Bangalore District Court
Smt. Renuka vs Smt.Rehana Banu on 29 November, 2021
1
CC.No.27349/17 J
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 29th day of November, 2021
Present: Sri.S.B.HANDRAL, B.Sc., L.L.B(SPL).,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.27349/2017
Complainant : Smt. Renuka,
W/o. Sri.B.M.Umesh,
Residing at No.33,
3rd Main Road,
3rd cross,1st Block,
Nagasandra,
Bangalore560 050.
(By Sri. Mahesh & Co.., Adv.,)
Vs
Accused : Smt.Rehana Banu,
W/o. Chand Basha,
Residing at NO.95, 12th Cross,
Naryana Pura, Wilson Garden,
Bangalore 560 050.
(By Sri. Mali thumanoor and others
Advs .,)
Case instituted : 2.11.2017
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
2
CC.No.27349/17 J
Final Order : Accused is Acquitted
Date of order : 29.11.2021
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, accused got acquainted with her through one a common friend namely Ruksana who is a neighbour of accused at Wilson garden Bangalore and during the month of January 2016 accused approached her as she was in deep financial distress and that marriage of daughter has been fixed and was in requirement of financial assistance for wedding expenditure and for personal expenses requested for an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs from her by promising to repay the same immediately, considering the financial capacity of the accused and believing her words and promise and request, she pledged some of her jewels and borrowed money from her husband and in order to help the accused has paid a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs ie., Rs.46,000/ by way of NEFT transfer on 23.2.2016 3 CC.No.27349/17 J and Rs.2,04,000/ by way of Cash on 4.4.2016. It is further contended by the complainant that, despite of long delay accused failed to make the payment and evaded to meet her despite of her several requests, finally as a repayment in discharge of debt and liability the accused has issued a cheque baring No.528707 for sum of Rs.3 Lakhs dt: 18.9.2017 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Wilson garden branch, promising to honour the said cheque. It is further contended by the complainant that, she had presented the said cheque through her banker ie Syndicate Bank, N.R.Colony Branch, Bangalore for encashment but the said cheque was dishonorued "Payment Stopped by Drawer" vide bank memos dt: 20.9.2017 immediately she tried to contact the accused but the accused evaded her and failed to pay the amount legally due and she issued statutory notice dt: 4.10.2017 to the accused through RPAD demanding for payment of cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice but the said notice returned to the complainant with shara "Insufficient Address" and the said notice sent to the accused through her last known address, hence it is deemed that, accused has 4 CC.No.27349/17 J been served with the notice and inspite of it, the accused has not paid the cheque amount. Hence he has filed this present complainant against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Before issuing process against the accused, the the Complainant has filed her affidavitinlieu of her sworn statement, in which, she has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. In support of her evidence, P.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.C.1 to C.8 i.e, Original Cheque dated: 18.9.2017 is as per Ex.C.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused as per Ex.C.1(a), the Bank Memo as per Ex.C2, the office copy of Legal Notice as per Ex.C3, postal receipt as per Ex.C.4, copy of Returned legal notice as per Ex.C.5, postal envelope as per Ex.C.6, postal receipt as per Ex.C.7, postal acknowledgement as per Ex.C.8, subsequently during the course of evidence complainant has produced her bank pass book as per Ex.C.9 relevant entry as per Ex.C.9(a).
5CC.No.27349/17 J
4. Primafacie case has been made out against the accused and summons was issued against the accused in turn has appeared before the court and got enlarged on bail and the substance of the accusation has been read over to her, to which she pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. As per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of the Indian Bank Association Vs., Union of India, reported in 2014 (5) SCC 590, after recording the plea of the Accused, as she intended to set out her defence, then the case was posted for the crossexamination of the PW.1 and crossexamination of PW.1 recorded and complainant has closed her side evidence.
6. Thereafter, the statement of the accused as required under Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. She has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against her and has chosen to lead her rebuttal evidence. The accused herself examined as DW.1 during her evidence has produced complaint given to the police station as per Ex.D.1, Letter dt:
6CC.No.27349/17 J 14.09.2017 as per Ex.D.2, Statement before Police as per Ex.D.3, Invitation card (marked through DW.2) as per Ex.D.4(a) and one Sri.Chand Pasha was examined as DW.2, DW.1 and DW.2 have been cross examined by the learned counsel for the complainant and closed their side.
7. Heard by learned counsel for the complainant and the Accused and perused the written argument submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant and the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant ie. Crl.Appeal No.230231/2019
- Birsingh Vs. Mukesh Kumar 2) 1998(3) SCC 249 Modi Cements ltd., V/s. Kuchil Kumar Nandi 3) 2002 (1) SCC 234 MMTC Ltd., and another V/s. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd., 4) ILR 2006 KAR 3105 M/s. Snow White HiTech Launderette V/s. Smt. Shamantha R. Hariharan.
5) 1998 (3) SCC 249 6) 2002(1) SCC 234 6) Manu/SC/0725/214 7) ILR 2006 KAR 3105.
The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused ie., 1) Crl.Appeal No.626/2010 7 CC.No.27349/17 J decided on 20.12.2018 in the case of B. Rajashekara Vs. Smt. Asha .
8. On the basis of complaint, evidence of complainant and documents the following points that are arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued cheque bearing No.528707 for sum of Rs.3 Lakhs dt:
18.9.2017 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Wilson Garden branch, to discharge legally recoverable debt to the complainant and when the complainant has presented cheque for encashment through her banker but the said cheque has been dishonoured for the reasons "
payment Stopped by Drawer" on 20.9.2017 and the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 4.10.2017. and inspite of it the accused has not paid the cheque amount within prescribed period there by the accused has committed an offence U/s.138 of the Negotiable instruments Act?
2. What Order?
9. The above points are answered as under:
8CC.No.27349/17 J Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
..
REASONS
10. Point No.1: Before appreciation of the facts and oral and documentary evidence of the present case, it is relevant to mention that under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to establish guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts however, a proceedings U/s.138 of N.I.Act is quasi criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond all reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions as envisaged U/s.118, 139 and 136 of N.I.Act. An essential ingredient of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act is that, whether a person issues cheque to be encashed and the cheque so issued is towards payment of debt or liability and if it is returned as unpaid for want of funds, then the person issuing such cheque shall be deemed to have been committed an offence. The offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act presupposes three conditions for prosecution of an offence which are as under:
1. Cheque shall be presented for payment 9 CC.No.27349/17 J within specified time i.e., from the date of issue or before expiry of its validity.
2. The holder shall issue a notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer within one month from the date of receipt of information of the bounced cheque and
3. The drawer inspite of demand notice fails to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice.
If the above said three conditions are satisfied by holder in due course gets cause action to launch prosecution against the drawer of the bounced cheque and as per Sec.142(b) of the N.I. Act, the complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arise to file complaint.
11. It is also one of the essential ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act that, a cheque in question must have been issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I.Act envisages certain presumptions i.e., U/s.118 a presumption shall be raised regarding 'consideration' 'date' 'transfer' 10 CC.No.27349/17 J 'endorsement' and holder in course of Negotiable Instrument. Even Sec.139 of the Act are rebuttable presumptions shall be raised that, the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally recoverable or enforceable debt and these presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in cases of negotiable instrument, but the said presumptions are not conclusive and rebuttable one, this proportion of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in catena of decisions.
12. In the present case the complainant got examined as PW.1 by filing her affidavit evidence wherein she has reiterated the entire averments of the complaint and in her evidence testified that, accused got acquainted with her through one a common friend namely Ruksana who is a neighbour of accused at Wilson garden Bangalore and during the mon th of Jaunary 2016 accused approached her as she was in deep financial distress and that marriage of daughter has been fixed and was in requirement of financial assistance for wedding expenditure and for personal 11 CC.No.27349/17 J expenses requested for an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs from her by promising to repay the same immediately, considering the financial capacity of the accused and believing her words and promise and request, she pledged some of her jewels and borrowed money from her husband and in order to help the accused has paid a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs ie., Rs.46,000/ by way of NEFT transfer on 23.2.2016 and Rs.2,04,000/ by way of Cash on 4.4.2016. The complainant/PW.1 further testified that, despite of long delay accused failed to make the payment and evaded to meet her despite of her several requests, finally as a repayment in discharge of debt and liability the accused has issued a cheque baring No.528707 for sum of rs.3 Lakhs dt: 18.9.2017 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Wilson garden branch, promising to honour the said cheque. The complainant/PW.1 further testified that, she had presented the saidc ehque through her banker ie Syndicate Bank, N.R.Colony Branch, Bangalore for encashment but the said cheque was dishonorued "Payment Stopped by Drawer" vide bank memos dt: 20.9.2017 immediately she tried to contact the accused but the accused evaded her and failed to 12 CC.No.27349/17 J pay the amount legally due and she issued statutory notice dt: 4.10.2017 to the accused through RPAD demanding for payment of cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice but the said notice returned to the complainant with shara "Insufficient Address" and the said notice sent to the accused through her last known address, hence it is deemed that, accused has been served with the notice and inspite of it, the accused has not paid the cheque amount.
13. In support of her evidence, P.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.C.1 to C.8 i.e, Original Cheque dated: 18.9.2017 is as per Ex.C.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused as per Ex.C.1(a), the Bank Memo as per Ex.C2, the office copy of Legal Notice as per Ex.C3, postal receipt as per Ex.C.4, copy of Returned legal notice as per Ex.C5, postal envelope as per Ex.C.6, postal receipt as per Ex.C.7, postal acknowledgement as per Ex.C.8, subsequently during the course of evidence complainant has produced her bank pass book as per Ex.C.9, relevant entry as per 13 CC.No.27349/17 J Ex.C.9(a).
14. In the present case, there is no dispute between the complainant and Accused with regard to their acquaintance. It is also not disputed by the accused that, the cheque in question belongs to her account and signature found at Ex.C.1(a) is also that of her signature. The Accused has also not disputed that the cheque in dispute was presented for encashment and dishonoured for the reason of "payment stopped by drawr" vide bank endorsement dated: 20.9.2017 therefore as a matter on record and has been proved by producing bank memo i.e., Ex.C.2 issued by the concerned bank dated: 20.9.2017 Therefore the complainant has proved that, the cheque in question i.e Ex.C.1 was presented within its validity period and dishonoured as per bank endorsement issued by the banker of the Accused and the cheque in question belonging to the Accused account and signature of the Accused is at Ex.C.1(a).
15. In relation to the service of notice, the accused in her defence denied the service of notice upon her by contending that, her name is Smt. 14 CC.No.27349/17 J Rehana but not Smt.Rehana Banu and the house number mentioned by the complainant ie No.95 is not of her house number but her house number is 65, therefore the complainant issued legal notice to her wrong address and same has not been served on her. In support of her contention the accused has produced her Xerox Aadhar card which is at Ex.N.1, Wedding card of her daughter which is at Ex.D.4(a) and also produced her bank pass book which is not marked as an exhibit. The learned counsel for the accused during the course of argument vehemently argued that, the accused has produced the documentary evidence ie Ex.N.1, Ex.D.1 and her pass book wherein the name of the accused shown as "Rehana" but not "Rehana Banu" and house number of the accused shown as No.69, but not number 95 as stated by the complainant in the legal notice, RPAD cover and postal acknowledgement, therefore the legal notice issued by the complainant was to the wrong address of the accused and same has been served on the accused. The complainant in order to prove the service of notice upon the Accused, has produced the documents i.e copy of the legal notice dated 15 CC.No.27349/17 J 4.10.2017, postal receipt, returned legal notice, RPAD Cover and postal receipt and postal acknowledgement which are at Ex.C.3 to C8 respectively. On perusal of the Ex.C.3 to C.8 it appears that, the complainant has issued legal notice within 30 days from the date of receipt of endorsement of the bank and the said notice was sent through RPAD and the said RPAD returned with an endorsement of "Insufficient Address R/s", hence, it goes to show that, the legal notice caused by the complainant through RPAD to the address of the Accused shown in the notice returned with postal endorsement of ""Insufficient Address R/s". The perusal of the address of the accused shown by the complainant in Ex.C.3 to C.8 as "Smt. Rehana Banu, W/o. Chand Basha, Residing at No.95, 12th Cross, Wilson Garden Bangalore 560 050" and the perusal of address of the accused in the documents produced by the accused the name of the accused shown as "Rehana" and except the house number ie 95 the remaining address of the accused are one and the same. It is relevant here to mention that, the accused during the course of her cross examination has admitted as under" ನಸ 3 ರಲರರವ ತತತರಸರರವ ವಳಸದಲ 16 CC.No.27349/17 J ನನರ ವಸವಗರರತತತನ ಎಎಬ ಸತಚನಗ ಸಕ ಸದರ ವಳಸದಲ ದ ವಸವಗದರ ಆದರ ಮನ ನಎಬರ ತತತರಸರರವದರ ಸರಯರರಲಲ. ನ ಎನ 1 ರಲರರವ ವಳಸವ ನನನ ಬಡಗ ಮನಯ ವಳಸ ಇರರತತದ.
ನಎನ 1 ರಲ ವಳಸದಲರರವ ಮನಯನರ
ನ ನಮಮ ಅತತ ಬಡಗಗ
ತಗದರಕತಎಡರರತತರ. ನ ಎನ 1 ರಲರರವ ಮನಯಲ ಸರಮರರ 25
ವರರಗಳಎದ ವಸ ವಗರರತತತವ ಬಡಗ ಕರರರ ರತ ತವನರ
ನ
ಮಡರರವದಲಲ.".
Hence, the above admissions of the accused makes it clear that, though for sake of discussion if it is assumed that, the house number of the accused shown as 95 but the accused is residing in the said house as shown by the complainant in legal notice, RPAD cover and postal acknowledgement , in such circumstances it can be held that, the legal notice sent to the accused to her residential address where she is residing. It is admitted by the accused that, she residing in the house shown in Ex.N.1 is on rental basis and her motherinlaw had taken the said house on rent but she has not entered into an agreement in respect of the house taken on rent, therefore it goes to show that, the accused has not produced satisfactory documentary evidence to show that, she was residing in the house number ie 65 as shown in Ex.N.1 and 17 CC.No.27349/17 J Ex.D.4(a). It is also relevant here to mention that, the learned counsel for the accused produced the pas book of the accused during the course of argument to show the address of the accused but the said pass book was issued in the year 2012 and the account shown in the pass book was opened in the year 2012, therefore the said pass book is not helpful for the accused to disprove her address. It is important here to mention that, the accused herself has produced the true copy of the statement of her husband given before the Wilson Garden police which is at Ex.D.3 and in the said statement the address of the husband of the accused shown as "No.95, Narayanapura 12th Cross, Wilsongarden, Bangalore" hence it goes to show that, the very document produced by the accused pertains to the statement given by her husband before the police wherein the house number of the husband of the accused shown as No.95 which corroborates the house number shown by the complainant in the legal notice. It is also relevant here to mention that, this court has issued summons to the accused and the said summons was duly served on the accused through the Wilson Garden police as per 18 CC.No.27349/17 J report submitted by the PSI , Wilson garden police station to this court. It is seen from the summons issued by this court dt: 17.12.2018 and hearing date was fixed on 28.2.2018, the name and address of the accused shown as "Smt. Rehana Banu, W/o. Chand Basha, R/at No.95, 12th cross, Naraynapura Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560050" and the said summons was duly served on the accused, therefore the address mentioned in the summons and address of the accused sworn by the complainant in the legal notice, RPAD cover, and postal acknowledgement are one and the same and when the summons was served upon the accused on the same address shown by the complainant it cannot be held that, the legal notice sent by the complainant to the accused to her wrong address. It is also relevant here to mention that, though the accused had taken specific defence during the course of crossexamination of the complainant that, the legal notice issued by the complainant was not served on her but during the course of her evidence she nowhere stated or deposed that, the legal notice caused by the complainant was to her wrong address and same has been not served on her, in such 19 CC.No.27349/17 J circumstances it can be held that, the accused impliedly admitted the issuance of legal notice to her correct address. Therefore in view of the above said reason it can be held that, the legal notice issued by the complainant was to the correct address of the accused and same has been returned with shara of "Insufficient Address", , in such circumstances, it can be held that, the notice sent by the complainant to the correct address of the Accused is presumed to have been served on him U/s. 27 of General Clauses Act. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2011 ACD 1572 (KAR) in the case of Jayamma Vs. Lingamma, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, "Notice sent at correct address returned unclaimed - is deemed to be served. In another decision reported in 1998 KAR 1841 in the case of Shridhar M.A. Vs. Metalloy Steel Corporation and 1999 Cri.L.J. 4606 "K. Bhaskaran Vs. Vaidhanbalan wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was concerned with the question as to when the service of notice could be inferred and it was held 20 CC.No.27349/17 J that if there is an endorsement like 'not available in the house' 'house locked' 'shop closed' 'unclaimed' the service should be deemed to have been effected. It is also relevant here to refer the decision reported in 2008(4) Civil code cases 027 (SC) "M/s. Indo Automobiles Vs., M/s. Jai Durga Enterprises and others." wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "notice sent by registered post with acknowledgement to a correct address service of notice has to be presumed". Therefore in view of the principles of law in the above decisions, it can be safely held that, the service of notice on accused in this case is presumed to have been served on him since in this case also the complainant has issued notice to the accused to his correct address through registered post and the said notice was returned with an endorsement of "Insufficient Address", hence the notice issued by the complainant through registered post is held to be proper. In addition to that, it is relevant here to refer the decision reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3578 in the case of C.C.Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and 21 CC.No.27349/17 J another., wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that " the drawer of the cheque is permitted to deposit the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of his appearance before the court in pursuance of the service of summons on him and in such situation, his defence of non service of the legal notice cannot be available to him'. Hence, in view of the said principles of law, even for sake of discussion, though there is no cogent and reliable documentary proof to substantiate the claim of the complainant with regard to address of the Accused to show there is due service of the legal notice on the Accused, in view of settled position of law by virtue of the above said decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, the Accused is not entitled to the technical defence of the alleged non service of the legal notice. Therefore, the argument convassed by the learned counsel for the accused that, the notice issued by the complainant was not served on the accused and the complainant has not complied the mandatory requirements of Sec.138(b) of N.I.Act and complaint is not maintainable cannot be acceptable and are not sustainable in law and with due respect to the 22 CC.No.27349/17 J principles of law laid down in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused are not applicable to the present facts of the case as in the said decisions the complainant has not produced the postal receipt and also postal acknowledgement though they are available with advocate to show that, he has issued the legal notice to the accused but in the present case the complainant has produced postal receipt and also postal acknowledgement for having sent the notice to the accused by RPAD and same has been returned.
16. It is the specific defence of the Accused that, she had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/ from the complainant at that time by deducting Rs.4000 as interest the complainant paid Rs.46,000/ to her and complainant had not lend an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to her and she had not issued any cheque to the complainant towards discharge of the loan amount in question and she had losted her cheque for that, she issued intimation to the bank for stop payment. The accused has also disputed financial capacity of the complainant to lend the loan amount in question.
23CC.No.27349/17 J Therefore initial burden is on the complainant to prove that, she has paid an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs as a hand loan to the accused. In this regard it is relevant here to mention that, the complainant in her legal notice ie Ex.C.3 at para No.2 and in the complaint at para No.4 and in her affidavit evidence which is filed in lieu of oral evidence at para No.3 has stated that, by considering the request of the accused she pledged some of her jewels and also borrowed money from her husband paid a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs in two installments ie " a) Rs.46,000/ (Rupees Forty six thousand only) by way NEFT transfer on 23/02/2016
b) Rs.2,04,000/ (Rupees two Lakhs and Four Thousand only) by way of cash on 04.04.2016"
Hence, on plain reading of the contents of the legal notice, complaint and evidence of the complainant she has specifically stated that, she had transferred an amount of Rs.46,000/ by way of NEFT on 23.02.2016 and has paid Rs.2,04,000/ by way of cash on 4.4.2016 to the accused and the total amount paid by the complainant is taken in to consideration it becomes Rs.2,50,000/ but not Rs.3 24 CC.No.27349/17 J Lakhs, therefore the complainant herself stated that she has paid only an amount of Rs.2,50,000/ by way of two installments it cannot be held that, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused. It is also relevant here to mention that, during the course of trial the complainant has filed an application dt: 13.07.2018 for amendment seeking amendment in para No.4 (b) of the complaint by deleting the typographical error "Rs.2,04,000/ (Rupees two Lakhs and Four Thousand only) by way of cash on 04.04.2016" and insert "Rs.2,54,000/ (Rupees two Lakhs and Fifty Four Thousand only) by way of cash on 04.04.2016" but the said application was came to be rejected by this court on merits as per order dt: 11.10.2018. Thereafter the complainant has not filed any appeal or revision by challenging the order dt: 11.10.2018 passed by this court, hence the order passed by this court dt: 11.10.2018 attains its finality and binding on the complainant and now the learned counsel for the complainant cannot be permitted to contend in the argument that in the complaint it has been erroneously stated as Rs.2,04,000/ was lent to the accused by way of cash 25 CC.No.27349/17 J though Rs.2,54,000/ was lent by way of cash and the mistake was typographical error, therefore the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the complainant to that effect is not sustainable and cannot be acceptable unless and until the order passed by this court dt: 11.10.2018 is challenged and setaside by the Hon'ble Appellate Court. Therefore the complainant has miserably failed to prove that she has lent an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused on the contrary she herself admitted and claimed that, she had paid an amount of Rs.46,000/ by way of NEFT transfer and Rs.2,04,000/ by way of cash ie in total an amount of Rs.2,50,000/ to the accused and on failure of the complainant to prove that, she had lent an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused would rendered the case of the complainant as doubtful. If really the complainant has paid Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused and due to typographical error the amount which was paid by way of cash was wrongly shown as Rs.2,04,000/ instead of Rs.2,54,000/ definitely the complainant would have stated the said fact in her evidence but in evidence also the complainant has stated that, she has paid Rs.2,04,000/ by way of cash 26 CC.No.27349/17 J to the accused. The complainant even after rejecting her application filed for amendment the same should have been challenged by the complainant before the Hon'ble Appellate Court but the complainant has continued with trial on the basis of the earlier claim ie an amount of Rs.2,04,000/ was paid by way of cash to the accused, hence it goes to show that, the complainant has miserably failed to prove that, she has paid an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused or Rs.2,54,000/ paid by way cash to the accused. It is also relevant here to mention that, the learned counsel for the complainant has cross examined the accused but though he has suggested that, complainant has paid Rs.2,54,000/ by way of cash but has not suggested that, the amount which has been mentioned in legal notice, complaint and evidence was typographical error therefore the claim made by the complainant that, she had paid an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused has not been proved by herself.
17. It is also important here to mention that, the complainant in her cross examination has 27 CC.No.27349/17 J categorically admitted that, she had lodged a complaint against the accused and her husband on 14.9.2017 before the Wilson garden police station and also admitted the true copy of the complaint lodged by her is at Ex.D.1. The complainant though she has lodged the complaint against the accused and her husband but did not produced the copy of the said complaint, however it has been marked by the accused by confronting the same to the complainant which is at Ex.D.1, therefore the said document is undisputed document. The perusal of Ex.D.1 it appears that, the complainant has lodged complaint against the accused and her husband on 14.9.2017 by stating that, the accused had received an amount of Rs.1,75,000/ about one year back and they had been to her house for requesting to re payment of the said amount, at that time the accused and her husband took quarrel with them and requested to the concerned police to summon the accused and her husband and to provide the loan amount borrowed by them. The contents of Ex.D.1 discloses that, the complainant much prior to the filing of this complaint lodged the complaint against the accused and her husband wherein she ha 28 CC.No.27349/17 J stated the accused has borrowed a loan amount of Rs.1,75,000/ but whereas in the legal notice, complaint and evidence claimed that she has lent an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused, therefore the claim made by the complainant itself goes to show that, though much prior to the filing of this complaint she had claimed in Ex.D.1 that, the accused has borrowed loan of Rs.1,75,000/ but by suppressing the said fact has claimed excess amount in the legal notice, complaint and evidence stating that accused has borrowed loan of Rs.3 Lakhs which is negativated by her own complaint lodged before the police ie as Ex.D.1, therefore on this count also the complainant has miserably failed to prove that, the accused has approached her and requesting to lend loan amount of Rs.3 Lakhs accordingly she had paid Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused.
18. The complainant during the course of her cross examination though she has admitted that, she had about 150 gms of gold and she had received Rs.1,58,000/ and Rs.1 Lakh by pleading her gold ornaments and have pledged her ornaments in 29 CC.No.27349/17 J Syndicate Bank, N.R.Colony branch and on 18.8.2016 she had pledged her gold for Rs.1 Lakh with one Manoj Brokers and also admitted that, she have produced documents to prove the said fact but subsequently admitted that, she have not produced any such relevant documents before this court and no impediment for her to produce the relevant documents before the court. Hence, though the complainant had specifically contended that, when the accused approached her seeking financial assistance at that time she pledged her jewels and also borrowed money from her husband and lend the said amount to the accused but though the documents are available with her but she has not produced before the court ie to show that, she had pledged her gold ornaments and received the amount either from the bank or from one Manoj Bankers, hence in view of non production of documents which are available with the complainant may leads to draw an adverse inference against her that, the complainant for her unrevealed reasons intentionally not produced the documents and the non production of documents creates a serious doubt with regard to claim made by the complainant that she 30 CC.No.27349/17 J had pledged her jewels and received the amount and same has been lent to the accused as contended by her.
19. It is important to note that, though the complainant has lend alleged loan amount of Rs.3 Lakhs ie., huge amount but in the complaint and evidence has not stated about the charging of interest in respect of the loan amount in question and also admitted that, has not produced any documents to show that, she has pledged her gold ornaments and received the amount from the bank and lend the same to the accused. It is also relevant here to mention that except the cheque in question the complainant has not produced any documents to show that, the accused has received the alleged loan amount in question and even admittedly the complainant has not produced any documents or collected the documents from the accused for having lend the loan amount to the accused. Hence, in view of the same makes it clear that, though the complainant claims that, she has lent huge amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused but without collecting the documents from the accused, therefore the conduct of the complainant in 31 CC.No.27349/17 J lending huge amount that, too without collecting any documents for having lent the huge amount may leads to draw an adverse inference against the complainant that no prudent man can lent huge amount by way of loan that too without collecting any documents and same is appears to be doubtful transaction. Even the complainant has not charged any interest on huge amount of Rs.3 Lakhs alleged to have been lent to the accused for a longer period, on this count also a serious doubt arises about the alleged lending of loan amount to the accused as no prudent man would lend substantial amount of Rs.3 Lakhs without charging the interest. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, reported In 2007 AIR SCW 6736 in the case of John K. John Vs. Tom Varghese and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "Why no instrument was executed although a huge sum of money was allegedly paid to the respondent was a relevant question which could be posed in the matter. It was opened to the High Court to draw its own conclusion therein. Not only no document had 32 CC.No.27349/17 J been executed even no interest had been charged". Therefore the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred decision has considered the collection of document at the time of lending of huge sum of money and also non charging of interest on the huge loan amount were relevant circumstances to find out as to whether the existence of debt has been proved or not. In the present case as already stated in the above that, admittedly no documents have been executed and even no interest has been charged and no explanations were forthcoming from the complainant as to why the documents have not been collected and interest was not charged on the alleged lending of huge loan amount of Rs.3 Lakhs, therefore for the above said reasons also it can be held that, the complainant has not established nor proved the existence of legally enforceable debt as against the accused.
20. It is also relevant here to mention that, the complainant in the legal notice, complaint and evidence has stated that, the accused has approached her and requested the loan amount ie., financial assistance for her daughter's marriage, but during the 33 CC.No.27349/17 J course of cross examination the complainant stated that, accused had told her that, she had to perform the marriage of her daughter before September 2016 and at that time she had informed her that, she performed the engagement of her daughter in Doddaballapura and the age of her daughter was 17 ½ years and that, after two months she would be attaining the age of 18 years. The accused has produced marriaged invitation card of her daughter which is at Ex.D.4(a) and in the said marriage invitation card the date of marriage of the daughter of the accused shown as 21.12.2018, hence it goes to show that, as on the date of lending of the loan amount there may not be chances of performing the marriage of the daughter of the accused. It is true that, the Ex.D.4(a) has not been produced by the accused during her evidence but the said document has been produced by her husband ie DW.2 at the time of his evidence, therefore mere non production of Ex.D.4(a) at the time of evidence of the accused may not be a ground to discard the Ex.D.4(a). It is also seen from Ex.D.4(a) that, the marriage of the daughter of the accused was performed in the year 34 CC.No.27349/17 J 2018, in such circumstances the age of the daughter of the accused appears to be below 18 years ie., as on the date of lending of the loan amount and the daughter of the accused was appears to be minor, in such circumstances there was less possibility of accused to approach the complainant to seeking loan amount to perform the marriage of her daughter as claimed by the complainant.
21. It is also relevant here to mention that, the complainant in his notice, complaint and evidence has not mentioned the specific date, or period undertaking by the accused for repayment of the alleged loan amount in question and also admitted fact that, the complainant has not mentioned or stated, the date, month, year, and in which place the Accused has issued the subject matter of the cheque in her favour, hence in view of the above said facts a serious doubt creates with regard to issuance of cheque in question by the Accused infavour of the complainant towards discharge of the loan transaction in question. If really the Accused has borrowed the loan amount in question and issued the cheque in question towards discharge of the said loan amount as 35 CC.No.27349/17 J claimed by the complainant, definitely the complainant would have mentioned the date, month and year and place in which the Accused has issued the cheque in question in her favour, failure to mention the above said important facts may leads to draw an adverse inference against the complainant that, the claim made by the complainant in this case appears to be doubtful and it corroborates the defence of the Accused. It is also relevant here to mention that, the complainant has stated that, the accused has agreed to repay the loan amount immediately without any default and despite of long delay the accused failed to make the payment and evaded to meeet her on several attempts and after much persuasion and requests as a repayment the accused has got issued a cheque ie Ex.C.1 in question for sum of Rs.3 Lakhs in her favour, but she does not stated the exact date, month year and place of issue of cheque in question, hence the complainant has miserably failed to prove that, whether cheque was issued on the date mentioned in the cheque or prior to the date mentioned in the cheque and it is not the case of the complainant that, the accused has issued 36 CC.No.27349/17 J post dated cheque or on the date mentioned therein, in such circumstances the complainant has miserably failed to prove that, on which date, month and year and place the accused has issued the cheque in question, if really the cheque in question was issued by the accused on the date mentioned in the cheque ie 18.09.2017 definitely the same would have been mentioned in the complaint and evidence of the complainant, in such circumstances it can be held that, a serious doubt arises with regard to issuance of the cheque in question by the accused infavour of the complainant as claimed by her. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2019 SC 1983 in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa., wherein it is held that, A) "NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, (26 of 1881) section 138, S 139, S.118(a) Dishonour of cheque Non mentioning of date of issue of cheque by complainant in complaint as well as in his evidence - complainant not satisfactorily explaining contradiction in complaint vis a vis his examination in chief and cross examination 37 CC.No.27349/17 J his failure to prove financial capacity though he is retired employee to advance substantial amount to different persons including accused findings of trial court that, complainant cannot prove his financial capacity cannot be termed as perverse without discarding evidence led by defence - accused entitled to acquittal. In another decision reported in AIR 2019 SC 942 in the case of A.N.S.S. Rajashekar Vs. Augustus Jeba Ananth" wherein it is held that " A) "NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, (26 of 1881) section 138, S 139 Dishonour of cheque presumption as to legally enforceable debt failure of complainant to establish source of funds alleged to be utilised for disbursal of loan amount to accused presence of doubt on transaction as complainant not disclosing facts as to cheques and steps taken by him for recovery of same - material on record rendered probablitiy as to absence of legally enforceable debt High Court convicting accused on the ground that, he 38 CC.No.27349/17 J remained absent though notice of appeal was served not proper". In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2014 KAR 6572 in a case of Sri.H.Manjunath vs. Sri.A.M. Basavaraju, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 section 138 offence under - Judgment of Acquittal - Appealed against -Absence of statement in the complaint as to when the amount was actually given to the accused Absence of material particulars of the transaction in the complaint except signature all other entries are in different handwriting different ink and undoubtedly made at different time Mentioning of merely the date of issue of cheque without any material particulars -HELD, Judgment of acquittal is justified As seen from the complaint there is no statement as to when the amount was actually given to the Accused. The complainant has merely mentioned the date of issuance of cheque without any material 39 CC.No.27349/17 J particulars of the transaction. The cheque in question undoubtedly is signed by the accused. The dispute raised is entries made in the cheque are not in his handwriting. - It is not the case of the complainant that cheque was issued in blank and filled up later with consent of the accused FURTHER HELD, perusal of cheque at Ex.P.1 makes it manifest that except signature all other entries are in different hand writing, different ink and undoubtedly made at different time. In this view it is difficult to accept the version of the complainant. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
- SECTION 378(4) - APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL - DISCUSSED. It is a relevant here to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in (2015) 1 SCC 99 in the case of K.Subramani Vs. K. Damodar Naidu., wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that " Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Ss, 138, 118 and 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Legally recoverable debt not proved as complainant could 40 CC.No.27349/17 J not prove source of income from which alleged loan was made to appellant accused -
Presumption infavour of holder of cheque, hence, held, Stood rebutted Acquittal restored". In another decision reported in (2014) 2 SCC 236 in the case of John K.Abhraham Vs. Simon C.Abraham and another., wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that "In the present case the complainant not aware of the date when substantiate amount of Rs.1,50,000/= was advanced by him to the appellant/accused - respondent/ complainant failed to produce relevant documents in support of alleged source for advancing money to the Accused -
complainant also not aware as to when and where the transaction took place for which the cheque in question was issued to him by Accused
- complainant also not sure as to who wrote the cheque and making contradictory statements in this regard in view of said serious defects/ lacuna in evidence of complainant, judgment of 41 CC.No.27349/17 J High Court reversing acquittal of Accused by trial court, held was perverse and could not be sustained - acquittal restored". Hence above the said principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court to the present facts of the case are aptly applicable to this case as in the present case also the complainant has not stated the date, month , year and place of issuance of cheque in question to her and has also not produced the document to show that, she has got sufficient source of funds to lend the loan amount to the Accused and the complainant has failed to prove that, she has lent loan of Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused as stated by her in her complaint and evidence, in such circumstances the claim set up by the complainant in the present complaint appears to be doubtful with regard to lending of loan amount in question, in such circumstances in view of the above principles of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Apex Court the complainant has miserably failed to prove that she has lent loan amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the Accused and in turn the Accused has issued the cheque in question towards the discharge of the said loan amount.
42CC.No.27349/17 J
22. It is true that, the complainant has proved that, the cheque in question i.e. Ex.C.1 belongs to the account of the accused and the signature found at Ex.C.1(a) is that of the accused. The complainant has also proved that the cheque in dispute was presented within its validity period and the said cheque returned dishonored for the reasons of Payment Stopped by Drawer as per Ex.C.2 and it is also proved by the complainant that, within 30 days from the date of receipt of bank memo has issued legal notice to the accused and the said notice was also served on the accused. Hence, the complainant has complied the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and initial presumption can be drawn U/s.139 of N.I. Act in favour of the complainant. It is settled law that, once the issuance of cheque in favour of the holder in due course is admitted by the drawer, presumption can be drawn about the existence of legally recoverable debt under Sec.139 of NI Act, terms in favour of holder in due course. "The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Rangappa Vs. Mohan's Case reported in 2010(11) SCC 441 held that, issuance of cheque would 43 CC.No.27349/17 J create a presumption with respect to legally enforceable debt in faovur of the payee of the cheque, however the said presumption is rebuttable." In the present case though the accused has admitted the issuance of cheque and also signature thereon belongs to her but has denied the transaction in question and issuance of the cheque to the complainant towards discharge of the debt in question, hence though initial presumption drawn in favour of the complainant, but the said presumption is rebuttal, in such circumstances it has be examined as to whether the accused has rebutted the presumption successfully or not. It is also settled law that, the accused in a proceedings U/s.138 of N.I.Act has two options i.e. the accused can either show that, consideration and debt did not exists or that, under particular circumstances of the case the non existence of consideration and debt is so probable that, a prudent man ought to suppose that, no consideration and debt existed and in order to rebut the statutory presumption accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as expected of the complainant in Criminal trial and the accused may 44 CC.No.27349/17 J adduce direct evidence to prove that the cheque in question was not supported by consideration and there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him and the court need not insist in every case that, the accused should disprove the non existence of consideration that, by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. In this regard it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India reported in LAWS (SC) 2019882 in the case of Shri.Dhaneshwari Traders Vs. Sanjay Jain and in another case reported in ( 2020) 12 SCC 500 wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that " It is well settled that, rebuttal can be made with reference to the evidence of the prosecution as well as of defence" and in another decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "Ordinarily in cheque bounce cases, what the courts have consdiered is whether the ingredients of the offence enumerated in Sec.138 of Act have been met and if so, whether the accused was able 45 CC.No.27349/17 J to rebut the statutory presumption contemplated by Sec.139 of the Act, and also held that "it is settled position that, when an accused has to rebut the presumption U/s.139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of preponderance of probabilities". Hence, in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the above referred decision in order to rebut the statutory presumption an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt and the accused may adduce direct evidence to prove his defence or the rebuttal can be make with reference to the evidence of the prosecution and standard of proof for rebuttal of the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities i.e. something which is probable has to be brought on record by the accused, by applying these principles of law to the present case, now the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the accused has to be examined.
23. The accused in order to rebut the presumptions of the complainant herself examined as DW.1 and in her evidence she has stated that she know the complainant and borrowed sum of 46 CC.No.27349/17 J Rs.50,000/ from her and the complainant paid Rs.46,000/ by deducting Rs.4,000/ interest and she has not issued any cheque to the complainant and her cheque has been misplaced and same has been intimated to the bank by way of letter as per Ex.D.2. The accused has also stated that, her husband had given statement before the Wilson garden police station as per Ex.D.3. The accused has also produced true copy of school transfer certificate as per Ex.D.4.
24. The accused has also examined her husband by name Sri.Chand Pasha as DW.2 and who in his evidence has stated that, complainant lodged a complaint against him for that, he was summoned by the police and the police have recorded his statement stating that, he has borrowed Rs.46,000/ from the complainant and the said statement was obtained by forcibly by police namely Kadamba. The DW.2 has produced marriage certificate of her daughter which is at Ex.D.4(a).
25. The learned counsel for the complainant has cross examined the DW.1 and DW.2 in length but 47 CC.No.27349/17 J nothing has been elicited from them to show that, complainant has lent an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused and in turn the accused has issued cheuqe in question towards discharge of the loan amount. It is true that, the accused has admitted the cheque in question belongs to her account and signature found at Ex.C.1(a) is that of her signature but she denied the suggestions that, she had given the said cheque towards discharge of the loan amount in question and also denied the suggestion that, she had borrowed loan of Rs.3 Lakhs in the year 2016 for the purpose of marriage of her daughter and an amount of Rs.2,54,000/ was paid to her by way of cash. As it is already stated in the above by referring the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the above stated decisions ie., though the accused has admitted cheque belongs to her account and signature there on belongs to her but when denied the transaction in question and issuance of the cheque to the complainant towards discharge of the debt in question, hence though the initial presumptions drawn in favour of the complainant but the said presumption is rebuttable, in such 48 CC.No.27349/17 J circumstances the accused can rebut the presumptions either from the materials produced by the complainant or by leading direct evidence. It is also held in the above, at the time of discussion of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant that the complainant herself stated in the legal notice, complaint and evidence that, she had paid only an amount of Rs.2,50,000/ by way of two installments, in such circumstances it cannot be held that the complainant has proved her claim that, she has lent loan amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused. It is also held that, the complainant has failed to prove that, the cheque in question has been issued by the accused towards discharge of the loan amount in question,therefore the admission of the accused in respect of cheque belongs to her account and signature found on the cheque is that of her signature is not sufficient to hold that, complainant has proved her claim, therefore for the above said reasons the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the complainant at para No. 3 to 11 of the written argument are not acceptable one.
49CC.No.27349/17 J
26. It is true that, the accused has stated in her evidence that, the cheque in question was misplaced by her and admitted that, she has not initiated any proceedings or filed any complaint against stolen or misplace of her cheque, but it is relevant here to mention that, the accused has taken formal caution by issuing letter to her banker by requesting for stop payment as per Ex.D.2 ,therefore though the accused has not filed any complaint or initiated any proceedings against any one from presenting the cheque but the Ex.D.2 is sufficient to hold that, accused has made efforts to restrain from encashment of the cheque by presenting the same to the bank prior to the presentation of the cheque. Therefore for the above said reasons the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the complainant in the written argument are not acceptable one. On careful reading of the principles of law laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant ie 1)n 1998(3) SCC 249 2) 2002(1) SCC 234 3) Manu/SC/0725/2014 and 4) ILR 2006 KAR 2105 with due respect to the principles of law laid down in the said decisions ie the Hon'ble Apex Court 50 CC.No.27349/17 J and High Court of Karnataka held that, stop payment instructions attracts the offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act if the accused fails to prove that, he had sufficient funds in the account. In the present case also the accused admitted that as on the date of presentation of the cheque in question she had no sufficient funds in her account and even she has not produced the documents to show that, she had sufficient funds in her account, but as it is already held in the above that, when the complainant has miserably failed to prove that, she had lent a loan amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused and the accused in turn issued the cheque in question towards discharge of the loan amount, in such circumstances with due respect to the principles of law laid down in the above refereed decisions are not applicable to the claim made by the complainant in this case and the facts and circumstances of this case and the facts and circumstances of the decided cases are not one and the same as the accused in this case has successfully rebutted the presumptions available to the complainant.
27. It is relevant here to mention that, the 51 CC.No.27349/17 J learned counsel for the complainant during the course of cross examination of the DW.1 has suggested that, the complainant approached her and requested for repayment of the amount at that time her husband took quarrel with the complainant and assaulted the complainant for that, the complainant approached the Wilson garden police station and intimated the same and in turn the said police have called her husband and enquired about the same. Hence, the said suggestions itself sufficient to hold that, the complainant admitted that, she had lodged the complaint before the Wilson garden police against the complainant and her husband which is at Ex.D.1. As it is already held in the above that, as per the contents of Ex.D.1 the complainant herself claimed that, the accused has borrowed loan of Rs.1,75,000/ from her but where as in the legal notice, complaint and evidence she claimed that, the accused has borrowed loan of Rs.3 Lakhs, in such circumstances the claim made by the complainant itself appears to be doubtful and same cannot be acceptable one. Therefore on entire perusal of the cross examination of DW.1 and Dw.2 nothing has been elicited from them to believe 52 CC.No.27349/17 J the claim made by the complainant.
28. Therefore from careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence of the accused and the admissions of the complainant in her cross examination makes it clear that, the accused has rebutted the presumptions available to the complainant not only on the materials placed by the complainant but also by leading her oral and documentary evidence and established her defence. In addition to that, as it is already held and come to the conclusion that, the complainant has miserably failed to prove that she has lend an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ to the Accused by way of two installments and in order to discharge the said loan amount the Accused has issued the cheque in question i.e.,Ex.C.1 in favour of the complainant. However when the complainant herself has failed to establish her case beyond all reasonable doubt, she cannot be permitted to find fault in the defence of the Accused as the standard of proof is expected from side of the complainant is proof beyond all reasonable doubt and in the present case complainant has failed to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubt on the contrary the Accused has 53 CC.No.27349/17 J successfully rebutted the presumption available infavour of the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I. Act by taking reasonable and probable defence, accordingly for the above said reasons this point is answered in the 'Negative'.
29. Point No.2: In the light of discussions made at above point and for the said reasons this point is answered in the negative and it is just and proper to pass the following : ORDER The complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C.
filed by the complainant for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Acting U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Personal bond executed by the Accused stands cancelled after appeal period is over.
54CC.No.27349/17 J Cash surety deposited by the Accused is hereby return to the Accused (If not lapsed) after appeal period is over on his proper identification and acknowledgment. (Directly dictated to the Stenographer online, printout taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of November 2021).
(SRI.S.B. HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant: P.W.1 : Smt. Renuka
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant: Ex.C1 : Original Cheque;
Ex.C1(a) : Signature of the Accused;
Ex.C2 : Bank Memo
Ex.C3 : Office copy of the Legal Notice;
Ex.C4 : Postal receipt
Ex.C5 : Returned legal notice
Ex.C6 : Postal Envelope
Ex.C7 : Postal Receipt
Ex.C8 : Postal acknowledgement
Ex.C9 : Bank pass book
Ex.C.9(a) Relevant Entry
55
CC.No.27349/17 J
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused: DW.1 ; Smt.Rehana banu DW.2 Sri.Chand Pasha
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused: Ex.D1 : complaint given to the police station (Marked through PW.1) Ex.D.2 : Letter dt: 14.09.2017 ( Marked through DW.1) Ex.D.3 : Statement before Police (Marked through DW.1) Ex.D4(a) : Invitation card (marked through DW.2) Ex.N.1 : copy of Aadhar card of accused ( marked through PW.1) (SRI.S.B.HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
56CC.No.27349/17 J 29.11.2021 case called, Both complainant and counsel for the complainant absent, accused and counsel for the accused present, Judgment pronounced in the open court, vide separate order.
ORDER The complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Acting U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Personal bond executed by the Accused stands cancelled after appeal period is over.
Cash surety deposited by the
Accused is hereby return to the
Accused (If not lapsed) after
appeal period is over on his proper
identification and
acknowledgment.
XVI ACMM, B'luru.
57
CC.No.27349/17 J