Bangalore District Court
Mr.Jayaram M vs Sri.Yogesh K.J on 6 November, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BENGALURU
: PRESENT :
M.Vijay, BA (Law), LLB.
XXXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020.
C.C.No.50381/2019
COMPLAINANT : Mr.Jayaram M.,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Sri.Muni Venkatappa,
Residing at No:70, I Floor,
Ayyappanagar,
Basavanapura Main Road,
K.R.Pura Post,
Bangalore - 560036.
.Vs.
ACCUSED : Sri.Yogesh K.J.
Aged about 27 years,
S/o late Sri.J.Lingegowda,
No:116, Konanur Village,
Nagamangala Taluk & Post,
Mandya District,
Karnataka 571432
****
JUDGMENT
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 Negotiable Instrument Act.
2C.C.No.50381/2019
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant has specifically averred, that the accused is wellknown to him and his family members from longtime. Due to this acquaintance, the accused allegedly approached him in the month of November 2016 for hand loan of Rs.1,60,000/ to meet the accused family necessities. On this request since he had confidence on the accused, he allegedly advanced Rs.1,60,000/ on 16.11.2016 to the accused. On receipt of it, the accused agreed to repay it within 29.10.2018 along with simple interest. As agreed by the accused on 29.10.2018 he demanded the accused to repay it, but, the accused has allegedly issued the cheque dtd:29.10.2018 for Rs.1,60,000/ bearing No.100837 dtd:29.10.2018 drawn at Axis Bank Ltd., Kasthurinagar Branch, Bengaluru in his favour and requested him to present it for encashment. Accordingly, on the same day he presented it in his banker State Bank of India, K.R.Puram Branch, Bengaluru, but, it was returned unpaid on 31.10.2018 for the reasons account of the accused was closed, same was intimated to the accused but inspite of that, the accused did not 3 C.C.No.50381/2019 come forward to pay the cheque amount. Therefore, he alleged that despite knowing the closure of his account, the accused intentionally issued the cheque for Rs.1,60,000/ with deceitful intention despite the account was closed by the accused himself. Accordingly, he caused legal notice to the accused on 02.11.2016, it was served on the accused, but, the accused replied to his notice by denying the transaction, same is not tenable. Accordingly he constrained to file this complaint as the accused allegedly issued the cheque for Rs.1,60,000/ with a deceitful intention to cheat him which is punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, prayed to convict the accused.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit, the documents placed by the complainant along with the complaint the court took cognizance of an offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act and ordered to register a criminal case against the accused for the offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
4C.C.No.50381/2019
4. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and he was on court bail. Plea has been recorded; accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the case, the complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.6.
6. On closure of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating materials on record and adduced his defence evidence by examining himself as D.W.1 but not produced any documents on his behalf. However, he specifically contended there was no transaction as claimed by the complainant, the cheque was issued to one Vasu, but, the said Vasu has been filed the false complaint through the complainant even he does not know the complainant and claims to be innocent.
7. Heard the arguments of both sides, the complainant submitted his written argument.
5C.C.No.50381/2019 Perused the materials on record, the following point arises for my determination;
"Whether the complainant has proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?"
8. On that basis my finding on the above point is in the "Affirmative" for the following;
REASONS
9. It is significant to note that initially the accused was acquitted by this court in its Judgment dtd:03.08.2018. Aggrieved the judgment of conviction, the accused preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble CCH73 in Crl.Appl.No.25253/2019 wherein the Hon'ble court of Sessions has set aside the Judgment of conviction passed by this court and directed this court to give the opportunity to the accused for cross examination of P.W.1 and to lead evidence. In pursuance of direction, the present case got restored in its original number and given opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence.
6C.C.No.50381/2019
10. The complainant in order to prove his case got himself examined as P.W.1 and placed reliance on Ex.P.1 cheque, Ex.P.2 bank endorsement, Ex.P.3 notice, Ex.P.4 receipts, Ex.P.5 acknowledgment, Ex.P.6 reply of accused, wherein he stated that, he knew the accused since longtime, as the accused is his family friend had approached him in the month of November 2016 for hand loan of Rs.1,60,000/. Accordingly, he paid to the accused, for discharge of this legally recoverable debt, the accused allegedly issued the Ex.P.1 cheque but it was bounced for the reason that the account of the accused was closed. On the contrary, the accused thoroughly cross examined the P.W.1 wherein he suggested that the questioned cheque Ex.P.1 is belongs to him, sign found there upon is also belongs to him. However, the signed blank cheque was issued to one Vasu who was his colleague working in a Telecom Company by allegedly obtained this Ex.P.1 cheque, he suggested that the false case has been foisted against him by the complainant and no such alleged transaction was held in between him and the complainant, but, same is denied by the complainant and specifically stated, 7 C.C.No.50381/2019 he had a shop at Arogyanagar, K.R.Puram, the accused is his customer wellknown to each other from very long period and according to him, the accused has issued the completed cheque to him for Rs.1,60,000/. So, the very suggestion of the accused clearly stands proved that, the cheque is belongs to his account, signature found thereon i.e., Ex.P.1(a) is that of him. So, there is no dispute with regard to cheque and signature found thereon is belongs to the accused. That apart, the accused himself stated on oath in his defence evidence that;
"Signature on the cheque is belongs to him but it was issued to one Vasu"
11. Even in the cross examination, the complainant elicited from the mouth of the accused that Ex.P.1 cheque belongs to the accused and the signature thereon is also belongs to the accused. So, once it is proved that as per Sec.118A and Sec.139, the presumption shall be drawn in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued for discharge of legally recoverable debt. At this stage, the court 8 C.C.No.50381/2019 relies upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa .Vs. Mohan.
"Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accept and admit the signature on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Sec.139 of N.I.Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to in Sec.139 of N.I.Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption."
12. Considering the above dictum, the complainant has proved the cheque and signature found thereon is belongs to the accused. So, once it is proved, the presumption under Sec.118A and Sec.139 of N.I.Act shall be drawn in favour of the holder that Cheque in question issued for consideration for legally recoverable debt. Therefore, initial presumption has been drawn in favour of the complainant that Ex.P.1 was issued by the accused for legally recoverable debt. However, it is a rebuttable presumption.
9C.C.No.50381/2019 Therefore, the onus is on the accused to prove the claimed debt is not in existence or the claim of the complainant was not so probable. Further, it is well settled law that, the standard of proof so as to prove the defence or to rebut the presumption is not beyond reasonable doubt but it is preponderance of probabilities and it is also well settled law that to rebut the presumption, the accused need not always necessary to step into the witness box, he may also rebut the presumption by relying upon the materials already available on record. Therefore, it is just and necessary to look into the cross examination of P.W.1 and also the defence evidence.
13. The learned counsel for the accused Sri.B.N.A. Advocate vehemently argued that there are suspicious circumstances and materials on record which probablise the accused defence, those are firstly, the complainant does not know the background of the accused, according to the complainant, he came to the contact of the accused who used to visit his shop for purchase of cigarettes which is not probable that how could the 10 C.C.No.50381/2019 complainant allegedly lent Rs.1,60,000/ to a person who came to his shop for purchase of cigarettes, secondly, the complainant does not know the residential address of the accused, thirdly there was no talk about the interest. According to the accused all these circumstances clearly demonstrates the transaction allegedly held in between the accused and the complainant is doubtful in nature and does not exists. Further, the complainant failed to produce documents to show his financial capacity and the complainant is stranger to the accused, that apart, he specifically contended Ex.P.1 Cheque was issued to one Vasu who was his colleague, the said Vasu has presented this complaint through this complainant, in other words, the said Vasu is behind the screen of this complaint. Based on these grounds the counsel for the accused urged that the accused has probablised his defence and rebutted the presumption and the complainant has not overcome the defence of the accused. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused.
11C.C.No.50381/2019
14. On the contrary, the counsel for the complainant Sri.M.R.E. filed his written argument wherein, he urged to draw presumption in favour of the complainant as the cheque and signature found thereon i.e., Ex.P.1 is admitted by the accused, but, he specifically contended, it was issued to one Vasu, but, the said fact has not been proved by the accused to show the cheque was issued to one Vasu and said Vasu not been examined as claimed in reply notice no medical certificate is produced by the accused to show that on the alleged date of issuance i.e., 29.10.2018, the accused was hospitalized at Nagamangal and also no legal action was taken against either against complainant or against said Vasu. Therefore, except these suggestions of the accused, there is no material to show that it was issued in favour of Vasu. Accordingly, he claimed that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption. Hence, prayed for conviction.
15. Considering the rival contentions and the arguments of both the sides, I have carefully perused the evidence on record. Firstly, with respect to 12 C.C.No.50381/2019 financial capability is concerned, the accused vehemently cross examined the P.W.1 about source of income. The P.W.1 has specifically stated, he had a shop at Arogyanagar, K.R.Puram, his daily turnover in his shop was of Rs.10,000/ to Rs.12,000/ per day and he is not a tax payer. He paid Rs.1,60,000/ by way of cash to the accused in a lumpsum and it is elicited that the complainant has a bank account to show his turnover in his shop, but, not produced the statement of his bank account to show the turnover of his shop and source of income, but, neither in the reply notice nor in the cross examination of P.W.1, the accused has not denied the shop owned by the complainant in K.R.Puram. It is true that the source of income must be proved by the complainant, when it is vehemently questioned by the accused, but, in this case the accused has posed several questions to the complainant about the source of income however he does not claimed or denied the financial incapability of the complainant to lent the amount. The entire cross examination of P.W.1, the accused never suggested the P.W.1 that the complainant had no financial capacity to lent Rs.1,60,000/.
13C.C.No.50381/2019 Therefore, mere questions with respect to income or turnover in the shop which does not itself is not a ground to disbelieve the financial capacity. When there is no specific denial or suggestion to that effect that the complainant had no financial capacity to lent the amount. Further, it is not a huge amount, Rs.1,60,000/ is a meager amount, even though it is not a huge amount but when the financial capacity is questioned, it is bound and duty of the complainant to show his income. According to him, his turnover was Rs.10,000/ to Rs.12,000/ per day in his shop. Owning of the said shop has not at all been denied by the accused. Therefore, mere non production of the bank statement does not IPSO FACTO ground that the complainant was not capable to lent the alleged Rs.1,60,000/. As such I do not found force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused with respect to financial capability of the complainant.
16. Further, so far as suspicious circumstances are concerned, it is true that in the cross examination of P.W.1, the accused pleaded his ignorance that he 14 C.C.No.50381/2019 does not know the door number of the accused house. However, he specifically stated the accused was resident of Ramamurthy Nagar. Further, as per the notice Ex.P.3 it was served to the accused and the accused also replied to the complainant notice which suffice to draw inference that the complainant knew the residential address of the accused and it was suitably served on the accused and the accused replied to the notice of the complainant. When such being the case, mere not knowing the house door number of the accused does not amounts to as suspicious circumstances. Further, the residential house situated at Ramamurthy Nagar as stated by the complainant has not been denied by the accused. Therefore, which cannot considered as suspicious circumstances.
17. Further, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the claim of the complainant cannot be acceptable as the complainant allegedly lent Rs.1,60,000/ to his customer who had come for purchase of cigarette is concerned. The complainant has specifically stated, he knew the accused since 9 15 C.C.No.50381/2019 to 10 years as the accused used to visit his shop and the accused is working as Technician in a company. So, the complainant not only said the accused is his customer, but, also he knew that the accused was working as Technician in nearby company, which also corroborates by the reply notice Ex.P.6, wherein the accused himself claimed that he was working in a Telecom company as a Technician. Therefore, since, there is corroboration with respect to claim of the complainant in a reply notice issued by the accused himself, the claim of the accused that lending amount for customer does not amounts to suspicious circumstance to doubt the transaction, because no one knows, how, where, when and whom, the friendship develops, therefore, which cannot be considered as one of the suspicious circumstances.
18. So far as, no talks about interest is concerned, learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued, the complainant has admitted that there is no agreement with respect to interest, if so, no prudent man would lent the amount of Rs.1,60,000/ without any interest, which is doubtful circumstance with 16 C.C.No.50381/2019 respect to transaction. On the other hand, the complainant argued that since, the accused is his friend he never expected the interest from the accused due to friendship he lent the amount. Therefore, which does not itself is a ground to doubt the transaction. Considering the rival contention on careful perusal of the complaint in 4th para, the complainant has alleged that the accused was agreed to repay Rs.1,60,000/ on or before 29.10.2018 along with simple interest, which discloses that the accused was allegedly agreed to repay it with simple interest. However, in the cross examination the complainant stated that there was no talks with respect to interest, so, even though, he stated in his complaint that the accused was agreed to repay it with simple interest, but he is not claiming any interest in this case, but, there was talk to pay simple interest. However, when the complainant has clearly stated about promise made by the accused to repay the interest, merely because he admitted about the no talks with respect to interest which does not fatal to the case of the complainant to doubt the transaction because, the complainant has not seeking any 17 C.C.No.50381/2019 interest in this case, in case if he had claimed the interest along with principal amount, the admission in the cross examination would get significance that the complainant deposing in contrary to his complaint or matter would have been different. So, when there is no claim of interest, the admission about no talks with respect to interest which is not a doubtful circumstances to disbelieve the claim of the complainant about the transaction. Moreover, it is a friendly loan, therefore, I do not found any force in the arguments of the accused.
19. Further, the accused stated on oath that, there was no transaction held in between him and the complainant and Ex.P.1 was issued to his colleague Vasu and claimed that the complainant is stranger to him. However, in the examination in chief itself he stated the cheque and signature found thereon is belongs to him, but, the Ex.P.1 was issued to one Vasu. As held supra, the onus is on him to prove that it was not issued to complainant and claimed transaction or debt is not in existence, but for proof of it no documents are placed on record. Further, as 18 C.C.No.50381/2019 claimed by him he issued to one Vasu who was his colleague working in Telecom Company has not been examined and also he has not stated that why he issued the cheque to his friend Vasu. Even this fact has been concealed to state in his defence, but, the complainant has elicited that why he issued the Ex.P.1 Cheque to Vasu i.e., he stated that it was issued by accused for Rs.50,000/ to one Vasu in the year 2016, it was repaid but he cannot say the date of repayment and issuance of cheque to Vasu, but in contrary to his evidence, in the reply Ex.P.6 he stated that;
"ನನವವ ನನನನಟಸಸನಲಲ ಹನನಳರರವ ಚನಕಸ ತರತಬಬ ವರರಗಳ ಹತದನ ಬಬಬತಕಸನ ವಬವಹಬರವನರನ ಮರಕಬಕಯಗನನಳಸದ ಪರಣಬಮವಬಗ ಬಳಕನಯಲಲರರವವದಲಲ. ಸದರ ಚನಕರಕ ನಮಮ ಕಕಕದಬರರರ ಕನಲಸ ಮಬಡರತಕದದ ಟನಲಕಬತ ಕನಕನತತದಲಲ ಜನನತನಯಲಲದದ ಇಮರರಸ ವಬಸರ ಕನಡ ಕನಲಸ ಮಬಡರತಕದರದ ತರತಬಬ ಆತಮನಯರಬಗದದರತದ ಒತದರ ಚನಕರಕ ಅವರ ಬಳ ಇದರದ ನಮಮ ಕಕಕದಬರರರ ಕನಲಸ ಬಡರವಬಗ ಆ ಚನಕಸನರನ ಕನನಳದಬಗ ಇಮರರಸ ವಬಸರರವರರ ನಮಮ ಚನಕರಕ ನಮಮ ಊರನಲಲ ಇದರದ ಅದನರನ ಊರಗನ ಹನನನದಬಗ ತತದರ ಕನನಡರತನಕನನನತದರ ಹನನಳರರತಬಕರನ. ಆದರನ ಇದನವರನಗನ ಅವರರ ಆ ಚನಕಕನರನ ವಬಪಸಸ ನನಡರರವವದಲಲ. ಆದದರತದ ನಮಮ ಕಕಕದಬರರಗನ 19 C.C.No.50381/2019 ಸನನರದದ ಚನಕಸ ನಮಮ ಬಳ ಇದದರನ ತಕಕಣ ನಮಮ ಕಕಕದಬರರಗನ ವಬಪಸಸ ತತದರ ಕನನಡಬನನಕರ. ಇಲಲವಬದರನ ನಮಮ ಮನಲನ ಮತರಕ ಈ ವಬವಹಬರಕನಕ ಸಹಕರಸರವ ಇಮರರಸ ವಬಸರ ಮತರಕ ಇತರನ ವಬಕಕಗಳ ಮನಲನ ಐ.ಪ.ಸ. ಕಲತ 420 ರಡಯಲಲ ಸನಕಕ ನಬಬಯಬಲಯದಲಲ ದಬವನ ಹನಡಲಬಗರವವದರ."
20. So, as per this reply Ex.P.1 was obtained by one Vasu but what for it was issued not at all stated in the reply notice. However, as elicited by the complainant in the cross examination it was issued by the accused for Rs.50,000/ loan obtained from one Vasu by the accused in the year 2016. So, when the accused specifically stated it was issued in the year 2016 the claimed old and non CTS cheques of closed account cheque to one Vasu cannot be acceptable without proof to that effect.
21. Further, admittedly, the accused has not made any efforts to examine Vasu to show Ex.P.1 was issued to Vasu but not to the complainant. So, mere suggestion without proof to that effect cannot be acceptable that the alleged transaction held in 20 C.C.No.50381/2019 between Vasu and accused in the year 2016 and cheque was issued in favour of Vasu without any evidence to that effect. Further, even after reply to the notice of complainant admittedly, the accused has not taken any action either against the complainant or against the Vasu. Therefore, it can be easily inferred that no prudent man would keep mum despite repayment of Rs.50,000/ issued in favour of Vasu for security for hand loan of Rs.50,000/ and non returning of cheque without initiating any legal action, as such the defence of the accused is not acceptable as it is not probable to believe. Further, in contrary to his reply notice, the accused suggested to P.W.1 in the cross examination that it is false to suggest that I had two more signed blank cheques of the accused. So, the very suggestion of the accused is contrary to his evidence that two more signed blank cheques with the complainant is fatal to his defence, stated in the reply as well as contended in the defence evidence. Therefore, defence of the accused is not acceptable.
21C.C.No.50381/2019
22. Considering the entire materials on record, as admitted by the accused, he cheque and signature on the cheque is belongs to him. Therefore, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa .Vs. Mohan presumption under Sec.118A and Sec.139 of N.I.Act has to be drawn in favour of the complainant that i.e., the holder of the cheque that Ex.P.1 was issued for discharge of legally recoverable debt. To rebut this presumption though the P.W.1 cross examined by the accused and also led his defence evidence but failed to brought out the materials on record to show that non existence of alleged transaction because the accused suggested it was issued to one Vasu but failed to examine the said Vasu to prove the transaction in between him and the Vasu and issuance of questioned cheque to one Vasu. In the absence of proof to that effect, it is clear that it is the mere suggestion and bare denial of case of complainant and also with regard to financial capability nothing has brought on record to show that the complainant is not capable to lent the amount of Rs.1,60,000/. So, at this stage, as ruled 22 C.C.No.50381/2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa .Vs. Mudibasappa, the onus is on the accused that;
"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. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the nonexistence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, 23 C.C.No.50381/2019 the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their nonexistence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist".
23. So, mere bare denial or suggestion is not sufficient proof of defense. The defense must be probable and it must be capable to accept that the debt is not in existence and the cheque was not issued in any consideration.
24. So, considering the above dictum with the facts and circumstances of the case except the suggestion of the accused, that it was issued to one Vasu for security for a hand loan of Rs.50,000/ borrowed by him, neither he proved the transaction allegedly held in between him and Vasu nor the issuance of questioned cheque to Vasu. Therefore, suggestion of accused does not supported with proof. So, the mere suggestion cannot be acceptable to believe the defence that there is no existence of the transaction 24 C.C.No.50381/2019 in between the complainant and the accused, as such, as per Sec.118A and Sec.139, the initial presumption drawn in favour of the complainant i.e., the holder of the cheque, the cheque was issued for legally recoverable debt is not at all rebutted. Therefore, the multiple defences taken by the accused i.e., issuance of the cheque to one Vasu and suggestion to the complainant that two more his signed cheques with the complainant, financial incapability are not proved by the accused which are also inconsistence to each other and contrary. Therefore, in the absence of proof, the claim of the defence cannot be acceptable as it is not a probable defence. Accordingly, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption lies in favour of the complainant. Therefore, in view of Sec.118A and 139 of N.I.Act, the complainant has proved the cheque Ex.P.1 issued in his favour by the accused for discharge of debt of Rs.1,60,000/. Accordingly, I do not found any valid force in the argument of accused counsel, since the accused failed to rebut the presumption. Accordingly, the case of the complainant has proved that the accused is found guilty of the offence 25 C.C.No.50381/2019 punishable under Sec.138 because the issuance of cheque Ex.P.1 despite noticing the fact that his account was closed, therefore, the reason for bouncing as per Ex.P.2 that the account of the accused was closed. As per the accused, it was issued in the year 2016 to one Vasu but in reply, he claimed that Ex.P.1 cheque is old one, but, on face of it, it discloses that it is not a non CTS cheque. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1999 SC 1952 between NEPC Micon Ltd. Vs. Magma Leasing Ltd.
"If a person choses to close his account in the bank after issuing the cheque or after closing his account, it amounts to an offence as there is insufficient funds.
25. Therefore, issuance of cheque despite knowing the fact that his account was closed is amounts to an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act and there is no dispute about compliance of Sec.138(a) to
(c) of N.I.Act. Hence, the accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
26C.C.No.50381/2019
26. So far as sentence and compensation is concerned, it is well settled law that as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Beersingh .Vs. Mukesh Kumar "The object of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to infuse credibility to negotiable instruments including cheques and to encourage and promote the use of negotiable instruments including cheques in financial transactions. The penal provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is intended to be a deterrent to callous issuance of negotiable instruments such as cheques without serious intention to honour the promise implicit in the issuance of the same."
27. Having regard to the object of Sec.138 of N.I.Act, imprisonment only in deterrent in nature but main object only to recover the cheque amount. Therefore, on considering the facts and circumstances with background of settled law, the intention of the complainant is only to see the recovery of cheque 27 C.C.No.50381/2019 amount but not an order of imprisonment. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, if the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,80,000/ it would meet the ends of justice and equity. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,80,000/, the compensation as per Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,75,000/ and remaining sum of Rs.5,000/ is to be appropriated to the State, in case of default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Accordingly I answer the above point in "Affirmative". In the result, following;
ORDER
Acting under section 255(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,80,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand) in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
28
C.C.No.50381/2019
Out of the fine amount received,
Rs.5,000/ is to be appropriated to the State and by way of compensation as per the provision U/s 357(1) of Cr.P.C. the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,75,000/.
The bail bonds and surety bond of the accused shall stand cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish a free copy of the judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 6th day of November, 2020) (M.Vijay), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 : Sri.Jayaram M.
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Original cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank Return Memo
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.4 : 2 Postal receipts
29
C.C.No.50381/2019
Ex.P.5 : Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.P.6 : Reply notice
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 : Sri.Yogesh K.J.
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Nil (M.Vijay), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.