Bangalore District Court
M/S G.B.S Reddy And Co, (Bpcl Dealers) vs Sree Gowri Ganesha Chits Pvt. Ltd on 21 December, 2024
C.C.NO.35599/2022
0
KABC030846362022
Presented on : 16-11-2022
Registered on : 16-11-2022
Decided on : 21-12-2024
Duration : 2 years, 1 months, 5 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:
Soubhagya.B.Bhusher,
B.A.,LLB.,LL.M
XXVIII A.C.J.M, Bengaluru City.
DATED; THIS THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER-2024
C.C.NO.35599/2022
Complainant: M/s.G.B.S.Reddi & Co, (BPCL dealer's)
Partnership Firm and MSME,
Registration No.ADYAM-KR-03-0075583,
Having O/at No.36/2, Nehru Circle,
Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560020.
R/by its Managing Partner,
Sri.J.Uday Reddy S/o M.Janardhan.
(By Sri.K.N.Subba Reddy & Ors.,Advs.,)
V/s
Accused: Sree Gowri Ganeshaa Chits Pvt., Ltd,
Regd. & Corporate O/at No.307, 1st Floor,
2nd Main, 7th Cross, Domlur Layout,
Bangalore-71.
R/by its Managing Director,
Sri.Lokesh Reddy.
(By Sri.V.B.Ravi Shankar & Ors.,Advs.,)
C.C.NO.35599/2022
1
:JUDGMENT:
This case arises out of the private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused under section 200 of Cr.P.C., for an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant's in brief is as under:
It is the case of the complainant is that the complainants is a registered partnership firm and the accused has running a chit fund scheme/business. It is further stated that one Sri.Santhosh Reddy, partner of D.M & Sons Petroleum Dealers, was the customer/subscriber of the accused. Further Sri. Santhosh Reddy is a well known family friend of the complainant's partners and a prominent personality in Domlur, Bangalore. In the year 2005, he had introduced the complainant to the accused to become a subscriber in chit fund scheme business jointly. At that time the accused had represented to the complainant that he is a Managing Director of Chit fund business in the name and style "Sree Gowri Ganeshaa Chit private limited and further introduced himself as prominent personality in the financial world and as a pioneer in society in the work of saving culture for the welfare of people and also stated that he has been in the finance world since 1996 as a proprietor of M/s.G.G.Finance corporation.
C.C.NO.35599/2022 2 He further represented that the accused organization is duly registered under the Indian Companies Act. In the year 2016 the accused represented by its Managing Director and branch Manager Sri.K.P.Manjunath had approached the complainant with a new chit offer, stating that a new high value chit of one crore comprising of 100 monthly Installments had been launched and assured the complainant that the scheme would fetch good, safe returns and profits. He further assured the complainant that SGGCPL was the safest place to make an investment. The accused also mentioned that SGGCPL was doing wonderful business and leading the market, having over 16 branches across 2 States. The accused by its Managing Director also informed the complainant that the Registrar of Co-operative Society and Chit funds Bangalore, has granted permission to conduct one crore 100 months Emerald chit group.
3. It further stated that based on the representations of the accused and also representations made by the accused branch manager, the complainant joined the accused chit fund scheme on 29.01.2016, having group value of one crore payable by way of 100 monthly installments having reference No.EMR[100]1/87. After joining/subscribing the chit fund scheme, the complainant started payment C.C.NO.35599/2022 3 the monthly EMI to the group value chit in question. All the transactions of the complainant were handled by Sri.K.P.Manjunatha (Manager) and Managing Director of the accused. It is further stated that later in the month of January 2018, the Managing Director and the Branch Manager of the accused approached the complainant and informed that one of its subscriber in the same chit scheme group has decided and willing to withdraw from the chit subscription due to personal problems. The accused also informed the complainant that as on January 2018, totally 25 chits had been completed and 75 chits installments are pending completion. The accused further represented to the complainant that the said subscriber would be replaced by the complainant and the complainant can take over his subscription accordingly along with entire profit. The complainant believed the representations and assurances made by the accused and its Manager and got took over another [2nd] chit having chit reference No.EMR[100]1/51 and got enrolled himself on 05.02.2018 and the complainant raised the funds from various sources, including debt and took over an additional one crore chit. The complainant had settled all the moneys payable to the said outstanding subscriber through the accused.
4. Further stated that on April 2019 the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.30,50,000/-
C.C.NO.35599/2022 4 each and accrued dividend was Rs.9,50,000/- each in respect of chit references No.87 and No.51. Thus, as on April 2019 the complainant had totally paid a sum of Rs.80,00,000/-. Further this being the position, in the month of February 2019, the complainant got information through his friends and family relatives who are also the customers of the accused that the accused is not paying amount to its chit subscribers in time and he is taking unusually long duration to pay its customers/subscribers. The complainant also learnt that the accused was not releasing amount of fixed deposits holder and had closed more than 10 branches in recent times. Thereafter the complainant approached the accused and expressed his dissatisfaction and requested them to allow the complainant to exit the chit subscription/scheme and to pay back total sum of Rs.80,00,000/- including dividends. The accused had assured that in future everything shall get cleared and there will be smooth functioning of the chit fund. Accordingly, the complainant believed the accused. But, subsequently the complainant learnt the accused had diverted its substantial chits funds for personal business i.e., educational institutions and into real estate business. On this suspicion, the complainant again approached the accused and enquired with them about the aforesaid developments. But, the accused had stated that the said alleged developments are C.C.NO.35599/2022 5 nothing but rumors. But, the accused admitted that its chit fund business was undergoing under serious financial crunches and crisis. The accused also mentioned that he had placed its school and property of Royal Concorde International School & P.U.College in Begur Road, Electronic City for sale. The accused also stated that by its own admission to the complainant that if the School is sold all its problem would be solved. The complainant hearing this, requested the accused to windup the complainant's chit subscriptions and requested to pay a sum of Rs.80 lakhs. The accused readily and immediately agreed to do needful as requested by the complainant and he promised the complainant it would settle all dues as per books of account within 6 months and issued the cheque No.551784 for Rs.10,00,000/- dated: 15.04.2021 as part payment.
5. It is further stated that in the meantime Covid- 19, the accused sought further time and requested the complainant not to present the said cheque for realization. Accordingly, the complainant did not presented the said cheque. Things did not change and on the other hand, taking excuse of Covid-19 effect and consequences, the accused went on taking time. This being the position in the month of September 2021, after recovering from severe Covid, the complainant C.C.NO.35599/2022 6 once again approached the accused and requested him to pay the dues. Accordingly, the accused agreed to do so and sought one more month time. However, despite lapse of one month time, the accused did not contact the complainant and began to avoid him. Thereafter, the complainant visited the accused office at Domlur layout, Bangalore and met the accused and requested him to settle the account. The accused got issued cheque No.02003648 dated: 27.09.2021 for Rs.10,00,000/- in lieu of the said cheque No.551784. However, the accused again requested the complainant not to deposit the said cheque for realization and requested the complainant for somemore time. Accordingly, the complainant trusting the accused even on this occasion on humanitarian grounds. In the Month of December 2021 after repeated efforts from the complainant and the accused met the complainant at his office and reassured the complainant that he would sent an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- by way of RTGS before 31.12.2021 and balance amount of Rs.70,50,000/- shall be paid by way of post dated cheques and the complainant believed the accused. Accordingly the accused got issued 5 posted cheques for total sum of Rs.70,50,000/-. Apart from the post dated cheques the accused had also issued some vouchers endorsing the cheque No.02003121 dated:
15.12.2021 for Rs.10,00,000/-, cheque No.02002413 C.C.NO.35599/2022 7 dated: 30.04.2022 for Rs.20,00,000/-, cheque No.02003160 dated: 30.05.2022 for Rs.20,00,000/-, cheque No.02003161 dated: 30.06.2022 for Rs.10,50,000/- and cheque No.02003158 dated:
01.08.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/- all the cheques were drawn on Union Bank of India, Domlur Branch, Bangalore.
6. Further stated that on 14.12.2021 the accused had contacted the complainant and requested him not to present the cheque No.003121 as sufficient funds are not maintained in his bank account. The accused on 28.12.2021 had transferred a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of RTGS against the agreed RTGS payment of Rs.9,50,000/-. The complainant requested the accused to pay the balance amount of Rs.7,50,000/- immediately and clearance of the cheques, as promised by the accused. Thereafter the accused promised the complainant once again the accused would RTGS the amount within two weeks and requested the complainant the same cheques can be present in March 2022 as by then the accused would maintain sufficient balance to clear the said cheques. The complainant was highly dejected at this representation of the accused but having no other option believed the promise and assurance made by the accused. In the meantime, the accused failed to C.C.NO.35599/2022 8 sent the RTGS as promised and instead, he paid another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of RTGS on 31.03.2022. The accused as on 31.03.2022 had totally paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the agreed amount of Rs.9,50,000/- and further sought for some more time to pay the said balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/-. Further stated that in the first week of March 2022 the accused requested the complainant to present the cheque for encashment through its banker on 11.03.2022. But the said cheque was dishonored with an endorsement dated: 16.03.2022 as "Insufficient Funds". Thereafter on 13.04.2022 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the said cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice. The said notice was duly served to the accused on 16.04.2022. After service of the notice, the accused neither reply to the notice nor paid the cheque amount. As such, the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court on 27.05.2022.
7. After the complaint was filed, the cognizance of the offence cited therein was taken and it was registered as P.C.R.No.9642/2022. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Since there were C.C.NO.35599/2022 9 sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, an order was passed on 16.11.2022 to register the case in Register No.III.
8. Thereafter, summons was issued to the accused and the accused has appeared before the court through advocate and secured bail. He was furnished its necessary papers as complied under section 208 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the plea of the accused was recorded by the court. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. The complainant's in support of its case have examined its one of the Partner as PW.1 and got marked 26 documents at Ex.P.1 to 26 and closed its side. PW.1 is partly cross examined by the counsel for the accused. Inspite of sufficient opportunity the learned counsel for the accused not further cross examined PW.1. Hence, further cross examination of PW.1 taken as nil.
10. After closer of the evidence of the complainant's, the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C, was recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Inspite of sufficient opportunity the accused not lead defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence taken as nil. But during the cross examination of PW.1 the accused C.C.NO.35599/2022 10 marked the signatures of PW.1 as Ex.D.1, 1(a) to 1(c) and Ex.D.2, 2(a) to 2(c).
11. I have heard the argument on the complainant side and case is posted for judgment. In the meantime the learned counsel for the accused on 02.09.2024 had advanced the case and produce the print out copy order in Crl.P.No.8964/2024. Further as per the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka the learned counsel for the accused has filed an applications U/s.311 of Cr.P.C, seeking recall of PW.1 for the purpose of further cross examination and seeking permit the accused to lead defence evidence. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted no objections. In view of no objections, the applications were allowed and thereby PW.1 is recalled for the purpose of further cross examination and permit the accused to lead defence evidence. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the learned counsel for the accused not further cross examined PW.1. Hence, further cross of PW.1 taken as nil. Further inspite of sufficient opportunity, the accused not lead defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence taken as nil.
12. Heard the argument on the complainant side and perused the material placed on record.
13. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the learned counsel for the accused failed to address his argument.
C.C.NO.35599/2022 11 Hence, argument on the defence side taken as nil. Further inspite of sufficient opportunity the learned counsel for the accused failed to file their written argument.
14. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the material placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability.?
2. Whether the complainant further proves that the accused had issued the cheque-Ex.P.1, towards the discharge of the legally enforceable debt/liability.?
3. Whether the complainant further proves that the cheque-Ex.P.1 was dishonored for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" in the account of the accused and thereafter the accused had failed to repay the same within the statutory period, inspite of receipt of legal notice.?
4. Whether the accused have thus committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.?
5. What order?
15. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: In the Affirmative Point No.4: In the Affirmative Point No.5: As per final order, for the following;
C.C.NO.35599/2022 12 :REASONS:
16. POINT NO.1 AND 2: These two points are inter-related to each other and finding given on any one point will bearing on the another. Hence, in order to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken these two points together for common discussion. The case of the complainant is that he was acquainted with the accused. The accused in order to part payment of the amount had issued the posted cheque in question in favour of the complainant. As per the assurance of the accused the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through its banker. But the said cheque was dishonor for the reasons funds insufficient. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of service of the said notice. The said legal notice was duly served to the accused. Inspite of service of the notice the accused neither reply to the notice nor paid the cheque. As such, the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court.
17. At this juncture, it is necessary to go through the provisions of N.I.Act before proceeding further. The C.C.NO.35599/2022 13 provisions under section 118(a) and 139 of the Act., 1881 are extracted and they reads thus;
"118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments: Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-
(a) of consideration-that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
(b) as to date:- that every Negotiable Instrument bearing date was made or drawn on such date;
"139.Presumption in favour of holder:
It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."
18. On plain perusal of the provisions under section 118(a) and 139 of the N.I.Act., as extracted herein above, it can be seen that initially the presumptions constituted under these two provisions favour the complainant. However, it is open to an accused to raise a defence to rebut the statutory presumptions. An accused can raise a defence, wherein the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability can be contested.
C.C.NO.35599/2022 14
19. It is also well established that an accused for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on record. An accused has constitutional rights to maintain silence. Standard of proof on part of the accused and that of the prosecution in a Criminal case is different. The prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubts, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is "Preponderance of probabilities".
20. Under the light of above extracted provisions of the Act, I have perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. In support of the case, the complainant's have examined its Partner as P.W.1 and 26 documents were marked at Ex.P.1 to 26. In the chief examination P.W.1 has repeated the contents taken by the complainant in the complaint. Ex.P.1 is the cheque issued by the accused in favour of the complainant on 15.12.2021 for Rs.10,00,000/-. Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of the accused. Ex.P.2 is the bank memo dated: 16.03.2022 informing the dishonor of the cheque as "funds insufficient" in the account of the accused. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice dated:
13.04.2022. Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt. Ex.P.5 is the postal acknowledgment. Ex.P.6 is the payment C.C.NO.35599/2022 15 voucher. Ex.P.7 is the copy of account. Ex.P.8 is the complaint. Ex.P.9 and 10 are the registration of firms documents. Ex.P.11 is the certified copy of termination of chit group No.EMR(100)-01. Ex.P.12 is the certified copy of authorization letter. Ex.P.13 is the certified copy of declaration under rule-15 section 20 Sub Section (2).
Ex.P.14 is the certified copy of the Form No.11. Ex.P.15 is the Statement of Assets and liabilities document No.2. Ex.P.16 is the e-mail dated: 26.06.2017 sent by the accused attach with account statement. Ex.P.17 is the e-mail dated: 26.08.2017 attach with account statement. Ex.P.17(a) is the account statement. Ex.P.18 is the e-mail dated: 07.02.2018 attach with account statement. Ex.P.18(a) is the attach statement. Ex.P.19 is the e-mail dated: 07.02.2018 attache with account statement. Ex.P.19(a) is the attach statement. Ex.P.20 is the e-mail dated: 21.03.2018 attach with account statement. Ex.P.20(a) is the attach statement. Ex.P.21 is the e-mail dated: 25.02.2019 attach with account statement. Ex.P.21(a) is the attach statement. Ex.P.22 is the e-mail sent by the complainant company to the accused company. Ex.P.23 is the e-mail dated:
12.05.2022 attach with account statement. Ex.P.23(a) and 23(b) are the attach statements. Ex.P.24 is the ROCL Extract. Ex.P.25 is the certificate under section 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.26 is the account statement related to chit No.51. PW.1 is partly cross C.C.NO.35599/2022 16 examined by the counsel for the accused. Inspite of sufficient opportunity counsel for the accused not further cross examined PW.1. Hence, further cross examination of PW.1 taken as nil.
21. I have perused the exhibits on which the complainant have placed their reliance. On perusal of the exhibits, it is clear that cheque in question was presented for encashment within its validity. The bank endorsement with a shara "Fund Insufficient". The complainant issued the legal notice within one month from the date of receipt of memo. The notice was duly served to the accused on 16.04.2022. The complaint was filed on 27.05.2022, which is within limitation. The transaction with the complainant is admitted. The issuance of the cheque and the signature on the cheque-Ex.P.1 is admitted. Therefore, the documents on record clearly show that the complainant have complied the ingredients of section 138(a) to (c) of the N.I.Act. Therefore, the presumptions under section 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act arise in favour of the complainant. The presumptions are rebuttable and the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumptions.
The presumption is that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt/liability. However, actual existence debt/liability can be contested. The accused can rebut the presumptions by raising probable C.C.NO.35599/2022 17 defences and proving it relying on the evidence of the complainant or by leading his direct evidence.
22. The case was seriously contested by the accused and the service of notice was disputed. The notice was duly served on the accused as per Ex.P.5. The counsel for the accused cross-examined PW.1 in respect of non service of notice. But PW.1 denied the same. Further contended that the notice sent to the accused not served'; that the accused has no knowledge of the notice as it was not served on him; that the accused did not give reply notice as the notice was not served on him; that he did not produce any documents to show that the accused was not doing business at the said address, the notice was not served on him and that the accused did not issue reply notice as he was not doing business at the said address. The counsel for the accused argued that no legal presumption can be raised as the notice was sent to the wrong address and the accused was not doing business at the said address. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant has submitted that in respect of address of the accused, the complainant service the notice. But the accused not given the reply to the notice. When the notice at Ex.P.3, wherein the name of accused is appearing, was confronted.
C.C.NO.35599/2022 18
23. On perusal of Ex.P.3, it is clear that the name of the accused is appearing in the notice. The same notice was sent to the accused. The accused not given reply. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused was doing business at some other address other than the address mentioned in the notice at Ex.P.3. On the other hand, it is clear that the accused was doing business at the said address. The above discussion clearly shows that the address mentioned in the notice is the correct address of the accused. As the notice was given to accused and the same notice was sent to him through RPAD, an inference can be drawn that the notice was served on the accused. Further the address mentioned in the notice being the correct address of the accused, the presumption as per Section 27 of General Clauses Act can be drawn. It states that the notice sent through post shall be deemed to be served, if it is properly addressed to a person to whom it is sent. Therefore, even though the notice sent to the accused through RPAD duly served.
24. In a nutshell it can be said that the statutory notice is an opportunity given to the accused to make payment and avoid the consequences of 138 of N.I.Act. In the case on hand, the accused voluntarily appeared through his counsel and contested the case by taking all probable defences. Therefore he cannot take the C.C.NO.35599/2022 19 shelter of statutory requirement of service of notice to avoid the consequences of section 138 of N.I.Act. The complaint was filed on 27.05.2022, which is within limitation. The accused not denied the issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant and signature in the cheque. It is his defence that the complainant is colluded with the employee of the accused misused the cheque. Therefore, the documents on record clearly show that the complainant have complied the ingredients of section 138(a) to (c) of the N.I.Act. Therefore, the presumptions under 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act arise in favour of the complainant. The presumptions are rebuttable and the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumptions. Once the issuance of cheque and signature are proved, the presumption arises in respect of the fact that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt/liability. The accused can rebut the presumption by raising probable defence and proving it relying on the evidence of the complainant or by leading his direct evidence.
25. In order to prove his defence, Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the accused not adduced any oral as well as documentary evidence on his behalf. Hence, the defence evidence taken as nil. But during the cross examination of PW.1 the accused marked the signatures of PW.1 as Ex.D.1, 1(a) to 1(c) and Ex.D.2, C.C.NO.35599/2022 20 2(a) to 2(c).
26. The main defence of the accused is that he had issued the blank cheque to the complainant for the purpose of security. Further the complainant on the basis of the security cheque, the complaint has been foisted against the accused. Further when the entire sums are not paid, the question of payment would not arise. This complainant is a defaulting subscriber. Further contended that the complainant have misused the alleged cheque colluded with the employee of the accused. Further contended that the cheque in question is not given by him to the complainant for discharge of any liability. Further the complainant have misused the said blank cheque and filed a false complaint against the accused. Further contended that he has never admitted regarding repayment of amount and there is no transaction between the complainant and the accused as alleged by the complainant. The accused has specifically denied having agree to repay the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. But the accused in his defence has not disputed Ex.P.1 being his cheque drawn on the account of the accused. He also does not dispute his signature appearing on the said the cheque.
27. In order to attract the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant is firstly required to prove the existence of legally enforceable C.C.NO.35599/2022 21 debt/liability, for which the cheque came to be issued. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that from the evidence placed on record, the fact that one Sri.Santhosh Reddy, partner of DM & Sons Petroleum Dealers, was the subscriber of the accused he is a well known family friend of the complainant. In the year 2015, he had introduced the complainant to the accused to become subscriber in chit fund scheme business jointly. At that time the accused had represented to the complainant that he is a Managing Director of chit fund business of the accused company and further introduced himself as prominent personality in the financial world and as a pioneer in society in the work of saving culture for the welfare of people. The accused further represented that the accused organization is duly registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is further argued that in the year 2016 the accused and branch Manager Sri.K.P.Manjunath had approached the complainant with a new chit offer, stating that a new high value chit of Rs.1 crore comprising of 100 monthly installments had been launched and assured the complainant that the scheme would fetch good, safe returns and profits. The accused also informed the complainant that the Registrar of Co-operative Society and Chit funds Bangalore, has granted permission to conduct 1 crore 100 months Emerald chit group. Further argued that C.C.NO.35599/2022 22 based on the representations of the accused and branch manager, the complainant enrolled/joined the accused chit fund scheme on 29.01.2016, having group value of Rs.1 crore payable by way of 100 monthly installments having reference No.EMR[100]1/87. After joining/subscribing the complainant started payment the monthly EMI to the group value chit in question. All the transactions of the complainant were handled by the manager and Managing Director of the accused.
28. It is further argued that in the month of January 2018, the accused and its Branch Manager approached the complainant and informed him one of its subscriber in the same chit scheme group, of Rs.1 crore, has decided and willing to withdraw from the chit due to personal problems. The accused also informed the complainant that as on January 2018, totally 25 chits had been completed and 75 chits installments are pending completion. The accused represented to the complainant that the said subscriber would be replaced by the complainant and the complainant can take over his subscription accordingly along with entire profit. The complainant considering the representations of the accused and his manager he took over another chit reference No.EMR [100]1/51 and got enrolled himself on 05.02.2018 and the complainant raised the funds from various sources, including debt and took over an C.C.NO.35599/2022 23 additional 1 crore chit in the accused chit subscription. The complainant had settled all the moneys payable to the said outstanding subscriber through the accused. Further argued that on April 2019 the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.30,50,000/- and accrued dividend was 9,50,000/- in respect of chit reference No.87 and similarly the complainant had also paid a total sum of Rs.30,50,000/- and accrued dividend was Rs.9,50,000/- in respect of the said chit reference No.51. Thus, as on April 2019 the complainant had totally paid a sum of Rs.80,00,000/-.
29. It is further argued that this being the position, the month of February 2019, the complainant got information that the accused organization is not paying its chit subscribers in time and the accused is taking unusually long duration to pay its customers/ subscribers who have become successful bidder of chits and also those who had completed the entire chits. The complainant also learnt that the accused was not releasing amount of fixed deposits holder and had closed more than 10 branches. The complainant also got know that the accused organization was not settling dues of its customers promptly. Thereafter the complainant also underwent some problem with the accused inrespect of other small value chits. Accordingly the complainant approached the accused C.C.NO.35599/2022 24 and expressed his dissatisfaction over these truth and manner in which the accused is conducting the chit fund business and requested the accused to allow the complainant to exit the chit subscription/scheme and to pay back total sum of Rs.80,00,000/- including dividends accrued to the monthly chit belonging to the complainant. To this, the accuse had assured that in future everything shall get cleared and there will be smooth functioning of the chit fund. Accordingly the complainant believed the accused. But the complainant learnt that the accused organization had diverted its substantial chits funds for personal business i.e., educational institutions and into real estate business. On this suspicion, the complainant again approached the accused and enquired with the accused about the aforesaid developments. But however, the accused had stated to the complainant that the said alleged developments are nothing but rumors. But however, the accused admitted that its chit fund business was undergoing under serious financial crunches and crisis. The accused also mentioned to the complainant that the accused had placed its school and property for sale.
30. Further argued that the accused readily and immediately agreed to do needful as requested by the complainant and the accused promised the complainant it would settle all dues as per books of C.C.NO.35599/2022 25 account within 6 months and issued a cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- dated: 15.04.2021 as part payment. Further argued that due to pandemic, the accused sought further time and requested the complainant not to present the said cheque for realization. Accordingly, the complainant did not presented the said cheque. This being the position in the month of September 2021, after recovering from severe Covid, the complainant once again approached the accused and requested him to pay the dues. Accordingly, the accused agreed to do so and sought one more month time. But however, despite lapse of one month time, the accused did not contact the complainant and began to avoid him. Thereafter, the complainant visited the accused office at Domlur layout, and requested him to pay the amount. The accused had issued another cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- on 27.09.2021. Further the accused once again requested the complainant not to deposit the said cheque. Hence, the complainant not presented the said cheque. Further argued that in the month of December 2021 the accused met the complainant at his office and promised him that he would send an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- through RTGS before 31.12.2021 and balance amount of Rs.70,50,000/- shall be paid by way of post dated cheques and also issued 5 post dated cheques including cheque in question. The accused in different C.C.NO.35599/2022 26 date as totally paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of RTGS towards the agreed amount of Rs.9,50,000/-. The accused had requested the complainant to present the cheque in question for realization with a promise that the same would be honored. Accordingly, the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment. But the said cheque came to be dishonored as Insufficient funds. Further argued that the accused towards the discharge of the said payment, had issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 in favour of the complainant. He further argued that the accused has not denied Ex.P.1 being his cheque drawn on the account of the accused and signature on the said cheque. When the signature is not disputed, the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act is to be drawn in favour of the complainant. The accused has failed to elicit anything in the cross examination of P.W.1 to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The defence have failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act.
31. The counsel for the complainant further argued that the accused has failed to produce any believable evidence that he had issued the blank cheque in favour of the complainant for the purpose of security and further the complainant misused the cheque in collusion with his employee and also why he C.C.NO.35599/2022 27 has not returned back the same is not clear. He further argued that the accused has failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence and he had issued the cheque in question for the purpose of security and his employees misused the cheque and other documents. Further argued that to prove under section 139 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption that the cheque have been issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability. In the present case, the accused has not disputed Ex.P.1 being his cheque drawn on the account of the accused. The said presumption is available to the complainant.
32. Further argued that the accused had failed to prove the very fact that cheque was given to the complainant company for the purpose of security and the employee of the accused misused the same and it was blank when it was given to the complainant. Moreover, under section 118 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption that the Negotiable Instruments is drawn on the date, for the amount and in favour of the person as shown in it. It is for the accused to rebut the said presumption. But, in the case on hand no such evidence forthcoming. It was also argued by him that as per the defence by the accused that he had given a blank signed cheque as security measure. Further the complainant had misused the cheque in collusion with C.C.NO.35599/2022 28 his employee. As such, very defence of the accused is not believable. He further argued that the accused has not produced any oral as well as documentary evidence to prove his defence. Upon careful perusal of the entire evidence of records both the oral as well as documentary evidence the complainant have proved their case.
33. Further argued that it is specific case of the accused that the complainant had subscribed two tickets. The complainant has partly paid the installments in each of these chit groups and had defaulted payment balance installments in both the chit groups. On the basis of the security cheque, the complaint has been foisted against the accused and there is no due to the complainant. Further when the complainant entire sums are not paid, the question of payment would not arise. This complainant is defaulting subscriber. Further the materials available on record clearly established that the accused has admitted the issuance of cheque to the complainant. The initial burden is the complainant to prove that the cheque was issued in favour of the complainant towards payment of amount, then onus shifts upon the accused to prove his defence and it is for the accused to rebut the legal presumption enumerated under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As per presumption the C.C.NO.35599/2022 29 cheque was issued for discharge of legal liability and it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by adducing the cogent and convincing evidence. On perusal of the documents, it clearly reveals that the cheque in question was issued in favour of the complainant towards discharge of liability/debt not as a security and not issued by the employee of the accused, under the facts and circumstances the complainant have proved that the accused had issued the cheque for repayment of due amount. On the contrary, the accused utterly failed to prove his probable defence. Further argued that the accused has specifically admits transaction with the complainant company. Under these circumstances the complainant have established their case in compliance of 138 of the N.I.Act. Hence, he prays to convict the accused.
34. In the case on hand the complainant and the accused having some transaction has not been seriously disputed by the accused. Further the accused has not seriously disputed he had issued the cheque- Ex.P.1 in favour of the complainant. It is not disputed that the complainant is a registered partnership firm and the accused is a private limited company and its represented by managing director and he had issued the cheque in favour of the complainant. Whereas, the accused has contended that he had given the chaque C.C.NO.35599/2022 30 to the complainant for the purpose of security and further he taken strange defence that his employee had issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.5 to 7. The accused has specifically denied having debt/liability issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 on 15.12.2021 in favour of the complainant. He contends that the blank cheque given by him to the complainant for the purpose of security as was misused by the complainant and a false complaint was filed.
35. In order to attract the offence of the section 138 of N.I.Act, the main ingredients of the existence of the legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the cheque drawn on the account of the accused was given for discharge of the same, are to be proved. The complainant in order to prove its case, have examined its Partner as PW.1 and 26 documents were marked at Ex.P.1 to 26. In chief examination, P.W.1 has repeated the averments made by the complainant in the complaint. In the present case, the accused has not disputed Ex.P.1 being his cheque drawn on the account of the accused. The said presumption is available to the complainant.
36. As per the section 139 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption regarding the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability. Such presumption is a rebuttable presumption and it is opinion to the accused C.C.NO.35599/2022 31 to raise defence discharging the existence of a legally enforceable debt/liability. In the case on hand also the accused has disputed the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which cheque-Ex.P.1 was issued. In order to prove his defence, the accused has failed to adduce any oral as well as documentary evidence before this court. PW.1 during his cross- examination has specifically denied the suggestions made to him that the complainant in collusion with the employee of the accused misused the cheque and Ex.P.5 to 7. Further denied the suggestions there is no dues from the accused.
37. Since, the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act is a rebuttable presumption the accused is firstly required to produce some probable evidence to rebut the same. Though in the criminal cases, the standard of the proof required for the accused is not so strict as required for the complainant to prove the case. Further the accused has to produce some probable evidence, which creates doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability. In the present case, as per the defence taken by the accused is that he had given the blank cheque to the complainant for the purpose of security. Further he has taken the defence that the complainant in collusion with the employee of the accused misused Ex.P.1, 5 to 7. Except, the said defence, he has not produced any materials to prove C.C.NO.35599/2022 32 such defence. If he had given blank cheque to the complainant for the purpose of security and if the complainant in collusion with the employee of the accused misused the cheque and other documents, what prevented the accused to file the complaint immediately after the alleged illegal act made by the complainant. Further what prevented the accused to file the complaint against the complainant and his employee for misusing of the said cheque and documents. On which date the accused came to knew about the alleged illegal act of the complainant in collusion with the employee of the accused, he did not whisper about on what date he came to know the alleged cheque illegally misused by the complainant. Admittedly the accused is a businessman and having knowledge of the financial transaction, why he has given the blank cheque to the complainant without anticipating the consequence is not explained by him. Further why he has kept the signed blank cheque at his office. So also, he has not stated anything as to what steps he took to receive back the blank cheque. Moreover, immediately after the alleged blank cheque misused by the complainant in collusion with the employee of the accused he has not lodge any complaint before concerned police station or any other court. No steps have been taken to receive back the blank cheque, after he came to know about the same.
C.C.NO.35599/2022 33
38. Once issuance of cheque and signature are admitted, the statutory presumptions would arise under sections 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act that the cheque was issued by the drawer for legally payable debt/liability and for valid consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Rangappa V/s Mohan, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 296, the presumption that the cheque was drawn in discharge of legally recoverable debt is a presumption of law that ought to be raised in every case, though, it is a rebuttable presumption. Of course, the presumption under section 139 and 118 of the N.I.Act are rebuttal presumption. Further it is also held that mere plausible explanation by the drawer is not sufficient and proof of that explanation is necessary. The principle of law laid down in the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. In the instant case, since the complainant is in possession of the cheque-Ex.P.1 the court has to draw the initial presumption that he is the payee of that cheque. Once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant, the onus shifts on the accused to rebut the complainant's case.
39. Further the accused has taken the contention that the cheque was given as security and there is no any due to the complainant. Hence, an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act is not attracted.
C.C.NO.35599/2022 34 In this regard once issuance of cheque and signature are admitted, the statutory presumptions would arise under sections 138 of N.I.Act that cheque was issued by the drawer for legally payable debt/liability and for valid consideration. In the case of Sripati Singh (Since deceased) through his son Gaurav Singh V/s State of Jarkhand and another, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1002, the Hon'ble Supreme court held that; once the cheque is issued as security for the loan and if the loan is not paid back then if the cheque is dishonored which attract 138 of N.I.Act. The principle of law laid- down in the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the contention of the accused cannot be acceptable that the cheque was given only for security purpose, but without producing any documents, then the accused has to pay the cheque amount when it is presented for encashment which is legally recoverable debt.
40. In the case of K.S.Ranganatha V/s Vittal Shetty, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1191, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the court to presume C.C.NO.35599/2022 35 that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability. It is further held that the position of law makes it crystal clear that when a cheque is drawn out and is relied upon by drawee, it will raise a presumption that it is drawn towards a consideration which is a legally recoverable amount; such presumption of course, is rebuttable by proving to the contrary. The onus is on the accused to raise a probable defence and the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is on preponderance of probabilities.
41. In the case of M/s Kalemani Tex V/s P.Balansubramanian, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
42. Applying the above said principles to the present case and before considering the point whether the accused succeeded to rebut the presumptions and to establish his defence to the extent of probabilities, it is just and necessary to accumulate undisputed facts in this case.
C.C.NO.35599/2022 36
43. It is not in dispute that bounced cheque belongs to the bank account of the accused. It is also not in dispute that signature appearing on the bounced cheque is the signature of the accused. It is also not in dispute that the cheque presented by the complainant came to be dishonored by the banker of the accused for the reason stated in the dishonor memo. To consider whether the accused succeeded to rebut the presumption and established the defence to the extent of probabilities, the accused has not produced any documents in this regard. It was also contended by the accused that he had given blank cheque to the complainant for the purpose of security. The said the blank cheque was misused by the complainant. In this regard the accused has failed to produce any believable evidence before this court. Hence, the defence of the accused cannot be accepted that cheque in question was issued only for the purpose of security and the complainant in collusion with the employee of the accused misused the cheque.
44. In the defence there is no ill-will between the complainant and the accused. Hence, question of misuse of the cheque and filing the false case is not possible. The accused admittedly having knowledge of business. It is implies, he is conversant with financial transaction. If the complainant misused the said C.C.NO.35599/2022 37 cheque and had not returned the same, inspite of collecting cheque leaves from him, as a prudent man, the accused should have inquired with the complainant and demanded to return that cheque. No ordinary prudent man would keep quite in such circumstances, without taking any steps. The conduct of the accused is very unusual, because he did not take any legal action against the complainant, even after filing of the complaint based on Ex.P.1. Further he could have issued a notice to his banker to stop payment or legal notice to the complainant or he could have given complaint to the police station or court immediately. No such steps were taken by the accused. He simply makes a bald allegation of misuse of security cheque against the complainant. It appears, just to escape from his legal liability, he has taken such contentions without any valid basis.
45. Moreover, the complainant have got issued a legal notice to the accused through their counsel by registered calling upon the accused to make repayment of amount to the complainant. Before a person is held to be guilty of an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant have to prove the compliance of the requirement under section 138 of N.I.Act. It is not in dispute that Ex.P.1 being his cheque drawn on account of the accused. In view of the above discussions, it is also held to be proved that it was C.C.NO.35599/2022 38 drawn for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability. From the evidence of P.W.1 and also cheque return memo-Ex.P.2 it is established that the cheque was dishonored for the reasons "Insufficient Funds'' in the account of the accused. A legal notice being issued as per Ex.P.3 within one month from the date of dishonor of the cheque is also not in dispute. In the case on hand the accused has not seriously disputed regarding notice send by the complainant on his address. But the accused has not given reply to the said notice. Thereby, he could have asserted his defence at an earliest available opportunity. In the case on hand the notice is sent to the accused at his address. When the accused has not seriously disputed the address, the notice sent to the correct address is sufficient compliance under section 138 of N.I.Act. Therefore, there is sufficient proof of due service of the legal notice.
46. It is not the contention of the accused that thereafter he has repaid the cheque amount within stipulated time of 15 days on receiving the notice. Therefore, in the case on hand on perusal of the evidence placed on record, all the essential ingredients under section 138 N.I.Act, have been complied with. As the accused has not paid the cheque amount within stipulated period, as such the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable C.C.NO.35599/2022 39 Instruments Act. The present complaint is filed before this court within one month after the accused failed to repay the cheque amount. Even the accused did not whisper anything about the defence while his plea was recorded under section 251 of Cr.P.C. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others, reported in 2010(5) SCC 590, it is clear that while recording the plea under section 251 of Cr.P.C., it becomes the duty of the accused to state whether he has any defence to make or he pleads guilty. Thus, unlike under section 240 of Cr.P.C., the accused has no option under section 251 of Cr.P.C., just to deny the allegations made against him. If he is not willing to plead guilty, he must explain what are the defences he wants to take. As such it has to be considered, whatever defence raised by the accused during the trial are all after thought, just to get ride of statutory burden cast on him.
47. In addition to this in the case of T.P.Murugan (Dead) through legal representatives V/s Bojan, reported in 2018 (8) SCC 469, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that once the cheque has been signed and issued in favour of the holder of the cheque, there is statutory presumption that the cheque is issued in respect of legally enforceable debt/liability: rebuttal of such C.C.NO.35599/2022 40 presumption must be by adducing credible evidence. Mere raising a doubt without cogent evidence with respect to the circumstances, presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act cannot be discharged. The principle of law laid down in the above decisions are applicable to the facts of this case. Except some bald contentions, the accused has not been able to make out a probable case on his behalf.
48. As per the version of the accused he has nowhere denied transaction. The accused himself has admitted that the accused is the holder of alleged cheque. It is sufficient hold that the accused has issued the cheque and even after he has not repaid the cheque amount the getting of receipt of notice. However, in any manner as the complainant have complied all the terms of ingredients of the provisions of 138 of N.I.Act. In case of dishonor of the cheque, once the execution of the cheque is admitted by the accused, then it for him to first rebut presumption arising out of section 139 of N.I.Act. The accused is liable for dishonor of cheque. Accordingly, P.W.1 has established the case of the complainant that the accused had issued the cheque in order to repay the legally recoverable amount. Therefore, the accused has failed to probables the defence taken by him that Ex.P.1 was the blank cheque and given to the C.C.NO.35599/2022 41 complainant for the purpose of security. Therefore, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act. In the said circumstances, the complainant is not at all required to produce any material as to the transaction between the complainant and the accused, since the initial presumption is still available, when there is no rebuttal evidence.
49. PW.1 in his evidence has specifically deposed that the accused in order to repayment of the part payment had issued the cheque in favour of the complainant. So also it is not in disputed that the complainant and the accused are known to each other, some point of period. When the cheque was presented to the bank same was returned for the reasons "funds insufficient", this is also not seriously disputed by the accused. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act, non furnishing of details of financial transaction no consequences to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Further the accused has taken the defence that the complainant presented the cheque to the bank for encashment 91 days. Therefore, case of the complainant is not maintainable in the eye of law. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment to the bank on 10.03.2022 and same was dishonored on 11.03.2022 and he had received the bank C.C.NO.35599/2022 42 endorsement on 16.03.2022. It shows that the complainant presented the cheque in time. Hence, defence taken by the accused is not accepted one. Therefore, the defence holds no water. With these reasons, I answer point No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
50. POINT NO.3 AND 4: These two points are inter-related to each other and finding given on any one point will bearing on the another. Hence, in order to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken these two points together for common discussion. Before a person is held to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant have to prove all the requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act. Ex.P.1 being his cheque drawn on the account of the accused is not in dispute. The said cheque having been dishonored, when it was presented by the complainant before the bank for encashment is also not seriously disputed by the accused. The accused has not taken up any contention that thereafter he had paid the cheque amount within stipulated time of 15 days, after given of the notice. As such, in the present case from perusal of documents, the essential requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act, have been complied with. In this case, if the accused had issued the cheque in favour of the complainant for the purpose of security only and if the complainant misused the said cheque in collusion C.C.NO.35599/2022 43 with the employee of the accused and why he has not produced any documents. After service of notice the accused neither reply to the notice nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court on 27.05.2022 within the period of one month from the date of cause of action. While discussing the point No.1 and 2, this court has already observed that the complainant have proved that the cheque was issued for discharge of legally enforceable liability/debt and in view of the mandatory requirements under section 138 of N.I.Act, being complied with. The accused is found to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. With these reasons, I answer point No.3 and 4 in the Affirmative.
51. POINT NO.5: The accused is held to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. The complainant have proved its case. The accused has failed to prove his rebuttal for the reasons mentioned above and in view of the mandatory requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act, being complied with. The accused is found to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Since, the said offence is an economic crime, the accused is not entitled for the beneficial provisions of probation of offenders Act. In view of the above discussions and the findings on point No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the C.C.NO.35599/2022 44 following:
:ORDER:
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond of the accused is hereby stands canceled.
The accused is sentence to pay fine of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) to the complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the said fine amount an amount of Rs.11,90,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs ninety thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) shall be remitted to the State.
In default of the payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of six months. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment pronounced in the open court on 21st day of December 2024) (Soubhagya.B.Bhusher) XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.35599/2022 45 ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Mr.J.Uday Reddy.
List of documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement.
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of the legal notice.
Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt.
Ex.P.5 : Postal acknowledgment.
Ex.P.6 : Payment voucher.
Ex.P.7 : Copy of account.
Ex.P.8 : Complaint.
Ex.P.9 & 10 : Registration firms.
Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of termination of chit group
No.EMR(100)-01.
Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of authorization letter.
Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of the Declaration under rule-15
Sec.20 Sub Sec(2).
Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of the Form No.11.
Ex.P.15 : Statement of Assets and liabilities document No.2.
Ex.P.16 : Email dated: 26.06.2017.
Ex.P.17 : E-mail dated: 26.08.2017 .
Ex.P.17(a) : Account statement.
Ex.P.18 : E-mail dated: 07.02.2018.
Ex.P.18(a) : Attach statement.
Ex.P.19 : E-mail dated: 07.02.2018.
Ex.P.19(a) : Attach statement.
Ex.P.20 : Email dated: 21.03.2018 .
Ex.P.20(a) : Attach statement.
Ex.P.21 : Email dated: 25.02.2019.
Ex.P.21(a) : Attach statement.
Ex.P.22 : Email sent by the complainant company.
Ex.P.23 : E-mail dated: 12.05.2022 .
Ex.P.23(a) &23 (b): Attach statements.
Ex.P.24 : ROCL Extract. Ex.P.25 : Certificate U/s.65(b) of I.E.Act. Ex.P.26 : Account statement related to chit No.51.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
C.C.NO.35599/2022 46 List of documents marked on behalf of the accused: Ex.D.1, 1(a) to 1(c) : Signatures of PW.1. Ex.D.2, 2(a) to 2(c) : Signatures of PW.1.
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.35599/2022 47 21.12.2024 (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court Vide Separate Sheet) :ORDER:
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond of the accused is hereby stands canceled.
The accused is sentence to pay fine of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) to the complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the
said fine amount an amount of
Rs.11,90,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs
ninety thousand only) shall be paid to
the complainant as compensation as
per Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and
remaining amount of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) shall be
remitted to the State.
In default of the payment of fine
amount, the accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment of six months.
XXVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.