Bangalore District Court
M/S. Hi-Tech Electronix vs Hitech Computers on 15 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Sri. V. NAGARAJA, LL.B., LL.M.,
XXI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2019
C.C. No.31515/2018
COMPLAINANT: M/s. HI-TECH ELECTRONIX
Represented by its Proprietor
Sri. Meghanath S
No.9, 1st Cross, 4th Main,
S.R. Nagara,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
(Reptd. By: VR., Advocate)
V/s.
ACCUSED: 1. HITECH COMPUTERS
Represented by its Proprietor
Sri. C. VARADHARAJ
No.91/1, SSRJ Complex,
1st Floor, Near KEB,
Opp: Reddy Hotel,
Anekal Main Road,
Chandapura,
Bengaluru - 560 081.
2. Sri. C. VARADHARAJ
Proprietor,
HITECH COMPUTERS,
No.91/1, SSRJ Complex,
1st Floor, Near KEB,
Opp: Reddy Hotel,
Anekal Main Road,
Chandapura,
Bengaluru - 560 081.
(Reptd. By: YRN., Advocate)
2 C.C.No.31515/2018
:JUDGMENT:
Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 138 of N.I. Act, seeking for penalizing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and also for awarding compensation to him.
2. Case of the complainant in a nutshell is that:
Complainant is a proprietorship concern, represented by its proprietor. It is further averred that complainant has been running business of sales and service of branded computers, laptops, tablets, PC and other computer accessories. In the course of his business, the accused being proprietor of Hi-Tech Computers used to purchase materials from complainant by placing purchase orders. Accordingly, accused has purchased materials under various invoices detailed below:
1. Invoice No.HTE/1237/14-15 dated 07.11.2014
2. Invoice No.HTE/1388/14-15 dated 06.12.2014
3. Invoice No.HTE/1416/14-15 dated 10.12.2014
4. Invoice No.HTE/1430/14-15 dated 13.12.2014 that is to say the accused purchased materials from 13.12.2014 to 24.10.2017 for amounts mentioned in 3 C.C.No.31515/2018 invoices. However, the accused had made only some part payments, but he was still due of Rs.2,00,000/-. So, in order to discharge above liability, accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1 has issued him two cheques bearing No.000832 dated 26.07.2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No.000833 dated 19.07.2017 for Rs.1,00,000/- both are drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Chandapura Branch, Bengaluru and assured to honour the said cheques. So, believing the words of accused, on 26.07.2018, he presented above said cheques through his banker i.e., YES Bank Ltd., Kasturba Road Branch, Bengaluru. But said cheques were dishonoured for the reason "Account Closed". So, the bank authorities issued endorsement dated 27.07.2018. So, he got issued legal notice dated 10.08.2018 through RPAD to accused regarding dishonour of cheques and calling upon him to pay cheques amount, whereas said notice has been duly served on accused on 11.08.2018. But, the accused has failed to pay the cheques amount. Hence, accused have committed offence punishable U/s.138 of NI Act. Hence, he is constrained to file this complaint seeking for penalizing all the accused for the offence punishable under 4 C.C.No.31515/2018 Section 138 of N.I. Act., and also seeking for awarding of compensation to him.
3. In pursuance of summons issued by this court, accused No.2 made appearance on his behalf as well as accused No.1 through his counsel and obtained bail and now he is on bail.
4. As these proceedings are summary in nature, substance of accusation read over and explained to accused No.2 in language known to him whereas, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he has been examined as PW-1 and got documents marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16. After completion of evidence of complainant, statement of accused No.2 as specified U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., has been recorded and he has been examined as DW-1 and got documents marked Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-3.
6. I have heard arguments of both learned counsels, whereas learned counsel for accused also filed his written arguments along with citations, whereas learned counsel for complainant also filed memo of citations. 5 C.C.No.31515/2018
7. Perused the records.
8. After perusal of records, the points arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 being proprietorship concern, which is represented through its proprietor accused No.2, in order to discharge his legally enforceable debt, he issued him two cheques bearing No.000832 dated 26.07.2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No.000833 dated 19.07.2017 for Rs.1,00,000/- both are drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Chandapura Branch, Bengaluru?
2) Whether complainant further proves that he has complied with mandatory requirements as specified under Section 138 of N.I. Act r/w 141 of N.I. Act?
3) What Order?
9. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1: As I have already stated, in order to prove the case of the complainant, he has been examined as PW-1 and he filed his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit by reiterating entire complaint averments as stated above. In support of his oral testimony, he relied upon Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16.
6 C.C.No.31515/2018
11. On the other hand, accused No.2 has been examined as DW-1 and got documents marked Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-3.
12. Before appreciation of evidence of the both parties, I am of the opinion, it is worth to note presumptions envisaged in N.I. Act as well as ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Three Judges Bench Judgment reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 (Rangappa V/s. Sri Mohan) wherein it is held:
"The presumption mandated by Section 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. This is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, herein, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the respondent /complainant."
It is further held:
Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to Section 139 of the NI Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption.7 C.C.No.31515/2018
13. So in the light of above presumptions and ratio decidendi laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, if the present facts and situations are analyzed, it is obvious that according to complainant, accused has issued cheques for discharging of his liability. On the other hand, on considering the stand taken by the accused No.2, it is obvious that though he disputes his liability as claimed by complainant, but he has not disputed the fact that cheques are belonged to accused No.1 firm and they bear his signatures. So, as I have already stated in view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in the Judgments stated supra, that as soon as accused admits his signature on cheque, the mandatory presumption u/S 139 of N.I. Act comes to the aid of complainant and he can rest upon said presumption.
14. Whereas, learned counsel for defence argued that in order to raise presumption U/s.138 of NI Act, the condition precedent is that complainant must prove the existence of legally recoverable debt or liability, if he is able to prove the same, then only presumption can be raised otherwise not.
8 C.C.No.31515/2018
15. Having regard to the arguments of learned counsel for accused, it is important to note as I have already pointed out Hon'ble Three-Judges Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa's case stated supra, it is clearly held:
"The presumption mandated by Section 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally recoverable debt or liability"
16. So when above ratio clearly states that presumption includes existence of legally enforceable debt or liability then further proof of that fact is not required that too in summary proceedings. Because Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2009)2 SCC 513 (Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets) has clearly observed that:
Presumption literally means "taking as true without examination or proof"
17. At this juncture, it is also worth to note ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2014)5 SCC 590 (Indian Bank Association and others V/s. Union of India and others) wherein it is held by reiterating Section 143 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 264 of Cr.P.C., that:
9 C.C.No.31515/2018
"The Magistrate is not expected to record full evidence which he would have been, otherwise required to record in a regular trial and his judgment should also contain a brief statement of the reasons for the finding and not elaborate reasons which otherwise he would have been required to record in regular trials"
18. So, in the light of above ratio decidendi and in view of Section 143 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 264 of Cr.P.C., as this case is summary case, I am of the opinion it is not necessary to discuss elaborately with respect to legally enforceable debt when presumption includes existence of legally recoverable debt as held in the above said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. So, the mandatory presumptions will live, exist and survive and shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is to say the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability, in other words, onus shifts on the accused to rebut the said mandatory presumption raised in favour of complainant as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment reported in (2009)2 SCC 513 (Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets).
Now the crucial question arises as to whether accused are able to rebut the said presumption or not? 10 C.C.No.31515/2018
19. It is significant to note on considering the defence of the accused, he contended that he started to purchase computer accessories from the complainant in the year 2014, at that time, for security purpose, complainant had obtained his signed two blank cheques. Thereafter, complainant used to supply materials and accused used to make payments and there was no due. So, the accused requested the complainant to return his security cheques, but complainant went on postponing the same. Now, the complainant in order to grab money from him, he misused his signed blank security cheques, though his account was closed in the year 2015 itself. So, question of issuing present cheques in the year 2018 as contended by complainant does not arise. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed and he may be acquitted.
20. Whereas learned counsel for accused in his written arguments as well as his oral arguments, he argued that complainant has not produced proper and correct accounts, whereas the complainant has created account ledger extract Ex.P-16 only in order to make false claim. Hence, said document cannot be believable. He 11 C.C.No.31515/2018 further argued that complainant has misused security cheques by filling up the contents for his convenience, which can be easily seen by comparing the different handwriting and different ink found on the cheques. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed and accused may be acquitted.
21. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in:
1. (2013)3 SCC 86 (Vijay V/s Laxman and another)
2. ILR 2008 KAR 4629 (Shiva Murthy V/s.
Amruthraj)
22. Per contra, learned counsel for complainant argued that when accused is not disputing the fact that cheques are belonged to his account and they bear his signatures, then mandatory presumption shall raise in favour of complainant, whereas accused though he contended that he has cleared entire due amount, but he has not produced cogent and convincing evidence to prove the same, even he has not placed any evidence to prove that complainant has misused his signed blank cheques. He further argued that though the accused contended that he has given present cheques in the year 2014 for security 12 C.C.No.31515/2018 purpose, but he has not explained under what circumstances and for what reason, he has given said cheques for security. He further argued that if at all version of the accused was true, then he could have given reply by narrating the same and even he could have taken legal action against the complainant for alleged misuse of the cheques, but he did not do so and now he come up with this false story. Hence, same cannot be believable. Hence, accused has to be convicted and maximum sentence may be imposed.
23. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in:
1. AIR 2019 SC 2446 (Bir Singh V/s. Mukesh Kumar)
2. (2016)3 SCC 1 (Don Ayengia V/s. State of Assam and another)
3. (2010)11 SCC 441 (Rangappa V/s. Mohan)
24. Having regard to the arguments of both learned counsels, it is worth to note ratio decidendi laid down Hon'ble Apex Court in very Rangappa V/s. Sri. Mohan's case, it is clearly observed that:
"A mere plausible explanation is not expected from the accused and it must be 13 C.C.No.31515/2018 more than a plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. In other words, the defence raised by way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and capable of being accepted by the court"
25. At this juncture, it is worth to note ratio decidendi laid down by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC 575 (Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai V/s. State of Maharashtra) which has been followed in the subsequent judgment reported in (2001)6 SCC 16 (Hiten P.Dalal V/s. Brathindranath Banerjee) wherein it is held that:
"That the distinction between the two kinds of presumption lay not only in the mandate to the court, but also in the nature of evidence required to rebut the two. In the case of a discretionary presumption the presumption if drawn may be rebutted by an explanation which "might reasonably be true and which is consistent with the innocence" of the accused. On the other hand in the case of a mandatory presumption "The burden resting on the accused person in such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation is offered 14 C.C.No.31515/2018 by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must further be shown that the explanation is a true one. The words unless the contrary is proved' which occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof' and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible"
26. At this juncture, it also worth to note in another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2010)8 SCC 383 (Meghmala and others V/s. Narasimha Reddy and others) wherein it is held that:
"It is not like any other criminal case where the accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right, however, subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence. For this purpose, the nature of offence, its seriousness and gravity thereof has to be taken into consideration. Statutes like the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998; and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, provide for presumption of guilt if the circumstances provided in those statutes are found to be fulfilled and shift the burden of proof of innocence on the accused. Thus, the legislature has adopted a deviating course 15 C.C.No.31515/2018 from ordinary criminal law shifting the burden on the accused to prove that he was not guilt"
27. So from the above ratio, it is crystal clear that proceedings U/s.138 of NI Act is not like any other criminal case where the accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved. On the other hand the legislature has adopted a deviating course from ordinary criminal law by shifting the burden on the accused to prove that he is not guilty. So, the accused must rebut the mandatory presumption by raising probable and acceptable defence to the satisfaction of the court, because the presumption raised in favour of complainant is mandatory presumption, but not general presumption.
28. In the light of above ratio decedendi, if the present facts and situations are analyzed, though the accused has contended that he has cleared entire due amount, but on perusal of Ex.P-16 which is account ledger extract maintained by the complainant, (which is admitted by the accused while confronted to him in his cross- examination) clearly reveals that though the accused purchased computer accessories for total sum of Rs.5,86,847/- as reflected in invoices Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-15, admittedly accused has totally paid Rs.3,86,847/- only. 16 C.C.No.31515/2018 So, he was still due of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further important to note though accused has produced his bank account statements as per Ex.D-2 and Ex.D-3 and they disclose regarding so many payments made by accused to complainant, but they did not disclose regarding payment of above said Rs.2,00,000/-. So, under such circumstances, I am of the opinion, the version of the accused that he has cleared entire due amount cannot be believable and acceptable.
29. Coming to another contention of the accused that he had given present cheques for security purpose in the year 2014 itself, but he has not explained under what circumstances, he was compelled to issue said cheques for security purpose, even he has not placed any cogent and convincing evidence to show that he has issued said cheques in the year 2014 itself, whereas mere production of Ex.D-1 which is no due certificate, will not prove that these cheques are issued in the year 2014 itself, because the said document reveals that house loan, personal loan of the accused were cleared and said loan accounts were closed in the year 2015. It is significant to note, even it is considered that his account was closed in the year 2015, 17 C.C.No.31515/2018 but there is no evidence to show that his entire unused cheque leaves were surrendered to bank before closing his account. So, under such circumstances, there is a possibility of utilizing his cheque leaves even after closing of his bank account. So, under such circumstances, his version that he has issued present cheques for security purpose in the year 2014 itself, cannot be believable and acceptable.
30. At this juncture, it is also worth to take note of the conduct of the accused as specified U/s.114 of Indian Evidence Act that as per his contention, complainant has misused his cheques which were given to him for security purpose even after clearing his dues. If that is the case, a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the court as to why accused has kept quite for a along time without making any efforts to get back his alleged security cheques even after clearance of his dues. It is further significant to note as to why accused has kept quite without lodging any police complaint or taking any legal action against complainant regarding alleged misuse of his cheques. So, I am of the opinion, if at all accused have not issued present cheques for discharging of his legally enforceable debt, then definitely accused would have lodged police 18 C.C.No.31515/2018 complaint or initiated legal proceedings against the complainant, because no prudent man will keep quite, when his cheque is misused by somebody else. So, non- taking any of these actions by the accused at appropriate time, it creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court regarding acceptance of his version that complainant has misused his cheques. So, I come to clear conclusion that the defence raised by the accused is not probable and acceptable.
31. Coming to another argument of learned counsel for accused that complainant has filled up the contents of the cheques for his convenience which amounts to material alteration etc.
32. Having regard to the arguments of learned counsel for accused at this juncture, it is worth to note ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment reported in 2019 SCC On line SC 138 = Crl. Appeal No.230-231/2019 2019 (@SLP(Crl) No.9334- 35/2018) dated 06.02.2019 (Bir Singh V/s. Mukesh Kumar) wherein it is held that:
"A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply 19 C.C.No.31515/2018 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 not been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a 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. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted"
"If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up 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 a debt or liability by adducing evidence"
"It may reasonably be presumed that the cheque was filled in by the appellant- complainant being the payee in the presence of the respondent-accused being the drawer, at his request and/or with his acquiescence. The subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration"
33. Having regard to the arguments of learned counsel for accused at this juncture, it is worth to note ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment 20 C.C.No.31515/2018 reported in (2002)7 SCC 150 (P.K. Manmadhan Kartha V/s. Sanjeev Raj and another) wherein it is held that:
"Difference of handwriting and ink on the cheque did not rebut the statutory presumption U/s.139 and 118 of NI Act"
34. At this juncture it is also worth to note that view taken by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2001 KAR 4127 (S.R. Muralidhar V/s. Ashok G.Y.) wherein it is held that:
Section 20 of NI Act - Inchoate stamped instruments "No law provides that in case of any negotiable instrument entire body has to be written by maker or drawer only. What is material is signature of drawer or maker and not the body writing hence question of body writing has no significance"
"It is not objectionable or illegal in law to receive a inchoate negotiate instrument duly singed by the maker despite the material particulars are kept blank if done with an understanding and giving full authority to the payee to fill up the material contents as agreed upon. Such a course of action in law cannot vitiate the transaction nor can invalidate the negotiable instrument issued and such transaction fully binds the maker of the Negotiable Instrument"21 C.C.No.31515/2018
35. So, in the light of above principle if the present facts and situations are analyzed, as I have already pointed out accused is not disputing issuance of cheques and his signatures thereon. Under such circumstances, filling up body of the cheque by complainant or somebody else will not invalidate the cheque and that itself will not rebut the mandatory presumption raised in favour of complainant when version of the accused itself is not probable and acceptable. Hence, I don't find any force in the arguments of learned counsel for accused.
36. In view of binding precedent of Constitution Bench and Larger Bench judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, the judgments of Hon'ble Courts relied by learned counsel for accused, will not helpful to his contention.
37. As I have already pointed that Hon'ble Apex Court in the Constitution Bench and Larger Bench Judgments stated supra, it is clearly held that presumption envisaged U/s.138 of NI Act is not general presumption but it is mandatory presumption, so the said presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof' and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible". So, I come to clear conclusion that accused have utterly failed to 22 C.C.No.31515/2018 rebut the mandatory presumption raised in favour of complainant. Hence, I hold this point in Affirmative.
38. Point No.2: As I have already discussed in point No.1 that accused have issued cheques for discharging of their legally recoverable debt. Whereas, on perusal of bank endorsements given by bank authority clearly reveal that complainant had presented the said cheques within validity period, but said cheques were dishonoured with endorsement "Account Closed".
39. At this juncture it is worth to note ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1999 SCC (Crl) 524 (NEPC MICON Ltd., and others V/s. Magma Leasing Ltd.,) wherein it is held that:
"The return of a cheque by the bank unpaid on the ground that the "account is closed" would mean that the cheque is returned as unpaid on the ground that "the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque". The reason is that the cheque was dishonoured as the amount of money standing to the credit of "that account"
was "nil" at the relevant time apart from it being closed. The closure of the account would be an eventuality after the entire amount in the account is withdrawn. It means that there was 23 C.C.No.31515/2018 no amount in the credit of "that account" on the relevant date when the cheque was presented for honouring the same. The expression "the amount of money...is sufficient to honour the cheque" is a genus of which the expression "that account being closed" is a specie. After issuing the cheque drawn on an account maintained if the drawer closes "that account"
apart from the fact that it may amount to another offence, it would certainly be an offence under Section 138. Further, in view of provisos (a), (b) and (c) to Section 138, the cheque is to be drawn by a person for payment of any amount of money due to him "on an account maintained by him" with a banker and only on "that account" the cheque should be drawn.
"The dishonouring of the cheque on the ground that the account is closed is the consequences of the act of the drawer rendering his account to a cipher. Hence, reading Sections 138 and 140 together, it would be clear that dishonour of the cheque by a bank on the ground that the account is closed would be covered by the pharse the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque"
40. So, in the light of above ratio, dishonour of the cheque for the reason of account closed falls within the 24 C.C.No.31515/2018 ambit of insufficient funds to attract Section 138 of N.I. Act.
41. On perusal of Ex.P-5 which is legal notice issued to accused clearly reveal that the complainant got issued said demand notice to accused within specified time of 30 days from the date of receiving of endorsement from bank. On perusal of Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-11 postal documents and acknowledgements, clearly reveals that the demand notice has been duly served on accused.
42. So on considering the oral coupled with the documentary evidence of the complainant, they clearly proved that complainant has complied with mandatory requirements as specified U/s.138(a) and (b) of N.I. Act. Whereas, accused has not paid the cheques amount within specified time, inspite of service of demand notice. It is significant to note, admittedly, accused No.1 is proprietorship concern of accused No.2, who represented it. So, he is responsible for issuance of said cheques. Hence, accused has committed offence punishable U/s.138 of NI Act. Hence, I hold point No.2 in Affirmative.
43. Point No.3: For the foregoing reasons discussed on points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:- 25 C.C.No.31515/2018
ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) r/w 264 of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
(V. NAGARAJA) XXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, accused No.2 being proprietor of accused No1 is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,05,000/- (Two Lakhs and Five Thousand only). In default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 (Two) months.
In view of Section 357 of Cr.P.C., complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only) out of above said fine amount.
After collecting the above fine amount, office is directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only) to complainant as compensation and defray remaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/-
(Five Thousand only) to state, after appeal period is over.
However, accused No.2 shall execute personal bond of Rs.2,05,000/- in view of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The office is hereby directed to supply the copy of this Judgment to the accused on free of cost.
(Directly dictated to Stenographer on computer, computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of October, 2019) (V. NAGARAJA) XXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
26 C.C.No.31515/2018ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW-1 : Meghanath S LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P-1 & 2 : Cheques
Ex.P-3 & 4 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P-5 : Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P-6 : Postal Receipts
Ex.P-7 : Copy of Complaint
Ex.P-8 & 9 : Settled Replies
Ex.P-10 & 11: Two Postal Acknowledgements
Ex.P-12 to 15: Tax Invoices
Ex.P-16 : Account Ledger Extract
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
DW-1 : Varadharaju C LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D-1 : No Due Certificate
Ex.D-2 & 3 : Bank Statement of Accounts
(V. NAGARAJA)
XXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.