pertinent to note that while marking Exs.P1 to 15 or during cross examination of PW1, none of these documents were disputed by the accused. Even in the chief examination of the accused, these documents were not disputed. In his evidence 25 during cross examination, he virtually admitted Ex.P1 to P15, even though initially he has taken his stand that his signatures were taken on blank papers by the complainant, that he has not received any legal notice and that he was not acted as managing director of M/s.Sanners Engineering Company Private Limited. He has not disputed the document Ex.P5 produced on behalf of the complainant. In the light of these oral and documentary evidences adduced by the parties to the litigation, I have considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel representing the parties.
26. Ex.P7 is the agreement, dated 11.01.2005 admittedly entered into between the parties wherein the accused had agreed to purchase 46.4% of the shares belonging to the complainant herein along with other shares held by other two directors for total consideration amount of Rs.13,00,000/-. The agreement also refers to payment of Rs.50,000/- in 26 cash on the date of the agreement and issuance of cheque bearing No.057126 dated 10.03.2005 drawn on Syndicate bank, Yellapur for Rs.50,000/- after agreeing to pay the said amount within 7 months from the date of agreement and also agreeing to pay Rs.1,50,000/- within 3 months and issue the cheque bearing No.057127 dated 10.05.2005 drawn on SBI, Yellapur branch agreeing to pay balance amount of Rs.10,50,000/- in three equal installments of Rs.3,50,000/- to be given at the end of every year from the date of agreement. Agreement also refers that the purchaser has issued three cheques for the said amount promising to pay the same at the prescribed period.
27. Ex.P1 is the cheque dated 10.05.2008 bearing No.057130. Accused examined as DW1 specifically admitted the agreement Ex.P7 and the contents therein. The signature found on Ex.P1 is also 27 not disputed. Receipt of the legal notice which is as per Ex.P4 is also not denied in clear terms. During cross examination the accused also admits the documents which are as per Ex.P10 to 15. These documents clearly disclose that the accused had infact entered into the agreement as Ex.P7 for purchase of shares of the company owned by the complainant and others. Paid part consideration amount and towards payment of balance consideration amount, issued the cheque Ex.P1 and other documents. The documents also disclose that the accused had raised loan as managing director of the Company from KSFC and also from Syndicate Bank for running his business. But however the KSFC has taken over the premises in question as there was default in payment of installments as agreed. In the documents produced by the complainant, the accused had referred himself as the managing director of the Company. These 28 documents go to show that the accused had issued Ex.P1 for Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant toward payment of consideration amount agreed under Ex.P7.
28. As already noted, in Ex.P7 the parties have agreed that the seller is entitled to recover the installment either by prosecuting the purchaser i.e. the accused or by filing civil suits. When the issuance of the cheque Ex.P1 is proved to be in terms of Ex.P7- agreement which is acted upon by both parties, it cannot be said that there was no legally recoverable debt, as contended by the accused. When the complainant is successful in proving the existence of legally recoverable debt and issuance of Ex.P1-the cheque and also dishonor of the same, presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Act comes into operation and it is for the accused to rebut these legal presumptions.
29
29. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the decision in RIPUDAMAN SINGH Vs. 1 BALKRISHNA wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Madya Pradesh, quashing the proceedings filed under Section 138 of the Act, acting under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the cheques were not issued for creating any liability or debt, but the cheques were issued for payment of balance consideration and that in consequence, there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability and held in paragraph 9 as under:
"9. We find ourselves unable to accept the finding of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the cheques were not issued for creating any liability or debt, but "only" for the payment of balance consideration and that in consequence, there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability. Admittedly, the cheques were issued under and in pursuance of the 1 (2019) 4 SCC 767 30 agreement of sell. Though it is well settled that an agreement to sell does not create any interest in immovable property, it nonetheless constitutes a legally enforceable contract between the parties to it. A payment which is made in pursuance of such an agreement is hence a payment made in pursuance of a duly enforceable debt or liability for the purposes of Section 138."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case also taken into consideration that there was a General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the respondent entered into subsequent to the transaction and turned down the contention of the accused that there was no legally enforceable debt.
31. Thus it is clear that, if a cheque is issued in terms of an agreement and the same is dishonored, the amount of the cheque, constitute legally enforceable debt, as the agreement is legally enforceable between the parties.
31
32. When the complainant is successful in proving the existence of legally recoverable debt and issuance of Ex.P1-the cheque and also dishonor of the cheque in question, presumption to Section 118 and 139 of the Act comes into operation and it is for the accused to rebut legal presumption.
33. In the present case, accused has not made any attempt to rebut the presumption. When the accused admits the agreement Ex.P7 and also issuance of the cheque-Ex.P1, it cannot be said that there is no legally recoverable debt or liability. Even though accused cross examined PW1 through his counsel and got examined himself as DW1, nothing has been placed before the Court to rebut the presumption or to substantiate the contention that he has not taken over the business of the Company nor he has acted as a managing director or that he has not availed loan either from KSFC or from SBI or his 32 contention that his signatures were obtained by the complainant on the blank papers and documents. I do not see any bonafides in the contentions raised by the accused in his defence. Therefore I am of the opinion that the complainant is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be convicted.
34. I have gone through the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Even though the trial Court observed that the accused had admitted the agreement Ex.P7, it has proceeded to acquit the accused on the ground that PW1 admitted that the shares of the Company are not yet transferred in the name of the accused and therefore it is held that the remedy open to the complainant is to file appropriate suit, for enforcing the agreement in 33 question and that no criminal liability as alleged by the complainant could be entertained.
35. The opinion formed by the trial Court that the agreement in question is dated 11.01.2005, whereas the cheque in question is dated 10.05.2008 and therefore there was no legally enforceable debt at the time of issuance of cheque, cannot be accepted. The terms and conditions in Ex.P7 itself makes it clear that the accused had agreed to make payment in installments and the manner in which the said payments are to be made are clearly explained and agreed between the parties in the agreement. Under such circumstances, the finding of the trial Court that there was no legally recoverable debt and acquitting the accused on the said ground is illegal and perverse. Hence, the impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside.
34
36. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is set aside. The accused who is the respondent herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
37. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is allowed.
Impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2011 passed in C.C.No.340/2009 on the file of learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli is set aside.
Heard both the learned counsels regarding the quantum of sentence.
Appellant/accused who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a 35 period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.6,00,000/- to be deposited within 60 days from the date of receipt of the judgment and in default to pay fine, accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
Out of the fine amount to be deposited by the accused, an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- is to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
Send back the trial Court records, with a copy of the Judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGK