Bangalore District Court
Aryadurga Damodhar Enterprises vs Satish Stores on 17 January, 2024
KABC020056762021
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY.
SCCH-6
Present: Smt. Chetana S.F.
B.A., L.L.B.,
IV ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
CC. No. 1479/2021
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY 2024
COMPLAINANT 1. Aryadurga Damodhar
Enterprises
having its office at No.49/11,
3rd cross, 15th main, 4th block,
Nandini layout,
Bangalore-560096
Represented by its proprietor
2. Vathsala Bhat
W/o B.Venkatramana Hegde
Aged about 50 years
Proprietor of
Aryadurga Damodhar
Enterprises
R/at No.02, Gurukrupa AGB
layout, II stage, I floor,
Mahalakshmipuram
Bangalore-560086.
(By Sri.Yogesh H. Advocate)
Vs-
ACCUSED 1. Satish Stores
Rep by its proprietorship
JUDGMENT 2 CC No1479/2021
SCCH-6
Sri.C.Vijaykumar
S/o Chandrahasa
Aged about 55 years
running business at
No.26, New No.2
Ground floor, DVG road
Gandhi Bazar
Bangalore-560 004.
2. Sri.C.Vijaykumar
S/o Chandrahasa
Aged about 55 years
proprietorship Satish Stores
R/at No.103/21
TataSilk Farm,5th floor
3rd main, Guhan Nilaya
Basavanagudi
Bangalore-560 004.
(Sri.Aswath U-Advocate)
(Sri.Madesh N.- Advocate)
-: J U D G M E N T :-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec. 200 of
Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act as
against the accused praying to punish the accused for the said
offence.
2. The case of the complainant is that complainant
supplied goods to the accused on different dates under invoice
JUDGMENT 3 CC No1479/2021
SCCH-6
No.3564 dt.7-11-2019 for a sum of Rs.67,412/-, under invoice
No.3644 dt.19-12-2019 for Rs.92,924/- under invoice No.3691
dt.7-2-2020 for a sum of Rs.1,00,590/- and under invoice
No.3694 dt.7-2-2020 for a sum of Rs.92,344/- i.e., totally for a
sum fo Rs.3,53,270/-. It is further stated that the amount of
Rs.3,53,270/- was due and liable to be paid by the accused to
the complainant for supply of goods, after persistent demand of
the complainant, the accused got issued seven post dated
cheques. It is stated that the balance amount payable by
accused was Rs.3,10,346/-. After continues demand of
complainant for balance amount, accused issued six cheques
i.e., (i) cheque bearing reg.No.000960 for Rs.67,412/- dated 27-
3-2020,(ii) cheque bearing reg.No.001051 for Rs.50,000/- dated
8-5-2020,(iii) cheque bearing reg.No.001052 for Rs.50,000/-
dated 8-5-2020,all three cheques drawn on Bank of Baroda,
Srinivasnagar branch, Bangalore and (iv) cheque bearing
reg.No.002588 for Rs.50,590/- dated 10-5-2020, (v) cheque
bearing reg.No.002589 for Rs.42,344/- dated 15-5-2020 and (vi)
JUDGMENT 4 CC No1479/2021
SCCH-6
cheque bearing reg.No.002509 for Rs.50,000/- dated 19-5-
2020, all three cheques drawn on HDFC bank, Basavanagudi
branch, Bangalore totally for Rs.3,10,346/-. The complainant
presented the said cheques to the bank for encashment, but the
said cheques dishonoured for the reason Funds Insufficient and
payment stopped by drawer. The complainant issued legal
notice on 25-06-2020 to the accused to repay the amount
within 15 days and the said notice was served on the accused
on 26-6-2020. The accused has neither replied to the notice
nor paid the amount to the complainant. Accordingly, the
accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of
N.I Act. Hence, this complaint.
3. After recording the sworn statement of the
complainant and also verifying the documents, cognizance was
taken against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.
138 of N.I. Act. The accused on receiving the summons
appeared before this Court through his counsel and he was
enlarged on bail and her plea was recorded. The accused
JUDGMENT 5 CC No1479/2021
SCCH-6
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was
posted for evidence of the complainant.
4. The complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to 29. Then, the case was
posted for recording the statement of accused under
Sec.313 Cr.P.C. In the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the ac-
cused has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing
against him & intended to lead defence evidence but has not
lead any defence.
5. Heard the arguments of both side and Perused the
records.
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the complainant proves that the (i) cheque bearing reg.No.000960 for Rs.67,412/- dated 27-3-2020,
(ii) cheque bearing reg.No.001051 for Rs.50,000/- dated 8-5-2020,(iii) cheque bearing reg.No.001052 for Rs.50,000/- dated 8-5-2020,all three cheques drawn on Bank of Baroda, Srinivasnagar branch, Bangalore and (iv) cheque bearing reg.No.002588 for Rs.50,590/- dated 10- 5-2020, (v) cheque bearing reg.No.002589 for Rs.42,344/-
JUDGMENT 6 CC No1479/2021
SCCH-6
dated 15-5-2020 and (vi) cheque bearing reg.No.002509 for Rs.50,000/- dated 19-5-2020, all three cheques drawn on HDFC bank, Basavanagudi branch, Bangalore totally for Rs.3,10,346/- issued by the accused has been dishonored on the ground of "Funds Insufficient" and "Payment stopped by drawer" and even after receiving the intimation regarding the dishonor of cheque failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
-: R E A S O N S :-
8. Point No.1:- In view of the present legal position as held by our Hon'ble High Court as well as Apex Court of India in a catena of decisions as well as relevant provisions of the Act, this court has to see whether the complainant has complied all the requirements as contained in Sec.138 of NI Act so as to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence. If so, JUDGMENT 7 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 whether the accused is able to rebut the legal presumption available to the complainant under Sec.139 of the Act by adducing probable defense or not. However, it is held by the full bench of our Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2010 (1) DCR 706 that;
"The Statutory presumption mandated by sec.139 of the Act, does indeed include the ex- istence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. However, the presumption U/S 139 of the Act is in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open for the accused to raise a de- fence wherein the existence of a legally enforce- able debt or liability can be contested".
9. Therefore, in view of the above decision, once the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption would automatically fall in favour of the complainant that, the alleged cheque was is- sued for discharge of an existing legally enforceable debt or lia- bility against the accused and the burden will shift on to the ac- cused to rebut the same.
10. The Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that accused has admitted the transaction and issuance of the JUDGMENT 8 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 cheque Ex-P1 and the signature on it. Hence pray to convict the accused.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION-
11. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfill all the essential ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision reveals the following necessary ingredients of the offence:-
First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity;
Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability; Third Ingredient: The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque JUDGMENT 9 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE-
12. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled. Notably, there is no dispute at bar about the proof of only first, third, fourth and fifth ingredient. The complainant had proved the original cheques vide Ex.P.2 to Ex.P7 which the JUDGMENT 10 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 accused person had not disputed as being drawn on the account of the accused. It was not disputed that the cheque in question was presented within its validity period. The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memo dated 25-10- 2017 vide Ex.P.8 to 13 due to the reason, "Funds Insufficient"
and "Payment stopped by drawer". The complainant had proved the service of legal notice dated 25-6-2020 vide Ex.P14 by bringing on record the postal receipt vide Ex.P15 and 16 and postal acknowledgment at Ex-P17 and 18. However, the accused persons had no where denied the receipt of the legal notice, thus, there is no dispute with regard to the fifth ingredient to the offence. As such, the first, third, fourth and fifth ingredient of the offence under section 138 of the NI Act stands proved.
13. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned, the complainant has to prove that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debtor any liability. In the present case, the issuance of the cheque in JUDGMENT 11 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 question is not denied. As per the scheme of the NI Act, once the accused admits signature on the cheque in question, certain presumption are drawn, which result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Another presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of NI Act. The provision lays down the presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
14. The combined effect of these two provisions is a presumption that the cheque is drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections use the expression "shall", which makes it imperative for the court to raise the presumptions once the foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16.
JUDGMENT 12 CC No1479/2021
SCCH-6
15. Further, it has been held by a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri.Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act includes the presumption of existence of a legally enforceable debt. Once the presumption is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the same by establishing a probable defence. The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of proof were recently summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 as under:
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Section 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in the following manner:
25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the JUDGMENT 13 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 accused to raise probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence.
Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
25.4. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence. Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence."
16. The presumptions raised under Section 118(b) and Section 139 NI Act are rebuttable presumptions. A reverse onus is cast on the accused, who has to establish a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities to prove that JUDGMENT 14 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 either there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability. In this case, the arguments raised by the Ld.Counsel for the accused to rebut the presumption are discussed below:
17. The accused has taken the specific defence that PW-1 who is the husband and GPA holder of the complainant do not have any personal knowledge with regard to the present transaction and as such the evidence of the PW-1 cannot be considered and believed. In this regard PW-1 was cross examined at length and it was suggested to the PW-1 that PW-1 was not having the personal knowledge with regard to the present transaction and the same has not been mentioned in the GPA which has been out rightly denied by the PW-1.
18. In support of his contention, learned counsel for he accused relied on the rulings reported in AIR 2014 SC630 :
2014 CriLJ 576 : 2014 (11) SCC 790], Narayanan A.C. & anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,3 wherein Honourable Apex Court considered filing of a complaint by the power of attorney and the nature of evidence of the JUDGMENT 15 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 power of attorney required to prove the transaction. In the said case, the Apex Court settled the following principles:
"(i) Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of NI Act through power of attorney is perfectly le-
gal and competent.
(ii) The Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint. However,the power of at- torney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transac- tions.
(iii) It is required by the complainant to make spe- cific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicityly in the complaint and the power of attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transactions cannot be examined as a witness in the case.
JUDGMENT 16 CC No1479/2021
SCCH-6
(iv) In the light of Section 145 of NI Act, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant of his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Sec- tion 138 of the NI Act.
(v) The functions under the general power of attor- ney cannot be delegated to another person without specific clause permitting the same in the power of attorney. Nevertheless, the general power of attor- ney itself can be canceled and be given to another person."
Thus the law is settled on the point that a complaint alleg- ing commission of offence under Section 138 of the Nego-
JUDGMENT 17 CC No1479/2021
SCCH-6
tiable Instruments Act can be presented through the power of attorney holder and the power of attorney holder can de- pose and verify on oath before the court in order to prove the contents of the complaint. However, the power of attor- ney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee or holder in due course or possess due knowl- edge regarding the said transaction.
19. In this regard, in the light of the above arguments on perusal of the Ex-P1 SPA given by the Vatsala Bhat i.e., proprietor of the Aryadurga Damodar Enterprises to PW-1 Venkataramanna Hegde in para No.6 it has been clearly stated by complainant that -I hereby constitute and appoint the above named B.Venkatramana Hegde, who is my husband and also he is the person who looks after all the day to day affairs of the proprietorship, Aryadurga Damodhar Enterprises, hence he is proper person to conduct the above case, on my behalf, as my lawful attorney to do all or any of the following Acts, Deeds things in respect of above mentioned PCR filed by me, viz., JUDGMENT 18 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6
20. Thus when PW-1 was looking after all the day to day affairs of the proprietorship concern certainly he was having personal knowledge about the present transaction also therefore PW1 the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant can certainly depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint . In view of the above discussion, the defence taken by the accused is not tenable.
21. Further counsel for the accused argued that complainant has not mentioned in her complaint that PW-1 was looking after the affairs of the proprietorship and he was having the personal knowledge of the present transaction. But in the present case the complaint has been lodged by the complainant herself and it was only at the later stage she has given the SPA to the PW-1. As such non-mentioning of the above fact is not material and fatal to the case of the prosecution.
22. Further accused has taken the contention that complainant has not produced any document to show that she is the proprietor of the said firm and there is no seal of the JUDGMENT 19 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 proprietorship concern in the complaint and in the Ex-P1. But in this regard on perusal of the documents, Ex-P2 to 7 cheques the cheques has been issued in favour of the Arya Durga Damodar enterprises and the complainant having possession of the above said cheques has presented the cheque for encashment before the bank and has filed the complaint as a proprietor of the said Arya Durga Damodar Enterprises. Further Ex-P19 to 22 the invoice bills of the Arya Durga Enterprises has been produced by the complainant and Ex-P24 GST user dashboard shows that Vatsala Bhat is the proprietor of the Arya Durga Damodar Enterprises. As such the defence taken by the accused does not holds any water.
23. 2ND DEFENCE:-
INVOICE BILLS PRODUCED ARE NOT PROPER AND AUTHENTICATED Complainant in support of her contention and to prove the transaction has got marked the invoice bills Ex-P19 to Ex-P22 amounting to Rs.3,53,270/-. But the accused has JUDGMENT 20 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 taken the contention that as per Ex-P19 to 22 accused has not received any goods on the said dates and complainant has not supplied the goods to the accused personally and has not obtained signatures of the accused to the Ex-P19 to 22 to prove that the goods were supplied to the accused. In this regard, PW-1 has clearly stated that as per the say of he accused himself the goods were supplied to the godown of the accused and as accused was not present at the godown the signature of the person who was incharge of the godown was taken to the Ex-P19 to 22. In this regard on perusal of Ex-P19 to 22 the invoice numbers mentioned in Ex-P19 to 22 tallies with the invoice number mentioned in the complaint and also the amount mentioned in Ex-P19 to 22 tallies with the amount mentioned in the complaint. Further Ex-P19 to 22 bears the seal of he accused stores as Satish Stores (godown). Even the seal bears the place as godown. Further even the said seal bears the date and the time and also the weight and the item delivered and also it bears the signature of the person who JUDGMENT 21 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 received the goods. Though accused has denied that he has not personally received the goods and complainant has not personally delivered the goods to him but in a normal course of all the business transactions there is no rule that the owner or the proprietor of the concern has to personally deliver the goods to the person who ordered the goods personally, it is sufficient that the goods were delivered to their godowns or the place of their request and has obtained the signature of the person incharge of the godown or the place for receiving the goods. It is also sufficient that any person incharge of the delivering of the goods have supplied the goods. In the normal course of business rules and conduct, the proprietor of the concern will not personally go and deliver to all its customers. Similarly the person or the owner of the store who has placed the purchase order will not personally receive the goods. As Ex-P19 to 22 invoices bears the seal and signatures of the Satish Stores godown and the time, place and also weight of the items delivered, it can be readily inferred that in the normal JUDGMENT 22 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 course of the business transactions the goods mentioned in Ex- P19 to 22 has been delivered to the accused stores.
24. Further later on complainant has produced copy of GST, processed records on invoice for the year 2018 to 2019 as per Ex-P24. On perusal of which it is reveals that the invoice numbers of Ex-P19 to 22 has been reflected in the Ex-P24 and all other particulars with regard to the amount, description of items delivered date and time tallies with the Ex-P19 to 22. Though accused counsel denied the above said document on the ground that auditor has not been examined but Ex-P24 is the copy taken from the GST-user dash board from the GST government website and it bears the seal of income tax solutions auditors and the seal. As such the same can be considered and relied o in corroboration with other documents . Mere denying the document is not sufficient to disprove the same. In view of above all discussions, complainant has clearly established that complainant concern has supplied the goods as per Ex-P19 to 22 and Ex-P24 to the accused stores.
JUDGMENT 23 CC No1479/2021
SCCH-6
25. Further accused has taken the defence that
complainant has not produced the income tax returns to show that he has mentioned the said liability in the income tax returns. Admittedly though earlier, PW-1 has not produced income tax returns but later on PW-1 has produced his income tax returns for the year 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 as per Ex-P25 to 28 and also has produced 65B certificate as per Ex-P23. On perusal of which, it reveals that complainant in Ex-P25 to 28 has mentioned about the debt of Rs.3,10,346/- from Satish stores under Schedule- F sundry debtors in all the above said years of income tax returns i.e., Ex-P25 to 28.
26. In this regard, accused counsel argued that Ex-P25 to 28 cannot be believed as PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that the laptop belongs to his son and he was using the said laptop and his auditor has downloaded the information to his laptop and as such PW-1 is not the proper person to give the 65B certificate and as such complainant has JUDGMENT 24 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 not complied mandatory provisions in respect of the electronic evidence and as such those documents Ex-P25 to 28 cannot be believable.
27. In this regard, admittedly, PW-1 has clearly admitted that his son is using the laptop and the said laptop belongs to him. Therefore, it is clear that PW-1 has not complied with the mandatory provisions in respect of the proving of the electronic document. But however, on perusal of Ex-P25 to 28 documents those documents bears the seal and sign of the auditors who has issued the same and has been certified by the person who is the author of the document. As such those documents can certainly be relied on and taken into consideration.
28. 3rd DEFENCE- WITH REGARD TO THE PASSING OVER OF THE CHEQUE.
The accused has taken specific defence wih regard to the passing over of the cheque that Ex-P2 to 7 cheques were issued to the PW-1 as a security during his earlier transaction and the same were misused by him and filed this false complaint and JUDGMENT 25 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 complainant has created false invoices and there is no liability by the accused. In this regard on perusal of the whole cross examination except the said bare suggestion, has not stated any details of the dates and the particulars of the transaction as to when he has made transaction with the complainant and when he has issued the cheques to the complainant. Apart from this, by taking the said defence, accused has clearly admitted that there was transaction between him and the complainant Even accused has not adduced any defence evidence in support of his contention and has not produced any single document to show that in which year there was transaction between him and the complainant.
In this regard, As held by our Hon'ble High court in the case of Siddappa Vs. Smt. Chand bee Hyderabad Reported in 2014 Cr.R 646 (kant), " mere suggestion will not take place of proof even by means of preponderance of probabilities and something more is required to rebut the presumption ".
JUDGMENT 26 CC No1479/2021
SCCH-6
29. Apart from this, when accused was having
knowledge about the possession of his cheques with the complainant then, why accused being business man has not taken any steps or legal action against the complainant for misusing of the cheque and for return of his cheques. There is no explanation in this regard given by the accused. In this regard it is pertinent to note the principle held in Sri.Prakash @ Jnana Prakash v/s Miss T.S. Susheela reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4815 our Hon'ble High Court has held that - If the documents had been illegally obtained by the complainant, it is inexplicable that the petitioner did not choose to give a complaint to the police or to take other measures insofar as that conduct of the complainant is concerned and hence has disbelieved the evidence set forth -
Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Court to the present case on hand, the accused in this case also has not taken up any legal measures against complainant regarding possession of cheque. And even not given any stop payment JUDGMENT 27 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 intimaion to his bank .From this an inference can be drawn that no prudent man will keep himself silent without taking any steps to safeguard his interest when his document lies with the possession of other party.
30. Apart from this accused has not taken the said defence earlier by giving the reply to the notice at the earlier opportunity.
31. Further, the accused has not taken this defence at the earliest stage by issuing the reply notice or taken any criminal proceedings against the complainant. In the absence of any such recourse being adopted by the accused, it is highly impos- sible to believe his defence. The Hon'ble Apext Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan Reported in 2010 (1) DCR 706, wherein it was held as fallows:
"-Very fact that the accused had failed to reply to the statutory notice under Sec.138 of N.I.Act leads to inference that there was merit in the complainant's version".
32. In the present case also the accused inspite of the service of the notice has not replied to the notice and taken the JUDGMENT 28 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6 defence at the later stage only for the sake of the defence. That, being the true facts it can be held that, the accused has failed to establish his defence.
33. In view of all the above discussions, it can be concluded that the complainant has established through cogent and convincing evidence the fact of issuance of the cheque for discharge of legality enforceable debt, which is dishonored for want of sufficient funds, Issuance of legal notice within stipulated time, failure on the part of Accused to repay the amount within stipulated period. On the other hand, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant through probable evidences that would preponderate upon the evidence lead by the complainant. Therefore, the accused is held to have committed an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
34. POINT NO.2:- In view of my answer to point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
JUDGMENT 29 CC No1479/2021
SCCH-6
-: O R D E R :-
Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,15,346/- for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. The amount of Rs.3,10,346/- shall be paid to the complainant by way of compensation in accordance with Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C.
within three months from today.
The remaining amount of Rs.5,000/-
shall be confiscated to the state. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The bail and surety bond of the accused and surety shall stand canceled. Office to furnish the copy of this judgment, free of cost to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, after her typing, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the 17th day of January 2024).
(CHETANA S.F.)
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge &
ACMM, Court of Small Causes,
JUDGMENT 30 CC No1479/2021
SCCH-6
BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the Complainant:
P.W1 - B.Venkatramana Hegde For the accused:- NIL
List of documents marked for the Complainant:-
Ex.P1- SPA Ex.P2 to 7 - Cheques
Ex.P2(a) to 7(a) - Signature of the accused Ex.P8 to 13 - Bank endorsement Ex.P14- Legal notice Ex.P15 and 16- Two postal receipts Ex.P17 and 18 _ Two postal acknowledgments Ex.P19 to 22- Four invoices Ex.P23 65B certificate Ex.P24 GST processed records and invoices Ex.P25 to 27 IT returns Ex.P28 Income tax assessment computerized copy Ex.P29 Bank statement For the accused:-
NIL (CHETANA S.F.) IV Addl. Small Cause Judge & ACMM, Court of Small Causes, BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT 31 CC No1479/2021 SCCH-6