Bangalore District Court
Sri T.R.Keshava Reddy vs A.Krishna Reddy on 2 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE &
24th ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore
(SCCH-20)
Dated this the 02nd day of February, 2015
Present: Smt.K.BHAGYA,
B.Com., LL.B.
V Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXIV
A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
C.C.No.27966/2006
Judgment U/s 355 of Cr.P.C
Complainant : Sri T.R.Keshava Reddy,
S/o Late T.Ramaiah,
Aged About 47 years,
R/at No.300, 11th Cross,
Wilson Garden,
Bangalore -560 027.
(By Pleader Sri.B.K.Surendranath)
Accused : A.Krishna Reddy,
S/o Anniappa,
Major in age,
R/at Halasahalli,
Tippasandra Village,
Gunjur Post,
Via : Varthur,
Bangalore-560 087.
(By Pleader Sri.D.S.Sathish)
(SCH-20) 2 CC 27966/06
The offence complained
Of or proved : U/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Plea of accused &
his examination : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acting U/sec 255(2) of
Cr.P.C. accused is convicted
Date of such order : 02-02-2015
* * * * *
JUDGMENT
The complainant by name Sri.T.R.Keshava Reddy, has filed this complaint against the accused by name Sri.A.Krishna Reddy, for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
02. It is the case of the complainant that:-
The complainant and the accused well known to each other and hence, during first week of December 2004, the accused approached the complainant for hand loan and obtained a sum of Rs.4,00,000-00 promised to repay the same, within 2 months. It is further contended that, after lapse of 2 months, when the complainant approached the accused for repayment of said amount, then the accused issued a Cheque bearing No.959023 dated 09-03-2005 for Rs.4,00,000-00 in favour of complainant, drawn on State Bank (SCH-20) 3 CC 27966/06 of Mysore. On 11-03-2005 the complainant has presented the cheque for encashment, but, the said cheque was returned with a shara stating that, "Account Closed." Thereafter, the complainant intimated to the accused about return of cheque, but he gave an evasive answer. Hence, on 24-03-2005, the complainant got issued demand notice intimating the dishonour of the cheque and calling upon the accused to pay the amount noted in the cheque through RPAD and U.C.P and the same has been received by Smt.Ratnamma i.e., the wife of the accused. Inspite of service of the legal notice within stipulated time accused did not repay the amount. So, the complainant is before this Court with this complaint against the accused.
03. This complaint was filed before this court on 03-05-2005.
04. Earlier, once i.e., on 12-03-2009 Judgment was pronounced in this case by my Predecessor-in-office, by acquitting the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 138 of the N.I. Act. Thereafterwards, against the said Judgment, the Complainant has preferred a Criminal Appeal No.350/2009, which was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, by setting aside the Judgment. It was remanded back to afford an opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence. So, again the present case file is before me to pronounce the Judgment in this case for the Second time.
(SCH-20) 4 CC 27966/06
05. After registration of complaint, summons and NBW has been issued to the accused. After the issuance of NBW, the accused has appeared before the Court through his counsel and enlarged on bail. Thereafterwards, this Court has recorded the plea of the accused. As the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the case was posted for complainant's evidence.
06. Earlier, the complainant himself got examined as P.W.1 and 7 documents got marked on his behalf. The complainant also got examined one witness as P.W.2. Then this Court has recorded the accused statement U/sec 313 of Cr.PC. As the accused submitted that, he would adduce his defence evidence, the case was posted for defence evidence. Then accused himself got examined as D.W.1 on his behalf.
07. The complainant by name T.R.Keshava reddy has not adduced his further evidence after the remand of the case. As the counsel for the complainant has filed a memo on 03-03-2014 stating that, the complainant accepts the earlier evidence recorded by this court and the same was considered. On the otherhand, after remand of the case, the accused Krishna Reddy got examined as D.W.1 and got marked 3 documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D3.
08. Heard the arguments of both side.
09. The advocate for the complainant has relied upon the following decisions:-
01. 2013(3) Crimes 246 (SCH-20) 5 CC 27966/06
02. ILR 2008 KAR 4629
03. ILR 2008 KAR 3625
04. 2000 CR.LJ 287
05. 2006 SCC (CRI) 30
10. In this case, in order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself got examined as P.W.1. He has filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, in which he has affirmed on oath stating that, as he and the accused are the native of Halasahalli, Thippasandra Village. In the 1st week of December 2004, the accused approached him for a hand loan of Rs.4,00,000-00 in order to settle his urgent debt and promised to repay the same within 2 months by selling his property. So, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000-00. When he demanded for money after 2 months, the accused issued the present cheque in question for a sum of Rs.4,00,000-00. When it was presented for encashment, it was returned with an endorsement as "Account Closed". Then the complainant got issued a Legal notice calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount, which was received by the wife of the accused. But he has not paid the cheque amount and replied to the said notice. So, the complainant is before this Court.
11. He has produced the original Cheque alleged to be issued by the accused, marked at Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 is the Bank return memo, Ex.P.3 is the copy of legal notice dt:24-03-2005 issued to the accused by the advocate of the (SCH-20) 6 CC 27966/06 complainant. Ex.P.4 is the Postal receipt, Ex.P.5 is the UCP receipt, Ex.P.6 is the Postal acknowledgment, Ex.P.7 is the copy of Reply notice issued by the accused through his counsel dt:11-12-2008. These are all the documents on which the complainant relied upon.
12. Here, it is the defence of the accused that, he has not at all received any hand loan of Rs.4,00,000-00 from the complainant. He has lost cheque book containing cheque Nos.959023, 959024 & 954090 of State Bank of Mysore and in this regard he has lodged a Police complaint on 27-02-2004 in C. Mis. No.19/04 at Varthur Police Station and also gave instructions to his banker to close his account. The said cheque has been misused by this complainant in this way. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that, the accused has not at all committed any offence punishable U/sec 138 of N.I. Act.
13. Here, this P.W.1 has been thoroughly cross-examined by the advocate for accused. The cause title of the complaint reveal that, this complainant is the resident of Wilson Garden, Bangalore. The accused is the resident of Halasahalli, Tippasandra Village, Gunjur Post, Bangalore.
14. As already observed above, it is the case of the complainant that, this accused has received hand loan of Rs.4,00,000-00 in the 1st week of December 2004 to settle his urgent debt and promised to repay the same by selling his property. Regarding this aspect, the complainant has been (SCH-20) 7 CC 27966/06 thoroughly cross-examined by the advocate for accused. In the cross-examination the complainant deposed before this Court stating that, since 1980 to 2008 he was the resident of Wilson Garden area Bangalore. Further he has deposed that, he is working as a Professor in Agricultural Economics at University of Agricultural Science, Bangalore. In 2005 March his net salary was around Rs.20,000-00 p.m. He has been receiving the salary from the bank. He has invested money in the bank account, shares etc.,. During November 2004 he had sold Eucalyptus garden trees located at Tippasandra to Mr.Pillareddy for a consideration of Rs.4,50,000-00 and he has collected the sale consideration amount by way of cash. Within 5 to 6 days he has paid the money to the accused. This would be the answer given by the complainant regarding the cheque amount which the complainant had with him. Of course, this complainant has clearly deposed that, as he had sold out Eucalyptus trees and he has received the sale consideration amount in cash and the same has been paid by him to the accused, when the accused asked for the hand loan of Rs.4,00,000-00. This complainant also deposed further that, he is an income tax assessee and payee. He has also deposed that, the sale consideration amount which he received from selling Eucalyptus trees was with him.
15. He has denied that, the accused has not issued the present cheque to him and he has not presented the same for encashment. He has denied that, the signature on the Ex.P.1 (SCH-20) 8 CC 27966/06 cheque is not that of the accused. Further he has deposed in his cross-examination stating that, Mr.Suresh S/o Chikkaramaiah was present when he lent the money to the accused.
16. At this juncture, it is necessary to go through the deposition of this accused. He has been got examined as D.W.1. In his chief examination, the accused has deposed that, he do not know the complainant. He has not received any amount from the complainant. He has not handed over any cheque to the complainant. Further he has deposed that, when he was coming from Tippasandra, he had lost his bag in which the cheque book was there. He has lost the bag on 27-02-2004. Regarding this, he lodged a complaint before the Varthur Police Station. Moreover, he also gave instruction to the bank to close his account. This would be chief examination of this accused. Further he has also produced one copy of the complaint given to the Sub-Inspector of Varthur Police Station regarding the lost of one black colour bag which contains two note book and one cheque book in which three cheques were there and also Rs.550-00, which is marked at Ex.D.1. But it originally does not bear the date, but it is written as "27-02-2004". Moreover, this is obtained from the High Court of Karnataka as the case file was before the High Court. Ex.D.2 is the Endorsement given by the said Varthur Police Station regarding the complaint lodged by the accused. Ex.D.3 is the Letter written to the State Bank of (SCH-20) 9 CC 27966/06 Mysore, Whitefield, regarding the closure of the account as he has lost his cheque book. These are the documents produced by the accused. Here, it is important to note that, the defence of the accused is that, he do not know the complainant himself. But as per the complainant's version both of them are from the same native. Moreover, this complainant was the Professor. Under such circumstances, though this accused has taken the contention that, he had lost his bag which contains cheque book and leaves, he has not at all disclosed either in his chief examination or in his cross- examination that, how this complainant came into the possession of this cheque. Whether, the complainant had stolen it?. Not explained. Moreover this accused also been thoroughly cross-examined by the advocate for complainant. But in the whole cross-examination, the answer given by the accused is as "I lost that cheque". Except this, he was not ready to give any other answer before the Court. Further, he also deposed as, "£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä f.Dgï.Dgï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è KeÉAmï DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉ.Ý £À£Àß ºÀÉAqÀwAiÀÄ CtÚ£À ªÀÄUÀ£ÃÉ £ÁUÀ¥Àà J£ÀÄߪÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä¬ÄAzÀ, £ÀªÀÄä PÀA¥À¤UÉ ºÀt ºÁQ¹zÉÝ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévÀB £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ D jÃw ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ £ÁUÀgÁeï J£ÀÄߪÀ Field Officer JAzÀÄ. D ºÀtzÀ UÁågÀAnUÁV £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁUÀ¥Àà ¸ÉÃj MAzÀÄ ¨ÁAqï£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÀÉݪÀÅ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £Á£ÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉ JAzÀÄ ¦gÁåzÀÄ PÉÆqÀ¯ÁzÀ (SCH-20) 10 CC 27966/06 ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À ¨Á§ÄÛ, MAzÀÄ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¦¼ÀîªÀÄä¤UÉ PÉÆlÄÖ, £ÀªÀÄä f.Dgï.Dgï PÀA¥À¤ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÀAvÀºÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß qÁæ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä ºÉýzÉÝ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. D ZÉPÄÀ Ì ¸ÀºÀ £ÀUÀzÁUÀzÉà wgÀ¸ÀÌÊvÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸À®ºÉUÉ ¸ÁQë. D ZÉPÀÄÌ PÀ¼ÉzÀĺÉÆÃVvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÀt vÀAzÀÄPÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÀÃ£É JAzÀÄ D ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß DPɬÄAzÀ ¥Àqz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
F ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ F ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ UÉÆwÛg° À ®è JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸À®ºÉUÉ ¸ÁQë, £Á£ÀÄ D jÃwAiÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀª£À ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÉà E®è J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ".
"r¸ÉA§gï 2004gÀ°è F ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀjAzÀ 4 ®PÀë gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Á® ¥Àq¢ É gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁj D ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÀÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý¢ÝÃj JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸À®ºÉUÉ ¸ÁQë, £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀévÀÄÛ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è J£ÀÄßvÁÛg.É £ÀAvÀgÀ D ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä F ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr¢ÝÃj JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸À®ºÉUÉ ¸ÁQë, C ZÉPÀÄÌ PÀ¼ÉzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄßvÁÛg.É ¤ªÀÄä M¦àUÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ D ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀ¢UÁV ¸À°è¹zÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸À®ºÉUÉ ¸ÁQë, D ZÉPÀÄÌ PÀ¼ÉzÀĺÉÆÃVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ¦gÁåzÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÉÝ J£ÀÄßvÀÁÛgÉ". By going through the above deposition, it can be said that, the defence of 'loosing cheque' taken only for the sake of defence and not for any other reason. Moreover, the learned counsel for the complainant also argued that, in the year 2004, the Varthur Police Station was not in existence. Regarding this (SCH-20) 11 CC 27966/06 aspect, the complainant also produced one document issued by the Police Inspector of Varthur Police Station, which he has obtained under the R.T.I. Act, in which it is stated that, the said Varthur Police Station started on 15-11-2006. But the accused has produced Ex.D.2 i.e., the Endorsement given by the said Varthur Police Station. Even if this Court agree for a movement that, the accused has lost his cheque, he has not at all explained how this complainant came into the possession of that cheque? He has been saying only the two words "I lost cheques". That defence is not at all sufficient to escape from his liability or guilt.
17. Here, the complainant has produced all the relevant materials which are necessary U/sec 138 of N.I. Act to prove the complaint. Moreover, regarding the money which he had with him, he gave believable answer in his cross-examination. Moreover, one witness by name T.C.Suresh also got examined as P.W.2 who has sworn to the effect that, the complainant has paid Rs.4,00,000-00 cash to the accused in the 1st week of December 2004. The cross-examination made by the accused to this witness is not at all helpful to him in any way.
18. Thus, by going through all the material produced before this Court by both the side and also by going through the oral evidence of both the side, it can be help safely without any hesitation that, the accused committed an offence punishable U/Sec 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
(SCH-20) 12 CC 27966/06
O R D E R Acting U/Sec 255(2) of Cr.P.C, accused is hereby convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable U/Sec 138 of N.I. Act.
Acting U/Sec 357(3) of Cr.PC, accused is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000-00 to the complainant towards the loss suffered by him.
Out of the total compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000-00, a sum of Rs.25,000-00 shall be deposited to the State as fine amount.
In default of the aforesaid compensation/fine amount, accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Bail bond if any executed by the accused is stands cancelled.
Supply free copy of this Judgment to accused immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, then corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02nd day of February, 2015) (K.BHAGYA) V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.(SCH-20) 13 CC 27966/06
Annexure Witnesses examined for Complainant:
P.W.1 T.R.Keshava Reddy
P.W.2 T.C.Suresh
Documents marked for complainant:
Ex.P.1 original Cheque
Ex.P.2 Bank return memo
Ex.P.3 copy of legal notice dt:24-03-2005
Ex.P.4 Postal receipt
Ex.P.5 UCP receipt
Ex.P.6 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.7 copy of Reply notice dt:11-12-2008
Witnesses examined for defence:
D.W.1 A.Krishna Reddy
Documents marked for defence:
Ex.D.1 Copy of the Complaint given to Varthur Police Station
Ex.D.2 Endorsement given by the said Police Station
Ex.D.3 Letter written by the accused to the State Bank of
Mysore, Whitefield
(K.BHAGYA)
V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.