Bangalore District Court
Sri.L.Narayanappa vs M/S.Sai Sannidhi Ventures on 8 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 8thday of June, 2018
Present: Smt. Saraswathi.K.N, B.A.L., LL.M.,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.11790/2016
Complainant : Sri.L.Narayanappa,
S/o.Sri. Late Lagumaiah,
Residing at Suragajakkanahalli,
Kasaba Hobli,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru District.
(Rep. by Sri. Shankar M.R. & ors Adv.,)
- Vs -
Accused : 1. M/s.SAI SANNIDHI VENTURES,
# 19/2, 1st Floor, Model House,
Street, Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru.
2. S.G.Bharath @ Bharathreddy,
Managing Partner,
# 19/2, 1st Floor, Model House
Street, Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru.
3. K.Narendra Kumar,
Managing Partner,
# 19/2, 1st Floor, Model House
Street, Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru.
4. G.Gurvireddy,
2 C.C.No.11790/2016 J
Managing Partner,
# 19/2, 1st Floor, Model House
Street, Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by R.Srinivas & Ors., Adv.,)
Case instituted : 11.5.2016
Offence : U/s 138 of N.I. Act
complained of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused No.1 to 4 are acquitted
Date of order : 8.6.2018
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that, the Accused No.2 to 4 are running a Registered Partnership Firm in the name and style of M/s. SAI SANNYDHAAN VENTURES (Formerly Known as SAI SANNIDHI VENTURES) herein the 1st Accused for the purpose of joint venture with the landlords. They entered into an agreement of sale and deeds with him and his family and his brother Sri. L.Narasimaiah and his family, in respect of the land in question in Sy.No.46 measuring 3.15 Acres and Sy.No.110/3 measuring 1.19 Acres, totally 4.34 Acres, both lands situated at 3 C.C.No.11790/2016 J Suragajakkanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District.
3. The Complainant has further submitted that, in view of the said transactions with the joint family, they were issued post dated cheques in lieu of the agreement of sale considerations and as such the Accused No.2 (On behalf of Aryan Hometech Private Limited claiming that all three names are one and the same) issued the following cheques in his favour:-
Sl. Cheque Date Ch.Amt. Endorsement
No. No. date
1. 265890 24/12/2015 Rs.1,300,000 Dishonored on
16/3/16
2. 265891 24/12/2015 Rs.1,000,000 Dishonored on
16/3/16
3. 265892 24/12/2015 Rs.1,000,000 Dishonored on
16/3/16
4. 265893 24/12/2015 Rs.1,000,000 Dishonored on
16/3/16
5. 265895 24/12/2015 Rs.1,000,000 Dishonored on
16/3/16
6. 265896 24/12/2015 Rs.1,000,000 Dishonored on
16/3/16
7. 265897 24/12/2015 Rs.1,000,000 Dishonored on
16/3/16
8. 265898 24/12/2015 Rs.1,000,000 Dishonored on
16/3/16
9. 265900 24/12/2015 Rs.1,000,000 Dishonored on
16/3/16
4. The Complainant has further submitted that,
aforesaid cheques were drawn on the Bank of India, J.P.Nagar 4 C.C.No.11790/2016 J Branch, Bengaluru, for a total amount of Rs.93 Lakhs and the said cheques were issued towards the agreement of sale and other sale considerations of the said land in question. On 19.09.2015, Rectification Deeds came to be executed in favour of the Accused on behalf of Sannidhan Ventures as per their wish in respect of the said sale deeds. They promised that all the cheques would be honored on presentation and believing their words, when he presented the said cheques on 12.01.2016, they came to be returned dishonored as "Funds Insufficient" Vide Bank Endorsement dated 12.01.2016.
5. The Complainant has further submitted that, when he informed the Accused about the dishonor of the said cheques, they requested him to give one month time to honor the said cheques and accordingly as per their instructions, when he presented the said cheques for encashment on their due date, they came to be returned dishonored once again as "Funds Insufficient" vide Bank endorsement dated 16.03.2016.
6. The Complainant has further submitted that, thereafter he got issued the legal notices to the Accused through RPAD and ordinary post on 30.03.2016 calling upon them to pay the cheques amount to him within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said legal notice. In spite of the due service of the same, the Accused have neither replied nor have they paid the cheques amount to him.
5 C.C.No.11790/2016 J7. The Complainant has led his pre-summoning evidence on 11.05.2016. He has filed his affidavit-in-lieu of his sworn Statement, in which, he has reiterated the complaint averments.
8. In support of his evidence, C.W.1 has produced and relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.C.1 to C.35 which are as follows:-
Ex.C.1 to C.9 are the original cheques, Ex.C.1(a) to C.9(a) are the Signatures on the said cheques identified by C.W.1 as those of the Accused No.2, Ex.C.10 to C.18 are the Bank Memos, Ex.C.19 is the office copy of the Legal Notice, Ex.C.20 to C.23 are the Postal receipts, Ex.C.24 to C.27 are the returned Legal Notices, Ex.C.28 to C.31 are the Postal Envelopes, Ex.C.32 to C.35 are the Postal Receipts.
9. Prima-facie case has been made out against the Accused No.1 to 4 and they have been summoned vide the order of the same date.
10. The Accused No.2 to 4 have appeared before the court. They have been enlarged on bail. The substance of the accusation has been read over and explained to them, to which, they have pleaded not claimed and have stated that they have their defence to make.
6 C.C.No.11790/2016 J11. In the Post-summoning evidence stage, the GPA Holder of the Complainant is examined as P.W.1 and he has filed his affidavit, in which, he has reiterated the complaint averments.
P.W.1 has produced and relied upon the additional documentary evidence as per Ex.P.36 to P.40 which are as follows:-
Ex.36 is the G.P.A executed by the Complainant in favour of his son/P.W.1, Ex.P.37 is the certified copy of the Sale Agreement dated 24.6.2015, Ex.P-38 is the certified copy of the Absolute Sale deed dated 23.6.2015, Ex.P.39 is the copy of the F.I.R and Ex.P.40 is the Affidavit dated 24.6.2015.
12. P.W.1 has been extensively cross-examined by the learned Defence Counsel.
13. The Statements of the Accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., have been recorded by explaining to them the incriminating evidence found against them. They have denied the same. They have filed their statements of defence u/Sec.313 (5) of the Cr.P.C. and the same has been taken into record.
14. The learned counsel for the Complainant has addressed his arguments, during the course of which, he has prayed for the conviction of the Accused on the following grounds:-
7 C.C.No.11790/2016 Ji). The Accused have issued the cheques under the Agreement of sale. They have admitted that they have taken the possession of the land by suggesting to P.W.1 that they have undertaken all the developmental activities in respect of the land since 2007 till 2015, but they have denied that the Complainant has handed over the possession of the land to them.
ii). The Accused have admitted the execution of the Sale Agreement at Ex.P.37 dated 24.06.2015 and they are the parties to the Sale Agreement at Ex.P.37 and the Sale Deed at Ex.P.38. They have not disputed the signatures on the cheques in dispute. The intention of the Accused is to cheat the Complainant.
iii). Intentionally the Accused have changed the name of the company.
iv). The defence of the Accused that, Complainant has not made the Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd., company as a party is not tenable.
v). As per clause 2.3 on Page No.10 of Ex.P.37, Accused are liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum to the Complainant for the delayed payment and it is also agreed between the parties that, even in case of bouncing 8 C.C.No.11790/2016 J of the cheques, the Complainant and his family members shall have a right only to claim the amount with interest as agreed above and as such the Complainant is at liberty to file a case U/s.138 of N.I.Act.
vi). There is no defence of the Accused on merits, but it is only on technicalities.
vii). It is also argued that, the identity of the land is changed by the Accused. Civil and criminal proceedings -
parallel in nature are maintainable and the Accused in their statements of defence say that, at no point of time, they had informed the Complainant that Sai Sannidhi Ventures, Sai Sannidhan Ventures and Aryan Hometech Private Ltd., were one and the same.
viii). Therefore the Accused are liable to be convicted in respect of the cheques in dispute.
15. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the Complainant has relied the following decisions:-
i). Sri. Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs., Smt.Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 8 SCALE 698;
ii). S.H.Yuvaraja Vs., K.Hemachandra in Crl.P.No.6831/2017 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 2.1.2018.9 C.C.No.11790/2016 J
Accordingly he has prayed for the conviction of the Accused.
16. On the contrary the learned Defence Counsel has addressed his oral arguments, as well as, filed his written arguments, in which, he has prayed for the acquittal of the Accused on the following grounds:-
i) The Sale agreement at Ex.C-37 creates the liability. The Accused No.2 has issued the cheques for Rs.93 lakhs and it is only the Accused No.2, who is the drawer of the cheques, which admittedly pertain to the Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd.,
ii) As per Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act, the drawer of the cheque is the person, in whose name, he should maintain an account pertaining to the cheque in dispute. However, in the present case, the drawer of the cheque is not the Accused No.2 personally and the cheques in dispute are drawn on the accounts maintained in the name of Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd., company, which is a company which is admittedly not made a party to the proceedings.
Therefore on technical grounds the complaint itself is not maintainable;
iii) Even otherwise, even on merits, the complaint is not maintainable, since the sale deed has not been executed 10 C.C.No.11790/2016 J by the Complainant and the possession of the property has not at all been handed over to the Accused and even in his cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted the suggestion that, no such sale deed has been executed and even the Agreement of sale has not been executed.
iv) The document at Ex.P.40 titled as an "Affidavit" is a created document, since the said Affidavit, is shown to have been sworn by the Accused No.2 on 25.6.2015, whereas the e-stamp paper pertaining to the same has been purchased only on 29.06.2015. Moreover P.W.1 has admitted the execution of Ex.P.40 and as such, the complaint itself is not maintainable.
v) Hence, it is argued that, both on technicality as well as on merits, the complaint filed by the Complainant itself is not maintainable and accordingly he has prayed for the acquittal of the Accused.
17. In support of his arguments, the learned Defence Counsel has relied upon the following decisions:-
i) IN Jitendra Vora Vs., Bhavana Y.Shah and another in Cr.A.No.1001/2010 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 16.9.2016;
ii) In Aneeta Hada Vs., Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt., Ltd., in Cr.A.No.838/2008 decided by the 11 C.C.No.11790/2016 J Hon'ble Apex Court along with other Criminals, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661;
iii) In Venkatesh Bhat A Vs., Rohidas Shenoy, reported in 2010(3) AICLR.
18. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
19. Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been enacted to lend credibility to the financial transactions.
The main ingredients of the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are:-
(i) Drawing up of a cheque by the Accused towards the payment of an amount of money, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or any other liability;
(ii) Return of the cheque by the Bank as unpaid;
(iii) The drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money within 15 days of the receipt of the notice under the proviso (b) to Section 138.
The Explanation appended to the Section provides that, the "debt or other liability" for the purpose of this Section means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
20. Apart from this, Sec.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lays down a presumption in favour of the holder of cheque in the following terms:-
12 C.C.No.11790/2016 J"It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that:-
The holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec. 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability".
21. Also, Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act states, "Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-
(a) That every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."
22. Thus, the Act clearly lays down presumptions in favour of the Complainant with regard to the issuance of the cheque by the Accused towards the discharge of his liability in favour of the Complainant .
23. Under the scheme of the Act, the onus is upon the Accused to rebut the presumptions in favour of the Complainant by raising a probable defence.
24. It is a well settled position of law that, the defence of the Accused, if in the nature of a mere denial of the case of 13 C.C.No.11790/2016 J the Complainant will not be sufficient to hold it as a probable defence. The bare denial of the passing of consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable must be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proof to the Complainant.
25. It is also a well settled position of law that, once the cheque is proved to be relating to the Account of the Accused and he accepts and admits the signature on the said cheque, then the initial presumption as contemplated under Sec. 139 of the N.I.Act has to be raised by the courts in favour of the Complainant. The presumption referred to in Sec.139 of the N.I.Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the Accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption. What is required to be established by the Accused in order to rebut the presumption is different from each case under given circumstance. But the fact remains that a mere plausible explanation is not expected from the Accused and it must be more than a plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. The defence raised by the Accused by way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and capable of being accepted by the court.
26. No doubt the initial mandatory statutory presumptions under Sec.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act are in favour of the Complainant. However they are rebuttable 14 C.C.No.11790/2016 J presumptions and the Accused is expected to rebut the presumptions by raising a probable defence.
27. Such being the legal position, it would be pertinent to refer to the defences raised by the Accused to rebut the presumptions in favour of the Complainant in this case.
28. It is pertinent to note that, there is no dispute with regard to the acquaintance between the parties as well as with regard to the fact that, the cheques in dispute belong to the Accused No.1 with the signatures of the Accused No.2 on them. However there is a serious dispute with regard to the existence of the legally payable liability by the Accused in favour of the Complainant. In such circumstance, the onus of proving the existence of the legally payable liability by the Accused in his favour is upon the Complainant.
29. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the acquaintance between the parties as well as with regard to the transaction of the agreement among them as per Ex.C.37. However, there is a serious dispute on the part of the Accused No.3 and 4 with regard to their alleged liability under the cheques in dispute, because of the fact that, they are not the drawers of the said cheques.
15 C.C.No.11790/2016 J30. Likewise, though the Accused No.2 has not disputed that the cheques in dispute bear his signatures, according to him, there is no liability on his part under the cheques in dispute, since there is no existing liability under the cheques in dispute, as the company Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd., the account pertaining to which, the cheques in dispute have been drawn by him is not arrayed an Accused in this case. In such circumstance, the main defence of the Accused No.2 that could be seen in this case is that, complaint itself is not maintainable.
31. In this regard, it is pertinent that, according to the Complainant the Accused No.2 to 4 had represented to him and to his family members that, the three firms viz., Sai Sannidhan Ventures and Sai Sannidhi Ventures and the Arya Hometech Pvt., Ltd., were one and the same and in view of the transactions in the form of the Agreement of sale and the sale deed that was entered into among his family members and the Accused, he was issued the post dated cheques in lieu of the agreement sale considerations by the Accused No.2 on behalf of Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd., The said cheques are the subject matter of the present case, since they are returned dishonored as "Funds Insufficient", in respect of whose account, the cheques in dispute are drawn.
16 C.C.No.11790/2016 J32. In order to corroborate the case of the Complainant, his son is examined as P.W.1, being his GPA holder and he has reiterated the claim of his father in this case.
33. It is seen that, in support of the case of the Complainant, P.W1 has produced the certified copy of the sale Agreement dated 24.06.2015 dated Ex.P.37, in which, admittedly his father and his uncle and all their family members are the Vendors and the Accused No.2 to 4 in the capacity of the Managing Partners of the Accused No.1 are the Purchasers.
34. According to P.W.1, it is towards the payment of the sale consideration amount that, the Accused No.2 is said to have issued the cheques in dispute in favour of his father. However, it could be seen that, during the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is elicited from him that, the sale deed at Ex.P.38 which is dated 23.6.2015 is in respect of the property in Sy.No.46 and that, at the time of the execution of the sale deed, the Accused No.2 had issued two cheques for a total sum of Rs.48 lakhs as referred to in the said sale deed on Ex.P.38 in favour of his uncle Sri.L.Narasimhaiah. It is also elicited from him that, the said two cheques have been encashed for a total sum of Rs.48 Lakhs by his uncle Narasimhaiah and that for the same reason, his uncle has not filed any case against the Accused No.2.
17 C.C.No.11790/2016 J35. It could be seen that, a material admission is also elicited from P.W.1 to the effect that, except the sale deed at Ex.P.38 in respect of Sy.No.46, their family has not executed any sale deed in favour of the Accused persons.
36. In such circumstance, when the Complainant has claimed in the present case that the Accused are liable to him under the cheques in dispute, it is necessary for him to show that, other than the sale deed at Ex.P.38, there also existed any other sale deed pertaining to Sy.No.46 by the Accused persons in his favour. However, as admitted by P.W.1 himself, except the sale deed at Ex.P.38, there is no other sale deed in respect of Sy.No.46 executed by the Accused persons in favor of his father.
37. It is further pertinent to note that, P.W.1 has also admitted the suggestions that, the present case has been filed in respect of the cheques which are referred to in the sale agreement at Ex.P.37 and that, as per the terms of the said sale agreement, it is agreed that, they would deliver the possession of the said property at the time of the execution of the registered sale deed in favor of the Accused and that they were required to furnish all the documents to the Accused so as to enable the latter to avail Bank loan and to take legal opinion.
18 C.C.No.11790/2016 J38. It is further elicited from P.W.1 that, the Accused No.2 had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with all the members of their family in respect of the properties which are the subject matters of the sale agreement at Ex.P.37 in the year 2007 itself and that subsequent to the execution of the sale agreement at Ex.P.37, the Accused No.2 has got converted the land from Agricultural to Non-Agricultural purpose and obtained license from the Anekal Town Planning Authority and that, he has also formed the sites in the said land.
39. It is also admitted by P.W.1 that, there is no mention of the date of the cheques mentioned in clause (a) to (k) in Page No.9 and 10 of Ex.P.37.
40. These admissions elicited from P.W.1 clearly goes to show that, though it is admitted by the Accused No.2 that, the cheques in dispute are issued by him in favour of the Complainant under the sale agreement at Ex.P.37, the said cheques could not have been presented for encashment unless the condition stipulated in clause (4) of the said agreement was fulfilled by the Complainant and he and his family members executed the sale deed either in favour of the Accused persons or in favour of their nominees. The case of the Complainant is silent with regard to the compliance of 19 C.C.No.11790/2016 J their part of the obligations by them as was undertaken by them to fulfill as agreed in clause 4 of Page No.11 of the said sale agreement at Ex.P.37.
41. In such circumstance, it cannot be held that, merely because the cheques in dispute are referred to in the sale agreement at Ex.P.37 and the Accused No.2 has not disputed about either the issuance of the said cheques in favour of the Complainant or having signed on those cheques, there could not be a legally enforceable liability as against the Accused persons under the said cheques.
42. Therefore, the careful reading of the recitals of the sale agreement at Ex.P.37 clearly leads to an inference that the Complainant and his family members were bound to comply with the conditions that were agreed to by them under the sale agreement, which they have admittedly failed to do so. In such circumstance, there can be no legally enforceable liability as against the Accused persons under the said cheques.
43. Even otherwise, when the case is considered on strict technicality, even on the said ground the complaint is not maintainable, since, admittedly the Accused No.3 and 4 are not the signatories to the cheques in dispute and the cheques 20 C.C.No.11790/2016 J in dispute do not relate to the account of the Accused No.1, even though the Accused No.1 might be a Partnership Firm.
44. In this regard, it is elicited from P.W.1 in his cross- examination that, the Accused No.3 and 4 are the Partners of the Accused No.1 Firm and that he has no documents obtained from the Registrar of Companies to show the latter (Accused No.3 and 4) are in anyway related to the Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd.,
45. It is further elicited from P.W.1 that, the Accused No.3 and 4 have not issued any cheques to them at the time of the sale agreement at Ex.P.37.
46. To corroborate the defence of the Accused No.3 and 4, it is seen that, during the course of his arguments, the learned Defence Counsel has produced the following documents:-
i) The Articles of Association relating to the Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd.,;
ii) The Memorandum of Association relating to the said company;
iii)The Certificate of Incorporation;
iv) The Copy of the letter dated 31.1.2017 issued by the Bank of India;21 C.C.No.11790/2016 J
47. He has relied upon the following decisions:-
i) K.M.Mathew VS., State of Kerala and another, reported in 1992 Cr.L.J., 3779;
ii) Aparna A Shah Vs., Sheth Developers Pvt., Ltd., in Cr.A.No.813/2013 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 1.7.2013;
iii) Jitendra Vora Vs., Bhavana Y Shah and others, in Cr.A.No.1001/2010 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 16.9.2015.
48. From the careful perusal of the documents described above, it is clear that, the Accused No.3 and 4 are in no way related to the company viz., Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd., Therefore, the complaint as against the Accused No.3 and 4 is not at all maintainable, since they are neither the drawers of the cheques in dispute nor are they related to the Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd., company. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that, the complaint as against the Accused No.3 and 4 is not at all maintainable.
49. Now coming to the liability of the Accused No.2 under the cheques in dispute, no doubt he has not disputed that, he is the Managing Director of the Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd., and that he is the signatory to the cheques dispute. Moreover the photocopy of the Certificate issued by the Bank of India on 31.01.2017 shows that, the cheques in dispute 22 C.C.No.11790/2016 J pertain to the current account in the name of M/s. Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd., and that, it is the Accused No.2, who is the authorized signatory to the said account.
50. However, it is an admitted fact that, though the Complainant was very aware of the fact that, the cheques in dispute were drawn on the account of Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd., since the beginning of the proceeding, till the conclusion of the trial, no attempt was made by him so as to implead the said company as an Accused person.
51. In this regard, it could be seen that, after the arguments were addressed by the learned Defence Counsel on the main matter, the counsel for the Complainant made an application to this court seeking to permit him to implead the said company i.e., the Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd., as an Accused by filing an application U/s.319 of the Cr.P.C., The said application came to be rejected by this court, against which, the Complainant did not prefer any revision.
52. Therefore, as per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harihara Krishnan Vs., J.Thomas in Cr.A.No.1534/2017 dated 30.8.2017, the present complaint, in which, the Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd., is not arrayed as an Accused is not at all maintainable.
23 C.C.No.11790/2016 J53. No doubt, the conduct of the Accused No.2 goes to show that he has issued the subject cheques, knowing full well that, they related to the current account of Aryan Hometech Pvt., Ltd., and as such the Complainant may have the remedy to challenge the same before the appropriate Forum and as such the Complainant has no remedy in the present proceeding. Therefore, on this ground, the complaint as against the Accused No.2 is also not maintainable.
54. Therefore by appreciating the entire evidence available on record, it can be easily inferred that, the Complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and he has failed to prove that, there is no existence of the legally enforceable liability as against the Accused No.1 to 4 under the subject cheques. On the contrary, the Accused have probabalized their defence and thereby rebutted the presumptions available in favour of the Complainant under Sec.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER By exercising the power-conferred u/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 to 4 are hereby herby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.24 C.C.No.11790/2016 J
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.
(Dictated to the Stenographer online, printout taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of June, 2018).
(SARASWATHI.K.N), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant :-
P.W.1 : Sri.Madhu;
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant :-
Ex.C.1 to C.9 : Original cheques;
Ex.C.1(a) to : Signatures of the Accused No.2;
C.9(a)
Ex.C.10 to : Bank Memos;
Ex.C.18
Ex.C19 : Office copy of the Legal Notice.
Ex.C.20 to 23 : Postal Receipts;
Ex.C.24 to : Returned Legal Notices;
C.27
Ex.C.28 to : Postal Envelopes;
C.31
Ex.C.32 to : Postal Receipts.
C.35
Ex.P.36 : Original G.P.A.
Ex.P.37 : Certified copy of the Sale Agreement
dated 24.6.2015;
Ex.P.38 : Certified copy of the Absolute Sale deed
dated 23.6.2015;
25 C.C.No.11790/2016 J
Ex.P.39 : Copy of the F.I.R;
Ex.P.40 : Affidavit dated 25.6.2015.
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused:-
- Nil -
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-
- Nil -
(SARASWATHI.K.N), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.26 C.C.No.11790/2016 J
8.6.2018 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER By exercising the power-
conferred u/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 to 4 are hereby herby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.
XVI ACMM, B'luru.