Bangalore District Court
For Hand Loan Of Rs.2 vs In Kannada. He Pleaded Not Guilty And ... on 14 December, 2022
1 C.C.No.4021/2021
KABC030130232021
Presented on : 20-02-2021
Registered on : 20-02-2021
Decided on : 14-12-2022
Duration : 1 years, 9 months, 22 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 14th day of December 2022
Present: Lokesh Dhanapal Havale, B.A.LL.B
XV Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
Judgment U/s.355 of the Cr.P.C. 1973.
1.Sl.No.of the case C.C.No.4021/2021
2.Name of the Complainant: Paramesh Gowda,
S/o Narasimhe Gowda,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at No.213, 1st floor,
1st Main Road,
Swimming Pool Extension,
Maruthi Layout,
Bangalore-560 003.
3.Name of the accused: Sri. Rajesha. R
S/o Raja,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.29, 1st Floor,
Bharath Matha Block,
2 C.C.No.4021/2021
Palace Guttahallai,
Bangalore-7899773243
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(2) Cr.P.C., accused
is Convicted
7.Date of final Order 14th day of December 2022
* * *
This complaint is filed U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. against the
accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The facts of the complaint in brief are as under:
The complainant and the accused are friends and known to
each other from several years. The accused approached the
complainant for hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- during the end of
February 2020 for marriage of his sister. The complainant paid a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused on 02.03.2020 with an
assurance from accused to repay the same within three months.
After expiry of the three months and on repeated requests towards
repayment of the said loan amount, the accused has issued a
cheque in favour of complainant bearing No.88550 dated 30.7.2020
for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Kumara Park,
3 C.C.No.4021/2021
Bangalore. On presentation of cheque for encashment through his
bank, Canara Bank, Vyalikaval branch, Bengaluru, it was returned
dishonored with an endorsement "Insufficient Funds" vide
endorsement dated 27.08.2020. He issued legal notice dated
09.09.2020 on 10.09.2020 to the accused calling upon him to
repay the cheque amount. The notice sent through RPAD was
served on the accused on 11.09.2020. The accused failed to repay
the amount within 15 days from the said date and thereby
committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of the N.I.Act.
3. After the institution of the complaint, the cognizance
was taken and it has been registered as PCR No.13049/2020. The
sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded and on the
basis of sworn statement and other materials on hand, the criminal
case has been registered against the accused and summons was
issued to him. In response to the service of summons, the accused
appeared through his learned counsel and got enlarged on bail.
The prosecution papers were supplied to the accused and the
substance of the accusation was read over and explained to the
accused in Kannada. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
4. During trial the complainant examined himself as PW-1
and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. The statement of the accused U/s.313
of Cr.P.C. is not recorded. The accused did not lead defence
evidence.
4 C.C.No.4021/2021
5. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the
arguments on the side of the accused are taken as nil. On perusal
of the entire materials on record, the points that arise for my
consideration are as under;
1. Whether the complainant proves that the
accused issued cheque bearing No.885550
dated 30.07.2020 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on
State Bank of India, Kumara Park branch,
Bengaluru towards the discharge of legally
enforceable debt/ liability and on its
presentation for encashment, it was
dishonored with an endorsement "Insufficient
Funds" and the accused has not paid the
amount even after 15 days from the date of
service of legal notice sent through RPAD and
thereby accused committed an offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act, 1881?
2. Whether the accused rebuts the
presumption U/s.139 of the N.I.Act?
3. What order?
6. My answers on the above points for consideration are as
under.
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per final order for the following;
5 C.C.No.4021/2021
REASONS
7. Point No.1and 2 :- The points are taken together for
the common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and evidence. It
is necessary to discus the provisions U/s. 118(a) and 139 of the
Act., 1881 at this stage.
"118. Presumptions as to negotiable
instruments. - Until the contrary is
proved, the following presumptions shall
be made:-
(a) of consideration - 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;"
"139. Presumption in favour of
holder.- It shall be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, that the holder of a
cheque received the cheque of the nature
referred to in section 138 for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any
debt or other liability."
6 C.C.No.4021/2021
8. On plain perusal of the provision U/s. 118(a) and 139
of the N.I.Act., it can be seen that initially the presumptions
constituted under these two provisions are in favour of the
complainant. However the presumptions are rebuttable and it is
open to an accused to raise a defence to rebut the statutory
presumptions. An accused can raise a defence, wherein the
existence of legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested.
9. It is also well established that an accused need not
examine himself for discharging the burden of proof placed upon
him under a statute. He may discharge his burden on the basis of
the materials already brought on record. An accused has
constitutional rights to remain silent. The standard of proof on
part of the accused and that of the prosecution in a Criminal Case
is different. The prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused
beyond all reasonable doubts, the standard of proof so as to prove
a defence on the part of an accused is preponderance of
probabilities.
10. Under the light of position of the law, I have perused
the complaint and the evidence placed on record. The complainant
in support of his claim made in the complaint has adduced
evidence by examining himself as PW-1 and he got marked Ex.P1
to P5. PW-1 filed his evidence affidavit on oath and reiterated
the complaint averments. Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.885550
dated 30.07.2020 for Rs.2.00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India,
Kumara Park, Bangalore issued in favour of the complainant.
7 C.C.No.4021/2021
Ex.P2 is the Bank Memo dated 27.08.2020 with shara "Insufficient
Funds". Ex.P3 is the office copy of Legal Notice dated 09.09.2020
issued by the complainant to the accused on 10.09.2020
demanding repayment of the cheque amount. Ex.P4 is the postal
receipt for having sent the legal notice to the accused. Ex.P 5 is
the track consignment letter for having served the notice on the
accused on 11.09.2020.
11. On perusal of the documents, it is clear that the
cheque at Ex.P1 bearing No.885550 dated 30.07.2020 for
Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Kumara Park branch,
Bengaluru issued in favour of the complainant was presented for
encashment within the validity. The Bank Memo at Ex.P2 was
issued with shara "Insufficient funds" on 27.08.2020. The
complainant issued statutory legal notice to the accused on
10.09.2020 as per Ex.P3, which is well within the time from the
date of receipt of dishonor memo. The notice was issued by the
complainant through RPAD and it was served on 11.09.2020. The
complaint was filed on 08.12.2020, which is within limitation as
the limitaion was extended during the Covid period. The issuance
of the cheque and the signature on the cheque at ExP.1 are not
disputed. Therefore, the documents on record clearly show that the
complainant has complied the ingredients of Section 138(a) to (c)
of the N.I.Act. Therefore the presumptions U/s.118 and 139 of the
N.I.Act arise in favour of the complainant. The presumptions are
rebuttable and the burden is on the accused to rebut the
presumptions. The presumption is that the cheque was issued for
legally enforceable debt/ liability. However actual existence debt or
8 C.C.No.4021/2021
liability can be contested. The accused can rebut the presumptions
by raising probable defences and proving it relying on the
evidence of the complainant or by leading her direct evidence.
12. The plea of the accused was recorded on 21.01.2022.
The case was posted for cross examination on 11.02.2022. The
accused did not appear and NBW was issued. The order sheet
shows that even after sufficient opportunities have been given to
the accused to cross-examine PW-1, the accused failed to cross
examine PW.1. Therefore the cross-examination of PW-1 was taken
as nil on 02.07.2022. The accused did not appear before the Court
since long time. Hence the statement of the accused U/s.313 of
Cr.P.C could not be recorded. As per the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in Crl. Revision Petition No.437/2010 in the case
of R.V.Kulkarni Vs. Dakshina Murthy vide Judgment dated
28.06.2012, wherein it was held that it was for the accused to
appear before the Court and to have defended himself effectively
and to make himself available for the Court to record the
statement U/s.313 of Cr.PC. In the said case the complainant
preferred the revision before the Hon'ble High Court challenging
the order of the First Appellate Court in remanding the matter for
fresh trial for non recording of the statement of the accused
U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed
that there is no justification of the Appellate Court for having held
that there is failure of justice on account of statement of the
accused not having been recorded U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka also discussed settled law in respect of
statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C by referring to the decision
9 C.C.No.4021/2021
of three judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Basavaraj R.Patil Vs.State of Karnataka reported in (2000) 8
SCC 740. It is clear from the above decision that it is the duty of
the accused to appear before the Court and make available himself
for recording of statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. and to lead defence
evidence. The accused failed to utilize the opportunity by
remaining absent. Therefore the statement of the accused U/s.313
of Cr.PC was not recorded and the defence evidence is taken as
nil. The order sheet shows the conduct of the accused in delaying
the proceedings. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Sumeti v/s M/s Paramount Tech Fab Industries in
Crl.Appeal No.292/2021 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.8498 of
2019 decided on 9.3.2021 held that a statement of the accused
recorded u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C is not a substantive evidence of
defence but only on opportunity to the accused to explain the
incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case of
the accused. It was also observed that if there is no evidence in
support of his defence either to disprove or to rebut the
presumption under sec.139 of the Act, the statement recorded
under sec.313 of Cr.P.C pleading false implication and innocence
does not come to the aid of the accused as it is not a substantive
evidence. Further it is settled principle that the accused must show
prejudice caused to him due to the non recording of statement
u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. If no prejudice is pleaded and proved to the
satisfaction of Court for non recording of statement u/sec.313 of
Cr.P.C there would be no violation of salutary principle of natural
justice as enshrined in the maxim "audi alteram partem". No
doubt it is well settled that a circumstance about which the
10 C.C.No.4021/2021
accused was not asked to explain can not be used against him. But
certainly it can be distinguished under the peculiar facts and
circumstances of a particular case. In the case on hand, it is clear
that the accused attempted to misuse the process of the Court and
abandoned the proceedings. If the same are entertained, it would
defeat the proceedings instituted by the complainant. Therefore in
the opinion of this Court, the non recording of the statement
u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C would not vitiate the proceedings unless
prejudice is shown by the accused. The scope and object of
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C is explained in catena of decisions and in view
of that no injustice caused to the accused for not having recorded
his statement u/sec.313 of Cr.PC.
13. Further as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Md. Sukur Ali v/s State of
Assam in Crl. Appeal No.546/2011 dated 24.2.2011, wherein it
was held that if the criminal case whether a trial or appeal or
revision is decided against accused in the absence of counsel there
will be violation of Article 21 of the Constitution . However this
Court is of the opinion that as the accused has the right to fair
trial, he is also under the duty or obligation to promptly appear
before the Court and contest the case. As per the law of
jurisprudence, there is always duty or obligation corresponding to
the right. The accused remaining absent for the years together at
his peril and therefore he can not be expected to claim the right.
Further the judgment in the case of Md. Sukur Ali (supra) can be
distinguished on the basis of the facts of the present case. The
facts of the said case are that the Crl. Appeal No.137 of 2003 was
11 C.C.No.4021/2021
decided by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court on 1.6.2010 in the
absence of the counsel for the Appellant-accused and the
conviction was upheld. The question before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court was that whether in a criminal case, if the counsel for the
accused does not appear, for whatever reason, should the case be
decided in the absence of the counsel against the accused, or the
Court should appoint an amicus curie to defend the accused.
Usually in appeal or revision, there is no question of recoding of
evidence of the parties. The counsels appearing for the parties
canvass the arguments on behalf of their parties assisting the Court
about the correct position of law and the error committed by the
Trial Court or Appellate Court as the case may be. However that
is not the case when it comes to a trial. The parties have to
personally appear before the Court and lead evidence and the
complainant has only benefit of recording the evidence through
GPA/SPA holder. In a case where the accused himself is not
appearing and because of instructions being not given or for any
other reason, the counsel is also not appearing, if the Amicus
Curie is appointed by the Court to defend the accused, he could
not proceed with the case without there being any instructions of
the accused and knowledge of the facts/the defence of the accused.
If the Amicus Curie is unaware of the defence of the accused
under the facts of a particular case, he is unable to proceed with
the case in effective manner. If the accused himself is not
appearing, there is no question of leading the defence evidence.
Further at a later stage, the accused may appear and if at all
something went against him in his absence, he might challenge it.
If the counsel for the accused appear at a later stage, he might
12 C.C.No.4021/2021
also challenge it. Therefore with due respect to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Sukur Ali (supra)
this Court is of the opinion that under the circumstances as
elaborated herein above the appointment of Amicus Curie in trial
is not feasible. Further the proceedings under the N.I Act are quasi
civil in nature and the object of the N.I Act is to bring back the
credibility of Negotiable Instrument which were loosing their
credibility because of lack of responsibility on the part of the
drawer and to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations
in transacting business on Negotiable Instrument in general to
bring the erring drawer to book, so that such irresponsibility is
not perpetuated, to protect the honest drawer and to safeguard the
payee who is almost a looser. Such being the case, if the accused
is allowed to abuse the process of the Court, the object of the Act
would be defeated. Further in the case of K.S Panduranga v/s
State of Karnataka, reported in 2013(3) SCC 721 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that, "regard being had to the principles
pertaining to binding precedent, there is no trace of doubt that
the principle laid down in Md. Sukar Ali (Supra) by the learned
judges that the Court should not decide a criminal case in the
absence of counsel of the accused as an accused in a criminal case
should not suffered for the fault of his counsel and the Court
should, in such a situation must appoint another counsel as
amicus curie to defend the accused and further if the counsel does
no appear deliberately, even then the Court should not decide the
appeal on merit is not in accordance with the pronouncement by
larger bench in Bani Singh." The Hon'ble Court further held that
in view of the aforesaid annunciation of law, it can safely be
13 C.C.No.4021/2021
concluded that the dictum in Md. Sukur Ali (Supra) to the effect
that the Court can not decide a criminal appeal in the absence of
counsel for the accused and that too if the counsel does not
appear deliberately or shows negligence in appearing, being
contrary to the ratio laid down by the larger bench in Bani Singh
(Supra) is per in curium. Furthermore the transaction alleged in
the case is purely a hand loan transaction between the parties and
the accused is not in judicial custody. Under such circumstances
the question of appointing counsel for the accused at the cost of
state may not arise at all. Hence, in view of the law laid down in
the case of K.S Panduranga (Supra), the case is proceeded on
merits.
14. The accused failed to cross examine PW1 and he did not
lead any defence evidence. Further the order sheet shows the
conduct of the accused in delaying the proceedings on one or the
other pretext. The accused has been given number of opportunities
for cross examination of PW1 but the accused failed to cross
examine PW1. Therefore, the cross examination of PW1 was taken
as nil. The accused did not lead the defence evidence. Therefore
the defence evidence is also taken as nil. The case was posted for
arguments. The conduct of the accused itself shows that he is
postponing the liability. If at all the accused had no liability
towards the complainant as alleged in the complaint and if at all
he had not issued the cheque in question for the said liability, he
would have promptly proceeded with the case and also he would
have lead defence evidence by taking probable defences and
proving the same by leading cogent evidence. The same has not
14 C.C.No.4021/2021
been done. He had not taken any action against the complainant
for misuse of cheque. Therefore there is nothing on record to
disbelieve the case of complainant.
15. The cheque and signature on the cheque at ExP.1 are
not disputed. The admission regarding drawer's signature on the
cheque, attracts the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in its decisions reported in 2011 (11) SCC - 441 -
Rangappa V/s.Sri.Mohan and SCC 2015 (8) Page No.378 -
T.Vasanthakumar V/s.Vijayakumari and the recent Judgment
delivered in Crl. Appeal No.508/2019 - Rohit Bhai Jeevanlal Patel
V/s.State of Gujarath and another. The ratio is that the cheque
shall be presumed to be for consideration unless and until the
court forms a belief that the consideration does not exist or
considers the non-existence of consideration was tenable that a
prudent man would under no circumstances act upon the plea that
the consideration does not exist. On perusal of Ex.P1, it clearly
show that the signature, date, the name of complainant and the
amount in words and digits are written with same ink. Further as
per Section 20 of the N.I.Act, if the person signs and delivers
Negotiable Instrument and it is left incomplete and thereby he
authorizes the holder to complete the Negotiable Instrument and
thereby he is liable for the amount mentioned in the Negotiable
Instrument. In the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Bir Singh V/s.Mukesh Kumar reported in
AIR 2019 SC 2446, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
"If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee,
towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and
15 C.C.No.4021/2021
other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque.
The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque
was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.
Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily singed and handed over by
the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract
presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheques
was not issued in discharge of a debt." Therefore there is nothing
on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2011 (11) SCC 441 held as
under;
The presumption mandated by Section 139 of N.I.Act
does indeed include the existence of legally
enforceable debt or liability. It is rebuttable
presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a
defence wherein the existence of legally enforceable
debt or liability can be contested. However there can
be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which
favours the complainant. Section 139 of the Act is an
example of reverse onus clause that has been included
in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving
the credibility of negotiable instruments.
16 C.C.No.4021/2021
Therefore the as per the presumption U/s139 of N.I.Act,
if the cheque and signature are admitted then it shall be
presumed that there is legally enforceable debt.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its latest case
of M/s. Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian reported in 2021
SCC OnLine SC 75 observed at para No.14 to 16 as under:-
14. Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a
plain reading of its Judgment that the trial Court
completely overlooked the provisions and failed to
appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under
Section 118 and Section 139 of NIA. The Statute
mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on
the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then
these 'reverse onus' clauses become operative. In such
a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to
discharge the presumption imposed upon him. This
point of law has been crystalized by this Court in
Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18
SCC 106 in the following words:
"In the case at hand, even after purportedly
drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the NI
Act, the trial Court proceeded to question the want of
evidence on the part of the complainant as regards
the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused
and want of examination of relevant witnesses who
17 C.C.No.4021/2021
allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the
accused. This approach of the Trial Court had been at
variance with the principles of presumption in law.
After such presumption, the onus shifted to the
accused and unless the accused had discharged the
onus by bringing on record such facts and
circumstances as to show the preponderance of
probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt on the
complainant's case could not have been raised for
want of evidence regarding the source of funds for
advancing loan to the appellant-accused....."
15. Once the 2nd Appellant had admitted his
signatures on the cheque and the Deed, the trial
Court ought to have presumed that the cheque was
issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt.
The trial Court fell in error when it called upon the
Complainant-Respondent to explain the circumstances
under which the appellants were liable to pay. Such
approach of the Trial Court was directly in the teeth
of the established legal position as discussed above,
and amounts to a patent error of law.
16. No doubt, and as correctly argued by
senior Counsel for the appellants, the presumptions
raised under Section 118 and Section 139 are
rebuttable in nature. As held in M.S.Narayana Menon
Vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39, which was
18 C.C.No.4021/2021
relied upon in Basalingappa (supra), a probable
defence needs to be raised, which must meet the
standard of "preponderance of probability", and not
mere possibility. These principles were also affirmed
in the case of Kumar Exports (supra), wherein it was
further held that a bare denial of passing of
consideration would not aid the case of accused.
As per the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in all the above decisions, it is clear that as per the
presumption U/s139 of N.I.Act, if the cheque and signature are
admitted then it shall be presumed that there is legally enforceable
debt. The accused has to raise a probable defence and prove it by
adducing evidence, which must meet the standard of
preponderance of probabilities. Unless the same has been done,
doubt can not be raised on the case of the complainant.
18. On perusal of the evidence, the Court has raised
presumption U/s.139 of N.I.Act in favour of the complainant as
the complainant has complied all the ingredients of 138 of N.I.Act.
The presumption would operate in favour of the complainant
unless the contrary is proved. The onus is on the accused to prove
his defence and rebut the presumption. The accused has not taken
any specific defence. If at all the cheque in question was misused
by the complainant, then the accused would have taken legal
action against the complainant which has not been done. The
accused appeared before the court and he is having the knowledge
of the proceedings at all times. Therefore the overall evidence on
19 C.C.No.4021/2021
record gave the impression that the accused issued the cheque in
favour of the complainant in respect of the transaction as averred
in the complaint.
19. For the reasons mentioned herein above, it is
crystallized that the accused has utterly failed to prove that there
was no existence of legally enforceable debt/liability between her
and the complainant and she has not at all issued the instant
cheques towards the discharge of legally enforceable debt. On the
other hand, the complainant has proved that the accused issued
the cheques for the legally enforceable debt; the cheque is
dishonored due to the reason 'funds insufficient', which attracts
the provision u/sec.138 of N.I Act and the notice issued by him
was served on the accused. The complainant proved his case
beyond reasonable doubts. The accused failed to rebut the
statutory presumptions U/s.118(a) & (b) and 139 of the N.I.Act.
Accordingly the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable
U/s.138 of the N.I.Act. Hence, I proceed to answer the Point
No.1 in Affirmative and Point No.2 in the Negative.
20. Point No.3 : In view of the reasons assigned in Point
No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
As per the provisions of Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s.138 of NI Act, 1881 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten 20 C.C.No.4021/2021 Thousand Only). On deposit of fine amount, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Five Thousand Only). The remaining balance amount of Rs.5,000/- is to be forfeited to the State.
In default of payment of the fine amount accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
The personal bond executed by the accused is hereby stands cancelled and cash surety of Rs.2,000/- deposited by the accused shall be refunded to him after appeal period is over.
The copy of the judgment shall be furnished to the a at free of cost.
(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 December-2022.) (Lokesh Dhanapal Havale) XV Addl. CMM., Bangalore.
21 C.C.No.4021/2021ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri. Paramesh Gowda Documents marked for the Complainant:-
Ex.P1 : Original cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P2 : Bank Memo
Ex.P3 : Legal notice
Ex.P4 : Postal receipt
Ex.P5 : Track consignment letter
Witnesses examined For Defence:-
NIL Documents marked for Defence:-
NIL (Lokesh Dhanapal Havale), XV Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.22 C.C.No.4021/2021
14.12.2022 (Judgment Pronounced in the Open Court Vide Separate Order sheet) ORDER As per the provisions of Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s.138 of NI Act, 1881 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Only). On deposit of fine amount, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Five Thousand Only). The remaining balance amount of Rs.5,000/- is to be forfeited to the State.
In default of payment of the fine amount accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
The personal bond executed by the accused is hereby stands cancelled and cash surety of Rs.2,000/- deposited by the accused shall be refunded to him after appeal period is over.
23 C.C.No.4021/2021The copy of the judgment shall be furnished to the a at free of cost.
XV Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.