Bangalore District Court
Sri.Sujith.K vs Sri.Ramachandra.R on 11 June, 2019
1 C.C.No.26100/2017 J
THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated:- This the 11th day of June, 2019
Present: Sri.S.B.HANDRAL, B.Sc., L.L.B(SPL).,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.26100/2017
Complainant : Sri.Sujith.K,
S/o.Sri.Krishnappa,
Aged about 25 years,
Residing at No.77,
A-2 Flat,
Shivalik Apartment,
Subramanyapura Road,
Vasanthapura,
Bengaluru -560 061.
(Rep. by Sri. Naveennanda D.T,
Adv.,)
- Vs -
Accused : Sri.Ramachandra.R,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at No.809,
15th Cross,
Near 15 F Bus stop,
Kumaraswamy layout,
2nd Stage,
Bengaluru -560 056.
(Rep. by Sri. B.Roopesha. Adv.,)
Case instituted : 24.10.2017
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I Act
of
2 C.C.No.26100/2017 J
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 11.6.2019
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 from the past several years and he approached him for the financial assistance for business purpose, accordingly requested him for a hand loan of sum of Rs.6 Lakhs and promising to pay it at the earliest. As per the request of the accused and his acquaintance, he had given a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs by way of cash in the month of August 2016 to the accused. In the month of August 2017, the Complainant had reminded and demanded the accused for the return of above said amount, for which, the accused had agreed to pay and issued the cheque bearing No.514997 dated:-
31.8.2017 for a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, HSR Layout Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the Complainant. As per the assurances of the accused, when he presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker, the same came to be returned 3 C.C.No.26100/2017 J dishonoured as "Funds Insufficient" vide Bank Endorsement dated:- 4.9.2017. Thereafter, he informed the above said fact to the accused and requested him for the payment of the said loan amount, for that he did not respond properly and not heed the request of the Complainant. Thereafter, he got issued a legal notice dated:- 12.9.2017 to the accused through RPAD and speed post calling upon him to pay the cheque amount to him within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said legal notice. Despite the service of the same, he has neither replied nor has he paid the cheque amount to him. Hence the present case is filed by the Complainant against the accused praying that the Accused be summoned, tried and punished in accordance with Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Before issuing process against the accused, the Complainant has filed his affidavit-in-lieu of his sworn statement, in which, he has reiterated the averments of the complaint. In support of his oral evidence, P.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.C1 to C.6 i.e, the Original Cheque dated:-31.8.2017 as per Ex.C.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused as per Ex.C.1 (a), the Bank Memo as per Ex.C.2, the office copy of the Legal Notice 4 C.C.No.26100/2017 J as per Ex.C.3, the two Postal Receipts as per Ex.C.4 and C.5 respectively and the postal Acknowledgement as per Ex.C.6.
4. Prima-facie case has been made out against the accused and summons was issued against the accused in turn he has appeared before the court and got enlarged on bail and the substance of the accusation has been read over to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried and also stated that he has defence to make.
5. In view of the principles of law laid down and as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of the Indian Bank Association Vs., Union of India, reported in 2014 (5) SCC 590, after recording the plea of the accused, as he intended to set out his defence, the case was posted for the cross-examination of the Complainant. Thereafter P.W.1 has been cross- examined by the learned Defence Counsel.
6. Thereafter, the statement of the accused as required under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and has chosen to lead his 5 C.C.No.26100/2017 J rebuttal evidence subsequently he has not adduced any evidence on his behalf.
7. Heard the arguments of both learned counsels and perused the written arguments filed by the learned counsels for the Complainant and also accused and perused the decisions relied upon by the both learned counsels.
8. On the basis of complaint, evidence of complainant and documents and having heard the arguments of both learned counsels for the complainant and the accused, the following points that are arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued a cheque for Rs.6,00,000/= bearing No.514997 dated:
31.8.2017 drawn on State Bank of India, HSR Layout Branch, Bengaluru, to discharge legally recoverable debt to the complainant and when the complainant has presented a cheque for encashment through his banker but the said cheque has been dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" on 4.6.2017 and the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on. 12.9.2017 and inspite of it the accused has not paid the cheque amount within prescribed period there by the 6 C.C.No.26100/2017 J accused has committed an offence U/s.138 of the Negotiable instruments Act?
2. What Order?
9. The above points are answered as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1: Before appreciation of the facts and oral and documentary evidence in the present case, it is relevant to mention that, under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to establish guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts however, a proceedings U/s.138 of N.I.Act is quasi criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond all reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions as envisaged U/s.118, 139 and 146 of N.I.Act. An essential ingredient of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act is that, whether a person issues cheque to be encashed and the cheque so issued is towards payment of debt or liability and if it is returned as unpaid for want of funds, then the person issuing such cheque shall be deemed to have been committed an offence. The offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act pre-supposes three conditions for prosecution of an offence which are as under:-
7 C.C.No.26100/2017 J1. Cheque shall be presented for payment within specified time i.e., from the date of issue or before expiry of its validity.
2. The holder shall issue a notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer within one month from the date of receipt of information of the bounced cheque and
3. The drawer inspite of demand notice fails to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice.
If the above said three conditions are satisfied by holder in due course gets cause action to launch prosecution against the drawer of the bounced cheque and as per Sec.142(b) of the N.I. Act, the complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arise to file complaint.
11. It is also one of the essential ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act that, a cheque in question must have been issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I.Act envisages certain presumptions i.e.,U/s.118 a presumption shall be raised regarding 'consideration' 'date' 'transfer' 'endorsement' and holder in course of Negotiable Instrument. Even U/Sec.139 of 8 C.C.No.26100/2017 J the Act are rebuttable presumptions shall be raised that, the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally recoverable or enforceable debt and these presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in cases of negotiable instrument, but the said presumptions are not conclusive and or rebuttable one, this proportion of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in catena of decisions. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer a decision reported in "2001 Cr.L.J Page 4647 S.C in a case of "Hiten P Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee" "2001 Part 8 SCC 458 between K.N.Beena Vs. Muniappan and another", "AIR 1999 SC 3762 between K. Bhaskaran Vs. Vaidhan Balan", "AIR 2010 SC 1898 between Rangappa Vs. Mohan", "2001 AIR KAR .HCR 2154 between M/s.Devi Tyres Vs. Navab Jan", "AIR 2018 SC 3173 between Kishan Rao Vs. Shankaragowda" and "AIR 2018 SCC 3601 between T.P.Murugan (Dead) Thr. LRs Vs. Bhojan". In the above said decisions the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that, presumption is to be raised by virtue of which, it is for the accused to show that, there was no legally recoverable or enforceable debt or liability or that debt or liability was not legally enforceable.
9 C.C.No.26100/2017 J12. The Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in the above said reported decision i.e., 2001 AIR KAR. HCR 2154 at para No.6 held that, issuance of cheque itself was adequate proof of existence of debt or liability. In another decision reported in 2011 ACD 1521 (KAR) between Smt. Usha Suresh Vs. Shashidharan, the Hon'ble High Court held that, issuance of cheque and signature is accepted and admitted by the accused and initial presumptions has to be raised in favour of the complainant that, cheque in question was issued towards legally recoverable debt though presumptions being rebuttable such rebuttable presumption has to be proved by the accused by placing satisfactory evidence but by giving mere explanation, the accused cannot get away from the final action. The same principles of law has been held in another decision reported in 2011 ACD 1412 (KAR) between N.Hasainar Vs. M.Hasainar S/o. Imrahim" in the said decision it is held that, U/s.118 and 139 of N.I. Act presumption is to be drawn in favour of the complainant that the accused issued cheque towards repayment of legally recoverable debt or other liabilities. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a decision reported in "2001 AIR KAR HCR 2154 i.e., between M/s. Devi Tyres Vs. Navab Jan" at para No.6 10 C.C.No.26100/2017 J held that the duty of the prosecuting authority ends when it is demonstrated to the criminal court the cheque was issued, it was dishonoured thereafter the amount was not paid despite of service of notice within prescribed period of time. Therefore from the above principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and Hon'ble High Court to Karnataka, it is for the complainant to discharge his initial burden that the accused has issued a cheque in question and it was dishonoured and thereafter the accused has not paid the amount despite of service of notice within a stipulated time.
13. In the present case, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 by filing his affidavit evidence in lieu of oral evidence, wherein he has testified regarding advancing a hand loan of sum of Rs.6 Lakhs to the accused at his request and also testified about issuance of cheque bearing No.514997 dated:-31.8.2017 for a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, HSR Layout Branch, Bengaluru by the accused, presentation of cheque, dishonour of cheque, for want of sufficient funds. It is further testified by the complainant that, after receipt of memo of the bank, he has issued a legal notice on 12.9.2017 through his advocate by the 11 C.C.No.26100/2017 J registered post and the said notice was served on 14.9.2017 and after service of the notice, the accused did not repaid the loan amount. In support of oral evidence, the complainant/PW.1 has produced original cheque which is at Ex.C.1 and signature of the accused is at Ex.C.1 (a), it could be seen from Ex.C.1 that, the cheque was presented within the prescribed period from the date of it's issuance. The complainant has also produced bank memo issued by the Bank of Baroda, ISRO Layout Branch, Bengaluru which is at Ex.C.2. Ex.C.3 is the copy of legal notice dated: 12.9.2017 issued to the accused and it reveals that, the said notice is issued within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the intimation from the bank, Ex.C.4 to C.6 are the postal receipts and acknowledgment, which discloses that, the notice issued by the complainant was duly served on the accused. On careful perusal of the documents produced by the complainant i.e, Ex.C1toC6 it established that, the complainant has complied the procedural requirements as contemplated u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
14. Apart from the above, during the course of cross-examination of the complainant/PW.1, the learned defence counsel has specifically suggested that, the 12 C.C.No.26100/2017 J accused has not availed hand loan from him but has availed a loan of Rs.1 Lakh from one Prathap in the year 2015 and the accused has given the cheque in question to the said Prathap and the accused repaid the entire amount to the said Prathap in the year 2016, but the cheque was not returned to him now the complainant and the said Prathap colluding with each other by misusing the cheque issued by the accused have filed this false case against the accused, but the said suggestions were specifically denied by the complainant /PW.1.
15. On careful perusal of the entire cross- examination of PW.1, it goes to show that, the accused has not disputed about the issuance of the cheque and his signature appearing on cheque and bouncing of cheque and issuance of notice by the complainant and service of the said notice on him and the PW.1 in the cross-examination clearly stated above how he has arranged the cash and when he has paid the same to the accused and for what reason the complainant has not obtained any other documents except the cheque in question. All other suggestions made by the learned counsel for the defence to the complainant, were stoutly denied by him.
13 C.C.No.26100/2017 J16. It is relevant to here mention that during the course of cross-examination, the learned defence counsel has taken specific contention that in the year 2015, the accused availed a loan of Rs.1 Lakh from one Prathap and at that time, he has given the cheque in question to the said Prathap and thereafter in the year 2016 the accused has paid entire amount to the said Prathap, but he did not return the cheque to the accused. Now the complainant and the said Prathap colluding with each other has filed this present complainant with a malafide intention. The assertions made by the accused in the cross-examination of PW.1 goes to show that the accused has admitted that Ex.C.1 the cheque belongs to him and signature appearing at Ex.C.1(a) is his signature, but it is the contention of the accused that the said cheque was given to one Prathap and it has been misused by the complainant colluding with him with a malafide intention, but unless and until the said contention is proved by the accused an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused that the cheque in question was issued by the accused for discharging the legally recoverable debt, since the accused has admitted the cheque in question belongs to him and his signature appearing on the cheque .
14 C.C.No.26100/2017 J17. In addition to the above, it is to be noted here that if really the accused had given cheque in question to one Prathap while obtaining hand loan from him and thereafter inspite of entire loan amount paid to the Prathap in the year 2016, he did not return the said cheque and the said cheque was misused by the complainant colluding with Prathap and filed this false case, the accused neither had given any police complaint or initiated any action against the said Prathap or the complainant, no such efforts have been made by the accused, therefore the contentions taken by the accused cannot be acceptable one. It is also relevant to mention that, it is an admitted fact that the notice issued by the complainant i.e., Ex.C.3 is served upon the accused but inspite of service of said notice, the accused has not made any effort to take or initiate action against either the Prathap or the complainant. Therefore it appears that, the defence taken by the accused is only for the sake of denial of payment to the complainant ,under such circumstances an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused that though he has issued the cheque in question for discharge of legally enforceable debt has taken false and evasive defence which cannot be acceptable.
15 C.C.No.26100/2017 J18. The learned counsel for the accused in the written arguments has specifically contended that, the Complainant has alleged that, he has paid a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs to the accused by way of cash, to prove the same he has not produced any documents before this court. Hence the complainant has failed to prove that, he had sufficient source of income to lend such a huge amount. It is further argued that, the complainant in his cross- examination stated that, he is a proprietor of gym and out of the income accrued from there he has lent a amount to the accused, but the complainant has not produced any documents to prove that his is a proprietor of gym. Hence itself shows that the complainant was not having sufficient source of income to lent the amount as alleged.
19. It is well settled position of law that, the defence of the accused if in the nature of mere denial of case of the complainant, will not be sufficient to hold it has a probable defense. The bare denial of the passing of consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence something which is probable must brought on record were getting the benefit of shifting onus of proof to the complainant.
16 C.C.No.26100/2017 J20. It is also a settled position of law that, once a cheque is proved to be relevant to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signature on the said cheque then the initial presumption as contemplated U/sec.139 of the N.I.Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the Complainant. As it is already stated above that, the oral evidence of the Complainant and Ex.C.1 to C.6 makes it clear that, the complainant has proved that, the cheque in question i.e., Ex.C.1 received by the accused and signature thereon is belonging to the accused and it was presented within three months from the date of its issue and the said cheque was dishonored for a reason of Insufficient Funds, thereafter he has issued the legal notice and even after service of the said notice, the accused did not make any payment. Therefore, the complainant discharges the initial burden that was caused upon him. Consequently, it is for the accused to rebut the presumption U/sec.139 of the N.I. Act and show that, the cheque in question was not issued either to complainant or towards any legally enforceable debt or liability and has to prove the same not by mere suggestions or even by plausible explanations that is the contrary is to be proved by providing cogent evidence. The said presumption is a 17 C.C.No.26100/2017 J mandatory and not a general presumption but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption and in order to rebut the said presumption, the accused must prove by giving the plausible explanation by way of rebuttable evidence.
21. In the present case except the bare denial in the cross-examination of the complainant/PW.1 by the accused, nothing has been produced before the court either by adducing his evidence or by producing documents by way of rebuttable evidence. Therefore, the defence taken by the accused appears to be in the nature of mere denial of the case of the complainant, such defence will not be sufficient to hold as a probable defence.
22. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in "AIR 2018 SC 3173 in a case of Kishan Rao Vs. Shankargouda " wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss. 138, 139- Dishonour of cheque - Presumption as to - Accused issuing cheque of Rs.2 Lakhs towards repayment of loan to Complainant- said cheque dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds- Complainant proving issuance of cheque having signatures of Accused - Accused failing to rebut 18 C.C.No.26100/2017 J presumption raised against him and no evidence led by him in his support - Acquittal of Accused by High Court in revisional jurisdiction on ground of doubt in mind of Court with regard to existence of loan, improper- Accused, liable to be convicted.
The principles of law laid down in the above decision are aptly applicable to the case on hand, since in this case also the complainant proved issuance of cheque having signatures of the accused and the accused failed to rebut presumptions raised against him and has not entered into the witness box to adduce his evidence in support of his defence.
23. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2018 DT 15-03- 2018 between ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATEL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR held that "Negotiable Instruments Act facts like source of funds are not relevant if the Accused has not been able to rebut the presumption. It is further held that " When such a presumption is drawn, the facts relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the Accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not".
19 C.C.No.26100/2017 JHence the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the above referred decision are aptly applicable to the case on hand, since in the present case this court has drawn a presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt as per Sec. 139 of N.I. Act and the accused miserably failed to rebut the evidence of the Complainant by leading cogent and convincible evidence by entering into the witness box. Therefore under these circumstances the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the defence i.e., the complainant has not produced any documents to show that he had sufficient source of income to lend the amount of Rs.6 Lakhs to the Accused and complainant has failed to produce any document to prove his source of income to lend the amount are not sustainable and acceptable one.
24. It is also relevant to here mention the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 between 'M/s.Devi Tyres V/s.Navab Jan' and in 2011 ACD 1521 (KAR) between 'Smt. Usha Suresh V/s. Shashidharn', in 2010 SC 1898 between 'Rangappa Vs. Mohan' and 2011 ACD 1412 (KAR) between 'N.Hasainar Vs. M.Hasainar, S/o. Ibrahim'. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the 20 C.C.No.26100/2017 J above decision i.e., 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 at para No.6 was pleased to hold that issuance of cheque itself was adequate proof of existence of debt or liability. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in the decision referred above, the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2010 SC 1898 in case of 'Rangappa Vs. Mohan' that, presumptions U/sec.118(a) and 139 of N.I. Act indeed does extend to the existence of legally recoverable debt, or course the said presumption is rebuttable one, the accused has to rebut the presumption by taking probable defence. Therefore in view of the above said reasons, the defence taken by the accused is not acceptable one.
25. Apart from the above the Complainant/PW.1 in his cross-examination has specifically stated that, he is having monthly income of Rs.80 to 90 thousand and in the year 2016 he was having monthly income of Rs.60 to 70 thousand and in the 2nd week of August 2016 he has paid a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs to the accused and further stated that, on demand the accused had issued the cheque dated:-31.8.2017 for Rs.6 Lakhs on 30.8.2017. Further the learned counsel for the defence has specifically made suggestions about the financial capacity of the Complainant but the complainant has properly and specifically stated about his financial 21 C.C.No.26100/2017 J capacity and the other suggestions made to him were stoutly denied by him.
26. Apart from the above, as it is already stated that, in view of the presumptions laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in AIR 2010 SC 1898 in case of 'Rangappa Vs. Mohan" the presumption U/sec.138(a) and 139 of N.I. Act indeed extent to the existence of legally recoverable debt. Hence it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption. Therefore the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the accused in the written arguments to that extent not sustainable and cannot be acceptable. Therefore from careful perusal of the evidence of complainant /PW.1 it can held that, the complainant has given an amount of Rs.6 Lakhs to the accused who in-turn issued cheque in question i.e. Ex.C.1 towards the discharge of the said loan amount.
27. The learned counsel for the accused in the written arguments has relied upon the decisions reported in 1) 2010 (11) SCC 411 - Rangappa Vs.Mohan, 2) 2008 AIR (SC) - 1325- Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, 3) (2015) 1 SCC 99, - K. Subramani Vs. K. Damodara Naidu, 4) ILR 2009 Page 172 in support of 22 C.C.No.26100/2017 J defence of the accused. On careful reading of the principles held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, with due respect to the principles, the same are not helpful to the accused, on the contrary the principle of law laid down in the decision reported in 2010 (11) SCC 441 i.e. Rangappa Vs. Mohan are aptly applicable to the case of the complainant.
28. The learned counsel for the defence in the written arguments has also contended that, the complainant has admitted in the cross-examination that, he is an income tax assessee and has not produced any documents before the court to show that, he had sufficient source of income as on 2016 to lent a huge amount of Rs.6 Lakhs as alleged by the complainant. It is true that, the complainant has not produced any documents to show that, he is an income tax assessee in the year 2016, but non production of the said documents is not fatal to the case of the Complainant and only on that ground, it cannot be held that, the complainant has failed to prove his case. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer a decision in 2008(5) KCCR 3371 - Kempanarasimhaiah Vs. P.Rangaraju and others, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under:-
23 C.C.No.26100/2017 J" On careful reading of the above observations and also all other observations in the said judgment I could not fine the Hon'ble supreme court having laid down that, the transactions in contravention of the said provisions of Income tax Act could be termed as transactions opposed to the public policy so as to bring the same within the ambit of non-enforceable transactions. The Hon'ble Supreme court has not laid down in the said decision that, the transactions of this nature could be termed as 'opposed to public policy' and as such the same would become legally not enforceable".
Therefore in the light of the principles of law laid down, it is for the Income Tax Authority to take action for non- compliance of the provisions of Income Tax Act, but that will not makes the transaction as void. Therefore the contention taken by the accused in the written arguments that, the complainant has not produced any income tax documents and has failed to prove that, he had sufficient source of income as on the year 2016 to lend a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs to the accused is not sustainable and acceptable.
29. Therefore considering all these aspects of case and totality of the circumstances and on careful and meticulous appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant, the complainant has successfully established beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs as a hand 24 C.C.No.26100/2017 J loan from the complainant and promised to repay the same to the complainant and even inspite of demand made by the complainant, the accused did not repaid the same but in turn has issued a cheque in question to the complainant and the said cheque has been dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused, thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused and same has been served on him, despite of it the accused failed to repay the amount borrowed by him to the complainant. Hence the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act, accordingly ford the above said reasons this point I answered in the Affirmative.
30. Point No.2: Negotiable Instrument Act was enacted to bring credibility to the cheque and the very purpose of enactment is to promote the use of negotiable instrument, while to discourage the issuance of cheque without having sufficient funds in their accounts. Such being the case the intention of the legislature is that, complainant be suitable compensated while accused be punished for his act. Hence while awarding the compensation the said fact is to be kept in mind and suitable compensation is awarded to the complainant certainly it will not cause injustice to the accused, 25 C.C.No.26100/2017 J accordingly the complainant is entitled for the compensation as ordered by the court and for the said reasons, it is just and proper to pass the following :-
ORDER Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,15,000/= (Rupees Six Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand Only) in default he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of (3) three months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Further acting U/sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.6,10,000/= (Rupees Six Lakhs and Ten Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on recovery a sum of Rs.5,000/= (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.26 C.C.No.26100/2017 J
His Bail bond stands cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C. (Partly dictated to the Stenographer online and partly by shorthand, transcript thereof is computerized by her, printout taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of June 2019).
(SRI.S.B. HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant:-
P.W.1 : Sri.Sujith.K; 2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:- Ex.C-1 : Original Cheque; Ex.C-1(a) : Signature of the Accused; Ex.C-2 : Bank Memo; Ex.C-3 : office copy of the Legal Notice; Ex.C-4 & C-5 : Postal Receipts; Ex.C-6 : Postal Acknowledgement;
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused:-
-Nil -
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-
-Nil -
(SRI.S.B.HANDRAL), 27 C.C.No.26100/2017 J XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.28 C.C.No.26100/2017 J
11.6.2019 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER Acting U/sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,15,000/= (Rupees Six Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand Only) in default he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of (3) three months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Further acting U/sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.6,10,000/= (Rupees Six Lakhs and Ten Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on recovery a sum of Rs.5,000/= (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
His Bail bond stands cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C.
XVI ACMM, B'luru.