Bangalore District Court
N.Munivenkatappa vs Smt. G.R.Rani on 20 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 20th day of October , 2016,
PRESENT: SRI. NAGARAJEGOWDA.D, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.
C.C.No. 34014/2014
Complainant : N.Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 63 years,
Son of Sri Late Narayanappa,
# 207 & 208, 83rd cross,
Kumaraswamy layout,
Bangalore - 78.
(By Sri. A.T.Manohar.Adv.)
V/s.
Accused : Smt. G.R.Rani,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Physical Education
Instructor,
J.S.S.Higher Primary School,
JSS circle, 38th cross,
8th block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 82.
(By Sri A& P Associates ,.Adv.)
Date of Institution 10-12-2014.
Offence complained of U/s 138 of N.I.Act.
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
2 C.C.No.34014/2014
Final Order Accused is convicted.
Date of Order : 20.10.2016.
The complainant filed the private complaint u/s 200 of
Cr.P.C alleging that, the accused person has committed an offence
punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act.
REASONS
The brief facts of the complainant case is as follows:-
2. The complainant submits that the accused is a colleague
and friend of complainant's sister in law Smt.Dhrakshayini V.
approached the complainant during the First week of Jan.2014
for financial assistance. The complainant after considering the
friendship existed between accused and his sister in law Smt.
Dhrakshayini, has agreed to request of accused and gave a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- on 9-1-2014 as a hand loan to the accused in the
presence of said Dhrakashayini and accused undertook to repay
the amount borrowed from the complainant by June, 2014. In
the month of June, 2014 when the complainant insisted accused
for repayment of the amount paid, the accused pleaded that she
was under financial crises and promised the complainant that
amount would be paid by Sept.2014 and issued a cheque bearing
3 C.C.No.34014/2014
No. 103001 dated 5-9-2014 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on
ING Vysya Bank, JSS composite PU college, Jayanagara 8th block,
Bangalore towards the repayment of the said hand loan and
requested the complainant to present the cheque for encashment
in the last week of September 2014. The complainant presented
the cheque through his bank SBI, Kumaraswamy Layout branch.,
Bangalore for encashment. But the said cheque was
dishonoured and returned with an endorsement dated 27-9-2014
as Account closed . Thereafterwards, the complainant got issued
legal notice on 21-10-2014 to the accused, calling upon the
accused to pay the cheque amount. The notice sent by RPAD was
served to the accused on 28-10-2014. Inspite of receipt of legal
notice, she did not replied or complied the notice . Further it is
submitted that some typographical errors had crept in the 2nd line
of para-3 of the legal notice dated 21-10-2014 in relation to
complainant's bank name and branch due to inadvertence, hence
a corrigendum was sent to the accused on 4-12-2014 through
RPAD and thus accused committed the offence punishable u/s.
138 of NI Act and punish the accused in accordance with law and
to award suitable compensation, in the interest of justice and
equity.
4 C.C.No.34014/2014
3. The accused appeared before this court and contest this
case by denying the entire case of complainant at the time of
recording of Plea of Accusation . In order to prove the case of
complainant, he adduced his oral evidence as PW-1 by way of
affidavit and examined one witness as PW-2 and got marked
Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and these PW-1 & 2 have been fully cross
examined by the accused counsel but he failed to lead further
cross-examination of PW-1 on the Ex.P10 & Ex.P11 and thus
complainant closed his side evidence.
4. There afterwards, the accused examined u/s.313 of
Cr.P.C. in which, she totally denied the entire case of complainant
She in support of her denial, lead her oral evidence as DW-1 on
Oath and this DW-1 has been fully cross-examined by the
complainant counsel and thus closed her side defence evidence.
5. In support of the case of complainant, the Ln.counsel for
complainant submitted written arguments by narrating the facts
and circumstances of the case and stated that complainant had
fulfilled all the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s. 138 of
NI Act . Hence, prays for convicting of the accused in accordance
with law.
5 C.C.No.34014/2014
6. In support of the case of accused, the accused and her
counsel failed to appear before this court and inspite of sufficient
opportunity has been given, they did not chose to address their
side arguments on merit. Hence, their side arguments taken as
nil.
7. In order to prove the case of complainant, the
complainant adduced his oral evidence as PW-1 filed by way of
affidavit. In which, he reiterated complaint contention and
examined one witness Smt.Dhrakshayini as PW-2 . She too also
supported the case of complainant in her chief examination filed
by way of affidavit and got marked Ex.P1 cheque alleged to be
issued by the accused and identified the signature of the accused
as per Ex.P1(a). This issuance of cheque in favour of complainant
for discharge of legal liability has been disputed by the accused..
Further got marked Ex.P2 is an endorsement issued by the
bankers stating that Ex.P1 cheque was dishonoured due to
ACCOUNT CLOSED. Ex.P3 is the copy of legal notice . This
notice does contain the signature of the complainant and his
counsel . Ex.P 4 is the RPAD postal receipt for having sent legal
notice to the accused. Ex.P5 is the India post download copy to
show that legal notice sent to the accused was duly served. Ex.P6
is the Corrigendum legal notice copy , it does not contain
6 C.C.No.34014/2014
signature of the complainant except his counsel. Ex.P7 is the
RPAD postal receipt for having sent corrigendum notice to the
accused. Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are the postal acknowledgements to
show the legal notice and corrigendum notice sent to the
accused by RPAD was duly served . Inspite of service of legal
notice, the accused did not choose to reply or comply the notice
etc.. Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 are the statement of account stands in
the name of complainant of the S.B.I and also Indian Overseas
Bank to show the complainant had sufficient amount in his bank
account. Against Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 the accused counsel did not
chose to cross-examined the PW-1 further. Hence, Ex.P10 and
Ex.P11 are remained unchallenged. It shows that the complainant
had sufficient amount with him and he had advanced loan
amount to the accused as stated in the complaint .
8. The accused has denied the entire case of complainant .
In support of her denial, she lead her evidence as DW-1 on Oath .
In which she has admitted that she do not know about this
complainant but she knows the PW-2 Dhrakshayini and she has
not issued Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant for discharge of legal
liability. But during the year, 2008 she obtained loan amount of
Rs.50,000/- from PW-2 and she repaid the said amount on 10-4-
2014. Out of the said amount, she paid 50% of the amount by
7 C.C.No.34014/2014
way of cash and another 50% of the amount by way of cheque .At
the time of advancing the loan amount, she issued alleged cheque
in question as a security . The signature found on Ex.P8 and
Ex.P9 postal acknowledgements is not belongs to her. Further
stated that on 13-8-2014 the bankers have closed her bank
account pertaining to Ex.P1 cheque . Further stated that Ex.P1
cheque is kept in her Vanity Bag, except the signature and which
was thefted from her vanity bag and she do not know when it was
thefted but she lodged complaint to the Kumaraswamy police
station on 26-7-2014 but the police have taken her complaint
stating that cheque has been destroyed etc.. and she admitted
PW-2 Dhrakshayini is relative of this complaint . The complainant
has filed false case against her . Hence, she prays for acquittal
from this case. Except total denial of case of complainant, in order
to show she lodged complaint to the police regarding destroy of
Ex.P1 cheque , she has not produced any documentary evidence
and also she has not examined any one of the witness to support
her case.
9. The complainant counsel cross-examined the DW-1 . In
the cross-examination, he tried to elicited that the accused
obtained loan amount from the complainant and for repayment of
the said amount, she issued Ex.P1 cheque , the same was
8 C.C.No.34014/2014
dishonoured etc.. Except total denial of contention of
complainant, the accused failed to given rebuttal evidence to the
case of complainant. As such, on the basis of cross-examination
of DW-1, she failed to disprove the case of complainant by
producing and adducing cogent and convincing evidence before
this court.
10. As per the defence taken by the accused, the learned
counsel for the accused cross-examined the PW-1. In the cross-
examination , he tried to elicited that alleged cheque in question
was not issued by this accused to this complainant , the same
was issued to PW-2 Dhrakshayini and through this complainant,
he misused the alleged cheque in question . Further he admitted
that the account of Ex.P1 cheque was closed down during the
year, 2013 . Except the said admission, the accused counsel
failed to disprove the case of complainant.
11. As per the cross-examination of PW-1, the accused
counsel also cross-examined the PW-2. In the cross-examination
of PW-2 , he tried to elicited that the amount borrowed from the
PW-2 by the accused was repaid and the alleged cheque in
question was issued as a security and also alleged cheque in
9 C.C.No.34014/2014
question was also lost in her vanity bag etc.. The accused has
taken dual contention about alleged cheque in question where it
is lost or it was given to the PW-2 for the purpose of security
towards the loan amount borrowed from her. Under these
circumstances, the complainant had proved the alleged guilt of
the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused counsel
failed to cross-examined further PW-1 with respect of Ex.P10 and
Ex.P11 statement of account produced by the complainant. The
learned counsel for the accused failed to address the arguments
on merit inspite of sufficient opportunity has been given. Hence,
their side arguments taken as NIL .
12. In support of the case of complainant, the learned
counsel for the complainant submitted written arguments by
narrating the facts and circumstances of the case and submits
that inspite of issuance of legal notice and issuance of
corrigendum notices to the accused, she did not chose to reply or
comply the notice and hence, prays for convicting the accused .
13. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence of both
complainant and accused, the complainant had proved the
alleged guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The
accused had failed to given rebuttal evidence to the case of
10 C.C.No.34014/2014
complainant. Hence, accused is liable for conviction as per law.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
Acting u/s 265 of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousand only) in default, to undergo S.I. for 03 months.
The complainant is awarded Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.Three lakhs only) as compensation i.e. the double the cheque amount in question and same shall be paid by the accused to the complainant within the period of 30 days from the date of this order. In default of payment of compensation amount , the accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of One year.
Office is directed to furnish the copy of this Judgment at free of cost to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of October, 2016) (NAGARAJEGOWDA.D) XXII ACMM, Bangalore city.
11 C.C.No.34014/2014ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 : N.Munivenkatappa, PW.2 Dhrakshayini B.
Witness examined for the accused:
DW-1 : G.R.Rani List of Documents marked for the Complainant:
Ex.P1 : Cheque Ex.P1a : Signature of the accused Ex.P2 : Endorsement Ex.P3 : Legal notice Ex.P4 : Postal receipt Ex.P5 : India post download copy Ex.P6 : Corrigendum notice. Ex.P7 Postal receipt. Ex.P8 & 9 Two postal acknowledgements. Ex.P10 &11 Statement of account
List of Documents marked for the accused:
nil :
XXII ACMM, Bangalore.
12 C.C.No.34014/2014