Bangalore District Court
U/S 200 Of Cr.P.C For The Offense vs To Pay The Cheque Amount Within 15 Days on 8 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU CITY
Present:- Sri. PRUTHVIRAJ VERNEKAR
B.Com, LLB
XXVIII A.C.M.M
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 08th day of April, 2021
CC.No.25133/2018
JUDGMENT
1. Sl.No. of the case : C.C.No.25133/2018
2. The date of commence of Evidence: 16.08.2018
3. The date of Institution : 17.07.2018
4. Name of the Complainant :M/s Skava Electric Private Limited A company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at No.20, Prathibha Industrial Estate, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Main road, Bengaluru-560 078.
Karnataka, India, Rep by its Authorised signatory Sri. Santosh. M.P v/s CC.No.25133/2018 2
5. Name of the Accused : Mr. Bailoor Praveen Kumar Aged about 43 years, S/o Ramachandra Bhat, Proprietor of M/s R.R Infocomm, 1st floor, C.K Complex, P.P.C cross road, Udupi:576101
6. The offence complained : U/s.138 of N.I. Act
7. Plea of the accused on his examination : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Order : Accused is Convicted
9. Date of such order : 08.04.2021 JUDGMENT
1. This case has been registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant u/s 200 of Cr.P.C for the offense punishable u/s 138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act.
2. The gist of the complainant's case is that :
Complainant submits that the complainant company is incorporated under the Companies Act CC.No.25133/2018 3 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture and supply of Modular Switches, Distribution boxes, MCB, RCCB, Timer and other industrial products and caters to a large variety of clients including Multinational Companies, Public Sector undertakings and institutions. The accused is the Proprietor of M/s R.R. Infocomm, a distributor of the complainant for Udupi region, since about 2 years, that the complainant had invoiced and delivered various materials to M/s R.R. Infocomm for which it has been maintaining a running credit/ledger account. Further the complainant submits that as on 31.12.2017 there was an outstanding balance of Rs.5,22,601 payable to the complainant by the accused for which the accused issued a cheque bearing No.127701 dt:20.02.2018 for an amount of Rs.5,22,601/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Udupi branch, in favors of the complainant , which on presentation of the said cheque for encahsment through their banker M/s Axis bank, CC.No.25133/2018 4 Chamarajpet branch, Bangalore, the said cheque was dishonored and returned back with a memo 'Payment stopped by the drawer' on 15.05.2018 with its banker. Thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice on 05.06.2018 to the accused by RPAD calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and inspite of service of notice accused has not paid the cheque.
Accordingly, the complainant filed the complaint against the accused for having committed an offense punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act on 07.07.2018.
3. In pursuance of the summons, the accused has appeared through Counsel and got enlarged on bail by executing necessary documents. The copy of the complaint was furnished to the accused, as required under law. As there was sufficient material, plea was recorded against the accused on 29.11.2018 and explained to the accused in his vernacular, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
CC.No.25133/2018 5
4. In order to prove the case, the Assistant Manager, Finnegan & accounts and authorized signatory of the complainant Company Sri. Santhosh. M.P examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 12. Then the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 06.05.2019, wherein the incriminating evidence appeared against the accused was read over and explained which was denied by the accused. Accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to 21 on his behalf.
5. The learned Counsel for complainant has filed written argument. In the written argument he has reiterated all the facts narrated in the complaint and further contended that the complainant company was represented by its manager PW1 and also relevant document marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The proceedings u/sec.138 of N.I Act Quasi-Criminal Proceedings the principles which applied to acquittal in other criminal cases cannot apply to these cases.
CC.No.25133/2018 6 The accused examined as DW1 and got marked the documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D21. The aforesaid facts of evidence of DW1 clearly show that accused issued the said cheque and also admitted that 5 cheques are issued to the complainant with a malafide intention to cheat and defraud the complainant reflects from the very document produced by the accused and marked as Ex.D1. During cross examination of the accused he has admitted that vide e-mail dated 10.06.2017 sent by the accused himself he has admitted liability of Rs.29,99,342/- to the complainant company and the same was marked at Ex.P12 as per the admitted fact of the above said outstanding liability. The defense of the accused that cheque has been issued as security could stand ground as he has not discharged the liability arising from such cheques. Apart from this in support of his case produced zerox copy of decisions passed in Crl Appeal No.664/2012 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. For all these reasons clearly goes to CC.No.25133/2018 7 show that pray for convict the accused in accordance with law.
6. The learned counsel for the accused at the time of argument submitted that there is no any recoverable debt from the accused to the complainant. Ex.P5 cheque and other 4 cheques have been given by the accused for security purpose to the complainant company. The complainant company has misutilised the cheque given for security purpose. In view of this the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable, hence, pray for dismiss the compliant in the interest of justice.
7. Heard arguments and perused the material placed on record.
8. On the basis of the above facts, the following points arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the complainant proves that the accused towards discharge of legal recoverable debt issued cheque bearing No.127701 dated:20.02.2018 for an CC.No.25133/2018 8 amount of Rs.5,22,601/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Udupi branch, in favour of complainant, on presentation for encashment it was returned as 'Funds Insufficient' and in spite of receipt of legal notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period and thereby the accused has committed an offense punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as under :
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1:- In order to prove the case of the complainant, the Asst. Manager, Finance & Accounts and authorised signatory of the complainant Company Sri. Santhosh M.P filed affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has reiterated all the CC.No.25133/2018 9 allegations made in the complaint on oath. In the evidence PW1 has produced the documents which are marked Ex.P1 to P12. On perusal of the documents produced on behalf of the complainant Ex.P1 which is the incorporation certificate, Ex.P2 is the minutes of meeting, Ex.P3 is the 87 invoices, Ex.P4 is the c/c of ledger account, Ex.P5 is the cheque and Ex.P5(a) is the signature of the accused, Ex.P6 is the bank endorsement, Ex.P7 is the legal notice dated:02.06.2018, Ex.P7(a) is the postal receipt, Ex.P8 is the postal acknowledgement, Ex.P9 is the reply notice, Ex.P10 is the certificate under sec.65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, Ex.P11 is the complaint, Ex.P12 is the copy of e-mail.
11. In the present case the specific case of the complainant company that the accused has issued cheque bearing No12.7701 dt:20.02.2018 for Rs.5,22,601/- with regard to the Timber and other Industrial Products purchase from the complainant CC.No.25133/2018 10 company. On the presentation of the said cheque by the complainant company through its banker returned with endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. There after inspite of issue of legal notice to the accused he has not repaid the cheque amount and given false reply to the legal notice. In view of this it is crystal clear that the accused has committed the offense u/sec138 of N.I Act. Hence, pray for punish the accused in accordance with law.
12. On the other hand, the accused has denied all the allegations made by the complainant and taken specific defense that he has given 5 cheques for security purpose to the complainant there is no any recoverable debt from him to the complainant company the complainant company misutilised the cheque given for security purpose and filed this false complaint. For all these reason pray for dismiss the compliant filed by the complainant.
13. This being the contention on either side in order CC.No.25133/2018 11 to prove the case of the complainant the Manager of the complainant company examined as PW1 in his chief examination he has reiterated all the facts narrated in the complaint. Apart from this, in order to substantiate the claim of the complainant got marked the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On perusal of the documents placed on record Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 which are the incorporation certificate and minutes of meeting which clearly goes to show that the complainant company is incorporate upon conversion from public company to private company and the complainant is authorize to file this complaint. Apart from this the complainant has produce 87 invoice which are marked at Ex.P3 and also ledger account copy for the period 1.4.2107 to 31.12.2017. On perusal of the same, also clearly goes to show that the complainant company has delivered the industrial products to the accused company and also availed goods on credit basis from the complainant company.
CC.No.25133/2018 12
14. The complainant has also produce Ex.P5 and 6. On perusal of the same, which clearly goes to show that Ex.P5 cheque bearing No.127701 dt:20.02.2018 for Rs.5,22,601/- is issued in favour of complainant company. On presentation of the said cheque returned with memo 'payment stopped by the drawer' on 17.05.2018. The complainant has also produce Ex.P7, Ex.P7(a), Ex.P8 which are copy of legal notice, postal receipt and acknowledgement also clearly goes to show that the complainant has issued legal notice to the accused and same is served. Apart from this, the accused also given reply to the legal notice same is marked at Dx.P9. Ex.P10 is the certificate u/s 65(b) and Ex.P11 is the complaint. The complainant during cross examination of DW1 has confronted e-mail copy sent by the accused dt:10.06.2017 the same has been admitted by the accused and marked as Ex.P12. ON perusal of the same, clearly goes to show that pending payment (without deducting CR Note) Rs.29,99,342/-.
CC.No.25133/2018 13 On perusal of all these documents clearly goes to show that the accused has purchased the timber and other industrial products from the complainant company and issued cheque bearing No.127701 dt:20.02.2018 for Rs.5,22,601/-.
15. In the present case in order to prove the defense of the accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked the documents Ex.D1 to D21 which are e-mail sent by the complainant, SBI pass book counter foil, cheque book counter foil, letter issue by the accused dt:11.02.2017 to the complainant company, bank statement, Statement dt:11.02.2017 certified copy, bank statement, letter issued to the bank for 'stop payment', SBI bank account statement, Ledger account certified copies. On perusal of the evidence of DW1 in his chief examination he has clearly stated 5 blank cheques given to the complainant company representatives Raghavendra and Jagadeesh. The complainant company has misutilised the cheques CC.No.25133/2018 14 given for security purpose and filed this false case. On perusal of the Ex.D1 produced by the accused himself which is the e-mail sent by the complainant company which clearly goes to show that cheque issued by accused bearing No.127702, 127703, 127704 are bounced. In this regard the learned counsel for the complainant put a question during cross examination the accused has admitted with regard to the Ex.D1 and also it is an admitted fact need not be proved. Apart from this as I have discussed above the accused has admitted Ex.P12 e- mail also during his cross examination and there is a due of Rs.29,99,342/- to the complainant company. In view of this which clearly goes to show that earlier 3 cheques issued by the accused to the complainant company were dishonoured and also there is a due amount with regard to the purchase of goods from the complainant company by the accused.
16. It is pertinent to note that making a stop CC.No.25133/2018 15 payment is also attract the offense u/sec.138 of N.I Act, when there is a recoverable due and issue the cheque for the said due under such circumstances anybody make a stop payment it amounts to offense u/sec.138 of NI Act. Here in the present case, the complainant company has produced 87 invoice, cheque, endorsement statement, e-mail correspondence as I have discussed above in detail. On perusal of the same which clearly goes to show that there is a due of amount by the accused to the complainant company in this regard issued the cheque Ex.P5 in favor of the complainant. The accused in order to rebut the presumption available u/sec.139 of NI Act to the complainant examined himself as DW1 and also produced the documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D21. On perusal of the same, absolutely does not helpful to the case of the accused, on order to disprove the case of the complainant. In the instant case the complainant has produce Ex.P5 cheque that has been CC.No.25133/2018 16 issued by the accused for an amount of Rs.5,22,601/- with signature Ex.P5(a) on the said cheque and contended that the cheque has been issued by the accused in discharge of legal debt and liability which on presentation for collection was dishonored for the reason 'funds insufficient' as per Ex.P6/memo. It is pertinent to note that nowhere in the cross examination the counsel for the accused have denied the execution of the cheque Ex.P5 with signature Ex.P5(a) of the cheque was dishonored for 'funds insufficient'. On the other hand, though the accused has examined as DW1 and got marked the documents Ex.D1 to D21. In view of the admission given by the accused during cross examination about Ex.P12 and also Ex.D1 which clearly goes to show that there is a recoverable debt from the accused to the complainant for this reason accused has issued Ex.P5 cheque and apart from this though the accused has produced letter given to the bank to make stop payment as per CC.No.25133/2018 17 Ex.D10 also amounts to offense u/sec138 of N.I Act. As per the case of the complainant Ex.P5 issued on 20.02.2018 and stop payment letter Ex.D10 is dt:07.09.2017 that is earlier to issue of cheque and apart from this if at all there is no any due from the accused to the complainant what prevented the accused to ask return the cheques given for security purpose in writing and even the accused has not filed any complaint before the jurisdictional police. For all these reason it is crystal clear that the complainant has successfully proved that the accused had issued the disputed cheque Ex.P5 for an amount of Rs.5,22,601/- for the discharge of his liability. The entire burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption u/sec.139 of N.I Act as per dictum laid down in the following case on Hon'ble Supreme Court in:
2019 SAR 2446 (Criminal) 309 Supreme Court, ( Bir Singh v/s Mukesh Kumar).
CC.No.25133/2018 18 (E) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S, 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption as to legally enforceable debt - Rebuttal - Onus to rebut presumption that cheque issued in discharge of debt or liability is on accused. (Para 36) (G)Negotiable Instruments Act, (26 of 1881), Ss.138, 139 - Presumption as to legally enforceable debt - Rebuttal - Signed blank cheque- If voluntarily presented to payee, towards payment, payee may fill up amount and other particulars and it in itself would not invalidate cheque - Onus would still be on accused to prove that cheque was not issued for discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence.
(Para-38).
(H) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss, 138- Dishonour of cheque - Complainant can fill up amount or particulars in blank cheque. (Para 38).
(J)Negotiable Instrument Act 26 of 1881), Ss.
CC.No.25133/2018 19 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Absence of finding that cheque was not signed by accused or not voluntarily made over to payee- No evidence regarding circumstances in which blank signed cheque given to complainant - Cheque presumed to be filled in by complainant being payee in presence of accused, at his request or with his acquiescence- No change in amount, its date or name of payee- Subsequent filing in of an unfilled signed cheque is not alteration- Accused liable to be convicted. This ruling is applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case since in para-36, 37, 38 & 40 the Hon'ble Supreme court has clearly laid down the dictum of law that the onus to rebut the presumption u/s 139 that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused and the fact that the cheque may be post dated does not absolve the drawer of the cheque of a penal consequences of sec.138 of the N.I Act.
CC.No.25133/2018 20
17. On perusal of the said ruling the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made it very clear that if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill of the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The Onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence. It is further held that even blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. It is also held that the provisions of Sec.20, 87 and 139 makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a CC.No.25133/2018 21 liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. Further in para-36 the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of N.I Act that the cheque/Ex.P5 with signature Ex.P5(a) in the instant case issued by the accused was not in discharge of legal debt and liability but in the instant case there is clear admission by the accused that the disputed cheque Ex.P5 and the signature Ex.P5(a) on the said cheque belongs to him and he had issued as per the condition No.6 mentioned in the declaration for the discharge of his legal debt and liability. In view of the dictum of law laid down in the above referred judgment and on appreciating the evidence of the accused and complainant it is crystal clear that the accused failed to rebut the presumption existing u/s 139 N.I Act in favour of the complainant.
CC.No.25133/2018 22
18. At this juncture I would also like to refer the ruling reported in:
AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 1876 Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v/s State of Gujarat and another (A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss.
138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Rule of Presumption of innocence of accused - Cannot be applied with same rigour to offence u/s 138, particularly where presumption is drawn that holder received the cheque for discharge, the debt or liability.
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss.118, 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption in favour of holder - All basic ingredients of Ss.138, 118 and 139 are apparent on fact of record - Therefore, it is required to be presumed that cheques in question were drawn for consideration and CC.No.25133/2018 23 complainant received it is discharge of an existing debt.
(D) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss. 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Principles of presumption - Once presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt drawn in favour of complainant, onus is shifted on accused - unless onus is discharged by accused that preponderance of probabilities are tilting in his favour, doubt on case of complainant cannot be raised for want of evidence regarding source of funds for advancing loan to accused.
On perusal of the ruling it is found that the ruling is applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. It is clearly held that an all basic ingredients of Sec.138, 118 and 139 are apparent on actual record then it is required to be presumed that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheque i.e a complainant had received the same in CC.No.25133/2018 24 discharge of an existing debt. The onus shifts on the accused who has to establish by probable defence so as to rebut such a presumption but in this case the accused has utterly failed to produce probable defense that the cheques were not issued in discharge of legal debt and liability. It is clearly held in the said judgment that unless the onus is discharged by accused that preponderance of probabilities are tilting in his favor, doubt on case of complainant cannot be raised.
19. At this juncture I would also like to discuss the citation reported in AIR 2018 Hon'ble Supreme Court 3601 (T.P Murugan (Dead) Thr.Lrs.V Bojan AND Posa Nandhi Rep.Thr, POA Holder, T.P Murugan v. Bojan) In this ruling at para-8 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the dictum of law that u/s 139 of the N.I Act, once a cheque has been signed and issued in favour of the holder, there is statutory presumption that it is issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or CC.No.25133/2018 25 liability by referring to K.N.Beena v/s Muniyappan and Another, (2001) 8 SCC 458, para-6 and Rangappa v/s Shrimohan (2010) 11 SCC 411, para 26 . It is further held that the presumption is a rebuttable one, if the issuer of the cheque is able to discharge the burden that it was issued for some other purpose like security for a loan.
The dictum of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case is aptly applicable to the fact and circumstances of the present case since accused has utterly failed to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of N.I Act existing in favour of the complainant that the cheque Ex.P5 issued by him is not for discharge of any legal debt or liability. Per contra, the complainant has proved the case by overwhelming evidence to establish that the accused has issued the cheque for discharge of his legal debt and liability.
CC.No.25133/2018 26
20. The word 'unless contrary is proved' is discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2011 Crl.L.J 4647 (SC). It is observed that "the accused is under the obligation to prove his case in trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability to the satisfaction of the Court". 'Unless contrary is proved' means the presumption has to be rebutted by proof and not by a bare explanation which is mere plausible. The said fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that the reasonable man could act on the supposition that is exist. Therefore, unless explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provisions cannot be said to be rebutted. In the instant case accused has utterly failed to rebut the presumption by producing cogent evidence and relevant document that the complaint filed against the accused is not maintainable.
CC.No.25133/2018 27
21. In this case, the court on perusal of the materials placed before the court is satisfied that the mandatory requirements of Sec.138 and 142 of N.I. Act has been duly complied. It is evident that the cheque/Ex.P5 presented for encashment within the validity time, notice Ex.P8 demanding the cheque amount and filing of complaint/Ex.P11 before the court after service of notice are within the period of specified by law. The complainant company is also submitted cheque for encashment to the Axis bank, Chamarajpet within the jurisdiction of this court.
22. On appreciation of entire evidence, this court is of the opinion that the accused miserably failed to challenge the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant. Accused has utterly fails to prove the fact that he has not issued cheques for discharge of legally enforceable debt. On the contrary, the complainant has proved through overwhelming evidence that the accused has issued CC.No.25133/2018 28 Ex.P5/cheque for a sum of Rs.5,22,601/- towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and on presentation of the cheques, the same was dishonored for the reasons 'Payment stopped by the drawer' and even after service of legal notice, the accused has not paid the cheques amount. Hence, in the considered view of this court, the complainant has proved that the accused has committed an offense punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, I answer the above point No.1 in the affirmative.
23. Point No.2:- From the material on record, it appears that the accused is aged about 44 years and doing business. Considering the age, avocation of accused and quantum of the cheque, if the accused is sent to jail, it would cause problem to the accused as well as to his family members. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, prevailing rate of interest in the nationalized Bank and litigation expenses, I proceed to pass the following:
CC.No.25133/2018 29 ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offense punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
Acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,30,000/-, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.5,30,000/- a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant towards compensation u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State.
The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand canceled.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused. (Dictated to Stenographer directly on the Computer, taken print out corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the open court this the 8 th day of April, 2021) (PRUTHVIRAJ VERNEKAR) XXVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
CC.No.25133/2018 30 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant:-
PW1 : Sri. Santhosh M.P Witnesses examined for the accused:-
DW1 : Sri. Praveen Kumar Documents exhibited by the Complainant:-
Ex.P1 : Computerized copy of Incorporation certificate Ex.P2 : Minutes of meeting Ex.P3 : 87 Invoice Ex.P4 : C/c of Ledger account Ex.P5 : Cheque Ex.P5(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P6 : Bank memo Ex.P7 : Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P7(a) : Postal receipt Ex.P8 : Postal acknowledgement Ex.P9 : Reply notice Ex.P10 : Certificate u/s 65(b) of Indian Evidence act Ex.P11 : Complaint Ex.P12 : e-mail copy Documents exhibited by the Accused:-
Ex.D1 : e-mail
Ex.D2 : Counter fail
Ex.D3 : Counter fail
Ex.D4 : Letter dt:11.02.2017
Ex.D5 : Bank statement dt:16.03.2017
Ex.D6 : C/c of statement 11.02.2017
CC.No.25133/2018
31
Ex.D7 : SBI Bank Statement dt:21.01.2017
to 17.10.2017
Ex.D8 : Letter from SBM Bank Manager
Ex.D9 : Stock details as on 30.06.2017
Ex.D10 : Stop payment letter dt:07.09.2017
Ex.D10(a) : Account statement
Ex.D11 : 13 letters
Ex.D12 : Ledger account from 1.3.17 to 31.3.17
Ex.D13 : Ledger account from 1.4.17 to 31.4.17
Ex.D14 : Ledger account from 1.4.16 to 31.3.17
Ex.D15 : Ledger account from 1.4.17 to 31.3.18
Ex.D16 : Ledger account from 1.4.17 to 31.3.18
Ex.D17 : Ledger account from 1.4.17 to 31.3.18
Ex.D18 : Ledger account from 31.3.18
Ex.D19 : C/c of Ledger account
Ex.D20 : Ledger account dt:09.06.2018
Ex.D21 : List of material stocks with
the accused dt:13.06.2019
XXVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
CC.No.25133/2018
32
Judgment pronounced in the
open Court vide separate order.
ORDER
The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
Acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted and sentenced to pay fine of CC.No.25133/2018 33 Rs.5,30,000/-, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.5,30,000/- a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant towards compensation u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State.
The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand canceled.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused.
XXVIII A.C.M.M, Bangaluru.