Bangalore District Court
Dr. Shivakumar.M vs Vijaya Kumar. V. R on 9 April, 2025
1
CC.No. 33496/2021
KABC030880712021
IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 09th day of April, 2025.
:Present:
Smt. PREETH. J., B.A.(L)., LLB.,
XII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore.
CC.No.33496/2021
1 Name of the : Dr.Shivakumar.M.,
Complainant S/o. Late Mani,
.
Aged about 46 years,
R/at: No.61,
9th Cross, 5th Main Road,
R.C.-Agrahara,
Chamarajpet,
Bangalore-560018.
(By Sri.N.S., Advocate)
2 Name of the Sri.Vijaya Kumar.V.R.,
Accused S/o. Late. Venkatesh Reddy,
.
Aged about 38 years,
R/at: No.1669, 18th Main,
41st Cross,
4th ' T' Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-560041.
And also at:
Sri. Vijaya Kumar.V.R.,
S/o. Late. Venkatesh Reddy,
Aged about 38 years,
No.16, 37th Cross,
2
CC.No. 33496/2021
14th Main, 4th 'T' block,
Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560041.
(By Sri.K.N, Advocate)
3. The date of commission of : 15.11.2021
the offence
4. The offence complained of : Under Section 138 of the
or proves Negotiable Instrument
Act.
5. Plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination
6. Final Order : Accused is found guilty.
7. Date of such order for the : 09.04.2025
following
JUDGMENT
01. The complainant has filed the present case against the accused alleging commission of the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
02. In brief case of the complainant is as follows:-
The Accused is known to the complainant for 10 years. The complainant came to know the accused through One Vijaya Kumar T.S and Kamalesh. The accused approached the complainant in the first week of August 2020 seeking hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for opening a Two wheeler garage. Accordingly the complainant gave hand loan to the accused by way of cash on 20-08-2020 to the tune of 3 CC.No. 33496/2021 Rs.10,00,000/- . The accused assure that he will repay the same within one year with nominal interest. After one year the complainant approached the accused and requested him for repayment. Toward the repayment of the same the accused issued cheque bearing no.723866 for Rs.10,00,000/- dated 17.09.2021 drawn on State Bank of India, Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore in favor of the complainant. Accordingly the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, but the same got dishonoured with an endorsement dated 20.09.2021 as "Payment Stopped by drawer". As such demand notice is issued to the accused on 01.10.2021.
Inspite of service of the demand notice the accused did not pay the amount covered under the cheque. Hence, cause of action arose to file the present complaint.
3. On filing of the complaint, cognizance of the offence is taken and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and marked 06 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.06. The complainant has complied all the statutory requirements under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Thereafter, the case is registered against the accused and summons issued.
4. On service of summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and he was enlarged on bail. The 4 CC.No. 33496/2021 substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Statement of the accused was also recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. On application filed by the counsel for the accused under section 145 of NI Act, permission was accorded to cross examine PW1 thoroughly. The Accused examined himself as DW1 and and got marked 11 documents as Ex.D20 to Ex.D30 and Ex.D1 to D19 documents are confronted by PW.1. PW1 and DW1 and 2 are cross examined by the respective counsels.
05. Heard arguments on behalf of the complainant. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity to the accused his counsel has not argued and has also not filed written arguments.
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued the cheque for the legally recoverable debt as alleged by him?
Point No.2: Whether the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I Act?
Point No.3: What Order or Sentence? 5
CC.No. 33496/2021
07. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative, Point No.2: In the Affirmative, Point No.3: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
08. POINT No.1 and 2:- The complainant has examined himself as PW1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The disputed cheque is marked as Ex.P1, the endorsement issued by the bank is marked as Ex.P2, the demand notice is marked as Ex.P3, the postal receipt is marked as Ex.P4 and the Postal Track Report is marked as Ex.P5, Bank Voucher is marked as Ex.P6. On careful perusal of these documents, it is evident that complainant has complied with all the essentials enshrined in Sec.138 of NI Act. Complainant presented the cheque within time for collection. After its dishonor, he also issued notice to the accused. According to the complainant the accused has not claimed the demand notice as such the same was returned to his counsel. When accused failed to repay the amount, complainant filed this complaint. Hence, records reveal that 6 CC.No. 33496/2021 complainant is entitled to the presumption available under sec 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act.
09. In Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2010 (1) DCR 706 the Hon'ble Apex court has that ;
"The Statutory presumption mandated by sec.139 of the Act, does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. However, the presumption U/S 139 of the Act is in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open for the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested".
10. Therefore, in view of the above decision, once the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption would automatically fall in favour of the complainant to the effect that, the alleged cheque was issued for discharge of an existing legally enforceable debt or liability against the accused and the burden will shift on to the accused to rebut the same. Let me now consider whether accused successfully rebutted the presumption available in favour of the complainant with probable and convincing evidences. It is well settled principle of law that, once the cheque is admitted there will be a statutory presumption in favour of the holder or holder in due course U/Secs. 118 and 139 of the Act as observed supra. 7
CC.No. 33496/2021 However, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and our own Hon'ble High Court in a catena of decisions, the presumptions under the said sections are in the nature of rebuttable presumptions and hence, the accused can very well rebut the said presumptions by leading reasonable and probable defence.
11. Let us examine, the same on the basis of the materials available on record. The accused has cross examined PW1 thoroughly and the accused has also stepped into the witness box and examined himself as DW1. In the chief examination DW1 has deposed that in the month of November 2018 bank Agent came to his shop and told him that he will get his personnel loan done. Again after 5 days he came to his shop to take the documents. He has deposed that he gave him two cheque leaves pertaining to his account, xerox copy of his pan card and Aadhar card. He has deposed that after 15 to 20 days he called him up and asked him about the loan process for which the said person told him that the process is going on. Again after one month when he called up the said person and verified about the loan process he told him that he will not get the loan. When he asked him to return the documents he told him that the documents are already 8 CC.No. 33496/2021 handed over to the bank authorities and as the loan facility is not provided the bank authorities will destroy the documents on their own.
12. He has further deposed that when he enquired about this process with his friends, they told him that if he knew the cheque details he can give stop payment requisition to his banker. So he gave stop payment instructions in respect all the cheque leaves. He has deposed that in the year 2021 when he got the notice from the court he came to know that his cheque leaves were misused. He has deposed that he received a notice from this court in respect of the dishonour of the cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- and he received another notice from another court in respect of cheque pertaining to Rs.47,00,000/-. He has deposed that he do not know this complainant as well the complainant namely Kamalesh of another complaint. He has deposed that his counsel told him that the complainant has filed many such complaint against different people. He has deposed that after receiving notice from the court he went to the police station and lodged compliant against the complainant and Kamalesh stating that they have misused his cheque leaves. As the police have not registered the case against them, he field a private complaint 9 CC.No. 33496/2021 in the court and later the FIR was registered against them both and charge is also filed.
13. He has further deposed that after the case was registered, the complainant, Kamalesh and the driver of the complainant came near his shop and took him in their car and a police was also accompanying them in the car. All the three of them started beating him in the car and the police told him that he is having a warrant in his name. They took him to K.P Agrahara police station and left him near the entrance and told him to withdraw the complaint lodged by him or else they will murder him. He has deposed that the police made him sit in the police station till evening and later his friend were called to the police station and then left him free. He has deposed that he had lodged a compliant in this regard at Jayanagar police station. He has deposed that later he went to Chamarajpete to find out who this complainant and Kamalesh is and there he came to know that the complainant is in the habit of misusing the cheque leaves of the people and also he is in the habit fo taking possession of others sites illegally.
14. Ex.D1 to 19 were marked by way of confrontation through PW1. The requisition given to his banker on 05-03- 10 CC.No. 33496/2021 2019 to stop payment is marked as Ex.D20, Ex.D21 to Ex.D30.
15. In the lines of the defence taken by the accused, PW1 is also cross examined. As could be seen from the cross examination of PW1 nothing worthy has been elicited from his mouth so as to support the defence of the accused. On the other hand though lengthy cross examination is done to PW1, not even a single suggestion is put to him as to how Ex.P1 cheque went to the hands of the complainant. It is not the defence of the accused that the complainant had some role to play in getting the cheque from the accused through the alleged bank agent. There is no explanation as to how the complainant got the cheque leaf of the accused which was allegedly handed over to a bank agent by the accused to obtain personnel loan from the bank. There is no explanation as to how the complainant is concerted with the said alleged bank agent who came to the shop of the accused to help him get personnel loan. The theory or defence of the accused that the bank agent had come to his shop and told him that he will help him get personnel loan from the bank is so unrealistic that no prudent man can believe the same. No only that no prudent can even part away with his documents such as 11 CC.No. 33496/2021 cheque leaves, copy of PAN card and Aadhar card to a person unknown.
16. PW1 has deposed that he has given loan to about 7 to 8 people and he had taken cheque from the borrowers for the purpose of security. He has deposed that he is not doing money lending business. The complainant is an Advocate and the same is not disputed. He has deposed that he is not only getting income from his legal profession but also is getting a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- per year from rent and he was also paying I.T from 2016 to 2020. he has deposed that from 2020 as he availed some loan he stopped paying Income tax. From 2020 his annual income in 9 lakh and he has availed loan to the tune of Rs.1 Crore. He has admitted that other than the accused he has given loan to about 19 people and after 2020 he has given loan to 13 people. The said suggestion at page no.11 is as follows:
"ನಾನು ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ಹೊರತುಪಡಿಸಿ ಇತರೆ 19 ಜನಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಲವನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. 2020 ನಂತರ ನಾನು 13 ಜನಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಲವನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ."
17. The certified copy of the order sheet and complaint of CC 18306/2017, CC27734/2017, certified copy of the judgment in CC18035/2017, certified copy of the order sheet, 12 CC.No. 33496/2021 complaint, joint memo and award of CC 3139/2019, certified copy of the order sheet and complaint of CC 10161/2022 and CC 10162/2022, certified copy of the order sheet and complaint of CC 11825/2022, CC 20375/2022, CC20395/2022, CC 22088/2022, CC37167/2022, CC218/2023, CC 196/2023, CC6449/2022, CC 6447/2023, CC6446/2023, CC 5200/2023 are marked as Ex.D1 to 17. From these documents it goes to show that the complainant has filed several complaints against different people for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N I Act. The documents also goes to show that many of them have also settled the matter before the lok -adalath by paying the cheque amount to the complainant. If really the complainant has not given money to any of them, there is no occasion for them to repay the money and settle the dues. It is the defence of the accused that the complainant is in the habit of taking cheque leaves from people and filing false complaints against them. If that is so then why they have repaid the money and settled the matter with the complainant. Not only that, when the accused could obtain the certified copy of the compliant and order sheet and produce before this court, he could have also examined any one or two of them before this court on his 13 CC.No. 33496/2021 behalf in order to prove his defence that the complainant is defrauding people by misusing their cheques. Just because the complainant has filed complaints against many people that does not mean that the complainant is doing some illegal business and alleged by the accused. The suggestion put to PW1 which is excerpted above goes to show that that the complainant has advanced loan to the accused. At the cost of repetition it is to be stated that the suggestion is put to PW1 that other than the accused, the complainant has given loan to several people and the said suggestion is admitted by PW1. From the above suggestion is very clearly goes to show that the accused dis admitting that the complainant has advanced him loan.
18. The certified copy of the FIR and the charge sheet of the complaint lodged by the accused against this compliant is confronted and marked as Ex.P18 and 19. The said complaint is lodged subsequent to filing of this complaint by the complainant against the accused. In the case on hand it is not the defence of the accused that the complainant had come to this garage saying that he will help him in getting personnal loan from the bank. Not even a single suggestion is put to PW1 in the said line. Not even a single suggestion is put to PW1 as 14 CC.No. 33496/2021 to how the cheque leaf of the accused reached the hands of the complainant. Just because the accused has lodged a complaint against the complainant before the police station that itself is not suffice to hold that the complainant has misused the cheque leaf of the accused.
19. From the very documents produced and got marked by the accused it goes to show that the complainant has lent loan to many people and he has also filed complaint against few of them under section 138 of NI Act. Except this accused no one has filed any other complaint against the complainant alleging foul play by the complainant as alleged by the accused. If really the complainant is having the habit of doing so then definitely some one or the other would proceed against the complainant. This goes to show that the accused is trying o get away from his liability. Just because the complainant has filed complaints against many of them under section 138 of NI the credibility of the complainant cannot be doubted. Suggestions are put to PW1 that he has not given any loan to the accused and the cheque is misused by him. The suggestions are denied.
20. In the chief examination of DW1 the accused has deposed that he had called up the agents who had come to his 15 CC.No. 33496/2021 garage offering him personnel loan from some bank. But the evidence of DW1 is silent about the contact number to which he had made the phone call. When the accused knew that his cheque leaf will be misused then what prevented him from disclosing the contact number of the persons who had come to his garage. The oral evidence of the accused is also silent with regard to the names of the alleged persons who had visited his garage offering him loan. The oral evidence of DW 1 goes to show that he had contacted the so called bank agent two to three times, but he has not deposed his name. When person is making phone call and verifying about the loan, it is very strange that the accused does not know the so called bank agent's name.
21. The oral evidence of the accused is also silent about the name of the bank. No prudent man will part away with the valuable documents such as cheque leaves, Aadhar card and pan card, to an unknown person, that too without even verifying the name of the bank. The defence of the accused that he has handed over the cheque leaves to some unknown person as deposed in the chief examination is not at all believable one. In other words the defence taken by the accused is not at all a probable defence.
16
CC.No. 33496/2021
22. The next defence of the accused during the course of cross examination of PW1 is that the demand notice is not served on the accused. At page no.15 of the cross examination it is suggested to PW1 that the demand notice is not served on the accused, but the same is denied and PW1 has deposed that her has produced the postal track report to prove the service of the notice. PW1 has admitted that in the postal track report there is no mention that the accused has received the notice. The copy of the demand notice is marked as Ex.P3. the postal track report is marked as EX.P5. As per the said document the notice is delivered to the addressee to one person named Ramesh Babu.
23. As could be seen from the demand notice, it goes to show that the notice is given to the accused two address of the accused. The postal receipt in respect of the first address is produced and marked as Ex.P4. The postal track report is marked as Ex.P5. From the RK No shown in the postal receipt and the postal track report it goes to show that the Demand notice is served to the first address shown in the demand notice. Though the accused has taken the contention that the demand notice is not served on him, it is not his defence that the first address shown in the demand notice is not his 17 CC.No. 33496/2021 address. More interestingly though suggestion is put to PW1 that the notice is not served on the accused, DW1 in his chief examination has not taken this defence at all. He has not at all deposed with regard to non service of demand notice. During the course of cross examination of DW1 at page no.6 he has admitted that the first address shown in the demand notice is his address. DW1 is denying the 2nd address. But the document produced by the complainant i.e., the postal receipt and the postal track report, are in respect of the first address of the accused, which address is not in dispute. When the notice is addressed to the correct address and when the same is delivered on the said address, the defence of the accused that the notice is not delivered on him is not acceptable.
24. The accused has produced the copy of the endorsement alleged to have been issued by his banker. The same is marked as Ex.D20. During the crouse of cross examination DW1 has deposed that he has not produced the requisition given by him to his banker to stop payment of the alleged cheques given by to the unknown persons. Admittedly Ex.D20 does not disclose with regard to the reasons mentioned by the accused to stop payment. Admittedly the said document also do not disclose as to whom the alleged 18 CC.No. 33496/2021 cheque leaves are given by the accused. For the best reason known to the accused he has no produced the alleged requisition given by him to his banker. The accused could have at least the said document from his banker if he is no in possession of the copy of the requisition. But the same is not done.
25. On perusal of Ex.D20 it goes to show that the accused has put his signature right side corner under the words "Yours Faithfully", on the said document where the signature of the person issuing the said document should find place. AS such doubt also arise in respect of this document which is marked as Ex.D20. If really the banker of the accused has issued the said document the person who issues the same ought to have signed the document and not the accused. As such this court declines to accept this document. Further more the accused in his chief examination has deposed that he has issued two cheques to the bank agent who had come to his shop. But Ex.D20 is in respect of many cheque leaves. When the accused has given only two cheque leaves to unknown person, why he has given requisition to stop payment in respect of many of his cheque leaves is the questions. This goes to show that the accused is trying to 19 CC.No. 33496/2021 escape from his liability by stopping the payment of the cheques issued by him and is trying to take false defence of this kind.
26. When the cheque in question drawn on his account maintained with his banker and it bears his signature, presumption under Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act is attracted to the effect that the cheque was issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Therefore the initial burden is on the accused to prove that no consideration was passed and the cheque was not issued towards repayment of any legally recoverable debt or liability and the circumstances in which the cheque has reached the hands of the complainant. Only after the accused rebut the presumption, the burden shifts on the complainant to prove his case, including passing of consideration and his financial capacity to lend such sum of money at the relevant point of time. Of course it is sufficient for the accused to rebut the presumption by preponderance of probabilities.
27. From the over all evidence on record, it goes to show that the accused has tried to take some baseless defence which is usually taken by the accused person in the case of this nature. The defence of the accused that he had issued 20 CC.No. 33496/2021 two cheques leaves to so called unknwon bank agent is very unrealistic and cannto be belived from any angle. The presumption available to the complainant is not at all rebutted by the accused. In the case on hand the accused has not led any probable defecne. Only if the accued leads probabel defcne, then the burden shifts on the complainant.
28. A proceeding under section 138 of N.I Act is quasi criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions envisaged under section 118, 139 and 146 of N.I Act. An offence under section 138 of N.I Act is committed not on dishonour of the cheque, but on the failure of the drawer of cheque to make payment within 15 days from the receipt of notice of dishonour. An essential ingredient of section 138 of N.I Act is that cheque in question must have been issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability.
29. The complainant has proved that the accused is due to him and the said debt is legally recoverable debt. Section 118 and 139 of the Act, envisages certain presumptions. Under section 118 a presumption shall be raised regarding consideration, date, transfer, endorsement and regarding the holder in case of Negotiable Instruments. Even, under section 21 CC.No. 33496/2021 139 a rebuttable presumption shall be raised that the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally enforceable debt. These presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in a case of N.I Act. These presumptions are not conclusive presumptions, but rebuttable. Therefore, it is for the accused to show that there was no debt or liability or that debt or liability was not legally enforceable. It is true that the accused need not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, but the defence should be such which makes the court to accept the defence version probable. Unless, the drawer is able to discharge the onus, an offence under section 138 would be complete provided there are no technical defects in the prosecution.
30. Since, the accused has not discharged the burden cast upon him, Ex.P.1 having been issued by him and its return on the ground of "Payment stopped by drawer", which was followed by a demand notice to pay the cheque amount, the complaint having been filed within the period of limitation and the material documents having been exhibited during the course of trial by the payee of the cheque, during whose cross examination nothing material has been elicited to doubt his testimony, the ingredients of the offence under section 138 22 CC.No. 33496/2021 has been met out. The statutory presumption under section 139 has not been discharged by the accused. The reverse burden is on the accused which he has to discharge in the manner which is believable as well as acceptable to the court, but the accused has not done so. Accordingly, it is to be held that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I Act. As such, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
31. Point No.3: Negotiable Instruments Act was enacted to bring credibility to the cheque. The very purpose of the enactment is to promote the use of the Negotiable Instrument, while to discourage the issuance of the cheque without having sufficient funds in the account. Such being the case, the intention of the legislature is that complainant be suitably compensated while the accused be punished for his act.
32. When compensation is awarded enforcement of the same come into question. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for imposing default sentence for enforcing the payment of compensation. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2002 (2) SCC 420 between Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagadeeshan was pleased to hold that "the court may enforce 23 CC.No. 33496/2021 the order by imposing sentence in default" . The same is reaffirmed in latest decision in 2010 AIR SCW 3398 between K.A.Abbas H.S.A. Vs Sabu Joseph. Therefore, it is deemed fit to provide default sentence in order to enforce the payment of compensation. Ex.P.1 cheque is of the Year - 2021. Therefore, the complainant is deprived of the money that was rightfully due to him for about three years. Accordingly, it is deemed fit that a compensation of Rs.11,80,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Eighty Thousand only) be granted. Accordingly, in the light of above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER By acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.11,81,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Eighty One Thousand only), in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months.
If the fine amount is recovered a sum of Rs.11,80,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Eighty Thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the 24 CC.No. 33496/2021 complainant by way of compensation as per the provisions under section 357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount of Rs.1,000/- is to be appropriated to the State.
The Bail Bond and the cash Surety of the accused shall stand cancelled.
Supply a free copy of this Judgment to the accused.
(Typed by me on computer and computerized by me, corrected by me, and then pronounced in the open Court on this 09th day of April 2025).
(Smt.Preeth. J) XII Addl. CJM, Bengaluru ANNEXURES Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
P.W.1 : Dr.Shivakumar.M Documents exhibited for the Complainant:
Ex.P.01 : Cheque, Ex.P.02 : Memo of the Banker Ex.P.03 : O/Copy of Legal Notice, Ex.P.04 : Postal Receipt Ex.P.05 : Postal track Report Ex.P.06 : Bank Voucher
Witnesses examined for the defence Accused:
D.W.1 : Vijay Kumar
25
CC.No. 33496/2021
Documents exhibited for the defence Accused:-
Ex.D1 : C/c of PCR order sheets of CC
18306/2017, (confronted),
Ex.D2 :
C/c of PCR order sheets of CC
18306/2017,
(confronted),
Ex.D3 : N/c of Judgment of the CC.18035/2017
(confronted).
Ex.D4 : N/c of the Order sheet, complaint, Joint
memo & award of the CC.3139/2019
(confronted).
Ex.D5 & 6 : N/c of the Complaint & Order sheet of
CC.10161/2022 & 10162/2022
(confronted).
Ex.D7 : N/c of the Complaint & Order sheet of
CC.11825/2022(confronted).
Ex.D8 : N/c of the Complaint Order sheet of
CC.20375/2022(confronted).
Ex.D9 : N/c of the Complaint Order sheet,
complaint of CC.20395/2022 (confronted). Ex.D10-17 : N/copies of the Complaint Order sheet CC.22088/2022, 37167/2022, 218/2023, 196/2023, 6449/2022, 6447/2023, 6446/2023 & 5200/2023 (confronted) Ex.D18 & 19 : N/c of FIR & Charge sheet Ex.D20 : Bank Endorsement 26 CC.No. 33496/2021 Ex.D21 : N/c of the Order sheet, complaint, statement & Exhibits of CC.8454/2022 Ex.D22 : N/c of the order sheet & complaint of CC 27755/2016 Ex.D23 : N/c of the order sheet & complaint of CC 3948/2018 Ex.D24 : N/c of the order sheet & complaint of CC 3872/2022 Ex.D.25 : N/c of the order sheet & complaint of CC 1884/2020 Ex.D.26 : C/c of the complaint against the complainant and their driver Ex.D.27 : N/c of the Charge sheet of CC 109/2021 Ex.D.28 : C/c of the order sheet & complaint of PCR 9745/2024 Ex.D.29 : N/c of the Judgment of SC 1056/2014 Ex.D30 :
Photo's & CD casset Digitally signed by PREETH J PREETH Date:
J 2025.04.11
15:52:26
+0530
(Smt.Preeth. J)
XII Addl. CJM, Bengaluru
27
CC.No. 33496/2021
09.04.2025
For judgment
(Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate Order) ORDER By acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.11,81,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Eighty One Thousand only), in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months.
If the fine amount is recovered a sum of Rs.11,80,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Eighty Thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation as per the provisions under section 357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount of Rs.1,000/- is to be appropriated to the State.
The Bail Bond and cash surety of the accused shall stand cancelled.
Supply a free copy of this Judgment to the accused.28
CC.No. 33496/2021 XII ACJM, Bengaluru