Bangalore District Court
Sri.Honnappa vs K.P. Manjunath Nayaka on 5 June, 2018
1 C.C.27166/2016 J
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 5th day of June, 2018
Present:- Smt. Saraswathi.K.N, B.A.L., LL.M.,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.27166/2016
Complainant : Sri.Honnappa,
Aged about 64 years,
S/o. Late Venkategowda,
Residing at No. 72/1,
'Srinivasa Nilaya'
Canara Bank Road,
Konanakunte Cross,
Kanakapura Main Road,
Bengaluru - 560 062.
(Rep. by Sri. G.S. Nagaraj. Adv.,)
- Vs -
Accused : K.P. Manjunath Nayaka,
Aged about 33 years,
S/o.Kamanna,
Assistant Store Keeper,
Major Works Store KPTCL,
Vidyanagara,
B.H. Road,
Shivamoga - 577203.
(Rep. by Sri. S.D. Ramesh, Adv.,)
Case instituted : 28.11.2016
Offence : U/s 138 of N.I. Act
complained of
2 C.C.27166/2016 J
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is Convicted
Date of order : 5.6.2018
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that, the Accused and he are acquainted with each other and the former is a retired Class-I Mechanic in KPTCL, Rural Sub-Division, Baralaraj Urs Road, Shimoga. He retired on the 12th of May 2012. During his tenure, the Accused was working as Meter Reader in the office of the KPTCL, City Sub-Division, Shimoga. For more than 15 years, till his retirement, the Complainant was the President of the Employees Union of KPTCL, Rural Sub-Division, Shimoga. As the Accused had close acquaintance with him and as such he used to visit the former very often for his works.
3. The Complainant has further submitted that, he shifted to Bengaluru after his retirement and he is residing in the address shown in the complaint along with his family members.
4. The Complainant has further submitted that, the Accused approached him in Bengaluru in the residence of the 3 C.C.27166/2016 J former on 20.10.2016 and requested him to lend hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/= to meet his domestic expenses and as both of them were well acquainted with each other, he believed the Accused and paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/= to the Accused in the residence of the former. The Accused has acknowledged the receipt of the said amount on the same day and he has also issued a cheque bearing No.003807 dated 20.10.2016 for Rs.1,50,000/= drawn on the Syndicate Bank, Durgigudi Branch, Shimoga, duly signed by him in his favour, assuring that the same would be honored on its presentation on it's due date.
5. The Complainant has further submitted that, as per the instructions of the Accused, when he presented the said cheque for collection through his banker, the same came to be returned dishonored for the reason "Funds Insufficient" vide Bank Return Memo dated 25.10.2016.
6. The Complainant has further submitted that, thereafter left with no other alternative, he got issued a legal notice to the Accused on 31.10.2016 through RPAD calling upon him to pay the cheque amount to him within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said legal notice. Though after the receipt of the said legal notice which has been duly served upon him, the Accused has replied to the same, he has failed to comply with the demand made therein in the notice.
4 C.C.27166/2016 J
7. The Complainant submits that, the dishonour of the cheque by the Accused has been malafide, intentional and deliberate. Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of the Accused, he has filed the present complaint praying that he be summoned, tried and punished in accordance with Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
8. The Complainant has led his pre-summoning evidence on 6.12.2016 and he has filed his affidavit-in-lieu of his sworn statement, in which, he has reiterated the complaint averments.
9. In support of his oral evidence, C.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.C1 to C6 which are as follows:-
The cheque dated 20.10.2016 as per Ex.C1, the signature on the said cheque identified by C.W.1 as that of the Accused as per Ex.C1 (a), the Bank memo as per Ex.C2, the office copy of the legal notice as per Ex.C3, the Postal Receipt as per Ex.C4, the postal acknowledgement as per Ex.C-5 and the reply notice as per Ex.C-6.
10. Prima-facie case has been made out against the Accused and he has been summoned vide the order of the same date.
11. The Accused has appeared before the court on 3.5.2017. He has been enlarged on bail and the substance of 5 C.C.27166/2016 J the accusation has been read over to him, to which he has pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has defence to make.
12. As per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of the Indian Bank Association Vs., Union of India, reported in 2014 (5) SCC 590, after recording the plea of the Accused, as he intended to set out his defence, the case came to be posted for the cross-examination of the Complainant.
13. The statement of the Accused as required under Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C., has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence found against him and has chosen to lead his rebuttal evidence.
14. The Accused has led his rebuttal evidence by examining him as D.W.1 and he is examined on oath and during his evidence, it is his defence that the claim of the Complainant with regard to the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on 20.10.2016 is entirely false and likewise his claim that, the former has issued the subject cheque to him towards the repayment of the said loan is also false. According to the Accused, the Complainant has filed this false case against him by misusing the cheque in dispute.
15. In support of his oral evidence, the Accused has produced the attested copies of his Attendance Register for the month of October 2016 and November 2016 as per Ex.D.1 and D.2 respectively, to show that, he was on duty on 20.10.2016 6 C.C.27166/2016 J i.e., day on which the Complainant has claimed to have lent the loan to him.
16. However, it is pertinent to note that, D.W.1 has not tendered for his cross-examination and as such his evidence has been discarded by this court by order dated 20.3.2018 and thereafter the Accused has not taken any steps to seek for the recall of the said order and as such there is no rebuttal evidence before this court.
17. The learned counsel for the Complainant has addressed his arguments, during the course of which, he has prayed for the conviction of the Accused on the ground that, the acquaintance between the parties is admitted. It is also an admitted fact that, the Complainant retired from his service in the year 2012 and had received Rs.20,00,000/- as Retirement benefits. The Complainant has lent Rs.1,50,000/- to the Accused on 20.10.2016.
18. It is further argued that, the Complainant has fulfilled the ingredients of Sec.138 of the N.I. Act and though the Accused has raised his defence first in point of time, his evidence came to be discarded by this court and as such, there is no rebuttal evidence lead by him. Accordingly he has prayed for the conviction of the accused.
19. Per contra, the learned Defence Counsel has also addressed his arguments, during the course of which, he has 7 C.C.27166/2016 J prayed for the acquittal of the Accused on the ground that, the Complainant has claimed that, he has a monthly pension of Rs.31,000/- and he has admitted that, he has not filed his I.T. Returns after 2014.
20. It is also argued that, the Accused was working from 9.00 a.m. in Shimoga on 20.10.2016 i.e. the day on which the Complainant has claimed to have lent the loan to him and as such the entire transaction as claimed by the Complainant becomes highly doubtful.
21. It is further argued that, there is no proof to show the existence of the funds with the Complainant as on the day of the alleged loan transaction and the Complainant has admitted in his cross-examination with regard to the difference in the ink and the handwriting in respect of the cheque in dispute. The Complainant has also admitted that he was in contact with the Accused from 2012 to 2016 only through phone and as such the entire case of the Complainant is false and accordingly he has prayed for the acquittal of the Accused.
22. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
23. Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been enacted to lend credibility to the financial transactions.
The main ingredients of the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are:-
8 C.C.27166/2016 J
(i) Drawing up of a cheque by the Accused towards payment of an amount of money, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or any other liability;
(ii) Return of the cheque by the Bank as unpaid;
(iii) The drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money within 15 days of the receipt of the notice under the proviso (b) to Section 138.
The Explanation appended to the Section provides that, the "debt or other liability" for the purpose of this Section means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
24. Apart from this, Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lays down a presumption in favour of the holder of cheque in the following terms:-
"It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that:-
The holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec. 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability".
25. Also, Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act states, "Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-
(a) That every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was 9 C.C.27166/2016 J accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."
26. Thus, the Act clearly lays down presumptions in favour of the Complainant with regard to the issuance of the cheque by the Accused towards the discharge of his liability in favour of the Complainant.
27. Under the scheme of the Act, the onus is upon the Accused to rebut the presumptions in favour of the Complainant by raising a probable defence.
28. It is a well settled position of law that, the defence of the Accused, if in the nature of a mere denial of the case of the Complainant will not be sufficient to hold it as a probable defence. The bare denial of the passing of consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable must be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proof to the Complainant.
29. It is also a well settled position of law that, once the cheque is proved to be relating to the Account of the Accused and he accepts and admits the signature on the said cheque, then the initial presumption as contemplated under Sec. 139 of the N.I.Act has to be raised by the courts in favour of the Complainant. The presumption referred to in Sec.139 of the N.I.Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general 10 C.C.27166/2016 J presumption, but the Accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption. What is required to be established by the Accused in order to rebut the presumption is different from each case under given circumstance. But the fact remains that a mere plausible explanation is not expected from the Accused and it must be more than a plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. The defence raised by the Accused by way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and capable of being accepted by the court.
30. No doubt the initial mandatory statutory presumptions under Sec.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act are in favour of the Complainant. However they are rebuttable presumptions and the Accused is expected to rebut the presumptions by raising a probable defence.
31. Such being the legal position, it would be pertinent to refer to the defences raised by the Accused to rebut the presumptions in favour of the Complainant in this case.
32. Admittedly there is no dispute between the parties with regard to their acquaintance with each other as well as with regard to the fact that, the cheque in dispute belongs to the Accused with his signature of it and that he has issued the same in favour of the Complainant. However, there is a serious dispute with regard to the alleged loan transaction of Rs.1,50,000/- on 20.10.2016 as claimed by the Complainant in this case.
11 C.C.27166/2016 J
33. It is pertinent to note that, the Accused has raised his defence at the earliest point of time by causing a reply notice as per Ex.C.6, in which he has come up with a specific defence that the claim of the Complainant with regard to the alleged loan transaction of Rs.1,50,000/- on 20.10.2016 is false and that he has allegedly issued the cheque in dispute in favour of the Complainant towards the discharge of his legally payable debt is also false.
34. It is the specific defence of the Accused that, during the month of December 2011, as his father was suffering from illness, he was in urgent need of money and for the same purpose, he had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of cash as hand loan from him and that at the time of borrowing the said loan, he had given a signed blank cheque to the Complainant as a security for the said loan. At that time, he had never agreed to pay any interest on the said loan. However, as per the direction of the Complainant, he started to return the said loan amount in monthly installments at the rate of Rs.2,000/- each commencing from January 2012 and the Complainant had collected such amount from him for a period of 1 year and thereafter the Complainant shifted to Kanakapura in Bengaluru with an instruction to pay the remaining installments to one Sri.Nagashekara towards the chit amount. Accordingly he paid Rs.2,000/- every month for 13 months in the hands of the said Nagashekara and when he demanded for the return of the blank cheque, the Complainant 12 C.C.27166/2016 J did not return the same and instead demanded for a further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards interest. Therefore having no other alternative, though he did not agree to the same, he continued to pay Rs.2,000/- for 10 months to the hands of the said Nagashekara and thereafter when he requested the Complainant to return his bounced cheque, he was told that the same was misplaced and that it would be returned to him in future. Believing the words of the Complainant, he kept quite and thereafter he came to know that, the cheque in dispute has been misused by the Complainant by filing this false case against him. Accordingly, it is his defence that, except the said loan of Rs.50,000/-, he has not availed any other loan from the Complainant.
35. In the light of this specific defence, raised by the Accused in his Reply Notice at Ex.C.6, when the evidence of the Complainant is carefully appreciated by this court, it goes to show that, while cross-examining the Complainant, the Accused has miserably failed to put forth the same defence as per the contents of his reply notice.
36. It could be seen that during the cross-examination of the Complainant, the Accused has come up with a new defence that, the Complainant had lent Rs.2,00,000/- to one Shelli Mathew with the guarantee of the former (Accused) and that the latter (Complainant) was collecting 4% interest on the said loan from her every month and that the said Shelli Mathew had even complained to the higher authorities of the Complainant 13 C.C.27166/2016 J that he was discharging the exorbitant rate of interest from her and therefore he had attempted to recover the loan amount from the former (Accused) and that in this regard, the former (Accused) had also complained to the higher authorities of the Complainant alleging that, the latter was harassing him though he had not received any amount from him.
37. It is interesting to note that, if this defence version of the Accused was really true, then nothing prevented him from putting forth the same defence even in his Reply Notice at Ex.C.6. as there is a failure on the part of the Accused to plead this defence in his Reply Notice, which is admittedly his defence at the earliest point of time and as such a serious doubt is created about the defence version of the Accused.
38. It is further pertinent to note that, though during the course of his arguments, the learned Defence Counsel has argued that, the Complainant has no financial capacity to lend the loan to the Accused as claimed by the former, interestingly by suggesting to him that, he had lent Rs.2 Lakhs to Shelli Mathew, indirectly he has admitted the claim of the Complainant that, he had the financial capacity to lend the loan to the Accused.
39. Moreover when the Accused has not denied the claim of the Complainant that both of them were closely acquainted to each other both during the service of the latter as well as his post-retirement and he has not also not denied the claim of the 14 C.C.27166/2016 J Complainant that he used to visit his house in Bengaluru, then it cannot be doubted that the Complainant could have lent Rs.1,50,000/=, when he had lent Rs.2 Lakhs to one Shelli Mathew as per the own defence of the Accused.
40. It is further pertinent to note that, though the financial capacity of the Complainant as well as the details regarding the transaction in question is disputed by the Accused by cross-examining the Complainant, it could be seen that, nothing is elicited from the former (Complainant) in his cross-examination so as to disbelieve his claim.
41. Moreover when the Complainant has claimed that, he had received Rs.35 Lakhs towards the compensation amount in respect of his land which was acquired and that he had also received his retirement benefits, there is no further suggestion put to him thereby denying the said source of such funds with him.
42. Therefore it could be seen that, there is no denial of the claim made by the Complainant both in his complaint as well as in his affidavit that, he had received the retirement benefits and the compensation amount and as such he had the requisite source of funds, so as to lend the loan to the Accused.
43. Further it could be seen that, no where in the cross- examination of the Complainant, his financial capacity and his source of funds as claimed by him has been denied by the 15 C.C.27166/2016 J Accused. In such circumstances it cannot be doubted that the Complainant who retired from the KPTCL in the year 2012 and had received Rs.20 Lakhs at the time of his retirement in the year 2012 and also the compensation amount of Rs.35 Lakhs from the government towards the compensation for the acquisition of land, he could have possessed the capacity to lend a loan to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- so as to lend the same to the Accused. Therefore defence of the Accused with regard to the financial capacity of the Complainant in having lent Rs.1,50,000/- to him cannot be considered to be a valid defence.
44. Now coming to the defence of the Accused as spelled out by him in his reply notice at Ex.C.6 to the effect that he had availed loan of Rs.50,000/- from the Complainant in the month of December 2011 and that he had repaid the said hand loan along with interest of Rs.20,000/- by way of paying nearly Rs.40,000/- not directly to the Complainant, but to one Sri. Nagashekara, the onus of the proving the said defence was on him.
45. For this purpose, the Accused could have made an attempt to examine the said Nagashekara as a witness on his behalf. However, for the reasons best known to him, the Accused has neither reiterated the same defence either in the cross-examination of the Complainant or in his chief evidence nor did he made an attempt to examine the said person as a witness before this court. Therefore non-examination of the 16 C.C.27166/2016 J witness by name Nagashekara by the Accused is a serious lapse in the defence of the Accused.
46. Even otherwise, if the defence of the Accused as spelled out by him in his Reply Notice at Ex.C.6 is assumed to be true, then according to him, the alleged loan of Rs.20,000/- is said to be have been repaid by him during the year 2012 itself, in such circumstance, then nothing prevented the Accused from taking any appropriate legal action against the Complainant for the alleged non-return of his security cheque for the loan of Rs.50,000/- or to have issued stop payment instructions to his banker with regard to the cheque in dispute.
47. Interestingly the Accused has not whispered a word, as to why, he has not chosen to take any of such action against the Complainant, though, he claims to have discharged his entire liability of Rs.50,000/- and in addition to it, the interest amount of Rs.20,000/-. There is absolutely no explanation forthcoming from the Accused in this regard.
48. Therefore the conduct of the Accused in having remained silent since 2012 till date, despite having the knowledge of the fact that, his signed cheque was allegedly in the custody of the complainant since then till date. Therefore the conduct of the inaction on the part of the Accused which is not that of a person or ordinary prudence leads to an adverse inference against him.
17 C.C.27166/2016 J
49. Now coming to the crucial defence of the Accused which is suggested to the Complainant with regard to the date of his alleged approach seeking for a financial assistance of Rs.1.5 Lakhs from the Complainant as well as the date of the alleged lending of the said loan amount by him to the Accused.
50. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, as per the complaint averments as well as what is stated by the Complainant in his affidavit, the Accused is said to have approached him in his residence at Bengaluru on 20.10.2016 and requested to lend him a hand loan of Rs.1.5 Lakhs to meet his domestic expenses and on the same day, the former is alleged to have lent the said loan of Rs.1.5 Lakhs to him by way of cash and that, on the same day, the Accused is said to have issued the cheque in dispute to him with the date 20.10.2016.
51. It is pertinent to note that, during his cross- examination, the Complainant has claimed that, the Accused had approached him seeking loan about 4 to 5 days prior to 20.10.2016 and that on that day i.e. on 20.10.2016, the Accused had come to his house at about 8.30 am 9.00 a m and at that time, he had the amount with him in his house and that, on the same day he advanced the said loan to the Accused.
52. It could be seen that the Complainant has denied the suggestion that, on 20.10.2016, the Accused was on his duty in Shimoga and that he had not at all come to his house in 18 C.C.27166/2016 J Bengaluru as claimed by him and that he had neither sought for any loan from him nor had he lent any such loan to him.
53. However it is pertinent to note that, it is not in dispute between the parties that, as on 20.10.2016, the Accused was working in the designation of a Meter Reader in the office of the KPTCL, City Sub-Division, Shimoga. However, when the Accused has come up with a defence that, on 20.10.2016 he was on duty in Shimoga, no doubt, the burden of proving the same is upon him.
54. To discharge the said burden, the Accused has produced the attested copies of his Attendance Register Extracts pertaining to the month of October 2016 and November 2016 as per Ex. D1 and D.2 respectively. By relying upon the said documentary evidence, it is his defence that, on 20.10.2016, he was very much present to his duty in Shimoga and the signature said to have been made by him in Ex.D.1 evidences the said fact.
55. No doubt the document at Ex.D1 in respect of the attendance of the Accused on 20.10.2016 shows the small signature. However, it is pertinent to note that, there are similar signatures found in the last column of the same page, in respect of which, there is no explanation given by the Accused.
19 C.C.27166/2016 J
56. Even otherwise, when the Complainant has denied that, on 20.10.2016, the Accused had attended his duty in Shimoga, whereas the Accused has claimed contrary to the same by producing the documentary evidence as per Ex.D.1 and D.2, the onus of proving the said documents as per law is upon the Accused.
57. However it is pertinent to note that, though the Accused has produced the said documents in his chief evidence, by not tendering for his cross-examination, no evidentiary value could be attached to the said documents, since the evidence of the Accused has been discarded by this court and for the reasons best known to him, he has failed to take any further steps seeking the recall of the said order.
58. Moreover, even if it is assumed for a moment that, as per Ex.D1, the Accused had attended to his duty in Shimoga on 20.10.2016, when the said document has not been proved by him as per law, nothing prevented the Accused from examining the either the author or the custodian of the said document or at least any of the concerned authorities to show a sot prove that the said document is a genuine one and that, as per the records found in their office, the Accused had in fact attended to his duty on that day.
59. However, it could be seen that, except having produced the documents at Ex.D1 and D2 which also have not 20 C.C.27166/2016 J been proved as per law, the Accused has given an opportunity to this court to doubt the veracity of his defence version.
60. Moreover even if this court were to consider the documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 in support of the defence of the Accused, admittedly there is no mention of the working hours in the said document and in such circumstance, considering the nature of the work of the Accused as a Meter Reader in the KPTCL, it cannot be ruled out that he would not have a fixed office hours, unlike the other staff working in the KPTCL.
61. Therefore the possibility of he having traveled to Shimoga from Bengaluru after receiving the loan amount from the Complainant on 20.10.2016 at about 8.30 a m to 9.00 a m cannot be ruled out, since the traveling time from Bengaluru to Shimoga depends upon the nature of the transport opted by the commuters. Therefore the Accused had every opportunity to examine the concerned authorities of KPTCL, who has certified document at Ex.D.1, so as to corroborate his claim that, he was on duty on 20.10.2016 and that he was not outside Shimoga on that particular day, which he has failed to do in this case.
62. It could be seen that, though the Accused has also produced his Attendance Register extract as per Ex.D.2 for the month of November 2016, the said document is in no way related to his defence in this case, since no where in his 21 C.C.27166/2016 J defence, he has spoken about any of the events concerning the transaction in question in the month of November 2016.
63. Therefore, it could be seen that, even in the absence of the rebuttal evidence led by the Accused, if his defence in the cross-examination of the Complainant was probable enough, he could have succeeded. But for the reasons best known to him, he has utterly failed to come up with consistent defences, which is capable of probabalizing his defence version and on the contrary, by having come up with total inconsistent and contrary defences, he has miserably failed to establish his defence before this court on the contrary the Complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the presumptions available under Sec.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER By exercising the power-conferred u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby convicted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand only).
If the fine amount is so realized, a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand only) as compensation and to the Complainant and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) shall be adjusted towards the cost to the State Exchequer.
In default of payment of such compensation, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (Six) Months.
22 C.C.27166/2016 J His bail bond stands discharged.
Issue free copy of the Judgment to the Accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Typist online, print out taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of June, 2018).
(SARASWATHI.K.N), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant:-
P.W.1 : Sri.Honnappa;
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.C-1 : Original Cheque; Ex.C-1(a) : Signature of the Accused; Ex.C-2 : Bank Memo; Ex.C-3 : Office copy of Legal Notice; Ex.C-4 : Postal Receipt; Ex.C-5 : Postal Acknowledgment; Ex.C-6 : Reply Notice.
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused:-
DW-1 : Sri. Manjunath Nayaka (Discarded)
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-
Ex.D-1 & D-2. : The attested copies of the Attendance Register.
23 C.C.27166/2016 J (SARASWATHI.K.N), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
24 C.C.27166/2016 J 1.6.2018 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER By exercising the power-conferred u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby convicted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
He is held liable to pay a fine of Rs.3,25,000/= (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand Only).
If the fine amount is so
realized, Rs.3,15,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs and
Fifteen Thousand Only) is
ordered to be paid to the
Complainant as
Compensation and the
balance of Rs.10,000/=
(Rupees Ten Thousand only)
is ordered to be adjusted
towards cost to the State
Exchequer.
In default of payment of
such compensation, he shall
undergo Simple Imprisonment
for 6 (Six) Months.
His bail bond stands
discharged.
Issue free copy of the
Judgment to the Accused
forthwith.
25 C.C.27166/2016 J
XVI ACMM, B'luru.