Bangalore District Court
For The Offence Punishable U/S.138 Of vs No.2 I.E. Susheelkumar Bansal And ... on 14 February, 2017
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 14th day of February 2017
Present: Sri.V.S.Pandit,B.A.,LL B.,
XV Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.
Judgment U/s.355 of the Cr.P.C. 1973.
Sl.
Case No. Complainant Name Accused Name
No
1 11823/2015 Ms.Divya Chugh, Rahul Bansal
D/o.Vikram Chugh, Proprietor, M/s Global Steel
Aged about 21 years, Corporation
No.16, 7th Cross, No.80, Road No.4, Phase-II,
Kumara Park West, KIADB, Arkere Post,
Bangalore-20. Antharasanahalli, Tumkur.
Represented by her SPA
Holder, Mr.Vikram Chugh
2 11824/2015 Mr.Ramesh Sachdev Ashish Bansal
S/o.Muralidhar Proprietor, M/s Ashish Trading
Aged about 52 years, Company, No.86, Near KHT
No.27, 4th Block, 3rd Cross, Complex, Madhugiri Road,
Opp. Jain Temple, KP.West Arkere Post, Antharasanahalli,
Bangalore-20. Tumkur.
Represented by her SPA
Holder, Mr.Vikram Chugh
3 11825/2015 Mrs. Anuradha Srichand W/o Ashish Bansal
Srichand Ramchand, Proprietor, M/s Ashish Trading
Aged about 52 years, Company, No.86, Near KHT
Flat No.F4, 4th Floor, Krishna Complex, Madhugiri Road,
Glade, 1st Main Road, Arkere Post, Antharasanahalli,
Sheshadripuram, Bangalore. Tumkur.
Represented by her SPA
Holder, Mr.Vikram Chugh
1
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
4 11826/2015 Mrs. Anuradha Srichand W/o Ashish Bansal
Srichand Ramchand, Proprietor, M/s Ashish Trading
Aged about 52 years, Company, No.86, Near KHT
Flat No.F4, 4th Floor, Krishna Complex, Madhugiri Road,
Glade, 1st Main Road, Arkere Post, Antharasanahalli,
Sheshadripuram, Bangalore. Tumkur.
Represented by her SPA
Holder, Mr.Vikram Chugh
5 11828/2015 Mr.Sanjay Sachdev Ashish Bansal
S/o Ramesh Sachdev, Proprietor, M/s Ashish Trading
Aged about 29 years, Company, No.86, Near KHT
No.27, 4th Block, 3rd Cross, Complex, Madhugiri Road,
Opp. Jain Temple, KP.West Arkere Post, Antharasanahalli,
Bangalore-20. Tumkur.
Represented by her SPA
Holder, Mr.Vikram Chugh
6 11840/2015 Mr.Sunilkumar Shamsundar Rahul Bansal
S/o Sham Sundar Gobind Ram Proprietor, M/s Global Steel
Aged about 47 years, Corporation
No.47, Balaji Krupa, Dena No.80, Road No.4, Phase-II,
Bank Colony, 2nd Main, 3rd KIADB, Arkere Post,
Cross, Ganga nagar, Antharasanahalli, Tumkur.
Bangalore-32.
Represented by her SPA
Holder, Mr.Vikram Chugh
7 11841/2015 Mr.Yogesh.G.R. Ashish Bansal
S/o Gopichand Proprietor, M/s Ashish Trading
Aged about 35 years, Company, No.86, Near KHT
No.105 and 106 Complex, Madhugiri Road,
Jalaprasad, 11th Cross, Arkere Post, Antharasanahalli,
Nagappa Street, P.G.Halli, Tumkur.
Bangalore-3.
Represented by her SPA
Holder, Mr.Vikram Chugh
2
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
8 11839/2015 Mr.Sunilkumar Shamsundar Rahul Bansal
S/o Sham Sundar Gobind Ram Proprietor, M/s Global Steel
Aged about 47 years, Corporation
No.47, Balaji Krupa, Dena No.80, Road No.4, Phase-II,
Bank Colony, 2nd Main, 3rd KIADB, Arkere Post,
Cross, Ganga nagar, Antharasanahalli, Tumkur.
Bangalore-32.
Represented by her SPA
Holder, Mr.Vikram Chugh
9 11838/2015 Mr.Amit S.Kalro Rahul Bansal
S/o Sunil Kumar.S. Proprietor, M/s Global Steel
No.47, Balaji Krupa, Dena Corporation
Bank Colony, 2nd Main, 3rd No.80, Road No.4, Phase-II,
Cross, Ganga nagar, KIADB, Arkere Post,
Bangalore-32. Anhaasanahalli, Tumkur.
Represented by her SPA
Holder, Mr.Vikram Chugh
10 11822/2015 Srichand Ramchand Kinger Rahul Bansal
S/o Ramchand Kinger Proprietor, M/s Global Steel
Aged about 52 years, Corporation
Flat No.F4, 4th Floor, Krishna No.80, Road No.4, Phase-II,
Glade, 1st Main Road, KIADB, Arkere Post,
Sheshadripuram, Bangalore. Anhaasanahalli, Tumkur.
Represented by her SPA
Holder, Mr.Vikram Chugh
11 11829/2015 Smt.Jaidevi Chugh 1) M/s Sri Sai Baba Industries
W/o Raghumal Chugh 5354, Between 8th & 9th
Aged about 89 years, Cross, Mec Colony,
th
No.16, 7 Cross, Rajgopal Nagara, Laggere,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore.
Bangalore-20.
Represented by her SPA Rep. By its Partners,
Holder, Mr.Vikram Chugh
2) Mr.Sushil Kumar Bansal
3) Mrs.Bimala Devi Bansal
3
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
12 11830/2015 Mrs.Rekha Chugh, 1) M/s Sri Sai Baba Industries
W/o.Manoharlal Chugh, 5354, Between 8th & 9th
Aged about 66 years, Cross, Mec Colony,
th
No.16, 7 Cross, Rajgopal Nagara, Laggere,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore.58
Bangalore-20.
Represented by her SPA Rep. By its Partners,
Holder, Mr.Vikram Chugh
2) Mr.Sushil Kumar Bansal
3) Mrs.Bimala Devi Bansal
13 11833/2015 Mrs.Kanchan Sunil.Kalro 1) M/s Sri Sai Baba Industries
W/o Sunil Kumar.S. 5354, Between 8th & 9th
No.47, Balaji Krupa, Dena Cross, Mec Colony,
nd rd
Bank Colony, 2 Main, 3 Rajgopal Nagara, Laggere,
Cross, Ganga nagar, Bangalore.58
Bangalore-32.
Represented by her SPA Rep. By its
Holder, Mr.Vikram Chugh Partners/Authorized Signatory
2) Mr.Sushil Kumar Bansal
3) Mrs.Bimala Devi Bansal
14 11834/2015 Mrs.Pooja Vikram Chugh, 1) M/s Sri Sai Baba Industries
W/o.Vikram Chugh, 5354, Between 8th & 9th
Aged about 42 years, Cross, Mec Colony,
th
No.16, 7 Cross, Rajgopal Nagara, Laggere,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore.58
Bangalore-20.
Represented by her SPA Rep. By its
Holder, Mr.Vikram Chugh Partners,/Authorized signatory:
2) Mr.Sushil Kumar Bansal
3) Mrs.Bimala Devi Bansal
4
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
15 11835/2015 Mr.Vikram Chugh, 1) M/s Sri Sai Baba Industries
S/o.M.R. Chugh, 5354, Between 8th & 9th
Aged about 47 years, Cross, Mec Colony,
No.16, 7th Cross, Rajgopal Nagara, Laggere,
Kumara Park West, Bangalore.58
Bangalore-20.
Rep. By its
Partners,/Authorized signatory:
2) Mr.Sushil Kumar Bansal
3) Mrs.Bimala Devi Bansal
16 11836/2015 Mr.Vikram Chugh, 1) M/s Sri Sai Baba Industries
S/o.M.R Chugh, 5354, Between 8th & 9th
Aged about 47 years, Cross, Mec Colony,
Proprietor:- Rajgopal Nagara, Laggere,
M/s.Chamundeshwari Bangalore.58
Enterprises,
No.16, 7th Cross, Rep. By its
Kumara Park West, Partners,/Authorized signatory:
Bangalore-20.
2) Mr. Sushil Kumar Bansal
3) Mrs.Bimala Devi Bansal
4.The offence complained of U/s.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
:
5.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.
6.Final Order: Acting U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C.,
accused is Acquitted.
5
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
7.Date of final Order 14th day of February-2017.
-----------
1. The accused has been prosecuted by the
complainant for the offence punishable U/s.138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act - 1881 (hereinafter referred as NI
Act for brevity)
2. Case of the complainant in brief are as under -
a. In CC.No.11836/15 one Vikram Chugh was the
complainant and in all other cases he is representing the
complainant as Power of Attorney Holder. Since all the
cases are arising out the same transaction, the date of
alleged advancement of the loan, the date of issuance of the
cheques purpose for which the alleged was advanced are
one and the same. Apart from that accused in CC.11829/15
Accused No.2 i.e. Susheelkumar Bansal and Accused No.3
Bimla Devi Bansal are the parents of Rahul Bansal, Ashish
Bansal who were the accused in other cases. The counsel
for the accused has cross examined the P.A.holder in this
case and filed Memo of adoption to adopt the evidence in
other cases also. The learned counsel for the complainant
has submitted No objection for this. Therefore, in order to
6
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
avoid repetition of facts and appreciation of evidence all the
cases have been clubbed together and common Judgment is
delivered.
b. It is the case of the Complainant that for the
purpose of business on 26.11.2014 accused have borrowed
a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and executed On Demand
Promissory Note and consideration receipt. After persistent
demand, accused issued a cheque for a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Peenya Branch,
Bengaluru on 27.01.2015.
c. The cheque has been presented for encashment
through Axis Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru. The
cheque was dishonoured for the reason "Payment Stopped
by the Drawer". Thereafter on 26.02.2015 demand notice
was issued. Said notice is duly served upon the accused on
28.02.2015. Despite service of notice, accused did not
bother to make the payment. As such, the complainant is
constrained to file the complaint.
3. After taking cognizance, this court issued summons
to the accused. In response to the summons, accused
appeared and was enlarged on bail. Plea for the offence was
7
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded
not guilty and pleads his innocence.
4. To sustain the charge leveled against the accused,
the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked
the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.7 on behalf of the
complainant.
5. After conclusion of the evidence of the complainant,
statement of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., was recorded.
Accused denied the evidence and documents as false. The
accused examined himself as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D.1
document on his behalf.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as
under:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved that
cheques were issued by the accused for
discharge of legally enforceable debt, the
same was returned unpaid for the reason
"Payment Stopped by the Drawer" notice
was not complied. Hence accused committed
an offence under Sec.138 of N.I. Act ? ?
8
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
2) What Order ?
8. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final Order, for the following;
REASONS
9. Point No.1 - It is the case of the complainant that
for the purpose of business a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was
paid and to discharge the liability accused has issued a
cheque. On presentation, cheque was returned unpaid for
the reason "Payment stopped by the Drawer". Despite
service of notice, accused did not bother to make the
payment.
10. It is the case of the accused that they did not
borrow money from the complainant as alleged. Apart from
that the father of the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.7
lakhs to 8 lakhs for the purpose of business. At that point
of time disputed cheques have been issued for security
purpose. Further blank Demand Promissory Note and
cheques have been issued for security purpose. Loan has
been cleared long back. There was a dispute with regard to
9
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
the payment of interest. No any transaction took place in
the year 2014. Cheque was issued to Vikram Chugh before
2012. The cheque in question is never issued for discharge
of liability.
11. It is no doubt, true that signature and drawing of
the cheque from the account of the accused is not denied
therefore initial presumption has to be drawn that cheque in
question is issued for discharge of liability. However, said
presumption is rebuttal in nature and it is for the accused
to rebut the presumption by placing direct or circumstantial
evidence. The onus is that of preponderance of probabilities.
Accused need not put forth his defence beyond all
reasonable doubt.
12. On careful perusal of the cross examination
directed P.A. holder of the complainant wherein it is stated
that since 30 year he is running real estate business and
share business. It is further stated since four years he is
submitting Income Tax returns. It is also admitted that PW-
1 is aware of the legal procedure wherein in excess of
Rs.20,000/- shall have to be paid by way of D.D. or cheque.
10
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
In further lines it is stated by PW-1 that the amount paid to
the accused is reflected in the Income Tax returns. It is also
stated that complainant will not produce the said
documents. Apart from it is also stated that complainant is
having records to show that he is running real estate as well
as share business. It is stated that prior to the present
transaction accused had previously for a period of three to
four times had transacted financially with the complainant.
At that point of time accused has executed D.P note and
also handed over the property records.
13. In further lines the complainant has admitted
that in the disputed cheque signature has been made by
using the Black ink pen, whereas other contents have been
written by using Blue ink pen. It is also admitted that
contents written in the disputed cheque i.e Ex.P.2 tallies
with the handwriting made in the D.P note as per Ex.P.4.
Apart from that the complainant has also admitted that he
cannot exactly say who has written the contents of disputed
cheque as well as D.P note. It is also admitted, in all cases
which is referred above the signature and writing in the
disputed cheque had been written by using different pen.
11
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
14. The above cross examination has to be taken into
consideration in the light of the averments made in other
CC cases wherein there is a similar allegation of payment of
loan on the same day and receipt of the cheque on the
same. Particulars of CC numbers and amounts advanced in
other cases is stated below so as to appreciate case
respective parties:-
(1) CC.No.22841/2015 alleged advancement of loan
to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/- on 26.11.2014.
(2) CC.No.11828/2015 alleged advancement of loan
to the extent of Rs.3,75,000/- on 26.11.2014.
(3) CC.No.11826/2015 alleged advancement of loan
to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- on 26.11.2014.
(4) CC.No.11825/2015 alleged advancement of loan to
the extent of Rs.2,75,000/- on 26.11.2014.
(5) CC.No.11824/2015 alleged advancement of loan to
the extent of Rs.4,25,000/- on 26.11.2014.
(6) CC.No.11840/2015 alleged advancement of loan to
the extent of Rs.3,10,000/- on 26.11.2014.
(7) CC.No.11839/2015 alleged advancement of loan to
the extent of Rs.2,90,000/- on 26.11.2014.
12
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
(8) CC.No.11838/2015 alleged advancement of loan to
the extent of Rs.2,75,000/- on 26.11.2014.
(9) CC.No.11828/2015 alleged advancement of loan to
the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- on 26.11.2014.
(10) CC.No.11829/2015 alleged advancement of loan
to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- on 26.11.2014.
(11) CC.No.11830/2015 alleged advancement of loan
to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/- on 26.11.2014.
(12) CC.No.11833/2015 alleged advancement of loan
to the extent of Rs.2,75,000/- on 26.11.2014.
(13) CC.No.11834/2015 alleged advancement of loan
to the extent of Rs.3,25,000/- on 26.11.2014.
(14) CC.No.11835/2015 alleged advancement of loan
to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- on 26.11.2014.
(15) CC.No.11836/2015 alleged advancement of loan
to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- on 26.11.2014.
(16) CC.No.11823/2015 alleged advancement of loan
to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- on 26.11.2014.
15. If the averments made in all cases and further if
the admission extracted above is examined in all cases
complainant had advanced huge amount sum of
Rs.48,00,000/- to the accused. As it could be seen that the
13
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
amount have been alleged to paid on the same day on
26.11.2014. It is to be noticed that averments made in the
complaint discloses that all the cheques of the cases have
been issued on the same day i.e. on 27.01.2015. When the
huge amount of Rs.48,00,000/- is alleged to have been paid,
it is reasonable to expect from the complainant to furnish all
particulars with regard to the source of income.
16. It is relevant to observe that PW-1 though admits
that he possessed Income Tax returns, but further stated
that he cannot produce the documents. In this regard
adverse inference required to be drawn against the
complainant for with holding the documents. Though the
complainant admits that he possessed records to show that
he engaged in the real estate business and share business,
but not produced the records.
17. The complainant states that he is not doing any
money lending business. What is relevant to observe that in
the D.P. note produced at Ex.P.4 i.e, there is a recital that
accused shall pay interest at 1.25% per month. Apart from
that the alleged loan was advanced on 26.11.2014 and the
14
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
cheque was received on 27.01.2015 for the same amount.
No person would venture upon to advance huge amount of
Rs.48,00,000/- without charging any interest. Further it is
not the case of the complainant he is not aware of the legal
procedure that amount in excess of Rs.20,000/- shall have
be made by way of D.D or cheque only. Therefore the
present transaction is against to the statute.
18. It is significant to note that the complainant
admits which is extracted above that the signature and
other contents have been made by using two different pens.
Further it is also admitted that contents written in the
disputed cheque as per Ex.P.2 and D.P note as per Ex.P.4
handwriting in both the documents are identical in nature.
In further lines complainant has expressed ignorance with
regard to the person who has written Ex.P.2 cheque as well
as Ex.P.4. From the statement given by the complainant it
is to be inferred that admittedly blank signed cheques and
D.P notes have been issued and the same has been filled up
by some other person. The person who has alleges to have
advanced huge amount of Rs.48,00,000/-, under such
circumstances answer given by the complainant that he do
15
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
not know the author of Ex.P.2 cheque as well as Ex.P.4 D.P
note make this court to observe that the transaction is not
genuine. It is also admitted by the complainant that on the
date of the transaction cheque was not obtained but the D.P
note was obtained. When the handwriting style in both D.P
note as well as cheque is identical in nature under such
circumstances when complainant admits that he do not
know who has written contents of Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.4 D.P
note and further nullifies case of the complainant that
cheque in question were issued by the accused for legally
enforceable debt. It is also relevant to note that
complainant admits that previously there was a transaction
between the parties and that point of time D.P notes were
obtained, but in further lines it is denied by complainant
that cheque was also obtained at that point of time. But
what is relevant to observe due to various defects glaring in
the case made out by the complainant, I am of the opinion
that the defence version that cheque issued for security
purpose for the loan availed cannot be ruled out.
19. Therefore after examination the entire material
placed on record by the complainant no source of income is
16
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
proved. Further no records to show that on the date of
advancement of the loan complainant had possessed
sufficient amount. No records to show that the amounts
were in fact paid to the accused. Therefore, complainant
has failed to impress upon the court that presumption is
required to be drawn.
20. The learned counsel for the complainant has
relied upon the Judgment reported in the case of Rangappa
Vs.Mohan where it is stated that stop payment
instructions sent by the accused attracts Section of
138. No doubt, in this case cheque has been returned
unpaid for the reason "Account Closed". But what is
relevant to observe that the complainant has failed to
impress upon the court that there is a sufficient materials to
sustain the contention with regard to advancement of the
loan apart from that the various irregularities pointed out
above with regard to signature and writing of the contents in
the disputed cheque as well as in the D.P note at Ex.P.4. I
am of the opinion that the Judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the
present case.
17
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15,
11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15
and 11836/15.
21. The material placed on record by the complainant
is not sufficient to rebut the presumption. On the contrary,
material placed on record by the accused is sufficient to
rebut the presumption. As such, I answer the above point
No.1 in the Negative.
22. Point No.2 : In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
Acting Under Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., the accused is Acquitted for the offence punishable u/s.138 NI Act.
Bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall stands cancelled.
Copy of the Judgment shall be kept in each and every CC cases.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and printout taken by him, is verified and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 14th day of February 2017.) (V.S.PANDIT), XV Addl. CMM., Bangalore.
18CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15, 11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15 and 11836/15.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant:-
PW.1 Vikram Chugh Documents marked for the Complainant:-
Ex.P.1 S.P.A. Ex.P.2 Original Cheque, Ex.P.2(a) Signature of the accused, Ex.P.3 Bank Endorsement, Ex.P.4 D.P.Note, Ex.P.4(a) Signature of the accused, Ex.P.5 Copy of the legal notice, Ex.P.6 Postal Acknowledgement, Ex.P.7. Postal Envelope.
Witnesses examined For Defence:-
DW.1 Rahul Bansal.
Documents marked for Defence:-
Ex.D.1 Endorsement given by the Bank XV Addl.CMM., Bangalore.19
CC.No.11823/15, 11841/15. 11828/15, 11826/15, 11825/15,11824/15, 11840/15, 11839/15,11838/15, 11822/15, 11829/15,11830/15, 11837/15, 11834/15,11835/15 and 11836/15.
14.02.2017 (Judgment pronounced vide separate sheet) ORDER Acting Under Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., the accused is Acquitted for the offence punishable u/s.138 NI Act.
Bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall stands cancelled.
Copy of the Judgment shall be kept in each and every CC cases.
(V.S.PANDIT), XV ACMM., Bangalore.
20