Bangalore District Court
Sri.S.V.Sridhar vs Sri.M.Murhty on 28 October, 2022
1
C.C.No.4742/2019
KABC030142752019
Presented on : 26-02-2019
Registered on : 26-02-2019
Decided on : 28-10-2022
Duration : 3 years, 8 months,
2 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated : This the 28th day of October 2022.
Present: Sri.N.M. RAMESHA, B'Com.,L.L.M.
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
Case No. C.C.No
: C.C.No.4742/2019
Complainant : Sri.S.V.Sridhar,
S/o.Late.Vedavyasachar,
Aged about 68 years,
R/at No.729/1, 5th Main Road,
8th Cross, Hanumanthanagar,
Bangalore-560 019.
(By Sri.Anantha.N., Adv,)
V/s
Accused : Sri.M.Murhty,
S/o.Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.2'A', 2nd Floor,
'Anugraha' 3rd Main,
13th Cross, Maramma Temple
Road, Vrushabhavathinagar,
2
C.C.No.4742/2019
Ganigarapalya, BSK 6th Stage,
Bangalore-560 109.
(By Sri.Janardhana.B, Adv.,)
Case instituted : 11.02.2019
Offence complained of : U/s 138 of N.I Act
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is Convicted
Date of order : 28-10-2022
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against the accused under the provisions of Sec.200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the Complainant is as under:-
The accused has issued a cheque bearing No.549899 dated 06.12.2018 for Rs.3 lakhs drawn on Andhra Bank, Raghavanahalli branch, Bengaluru to the complainant towards the repayment of borrowed loan amount. The accused has assured the complainant to honour the cheque whenever presented for encashment. The complainant has presented the cheque for encashment before his banker. But the said cheque was came to be dishonoured with an endorsement dated 11.12.2018 as "Contact Drawer". Therefore, the 3 C.C.No.4742/2019 complainant got issued a legal notice dated 26.12.2018 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of service of legal notice.
The said notice was returned with an endorsement as Party Address Left vide dated 31.12.2018. In spite of service of legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount and committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, this complaint.
3. After presentation of complaint, it was ordered to be registered as PCR No.2121/2019 vide order dated 15.02.2019.
4. The sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded and the documents were got marked as per Ex.P.1 to P.8.
5. My Learned Predecessor in office having heard the arguments of learned counsel for complainant and having satisfied with the complaint averments, sworn statement of the complainant and the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.8 and having satisfied with the prima facie materials placed on record has taken the cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act and the case was ordered to be registered as CC.No.4742/2019 and process were ordered to be issued agianst the accused vide order dated 22.02.2019.
4C.C.No.4742/2019
6. On service of summons, the accused has appeared before the court through his learned counsel and obtained the bail vide order dated 17.12.2019 by depositing a cash surety of Rs.3000/- vide Q.No.16644/2019 dated 17.12.2019. The copies of all the prosecution papers were supplied to the accused.
7. Plea of accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act has been recorded and the substance of accusation has been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. The accused has pleaded not guilty, but claims to be tried.
8. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got the documents marked as Ex.P.1 to P.8.
9. The statement of accused as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded and the incriminating evidence as such forthcoming against the accused in the evidence of complainant and documents has been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. But the accused has denied the evidence of complainant and documents and the accused did choose enter the defence evidence.
5C.C.No.4742/2019
10. In order to substantiate his defence, the accused got himself as DW-1. But, the accused did not choose to produce documentary evidence on his behalf.
11. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for both sides. The learned counsel for the accused has also filed notes of arguments. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
12. Now, the points that would arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.549899 dated 06.12.2018 for Rs.3 lakhs drawn on Andhra Bank, Raghavanahalli branch, Bengaluru in his vaour towards the repayment of loan amount of Rs.3 lakhs and on presentation for encashment, it was came to be dishonoured with an endorsement as "Contact Drawer" vide dated 11.12.2018 and in spite of issuance of legal notice dated 26.12.2018 and in spite of service of legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount and thereby committed offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What Order?6
C.C.No.4742/2019
13. On considering and assessing the oral and documentatry evidence placed on record, now my answers to the above points are as under :
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the following :-
REASONS
14. Point No.1 : The provisions of Sec.20 of Negotiable Instrument Act deals about Inchoate Stamped Instruments. As per this provisions of law, where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accorance with the law relating to negotiable instrements then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima-facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, or any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instruemnt, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount.
15. The provisions of Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act deals about presumptions as to 7 C.C.No.4742/2019 neogtiable instruments. As per this provisions of law, unit the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-(a) of consideration: that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transfered, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for considertaion: (b) as to date: that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date; (c) as to time of acceptance- that every accepted bill of exchange was accpted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity. (d) as to time of transfer-that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before the maturity; (e) as to order of indorsement; that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they apear thereon; (f) as to stamps-that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped and (g) that holder is a holder indue course- that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course.
16. The provisions of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act deals about dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc., of funds in the accounts. As per this provisions of law, where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for 8 C.C.No.4742/2019 payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or inpart, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall without prejudice to any other proviosn of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both.
17. As per the proviso attached to the above said provisions of law, nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing , to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid, and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make 9 C.C.No.4742/2019 the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
[ 18. The provisions of Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act deals about presumption in favour of holder. As per this provisions of law, it shall be presumed, unles the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability.
19. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued with force that the complainant has complied all the mandates of Section 138 of N.I.Act by adducing oral evidence of PW-1 and by producing documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.8 which clearly establishes that the accused has availed a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the complainant and issued a cheque on 6.12.2018 and on presentation of the cheque for encashment, it was came to be dishonoured as per endorsement vide Ex.P.2 and in spite of issuance of legal notice and service of legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount and therefore, the complainant has presented the 10 C.C.No.4742/2019 complaint before the court on 11.02.2019 which was well within time.
20. It is further contended that the accused has not disputed the issuance of cheque and signature on the cheque and therefore, the presumption is in favour of the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act. The accused has taken a defence that the complainant has obtained the cheque and other documents to get the loan sanctioned and thereafter, the complainant has misused the cheque and other documents, but the accused has failed to prove the defence and thereby failed to rebut the presumption and hence the accused is liable for conviction.
21. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused has vehemently contended that the complaint averments, notice and affidavit chief-examination of PW- 1 do not establish the date of loan and lending of loan to the accused and the complaint, notice and affidavit are vague in nature and not specific and the oral evidence of PW-1 and documents placed on record do not establish the compliance of Section 138 of N.I.Act and therefore, the presumption is not in favour of the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
11C.C.No.4742/2019
22. It is further contended that the alleged legal notice was issued on 26.12.2018, but the said notice was not served on the accused and it was returned as unserved as party address left. But the complainant has presented the complaint before the Court only on 11.12.2019 after lapse of 3 days from limitation period and the complainant neither filed any application for condonation of delay nor explained delay in lodging the complaint and thereby the complainant has failed to comply the mandates and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the accused is entitled to an order of acquittal.
23. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the accused has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in Crl. Appeal No.09/2020 in between Sri.Sumit Dev Vs.Sri.Joy Dev, wherein while dealing with the provisions of Section 142 (b) of N.I.Act, the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura has pleased to held that if a complaint is filed beyond the statutory period, as prescribed under Section 138 of N.I.Act, then, the complainant must satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within such prescribed period i.e., within one month of the date the cause of action arises under the proviso (c) of Section 138 of N.I.Act. On the 12 C.C.No.4742/2019 same principles, the learned counsel for the accused has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in application No.9588/2020 in between Pankaj Sharma Vs.State of Uttarpradesh and another dated 22.09.2020.
24. Now keeping the above said provisions of law, arguments canvassed by learned counsel for both the side and principles laid down in the above cited decisions in mind, let us consider as to whether the complainant could able to made out essential ingredients, mandates, terms and conditions of Section 138 of N.I.Act so as to raise the presumption in his favour as contemplated under the provisions of 118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
25. It is averred in the complaint and stated by PW-1 in his oral evidence that the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.549899 dated 06.12.2018 for Rs.3 lakhs drawn on Andhra Bank, Raghavanahalli branch, Bengaluru in his favour towards the repayment of borrowed loan amount and therefore, he has presented the cheque for encashment before his banker which was came to be dishonoured with an endorsement dated 11.12.2018 as "Contact Drawer" and therefore, he got issued a legal notice dated 26.12.2018 calling upon the 13 C.C.No.4742/2019 accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice and the said notice returned with an endorsement as Party Address Left on 31.12.2018, but in spite of service of legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount and therefore, he has presented the complaint before the Court on 11.02.2019.
26. The complainant has produced the cheque dated 06.12.2018, bank endorsement dated 11.12.2018, legal notice dated 26.12.2018, postal cover, postal receipt, postal acknowledgement and they are marked at Ex.P.1 to P.8.
27. The accused has not seriously disputed either the issuance of cheque or his signature on the cheque or presentation of cheque or dishonour of cheque or issuance of legal notice. There is also no suggestions to PW-1 to deny the issuance of cheque or the signature of the accused on the cheque or presentation of cheque for encashment or dishonour of cheque. The accused in his entire evidence has also not specifically denied the issuance of cheque or his signature on the cheque or presentation of cheque for encashment or dishonour of cheque. In fact, during the course of his cross- examination, DW-1 has admitted that he has issued the 14 C.C.No.4742/2019 cheque and it belongs to his account and his signature also finds a place on the cheque. The accused has also not disputed in his entire evidence about the address mentioned in the notice and acknowledgement.
28. On careful perusal of complaint averments, oral evidence of PW-1 and the documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.8., it clearly establishes that the accused has issued a cheque vide Ex.P.1 in favour of the complainant and the complainant has presented the cheque for encashment before his banker which was came to be dishonoured with an endorsement vide Ex.P.2 and therefore, the complainant got issued a legal notice vide Ex.P.3 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of service of legal notice. But the said notice was returned with an endorsement as Party Address Left on 31.12.2018. Since the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount, the complainant has presented the complaint before the Court on 11.02.2019.
29. It is pertinent to note here that the cheque is dated 06.12.2018. The complainant has presented the cheque before the Bank within its validity and it was came to be dishonoured with an endorsement as 15 C.C.No.4742/2019 "Contact Drawer" vide dated 11.12.2018. The complainant has issued the legal notice on 26.12.2018 within the stipulated period from the date of receipt of bank endorsement giving 15 days time to the accused to comply the demands made in the notice. The said notice was returned as Party Left Address vide Ex.P.5 and therefore, the complainant has presented the complaint before the Court on 11.02.2018.
30. It is pertinent to note here that even assuming that the postal cover returned on 27.12.2019, the complaint filed on 11.02.2019 was well within time. Because, the legal notice is dated 26.12.2018. The period of 15 days and 30 days expired on 10.02.2019. 09.02.2019 was the second Saturday and 10.02.2019 was the Sunday. As per section 4 of Limitation Act, where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens. Under these circumstances, the complaint filed on 11.02.2019 was well within time. As already stated above, the accused neither disputed the issuance of cheque nor his signature on the cheque or his address mentioned in the legal notice. So, it is crystal clear that the complainant has complied the mandates of Section 16 C.C.No.4742/2019 138 of N.I.Act and therefore, the presumption is in favour of the complainant as per section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. Under these circumstances, when once the complainant has complied the mandates of Section 138 of N.I.Act, then this Court has no option, but to raise a presumption in favour of the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
31. Admittedly, the presumption available in favour of the complainant U/s.118 are not conclusive proof, but they are rebuttable in nature. Therefore, when once the complainant has fulfilled the mandates, ingredients, terms and conditions of Section 138 of N.I.Act and when once the Court has drawn the presumption in favour of the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act, then, the onus shifts on the accused to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act. Now let us consider as to whether the accused could able to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
32. At the outset, it is necessary to note here that while recording the plea of accused vide dated 17.12.2019, the accused has pleaded not guilty, but claims to be tried. The defence of the accused at the time 17 C.C.No.4742/2019 of recording of plea is as that of total denial. But the accused has not put forth his specific defence while recording the plea vide dated 17.12.2019.
33. Be that as it may, while recording the statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. the accused has denied the incriminating evidence as such forthcoming against him in the evidence of complainant and documents. However, during the course of recording of statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. the accused has stated that he has given documents to the complainant to get the loan, but the complainant has failed to get the loan and failed to return the cheque and the accused did choose to enter the defence evidence.
34. It is the defence of the accused and evidence of DW-1 that he do not know to read and write and he came in contact with the complainant through his friend in the year 2016. According to DW-1 that since the complainant had promised to get the loan, he has put his signature on the blank cheque and issued the same to the complainant along with other documents. Since his mother-in-law was refused to stand as surety to the loan, the complainant has failed to get the loan and therefore, he has requested the complainant to return 18 C.C.No.4742/2019 the cheque for which he has told that he incurred an amount of Rs.30,000/- for expenditure and therefore, he would return the cheque after payment of said expenses and when he visited the house of complainant to pay the amount of Rs.30,000/-, he has refused to receive the amount and failed to return the cheque and other documents and the complainant has not issued the notice.
35. But, though the accused has taken this bald contention, same has not been amplified before the Court in any manner. Because, the accused neither produced any documentary evidence before the Court nor elicited anything in the evidence of PW-1. No doubt, it is suggested to PW-1 that he has assured the accused to get the loan and obtained the cheque and other documents; that since the mother-in-law of accused did not come forward to stand as surety, the loan was not sanctioned; that the accused has requested him to return the cheque and other documents; but he has demanded money and failed to return the cheque and documents; that there is difference between the signature and the contents of the cheque and that he has misused the cheque.
19C.C.No.4742/2019
36. But all these material suggestions have been specifically denied by PW-1. Therefore, it is said that the denied suggestions are always remained as suggestions only and not come in the way of accused either to falsify the case made out by the complainant or to falsify oral evidence of PW-1 or to falsify the documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.8 or to substantiate his defence or to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
37. On the other hand, it is forthcoming in the evidence of PW-1 that he used to sell the old Auto- rickshaw and doing business in this field. It is also forthcoming in the evidence of PW-1 that he and accused known to each other since more than 8 to 10 years and the accused is doing contractor work and he used to get the house repaired work through the accused and therefore, they are having good acquaintance with each other and therefore, he has lent the loan and in turn the accused has issued the cheque.
38. The accused all the while in his evidence has stated that he has issued the cheque and other documents to the complainant for availing loan from the Bank, but since his mother-in-law was refused to stand as surety and did not come forward to stand as surety, 20 C.C.No.4742/2019 the loan was not granted and the complainant has failed to return the cheque and other documents and misused the said documents and the complainant has also not issued any notice to him.
39. But during the cross-examination, D.W.1 has categorically admitted that he was required to submit the loan application before the Bank which was required to be submitted before the legal expert for opinion and after obtaining the legal expert opinion, the surety has to be furnished for availing loan and he has not taken any steps against the complainant for misuse of cheque and other documents. It is also admitted by DW-1 that the address mentioned in Ex.P.3 is correct and the notice sent to the said address will be served and he is still residing in the said address and the address as mentioned in Ex.P.3 and P.5 are as that of his correct address.
40. It is pertinent to note here that if really the complainant has failed to get the loan from the Bank and if really the complainant has misused the cheque, then the accused could have taken necessary steps or action against the complainant either by filing complaint before the Jurisdictional police station or before the 21 C.C.No.4742/2019 Court for misuse of cheque and other documents. But he has not taken any action against the complainant. No explanation as such forthcoming in this regard in the evidence of DW-1. In the absence of such an explanation, an adverse inference has to be drawn against defence taken by the accused.
41. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the accused has issued a blank cheque to the complainant, then the accused cannot dispute the contents of cheque. Because, the accused did not dispute the signature on the cheque. The provisions of Section 20 of N.I.Act deals about Inchoate Stamped Instruments. As per this provisions of law, where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima-facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, or any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such 22 C.C.No.4742/2019 amount. In the present case, the accused has not disputed the issuance of cheque and also his signature on the cheque and thereby he has given an authority to the complainant to fill the contents of the cheque and to present the cheque for encashment.
42. It is also well settled position of law that when once the complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused to his proper address, then it amounts to deemed service. Reference in this regard may be made to a provision of Section 27 of General Clauses Act. Because, it is categorically admitted by DW-1 in his evidence that the address mentioned in notice vide Ex.P.3 and postal acknowledgement at Ex.P.5 are his correct address and he is still residing in the said address. Under these circumstances, as per the provisions of Section 27 of General Clauses Act, the notice sent by the complainant to the proper address of the accused is deemed service and thereby the complainant has fulfilled the mandates of Section 138 of N.I.Act. Therefore, the defence of the accused that he has issued the blank cheque and other documents to the complainant and the complainant has misused the cheque and the complainant has not issued any notice 23 C.C.No.4742/2019 is not sustainable under law and therefore, cannot be accepted.
43. On appreciation of entire oral evidence and documentary evidence placed on record, it is found that the cheque vide Ex.P.1 is belongs to accused and he has drawn the same on an account maintained by him in his banker and he has issued cheque vide Ex.P.1 to the complainant towards the legally recoverable debt and on presentation of cheque for encashment, it was came to be dishonoured with an endorsement vide Ex.P.2 and in spite of service of legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount and committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. The complainant has fulfilled all the mandates of Section 138 of N.I.Act by adducing oral evidence of PW-1 and by producing the documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.8 and therefore, the presumption is in favour of the complainant as per Section 118, 139 of N.I.Act.
44. It is well settled position of law that when once the accused has admitted the issuance of cheque and the cheque belongs to him and when once the accused has admitted his signature on the cheque, then the presumption U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act is available in 24 C.C.No.4742/2019 favour of the complainant and the Court is required to raise the presumption in favour of the complainant. The accused has failed to substantiate his probable defence before the Court and also failed elicit anything in this regard in the evidence of PW-1 and thereby failed to rebut the statutory presumption available in favour of the complainant under section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. Under these circumstances, there are no reasons to disbelieve or to discard the oral evidence of PW-1 and documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.8. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the materials placed on record, clearly establishes the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, I hold that the complainant has proved the charges levelled against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
45. POINT. No.2:- The provisions of Section 138 of N.I.Act provides punishment for imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or with both. In the present case, the accused has availed the loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the complainant and issued the cheque vide Ex.P.1 dated 06.12.2018. In spite of service of legal notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheque 25 C.C.No.4742/2019 amount to the complainant. Therefore, considering the nature of transaction between the complainant and accused including facts and circumstances of the case and regard being had to the time taken for disposal of the case, this Court is of the considered view the if the following sentence is awarded, then it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, in view of my findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORD ER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Only), in default of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
Out of the fine amount collected from the accused, an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining fine of Rs.10,000/- shall be adjusted towards the cost of state expenses.
The bail bond of the accused shall be in force till the appeal period is over as contemplated under the provisions of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.26
C.C.No.4742/2019 The cash surety of Rs.3,000/-
deposited by the accused vide
Q.No.16644/2019 dated 17.12.2019
shall be refunded to the accused after appeal period is over with due identification.
Office to supply the copy of the Judgement to the accused forthwith at free of cost.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, print out taken by him, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th October 2022).
(N.M.RAMESHA) XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant:-
P.W.1 : Sri.S.V.Sridhar
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the Accused.
Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo.
Ex.P.3 : Copy of Legal Notice.
Ex.P.4 : Notice.
Ex.P.5 : Postal Cover.
Ex.P.6 : Postal Receipt.
Ex.P.7 : Acknowledgement.
Ex.P.8 : Complaint.
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of Witness.
27
C.C.No.4742/2019
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused:-
DW-1 : M.Murthy.
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-
: Nil
(N.M.RAMESHA)
*mbh* XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.