Bangalore District Court
Dhakshinamurthy S vs M/S Reeliable Mep Projects India Pvt Ltd on 11 March, 2025
KABC0C0179462020
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU
-: PRESENT:-
Sri P.S. Santhosh Kumar, M.Com., LL.M.,
XXXIII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025
C.C.NO.57948/2018
COMPLAINANT : Sri. Dhakshinamurthy S.,
S/o Late Sundareshan,
Aged about 40 years,
Proprietor,
MD Enterprises, No.30,
Netaji Cross Road,
Post office Main Road,
Ramamurthy Nagar,
Bengaluru,
Karnataka-560016.
Mob: 9036467986.
Vs.
ACCUSED 1. M/s Reeliable MEP Projects
India Pvt., Ltd.,
No.881, 2nd Stage,
Dr. MC Modi Hospital Road,
WCR, Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore-560086.
Represented by its Directors.
2
C.C.NO.57948/2018
2. Mr. Rohith Darrapneedi
Prathap Reddy,
Father's name not known,
Aged about 36 years,
M/s Reeliable MEP Projects
India Pvt., Ltd.,
No.881, 2nd Stage,
Dr. MC Modi Hospital Road,
WCR, Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore-560086.
Mob:9972027878.
3. Sri. Thimmaiah B Srinivas
Gowda,
Father's name not known,
Aged about 40 years,
M/s Reeliable MEP Projects
India Pvt., Ltd.,
No.881, 2nd Stage,
Dr. MC Modi Hospital Road,
WCR, Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore-560086.
Mob:9901951531.
J U D G M E N T
The complainant has filed this private complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3C.C.NO.57948/2018
2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:-
The complainant is a Sub-contractor and Specialist in installation and servicing of Air Conditioners at different customers' work sites as per the orders received from the main contractor. The accused claiming that he is the main contractor and have engaged the services of complainant for the installation of Air Conditioners at their customer's sites at M/s Epson India Pvt., Ltd., and M/s Samsung as per the work orders issued by the accused. Based on the work order No.RMEP1008/002/2017-18 dated 25.10.2017 and work order No.RMEP1018/018/2017- 18 dated 28.02.2018, the complainant has carried out the work to the entire satisfaction of the end customers. The complainant has raised three invoices against the accused after completing entire works including the additional works ordered by accused under vide GST Invoice No.PO17-18-018 dated 05.01.202018 for Rs.6,37,790/-, PO18/031 dated 06.06.2018 for Rs.15,930/- totally amounting to 4 C.C.NO.57948/2018 Rs.7,69,360/-. Further the complainant has specifically mentioned in the invoice that interest at the rate of 24% p.a. will be charged if the invoice amount is not paid on presentation of the invoice from the date of agreed mode of payment, thereby the accused also liable to pay interest on the balance due for the delayed payment. Towards the part payment of the above invoice value and the interest thereon the accused No.2 and 3 jointly being the Directors of accused No.1 and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company, issued a cheque on behalf of the accused No.1 company for Rs.3,00,000/- bearing No.000067 dated 27.03.2018 drawn on Equitas, Small Finance Bank, Basaveshwara Nagar branch, No.92, LIC Colony, Bangalore. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker Karur Vysya Bank, Indiranagar branch, Bengaluru, and it came to be dishonored for the reason "Funds Insufficient" vide Endorsement dated 28.03.2018.
When the complainant contacted, the accused have 5 C.C.NO.57948/2018 requested for some more time and asked complainant to re-present the cheque after next month. The complainant again presented the cheque on 25.06.2018 and the cheque got returned with endorsement "Funds insufficient" on 26.06.2018. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 04.07.2018 demanding payment of the cheque amount. Inspite of receipt of the legal notice on 05.07.2018, the accused has neither come forward to pay the cheque amount nor issued any reply to the notice issued by the complainant. But, inspite of service of it, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount. Hence, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit, the documents etc., the court took cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by following the guidelines of Apex Court issued in Indian Bank 6 C.C.NO.57948/2018 Association case and ordered to register a criminal case against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared through their counsel, they were enlarged on court bail, further, substance of plea was recorded, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant in order to prove his case, got examined himself as P.W1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P13. Upon closure of complainant's side evidence, the court examined the accused U/s 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused has denied the incriminating materials appearing against them and have not lead any defence evidence.
5. I have gone through the synopsis of arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant. Inspite of sufficient opportunity the learned counsel for the accused did not address his argument. I have gone through the following decisions relied upon by the complainant 7 C.C.NO.57948/2018
1. AIR 2018 SC 3601, between T.P. Murugan (Dead) Through Lrs Vs. Bojan of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
2. Crl.A.No.506/2006 dated 19.03.2015, between Rames Vs. K. Sundar of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
Perused the materials available on record.
6. The following points would arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused has committed an o/p/u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No1: In the Affirmative, Point No.2: As per final order, for the following, 8 C.C.NO.57948/2018 R E A S O N S
8. POINT No.1: I have gone through the materials available on record. The counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused had issued cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- towards the Invoices raised by the complainant in respect of the business transactions and it came to be dishonored on its presentation and even after issuing Ex.P1 and issuance of Ex.P4 legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount and hence, he is liable to be convicted of the alleged offence U/Sec.138 of N.I Act.
9. The complainant, who has been examined as PW1, has reiterated the facts stated in his complaint in his chief examination also and in addition to it, he has produced Ex.P1 to 13.
10. Ex.P1 is the original cheque No.000067 which is said to have been issued by the accused in favour of the complainant and it is dated 27.03.2018. for Rs.3,00,000/-. Ex.P2 & 3 are the bank endorsements 9 C.C.NO.57948/2018 which go to show that the said cheque came to be dishonored twice for the reasons "Funds insufficient"
on 28.03.2018 and 28.06.2018. Ex.P5 is the postal receipts for having sent legal notice as per Ex.P4 to the accused and Ex.P6 to 8 are the postal acknowledgments. Ex.P9 & 10 are the two work orders. Ex.P11 to 13 are the invoices said to have been raised by the complainant for having did the work as per the work order and additional works.
11. It is relevant to mention here that the accused has not disputed the service of legal notice Ex.P4 on them as well as issuance of Ex.P1 in favour of complainant and the signature of accused No.2 and 3 on it. Such being the case the initial presumption as contemplated U/S 139 of the N.I Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant as per the decision reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 in the case of Sri Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
10C.C.NO.57948/2018
12. Once the presumption U/S 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the said presumptions by adducing cogent evidence in support of his defence. Upon going through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties it is relevant to mention here that the accused have not denied that they are the directors of the accused No.1 company. Further the accused have not produce any document to show that one Sri.Sanjay was the Managing Director only looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company. Further the learned counsel for the accused has made a suggestion during the cross-examination of the PW1 admitting issuance of the work orders as per Ex.P9 and 10 and invoices raised by the complainant as per Ex.P11 to 13. Further the learned counsel for the accused has also made a suggestion the PW1 admitting that Ex.p1 was issued in respect of to works done by the complainant to the company. But, contrary to the above said suggestions, the learned 11 C.C.NO.57948/2018 counsel for the accused also made a suggestion to the PW1 that the accused have already paid the amount pertaining to Ex.P12 which was issued in respect in Ex.P10 and that the complainant has created Ex.P11 invoice and further he did not adduce sufficient evidence to establish the said defence. Further during the course of cross-examination of PW1 the learned counsel for the accused has made a suggestion that the accused asked the complainant the complainant for some more time by giving Rs.75,000/- after issuing Ex.P4 and the same was admitted by the witness and the PW1 has also admitted the suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused that the accused was due to him only Rs.2,25,000/-. Merely because PW1 has admitted so, it cannot be said that the cheque in question was not issued in respect of a legally enforceable debt as on the date of the cheque in question as because the alleged payment of Rs.75,000/- was only made after dishonor of the cheque in question. Further the accused did not issued 12 C.C.NO.57948/2018 any reply notice at the first instance by raising his specific defence to the case of the complainant. Moreover, during the examination of accused U/s 313 of Cr.P.C the accused No.1 contrary to the above said suggestions and admissions, the accused No.1 has stated that they had nothing to pay and all the amounts which were payable to the accused were cleared and accused No.2 said that he has come out of the accused company in the year 2018-19. The accused No.2 though stated so did not adduce cogent oral and documentary evidence to show that he was not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the accused company as on the date of issuance of the cheque in question. As such, considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and other materials available on record, I am of the opinion that the accused have failed to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the complainant and the complainant has successfully established his case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused 13 C.C.NO.57948/2018 is to be held guilty for the commission of the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
13. It is relevant to mention here that the accused having issued cheque at Ex.P1 in favour of the complainant, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount and hence, the complainant is to be suitably compensated for the delay caused by the accused in its repayment. Further the punishment prescribed for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is imprisonment for a period which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, nature, year of the transaction, nature of the instrument involved, cost of litigation and the rate of interest proposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (1) SCC 260 (R.Vijayan Vs Baby), I am of the opinion that it is just and desirable to impose fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and out of the said amount, it seems to be proper to 14 C.C.NO.57948/2018 award a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- as compensation to the complainant as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C and the remaining sum of Rs.5,000/- shall go to the State towards expenses. With these observations, my findings on Point No.1 is in the Affirmative.
14. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1, I proceed to pass following;
O R D E R
Acting u/s. 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the
accused No.1 to 3 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,1881.
The accused No.1 to 3 are hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- jointly or severally. In default, the accused No.2 and 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the State towards expenses and 15 C.C.NO.57948/2018 remaining amount of Rs.2,95,000/- to the complainant as compensation as per the provisions of u/Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C..
Further, it is made clear that in view of proviso to Sec.421(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.2 and 3 would not be absolved from their liability to pay compensation amount of Rs.2,95,000/- awarded u/s. 357 of Cr.P.C. even if they undergo the default sentence.
The bail bond and cash security of the accused No.2 and 3 shall stand hereby continued till the appeal period is over.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of this judgment to the accused No.1 to 3 forthwith.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, directly over Computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of March 2025) (P.S. SANTHOSH KUMAR) XXXIII ACJM, BENGALURU.
16C.C.NO.57948/2018 A N N E X U R E
1.Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 : Sri. Dhakshinamurthy S.,
2.Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Original cheque Ex.P.1(a)&(b) : Signature of the accused Ex.P.2 & 3 : Two Bank return memos Ex.P.4 : Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P.5 : Four Postal receipt Ex.P.6 to 8 : Three Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.9 & 10 : Two work orders Ex.P.11 to 13 : Three invoices
3.Witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
NIL
4.Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
NIL (P.S. SANTHOSH KUMAR) XXXIII ACJM, BENGALURU.