Bangalore District Court
For The Offence Punishable U/S.138 Of vs And Complainant Entered Into ... on 6 March, 2017
1 CC.NO. 17262/2012
IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 06th day of March 2017
Present: Sri.V.S.Pandit,B.A.,LL B.,
XV Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.
Judgment U/s.355 of the Cr.P.C. 1973.
1.Sl.No.of the case CC.No.17262/2012
2.Name of the Complainant: Sri.Atul Gala,
S/o.Sri.Shantilal Gala,
Aged about 44 years,
Partner: M/s.Raaj Exports,
C-001, Raheja Park,
Magadi Main Road,
Agrahara Dasarahalli,
Bangalore-560 079.
3.Name of the accused: Smt.M.D.Devakumari,
W/o.Sukant Nayak.,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.57, 3rd Main,
1st Stage, Manjunathanagar,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560 010.
4.The offence complained of U/s.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
:
5.Plea of the accused: Pleaed not guilty.
6.Final Order: Acting U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C.,
accused is Convicted.
7.Date of final Order 06th day of March 2017.
-----------
2 CC.NO. 17262/2012
1. The accused has been prosecuted by the
complainant for the offence punishable U/s.138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act - 1881 (hereinafter referred as
NI Act for brevity)
2. Case of the complainant in brief are as under -
a. It is the case of the complainant that he is the
partner of Raaj Exports. The accused was introduced to
the complainant by common friend in the year 2009 as a
Tutor to teach the son of the complainant, who is studying
in the P.U.C. Accused started giving tuition to the son of
the complainant for the subject, Business studies and
Accounts. Within a short period of time accused has
gained the confidence of the complainant.
b. It is further case of the complainant that
accused and complainant entered into Memorandum of
Understanding on 13.07.2011 to promote the sale of
medical equipments. Accused telling the complainant that
she has good relations with the political big-wigs and lured
the complainant to invest in exports and assured of huge
profit to the extent of 200% to 300%.
3 CC.NO. 17262/2012
c. Accused informed the complainant that she has
good contact with the company called M/s.Janvi Impex
Pvt.Ltd., based at Kanashie at Ghana. The said company
deals with the metal scrap and HMS - 1 and 2. It is
further stated by the accused that within a short time she
will be one of the Director of the said company. Accused
went to Africa in the year 2011 and communicated with
the complainant that she has negotiated with the sellers
for the import of metal scrap into India which could be a
profitable venture for the complainant.
d. It is further case of the complainant that accused
made correspondence through E-mail and sent an invoice
on 02.09.2011 for procuring 1000 Metric Tons of HMS
scrap metal from the port of Tema in Ghana, West Africa
at the rate of 280 USD per metric ton and directed the
complainant to transfer payment of 30,000 USD to her
account with HFC Bank Ghana Limited on Spintex Road,
West Africa in the name of M/s.Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd.,
Thereafter accused sent another communication to the
complainant showing the actual estimate of finance
4 CC.NO. 17262/2012
required of 2,80,000 USD for 1000 MT and to remit 15%
i.e., $ 42,000 USD and another adjustment amount of
Rs.12,000 USD to one Sukant Nayak by TC transfer and
balance to be paid for the next 5 days.
e. On 5.09.2011 as per the request of the accused
complainant has transferred 30,000 USD to the HFC Bank
Ghana Limited in favour of account No.00084 4608/
0161632181012 and copy of remittance in foreign
currency from the Bank of India from his account
No.840420110000513.
f. On 08.09.2011 in favour of M/s.Janvi Impex Pvt.
Ltd 2,38,000 USD was transferered. On 7.10.2011 USD
2000 was deposited. Therefore total sum of
Rs.1,25,41,892/- was remitted to the accused in the
account of M/s.Janvi Impex Pvt.Ltd. Complainant even
provided flight tickets to accused and one Sukant Nayak
through traveller Track traveller solutions for to and fro
travel tickets to Africa amounts to Rs.3,24,582/-. Apart
from that through travelers cheques from the Bank of
India through Classic Forex a sum of Rs.25,15,402/- was
5 CC.NO. 17262/2012
provided along with 2000/- USD of cash towards the
incidental expenses on the trips. Out of which 22,000
USD in the form of travelers cheque was returned which
could not be encashed by the accused in Ghana and same
was credited to the account of the complainant.
g. It is further specific case of the complainant that
accused allegedly said to have negotiated with M/s.Janvi
Impex Pvt. Ltd., for the import of metal scrap into India
and failed to deliver the goods and stated that the
materials are lying the Sea Port.
h. After that the complainant started insisting the
return of his money as the accused failed to deliver the
goods. Accused promised to supply the material scrap and
left for Africa during September-2011 from Hyderabad and
sent an E-mail to the complainant stating that the metal is
a banned commodity and could not be exported from
Africa. Accused admitted her liability issued post dated
cheque bearing No.28419 for a sum of Rs.1,06,85,695
drawn on Syndicate bank, Banashankari branch, dated
3.12.2011.
6 CC.NO. 17262/2012
i. Complainant soon came to know that there was
no such order banning export metal scrap in Africa.
Complainant having doubt about the investment being
made by the accused to purchase scrap material and
requested the accused to provide details of the investment,
but accused failed to provide details. Accused assured to
return the investment, but kept postponing the same on
pretext or the other. 78,000 USD was returned to the
complainant during November-2011 and promised to
return the rest of the amount within a short time.
j. Complainant then realized he was taken for a
ride and only with an intention to deceive and cheat
accused has played the game and received the amount in
the name of M/s.Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Accused has
misused the said amount and invested the amount in the
business venture of M/s.Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd. dealing
with Sea foods, rice, Sugar, Timber, Cooking oil and
household articles. Accused started giving excuses
whenever the amount was demanded. When the accused
came back to India, she issued another cheque in favour
7 CC.NO. 17262/2012
of M/s.Raaj Exports from her personal account after
calculating her liability for another sum of Rs.70 lakhs
dated 20.12.2011 drawn on Syndicate Bank.
k. Complainant presented the cheques through his
banker Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Bengaluru on
04.02.2012. But to the utter shock and surprise both the
cheques have been returned unpaid for the reason
"Insufficient Fund" as per memo dated 06.02.2012. When
the said fact was intimated to the accused, she expressed
her regrets and requested the complainant to give some
more time to make the arrangement. At the instance of
the accused, once again cheques were presented for
collection on 14.03.2012. Again on 17.03.2012 cheques
were returned unpaid for the reason "Insufficient Funds".
Again at the instance of the accused cheques were
presented for the third time, but the cheques were
returned unpaid for the reason "Insufficient Funds" on
10.04.2012. Despite issuance of the legal notice, accused
did not purposely receive the notice and somehow
succeeded in getting the endorsement from the Postal
8 CC.NO. 17262/2012
authorities "as no such person in this number. Accused
deliberately did not receive the notice, therefore, the
complainant is constrained to file the complaint.
3. After taking cognizance, this court issued
summons to the accused. In response to the summons,
accused appeared and was enlarged on bail. Plea for the
offence was read over and explained to the accused.
Accused pleaded not guilty and pleads her innocence.
4. To sustain the charge leveled against the accused,
the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.28 on behalf of the
complainant.
5. After conclusion of the evidence of the
complainant, statement of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C.,
was recorded. Accused denied the evidence and
documents as false. Accused herself examined as DW.1
and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 and D.2.
6. Heard both sides.
9 CC.NO. 17262/2012
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as
under:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved
that cheque was issued by the accused
for discharge of legally enforceable debt,
the same was returned unpaid for the
reason "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" notice
was not complied. Hence accused
committed an offence under Sec.138 of
N.I. Act ? ?
2) What Order ?
8. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 : As per final Order, for the
following;
REASONS
9. Point No.1 - It is the case of the complainant that
accused had deceived the complainant to the tune of
Rs.1,25,41,892/- on the pretext that she had invested the
said amount in the M/s.Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd., which is
the dealer of supplier of scrap materials. Since the
accused has failed to supply the goods as agreed, to
discharge the liability cheques impugned have been
issued. On the presentation of the cheques, both the
10 CC.NO. 17262/2012
cheques have been dishonoured for the reason
"Insufficient Funds". Accused deliberately did not receive
the notice. Therefore, when the notice is dispatched to the
correct address it is deemed to have been served upon the
accused. Despite service of notice, accused did not bother
to make the payment.
10. It is the case of the accused that she was giving
tuition to the son of the complainant for a period of two
years. The complainant was pressurizing the accused to
join Raaj Exports. At the instance of the complainant,
memorandum of understanding was executed and
according to the said agreement they are liable to share
the profit and loss to the extent of 60:40. After that the
complainant sent the accused to the Africa on behalf of
Raaj Exports for the marketing of hospital furnitures.
Complainant had transferred a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/-
in favour of Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd., for the purchase of
metal scrap. Since the amount was in excess what is
required, therefore Rs.45 to 50 lakhs re-sent to
complainant. Since due to expiry of Visa period they could
11 CC.NO. 17262/2012
not complete the work within 30 days, therefore accused
returned to India. After that once again accused was sent
to South Africa by the complainant. On several occasions
Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd., was requested by the accused to
supply the scrap materials, but they did not, therefore
accused has filed the complaint against the said company
before the South Africa Police.
11. It is further case of the accused that the
complainant started torturing the accused to return the
amount. Further when the accused was not in the house,
her cheques were stolen by the complainant. The cheques
impugned pertains to the dead bank account of the
accused. Unable to bear the harassment given by the
complainant once again went to South Africa and filed
complaint against two persons. Complainant in the
meanwhile has filed complaint before the Sanjayanagar
Police. Passport was seized by the police, therefore she
could not go back to South Africa to pursue payment.
After the receipt of the summons, accused came to know
about the misuse of the cheques. Except the signature in
12 CC.NO. 17262/2012
the disputed cheques, rest of the contents have not been
filled up by the accused. Apart from that it is also
contended that at the time of availing loan from the
Syndicate bank for the purpose of construction of house at
that point of time she had given signed blank cheques.
Since cheques have been returned by the bank official,
therefore said cheques have been kept in the house. No
notice has been issued by the complainant before filing the
complaint. Therefore, issuance of the cheques for the
discharge of liability has been specifically denied.
12. Both the learned Advocates have submitted
written arguments and submitted oral arguments. The
learned counsel for the complainant at the outset has
submitted that signature and drawing of the cheque from
the account of the accused is not denied. Therefore, in
view of the presumption accused is liable to be convicted.
The defence set up by the accused is unsustainable for the
simple reason that there is no any complaint filed against
the complainant for having stolen the cheques. The Bank
is also not intimated. Apart from that relying upon the
13 CC.NO. 17262/2012
various documents, it is submitted that accused during
the course of the cross examination has admitted with
regard to the transfer of amounts from the account of the
complainant. Admittedly scrap materials have not been
supplied to the complainant. There is nothing on record
produced by the accused to show that she in fact had
invested the amount in the Janvi Impex Limited. No
records to show that she lodged complaint against the
officials of the Janvi Implex Ltd.. The learned counsel for
the complainant has submitted that Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd.,
had been created by the accused only to deceive the
complainant. Therefore for all these reasons learned
counsel for the complainant sought for conviction.
13. As against these arguments, learned counsel for
the accused has submitted that admittedly the amounts
have been transferred to the Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd.,
Therefore in the absence of the company, complaint itself
is not maintainable. The complainant has violated the
R.B.I. rules and regulations. Complainant has to take
prior permission from the Reserve Bank of India for any
14 CC.NO. 17262/2012
amounts remitted in the Foreign Exchange. Income Tax
returns have not been submitted. Notice has been sent to
the wrong address purposefully. According to M.O.U at
Ex.P.2 accused is liable to share the profit and loss at the
rate of 60:40. Apart from that admittedly complainant has
stated in his affidavit that he had sent total amount of
Rs.1,25,41,892/-, but the cheques in question as per
Ex.P.15 and P.17 is for a sum of Rs.1,76,85,695/-. This
itself clearly indicates that blank cheques were issued and
the complainant filled up the cheques according to his
convenience.
14. Further elaborating the submission it is
contended that admittedly accused is a teacher and giving
tuitions and earning of Rs.500/- per day. Therefore, the
assertion of the complainant that she has issued cheques
for a sum of Rs.1,76,85,695/- is false.
15. Apart from that it is contended that as per
Ex.P.25 FIR has been registered against the accused and
her husband by the Sanjayanagar Police for the offences
15 CC.NO. 17262/2012
punishable U/s.406, 408 and 420 R/W.Section 34 of IPC.
FIR is dated 08.11.2011. impugned cheques alleged to
have been issued on 03.12.2011 and 20.12.2011
respectively. It is unlikely and highly improbable that the
accused would issue cheques after registration of the FIR.
Therefore for all these reasons, the learned counsel for the
accused sought for acquittal.
16. It is not in dispute with regard to signature and
drawing of the cheques from the account of the accused.
Therefore, initial presumption has to be drawn that
cheques in question were issued for discharge of liability.
However, said presumption is rebuttal in nature and it is
for the accused to rebut the presumption by placing direct
or circumstantial evidence. The onus is that of
preponderance of probabilities. Accused need not put
forth his defence beyond all reasonable doubt. This view
is fortified by the Judgments reported in the cases of Goa
Plast (P) Ltd., Vs. Chico Ursula D' Souza Appeal (Crl.)
1968 of 1996, Anil Sachar & another Vs. M/s.Shree
Nath Spinners P.Ltd 2011 SC, Rajneesh Aggarwal Vs.
16 CC.NO. 17262/2012
Amit J.Bhalla on 4th January, 2001., K.N.Beena Vs.
Muniyappan and another on 18 October, 2001.,
Ramappa S. Vs. Venkataraman on 3 June, 2014.
17. In the light of the Judgements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court what are the materials placed on record by
the accused to rebut the presumption is to be seen. It is
not in dispute with regard to acquaintance between the
parties. Further it is not in dispute with regard to
execution of Ex.P.2 Memorandum of Understanding dated
13.07.2011. It is further not in dispute that the
complainant had deposited a sum of RS,1,25,00,000/- in
the name of Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd. It is not in dispute that
the said amount had been realized. The only contention
urged by the accused that she is nothing to do with the
payments made to the Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd.. It is her
further contention that the Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd. had
cheated her as well as complainant and in this regard
criminal proceedings have been initiated against the Janvi
Impex Pvt. Ltd. at Ghana South Africa. It is further
defence of the accused that Ex.P.15 and P.17 impugned
17 CC.NO. 17262/2012
cheques had been illegally obtained by the complainant
with the aid of the police and except signature rest of the
contents have not been filled up by the accused.
18. With regard to issuance of the cheque and
delivery of the cheques it is seriously disputed by the
accused. On careful perusal of the stand taken by the
accused during the course of the cross examination of the
complainant as well as in her evidence, as rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for the complainant three
different versions have been set out. First of all it is
contended that it is suggested to the complainant that
Sanjaynagar Police in the absence of the accused searched
her house and cheques impugned had been taken by them
and subsequently handed over to the complainant. It is
further suggested that in the month of December-2011 the
wife of the complainant went to the house of the accused
and she had taken away cheques. Further it is suggested
that complainant has stolen the cheques in the absence of
the accused.
18 CC.NO. 17262/2012
19. As rightly contended by the learned counsel
that the complainant, no complaint is lodged by the
accused against the police officials for having taken away
cheques illegally. No any complaint is filed against the
complainant for having stolen the cheques. No notice has
been issued to the complainant, his wife and police
officials for having taken cheques illegally. Admittedly the
cheques in question have been returned with an
endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Bank is also not
intimated with regard to the illegal means of taking over
the cheques. Therefore inconsistent stand taken by the
accused with regard to illegal means by which the cheques
have been obtained creates serious doubt with regard to
the defence set up by the accused.
20. It is significant to note that the complainant has
filed case against the accused which is registered in
CC.No.3091/2012 before the 4th ACMM Court for the
offence punishable U/s.406, 408, 420 of IPC. In the said
case as per Ex.P.27 accused has filed petition U/s.451 of
Cr.P.C and sought for release of seized property by the
19 CC.NO. 17262/2012
Sanjayanagar police. On careful scrutiny of Ex.P.27 the
various records particularly original certificate of Registrar
of companies of Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd., certificate of
incorporation Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd., certificate of
commencement of the business of Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd.,
certificate of registration dated 20.04.2010, certificate of
appointment of Auditor by the Registrar of Companies
dated 7.09.2011, copy of declaration of Janvi Impex Pvt.
Ltd. dated 20.04.2010, copy of invoice issued to Raaj
Export, Form A-1 receipt of money transfer Bank of India
to Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd., 30,000 USD. Two letters issued
by the Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd. to HFC Bank as to who can
operate Bank account dated 13.09.11 and 2.09.2011, two
cheque books bearing A/c.161632181012 of HFC Bank
along with other records. Further as per Ex.P.22 all the
documents have been returned to the accused with a
direction to produce as and when directed by the Court.
21. It is further relevant to observe that the
complainant has filed a petition U/s.91 of Cr.PC to
summon the documents from the court of the Hon'ble 4th
20 CC.NO. 17262/2012
ACMM, Bengaluru in CC.3091/2012 pertaining to the
Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd. which documents had been claimed
by the accused during the course of the trial.
22. Inspite of the direction issued to the accused to
produce the documents the accused did not comply the
order. Therefore, in this regard adverse inference required
to be drawn against the accused for purposely not
producing the documents in spite of the directions. It is
further relevant to observe and as rightly pointed out the
learned counsel for the complainant all the records
pertaining to Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd. the letterheads,
invoices, rubber stamp and bank statements etc., were in
the possession of the accused when she was arrested from
Ooty by the Sanjayanagar Police. If the accused is no way
connected to the Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd. and she also
cheated by the said company, in that event why all the
records pertaining to the company is recovered from the
possession of the accused.
21 CC.NO. 17262/2012
23. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for
the complainant except the self serving testimony of the
accused there is nothing on record to show that the
accused has initiated criminal proceedings against the
Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd. at Ghana South Africa. Apart from
that no records to show that scrap material importation is
prohibited. No records to show that Janvi Impex Pvt Ltd.,
collected scrap material so as to export the same to the
complainant.
24. No doubt, criminal proceedings against the
accused for the offences punishable U/s.406, 408, 420
R/W.Sec.34 of IPC was initiated as per FIR dtd 8.11.2011,
but the cheques have been issued on 3.12.2011 and
20.11.2011 subsequent to the initiation of the
prosecution, but this itself is not the ground to arrive at a
conclusion that it is unlikely and improbable that accused
issued the cheques after prosecution being initiated
particularly the accused has failed to explain she along
with the complainant had also cheated by the Janvi Impex
Pvt. Ltd. Another reason for discarding this contention
22 CC.NO. 17262/2012
since admittedly huge amount had been realized by the
company.
25. No doubt, it is true that accused was earlier
tuiting son of the complainant for daily salary of Rs.500/-,
but the contention that the accused has no capacity to
issue cheques for a huge amount as stated in Ex.P.15 and
P.17 particularly accused has failed to convince the court
that she had no role to play in the mis-appropriation made
by the Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd.. Since entire records of the so
called Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd. had been seized from the
custody of the accused.
26. No doubt, it is true that no Income Tax returns
has been submitted. Further no permission of RBI is
taken over at the time of investment. But what is relevant
to observe that the amounts had been utilized and in the
absence of satisfactory explanation it is to be held that
these minor lapses on the part of the complainant cannot
be taken as a mode to rebut the presumption.
23 CC.NO. 17262/2012
27. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for
the complainant as per Ex.P.22 affidavit submitted before
the 4th ACMM Bengaluru by the accused wherein she has
stated that she is residing in the address stated in the
notice as per Ex.P.26. Therefore when the notice has been
dispatched to the correct and proper addresses it is
deemed to have been served upon the accused. Therefore,
inspite of service of notice, accused did not bother to issue
reply.
28. No doubt, it is true that as per Ex.P.2 MOU
accused is liable for the loss and profit at the ration of
60:40. But in the instant case it appears that the accused
in the name of Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd. had mis-appropriated
the funds by not giving proper explanation with regard to
the amounts collected from the complainant. Therefore
question of appreciating these contention is that only
accused is liable for 40% loss is unsustainable.
29. Admittedly the complainant had sent a sum of
Rs.1,25,41,892/- and the cheques impugned were issued
24 CC.NO. 17262/2012
as per Ex.P.15 and P.17 for a sum of Rs.1,76,85,695/-.
What is relevant to observe that the said amount was paid
in the year 2011. The other expenses particularly
travelling and stay expenses at Ghana South Africa is not
included. Further the complainant had lost huge amount
of more than one crore and suffered a set back financially,
therefore issuance of the cheques for a sum of
Rs.1,76,85,695/- cannot be ruled out.
30. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel
for the accused which with regard to making Janvi Impex
Pvt. Ltd. as a necessary party in the complaint reported in
the case of Anitha Hada Vs. Indian Acrylic Ltd 1999 (9)
SC 484 is not applicable to the facts of the present case,
since the existence of Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd. itself is a
question i.e, not properly answered by the accused.
31. With regard to the Non submission of Income
Tax returns the decision relied upon by the learned
counsel for the accused reported in the case of Amith
Kumar - Appellant Vs. Yogesh Arora - Respondent
25 CC.NO. 17262/2012
2016 (4) AICLR Punjab and Haryana is not applicable to
the facts of the present case. Since the remittance of
amount is not denied. The only contention with regard to
payments received by the Janvi Impex Pvt. Ltd. and
accused along with the complainant had been cheated has
been held unsustainable during the previous paragraphs.
With regard to the non receipt of the notice, learned
counsel for the accused has relied upon by the Judgment
reported in the case of Amjad Pasha Vs. H.N.Lakshman
2011 Criminal Law Journal 552 is not applicable to the
facts of the present case. Since in this case accused did
not produced any records to show that she was not
residing in the address stated in the notice. Further in the
affidavit submitted before the 4th ACMM Court accused
admits she is residing in the address stated in the notice.
Therefore, non receipt of notice as a ground to dismiss the
complaint is unsustainable.
32. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied
upon the Judgments reported in the case of Damodhar
S.Prabhu Vs. Syed Babalal Crl. Appeal No.963/2010
26 CC.NO. 17262/2012
and Ajay Bansal Vs. Nirmal Jain (2006) BC 495 with
regard to compensation awarded to the complainant for
causing delay and cheating unnecessarily and sustaining
loss.
33. No doubt, the complainant had parted huge
amount of more than 1 crore in the year 2011. The
complainant did not get any return for the said amount.
On the contrary, since 2012 the complainant is dragged to
the court proceedings. Accused has issued cheques for a
sum of Rs.1,76,85,695/- and at the time of passing
sentence by awarding compensation to the extent of the
amount stated in the cheques would meet the ends of
justice.
34. Therefore after overall examination of the
material placed on record by the complainant, it is a fit
case to raise presumption in favour of the complainant.
On the contrary, the material placed on record by the
accused is insufficient to rebut the presumption.
27 CC.NO. 17262/2012
Therefore, I answer the above point No.1 in the
Affirmative.
35. Point No.2 : In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Acting Under Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C., the accused is Convicted for the offence punishable u/s.138 NI Act and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.1,78,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Eight Lakhs Fifty thousand only.). Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.1,78,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Eight Lakhs only.) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and balance amount of Rs.50,000/- shall go to State.
In default, accused shall undergo SI for a period of one year.
28 CC.NO. 17262/2012Copy of the judgment shall be furnished to the accused at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and printout taken by him, is verified and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 06th day of March 2017.) (V.S.PANDIT), XV Addl. CMM., Bangalore.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant:-
PW.1 Atul Gala.
Documents marked for the Complainant:-
Ex.P.1 Authorization
Ex.P.2 Memorandum of Understanding
Ex.P.3 Budget Estimate E-mail letter
Ex.P.4 E-mail letter dated 5.09.2011,
Ex.P.5 Invoice,
Ex.P.6 Another E-mail dtd:5.09.2011,
Ex.P.7 to P.9 Three Bank related documents.
Ex.P.10 Bank Statement,
Ex.P.11 Another E-mail Ltr dtd.27.10.11
Ex.P.12 E-mail letter dtd.7.12.11.
Ex.P.13 E-mail letter dtd.27.12.11.
Ex.P.14 One letter.
Ex.P.15 Original cheque,
Ex.P.16 Bank endorsement,
Ex.P.17 original cheque,
Ex.P.18 Bank endorsement,
Ex.P.19 Copy of legal notice,
Ex.P.19(a) to c Three Postal receipts.
Ex.P.20 RPAD Cover,
Ex.P.21 Notice sent by Speed Pot.
29 CC.NO. 17262/2012
Ex.P.22 In CC.No.309/12 Accused
Affidavit.
Ex.P.23 & 24 FIR and Complaint. Ex.P.25 Head of the Charge sheets.
Ex.P.26 Complaint.
Ex.P.27 Certified copy of the Interim
Order.
Ex.P.28 Certified copy of the Order.
Witnesses examined For Defence:-
DW.1 M.D.Devakumari.
Documents marked for Defence:-
Ex.D.1 Complaint given to the Lokayuktha Ex.D.2 Complaint given to the Human Rights Commission.
XV Addl.CMM., Bangalore.30 CC.NO. 17262/2012
06.03.2017 (Order typed vide separate sheet) ORDER Acting Under Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C., the accused is Convicted for the offence punishable u/s.138 NI Act and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.1,78,50,000/-(Rupees One Crore Seventy Eight Lakhs Fifty thousand only.). Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.1,78,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Eight Lakhs only.) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and balance amount of Rs.50,000/- shall go to State.
In default, accused shall undergo SI for a period of one year.
Copy of the judgment shall be furnished to the accused at free of cost.
(V.S.PANDIT), XV ACMM., Bangalore.
31 CC.NO. 17262/2012