Bangalore District Court
Lokesha.D.N vs Punith Kumar.P on 4 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 4th day of February - 2020
PRESENT: SRI. SHRIDHARA.M, B.A., LL.M.,
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.23476/2017
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : Lokesha.D.N,
S/o.Late.Narayanappa,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.13/4, 4th Cross,
2nd Main, Govindarajanagar,
Bengaluru-40.
(Rep. by Sri.P.R.Harish Kumar, Adv.)
V/S
Accused : Punith Kumar.P,
S/o.Parameshwaraiah,
Aged about 28 years,
Proprietor of
Eventa Bio Science,
R/at No.37, Sy.No.39,
Lingadeeranahalli Village,
Yeshwanthapura Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
Also resident of:
Jakanahalli Village,
Beechanahalli Post,
Dandinashivara Hobli,
Turuvekre Hobli,
Tumkur District-572215.
(Rep.by Sri.Prema Kumar.D.S, Adv.)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Judgment 2 C.C.No.23476/2017
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Convicted.
DATE OF ORDER : 04.02.2020.
(SHRIDHARA.M)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has presented the instant complaint against the accused on 07.09.2017 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for dishonour of cheques of Rs.1,20,000/-.
2. The facts given raised to this private complaint are as follows:
The complainant knows to the accused person, he being the tenant under the complainant as well as cousin brother. The complainant has further contended that, he is absolute owner of the property in respect of house bearing No.37, situated at Lingaderanahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The accused had requested the complainant to let out the above said premises for residential and commercial purpose to run the Laboratory in the name and style of Eventa Bio Science. The complainant agreed to let out the same on monthly rent of Judgment 3 C.C.No.23476/2017 Rs.20,000/- and accused person had agreed to pay the security deposit of Rs.50,000/-, which carries no interest.
The complainant has further alleged that, as per the agreement, the complainant inducted the accused as tenant and for which, the accused had paid the post dated cheque bearing No.843303 dated:26.05.2017 for Rs.50,000/-, towards the security deposit amount, and also gave another cheque bearing No.843301 dated:20.05.2017 for Rs.70,000/-, both the cheques are drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Andrahalli Branch, Bengaluru, towards 3 months rent, including water and electricity charges from 10.02.2017 to 10.05.2017. The complainant had accepted the said cheques and accused had requested the complainant to present them for encashment during 1st week of July, 2017.
The complainant has further contended that, as there is no occasion to suspect the accused person, at the time of accepting the said cheques, and assurance given by the accused, as per his request presented those cheques for encashment through his banker viz., HDFC Bank Ltd., Magadi Main Road Branch, Bengaluru, but the said cheques as per bank endorsement dated:03.07.2017 got returned unpaid stating "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant has try to contact the accused Judgment 4 C.C.No.23476/2017 person, on several occasions at the above said cause title address, but accused person kept the said rented premises under lock and evaded to meet the complainant. The complainant intimated the said fact with regard to dishonour of cheques to the accused through telephone, he gave evasive answer. Though there is insufficient fund in his account, deliberately with a malafide intention gave those cheques knowingfully well that, there is no money. Hence, the complainant through his counsel got issued legal notice dated:29.07.2017 by R.P.A.D to both the addresses of the accused, but those R.P.A.D covers returned with shara "Unclaimed Intimation Delivered / Door locked. The notice issued to the permanent residential address at Jakanahalli Village, Turuvekere Taluk was returned with a shara "Refused". The accused intentionally refuse to take the notice. Since, the accused not paid the amount covered under the cheques. Thereby, he committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the complaint.
3. After receipt of the private complaint, my predecessor in office took the cognizance and got registered the PCR and recorded the sworn statement. Since made out prima-facie grounds to proceed against the accused for the alleged offence, got issued process.
Judgment 5 C.C.No.23476/2017
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and obtained the bail. As required, complaint copy was supplied to the accused. Thereafter, accusation was read over and explained to him, wherein, he denied the same and claimed to have the defence.
5. To prove the case of the complainant, he himself choosen to examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. The PW.1 was subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the accused. In the cross-examination of PW.1, accused counsel got confronted one document and same is marked as Ex.D1.
6. Thereafter, incriminating evidence made against the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied the same and the answer given by him was recorded. In this case, the accused has not choosen to entered into the witness box.
7. I have heard the arguments of both side counsels.
8. On going through the rival contentions, based on the substantial evidence available on record, the following points have been arising for determination:
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond the reasonable doubt that, the amount covered under Judgment 6 C.C.No.23476/2017 the Exs.P1 and P2-cheques is the existence of legally enforceable debt payable by the accused?
2) Whether the complainant proves the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
3) What Order?
9. On appreciation of materials available on record, my findings on the above points are as under:
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 NOs.1 and 2: Since both the points are connected with each other, they have taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
The PW.1 to prove his case choosen to examined himself and filed affidavit by reiterating the complaint averments in toto, and produced the documents at Exs.P1 to P12, they are:
a) Exs.P1 and P2 are the cheques bearing Nos.843301 and 843303 issued by the accused for sum of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.50,000/- dated:20.05.2017 and 26.05.2017 respectively, drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Andrahalli Branch, Bengaluru.
b) Exs.P1(a) and P2(a) are the alleged signatures of accused.
Judgment 7 C.C.No.23476/2017
c) Exs.P3 and P4 are the Bank Memos dated:
03.07.2017.
d) Ex.P5 is the Legal Notice dated:29.07.2017.
e) Exs.P6 and P7 are the Postal receipts.
f) Exs.P8 and P9 are the unclaimed and refused R.P.A.D covers.
g) Ex.P10 is the true copy of complaint dated:
28.06.2017 lodged by complainant against accused before the Byadarahalli Police Station.
h) Ex.P11 is the true copy of statement given by accused herein before the SHO of Byadarahalli Police Station, Ramangara District and
i) Ex.P12 is the true copy of acknowledgment dated:28.06.2017 issued by SHO of Byadarahalli Police Station, Ramangara District.
11. The PW.1 was subjected to the cross-examination by the advocate for the accused. In support of his case the complainant through his counsel has produced the citation and relied upon same, it is;
a) Crl.A.Nos.61-62 of 2011
12. In this case, the accused has not choosen to entered into the witness box. But at the time of cross-examination of PW.1, accused counsel got confronted one document and same is marked as Ex.D1. It is:
a) Ex.D1 is the copy of rental agreement dated:15.04.2017 entered into between complainant and accused.
Judgment 8 C.C.No.23476/2017
13. While appreciate the materials on records and evidence, this court has gone through the decisions stated supra apart from the other decisions.
14. After cross-examination of PW.1, the incriminating evidence made against the accused was read over and explained to him as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he admitted that, he got received legal notice. He also stated that, the complainant is his cousin brother and for Rs.50,000/- and Rs.70,000/- two cheques were given to the complainant. Earlier, the complainant told him that, Rs.50,000/- cheque was lost and accordingly, he took once again Rs.50,000/- cheque from him. For the period of 3 months only the accused was rented, was in possession of the building the complainant on rent and by that time, he got cleared the entire amount and not returned the questioned cheque, but filed the false case.
15. Apart from that, the accused not entered into the witness box to prove his defence nor produce any document. He solely relied upon the cross-examination of PW.1.
16. No doubt, the complainant has filed the present case based on Exs.P1 and P2-cheques alleged to be issued by the accused for payment of cash of Rs.50,000/-, which is Ex.P2 and sum of Judgment 9 C.C.No.23476/2017 Rs.70,000/-, which is the rentals for the period of 3 months, including water and electricity charges. Since, the accused has not paid the said amount and when presented those cheques for encashment, the same came to be dishonoured, despite caused legal notice, not paid the money. Hence, the complainant has contended, the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. From which, it discloses that, the complainant projected the case that, the amount covered under the questioned cheques at Exs.P1 and P2 are the existence of legally recoverable debt, and which came to be dishonoured, despite, gave legal notice, the accused not set the right. Therefore, as required under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the initial statutory presumption has to be drawn in favour of complainant that, for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt, the accused got issued the questioned cheques, unless and until contrary prove.
17. By virtue of Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it made clear that, it is initial burden on the accused to prove his probable defence. In order to prove his probable defence, he only choosen to cross-examine the PW.1, not choosen to entered into the witness box.
Judgment 10 C.C.No.23476/2017 However, it is an appropriate to cite the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 166 (Krishna Janardhan Bhat V/s. Dattatraya G Hegde) and 2010 AIR SCW 2946 (Rangappa V/s. Mohan).
"The accused need not enter into witness box and he could rebut the presumption envisage under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act by setting up a probable case. As such, there is no strict rule that, the accused should enter into the witness box in support or proof of his defence. The accused has got every right to prove his defence from the cross- examination of PW.1 or the materials already brought on record. It is also held that, the standard of evidence be to led by the accused is preponderance of probabilities and no proof beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, for the complainant he should prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt".
18. As per the said dictum, the accused need not require to enter in to the witness box to prove his probable defence, but he can prove his defence by way of cross-examining the PW.1 and relied upon the documents of the complainant. From the point of above dictum, the non entering into the witness box by the accused is not a ground or hindrance to his probable defence. Therefore, whatever the defence placed by the accused by way of oral say through PW.1 is to be appreciated.
Judgment 11 C.C.No.23476/2017
19. On going through the cross-examination of PW.1, from the point of defence suggested to the PW.1 by the advocate for accused, the fact that, the complainant and accused are cousin brothers is not in dispute. The fact that, the complainant is the building owner bearing No.37 is not in dispute. The fact that, the accused being a tenant inducted to the said premises for run the Laboratory by name Eventa Bio Science is not in dispute. The facts and circumstances of the case that, the security deposit fixed of Rs.50,000/-, which carries no interest is not in dispute. The fact that, the monthly rent was fixed of Rs.20,000/- is not in dispute. The fact that, by way of confronted the Ex.D1, the agreement entered into between complainant and accused, both have admitted its execution on 15.04.2017 is not in disputed. The terms and conditions made mentioned therein is also not in dispute. As per the said admitted document, the factum of the lease period was for the period of 11 months, commencing from 10.02.2017 and agreement was entered into on 15.04.2017 is not in dispute. The fact that, as per terms and conditions made mentioned therein, the accused gave 2 cheques, one for Rs.50,000/- bearing No.843303, dated:26.05.2017, which is Ex.P2 is not in dispute. The said cheque was given as security is not in dispute.
Judgment 12 C.C.No.23476/2017
20. As per Ex.D1, the monthly rentals fixed for Rs.20,000/-, the said agreement also discloses, the accused shall bare the electricity and water charges is not in dispute. Therefore, by way of production of Ex.D1, it made clear that, the landlord and tenant relationship between complainant and accused in connection to the building is not in dispute. The fact that, Rs.50,000/- cheque dated:26.05.2017 given by the accused as security deposit, though the tenancy commencing from 10.02.2017 is not in dispute. Therefore, the said document is supports the contention of the complainant.
21. No doubt, the complainant has specifically contended that, as agreed the accused not paid the cash security deposit of Rs.50,000/- which covers under the Ex.P2 cheque and for the payment of rentals for the period of 3 months including water and electricity charges, the accused gave the cheque at Ex.P1-cheque for Rs.70,000/- dated:20.05.2017 is only subject for discussion. The Ex.D1 which clearly made that, the lease commences from 10.02.2017 as per the bilateral agreement discloses, hence, for making it as enforceable contract the said agreement was reduced into writing on 15.04.2017. Therefore, it made clear that, as per month of February, March and April, the 3 months after obtaining the lease premises, the said agreement came into Judgment 13 C.C.No.23476/2017 effect. The complainant has contended that, for the payment of rental of three months, the accused gave the Ex.P1-cheque including cost of water and electricity charges.
22. No doubt, the accused has contended that, he paid up to date rent and he not stayed in the rented premises for the period of 3 months. The PW.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that, the accused was in possession of rented building for the period of 10 months, and even not paid the rentals for one month also. There was suggestion made to the PW.1 that:
"DgÉÆæ £À£ÀUÉ ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀÆ.20,000/- ªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀzÁV ¨ÁrUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¤r-1 vÀAiÀiÁgÁUÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨Àsð DgÉÆæ ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀwUÁV £À£ÀUÉ ¤ÃrzÀÝAvÀºÀ ZÉPï PÀ¼ÉzÀĺÉÆÃVzÉ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀ PÁgÀt, DvÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ ZÉPï£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ causin brother DzÀ PÁgÀt ZÉPï PÀ¼ÉzÀĺÉÆÃVzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀ ªÀiÁvÀæPÉÌ, DgÉÆæ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
23. On going through the said cross-examination of PW.1, it discloses, the accused took the defence that, every month the accused used to pay rentals of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, but PW.1 has denies the same. It also suggested that, in respect Judgment 14 C.C.No.23476/2017 of the advance amount, the accused got issued cheque, the complainant told him that, the said cheque was lost, hence, accused gave another cheque. If at all, earlier cheque was given by the accused for payment of advance money, definitely, he could narrate its particulars, but no such particulars is been suggested. But Ex.D1 itself clearly manifest that, the questioned cheque at Ex.P2 was given by the accused to the complainant for payment of advance money. The said suggestion discloses, whatever the defence taken by the accused by suggesting that, the Ex.P1-cheque was given by him, as alteration cheque to pay the cash security not for rentals. But the mentioning of questioned Ex.P2 cheque in the agreement itself discloses, it was with the complainant, as admittedly issued by the accused. Therefore, it made clear that, the Ex.P2 cheque was issued by the accused for payment of advance and Ex.P1 cheque was taken by the complainant informing that, it was alternative cheque for lost cheque in respect of advance money. Therefore, the accused failed to extract any words, as to obtaining Ex.P1-cheque from the PW.1.
24. Through out the case, the accused has contended that, he cleared the entire amount, but he not suggested to the PW.1 that, Judgment 15 C.C.No.23476/2017 how many period, he was stayed as tenant in the said premises. The suggestion made to the PW.1 that:
"DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ¨ÁrUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀªÁV ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtð ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ, ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀwUÁV ¤ÃrgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
25. By way of making such suggestion to the PW.1, the accused has contended that, he regularly paid rentals to the PW.1 and by misusing the advance cheque filed the false case. Therefore, he utterly failed to discloses, what was the duration he stayed in the rental premises of the complainant. But some suggestion made to PW.1 is also require to be reproduce in ascertain the period.
"£Á£ÀÄ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀ¢ÃPÀj¸ÀĪÀ ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ, DgÉÆæ ¸ÀzÀj PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¹zÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀévÀB ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj PÀlÖqÀ¢AzÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀ §½PÀ 2017 gÀ ¸É¥ÉÖA§gï PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj PÀlÖqÀzÀ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¢AzÀ vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ."
26. There was suggestion made to the complainant that, when the cheque was presented for encashment to the bank, accused Judgment 16 C.C.No.23476/2017 claimed got vacate the rented premises, but the PW.1 has denied the same. The PW.1 has volunteers that, after he lodge complaint to the Police Station, in the end of September, 2017, the accused got vacated from the rented premises. Therefore, the lodging of complaint to the Police Station by the complainant herein is also necessary to appreciate. In that regard, the complainant has produced the copy of complaint at Ex.P10 dated:28.06.2017. Which discloses, the allegation made against the accused that, the accused without paying rentals and vacated the premises, as made threat call to the complainant. At least for the period 28.06.2017, the accused not vacated his rentals premises is can be draw inference for Ex.P10 the complaint.
27. It is significant fact to note that, the accused got appear before the Police Station and gave his statement on 06.08.2017. Wherein, he gave his statement that, since he suffering from financial difficulties, undertakes to clear the rentals within 2 months to extent possible to him and undertakes to not cause any trouble to the complainant. The said statement given by the accused, it made clear that, he not vacated the rentals premises of the complainant for the period of 6 months. Taken in to consideration of the said statement given by the accused before the Police Station at Ex.P11, it made clear that, he not paid Judgment 17 C.C.No.23476/2017 rentals at least for the period of 6 months. Taken in to consideration of the same, if at all, the agreement amount of Rs.20,000/- per month, amounting for the period of 6 months of Rs.1,20,000/-, the complainant has not claim the said amount. In this regard, the accused has contended that, he not paid the advance money of Rs.50,000/-. Though he contended, every month rentals been paid him, not produced any document. At least, taken in to consideration that, for the period of six months, not paid the rentals, it made clear that, Rs.1,20,000/- monthly rent has to be payable by the accused to the complainant. Therefore, as accused himself due of Rs.1,20,000/-, has not paid the advance money, he is liable to pay sum of Rs.1,20,000/-.
28. Since, the accused as per Ex.P2 cheque, though it was given for pay the cash security, he not paid said money. Meanwhile, without paying the rentals to the complainant, stayed in the rental premises for the period of six months. Therefore, the six months rentals has to be payable by the accused to the complainant. Taken in to consideration of six months rentals as said earlier, it amounts to Rs.1,20,000/-. To know that, what is the exact electricity and water charges, the complainant has not furnished better particulars. Therefore, the minimum rent of Rs.20,000/- as stipulated in Ex.D1 agreement has to be Judgment 18 C.C.No.23476/2017 considered. The said rentals for the period of six months, the accused not paid. As, accused not deposited the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- as per Ex.P2 cheque, question of the complainant refund the said money to the accused does not arise. Therefore, Ex.P2 cheque has to be construed, for the purpose of payment of the arrears of rent for the remaining period used by the accused. The Ex.P1-cheque, as said by the complainant pertaining to the period of 3 months, including water and electricity charges. The complainant not claimed any more amount. But the accused for the period of six months, not paid the rentals, therefore, the cheques amount covered under the Exs.P1 and P2 for the total sum of Rs.1,20,000/- is to be considered as the rentals for the occupation and enjoyment of the rental premises of the complainant by the accused. Therefore, the accused without paying necessary rentals to the complainant got enjoyed the premises more than period of six months. Hence, the minimum agreed rentals at Rs.20,000/- per month for the period of 6 months is to be considered and accused is liable to pay in all Rs.1,20,000/-.
29. Though, separate cheque for payment of rentals other than Ex.P1 not issued, the Ex.P2 cheque issued for the purpose of payment of advance is considered as rentals for the subsequent Judgment 19 C.C.No.23476/2017 periods. Hence, in all, accused is liable to pay Rs.1,20,000/- as rentals for his used and occupation of the rented premises of the complainant to be considered as existence of legally recoverable debt payable by the accused. Though, PW.1 was subjected for cross-examination, nothing as elicited from his mouth to debar the claim of complainant. The PW.1 successfully withstood his contention.
30. Despite, gave legal notice after dishonour of the cheque as per Ex.P5, the accused in the address at Lingadeeranahalli Village of Yeshwanthapura Hobli, remains unclaimed. Despite, deliver the intimation on 31.07.2017 and 01.08.2017 equally gave notice to his residential address at Jakanahalli Village of Turuvekere Taluk as per Ex.P9, the same also got refused. Hence, it made clear that, the complainant in order to avoid making payment, avoided to receive the notice, itself is not a ground to disbelieve the claim of complainant. Even, accused not disputed the issuance of legal notice. But while record 313 of Cr.P.C. statement, he stated that, legal notice was issued. Despite that, he not set right, the wrong committed by him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, it is the consider opinion of this court that, the complainant has successfully established that, accused is liable to pay sum of Judgment 20 C.C.No.23476/2017 Rs.1,20,000/-, as the six months arrears of rentals at Rs.20,000/- per month. As accused not deposited cash security, question of depositing the said money, out of arrears of rent does not arise. The accused shall pay the cheque amount, as existence of legally recoverable debt, for use of occupation of the residential building of the complainant for the beneficial enjoyment. If he sustained any loss in his business, is not a ground to avoid the payment of rentals to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused as the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
31. As discussed above by way of furnishing clear, convincing, corroborative, oral as well as documentary evidence has proved that, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, looking into the transaction, it is the considered opinion of this court that, the accused taken bald, inconsistence defence without any base and failed to prove his improbable defence. Contrary, the PW.1 has established his case beyond the reasonable doubt through oral as well as documentary evidence. Thereby, unnecessarily cause the complainant to approach this court of law, therefore, the accused is liable to be punished by way of imposing fine sentence. Therefore, the accused is to be convicted by imposing Judgment 21 C.C.No.23476/2017 the cheque amount. If the accused failed to pay the said amount within appeal period, as default sentence, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 08 months. Out of the said fine amount, sum of Rs.1,10,000/- shall be payable to the complainant as compensation and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be payable to the state as fine amount. Accordingly, if the accused fails to pay the whole fine amount within appeal period, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 08 months. Thereby, one more opportunity has provided to the accused to comply the order. Otherwise, the very purpose of filing complaint will be defeated. As discussed above, the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the accused shall sentence to pay the fine amount as detailed in the order portion. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
32. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Judgment 22 C.C.No.23476/2017 Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence to pay fine of Rs.1,20,000/-.
Out of the said fine amount, sum of Rs.1,10,000/- shall be payable to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be payable to the state as fine amount.
In default of pay the fine amount, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 08 (Eight) Months.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
The office is hereby directed to supply the copy of this Judgment to the accused on free of cost.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of February - 2020) (SHRIDHARA.M) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : Lokesha.D.N List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Judgment 23 C.C.No.23476/2017 Exs.P1 & P2 : Original Cheques Exs.P1(a) & P2(a) : Signatures of accused Exs.P3 & P4 : Bank endorsements Ex.P5 : Office copy of legal notice Exs.P6 & P7 : Postal receipts Exs.P8 & P9 : Unclaimed & refused R.P.A.D covers Ex.P10 : True copy of Police complaint Ex.P11 : True copy of statement Ex.P12 : True copy of acknowledgment
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
- None -
List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
Ex.D1 : Copy of rental agreement
Ex.D1(a) to D1(d) : Signatures of complainant, accused and
witnesses.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 24 C.C.No.23476/2017
04.02.2020.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
***** ORDER Accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence to pay fine of Rs.1,20,000/-.
Out of the said fine amount, sum of Rs.1,10,000/- shall be payable to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be payable to the state as fine amount.
Judgment 25 C.C.No.23476/2017 In default of pay the fine amount, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 08 (Eight) Months.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
The office is hereby directed to supply the copy of this Judgment to the accused on free of cost.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.