Bangalore District Court
Smt.B.V.Lalitha vs Smt.Vasantha Harish on 19 November, 2022
1
C.C.No.6369/2017
KABC030140162017
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated : This the 19th day of November 2022.
Present: Sri.N.M. RAMESHA, B'Com.,L.L.M.
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
Case No. C.C.No
: C.C.No.6369/2017
Complainant : Smt.B.V.LALITHA,
W/o.B.A.Prakash,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.7, 1st Main Road,
Near A.P.S.College,
N.R.Colony,
Bengaluru-560 019.
(By Sri.P.G.Rajathgowda
Adv,)
V/s
Accused : Smt.Vasantha Harish
W/o.K.Harish,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at No.10,
Shankar Krupa,
Shankar Mutt Road,
Shankarpuram,
Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru-560004.
2
C.C.No.6369/2017
And also at:
Smt.Vasantha Harish
W/o.K.Harish,
Hari Nivas,
7th Cross Corner,
Vivekananda Road,
Ramamurthy Nagar,
Bangalore-560 016.
(By Sri.M.Viswanatha Reddy,
Adv.,)
Case instituted : 13.01.2015
Offence complained of : U/s 138 of N.I Act
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is Convicted
Date of order : 19-11-2022
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against the accused under the provisions of Sec.200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the Complainant is as under:-
The accused is the elder sister of complainant. The accused has approached the complainant in the month of January-2014 and requested for hand loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- for land development business. The 3 C.C.No.6369/2017 complainant was having amount with her as she had sold her site properteis. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash in the month of May 2014. The accused has promised to return the amount within five months. But the accused has failed to pay the amount within time. On demands and requests, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.055325 dated 26.11.2014 for Rs.1,25,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, Ramamurthy Nagar branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant towards the repayment of the loan amount.
3. It is further averred in the complaint that the complainant has presented the cheque for encashment before State Bank of India, Basavanagudi branch, Bengaluru. But the said cheque has been dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused vide bank endorsement dated 28.11.2014. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 22.12.2014 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within stipulated period. The legal notice has been duly served on the accused on 23.12.2014 and 24.12.2014. But in spite of service of legal notice, the accused instead of repayment of loan has issued a reply dated 31.12.2014 and failed to pay the cheque amount and 4 C.C.No.6369/2017 committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, this complaint.
4. After presentation of complaint before the XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, it was ordered to be registered as PCR No.50298/2015 vide order dated 13.01.2015.
5. The sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded and the complainant has produced documents before the Court. On considering the complaint averments, sworn statement of the complainant and documents placed on record and having satisfied with the prima-facie materials placed on record, the XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act and the criminal case was ordered to be registered in CC.No.51616/2015 and process was ordered to be issued against the accused vide order dated 20.03.2015.
6. On service of summons, the accused has appeared before the XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru through her learned counsel and obtained the bail by executing personal bond for Rs.20,000/- and by depositing a cash 5 C.C.No.6369/2017 surety of Rs.2000/- vide Q.No.1919/2015. The copies of all the prosecution papers were supplied to the accused.
7. Plea of accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act has been recorded and the substance of accusation has been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to her. The accused has pleaded not guilty, but claims to be tried.
8. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the complainant got herself examined as PW-1 vide dated 06.04.2016 and got the documents marked as per Ex.P.1 to 25.
9. It is at this stage of proceedings and when the case was set down for cross-examination of PW-1, the learned counsel for the complainant filed memo praying for transfer of the case to XVI ACMM Court, Bengaluru as the complainant had presented the cheque through State Bank of India, Basavanagudi branch, Bengaluru which comes under the jursidiction of XVI ACMM Court, Bengaluru, which was came to be accepted vide order dated 18.01.2017 and the case was ordered to be transferred from XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru to this Court in view of the presentation of cheque and amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act and the file was ordered 6 C.C.No.6369/2017 to be sent to this Court and parties were directed to appear before this Court on 08.02.2017 without expecting any Court notice to proceed with the matter and to avoid further unnecessary delay.
10. Ater transfer of case, it has been renumbered as CC.No.6369/2017 vide order dated 08.02.2017 and the complainant and accused have appeared before this Court through their respective learned counsels. The complainant has examined her sister B.V.Swetha as PW-
2. PW-1 and PW-2 were subjected for cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accsued and Exhibits D.1 to D.14 were confronted and marked through the evidence of PW-1.
11. The statement of accused as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded and the incriminating evidence as such forthcoming against the accused in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and documents has been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to her vide dated 12.09.2018. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and documents placed on record The accused did choose to enter the defence evidence.
7C.C.No.6369/2017
12. In order to substantiate her defence, the accused got herself examined as DW-1 and got the documents marked as Ex.D.15 to D.22 through her evidence. DW-1 was subjected for cross-examination by the learned counsel for the complainant.
13. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for both sides. The learned counsel for both the side have also filed detailed written arguments and also filed Memo with citations. In the light of the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for both, I have perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also gone through the principles laid in the decisions cited on behalf of both sides.
14. Now, the points that would arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.055325 dated 26.11.2014 for Rs.1,25,00,000/-drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, Ramamurthynagar branch, Bengaluru, in her favour towards the legally recoverable debt of Rs.1,25,00,000/- and on presentation of cheque for encashment before S.B.I., Basavanagudi branch, Bengaluru, it was came to be dishonured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused vide bank memo dated 28.11.2014 and in spite of issuance 8 C.C.No.6369/2017 of legal notice dated 22.12.2014 and in spite of service of legal notice on 23.12.2014 and 24.12.2014, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount, but replied the notice vide dated 31.12.2014 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act.?
2. What Order?
15. On considering and assessing the oral and documentatry evidence placed on record, now my answers to the above points are as under :
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the following :-
REASONS
16. Point No.1 : The provisions of Sec.20 of Negotiable Instrument Act deals about Inchoate Stamped Instruments. As per this provisions of law, where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accorance with the law relating to negotiable instrements then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima-facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, or any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be 9 C.C.No.6369/2017 liable upon such instruemnt, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount.
17. The provisions of Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act deals about presumptions as to neogtiable instruments. As per this provisions of law, unit 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 transfered, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for considertaion: (b) as to date: that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date; (c) as to time of acceptance- that every accepted bill of exchange was accpted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity. (d) as to time of transfer-that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before the maturity; (e) as to order of indorsement; that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they apear thereon; (f) as to stamps-that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped and (g) that holder is a holder indue course- that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course.
10C.C.No.6369/2017
18. The provisions of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act deals about dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc., of funds in the accounts. As per this provisions of law, where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or inpart, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall without prejudice to any other proviosn of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both.
19. As per the proviso attached to the above said provisions of law, nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a 11 C.C.No.6369/2017 demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing , to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid, and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
[ 20. The provisions of Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act deals about presumption in favour of holder. As per this provisions of law, it shall be presumed, unles 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, or any debt or other liability.
21. Now keeping the above said provisions of Section 20, 118, 138 and 139 of N.I.Act in mind, let us consider as to whether the complainant could able to comply all the mandates of Section 138 of N.I.Act, so as to raise or to draw a presumption in her favour as contemplated under the provisions of Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
12C.C.No.6369/2017
22. It is averred in the complaint and stated by PW-1 in her oral evidence that the accused has approached her in the month of January 2014 requesting for hand loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- for development of land business and she was having amount with her as she had sold her site properties and therefore she has paid a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash in the month of May 2014 and the accused has promised to return the amount within five months. It is further averred in the complaint and stated by PW-1 in her oral evidence that on demand and request, the accsued has issued a cheque bearing No.055325 dated 26.11.2014 for Rs.1,25,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, Ramamurthy Nagar branch, Bengaluru in her favour and therefore, she has presented the cheque for encashment before the State Bank of India, Basavanagudi branch, Bengaluru, but the said cheque has been dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused vide bank endorsement dated 28.11.2014 and therefore, she has issued a legal notice dated 22.12.2014 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount and the said notice has been duly served on the accused on 23.12.2014 and 24.12.2014, but in spite of service of legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount and 13 C.C.No.6369/2017 therefore, she has presented the complaint before the Cour.
23. The complainant has examined her sister B.V.Swetha as PW-2 who filed her affidavit in chief- examination wherein she has stated that the complainant is doing land consultancy and developer work in the name of Manjunath Land Develprs and her husband is doing Mineral Water Business in the name of Harshita Enterprises and the accused also doing land develper work and her husband is running an educational institution in the name of Vagdevi Vilas and the accused is also a trustee of Vagdevi vilas institution.
24. It is also the evidence of PW-2 that the complainant and accused were residing at Ramamurthy nagar from 2002 to 2014 and she used to visit the house of complainant and accused and there was a family dispute between the accused and her husband in the month of November 2013 and therefore, she left her house and started residing with complainant till March 2014 in a rented house at N.R.Colony. The accused had approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- for improvement of land business and the complainant has paid the loan at three different occasions in her presence to the accused. The accused 14 C.C.No.6369/2017 has promised to return the amount within five months. The accused has issued cheque which was came to be dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused and therefore, the complainant had issued a legal notice which was served on the accused, but in spite of service of legal notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount and in turn the accused had lodged a false complaint against the complainant before the Shankarapuram Police Station, which is registered in Crime No.84/2014 and the police after enquiry had filed 'B' report.
25. The complainant has produced the cheque dated 26.11.2014, bank endorsement dated 28.11.2014, legal notice dated 22.12.2014, postal receipts dated 22.12.2014, postal acknowledgement, reply notice dated 31.12.2014, Indian Income Tax returns Verification Form for the assessment year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015- 16, statement of accounts, certified copies of sale deeds dated 02.05.2012, 18.07.2013, 25.11.2013, 19.11.2013 and 29.11.2013, passbooks relates to SBI, HDFC Bank Ltd, final report, Income Tax Returns for the year 2010- 11 and 2011-12, certificate U/s.65-B of Indian Evidence Act, Registration Certificate of Establishment and they are marked at Ex.P.1 to P.25.
15C.C.No.6369/2017
26. It is pertinent to note here that the accused neither disputed the fact that the cheque in question belongs to her and drawn the same in an account maintained by her from her banker and the signature on the cheque including the address mentioned in the legal notice. In fact, there is no specific suggestions to PW-1 and 2 to deny either the cheque in question belongs to the accused and drawn the same on an account maintained by the accused in her banker or the signature on the cheque in question or presentation of the cheque for encashment or dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused or issuance of legal notice or service of legal notice.
27. Be that as it may, DW-1 who is the accused in her entire evidence has not specifically denied the fact that the cheque belongs to her and drawn by her in an account maintained by her in her banker or the signature on the cheque or presentation of cheque for encashment or dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds in her account or address mentioned in the legal notice. But, on the other hand, DW-1 being the accused has admitted that the cheque in dispute is belongs to her and the signature on the cheque is as 16 C.C.No.6369/2017 that of her signature and the address mentioned in the notice vide Ex.P.3 is belongs to her. It is also forthcoming in the evidence of DW-1 that she has received the intimation from the bank in respect of dishonour of cheque vide dated 27.11.2013 and the complainant has filled cheque with her consent and the cheque belongs to her account.
28. From these materials placed on record, it is clear that the accused by necessary implications has admitted that the cheque belongs to her and her signature on the cheque and the address mentioned in the legal notice. However, on careful perusal of complaint averments, oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.25, it clearly establishes that the cheque in question vide Ex.P.1 is belongs to accused and drawn by the accused on an account maintained by her in her banker and the signature found in Ex.P.1 is also as that of the accused.
29. The materials placed on record would indicate that the complainant has presented the cheque for encashment before State Bank of India, Basavanagudi branch, Bengaluru, which was came to be dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused vide bank endorsement 28.11.2014 as per 17 C.C.No.6369/2017 Ex.P.2 and therefore, the complainant got issued a legal notice vide Ex.P.3 dated 22.12.2014 which has been duly served on the accused on 23.12.2014 and 24.12.2014 as per Ex.P.6 and P.7. In spite of service of legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount and hence, the complainant has presented the complaint before the Court on 13.01.2015.
30. It is pertinent to note here that the cheque vide Ex.P.1 is dated 26.11.2014. It was presented before the Bank for encashment within its validity and the complainant has issued a legal notice on 22.12.2014 within the stipulated period from the date of receipt of bank memo and the said notice has been duly served on the accused and in fact the accused has issued the reply notice. Since the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount, the complainant has presented the complaint before the Court on 13.01.2015 which is well within the time.
31. So, it is crystal clear that the complainant has complied all the mandates of Section 138 of N.I.Act by adducing oral evidence of PW-1 and 2 and by producing the evidence of documentary evidence Ex.P.1 to P.25. The accused has not seriously disputed the cheque and also her signature on the cheque including address 18 C.C.No.6369/2017 mentioned in the legal notice. Therefore, the presumption is in favour of the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act. Under these circumstances, when once the complainant has fulfilled the mandates of Section 138 of N.I.Act, then this Court has no option but to raise a presumption in favour of the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
32. Admittedly, the presumptions available in favour of the complainant under the provisions of Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act, are not conclusive proof, but they are rebuttable in nature. Therefore, when once the complainant has fulfilled the mandates of Section 138 of N.I.Act and when once the Court has drawn the presumption in favour of the complainant, then the onus shifts on the accused to rebut the statutory presumption available to the complainant under the provisions of Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
33. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued with force that the complainant has fulfilled all the mandates of Section 138 of N.I.Act by adducing oral evidence of PW-1 and 2 and by producing Ex.P.1 to P.25 which clearly establishes that the accused being the elder sister of complainant has approached the complainant in the month of January 2014 and 19 C.C.No.6369/2017 requested for loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- for improvement of land business and the complainant was having sufficient source of income as she had sold her site properties and therefore, she has paid hand loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash in the month of May 2014 and the accused has promised to repay the amount within five months.
34. It is further contended that the materials on record clearly establishes that the accused has failed to pay the loan amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- within 5 months and on demand and request, the accused has issued a cheque vide Ex.P.1 towards legally recoverable debt of Rs.1,25,00,000/- in favour of the complainant and on presentation of cheque for encashment, it was came to be dishonoured vide bank memo at Ex.P.2 for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused and therefore, the complainant got issued a legal notice vide Ex.P.3 within stipulated time from the date of receipt of bank endorsmeent which has been duly served on the accused vide Ex.P.6 and P.7, but in spite of service of legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount, but given an untenable reply and therefore, the complainant has presented the complaint before the Court within time and therefore, the 20 C.C.No.6369/2017 presumption is in favour of the complainant under the provisions of Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
35. It is further contended that the accused neither disputed the issuance of cheque nor her signature on the cheque or presentation of cheque for encashment or dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds in the account or issuance of legal notice or service of legal notice. The documents at Ex.P.9 to P.20, 22 to 25 being the Income Tax returns, bank statement of account, sale deeds and passbooks clearly establishes that the complainant had sold her properties for valuable consideration and therefore, she was that much of amount Rs.1,25,00,000/- and therefore, she had financial capacity to lend the loan to the accused and therefore, the complainant has proved the financial capacity to lend the loan to the accused.
36. It is further contended that the accused had taken a defence that since there was a dispute between her and her husband, she left the house and living with complainant and doing land development business and the complainant was looking after all the transaction including bank transaction and auditing and the accused was looking after the administration of Vagdevi Institution situated at Malasia and in those days, she 21 C.C.No.6369/2017 kept 4 to 5 signed cheques along with keys and went to Malasia in the month of August 2014 and she returned to India in the month of November 2014 and came to know that the cheques were misplaced and stolen and therefore, she has given Stop Payment instructions to the bank in respect of cheque bearing No.055325 and other cheques and she received a mobile message on 27.11.2014 to the effect that the cheque in question dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in her account in respect of cheque amount Rs.1,25,00,000/- and came to know that the cheque was presented by the complainant and therefore, she has lodged a complaint before Shankarpuram P.S. against the complainant and the police have registered the case against the complainant and arrested the complainant and she was in judicial custody for 3 days, but she has not availed loan from the complainant and has not issued cheque in question towards the legally recoverable debt. But the accused neither examined independent witness before the Court nor produced any cogent documentry proof to substantiate her defence. The oral evidence of DW-1 and the documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 to D.22 do not establish the defence taken by the accused.
22C.C.No.6369/2017
37. It is further contended that the accused has not lodged any complaint at the earliest point of time in respect of theft of cheques and also misuse of cheque by the complainant, but it is after dishonour of cheque and issuance of notice, the accused has lodged the complaint against complainant at the belated stage so as to avoid payment of cheque amount and therefore, the accused has failed to raise a probable defence and faield to prove the same before the Court and thereby failed to rebut the statutory presumption available in favour of the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act and therefore, the accused is liable for conviction and liable to pay the cheque amount as per Section 138 of N.I.Act.
38. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl. MC.No.1792/19 in between Oriental Bank of Commerce V/s.Prabodh Kumar Tiwari, wherein, while dealing with the provisions of Section 138 of N.I.Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Section 20, 87 and 139 of N.I.Act makes it amply clear that a person who sign a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces the evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had not been issued for payment of debt or in discharge of a 23 C.C.No.6369/2017 liability. It is immeterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid the penal provisions of Section 138 of N.I.Act would be attracted.
39. The learnred counsel for the complainant has also relied upon a decision reported in AIR 2019 SC 2446 in between Beersingh Vs. Mukesh Kumar, wherein while dealing with the provisions of Section 139 of N.I.Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pleased to held that the provisions of Section 139 of N.I.Act, raises a presumption as to the existence of legally recoverable debt.
40. The learned counsel for the complainant has also relied upon a decision reported in (2019) 10 SCC 287 in between Uttamram Vs.Devinder Singh Huda, wherein while dealing with the provisions of Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pleased to held that the presumption mandated of Section 139 does indeed raises existence of a legally debt or liability and the burden of rebuttable of presumption is on the accused.
24C.C.No.6369/2017
41. The learned counsel for the complainant has also relied upon a decision reported in 2003 2 DCR 610 in between Lilly Kutty Vs.Lawrence, wherein while dealing with the provisions of Section 138 of N.I.Act, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has pleased to held if any amount is due to the payee from the drawer of the cheque and that amount is shown in the cheque which is admitttedly signed by the drawer, the presumption could be drawn that the cheque has been validly issued. An implied consent can be presumed in a situation. Once a cheque is drawn by a person on an account maintained by the Bank and is returned with the endorsement," funds insufficient" it amoutns to dishonour within meaning of Section 138 of N.I.Act.
42. The learned counsel for the complainant has also relied upon a Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Appeal No.176/2011 in between Sri.G.L.Jagadish Vs.Smt.Vasantha Kokila, wherein, while dealing with the provisions of Section 138 of N.I.Act, the Honble High Court of Karnataka has pleased to held that when the inconsistencies regarding the amount due, not made out, as amount due stood crystalized in written document against which the cheque in question was issued. The defence that 25 C.C.No.6369/2017 cheqeue book was lost/stolen or that cheque was misused was completely without basis.
43. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused has vehemently contended that the oral evidence of PW-1 and the documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.25 do not establish the mandates of Section 138 of N.I.Act and therefore, the presumption is not in favour of the complainant under the provisions of Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. The complainant has failed to prove that she was having that much of capacity to lend hand loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to the accused. The documents at Ex.P.9 to P.20 and 22 to 25 do not establish that the complainant was having that much of amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- so as to lend the same to the accused. But, on the other hand, the documents at Ex.P.9 to P.20 and 22 to 25 would indicate that the complainant had sold properties in the year 2010 and there was no materials to show that the complainant had sold the properties as on the year of 2014 when the alleged loan was given to the accused and therefore, those transactions will not come in the way of complainant to establish the case against accused.
26C.C.No.6369/2017
44. It is further contended that the oral evidence adduced and documents produced by the complainant do not establish that the accused has approached her at any point of time to seek hand loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. Even the bank statements produced by the complainant do not indicate that she was having balance of Rs.1,25,00,000/- as on thte date of lending of loan to the accused. But the passbooks produced by the complainant would indicate that the complainant was having meagre balance in her account and therefore, the question of lending that much of loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/-to the accused does not arise.
45. It is further contended that on the other hand, the oral evidence of DW-1 coupled with documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 to D.22 clearly establishes that there was a family dispute between the accused and her husband in the year 2013 and therefore, she left the house and started residing along with complaiannt and the complainant was looking after bank transaction and all the transactions of the accused including auditing and the accused was looking after the Vagdevi Institution situated at Malasia and therefore, she signed 4 to 5 cheques and kept the same in house and went to Malasia in the month of April 2014 and returend to India in the year 2014 and came to know that the 27 C.C.No.6369/2017 cheqeus were misplaced and stolen by the complainant and therefore, she has given stop payment instructions to the Bank and she has recived bank endorsement that it is who the complainant herself presented the cheque for encashment and accordingly, the accused lodged a complaint before the Shankarapuram Police Station who have registered the case against the complainant and also arrested and she was in judicial custody for 3 days. The accused neither availed loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- nor issued cheque in question to the complainant at any point time, but it was stolen by complainant.
46. It is further contended that the oral evidence of DW-1 is very much consistent and inconformity with probable defence taken by the accused and inconformity with documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 to D.22 which falsify the case made out by the complaianant including the oral evidence of PW-1 and documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.25. The evidence adduced by the accused clearly establishes the defence taken by the accused and rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant Under the provisions of Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act and therefore, the accused is entitled to an order of acquittal.
28C.C.No.6369/2017
47. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the accused has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supre Court of India in Crl. Appeal No.2045/2018 in between M/s.Kumar Exports Vs.Sharma Carpets, wherein while dealing with the provisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court has pleased to held that the accused in a trial U/s.138 of N.I.Act has to two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions an the accused is not accepted to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal case. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him.
48. The learned counsel for the accused has also relied upon a decision reported in 2020 (2) SCC 320 in between APS Forex Services Pvt Ltd.,V/s.Shakti International linkers and others, wherein while dealing with the provisions of Section 138 of N.I.Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pleased to held that 29 C.C.No.6369/2017 applying definition of the word proved in Section 3 of the Evidence Act to the provisions of Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act, it becomes evident that in a particularly U/s.Section 138 of the N.I.Act, a presumption will have to be made that every Negotiable Instruments was so made or draw for consideration and that it was executed for discharge of debt or liability once the execution of Negotiable Instrument is either prove or admited. A pesumption will live exist and survive and it end only with contrary is proved by the accused that the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability a presumption is not in itself evidence, but only makes a prima-facie for a burden for whose if it exists.
49. The learned counsel for the accused has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl. Appeal NO.2043/2013 in between John K.Abraham Vs.Simon C Abraham and another, wherein while dealing with the provisions of Section 138 of N.I.Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has pleased to held that it has to be stated that in order to draw the presumption U/s.118 read with along with the Section 139 of N.I.ACt., the burden was heavily upon the complainant to have shown that he required funds for financial advanced money to the accused; that 30 C.C.No.6369/2017 the issuance of cheque in support of the said amount advanced was true and that the accused bound to make payment as had been agreed while issuing cheque in favour of the complainant.
50. Now, keeping the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for both the side and the principles laid down in the decisions cited on behalf of both sides including the provision of Section 20, 118, 138 and 139 of N.I.Act in mind, let us consider as to whether the accused could able to substantiate her probable defence before the Court or whether the accused could able to rebut the statutory presumption available in favour of the complainant Under the provisions of Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
51. It is the evidence of DW-1 before the Court that there was a dispute between her and her husband in the year 2013 in respect of transaction and therefore, she left the house and started residing with complainant at Ramamurthy nagar in a rented house and she was doing land develper work and the compainant being her sister was working as a Personal Assistant and also doing transaction including bank transactions and auditing and she was looking after the Vagdevi Institution situated at Malasia and she signed 4 to 5 31 C.C.No.6369/2017 cheques and kept the same in the house and handed over the key to the complainant.
52. It is the further evidence of DW-1 that since from April 2014, she and her son started residing in a rented house at Shankarapuram and the complainant used to visit her house and was looking after her entire transactions. In the month of August 2014, she went to Malasia to lookafter her educational institution and she returend to India in the month of November 2014 and she came to know that the said cheques were stolen and therefore, she has given Stop payment instructions to the bank with respect to cheque bearing No.055325 and other cheques. On 27.11.2014, she has received a message over a mobile phone that the cheque bearing No.055325 was came to be dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in her account and therefore, she has visited the Bank and on enquiry, she came to know that the complainant herself presented the cheque for encashment and therefore, on the next day, she has lodged a complaint before the Shankarapuram Police Station and they have registered a case against the complainant and arrested the complainant who was in judicial custody for 3 days. It is the further evidence of DW-1 that she has not availed any loan from the 32 C.C.No.6369/2017 complainant and also not issued any cheque in favour of the complainant towards the repayment of loan.
53. The accused has produced the record slips, blank cheques, Certified copies of the complaint, FIR, remand application, stop payment letters, bank statements, Certified copy of the order passed in Cr.R.P.No.47/2017, FIR in Crime No.45/2014 of Varthur Police Station, charge-sheet copy, Affidavit, Income Tax Returns for the year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, Form No.'C' and they are marked as per Ex.D.1 to D.22.
54. From the oral evidence of DW-1 and the documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 to D.22, it is crystal clear that the accused has taken a defence that she has not availed any loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- or issued any cheque in favour of the complainant for legally recoverable debt, but the complainant has stolen the cheque and misused the cheque by filing the false complaint.
[ 55. But, though the accused has taken this bald contention, same has not been amplified before the Court in any manner. The accused neither adduced the oral evidence of independent witnesses nor produced any cogent documentary evidence or elicited anything in 33 C.C.No.6369/2017 the evidence of PW-1 and 2 either to substantiate her probable defence or to falsify the case made out by the complaiannt or to falsify the oral evidence of PW-1 and 2 or to falsify the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.25 or to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the complainant under the provisions of Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
56. No doubt, it is suggested to PW-1 that she was looking after the entire transaction of accused when she had been to Malasia; that the accused had handed over the keys of cupboard and documents to her custody; that the accused had handed over the blank signed cheques to her to took after the transaction; that she was looking after the maintenance of the house; that the contents of the cheque in dispute is in her handwriting; that she has not shown the amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- as the amount due from the accused in her Income Tax returns concerning to the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2015 and that she was managing the business and personal work of the accused.
57. It is further suggested to P.W.1 that she was maintaing the diaries as per Ex.D.9 to D.11; that the accused used to hand over signed blank cheques to her so as to use them during the time of emergency; that after registration of the criminal case, she started having 34 C.C.No.6369/2017 ill-will against the accused; that the sale deeds at Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.16 are no way concerned to the transaction in question; that the accused neither sought for any financial assistance nor did she had any such financial capacity in the form of cash in hand to lend any loan to the accused; that she has stolen the cheques of the accused; that she has filed the false case agianst accused; that there is no entries in her bank passbook at Ex.P.17 to 20 to show that she has withdrawn the amount from her account to lend the loan to the accused.
58. It is also suggested to PW-2 that at the instance of complainant, she came to Court to depose evidence; that the facts narrated in her affidavit are all false and that though she do not know anything in this case, she is deposing false evidence befodre the Court against the accused. But all these material suggestions have been specifically denied by PW-1 and 2. Therefodre, it is said that the denied suggestions are always remained as suggestions only and not come in the way of accused either to substantiate her probable defence or to rebut the statutory presumption available in favour of the complainant under the provisions of Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act or to falsify the case made out by the complainant or to falsify the oral 35 C.C.No.6369/2017 evidence of PW-1 and 2 or to falsify the documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.25.
59. However, there is no material suggestions to PW-1 and 2 either to deny the fact that the cheque in question belongs to accused and drawn the same in her account maintained by her in the Bank or to deny the signature of the accused on the cheque or to deny the presentation of cheque or to deny the dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused or to deny the issuance of legal notice or to deny the services of legal notice.
60. On the other hand, it is forthcoming in the evidence of PW-1 that she was residing with accused only from 26.11.2013 to March 2014 and thereafter started residing along with her son. It is also forthcoming in the evidence of PW-1 that she was getting income of Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1 lakh per month and her husband was getting montly income of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and she has shown the amount due from the accused as Rs.1,22,00,000/- odd in her income Tax returns concerning the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 and 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015.
36C.C.No.6369/2017
61. No doubt, PW-1 has admitted the record slips, its contents and entries, blank cheques bearing No.055318 and 152564, e-mail attachments, complaint, FIR, remand application, stop payment letter, bank statement, orders passed on Cr.R.P.47/2017, FIR in Crime No.45/2014 and charge sheet and they are marked at Ex.D.1 to D.14 during the evidence of PW-1. But, merely on the basis of these admissions made by PW-1 in respect of documents at Ex.D.1 to D.14, it cannot be come to the conclusion or inferred that the accused has substantiated her probable defence and falsify the case made out by the complainant. Because, it is forthcoming in the evidence of PW-1 at the instance of accused only, she has filled the record slip and cheques and they were in the custody of the accused.
62. Though, the accused has contended and stated in her chief-examination that the complainant has stolen the cheques and misused the cheques by filing complaint and she has not availed any loan and also not issued the cheque in question towards the legally recoverable debt, but during her cross- examination, DW-1 has stated that she was in India when she had received the message from the bank on 27.11.2014 with respect to dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds in her account. as admitted by DW-1, 37 C.C.No.6369/2017 she had been to Malasia in the month of August 2014 for 10 days and in the month of November 2014 for 10 days only and she has issued the stop payment instructions only on 26.11.2014 and she has received the message with respect to dishonour of cheque on 27.11.2014.
63. It is also admitted by DW-1 that the police have filed 'B' report in respect of complaint lodged by her against the complainant in Crime No.84/2014 and one Vallabaneni Chakrapani had lodged a complaint vide Ex.P.14. It is also admitted by DW-1 that the complainant is the owner of Varthur village Sy.No.121/1 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas and she has sold the said property to Krishnamurthy and she and her husband are the trustees of Vagdevi Schools and she had no impediments to produce the bank statements for 2013- 14 and she do not know to whom she has issued the cheques and also number of cheques.
64. It is also admitted by DW-1 that the cheque in question is belongs to her and her signature finds a place on the cheque and the address mentioned in the Ex.P.3 are correct and the complainant is also running business under the name of Sri. Manjunatha Land Developers and conducting the real estate business in 38 C.C.No.6369/2017 the said name and the husband of the complainant is also doing water business under the name and style of Harshita Engineers and there are four workers doing work in Manjunatha Land Deveopers and nearly 650 workers are doing the work at Vagdevi Schools.
65. It is also forthcoming in the evidence of DW-1 that she do not have any documents to show that the complainant was working as Secretary with her at any point of time and she was looking after entire business of the company including financial transactions and the Chartered accountant was looking after entire transaction of her company and she was aware about the cheque issued on behalf of company and she was holding entire powers of the company for the year 2014.
66. It is also admitted by DW-1 that the transaction with respect to cheque No. 055320 vide Ex.D.11 and cheque No.055321 was taken place on 06.01.2014 and she is aware about the transaction of all the cheques and she is aware as to whom she has issued the cheque in the year 2014 and she has verified the documents at Ex.D.1(a) to D.1(d) and the cheque in dispute also finds a place in Ex.D.1. So, it is crystal clear that the accused was aware about the issuance of cheque to the complainant for Rs.1,25,00,000/-.
39C.C.No.6369/2017
67. It is pertinent to note here that at one point of time, the accused has stated that she has lodged a complaint as she had handed over the cheque to the complainant. But, at another point of time, the accused has contended that since the complaianant did not return the cheque, she has lodged a complaint. But, at another point of time, the accused has stated that she has lodged a complaint as she did not find the cheques in her house and the handwriting of Ex.P.1 is in her handwriting and as per her instance, the complainant has filled up the cheque. So, it is crystal clear that the accused has given an authority to the complainant to fill up the cheque and therefore, the provisions of Section 20 of N.I.Act come to the aid of complainant and therefore, the accused cannot dispute the contents of the cheque in question.
68. Even according to accused and it is also admitted by DW-1 that Ex.P.1 was not a stolen cheque, but she herself given the cheque to the complainant and she is aware about 'B' report submitted by the police at Ex.D.21 wherein it is stated that she has not produced any documents to show that the complainant has stolen the cheque and also not produced any witnesses in this regard and she has not produced any documents to show that the complainant was working with her and 40 C.C.No.6369/2017 her mother and sister B.M.Swetha visited the police station and given statement before the Police that the complainant has paid the loan to the accused.
69. Even according to DW-1 that she has issued the cheque in question to the complainant when she was going to Malasia, but in her complaint, she has stated that the complainant has stolen the cheques and she has not narrated these facts in the notice and complaint and also not taken any steps against the complainant. All these facts admitted by DW-1 would indicate that the accused is aware about the loan transaction and issuance of cheque to the complainant towards the legally recoverable debt of Rs.1,25,00,000/-.
70. It is pertinent to note here that the accused all the while has contended that the complainant had no financial capacity to lend that much of amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- and she has not issued the cheque in question. But the complainant has produced the Income Tax returns, Bank statements, sale deeds and they are marked at Ex.P.9 to P.20 and 22 to P.25 which clearly establishes that the complainant has sold her properties under the registered sale deeds vide Ex.P.12 to P.16 and she was having sufficient source of income so as to lend the loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to the accused. In fact, the 41 C.C.No.6369/2017 accused has not seriously disputed the genuineness, authenticity and validity of these sale deeds vide Ex.P.12 to P.16. So, it is crystal clear from the documents at Ex.P.12 to 16, the complainant had sold her properties and was in financial capacity so as to lend the loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to the accused.
71. As could be seen from the documents at Ex.P.9 to P.11, 17 to P.20 and 22 to 25, the complainant was running land development business and she has earned sufficient income and therefore, she has been filing Income Tax returns commencing from 2010-11 till date of lending of loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to the accused. These documents at Ex.P.9 to P.11, 17 to 20 and 22 to 25 clearly establishes the source of income of the complainant. It is important to note here that the complainant has declared the lending of loan to the accused and also due from the accused and it is mentioned in the Income Tax Returns submitted by the complainant and the complainant also having bank account in SBI, HDFC and other banks and was having sufficient source of income so as to lend the loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to the accused.
42C.C.No.6369/2017
72. The accused has not placed any materials to doubt the genuineness, authenticity and validity of documents at Ex.P.9 to 20 and P.22 to P.25 with respect to source of income of the complainant and lending of loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- including due from the accused as on the date of issuance of cheque. Therefore, based on the documents at Ex.P.9 to P.20 and 22 to 25, it can be safely held that the complainant was having sufficient source of income from the land development business and also sale of properties and therefore, she has lend the loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to the accused.
73. No doubt, the accused has produced the record slips, blank cheques, e-mail attachments, certified copies of FIR, remand application, stop payment letters, bank statements, certified copy of the orders passed in Criminal Petition No.47/2017, FIR in crime No.45/2014, charge sheet, affidavit, Income Tax returns for the year 2012-13 to 2014-15 and Form C and they are makred at Ex.D.1 to D.22. It is also no doubt true that the documents at Ex.D.1 to 14 were contronted to PW-1 and they were marked through the evidence of PW-1 and the remaining documents at ex.D.15 to 22 were marked through the evidence of DW-1.
43C.C.No.6369/2017
74. But, it is forthcoming in the evidence placed on record that it is at the instance of accused only, PW-1 who is the complainant has filled the contents of the documents at Ex.D.1 to D.6. The materials on record would clearly indicate that the accused had kept on changing her version from stage to stage and thereby laid on the material facts before the Court with respect to loan transaction and also issuance of cheque in question to the complainant towards legally recoverable debt. Under these circumstances, the defence taken by the accused is not sustainable under law and the documents at Ex.D.1 to D.22 do not come in the way of accused either to substantiate her probable defence or to falsify the case made out by the complainant or to rebut statutory presumption available in favour of the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
75. On appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record, it is found that the accused has issued the cheque in question vide Ex.P.1 to the complainant towards the legally recoverable debt of Rs.1,25,00,000/- and on presentation of cheque for encashment, it was came to be dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused and therefore, the complainant has issued a legal notice calling upon the accused to pay 44 C.C.No.6369/2017 the cheque amount within stipulated time and the said notice has been duly served on the accused and inspite of legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant has presented the complaint before the Court on 13.01.2015 which was well within time and the complainant has fulfilled the mandates of Section 138 of N.I.Act and hence, the presumption is in favour of the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
76. The materials on record further establishes that the complainant was running the land development business under the name and style of Sri Manjunatha Land Developers and was getting sufficient source of income and therefore, she has been submitting Income Tax returns wherein she has declared the lending of loan to the accused and also due from the accused. If really the complainant had stolen the cheque in question and misused the same by filing the complaint and if really the accused had not availed any loan from the complainant, then the accused could have definitely given stop payment instructions at the earliest point of time and she need not wait till 26.11.2014 and till presentation of cheque and dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds in her account. But, she has not 45 C.C.No.6369/2017 done so. No explanation as such forthcoming in this regard in the evidence of D.W.1.
77. It is pertinent to note here that though the accused had issued stop payment instructions, the cheque was not dishonoured with endorsement as "Stop Payment Instructions". But, on the other hand, the cheque in question was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. The accused has not disputed the issuance of cheque and also the signature on the cheque including service of legal notice. It is well settled position of law that when once the accused has admitted the issuance of cheque and her signature on the cheque including service of legal notice, then the presumption U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act are in favour of the complainant.
78. It is for the accused to rebut the statutory presumption with legal evidence before the Court. But the accused has failed to substantiate her probable defence and thereby failed to rebut the statutory presumption availalbe in favour of the complainant under the provisions of Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. On the other hand, the oral evidence of PW-1 and 2 and the documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to 25 clearly 46 C.C.No.6369/2017 establishes the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act.
79. Under these circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that the accused had not availed any loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- from the complainant at any point of time and also not issued the cheque in question to the complainant for legally recoverable debt at any point of time, but the complainant who was working with the accused had stolen the cheque in question which was kept in the house for emergency purpose when the accused had been to Malasia and get it bounced and filed the false complaint by misusing the cheque and the accused raised a probable defence and proved the same before the Court through the evidence of DW-1 and the documents at Ex.D.1 to D.22 and therefore, the accused is not liable to pay the cheque amount to the complainant is not sustainable under law and therefore, cannot be accepted and the decisions in this regard are also not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
80. But, on the other hand, there is some legal force in the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant has fulfilled all the 47 C.C.No.6369/2017 mandates of Section 138 of N.I.Act by adduing oral evidence of PW-1 and 2 and also by producing documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.25 which clearly establishes the loan transaction of Rs.1,25,00,000/- between the complainant and accused and also issuance of cheque in question towards legally recoverable debt and also presentation of cheque and dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused and also service of notice and therefore, the presumption is in favour of the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act, but the accused has faield to raise a probable defence and failed to prove the same before the Court and the oral evidence of DW-1 and documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 to D.22 do not establish the probable defence taken by the accused and therefore, the accused is liable for conviction and also liable for payment of cheque amount as per Section 138 of N.I.Act and the decisions cited in this regard are also applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
81. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the materials placed on record clearly establishes the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, I hod that the complainant has proved the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 48 C.C.No.6369/2017 of N.I.Act. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
82. POINT. No.2:- The provisions of Section 138 of N.I.Act provides punishment for imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or with both. In the present case, the complainant and accused are none other than the own sisters. The transaction was taken place in the year 2014 and the accused has issued the cheque on 26.11.2014. The complainant and the accused were doing land development business and were known to each other and the accused has availed loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- for improving of the land development business. Therefore, considering the nature of loan and facts and circumstances of the case and regard being had to the time taken for disposal of the case, this Court is of the considered view that if the following sentence is awarded, then it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, in view of my findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORD ER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.49
C.C.No.6369/2017 Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,30,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakhs Only), in default of fine amount, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
Out of the fine amount collected from the accused, an amount of Rs.1,29,50,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining fine of Rs.50,000/- shall be adjusted towards the cost of state expenses.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall be in force till the appeal period is over as contemplated under the provisions of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The cash surety of Rs.2,000/-
deposited by the accused vide Q.No.1919/2015 dated 30.09.2015 shall be refunded to the accused after appeal period is over with due identification.
Office to supply the copy of the Judgement to the accused forthwith at free of cost.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, print out taken by him, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th November 2022).
(N.M.RAMESHA) XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.50
C.C.No.6369/2017 ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant:-
P.W.1 : B.V.Latha. P.W.2 : B.V.Swetha.
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque. Ex.P.1(a) : Signatures of the Accused. Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo. Ex.P.3 : Office copy of Legal Notice. Ex.P.4 & P.5 Postal Receipts. Ex.P.6 & P.7 Postal Acknowledgements. Ex.P.8 : Reply. Ex.P.9 : Income Tax Returns. Ex.P.10 & 11 : Statement of Accounts Ex.P.12 to 16 : Sale Deeds. Ex.P.17 to 20 : Bank Passbooks. Ex.P.21 : F.I.R. Ex.P.22 & 23 : Income Tax Returns. Ex.P.24 : Certificate U/s.65-B of I.E.A. Ex.P.25 : Registration Certificate of Establishment.
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused:-
DW-1 : Smt.Vasantha Harish.
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Record Slip.
Ex.D.1(a) : Entry Dt.3.6.13- Ch No.055302
Ex.D.1(b) : Entry Dt.3.6.13- Ch No.055302
51
C.C.No.6369/2017
Ex.D.1(c) : Entry Dt.3.7.13- Ch No.055304 Ex.D.1(d) : Entry Dt.6.8.13- Ch No.055306 Ex.D.1(e) : Entry Dt.13.8.13 Ch No.055311 Ex.D.1(f) : Entry Dt.05.9.13 Ch.No.055312 Ex.D.1(g) : Entry Dt.05.9.13 Ch.No.055313 Ex.D.1(h) : Entry Dt.5.09.13 Ch.No.055314 Ex.D.1(i) : Entry Dt.5.10.13 Ch.No.055315 Ex.D.1(j) : Entry Dt.5.10.13 Ch.No.055316 Ex.D.1(k) : Entry Dt.5.10.13 Ch.No.055317 Ex.D.1(l) : Entry of Ch.No.055318 Ex.D.1(m) : Entry Dt.5.10.13 Ch.No.055319 Ex.D.1(n) : Entry Dt.6.01.14 Ch.No.055320 Ex.D.1(o) : Entry DT.6.01.14 Ch.No.055321 Ex.D.2 : Blank cheque No.055318 Ex.D.3 : Record Slip.
Ex.D.3(a) : Entry Dt.10.2.10 Ch.No.152527 Ex.D.3(b) : Entry Dt.10.2.10 Ch.No.152528 Ex.D.3(c) : Entry Dt.10.2.10 Ch.No.152529 Ex.D.3(d) : Entry Dt.10.2.10 Ch.No.152530 Ex.D.3(e) : Entry Dt.10.2.10 Ch.No.152532 Ex.D.4 : Original Cheque No.152564 Ex.D.5 : Record Slip.
Ex.D.5(a) : Entry Dt.16.12.12.
Ex.D.5(b) : Cheque No.631328 Ex.D.5(c) : Entry Dt.11.2.13 Ch No.631329 Ex.D.5(d) : Entry Dt.11.2.13 Ch No.631330 Ex.D.5(c) : Entry Dt.11.2.13 Ch No.631331 Ex.D.5(f) : Entry Dt.13.2.13 Ch No.631332 52 C.C.No.6369/2017 Ex.D.5(g) : Entry Dt.13.2.13 Ch No.631333 Ex.D.5(h) : Entry Dt.13.2.13 Ch No.631334 Ex.D.5(i) : Entry Dt.28.3.13 Ch.No.631336 Ex.D.5(j) : Entry Dt.28.3.13 Ch No.631337 Ex.D.6 : Original cheque.
Ex.D.1(p) : Relevant Entry Dt.9.6.14 to 03.7.14 Ex.N1 : e-mail Ex.N1(a) : e-mail attachment.
Ex.D.7 to D.9 : Complaint, FIR and Remand Application Ex.D.10 : Stop Payment Letter Ex.D.11 : Bank Statement Ex.D.12 : Cr.R.P.No.47/17 Ex.D.13 : Cr.No.45/14 Ex.D.14 : Chargesheet.
Ex.D.15 to 17 : Bank Statements.
Ex.D.18 : Affidavit.
Ex.D.19 & 20 : ITR 2012-13 and 2013-14
Ex.D.21 : ITR 2014-15
Ex.D.22 : Form 'C'
(N.M.RAMESHA)
*mbh* XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
53
C.C.No.6369/2017