Bangalore District Court
Smt.S.M.Pavithra vs Sri.Purushotham.J.K on 15 June, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 15th day of June, 2017
Present: Smt. Saraswathi.K.N, B.A.L., LL.M.,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.2891/2014
Complainant : Smt.S.M.Pavithra,
W/o.Sri.Shivalingegowda,
Aged about 54 years,
Permanently R/at.Singanalluru
Village,
Kollegala Taluk,
Chamarajanagara District,
Karnataka State & Presently
R/at.No.231, 4th Cross,
Krishnappa Layout,
Madhubana Colony,
Bannerghatta Road,
Hulimavu,
Bengaluru-76.
(Rep. by Sri.D.T.Vinod Kumar.,
Adv.,)
- Vs -
Accused : Sri.Purushotham.J.K,
R/at.No.57/B,
18th Main Road,
BSK 1st Stage, II Block,
Bengaluru-50.
2 C.C. No.2891/2014
& also:
Sri.Purushotham J.K,
Director,
J.K.School of Business
Management,
No.1541/1, "Jangamakote
House",
Sir M.Visweswaraiah Nagar,
1st Block, Jnanabharathi Post,
Nagadevanahalli,
Bengaluru-56.
(Rep. by Sri. Arun, K.S., Adv.,)
Case instituted : 19.4.2013
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I. Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is Convicted
Date of order : 15.6.2017
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3 C.C. No.2891/20142. Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that, the Accused being well known to her and as she was facing financial problems approached her during the month of July 2012 for a hand loan to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- for the development of his educational institutions. As per the request of the Accused, she paid the said amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to him by way of cash, which the Accused assured to repay within 6 months from the date of the receiving the said amount.
3. The Complainant has further submitted that, after the stipulated period of time, when she approached the Accused and demanded to repay the said hand loan amount, towards the repayment of the same, the Accused issued a cheque bearing No.118966 dated 22.2.2013 for Rs.3 Lakhs drawn on the HDFC Bank Ltd., 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, assuring that it would be honored on it's presentation.
4. The Complainant has further submitted that, thereafter when she presented the said cheque for payment through her Banker, the same came to be returned dishonored for the reason "Funds Insufficient"
vide Bank endorsement dated 25.2.2013.4 C.C. No.2891/2014
5. The Complainant has further submitted that, she approached and informed the Accused about the dishonor of the cheque and demanded to repay the said cheque amount, but the Accused expressed his financial problems and promised to repay the same within few days, but he did not pay the cheque amount.
6. The Complainant has further submitted that, thereafter she got issued a legal notice to the Accused on 8.3.2013 through her counsel to the Accused calling upon him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the legal notice. The said legal notice sent by RPAD to both the address of the Accused was duly served upon him on 9.3.2013. Inspite of the receipt of the same, the Accused has not complied with the demand made therein nor sent any reply to it.
7. The Complainant submits that, the dishonour of the cheque by the Accused has been malafide, intentional and deliberate. Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of the Accused, she has filed the present complaint praying that the Accused be summoned, tried and punished in accordance with Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5 C.C. No.2891/20148. The Pre-summoning evidence has been led by the Complainant on 5.2.2014. Prima-facie case has been made out against the Accused and he has been summoned vide order of the same date.
9. The Accused has appeared before the Court on 7.8.2014, he has been enlarged on bail, the substance of the accusation has been read over to him on 8.1.2015, to which he has pleaded not guilty and has claimed the trial.
10. In his post-summoning evidence, the Complainant has examined herself as PW1 and has filed her affidavit, wherein she has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
11. P.W.1 has produced and relied upon the following documentary evidence:-
Ex.P1 is the cheque, in which, the signature is identified by P.W.1 as that of the Accused as per Ex.P1(a), the Bank Memo as per Ex.P2, the office copy of the Legal Notice as per Ex.P3, the Postal Receipts as per Ex.P4 & 5 respectively, the Postal Acknowledgements as per Ex.P6 & 7 respectively, the complaint as per Ex.P8, 6 C.C. No.2891/2014 the signature as per Ex.P8(a) and the certified copies of the RTC extracts as per Ex.P9 to 12 respectively.
12. The statement of the Accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., has been recorded on 19.10.2016.
13. The Accused has examined himself as DW1 and he has filed his affidavit in which he has deposed that, the Complainant is known to his sister, as she was coming to his sister's house and there she was introduced to him. During the month of June-July 2012 he needed extra money to repair his house and as he had heard that the Complainant lends money on interest, he approached her for a loan of Rs.1 Lakh. At that time, the Complainant assured to lend the said amount of Rs.1 Lakh to him, if and only if, he gave his 6 blank cheques, undated and signed as security, which she assured and promised to return to him, immediately he repaid the borrowed money. Having no choice, he agreed to her condition and accordingly took a loan of Rs.1 lakh from her and handed over his 6 signed undated blank cheques as per her demand purely as security. Out of the six cheques given to her as security, 4 were of his personal Bank account and two were of his joint account with his 7 C.C. No.2891/2014 sister J.Vanajakshi. He assured to repay the said amount within 6 months and accordingly returned the said amount of Rs.1 Lakh to the Complainant in the month of January-February 2013.
14. D.W.1 has further sworn that, even thereafter, the Complainant did not return his 6 security cheques as promised to him and thereafter he was shocked and surprised to see that the Complainant herself has filled up or got them filled up by someone with various amounts in the cheques and presented them to the Bank and filed false these cases against him.
15. D.W.1 has further sworn that, he has not received any legal notice said to have been got issued by the Complainant to him and he came to know about the present case and the other cases by the Complainant against him only after the receipt of the summons sent by this court.
16. D.W.1 has further sworn that, the Complainant has filed 4 false cases against him before this court using the 4 cheques of his personal account that he had given to her as security, whereas she has got her son Mr.Praveen to file two false cases against him using the 8 C.C. No.2891/2014 cheques of the joint account that he had given her for security. According to D.W.1 he did not know the son of the Complainant Mr.Praveen and he first saw him and came to know that, he was the son of the Complainant in the court trials only.
17. D.W.1 has further sworn that, he has repaid the borrowed money on Rs.1 Lakh fully to the Complainant and that, he does not owe any money to her at all and that she has filed false cases against him with a malafide intention of extorting money from him by misusing the cheques given to her as security. Hence, prayed to dismiss the compliant.
18. In support of his oral evidence D.W.1 has produced the documentary evidence i.e., the certified copy of the complaint of C.C.No.15973/2013 as per Ex.D1 and the certified copy of the complaint of C.C.No.18974/2013 as per Ex.D2.
19. The certified copies of the complaint copies in C.C.No.15968/2013 to 15973/2013 are marked as Ex.P13 to 16 respectively and the EC as per Ex.P17 have been marked through DW1.
9 C.C. No.2891/201420. D.W.1 has been cross-examined extensively by the learned counsel for the Complainant, during which the Accused has not been able to prove his defence theory as material admissions have been elicited from him in support of the case of the Complainant.
21. The learned counsel for the Complainant has filed his written arguments, in which, he has prayed for the conviction of the Accused on the ground that, the Complainant has fulfilled all the ingredients of the Sec.138 of the N.I.Act and the Complainant has led her evidence by relying upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to 12 and Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 have been marked through the Complainant, while Ex.P13 to 17 have been marked through the Accused in his cross-examination. With this documentary evidence the Complainant has proved her case beyond reasonable doubt.
22. It is further argued that, though the Accused has denied the financial transaction to the tune of Rs.6 Lakhs from the Complainant, he has admitted his acquaintance as well as his financial transaction with the Complainant, though according to him, it was only to the 10 C.C. No.2891/2014 tune of Rs.l lakhs, which he claims to have repaid to the Accused.
23. It is further argued that, though the Accused has denied the service of the legal notice upon him, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that the address mentioned in the complaint as well as in the legal notice at Ex.P3 and on the postal acknowledgment at Ex.P6 & 7 are the correct addresses of his residential as well as his Educational Institutions and he has further admitted the service of the court summons sent to him through post, which is admittedly the address to which the legal notice has been sent by the Complainant. Therefore the Accused has admitted the correctness of the residential as well as his office address, which clearly proves that though he denies the service of the legal notice, the same is deemed to have been served upon him as per Sec.27 of the General Clauses Act.
24. It is further argued that the Complainant has proved through the documentary evidence at Ex.P13 to Ex.P17, which are marked through the Accused that, the latter is indebted to several persons and financial institutions, as a result of which, it goes to show that, he 11 C.C. No.2891/2014 has intentionally and deliberately cheated the Complainant.
25. It is further argued that, though the financial capacity of the Complainant has been questioned in her cross-examination by the Defence Counsel, the evidence led by the Complainant with regard to her source of income as well as her agricultural income as per the RTC extracts produced by her as per Ex.P9 to Ex.P12 have not been challenged by the Accused.
26. Moreover though the Accused has claimed that, he has repaid the loan of Rs.1 Lakh to the Complainant on 20.12.2012, he has failed to prove his defence of discharge and there is absolutely no evidence placed on record by the Accused in order to substantiate his defence version. Hence it is lastly argued that, the Accused has failed to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the Complainant under Sec.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act. Accordingly he has prayed for the conviction of the Accused.
27. The learned counsel for the Complainant has relied upon the following decisions:-
12 C.C. No.2891/20141. In Vishnu Kumar Vs., Jagdish Prasad, reported in 2012(1) DCR 603.
2. In Kanshi Ram Bansal Vs., Suman Malhotra, reported in 2012(2) DCR 419,
3. In Vinod Maroti Mehare Vs., Shri Jitendra, reported in 2014(3) DCR 93,
4. In Lale Patel Vs., Sharanbasappa, reported in 2015(1) KCCR 235,
5. In S.R.Muralidar Vs., Ashok G.Y, reported in 2001(4) Kar.L.J.122,
6. In Shalini Enterprises and ano., Vs., Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd., reported in 2014(1) DCR 204,
7. In L.Mohan Vs., V.Mohan Naidu, reported in 2004 (2) DCR 605,
8. In M/s.General Auto Sales Vs., Vijalakshmi.D, reported in 2005(1)DCR 356,
9. In Bank of India, Adityapur, Jamshedpur Vs., M/s.Aswi Electricals and ors., reported in 2010(1) DCR 582,
10. In Kuppayammal Vs., A.Sitheswaran, reported in 2013 (1) DCR 98, 13 C.C. No.2891/2014
11. In Shalini Enterprise and ano., Vs., India bulls Financial Service ltd., reported in 2014 CRI.L.J (NOC) 416 (P & H),
12. In Puneet Kumar Agarwal Vs., M/s.Imaginations Agri Exports & ano., reported in 2013(2) DCR 144,
13. In Umaswamy Vs., K.N.Ramanath, reported in 2007(2) DCR 377,
14. In Balagi Agencies Pvt Ltd., Vs., Mr.Vilas Bagi and ano., reported in 2010(1) DCR 443,
15. In Janardan Singh Vs., State of Uttaranchal, reported in 2014(1) DCR 151,
16. In Mohammed Samdani Basha Vs., Syed Issac Basha, reported in 2006(2) DCR 217,
17. In Rekha Mahindra Shah Vs., Gautam Umed Parmar and ano., reported in 2014 ACD 663(Bom)
18. In Anil Gupta Vs., Star India Pvt Ltd., reported in 2014 CRI.L.J.3884.
28. The learned Defence Counsel has prayed for the acquittal of the Accused on the following grounds:-
i) There are contradictions between the pleading and proof with regard to the acquaintance between the parties;14 C.C. No.2891/2014
ii) Admittedly neither in the legal notice nor in the complaint nor in her affidavits, has the Complainant stated the amount of loan allegedly advanced by her to the Accused as Rs.2.5 Lakhs and Rs.3.5 Lakhs, which is stated by her only in her cross-examination for the first time;
iii) The Complainant has failed to prove her financial capacity;
iv) The Complainant has failed to prove her source of having arranged the funds so as to have lent to the Accused;
v) The cheque in dispute is not material altered and hence it cannot be called as a "Cheque" within the meaning of Sec.6 of the N.I.Act, as the Complainant herself has admitted in her cross-examination that she does not know as to if the Accused herself has filled up the cheque or who else has filled up the cheque;
vi) The Complainant has failed to examine witnesses, who were supposed to have been present at the time of the alleged loan transaction;
vii) There are contradictions about the period of approach by the Accused to the Complainant seeking loan;15 C.C. No.2891/2014
viii) Though service of the legal notice is not disputed, the dispute is with regard to the person to whom it is served as it is not in accordance with Sec.138 of the N.I.Act;
ix) Cheque issued for the purpose of collateral security cannot be enforced.
x) The Complainant admits she has not produced her Bank Statement, though she is in possession of the same, thereby an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against her.
29. In support of his arguments, the learned Defence Counsel has relied upon the following decisions:-
1. A.S.Duraisami Chattiar Sons and S.Rathnaswami Gounder, reported in AIR 1992 Madras 132;
2. M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., Vs., M/s.
Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd., reported in AIR 2001 SC 676;
3. M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs., State of Kerala and another, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39;
16 C.C. No.2891/20144. Avon Organics, Hyderabad Ltd., Vs., Pioneer Products Ltd., and others, reported in 2004 (1) CRIMES (AP);
5. Goa Handicrafts, Rural and Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Vs., M/s. Samudra Ropes Pvt., Ltd., and others, reported in 2005 All M R (CRIMES) 2643 (BOMBAY GOA BENCH).
30. Hence on all these grounds the learned Defence Counsel argued that there are serious contradictions in the case of the Complainant and the latter has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly he has prayed for the acquittal of the Accused.
31. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
32. Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been enacted to lend credibility to the financial transactions.
The main ingredients of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act are:-
17 C.C. No.2891/2014(i) Drawing up of a cheque by the Accused towards the payment of the amount of money, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or any other liability;
(ii) Return of the cheque by the bank as unpaid;
(iii) The drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money within 15 days of the receipt of the notice under the proviso (b) to Section
138.
The Explanation appended to the Section provides that, the "debt or other liability" for the purpose of this Section means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
33. Apart from this, Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lays down a presumption in favour of the holder of cheque in the following terms:-
"It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that:-
The holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec. 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability".
34. Also, Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act states, 18 C.C. No.2891/2014 "Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-
(a) That every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;"
35. Thus, the Act clearly lays down the presumptions in favour of the Complainant with regard to the issuance of the cheque by the Accused, towards the discharge of his liability in favour of the Complainant.
36. Under the scheme of the Act, the onus is upon the Accused to rebut the presumptions in favour of the Complainant by raising a probable defence.
37. Such being the legal position, it would be pertinent to refer to the defences raised by the Accused to rebut the presumptions in favour of the Complainant in this case.
38. It is pertinent to note that, the acquaintance between the parties is admitted and likewise the loan 19 C.C. No.2891/2014 transaction between them is also admitted. Though according to the Complainant, the total amount of loan advanced by him to the Complainant is Rs.6 Lakhs, while according to the Accused it is Rs.1 Lakhs only. From the cross-examination of the Complainant it could be seen that, initially she has been questioned with regard to her financial capacity. In this regard though initially the Complainant had not produced any documentary evidence, subsequently she has produced the RTC extracts as per Ex.P9 to Ex.P12 to show that, she owns agricultural land in her name. Though on the basis of Ex.P9 to Ex.P12 it is suggested to the Complainant that, there is no mention of the name of any crops as well as the income derived from the said lands in the RTC's at Ex.P9 to 12, the same is not crucial to the case of the Complainant since the document at Ex.P9 to 12 are the public document which are issued by the competent authorities and as such they have evidentially value in the eye of law.
39. Moreover as the Accused has not denied his loan transaction with the Complainant, though according to him it was only for Rs.1 lakhs, the fact that the 20 C.C. No.2891/2014 Accused himself has admitted in his chief-evidence that the Accused used to lend money on interest goes to show the financial capacity of the Complainant is not seriously not disputed by the Accused. No doubt it is elicited int eh cross-examination of the Complainant that the RTC Extracts at Ex.P9 to P12 do not contain the details with regard to the name of the crops or the income derived from the said crops etc., the fact that the Accused himself has admitted that the Complainant was lending money on interest would go to show that his defence of denying the financial capacity of the Complainant is not serious, since normally only a person who is financially in a sound position who could advance loans to others for interest. Therefore I am of the view that, there is no necessity of lay much emphasis about the financial capacity of the Complainant.
40. Likewise with regard to the acquaintance between the parties, it is admitted by the Accused in his evidence as well as in the cross-examination of the Complainant that, he has come in contact with the Complainant through his sister, where the Complainant was visiting and she was introduced to him by his sister.
21 C.C. No.2891/2014This fact is sufficient to hold that, there is no dispute with regard to the acquaintance between the parties.
41. According to the Complainant she has advanced a loan of Rs.2,50,000/= to the Accused in the month of July 2012 and thereafter a sum of Rs.3.5 Lakhs to him in the year 2013 with a span of 2 to 3 months from the time of her lending of the amount to him on the first occasions. According to the Complainant, the Accused received the said loan from her for the purpose of running his Educational trust by name J.K. Educational trust. But the fact that the Complainant has answered in her cross-examination that she has seen the Accused 2-3 times does not lead to an inference that there was no acquaintance between the parties.
42. With regard to the purpose of the loan, according to the Complainant she has advanced the loan to the Accused for the purpose of his educational institutions. In this regard it is elicited from the Accused in his cross-examination that, he started the J K Educational Trust which was registered in the year 2009 and that he is the founder of the said trust. It is further elicited from him that there are various educational 22 C.C. No.2891/2014 institutions which are being run by the said Trust. However the Accused has denied the suggestions with regard to the case of the Complainant that he has availed a loan of Rs.6 Lakhs from the Complainant for the purpose of the development of the said trust, though he has admitted the availment of loan to the tune of Rs.1 Lakh from the Complainant for a different purpose.
43. Therefore the claim of the Complainant in so far as the Accused owning a trust in the name of JK Education Trust is not in dispute between the parties. It is further proved from the evidence on record that there is no dispute with regard to the existence of the financial transaction between the parties.
44. It is pertinent to note that the Accused has claimed that he had received a loan of Rs.1 Lakh from the Complainant for the purpose of the repairs of his house and likewise he had availed such loans from 2 other persons. But interestingly the Accused has not spelled out the names of the specific persons from whom he claims to have availed loans in addition to that from the Complainant. If this defence version of the Accused 23 C.C. No.2891/2014 were to be true, the Accused could have produced cogent proof either through oral or documentary evidence. He, having failed to do so, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him even in this regard.
45. However as the Accused has claimed in his defence that he had received a loan of only Rs.1 Lakh, which also he claims to have repaid to the Complainant, the onus of proving the same is upon him. In this regard, in the cross-examination of the Complainant, the Accused has raised a defence that he has repaid the said loan of Rs.1 Lakh to the Complainant on 20/12/2012 in the presence of one Sridhar in the native place of the Complainant. But interestingly in his affidavit evidence, the Accused has raised a defence that he had received a loan of Rs.1 Lakh from the Complainant in the month of June-July 2012, which he repaid to him in the month of January-February 2013. This defence of the Accused clearly goes to show that he has taken inconsistent defences with regard to the period of the alleged repayment of the loan of Rs.1 Lakh.
24 C.C. No.2891/201446. Moreover the Accused has failed to prove his alleged repayment of Rs.1 Lakh that too by visiting the native place of the Complainant along with one Sridhar, which is highly improbable. Even otherwise the Accused could have proved the said defence version by examining the said Sridhar. For the reasons best known to him the Accused has failed to do so. This also clearly raises a serious doubt about the conduct of the Accused, thereby giving rise to an adverse inference against him.
47. In this regard, in the cross-examination of the Accused, it is elicited from him that he has not asked for any receipt from the Complainant, in respect of his alleged repayment of the loan to the latter and likewise he has not collected any receipt or endorsement from the Complainant for having allegedly issued his six signed blank cheques for the purpose of the security of his loan of Rs.1 Lakh.
48. Moreover the Accused has failed to prove his Defence Theory that he had availed a loan of only Rs.1 Lakh, for which he claims to have issued his six signed 25 C.C. No.2891/2014 blank cheques for the purpose of the security of the said loan of Rs.1 Lakh.
49. Though the Accused has claimed that his son Anup Krishna and his daughter Ashwini are supporting him financially for his livelihood, by transferring the amounts to his account as per his requirement, he has not produced a single document before the court to substantiate this claim. Even otherwise, if this defence of the Accused were to be true, then the doubt that arises in the mind of this court is what was the necessity for the Accused to avail a small loan of Rs.1 Lakh, if his children are well settled abroad and they help him financially. This doubt has not been cleared by the Accused in this case. This also raises a serious doubt in the defence of the Accused.
50. The next defence raised by the Accused is with regard to the service of the legal notice.
Though in this regard, it is the specific defence of the Accused that no legal notice has been served upon him and he has spelled out the same defence in his chief evidence before the court, this defence has not been 26 C.C. No.2891/2014 suggested to the Complainant in his cross-examination. However in his cross-examination, the Accused has given crucial admissions with regard to his residential as well as Trust addresses. He has admitted the correctness of the addresses shown in the legal notice at Ex.P3 as well as in Ex.P6. Likewise with regard to the seal found on Ex.P7, the Accused has neither admitted nor denied that it contains the seal of his institution. These admissions on the part of the Accused clearly prove that he has raised this technical defence only for the purpose of escaping from his liability to pay the cheque amount. Therefore it is clear that the technical defence with regard to the service of the legal notice is not available to the Accused.
51. Though in his arguments, the learned Defence Counsel has argued that there is no dispute with regard to the service of the legal notice, but is only with regard to the person to whom the legal notice is served, in view of Sec.27 of the General Clauses Act, the said objection is untenable. As such the Accused is not entitled to the technical defence of the non-service of the legal notice.
27 C.C. No.2891/201452. Lastly by relying upon Ex.P 13 to P16, it is proved by the Complainant that, similar to the present case there are various other cheque bounce cases filed against the Accused by various other persons. Likewise crucial admissions are elicited from the Accused about various cases filed against him even by such other persons and these admitted documents by the Accused clearly proves the conduct of the Accused.
53. Thus by the overall appreciation of the entire evidence - both oral and documentary clearly goes to show that the Complainant has proved her case beyond reasonable doubt, while the Accused has failed to probabalise his defence. Moreover the Accused has failed to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the Complainant under Sec. 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act.
54. Thus for the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER By exercising the power conferred u/s 255(2) of the Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby convicted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.28 C.C. No.2891/2014
He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (Six) Months.
Out of the fine amount so collected Rs.3,20,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) is ordered to be paid to the Complainant as Compensation and the balance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is ordered to be adjusted towards cost to the State Exchequer.
The bail bond and surety bond of the Accused stands cancelled.
Issue free copy of the Judgment to the Accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of June, 2017).
(SARASWATHI.K.N), XVI Addl.CMM., Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
PW.1 : Smt.S.M.Pavithra
29 C.C. No.2891/2014
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the
Complainant:
Ex.P-1 : Original Cheque;
Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of the Accused;
Ex.P-2 : Bank Memo;
Ex.P-3 : Copy of the Legal Notice;
Ex.P-4 & 5 : Postal Receipts;
Ex.P-6 & 7 : Postal Acknowledgements;
Ex.P-8 : Complaint;
Ex.P8(a) : Signature;
Ex.P9 to 12 : Certified copies of the RTC Extracts;
Ex.P13 to 16 : Certified copies of the Complaints in
C.C.No.15968/2013 to 15973/2013;
( Marked through DW1
Ex.P17 : Certified copy of the Encumbrance
Certificate. (Marked through DW1} )
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Accused:-
DW-1 : Sri.Purushotham J.K
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-
Ex.D-1 : Certified copy of the Complaint in C.C.No.15973/2013;
Ex.D-2 : Certified copy of the Complaint in C.C.No.18974/2013;
(SARASWATHI.K.N), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.30 C.C. No.2891/2014
15.06.2017 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order ORDER By exercising the power conferred u/s 255(2) of the Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby convicted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (Six) Months.
Out of the fine amount so collected Rs.3,20,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) is ordered to be paid to the Complainant as Compensation and the balance of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand only) is ordered to be adjusted towards cost to the State Exchequer.
31 C.C. No.2891/2014The bail bond and surety bond of the Accused stands cancelled.
Issue free copy of the
Judgment to the Accused
forthwith.
XVI A.C.M.M., B'luru.