Bangalore District Court
Sri.S.S.Gurumallegowda vs Sri.Jagadeesha on 17 November, 2018
1 C.C.No.23927/2015 J
THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated:- This the 17th day of November, 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.23927/2015
Complainant : Sri.S.S.Gurumallegowda,
S/o.Late Shanthegowda,
Aged about 48 Years,
Occupation : Business;
Residing at No.225/14,
2nd Block, Byrappa Block,
T.R.Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 028.
(Rep. by Sri. L.T.Gopal and
H.C.Rajesh, Adv.,)
- Vs -
Accused : Sri.Jagadeesha,
Advocate,
Aged about 35 Years,
Basaveswara Complex,
Opp: PLD Bank (Town Police
Station),
Ashok Nagar, Kollegala Road,
Malavalli, Malavalli Taluk,
Mandya District.
(Rep. by Sri.B.M.Chandra Shekara
and others, Advs.,)
Case instituted : 26.9.2015
2 C.C.No.23927/2015 J
Offence complained : U/s 138 of the N.I.Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 17.11.2018
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 is known to him. The Accused had approached him and requested him for financial assistance of Rs.10 Lakhs as hand loan, by stating that the said amount was required for his personal commitment purpose and promising to repay the said amount within three months. Upon considering the relationship and urgency pleaded by the Accused, he paid a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs to the Accused on 27.1.2015. After receiving the said amount, the Accused failed to return the same as was promised by him i.e., within three months. However after much insistence, the Accused promised and assured him that he would repay the sum of Rs.10 Lakhs and as such he agreed to repay the sum of Rs.5 Lakhs by way of cash and the remaining amount by way of cheque. accordingly the Accused issued a cheqeu bearing No. 858370 dated 3 C.C.No.23927/2015 J 15.5.2015 drawn on the Canara Bank, Malavalli Branch, Malavalli for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs towards the discharge of the part of his obligation in his favor.
3. That thereafter the Accused paid a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs to him on various dates out of Rs.10 Lakhs as was promised by him and requested him to present the said cheque during the second week of July 2015 for encashment of the remaining amount of Rs.5 Lakhs due to him out of the total debt of Rs.10 Lakhs.
4. The Complainant has submitted that, thereafter as per the instructions of the Accused, when he presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker, the same acme to be returned dishonored as "Funds Insufficient"
vide Bank Endorsement dated 15.7.2015.
5. The Complainant has submitted that, thereafter left with no other alternative, he got issued a legal notice to the Accused through RPAD on 7.8.2015 calling upon him to pay the cheque amount to him within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said legal notice and though after the service of the same to him, the Accused has issued an untenable reply to him, he has not paid the cheque amount to him. Hence the present complaint.
4 C.C.No.23927/2015 J6. The Complainant submits that, the dishonour of the cheque by the Accused has been malafide, intentional and deliberate. Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of the Accused, he has filed the present complaint praying that he be summoned, tried and punished in accordance with Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
7. The Complainant has led his pre-summoning evidence by having filed his affidavit-in-lieu of his sworn statement, in which, he has reiterated the complaint averments.
8. Prima-facie case has been made out against the Accused and he has been summoned vide the order of the same date.
9. The Accused has appeared before the court and he has been enlarged on bail. The substance of the accusation has been read over to him, to which he has pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has the defence to make.
10. In his post-summoning evidence Complainant has examined as P.W.1 and has filed his affidavit, in which he has reiterated the complaint averments.
5 C.C.No.23927/2015 J11. In support of his evidence, P.W.1 has produced and relied upon the documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P6, which is, as follows:-
Ex.P1 is the Original Cheque dated 15.5.2015, in which the signature identified by P.W.1 as that of the Accused as per Ex.P.1(a), the Bank Memo as per Ex.P.2, the office copy of the Legal Notice as per Ex.P.3, the Postal Receipt as per Ex.P.4, the Postal Acknowledgement as per Ex.P.5 and the Reply Notice as per Ex. P.6.
12. P.W.1 has been cross-examined by the learned Defence Counsel.
13. During the cross-examination of the Complainant, the following document has been marked through him:-
i) The Photocopy of the Sale Agreement dated 19.1.2015 as per Ex.N1.
14. The statement of the Accused as required under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence found against him and has chosen to lead his rebuttal evidence.
15. The Accused is examined him as D.W.1 and he has filed his evidence affidavit, which is accepted by this court, as per the direction of our Hon'ble High Court in Afzal 6 C.C.No.23927/2015 J Pasha V/s., Mohamed Ameer Jan, reported in LAWS (KAR) 2016 (8) 131, in which, the acceptance of the affidavit of the Accused is permitted by our Hon'ble High Court in accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the Indian Bank Association Vs., Union of India, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 590.
16. However the record reveals that, though this court gave ample opportunities to the Accused to tender for his cross-examination, he did not utilize the said opportunities and as such the defence of the Accused is discarded and hence there is no rebuttal evidence.
17. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsels representing both the sides and I have considered their submissions.
18. The learned Defence Counsel has also filed his written arguments, in which, he has sought for the acquittal of the Accused on the grounds stated therein.
19. I have perused the record carefully.
20. Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been enacted to lend credibility to the financial transactions.
7 C.C.No.23927/2015 JThe main ingredients of the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are:-
(i) Drawing up of a cheque by the Accused towards 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.
21. 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:-
"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".
22. Also, Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act states, 8 C.C.No.23927/2015 J "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."
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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 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.
9 C.C.No.23927/2015 J26. 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.
27. 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 presumptions and the Accused is expected to rebut the presumptions by raising a probable defence.
28. Such being the legal position, it would be pertinent to refer to the defences raised by the Accused to 10 C.C.No.23927/2015 J rebut the presumptions in favour of the Complainant in this case.
29. Admittedly, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the acquaintance between them as well as with regard to the existence of the loan transaction dated 27.1.2015. However there is a serious dispute with regard to the quantum of the loan, since according to the Complainant, it was to the tune of Rs.10 Lakhs, while according to the Accused, it was only to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs, which also, is claimed to have been repaid by him in it's entirety to the Complainant.
30. It is also not in dispute that, the Accused has paid a total sum of Rs.5 Lakhs to the Complainant by way of Rs.1,90,000/= on 20.5.2015, Rs.1,10,000/= on 21.5.2015, Rs.1 Lakh each on 6.6.2015 and 7.8.2015 respectively. Further it is also not in dispute that, the aforesaid amounts of Rs.1,90,000/= and Rs.1,10,000/= have been repaid by the Accused through the cheques bearing No. 858371 and 858372, which are admittedly the subsequent cheques of the cheques in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the cheque in dispute belongs to the Accused with his signature on it and that he has issued the same in favor of the Complainant. However there is a dispute between the parties with regard to the purpose for 11 C.C.No.23927/2015 J which the same has been issued by the Accused to the Complainant, since according to the latter, it was issued to him towards the repayment of the partial loan amount of Rs.5 Lakhs, out of the total amount of Rs.10 Lakhs, while the former (Accused) has taken two inconsistent stands in this regard, by claiming in one breadth that, the same was issued by him to the Complainant only for security purpose in respect of his loan of Rs.5 Lakhs and at another breadth, by claiming that, the same was collected by the Complainant from him towards the transaction of sale shown in the sale agreement at Ex.N1, to which he acted as a mediator and that, he made the payment of Rs.5 Lakhs to the Complainant, as a penalty for having mediated in the transaction of sale, in which, his maternal aunt was admittedly the Vendor.
31. Therefore, it is clear that, there are dual stands taken by the Accused in so far as the payment of Rs.5 Lakhs made by him to the Complainant and the issuance of the subject cheque by him to the Complainant is concerned.
32. Therefore in such circumstance, when there are contradictory defences raised by the Accused, the onus of proving the same in preponderance of probability would be upon him.
12 C.C.No.23927/2015 J33. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, there is no dispute in so far as the compliance of the ingredients of Sec.138 of the N.I.Act by the Complainant is concerned. It is seen that, in pursuance of the service of the Legal notice, the Accused has come up with his defence through his reply notice as per Ex.P6, which is his defence first in point of time, as per which, it is his specific defence that, the loan transaction that existed between the Complainant and him was only to the extent of Rs.5 Lakhs, that he had borrowed from the latter on15.5.2015 and that, at the time of borrowing the said loan, the Complainant, who had the habit of collecting one cheque for security, had collected the cheque in dispute, for the security of the said loan amount of Rs.5 Lakhs.
34. Therefore, it is clear that, as per one defence version of the Accused, the cheque in dispute was issued by him to the Complainant, while borrowing the loan amount of Rs.5 Lakhs from him on 15.5.2015 and as a security for the said amount, he claims to have issued the cheque in dispute in favour of the Complainant.
35. It is also the defence of the Accused that, as per his promise, he made the repayment of the loan amount to the Complainant through his account on several dates i.e., a sum of Rs.1,90,000/= on 20.5.2015, Rs. 1,20,000/= on 13 C.C.No.23927/2015 J 21.5.2015 and thereafter Rs.1 Lakh each on 6.6.2015 and 7.8.2015 respectively and that despite his repayment of the said loan amount, the Complainant failed to return the cheque in dispute to him, which was given as a security for the loan amount of Rs.5 Lakhs.
36. Therefore it is alleged by the Accused in his reply notice at Ex.P6 is that, when the Complainant did not return his cheque and instead misused the same, immediately he lodged a complaint against the Complainant, before the Malavalli Police Station, alleging the misuse of his documents, forgery, malicious prosecution, cheating etc.,
37. Now keeping in mind the aforesaid defence version of the Accused as put forth by him in his reply notice, when the cross-examination of the Complainant by the learned Defence Counsel is carefully appreciated by this court, it goes to show that, interestingly it is elicited from the Complainant that, he has not collected any documents from the former on 27.1.2015 for the purpose of the security of his alleged loan of Rs.10 Lakhs and that the Accused had not informed him about the percentage of interest that he had agreed to pay to him etc., 14 C.C.No.23927/2015 J
38. It is also elicited from the Complainant that, the cheque was issued by the Accused with the date 15.5.2015. Likewise, it is also elicited from the Complainant with regard to the payment of Rs.5 Lakhs by the Accused to him on different dates from 20.5.2015 to 7.8.2015 by way of cheques and cash payments.
39. It is interesting to note that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Defence Counsel both in the cross- examination of the Complainant as well as in his arguments, admittedly there is no pleading on the part of the Complainant that, the actual amount of loan that he had allegedly advanced to the Accused was Rs.10 Lakhs and that, out of the said loan amount of Rs.10 Lakhs, the Accused had repaid Rs.5 Lakhs and that towards the repayment of the balance loan of Rs.5 Lakhs, the Accused has issued the cheque in dispute to him.
40. It is also argued by the learned Defence Counsel in his written as well as oral arguments that, as the actual loan transaction between the parties was only to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs, the Complainant had not whispered about the alleged loan of Rs.10 Lakhs in his legal notice at Ex.P.3 and he never anticipated that, the Accused would put forth the real facts before the court, with regard to the repayment of Rs.5 Lakhs by him to the Complainant.
15 C.C.No.23927/2015 J41. Therefore, when the Accused came up with his reply notice as per Ex.P.6, in which, he put forth the actual facts before this court, for the first time in his complaint and thereafter in his affidavit, the Complainant has improved his case by introducing a new claim that the actual loan amount which was advanced by him to the Accused was Rs.10 Lakhs.
42. Therefore, it is argued by the learned Defence Counsel that, the Complainant has hatched a new plan, while filing this complaint by introducing the theory of the alleged loan of Rs.10 Lakhs, though in fact, it was only Rs.5 Lakhs which also has been repaid by the Accused to him.
43. In this regard, it is seen that, even during the cross-examination of the Complainant, it is suggested to him that, there is no whisper about the alleged loan transaction of Rs.10 Lakhs in the legal notice at Ex.P.3. However explanation offered by the Complainant to the said suggestion is that, as the Accused had already repaid Rs.5 Lakhs to him and there was a balance of only Rs.5 Lakhs from the Accused to him, towards which, the latter had issued the cheque in dispute to him, in the legal notice, there is a mention of the loan of only Rs.5 Lakhs.
16 C.C.No.23927/2015 J44. Interestingly, this explanation offered by the Complainant is not seriously disputed by the Accused. Moreover in view of the crucial admissions elicited from the Complainant to the effect that, only after the receipt of the reply notice, he started claiming that, the loan transaction of Rs.10 Lakhs existed between the Accused and him and that, he has not stated about the alleged loan transaction of Rs.10 Lakhs either in the legal notice or in any other documents.
45. It is relevant to note that, the Complainant has also deposed before this court that, he had not even informed his advocate about the fact that, there existed a financial transaction of Rs.10 Lakhs between the Accused and him and that out of the said loan amount of Rs.10 Lakhs, the Accused had repaid Rs.5 Lakhs to him and that he owed the balance of Rs.5 Lakhs to him.
46. No doubt, these facts elicited from the Complainant would go to show that, he has not given proper instructions to his counsel while filing this complaint. However, when the Accused has come up with a specific defence by causing the reply notice, in which, he has admitted the loan transaction with the Complainant to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs, but disputes his liability in respect of the balance loan amount of Rs.5 Lakhs, as claimed by 17 C.C.No.23927/2015 J the Complainant, the onus of proving the said fact is upon the Accused.
47. However, the evidence on record indicates that, in his anxiety of rebutting case of the Complainant, the Accused has not been consistent in his defence version, in so far as the issuance of the cheque in dispute by him in favour of the Complainant and the purpose for which, he has paid Rs.5 Lakhs to the Complainant from 20.5.2015 to 7.5.2015 is concerned.
48. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, as per the averments made by the Accused in his reply notice, the loan transaction to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs was clearly admitted by him and he had also clearly admitted the issuance of the cheque in dispute in favor of the Complainant, though according to him, it was only for the purpose of security, the defence of the Accused would have been probable, if he had restricted his defence as put forth by him in his reply notice and while cross-examining the Complainant.
49. However, the evidence on record goes to show that, when the Complainant has been initially cross- examined by the learned Defence Counsel on 29.6.2017, the Accused has come up with total two inconsistent 18 C.C.No.23927/2015 J defences, both with regard to the purpose of his payment of Rs.5 Lakhs to the Complainant on the aforesaid 4 dates, as well as with regard to the purpose of the issuance of the cheque in dispute by him to the Complainant.
50. It is evident from the cross-examination of the Complainant dated:- 29.6.2017 that, admittedly there was an agreement of sale, which was entered into between the Complainant and the maternal aunt of the Accused by name Devamma, in respect of 2 acres of land as per Ex.N.1, for which, the Complainant is said to have paid Rs.10 Lakhs to the said Devamma.
51. It is elicited from the Complainant that, he had paid Rs.5 Lakhs to Devamma by way of cash and Rs.5 Lakhs by way of cheques and it is also admitted by the Complainant that, the said sale transaction took place in the mediation of the Accused.
52. It is also not in dispute that, the said sale transaction could not be completed, due to some legal hurdles and that inspite of it, the said Devamma has not returned the advance sale consideration amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the Complainant.
19 C.C.No.23927/2015 J53. However, the entire defence version of the Accused is demolished with his defence taken by him, in the course of the subsequent cross-examination of the Complainant, by suggesting to the latter that, since the former acted as a mediator in the transaction shown in Ex.N.1, he issued the cheque in dispute in favour of the latter.
54. It is interesting to note that, it is also elicited from the Accused that, it is after 19.1.2015 that, he has repaid Rs.4 Lakhs through account transfer and Rs.1 Lakh by way of cash to the Complainant.
55. That means, according to the Accused as suggested to the Complainant in his further cross- examination, the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs, which the former (Accused) has paid to him is in order to avoid the legal consequences of his having issued the cheque in dispute to the latter (Complainant), since, the former acted as a mediator in respect of the said transaction and the payment of Rs.5 Lakhs made by him to the Complainant is also with regard to the transaction of sale agreement that existed between the Complainant and his maternal aunt.
56. Therefore, it is clear that, as per the second version of the defence put forth by the Accused, as his 20 C.C.No.23927/2015 J maternal aunt Devamma neither refunded the advance sale consideration amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the Complainant nor did she sell the land under Ex.N.1 to him and as she could not mobilize the funds to repay the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the Complainant and as he was a mediator to the transaction gave him a cheque for Rs.5 Lakhs in order to avoid the facing of the proceedings in a cheque bounce case and hence he cleared cheque amount of Rs.5 Lakhs by way of part payments to the Complainant.
57. However, this defence version is clearly contradictory to the one put forth by the Accused in his reply notice at Ex.P.6 as well as in the earlier cross- examination of the Complainant, wherein, he (Accused) had clearly admitted the loan transaction with the Complainant, though to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs.
58. Further, it is relevant to note that, he has also contradicted with regard to the purpose, for which, he has issued the cheque in dispute in favour of the Complainant.
59. Therefore these contradictory stands and the inconsistent defences taken by the Accused lead to an inference that, his defence is not a probable one and as such, cannot be believed and relied upon by this court.
21 C.C.No.23927/2015 J60. It is relevant to note that, admittedly, the Accused has also admitted his loan transaction, though to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs only, with the Complainant on 27.1.2015 as well as the issuance of the cheque in dispute by him in favour of the Complainant on the same day, as a post dated cheque with the date 15.5.2015.
61. However, even in his affidavit, the Accused has taken two inconsistent stands, about the purpose, for which, the cheque in dispute had been issued by him to the Complainant, as well as the purpose for which, he has paid Rs.5 Lakhs to the Complainant by way of cheques as well as by way of cash.
62. However, the said defence version has also been discarded by this court, since, despite given sufficient opportunities, the Accused has failed to tender for his cross-examination.
63. However, as it is a settled position of law that, in order to rebut the presumptions in favour of the complainant, it is not mandatory for the Accused to enter the witness bock and it is sufficient for him to rely upon the materials already placed on record by the Complainant and it would be sufficient to the Accused to point out some doubts in the case of the Complainant, in which 22 C.C.No.23927/2015 J circumstance, the benefit of such doubt needs to be extended to him.
64. However, in the present case, though there is no evidence of defence available before this court, considering the fact that the absence of the defence evidence by the Accused by itself, does not seriously affect his defence, in view of the fact that, right from the stage of his reply notice as per Ex.P6, until the stage of the cross-examination of the Complainant, the Accused has not remained consistent and on the contrary by having taken up two contradictory and inconsistent defences, he has rendered his defence version as a highly improbable one. As such, this court has no hesitation to hold that, the defence of the Accused cannot be accepted and believed by this court.
65. Moreover, it is not in dispute that, the Accused is an educated person, having the knowledge of worldly affairs and in such circumstance, even if it is assumed for a moment that, his alleged security cheque was in the custody of the Complainant despite the clearance of his debt to the latter, till date, he has not taken any steps against the Complainant alleging that, he has misused his security cheque.
23 C.C.No.23927/2015 J66. Moreover, the cheque in dispute is also returned for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and if the defence of the Accused was really true, then he had every opportunity to issue stop payment instructions to his banker in respect of the subject cheque. However, the omission on the part of the Accused to be diligent and to have taken appropriate action against the Complainant, alleging the misuse of his security cheque would also create a serious doubt and it would also lead to an adverse inference against him.
67. Lastly, it is relevant to note that, though the Accused has claimed both in his reply notice as well as in the cross-examination of the Complainant that, when he came to know about the misuse of his cheque by the Complainant, immediately, he lodged a complaint against the Complainant before the Malavalli Police Station, alleging the misuse of his documents, forgery, malicious prosecution, cheating etc., However, there is no proof regarding the same led by the Accused before this court. Even otherwise, unless there is a finding with regard to the alleged misuse of the documents, forgery, cheating etc., proved against the Complainant by the Accused, mere lodging of the police complaint by the Accused against the Complainant cannot be considered to be a probable defence.
24 C.C.No.23927/2015 J68. Therefore viewed from any angle, the defence of the Accused cannot be considered to be a probable one. Therefore, the appreciation of the evidence on record clearly goes to show that, the Complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and on the contrary, the Accused has failed to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the Complainant u/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(2) of Cr.P.C. the Accused is hereby convicted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
He is held liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,50,000/= (Rupees Five Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only).
If the fine amount is so realized, Rs.5,40,000/= (Rupees Five Lakhs and Forty Thousand Only) is ordered to be paid to the Complainant as Compensation and the balance of Rs.10,000/= (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is ordered to be adjusted towards cost to the State Exchequer.
In default of payment of such compensation, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (Six) Months.
His bail bond stands discharged.
25 C.C.No.23927/2015 JIssue free copy of the Judgment to the Accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized by her, print out taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17thday of November, 2018).
(SARASWATHI.K.N), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant:-
P.W.1 : Sri. S.S.Gurumallegowda; 2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:- Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque; Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the Accused; Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo; Ex.P.3 : Office copy of the Legal Notice; Ex.P.4 : Postal Receipt; Ex.P.5 : Postal Acknowledgement; Ex.P.6 : Reply Notice. Ex.N.1 : Photocopy of the Agreement of sale
(Marked for identification purpose only).
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused:-
D.W.1 : Sri. Jagadeesha; (Discarded)
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-
- Nil -26 C.C.No.23927/2015 J
(SARASWATHI.K.N), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.27 C.C.No.23927/2015 J
17.11.2018 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER By exercising the power-
conferred u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the Accused is hereby convicted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
He is held liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,50,000/= (Rupees Five Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only).
If the fine amount is so realized, Rs.5,40,000/= (Rupees Five Lakhs and Forty Thousand Only) is ordered to be paid to the Complainant as Compensation and the balance of Rs.10,000/= (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is ordered to be adjusted towards cost to the State Exchequer.
In default of payment of such compensation, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (Six) Months.
His bail bond stands
discharged.
Issue free copy of the Judgment
to the Accused forthwith.
.
XVI ACMM, B'luru.
28 C.C.No.23927/2015 J