Bangalore District Court
M.Rajanna vs Lalitha on 1 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 1st day of June - 2018
PRESENT: SRI. SHRIDHARA.M, B.A., LL.M.,
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.23062/2015
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : M.Rajanna,
S/o.Late.Doddamuniyappa,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at No.1503, 3rd Cross,
Kempegowda Road, Srinivasa Nagara,
Pattedara Palya, Bengaluru-72.
(Rep. by Sri.Sundar Raj, Adv.)
V/S
Accused : Lalitha,
W/o.Narayanappa,
Aged about 48 years,
Byraveshwara Condiments,
Dro.Dharabendre Circle,
Rathna Nagara, BEL 2nd Stage,
Gollarahatti, Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Sri.M.Mahanthesha, Adv.)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Acquitted.
DATE OF ORDER : 01.06.2018.
(SHRIDHARA.M)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
Judgment 2 C.C.23062/2015
JUDGMENT
The complainant has presented the instant complaint against the accused on 30.07.2015 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for dishonour of cheque of Rs.1,50,000/-.
2. The factual matrix of the complainant case is:
The accused was the family friend of the complainant and used to visit her house during festival and other ceremonies since long time and helping each other in all aspects. In that acquaintance, in the 1st week of April, 2015 the accused approached the complainant and told her that, she intending to start a petty provision shop and narrated other financial difficulties and requested to help by giving financial assistance of Rs.1,50,000/- for her the said proposed business. Earlier, the complainant expressed his inability to lend the said loan, but on repeated force of the accused, the complainant gave her Rs.1,50,000/- in cash on 15.04.2015 as loan in the presence of her husband, and her husband is the eye witness to the said transaction. Towards the repayment of the said loan, the accused got issued the cheque bearing No.026028, dated:15.04.2015 drawn for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on Judgment 3 C.C.23062/2015 The Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Chandra Layout Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant.
The complainant has further contended that, while issuing the said cheque, the accused assured to maintain sufficient funds in her account. Accordingly, at her request on 08.06.2015, the complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker viz., Canara Bank, Kunigal Branch, Tumkur District. But the said cheque came to be dishonoured as per memo dated:09.06.2015 stating that "Drawers Signature Differs". Thereafter, the complainant informed the said fact to the accused, but she denied the transaction and said that, she is nowhere concerned to the said cheque. Thereafter, he got issued the demand notice to the accused on 19.06.2015 through R.P.A.D to the accused. The said notice was duly served upon accused on 22.06.2015. After receipt of demand notice, the accused neither replied nor paid the amount covered under the cheque, thereby she committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, filed the present complaint.
3. After receipt of the private complaint, the then presiding officer took the cognizance and got registered the PCR and Judgment 4 C.C.23062/2015 recorded the sworn statement. Since made out prima-facie grounds to proceed against the accused for the alleged offence, got registered the criminal case and ordered to issue process.
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared through her counsel and obtained the bail. As required, complaint copy was supplied to the accused as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, accusation was read over and explained to her, wherein, she denied the same and claimed to have the defence and try the matter.
5. Accordingly, to prove the case of the complainant, he himself choosen to examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The PW.1 was subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the accused.
6. Thereafter, incriminating evidence made against the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied the same and the answer was given by her was recorded. In support of the defence, the accused herself was examined as DW.1 and choosen to file the affidavit evidence. No documents marked on her favour and she subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the complainant.
Judgment 5 C.C.23062/2015
7. Heard the arguments from the accused side. The complainant side not come forward to address the arguments.
8. On going through the rival contentions, based on the substantial evidence available on record, the following points have been arising for determination:
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond the reasonable doubt that, on 15.04.2015 he paid sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
as hand loan to the accused, and in turn for repayment of the same, on the very same day the accused got issued the Ex.P1-cheque bearing No.026058, dated:15.04.2015, drawn on The Karnataka State Co- operative Apex Bank Ltd., Chandra Layout Branch, Bengaluru?
2) Whether the complainant proves the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
3) What Order?
9. On appreciation of materials available on record, my findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NOs.1 and 2: Since both the points are connected with each other, they have taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
Judgment 6 C.C.23062/2015
On going through the rival contentions taken by both the parties has disclosed in the materials on record, the fact that, the complainant and accused are known to each other and they have been residing in the respective address made mentioned in the complaint is not in dispute. The fact that, the Ex.P1-cheque belongs to the accused is not in dispute.
11. The PW.1 in support of his contention choosen to produce the following documents:
a) Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.026028 issued by the accused for sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, dated:15.04.2015 drawn on The Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Chandra Layout Branch, Bengaluru .
b) Ex.P1(a) is the alleged signature of accused.
c) Ex.P2 is the Bank Memo dated:09.06.2015.
d) Ex.P3 is the Legal Notice dated:19.06.2015.
e) Ex.P4 is the Postal receipt, and
f) Ex.P5 is the Postal Acknowledgment Card.
The PW.1 was subjected to the cross-examination by the advocate for the accused.
12. In order to prove the defence of the accused, she herself choosen examined as DW.1. Apart from lead defence evidence, the Judgment 7 C.C.23062/2015 DW.1 through her counsel has produced the citations and relied upon same. They are:
a) (2015) 1Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 576
b) AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1989
c) 2013 (3) KCCR 1940
13. Apart from cross-examining the PW.1, the accused put fourth her defence by filing affidavit. Wherein, in brief she contended that:
The accused denied the alleged borrowing loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on 15.05.2015 and issuance of Ex.P1-cheque to the complainant for its repayment. But, the DW.1 has specifically contended that, the complainant is well known to her and he used to come to her house and misused their friendship, the complainant has stolen the blank cheque and forged her signature and got presented the same before bank for encashment by way of misusing the said cheque. The complainant has concocted the endorsement also and she had no legal necessity to borrow the loan from the complainant and even complainant had no capacity to lend the same and filed the false case. The DW.1 is also subjected for cross-
examination.Judgment 8 C.C.23062/2015
14. On going through the rival contentions of the parties, the complainant has brought the present case by specifically contended that, on 15.04.2015 he lent sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and for repayment of the said loan, the accused got issued the Ex.P1-cheque dated:15.04.2015. No doubt, the said cheque was presented for encashment and as per Ex.P2 - bank memo the said cheque came to be dishonoured stating that, "Drawer Signature differs". Though, the accused has contended that, the said bank memo is concocted, as per Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act the bank's slip prima facie evidence.
15. The presumption has to drawn to the genuineness of the said bank memo unless contrary proved. Though, in the affidavit evidence, the accused contended its concocted, but no such contra materials produced by her to show that, the Ex.P2 is created, therefore, her contention has to concocted the Ex.P2 - Bank memo is ruled out. After dishonour of the cheque, the complainant caused legal notice at Ex.P3 dated:19.06.2015 to the accused in the address made mentioned in the same. The said legal notice was served on the accused as per Ex.P5 and the signature of the accused got marked at Ex.P5(a). In this case though, the legal notice was Judgment 9 C.C.23062/2015 served in the cause title address, which are none other than the address made mentioned in the Ex.P5- Postal Acknowledgment Card. During her cross-examination, she is specifically admitted that:
"¤¦-5gÀ°è w½¹gÀĪÀ «¼Á¸ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ §AzÀÄ vÀ®Ä¥ÀÅvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ j¥ÉèÊ £ÉÆÃn¸ï ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤¦-1gÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¸À» ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦-5 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¸À» MAzÉà EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
16. From the testimony of DW.1 stated above it made clear that, she admitted the address made mentioned at Ex.P5, so also she admitted that, the correspondence made to the said address will reached to her. She never denied the service of notice at Ex.P5 to her, admittedly she contended she does not give reply. From which, it made clear that, the legal notice issued at Ex.P3 as per Ex.P5 is served on her. Therefore, she has estopped from taking the contention that, the notice is not served on her. Thereby, the complainant has complied the mandatory provision in order to maintain the present case.
Judgment 10 C.C.23062/2015
17. The accused in her defence affidavit contended that, the complainant when he used to came to her house under the friendship, he stolen the cheque and forging her signature presented the said cheque for encashment and she is not borrowed any loan and liable to pay the same. It is significant fact to note that, despite service of notice at Ex.P3, she did not caused reply to the said notice at the earliest point of time, at that point of time, she had a every opportunity to give her necessary reply regarding the contention taken by the complainant in the legal notice, but she was not deligent in doing so, thereby, she admitted the contents of the legal notice.
18. The accused defence is, she is not signatory to the cheque and not issued the same to the complainant. The complainant has contented that, in respect of the borrowing of loan for its repayment the accused got issued the said cheque in the presence of her husband. It is pertinent to note that, the complainant has specifically contended that, on 15.04.2015 the accused borrowed loan of Rs.1,50,000/-. The accused has denied her financial capacity, but the complainant has explained in his cross- examination that, he has coconut and arcanut plant and when he Judgment 11 C.C.23062/2015 sold the dry coconut and arcanut, he kept with the money in his house and he given the same to the accused. The said fact is not denied by the accused. Except mere suggestion of denial, nothing else put forth in the cross-examination of PW.1 by the accused side. In the cross-examination of PW.1 the suggestion made to him that, he forged the signature of the accused at Ex.P1(a) was denied, but the PW.1 specifically re-ascertained that, the Ex.P1(a) signature of the accused. But in the case on hand, in order to show that, the complainant has lend the said huge amount to the accused, despite the accused has denied his financial capacity and passing of consideration, the complainant not choosen to produce any material documents. Apart from that, though the complainant has contended that, the said money was paid in the presence of husband of the accused, he not made any effort to secure the presence of her husband to examine him to know the genuineness of the transaction.
19. Apart from that, if at all, he gave the money to the accused on 15.04.2015 of Rs.1,50,000/- and for its repayment, the accused has to give or issued the cheque by mentioning the specific date, when she going to pay the said money. But, the Ex.P1-cheque Judgment 12 C.C.23062/2015 clearly discloses the date 15.04.2015. The date made mentioned in the Ex.P1-cheque is none other than the date of alleged borrowing of loan. How one person can borrow the loan for the period of one day, that too, for cited the reasons of opening of petty provision shop and attend the other financial difficulties, how the complainant accepted the Ex.P1-cheque dated:15.04.2015 is also created doubt. Even, the complaint averments does not discloses, on which assurance the complainant lend the said money to the accused, whether it was for the period of one day or any more period not specified in his pleading. It is significant fact to note that, the alleged date of lending of loan and the date made mentioned in the cheque are one and the same. How it can believe that, the cheque was issued on the very same day and undertakes to pay the money is not been explained by the complainant. It is not the case of complainant that, for the adjustment for one day the accused got received the loan from the complainant. When the cheque dated is discloses, the borrowing of loan, then it is difficult to believe that, the accused got issued the cheque to the complainant in respect of the repayment of loan borrowed on 15.04.2015. The Ex.P1-cheque date itself contradicts the date of borrowing loan. Even, it is not his contention that, earlier he paid Judgment 13 C.C.23062/2015 the loan, later the accused got issued the cheque at Ex.P1. Under such circumstances, it is the complainant has to demonstrate that, how one can borrow the loan on 15.04.2015 and for the repayment of the same, on the very same day expected to issue the cheque at Ex.P1 is highly improbable. Any how, the date of alleged lending of loan and alleged issuance of cheque created doubt in the mind of the court, regarding the genuineness of the document. However, the said date itself prima facie discloses that, the cheque was not issued by the accused to the complainant for the payment of loan or discharge of any legally recoverable debt. Despite, the accused harping on the very claim of the complainant, it is the complainant has to deligent in put forth the present case, but in his confusion state of mind and affairs bring the case with wrong particulars, therefore, to show that, he handed over the loan of Rs.1,50,000/-, no material has been placed by him. Even, Ex.P1-cheque does not creates any obligation from the point of alleged lending of loan on the very same date.
20. Apart from that, the accused has proved the case contended that, Ex.P1(a) signature is not on her and it has been forged by the complainant. At the undisputed point of time, when it presented Judgment 14 C.C.23062/2015 before the bank as per Ex.P2, the bank authorities have dishonoured the said cheque for the reasons "Drawer Signature Differs". From the document itself made clear that, while presenting the said cheque the signature of the accused not tallied, therefore dishonoured. Hence, it was the complainant has to examined the bank authority by calling the specimen signature of the accused, through ascertain the genuineness of the endorsement issued by the bank at Ex.P2. But, in that regard, no effort is made by the complainant. No doubt, in the fag end of the case, the complainant sought for refer the questioned signature on the admitted cheque at Ex.P1 to the FSL. But the said application was came to be dismissed and the same was not challenged by the complainant. Unless, he is discharging his burden to prove the case by examining the bank officials or call for the documents such as specimen signatures or account opening Form etc., the complainant could have prove the genuineness of the signature of the accused, it is questioned by the accused.
21. During the course of cross-examination of DW.1, it was a suggestion made to the DW.1 that:
Judgment 15 C.C.23062/2015
"¦gÁå¢UÉ ºÀt PÉÆqÀ¨ÁgÀzÉ£ÀÄߪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ZÉQÌ£À°è ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
22. By way of making such suggestion, the complainant has admitted that, the accused in order to avoid the repayment of money has used to put different signature in the Ex.P1-cheque. When the signature is admittedly is different, it is the complainant who brought the present case has to prove his case beyond the reasonable doubt, but in that regard no satisfactory explanation forth coming from his side.
23. No doubt, the accused has contended that, her cheque was stolen and signature forged by the complainant, the said fact came to her only after complainant has filed the present case. When the complainant filed the present case, the accused is depending the claim put forth by the complainant in the present case and admittedly she not initiated any legal proceedings against the complainant. Any how, the accused through out the case has taken up the defence that, she not borrowed the loan and Ex.P1-cheque was not issued by her to the complainant. Even, her signature at Ex.P1(a) is also questioned by her, therefore it is the complainant has to remove the cast cloud on the genuineness of the execution of Judgment 16 C.C.23062/2015 Ex.P1-cheque and the same has not been discharged by the complainant satisfactorily from the point of relevant provision of the acts.
It is worthy to cite that the decision reported in 2008 AIR SC 738 (Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde). Wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to held that:
"The provisions under Section 139 has been inserted to regulate the growing business, trade, commerce and industrial activities of the country and the strict liability to promote greater vigilance in financial matters and to safeguard the faith of the creditor in the drawer of the cheque which is essential to the economic life of a developing country like India. This, however, shall not mean that the courts shall put a blind eye to the ground realities. Statute mandates raising of presumption but it stops at that. It does not say how presumption drawn should be held to have rebutted. Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be delicately balanced. Such balancing acts, indisputably would largely depend upon the factual matrix of each case, the materials brought on record and having regard to legal principles governing the same".
"The courts must be on guard to see that merely on the application of presumption as contemplated under Section Judgment 17 C.C.23062/2015 139, the same may not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction".
In another decision reported in 2008 AIR SCC 7702 (P. Venugopal V/s.Madan P. Sarathi). Wherein, it was pleased to held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"The presumption raised does not extent to the expenditure that cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or liability. Which is required to be proved by the complainant. However, it is essentially a question of fact".
In another decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1633 (Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets). Wherein, it was pleased to held by the Hon'ble Apex court that:
(D) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 118, 139 and 138 - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 - How to be rebutted - Standard of proof required rebuttal -
HELD, Rebuttal does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt - Something probable has to be brought record - Burden of proof can be shifted back to complainant by producing convincing circumstantial evidence - Thereafter the said presumption arising under Section 118 and 139 case to operate - To rebut said presumption accused can also rely upon presumptions under Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114 (common course of natural even human conduct and public and private business) - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Presumptions of fact under".
Judgment 18 C.C.23062/2015In another decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 278 between John K John V/s. Tom Verghees, the Hon'ble Apex court it is held that:
"the presumption under Section 139 could be raised in respect of some consideration and burden is on the complainant to show that he had paid amount shown in the cheque. Whenever there is huge amount shown in the cheque, though the initial burden is on the accused, it is equally necessary to know how the complainant advanced such a huge amount".
In a decision reported in 2008 (7) SCC 655: 2008 (8) SCR 1210 (Mallavarupu Kasivisweswara Rao V/s. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm). Wherein, it was pleased to held that:
"By virtue of clause (a) of section 118 Court is obliged to presume that, the promissory note was made for consideration until the contrary is proved. Initial burden lies on the defendant to prove to non existence of consideration which would lead the Court to believe the non existence of consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that, the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal".
In another decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2331 (B.Indramma V/s. Sri.Eshwar). Wherein, the Hon'ble Court held that:
"Held, when the very factum of delivery of the cheque in question by the accused to the complainant and its receipt by complainant from the accused itself is seriously disputed by the accused, his admission in his evidence Judgment 19 C.C.23062/2015 that, the cheque in question bares his signature would not be sufficient proof of the fact that, he delivered the said cheque to the complainant and the latter received if from the former".
In another decision reported in AIR 2007 NOC 2612 A.P. (G.Veeresham V/s. Shivashankar and another). Wherein, the Hon'ble Court has held as under:
"Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881). S. 138 Dishonour of cheque - Presumptions available to complainant under S. 118 and S. 139 of Act - Rebuttal of cheque in question was allegedly issued by accused to discharge hand loan taken from complainant. However, no material placed on record by complainant to prove alleged lending of hand loan said fact is sufficient to infer that, accused is liable to rebut presumptions available in favour of complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of Act, Order acquitting accused for offence under S. 138 proper".
24. On going through the above dictums, it made clear that, the accused is no need to entered in to the witness box to prove her probable defence, but she can prove her defence from the materials available on record. In the case on hand, she did so. When the accused proved the contrary, it was reverse burden on the complainant to prove the very transaction put forth by her. But, she utterly fails to prove the passing of consideration and the amount Judgment 20 C.C.23062/2015 made mentioned in the cheque is a legally recoverable debt. Even, he fails to demonstrate that, the Ex.P1(a) signature is of the accused, in view of the accused strongly contended her signature is forged. Since, the amount involved in the present case is Rs.1,50,000/-, the complainant has to prove the very monetary transaction and issuance of cheque, but he not choosen to produce any material evidence to substantiate his contention. As discussed above, the complainant has utterly fails to prove the very loan transaction held between him with accused and issuance of Ex.P1- cheque. When there is doubt arise with regard to the genuineness of monetary transaction and issuance of cheque to the complainant, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Accordingly, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt and her acquittal.
In a decision reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3366 (M.S.Narayana Menon Alian Mani V/s. State of Kerala and another). The Hon'ble Apex court held that:
"Once the accused discharges the initial burden placed on him the burden of proof would revert back to the prosecution".Judgment 21 C.C.23062/2015
25. In this case on hand also, on the lack of the complaint failed to prove the alleged loan transaction, it can gather the probability that, she is not liable to pay Ex.P1 cheque amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and it is not legally recoverable debt. So, the burden is on the complainant to prove strictly with cogent and believable evidence that, the accused has borrowed the cheque amount and she is legally liable to pay the same. Just because, there is a presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, that, will not create any special right to the complainant so as to initiate a proceeding against the drawer of the cheque, who is not at all liable to pay the cheque amount. The accused has taken her defence at the earliest point of time, while record accusation and statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by way of denial. The evidence placed on record clearly probablize that, complainant has failed to prove that, accused issued the cheque for discharge of liability of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, complainant has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
26. Thus, on appreciation of evidence on record, I hold that, the complainant has failed to prove the case by rebutting the Judgment 22 C.C.23062/2015 presumption envisaged under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant has failed to discharge the initial burden to prove his contention as alleged in the complaint. Hence, the complainant has not produced needed evidence to prove that, amount of Rs.1,50,000/- legally recoverable debt. Therefore, since the complainant has failed to discharge the reverse burden, question of appreciating other things and weakness of the accused is not a ground to accept the claim of the complainant in its entirety without the support of the substantial documentary evidence pertaining to the said transaction. The complainant fails to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. As discussed above, the complainant has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answered the Point Nos.1 and 2 are Negative.
27. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.Judgment 23 C.C.23062/2015
The bail bond and cash security/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 June - 2018) (SHRIDHARA.M) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : M.Rajanna List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P1 : Original Cheque Ex.P1(a) : Signature of accused Ex.P2 : Bank endorsement Ex.P3 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P4 : Postal receipt Ex.P5 : Postal Acknowledgment card Ex.P5(a) : Signature of accused
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
DW.1 : Lalitha List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
- Nil -
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.Judgment 24 C.C.23062/2015
01.06.2018.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
***** ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.