Bangalore District Court
Veena Ravikumar vs L.Prakash on 7 July, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 7th day of July - 2020
PRESENT: SRI. SHRIDHARA.M, B.A., LL.M.,
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.2099/2018
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : Veena Ravikumar,
W/o.Ravikumar,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.107, 'Sumukha Building',
12th Main Road, 9th Block,
2nd Stage, Nagarabhavi,
Bengaluru-72.
(Rep. by Sri.B.M.Akandeswara, Adv.)
V/S
Accused : L.Prakash,
Father name not known,
Aged about 47 years,
'Ori Flame', No.20/3, Ground Floor,
Kaushika Plaza, 80 Feet Road,
2nd Stage, KHB Colony,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru-79.
(Rep.by Sri.Ravi.J.S, Adv.)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Acquitted.
DATE OF ORDER : 07.07.2020.
(SHRIDHARA.M)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
Judgment 2 C.C.No.2099/2018
JUDGMENT
The complainant has presented the instant complaint against the accused on 05.12.2017 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for dishonour of cheque of Rs.3 lakhs.
2. In a nut shell, the case of the complainant is:
The complainant and wife of accused are well known persons. Accordingly, the accused also known to the complainant and both of accused and his wife are family friends. In that regard, accused had approached the complainant and seeking for financial assistance to meet his personal commitments of him, accordingly, during the month of July, 2017, the accused sought for hand loan of Rs.3 lakhs to meet out his urgent necessities.
The complainant lent sum of Rs.3 lakhs as hand loan to the accused during last week of July, 2017, and by received the said amount, the accused undertakes to repay the same on or before 1st week of November, 2017.
The complainant has further alleged that, she kept quite till last week of October, 2017, thereafter, during 1st week of November, 2017, she demanded the accused for repayment of the loan amount, than the accused gave cheque bearing Judgment 3 C.C.No.2099/2018 No.067874 for sum of Rs.3 lakhs drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., dated:01.11.2017 and assured to honour the same on the date of its presentation. Accordingly, complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through her banker viz., State Bank of India, Vijayanagar 2nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru, but as per memo dated:06.11.2017, the said cheque came to be dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient". Later, on14.11.2017 she gave Legal notice to the accused by way of R.P.A.D. and on 17.11.2017 the same was return with shara stating "Refused". But, the accused not paid the amount covered under the cheque. Thereby, the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Hence, the complaint.
3. On presentation of the private complaint before the in- charge court, ordered to register the PCR and stage was set for sworn statement. Accordingly, sworn statement was recorded by impliedly taking cognizance and stage was said for sworn statement. Accordingly, sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Since, found prima-facie materials proceed against the accused, process was ordered to the issued by register the case in register No.3.
Judgment 4 C.C.No.2099/2018
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, she herself choosen to examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6(a). 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 three documents and same are marked as Exs.D1 to D3.
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 support of the defence, the accused himself was examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D4 to D6 and also subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the complainant.
7. Both side counsels have submitted their detailed written arguments, apart from adduced oral arguments.
Judgment 5 C.C.No.2099/2018
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, she paid sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in the last week of July, 2017 as hand loan to the accused, and in turn, for discharge of legal recoverable debt, the accused issued the Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.067874, dated:01.11.2017 for sum of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Basaveshwaranagar Branch, Bengaluru?
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 Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative 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.
Judgment 6 C.C.No.2099/2018 The PW.1 to prove her case choosen to examined herself and filed affidavit by reiterating the complaint averments in toto, and produced the documents at Exs.P1 to P6, they are:
a) Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.067874 issued by the accused for sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
dated:01.11.2017, drawn on Axis Bank Ltd.,, Basaveshwaranagar Branch, Bengaluru.
b) Ex.P1(a) is the alleged signature of accused.
c) Ex.P2 is the Bank Memo dated:06.11.2017.
d) Ex.P3 is the Legal Notice dated:14.11.2017.
e) Ex.P4 is the Postal receipt.
f) Ex.P5 is the unserved R.P.A.D cover.
g) Ex.P5(a) is the legal notice at Ex.P5.
h) Ex.P6 is the private complaint and
i) Ex.P6(a) is the signature of complainant.. The PW.1 was subjected to the cross-examination by the advocate for the accused.
11. In order to prove the defence of the accused, he himself choosen examined as DW.1 and got produced the documents at Exs.D1 to D6. They are:
a) Ex.D1 is the certified copy of private complaint filed by one M.Kumar against accused herein for dishonour of cheque of Rs.3 lakhs.
b) Ex.D2 is the certified copy of private complaint filed by one Veena Ravikumar against one Radha in C.C.No.702/2018.
Judgment 7 C.C.No.2099/2018
c) Ex.D3 is the certified copy of order sheet in C.C.No.702/2018.
d) Ex.D4 is the certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.50984/2018.
e) Ex.D5 is the Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card pertaining to the accused herein.
f) Ex.D6 is the Notarized copy of Driving licence pertaining to accused herein.
12. The DW.1 was subjected to the cross-examination by the advocate for the complainant. Apart from lead defence evidence, the DW.1 through his counsel has produced the citations and relied upon same. They are:
a) (2014) 2 SCC 236
b) 2015 AIR SCW 64
c) 2016 (1) AKR 211
d) 2012(3) KCCR 2057
e) ILR 2014 KAR 6572
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 denied the incriminating evidence against him and choosen to entered in to Judgment 8 C.C.No.2099/2018 witness box. The accused choosen to filed affidavit evidence and the same is not opposed by the complainant side, hence, affidavit evidence was taken on record and accused examined as DW.1. In the affidavit evidence the accused has contended that:
The complainant and his wife are known to each other the accused wife was/is running the business in the name and style of Ori Flame, situated at Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru. The complainant being a money lender had extended hand loan of Rs.20,000/- to the accused during the year 2016. In order to ensure repayment, the complainant asked two signed blank cheques of the accused as security and accordingly, he gave in blank with signature. Later, the accused got repaid the loan amount to the complainant and asked her to return the questioned cheques, then she told him that, they were misplaced and would return the same. The complainant got misused the signed two blank cheques. Apart from, she filed the present case by misusing another cheque; she also through her father filed the case in C.C.No.50984/2018, which came to be disposed off on 02.03.2019. When he borrowed the loan from the complainant of Rs.20,000/-, he gave two signed blank cheques as security, despite he cleared the loan, the complainant and her father got misused the same, hence, he has not liable to pay the present Judgment 9 C.C.No.2099/2018 cheque amount and notice was not served on him duly. The DW.1 was subjected for cross-examination.
15. No doubt, in this case, complainant has filed the present case for dishonour the cheque of Rs.3 lakhs. In this case, immediately after receipt of complaint, order to register for PCR and impliedly taking cognizance, stage was posted for sworn statement. Accordingly, complainant filed the affidavit and reiterating the complaint averments by virtue of Section 145(1) of Negotiable Instruments Act, the said sworn statement treated as complainant evidence. So far, whatever the proceedings conducted in the present case is not been disputed by either side of the parties. Therefore, it made clear that, based on the alleged offence committed by the accused, which reflects under the document; technically the complainant has maintained sufficient grounds to maintain the case, as to the alleged commission of offence committed by the accused. However, the said technical commission of offence does not mean that, the accused has committed offence, but subject to prove based on the oral as well as documentary evidence, the complainant has to prove her case.
16. On going through the materials available on record, it made clear that, the complainant based on the questioned cheque has Judgment 10 C.C.No.2099/2018 put forth her claim stating that, the accused got issued questioned cheque for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt. Hence, necessary statutory initial presumption has to be drawn in favour of complainant, as to the same unless and until contrary prove. Therefore, it is the initial onus on the accused to prove the contrary by placing probable acceptable evidence. Therefore, it is the burden on the accused to rebut the case of complainant, as to statutory presumption as well as the factual matrix of the transaction.
17. In this case, the accused throughout the case has denied the very loan transaction and issuance of questioned cheque for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt. However, it was the specific defence of the accused that, his wife was run Ori Flame business and she knew the complainant. Accordingly, accused borrowed loan of Rs.20,000/- during the year 2016, on the guarantee of signed two blank cheques and despite clear the said loan, when the accused asking for return of said cheques, she not returned the same, by stating they were misplaced and would return after find out. But misused those two cheques, she as well as her father filed the present case as well as case in Exs.D1 and D4 against him and he not borrowed the alleged loan, not issued the questioned cheque. Hence, he is not liable to pay Judgment 11 C.C.No.2099/2018 any money to the complainant. Not only he denied his contention, during record plea as well as 313 of Cr.P.C., statement, on the same was ground on the attack on the claim of PW.1, he himself entered in to witness box filed affidavit evidence on the factual matrix.
18. On going through the rival contentions of the parties, the knowingness of the complainant and wife of the accused including accused is not in dispute. The fact that, the wife of accused was running the Ori Flame business is not in dispute. The fact that, including questioned cheque and another cheque, got issued by the accused to the complainant and in turn, she and her father filed separate cases against the accused, which is present case as well as in C.C.No.50984/2018 is not in dispute. The fact that, the case filed by the father of complainant as per Ex.D4, came to be acquittal is not in dispute. The fact that, the address of the accused residing in the separate houses other than the office address made mentioned in the cause title is not in dispute. The fact that, the residential address of the accused is Door No.10, 1st Stage, K.H.B.Colony, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru is not dispute. The fact that, the accused along with his family resides in the said house is not in dispute. The fact that, the compliance of mandatory provision, except service of legal notice to the accused Judgment 12 C.C.No.2099/2018 is not dispute. In this case, the accused not only cross-examining the PW.1, but also while record 313 of Cr.P.C., statement has denied the borrowing of loan and issuance of questioned cheque to the complainant. The accused subjected for cross- examination.
19. The fact that, the complainant herein had filed one cheque bounce case against Smt.Radha, as found in Exs.D2 and D3 in C.C.No.702/2018 is not dispute. The fact that, though she filed the said case for cheque bounce of Rs.10 lakhs and admittedly, she settled the matter for Rs.6 lakhs is not in dispute.
20. In this case, from the probable defence set out by the accused in his affidavit evidence, he entered in to witness box and led evidence. The advocate for the complainant subjected him for cross-examination. Wherein, he clearly admitted Rs.20,000/- transaction were only held between complainant and accused, not the alleged loan transaction of Rs.3 lakhs. He more particularly admitted the questioned cheque was issued by him to the complainant. He specifically reasserted that, despite, accused got cleared Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, she not returned the questioned cheque, but stating would return after its find out.
Judgment 13 C.C.No.2099/2018
21. During the course of cross of DW.1, the suggestion made by the advocate for complainant that, both the cheques involved in the case filed by the complainant and her father are altogether different and both are different transaction. The said suggestion is denied by the DW.1 herein. There was simple suggestion made to DW.1 that, for repay the loan borrowed from the complainant, accused got issued the questioned cheque and to avoid its repayment, he deposed falsely. Except the said suggestion nothing has found throughout the cross of DW.1, when accused had approached the complainant, on which source complainant had mobilized the fund, on whose presence, when and where she paid the alleged loan of Rs.3 lakhs, at least as alleged in the complaint and for its repayment, when accused got issued the questioned cheque, to her is not been suggested. Thereby, the contention raised by the accused as the borrowal of loan of Rs.20,000/- on the guarantee of two signed blank cheques is been proved, has no suggestion is made as against the accused, with regard to his defence placed. By rebut throughout the defence of the accused, the complainant has to suggest to what is her case to the mouth of DW.1 and extract the truth. But no such effort is been made by the complainant. However, the DW.1 has successfully withstood his contention as to borrowal of loan of Judgment 14 C.C.No.2099/2018 Rs.20,000/- on the guarantee of two signed blank cheques. Despite, he cleared the said loan amount, complainant without returned those security cheques, filed cheque bounce case by her as well as through her father stands proved by drawing inference in view of no denial made by the accused.
22. That apart, the accused has proved that, complainant is doing money lending business and on obtaining security cheques she filed separate cases though her as well as her father. He not made only simple suggestion to the Ex.D1 document discloses, her father was filed cheque bounce case against accused and same was as per Ex.D4 came to be acquittal. That apart, she also able to prove that, the complainant was lent loan to one Smt.Radha against her also filed separate cheque bounce case found in Exs.D2 and D3. Therefore, those documents prima-facie reveal, based on the questioned cheque and other cheques obtained by the complainant, she and her father filed separate cases, not only she filed cases as such, she also filed case against one Radha as found in Exs.D2 and D3. Hence, it has to be presume that, the complainant is very busy in doing money lending business. Therefore, she gone filing cases one after another against the accused and another by name Smt.Radha. Thereby, the accused has proved that, the complainant doing Judgment 15 C.C.No.2099/2018 money lending business, therefore, for recover the said amount based on the cheque she filed the cases. On going through the complaint allegation, in doing so, the accused has not produced any money lending licence.
It is well worthy to cite the decision reported in 2008 AIR SCC 7702 (P. Venugopal V/s.Madan P. Sarathi). Wherein, it was pleased to held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"The presumption raised does not extent to the expenditure that cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or liability. Which is required to be proved by the complainant. However, it is essentially a question of fact".
In the decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1633 (Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets). Wherein, it was pleased to held by the Hon'ble Apex court that:
(D) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 118, 139 and 138 - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 - How to be rebutted - Standard of proof required rebuttal - HELD, Rebuttal does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt -
Something probable has to be brought record -
Burden of proof can be shifted back to complainant by producing convincing circumstantial evidence - Thereafter the said presumption arising under Section 118 and 139 case to operate - To rebut Judgment 16 C.C.No.2099/2018 said presumption accused can also rely upon presumptions under Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114 (common course of natural even human conduct and public and private business) -
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Presumptions of fact under".
In the decision of AIR 2008 SC 278 between John K John V/s. Tom Verghees, the Hon'ble Apex court it is held that:
"The presumption under Section 139 could be raised in respect of some consideration and burden is on the complainant to show that he had paid amount shown in the cheque. Whenever there is huge amount shown in the cheque, though the initial burden is on the accused, it is equally necessary to know how the complainant advanced such a huge amount".
23. From the point of above dictums also, it was the reverse burden casted upon the complainant to establish the very case beyond the reasonable doubt in order to convict the accused.
24. In this case, the accused attack on the claim of complainant and successfully withstood his probable defence by denying the suggestion as to alleged borrowal of loan from the complainant. Apart from that, he produced documents at Exs.D1 to D6, he has successfully proved that, the case put forth by the complainant is appears to be suspectable, therefore, as per section 139 of Judgment 17 C.C.No.2099/2018 Negotiable Instruments Act and the dictums cited supra, it is reverse burden on the complainant to prove her case beyond the reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is reverse burden on the complainant to prove her case beyond the reasonable doubt.
25. In this case, the complainant has contended, to meet out urgent necessities, the accused had borrowed loan of Rs.3 lakhs from her during last week of July, 2017, and he requested for the same during July, 2017. On perusal of the pleading, she not stated, when the accused was approached her and she being a women folk, how she mobilized fund as such, and paid during last week of July, 2017, is not been explained. Whatever, may be the friendship, for requirement of the huge amount of Rs.3 lakhs it should be the compelling circumstances and if at all, complainant had money, then only question of alleged lent would arise is otherwise not.
26. On going through her cross-examination, she deposed, she is B.Com Graduate and worked till 2015, thereafter, she is house wife. Even, she stated, she is residing in leased house. Even she stated, her son is studying 8th Standard and he is staying in residential school and it requires to expenses for Rs.1 lakh per year. She stated, her husband is look after his expenses. In her Judgment 18 C.C.No.2099/2018 cross-examination the PW.1 has stated, her husband working in a private company as Manager and had monthly salary of Rs.40,000/- and used to pay her Rs.25,000/- p.m. for expenses and she used to save about Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. From the said evidence of PW.1, it can gather that, as per her say, she worked till 2015. Even not stated, what was her pattern of work, what was income gathered during her service, nothing has been stated. But deposed, after 2015 onwards she is a house wife. From which, it can gathered that, as on the date of alleged lent of loan, she was a house wife. The house wife had no income. As she stated, her husband used to gave Rs.25,000/- p.m. for house expenses, out of his salary of Rs.40,000/- and use used to save Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- being stayed in lease premises, she not gave any proper explanation or produced any document. In her cross-examination she stated that, she gave Rs.3 lakhs to the accused in denomination of Rs.500/- six bundles, which were kept with her out of savings from her employment as well as money given by her husband for house expenses.
27. In the present case, she alleged to be let loan during last week of July, 2017. She stated, mobilized fund which is of her savings made during her employment prior to 2015 and also Judgment 19 C.C.No.2099/2018 mobilized through money given by her husband. First of all, to show that, she had sufficient income during her employment prior to 2015, she not produced any evidence or document or explanation. If at all, it was hard cash, she kept with her prior to 2015, to show that, till during last week of July, 2017, she maintained said money in her house, she not produced any document or explanation. Was it possible to retain any huge amount with her as hard cash, the complainant being educated and farmer employee is also not been explained, therefore, it creates doubt, as to whatever the savings made by her during course of her employment. When she being the B.Com graduate, she must know, how to transact with money. However, it is her duty to show that, till last week of July, 2017, she had hard cash of Rs.3 lakhs. Either from savings of her based employment prior to 2015 or her husband gave money, she not produced any document. She categorically admitted that, to show that, she possessed Rs.3 lakhs as on the alleged date of lent, admittedly no document is with her. The suggestion made by the accused, it made clear that, since she not possessed any money, not gave the alleged lent of loan to the accused; she not produced any document before this court. Thereby, the accused attack on the claim of complainant. First of all, except her oral say of gathering Judgment 20 C.C.No.2099/2018 income out of her employment as well as her husband gave money, nothing has produced to substantiate her contention as to the financial capacity. It is her to produce her bank pass book or income tax returns, which reveals her financial capacity, enable to pay Rs.3 lakhs to the accused, being a house wife, but no such document is been produced. Therefore, as suggested by the accused, the financial capacity and alleged lent of loan to the accused has to be suspected. Therefore, at least to prove, her husband is a Manager and had handsome salary of Rs.40,000/- p.m. enable him to pay monthly expenses of Rs.25,000/- to her, apart from spend expenses of Rs.1 lakh per year to her kid, she not produced any document.
28. In the complaint she stated, exactly when the request made by the accused and exactly when she paid to him. In her cross- examination, she stated that:
"2017 gÀ dįÉÊ ªÉÆzÀ® ªÁgÀzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄ CAUÀrUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ vÀ£ÀUÉ gÀÆ.6 ®PÀë ºÀtzÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ vÀÄvÁðV EzÉ, vÀ£Àß CAUÀrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀw ªÉÆzÀ®Ä gÀÆ.6 ®PÀëªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß°è PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. D «µÀAiÀÄ EzÉà ªÉÆzÀ® ¨ÁjUÉ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß ªÉÆzÀ°£À ªÀQîjUÉ D «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß
Judgment 21 C.C.No.2099/2018
¸ÀA¥ÀÇtðªÁV w½¹zÉÝãÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
DgÉÆæAiÀÄ CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀw EgÀĪÁUÀ PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÉƧâ¼Éà EzÉÝ£ÀÄ. ¤RgÀªÁV AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ D ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £É£À¦®è."
29. On going through the said evidence of PW.1, she stated, during 1st week of July, 2017, when she went to the shop of accused, the accused asked for Rs.6 lakhs for his urgent necessity, as he has to vacate his shop. She also stated, accused and his wife first asked Rs.6 lakhs with her and she informed about those things to her counsel, but nothing has contended in the pleading. Even, she stated, when the wife of accused was in the shop, accused asked for the loan, when she is alone. More particularly she deposed, exactly when he asked so, she does not remember. From the said testimony of PW.1, it reveals that, for the purpose of vacate the shop, the accused asked for the loan of Rs.6 lakhs. If at all, the version of PW.1 were to be true, no impediment to plead and contend in her evidence, but it lacks for the reasons better known to her, is one of the ground to suspect the very claim put forth by the complainant. If at all, any person needs money, normally he go and approach the lender to private financial assistance, but in the case on hand, as said by the PW.1, accused or his wife not Judgment 22 C.C.No.2099/2018 approached her, but when she went to their shop, then they asked. Therefore, it is also one of the ground to suspect. If at all, she approached the shop of the accused as such, as said by her shop run by the wife of accused, then why the accused asked for the said amount is also not been satisfactorily explained. If at all, she was asked for Rs.6 lakhs for vacating the shop, definitely, which were that shop what was the amount required to be pay and to whom it has to be pay is to be enquired into, but no such explanation is forth coming from the side of complainant.
30. The PW.1 in her cross-examination has stated that:
"DgÉÆæUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀįÉèà ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.07.2017 gÀAzÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÉÝ£ÀÄ. DgÉÆæ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ vÀÄvÁðV ºÀt ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÀt PÉÆnÖ®è, DzÀgÉ £À£Àß §½ EzÀÝAvÀºÀ G½vÁAiÀÄzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß D ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÉÝ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÉÖÃmï ¨ÁåAPï D¥sï ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ, FUÀ ¸ÉÖÃmï ¨ÁåAPï D¥sï EArAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ §zÀ¯ÁVzÉ. CzÀgÀ°è SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÉÝãÉ. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2000 CxÀªÁ 2002 gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è D SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉgÉ¢zÉÝãÉ. D zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¸À®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ E®è. ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß G½vÁAiÀÄzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÉÝ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. 2015 gÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ £Á£ÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ §UÉÎ £ÉêÀÄPÁw DzÉñÀ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¸À®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ E®è. DUÀ ¸ÀA§¼À £ÀUÀzÁVAiÉÄà PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. D ¸ÀAzÀ¨Àsð ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ Judgment 23 C.C.No.2099/2018 gÀÆ.15,000/- ¸ÀA§¼À EvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À PÁ® G½vÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß §½ ElÄÖPÉÆArzÉÝ£ÀÄ. D ¸ÀAzÀ¨Àsð £À£Àß G½vÁAiÀÄzÀ ºÀt ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆlÖ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ G½vÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr gÀÆ.3,75,000/- ElÄÖPÉÆArzÉÝ£ÀÄ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ¨ÁåAPï£À SÁvÉUÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À dªÀiÁ DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ RaðUÉ £À£ÀUÁV ºÀt PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¤ÃrzÀÝ°è DvÀ£À ¨ÁåAPï£À ¸ÉÖÃmïªÉÄAl£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¸À§¯Éè."
31. As per say of PW.1, on 22.07.2017, she gave money to the accused in her house. By that time, accused along with his wife came to his house and asked for emergent need of money, she stated, her husband not lent the money, but whatever the money saved with her, gave it to the accused. She stated, she had bank account in the then State Bank of Mysore, presently it was merged with State Bank of India. She stated, she had no impediment to produce her bank passbook during the period 2000-02. But, later she volunteers that, she gave the savings money to the accused. Even she stated, during her employment, she earned Rs.15,000/- p.m. and kept the same for the period of 2 years and apart from that, whatever the amount given by her husband, she saved and kept with her for the tune of Rs.3,75,000/-. Even though, she stated so, to show that, her husband salary, she had no impediment to produce her bank statement, but no Judgment 24 C.C.No.2099/2018 such document is been placed. If at all, she saved Rs.3,75,000/-, she being a woman folk, is it necessary to save the said money during her employment as well as after she quit the job till 2017, she not produced any document. If at all, possessed those money with her, definitely, at least while handed over the said cash to the accused, definitely, could have collect necessary loan documents or should be done in the presence of witness, but she did not do so, but as per her say, she stated that:
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉßúÀPÉÌ UËgÀ«¹ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯É E®èzÉ DgÉÆæUÉ ¸Á® PÉÆnÖzÉÝ£ÀÄ. ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÀj¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DgÉÆæUÉ ºÀt ¤ÃrzÀ §UÉÎ ¹éÃPÀÈwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gɬĹPÉÆAr®è. DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯É ¨ÀszÀævÉUÁV §gɬĹPÉÆAr®è. §rØ gÀ»vÀªÁV ¸Á® PÉÆnÖzÉÝ£ÀÄ."
32. As per say of PW.1 has stated, by residing the position of the accused and friendship, without any document she lent loan, admittedly, she not doing any transaction through her bank. Even, she clearly admitted, not obtained any acknowledgment as to the passing of consideration and no security document is been received by her. She stated, without any interest, she lent money. The said evidence it discloses, if at all, she not lent loan on any security, was it possible to pay the huge amount for the Judgment 25 C.C.No.2099/2018 period of 4 months, without the interest, it would create doubt as to the genuineness of the transaction.
33. If so, on which guarantee the complainant has lent the huge amount of Rs.3 lakhs without obtaining any security document, itself created doubt. First of all, she failed to prove the possession of hard cash of Rs.3 lakhs, as on last week of July, 2017. Thereafter, without any security document, on considering the position of friendship, she lent being a woman folk to the accused is also not been satisfactorily explained and the very purpose of lent of huge amount, without any expectation or any security document, itself created doubt.
34. The accused also successfully proved that, he not obtained any loan of Rs.3 lakhs, if at all, so obtained definitely, have to execute necessary document, in that regard as admitted by the PW.1, no document is been secured. In the pleading, the complainant has contended, she lent loan during last week July, 2017, and undertakes to repay the same within 1st week of November, 2017 and as agreed, not repaid, when after lapse of said period during 1st week of November, 2017, when she went to the accused demanding for money, then gave questioned cheque at Ex.P1 dated:01.11.2017. As per the pleading, the said loan Judgment 26 C.C.No.2099/2018 undertakes to clear on or before 1st week of November, 2017. Before that, complainant gone to him and asked for repayment does not arise. If at all, she approached him after lapse of 1st week of November, 2017, it should be the 2nd week of November, 2017 onwards. If so, which was the date, she approached the accused for repayment of the loan and he gave cheque dated:01.11.2017 itself created doubt, as to the alleged issuance and execution of questioned cheque at Ex.P1. If at all, she approached the accused after lapse of 1st week of November, 2017, as he not paid the amount, she should approach him after 1st week. Then the cheque has to be dated, at least on or after 06.11.2017. But the questioned cheque dated:01.11.2017. If at all, it was issued so, definitely, it must be issued before 31.10.2017. Before the lapse of period, she asked the accused to repayment of loan would not arise. Hence, it creates doubt, as to the alleged issuance and execution of questioned cheque. In the cross-examination of PW.1, it was suggested to her that, accused borrowed loan of Rs.20,000/- during 2016 on the security of 2 signed blank cheques, and same got misused by the complainant and her father. In her cross-examination, she stated, as to alleged issuance of questioned cheque, as per her say that:
Judgment 27 C.C.No.2099/2018 "DgÉÆæ CPÉÆÖçgï PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ CxÀªÁ JgÀqÀÄ ¢£À ºÉZÀÄÑ PÀrªÉÄ ªÀÄgÀ½¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ. DvÀ JgÀqÀƪÀgÉ-ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÉ ¸Á® ªÀÄgÀ½¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ. 15.10.2017 jAzÀ DgÉÆæUÉ ºÀt ªÀÄgÀ½¸À®Ä PÉýzÁUÀ, 1 £ÀªÉA§gï 2017 gÀAzÀÄ ¤¦ 1 gÀ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ CAUÀrUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ, £À£Àß vÀAzÉ, DgÉÆæ C®èzÉà DvÀ£À ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÁUÀ EzÀÝgÀÄ."
35. On going through the testimony of PW.1 so, she stated, accused undertakes to repay the loan within end of October or 2 days earlier or later. She also deposed, accused undertakes to repay the same within the period of 2 ½ to 3 months. But the said duration is not seen in the pleading. As per pleading, alleged lent of loan during last week of July, 2017 and undertakes to clear before 1st week of November, 2017. Taken in to consideration of her pleading, accused took time for 3 months one week. But she deposed, he agreed to repay the same within 2 ½ to 3 months. There is contradicts in the pleading and evidence of PW.1. In her cross-examination, she stated, exactly on 15.10.2017, she went to the accused for repayment of the money, by mentioning the date:01.11.2017, accused gave questioned cheque to her, when she and her father went to the shop of accused. By that time, Judgment 28 C.C.No.2099/2018 she, her father, accused and other 3 friends of accused were present. The said evidence discloses, on 15.10.2017, the accused alleged to be issued the cheque. If at all, it is so, definitely, it could have been narrated in the pleading, but the same is lacks. As per her pleading, the accused undertakes to repay the loan within 1st week of November, 2017. Under such circumstances, so it necessary to ask for repayment well within the time dated:15.10.2017 before lapse of the agreed period is also created doubt, as to the bonafidness of the complainant. The pleading and cross-examination of PW.1, it contradicts each other, as to the alleged issuance and execution of questioned cheque at Ex.P1. If at all, her father accompanied her while collect the cheque in the shop of accused, definitely, he is better person to enter into witness box and depose in that regard, but for the reasons better known to the complainant, she avoided to him to so, thereby, withheld the best piece of eye witness as to the alleged issuance and execution of accused. Which is also, one of strong circumstances to disbelieve the contention of the complainant.
36. In her cross-examination, she clearly admitted that:
Judgment 29 C.C.No.2099/2018 "JA. PÀĪÀiÁgÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ. CªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÁ¸À«zÁÝgÉ. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ºÁdgÁUÀĪÁUÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ §gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DzÀgÉ F ¢£À §A¢®è. DgÉÆæ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ vÀ¯Á 1 ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. MAzÉà ¢£À E§âjUÀÆ DgÉÆæ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ §rØ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ, DgÉÆæ, £À£Àß CwÛUÉAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ gÀÆ.10 ®PÀë ZÉPï ¨Ë£ïì ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹zÉÝãÉ."
37. The said evidence of PW.1 reveals that, M.Kumar is the father of complainant and resides separately. Though, she is admitted whenever she represent the case, she accompanied her father and on the day and she led her evidence, he was not present. More categorically PW.1 has admitted that, accused on the same day to the complainant and her father gave cheques. She deposed, she is not doing money lending business, but categorically admitted that, she and her father against accused and her sister-in-law filed cheque bounce case for Rs.10 lakhs. The said factum discloses, the complainant is backed by her father while doing alleged transaction. If at all, complainant lent the loan, for repayment the accused could have issued cheque to her, was it necessary to issue cheque to her father, other than had any separate money transaction is also not been explained. The Judgment 30 C.C.No.2099/2018 evidence of PW.1 itself created doubt, as to the alleged loan transaction and issuance of questioned cheque by the accused.
38. On going through the Ex.D1 the document private complaint filed by the complainant's father by name M.Kumar against the accused, wherein, alleged sum of Rs.3 lakhs were paid by him to the accused during 1st week of August, 2017. Which is later to the alleged loan lent by the complainant to the accused during last week of July, 2017. If at all, the complainant lent loan of Rs.3 lakhs, once again was it necessary to pay loan of Rs.3 lakhs to the accused by the father of the complainant itself created doubt and as to borrowal of loan of Rs.3 lakhs each from the complainant and her father is not been explained by the complainant. It is pertinent to note that, as per Ex.D4 by passing judgment, the said case filed by the father of complainant, against the accused came to be acquittal. Though, it may be the different bank of cheque, is it possible to believe, when loan obtained by the accused from the complainant itself is not paid, was it possible to pay loan 2nd time to the accused by the father as found in Ex.D1 to D4 also created doubt, as to the contention of the complainant.
39. On going through the Ex.D2, it also reveal, the complainant had filed cheque bounce case against Smt.Radha. Wherein, it Judgment 31 C.C.No.2099/2018 also mentioned, she gave Rs.6 lakhs to Radha and her husband on 05.05.2016. When she gave loan of Rs.6 lakhs to Smt.Radha on 05.05.2016, was it believable to save and keep money with the complainant of Rs.3 lakhs during last week of July, 2017 itself created doubt. If at all, she lent loan to Smt.Radha on 05.05.2016 for the tune of Rs.6 lakhs, remaining amount of Rs.3 lakhs, how she gathered as alleged in the complaint is also not been explained. Therefore, the factum of production of documents at Exs.D1 to D4, it revel that, when complainant already lent loan to Smt.Radha of Rs.6 lakhs, once again she kept Rs.3 lakhs as alleged in the complaint itself is very doubtful and remove the same, she not produced any documentary or oral evidence before this court.
40. The accused has specifically put forth his defence that, during 2016 he borrowed loan of Rs.20,000/- on the guarantee of 2 signed blank cheques and the said loan was repaid to the complainant, but she not returned those cheques and by misusing the same she and her father filed separate cases falsely. Accordingly, he able to disproved the case of father as per judgment at Ex.D4. Thereby, he able to establish that, one cheque obtained by the complainant got misused by her through her father. The very said father, as said PW.1, he accompanied Judgment 32 C.C.No.2099/2018 the complainant in the present case. If at all, he is not much interest, what was the necessity to him to accompanied the complainant in falsely up to matter is also one of the ground to suspect the claim of complainant.
41. On going through the Ex.P1 cheque, it reveals the signature and other writings and numerals are appears to be made in different hand writing and ink. The accused has contended, it was gave in blank. Then it is the complainant has to demonstrate, it was duly executed and issued by the accused. Mere issuing blank cheque in respect of earlier small amount transaction would not suffice to make believe the claim of complainant and authorized her to fill the cheque as per her wish. The hand writing and ink in the cheque, it shall prima-facie reveal, the accused has not executed. The accused is an educated person, definitely, if he gave the cheque directly asked him to fill the same, but not did so.
42. On appraisal of material evidence produced by the complainant and accused coupled with documentary evidence, the accused has successfully established his probable defence and disproved the case of complainant. The complainant has utterly failed to prove her financial capacity and alleged lent of Rs.3 lakhs to the accused. When she failed to prove the passing Judgment 33 C.C.No.2099/2018 of consideration as required under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, question of accused got issued the cheque at Ex.P1 for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt would not arise. Mere because of possessed the questioned cheque with signature, it does not mean that, it was issued by the accused for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt. The complainant and her father are very much interested to prosecute against the accused on account of factual of accused as per judgment at Ex.D4. It shows the interest extended by them, to proceed against the accused. Rather they have express their interest to prove their case by producing necessary oral as well as documentary evidence, they have through proceeded with the matter without any base. The complainant has utterly failed to prove her case beyond the reasonable doubt. The complainant and her father against accused and one Smt.Radha, filed cheque bounce cases one after another. Which reveal that, they are doing money lending business on obtaining security cheque. They are doing the alleged business without obtaining necessary licence; the very act of the complainant is to be deprecated.
43. In this case, the complainant has admitted that, the accused wife has run the business of Ori Flame in the cause title address. She also stated, the accused is residing in the house door No.10, Judgment 34 C.C.No.2099/2018 as deposed in her evidence. Though, she knew that, accused house is said door No.10, for the reasons better known to her, she not choosen to issued legal notice to his residential address, but for the reasons better known to her, she gave notice to the address of his wife. If at all, notice served to the address of the wife of accused, wherein, she do business, it can assume that, notice could have intimated to the accused. But Ex.P5 notice returned stating that, refused. When the notice was un-served, intimating to the accused does not arise. If at all, the claim of complainant was genuine, she should comply the mandatory requirement as per Section 138(a) to (c) of Negotiable Instruments Act. In that regard, in order to attract the compliance of Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, though she knew the residential address of the accused, she avoided to issue notice in the said address. Whatever the postal cover she produced at Ex.P5, it discloses, it is not the address of the accused, therefore, the shara made by the accused as refused, is not suffice to consider as deemed service. Thereby, the complainant has utterly failed to comply the mandatory provision under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act. As discussed above, the complainant has utterly failed to prove her Judgment 35 C.C.No.2099/2018 case, beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for acquittal.
44. On overall appreciation of the material facts available on record, it discloses that, despite the accused harping on the very claim of the complainant, he fails to demonstrate his very case. While appreciate the materials available on record, this court has humbly gone through the decision relied by both parties apart from the following decisions.
In the decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2331 (B.Indramma V/s. Sri.Eshwar). Wherein, the Hon'ble Court held that:
"Held, when the very factum of delivery of the cheque in question by the accused to the complainant and its receipt by complainant from the accused itself is seriously disputed by the accused, his admission in his evidence that, the cheque in question bares his signature would not be sufficient proof of the fact that, he delivered the said cheque to the complainant and the latter received if from the former".
45. The principle of law laid down in the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Merely because, the accused admits that, cheque bares his signature, that, does not mean that, the accused issued cheque in discharge of a legally payable debt.
Judgment 36 C.C.No.2099/2018 At this stage, this court also relies upon another decision reported in AIR 2007 NOC 2612 A.P. (G.Veeresham V/s. Shivashankar and another). Wherein, the Hon'ble Court has held as under:
"Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881). S. 138 Dishonour of cheque - Presumptions available to complainant under S. 118 and S. 139 of Act - Rebuttal of cheque in question was allegedly issued by accused to discharge hand loan taken from complainant. However, no material placed on record by complainant to prove alleged lending of hand loan said fact is sufficient to infer that, accused is liable to rebut presumptions available in favour of complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of Act, Order acquitting accused for offence under S. 138 proper".
46. The principle of law laid down in the above decisions is applicable to the facts of this case. In the case on hand also, as discussed above, the complainant has failed to prove with cogent evidence as to the lending of loan of Rs.3 lakhs to the accused. Thus, that fact itself is sufficient to infer that, accused is able to rebut presumptions available in favour of complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Judgment 37 C.C.No.2099/2018 In a decision reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3366 (M.S.Narayana Menon Alian Mani V/s. State of Kerala and another). The Hon'ble Apex court held that:
"Once the accused discharges the initial burden placed on him the burden of proof would revert back to the prosecution".
47. In this case on hand also, on the lack of the complaint failed to prove the alleged loan transaction, it can gather the probability that, he is not liable to pay Ex.P1 cheque amount of Rs.3 lakhs and it is not legally recoverable debt. So, the burden is on the complainant to prove strictly with cogent and believable evidence that, the accused has borrowed the cheque amount and he is legally liable to pay the same. Just because, there is a presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, that, will not create any special right to the complainant so as to initiate a proceeding against the drawer of the cheque, who is not at all liable to pay the cheque amount. The accused has taken his defence at the earliest point of time, while record accusation and statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by way of denial. The evidence placed on record clearly probablize that, complainant has failed to prove that, accused issued the cheque for discharge of liability of Rs.3 lakhs. Hence, complainant has failed to prove Judgment 38 C.C.No.2099/2018 the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Apart from that, in a decision reported in, KCCR 12 (3) page 2057, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"Mere issuance of cheque is not sufficient unless it is shown that, the said cheque was issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt. When the financial capacity of complainant is questioned, the complainant has to establish his financial capacity".
48. In the case on hand, accused has questioned the financial capacity of complainant. Complainant has not produced any document to show her financial capacity to lend an amount of Rs.3 lakhs to accused. When complainant has failed to prove the transaction alleged in the complaint, then the question of issuing the cheque for discharge of Rs.3 lakhs does not arise. The evidence placed on record clearly probablize that, complainant has failed to prove that, accused issued the cheque for discharge of liability of Rs.3 lakhs. Hence, complainant has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Judgment 39 C.C.No.2099/2018
49. From the above elaborate discussions, it very much clear that, the complainant has failed to adduce cogent and corroborative evidence to show that, accused has issued cheque Ex.P1 in discharge of his legally payable debt for valid consideration. Hence, rebutted the legal presumptions under Section 139 and 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the accused.
50. The sum and substances of principles laid down in the rulings referred above are that, once it is proved that, cheque pertaining to the account of the accused is dishonoured and the requirements envisaged under Section 138 of (a) to (c) of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied, then it has to be presumed that, cheque in question was issued in discharge of legally recoverable debt. The presumption envisaged under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is mandatory presumption and it has to be raised in every cheque bounce cases. Now, it is settled principles that, to rebut the presumption, accused has to set up a probable defence and he need not prove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
51. Thus, on appreciation of evidence on record, I hold that, the complainant has failed to prove the case by rebutting the presumption envisaged under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Judgment 40 C.C.No.2099/2018 Instruments Act. The complainant has failed to discharge the initial burden to prove her contention as alleged in the complaint. Hence, the complainant has not produced needed evidence to prove that, amount of Rs.3 lakhs legally recoverable debt. Therefore, since the complainant has failed to discharge the reverse burden, question of appreciating other things and weakness of the accused is not a ground to accept the claim of the complainant in its entirety without the support of the substantial documentary evidence pertaining to the said transaction. The complainant fails to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubt. As discussed above, the complainant has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answered the Point Nos.1 and 2 are Negative.
52. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
Judgment 41 C.C.No.2099/2018 (Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of July - 2020) (SHRIDHARA.M) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : Veena Ravikumar List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P1 : Original Cheque Ex.P1(a) : Signature of accused Ex.P2 : Bank endorsement Ex.P3 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P4 : Postal receipt Ex.P5 : Unserved R.P.A.D cover Ex.P5(a) : Legal notice at Ex.P5 Ex.P6 : Private complaint Ex.P6(a) : Signature of complainant
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
DW.1 : L.Prakash List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
Ex.D1 : CC of private complaint
Ex.D2 : CC of private complaint in C.C.No.702/18
Ex.D3 : CC of order sheet in C.C.No.702/18
Ex.D4 : CC of judgment in C.C.No.50984/18
Ex.D5 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card
Ex.D6 : Notarized copy of Driving Licence.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 42 C.C.No.2099/2018
07.07.2020.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment
Case called out.
Complainant and accused are absent.
No representation from both side advocates, despite, web-host the case proceedings and intimate the date of pronouncement of judgment. Hence, as per Section 353(6) of Cr.P.C. the following judgment is pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
***** ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.