Bangalore District Court
M/S Hencon Associates vs M/S Cadd Station Technologies Pvt. ... on 16 October, 2024
C.C.NO.26311/2023
0
KABC030438982023
Presented on : 27-09-2023
Registered on : 11-10-2023
Decided on : 16-10-2024
Duration : 1 years, 0 months, 19 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:
Soubhagya.B.Bhusher,
B.A.,LL.B.,LL.M
XXVIII A.C.J.M,Bengaluru City.
DATED; THIS THE 16th DAY OF OCTOBER-2024
C.C.NO.26311/2023
Complainant: 1.M/s.Hencon Associates,
Regd O/at No.274, 1st D Main Road,
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bangalore-560060,
R/by its Managing Director/Partner
Mr.M.Mohan S/o Mylarappa
Age:35 years.
2.Mr.M.Mohan S/o Mylarappa
Managing Director of M/s Hencon
Associates, O/at No.274, 1st D Main Road,
Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore-560060.
3.Smt.Manasa W/o M.Mohan
Age: 32 years, Partner of M/s.Hencon
Associates, O/at No.274, 1st D Main Road,
Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore-560060.
(By Sri.D.L.Linge Gowda.,Adv.,)
V/s
Accused: 1.CADD Station Technologies Pvt.,Ltd.,
Corporate O/at No.922, New No.CH-4,
C.C.NO.26311/2023
1
Kantharaj Urs Road, Lakshmipuram,
Mysore-570004,
R/by its Managing Director,
Sri.Raghunath.K.M S/o K.Munishamappa.
2.Sri.Raghunath.K.M S/o K.Munishamappa,
Managing Director, O/at No.922, New No.CH-4,
Kantharaj Urs Road, Lakshmipuram,
Mysore-570004.
3.Sri.Dasharath S/o Krishnappa,
Age: Major, Director, O/at No.922,New No.CH-4,
Kantharaj Urs Road, Lakshmipuram,
Mysore-570004.
(By Sri.Dileep.N.,Adv., & Associates.,)
:JUDGMENT:
This case arises out of the private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused under section 200 of Cr.P.C., for an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant's in brief is as under:
It is the case of the complainant is that the complainant doing business of Geotechnical Investigation, toporgraphical surveys, axle road surveys, benkleman beam studies, pavement design, culverts and drain design, estimations and drawings for drilling bores, soil testing, material testing, road performance studies, DPR preparation, project management and consultant etc. Further stated that the accused are being one of the customers of the complainant. The accused in the month of September C.C.NO.26311/2023 2 2021 have approached the complainant for preparation of detailed project report for SHDP Phase-4, Stage-2 for Bengaluru Rural and Ramanagar District package of selected roads. The complainant has given quotation for the same with No.HA/quotation/2021-22/001R dated:17.09.2021. After agreeing the quotation for Rs.21,250/- per K.M, the accused entrusted the work. The complainant carried out the work entrusted to him and given DPR report in January 2022 and for bill of Rs.52,27,637/-, under vide bill dated: 07.03.2022 for Rs.41,56,934/- and bill dated: 30.03.2022 for Rs.10,70,703/-. Further stated that out of total bill amount of Rs.52,27,637/- the accused have paid a sum of Rs.37,40,000/- and in due for Rs.14,87,637/-. It is further stated that the accused have failed to repay the said balance amount. Further stated that on repeated request the accused had issued the cheque No.000009 dated: 25.08.2022 for Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Muda Branch, Mysore.
3. Further stated that as per the request of the accused on 05.09.2022 the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through its banker the State Bank of India, Girinagar Branch, Bangalore. But the said cheque was dishonored on 07.09.2022 as "Funds Insufficient". The complainant intimated the fact of dishonor of the cheque. As per the request of the accused on 16.09.2022 the complainant represented C.C.NO.26311/2023 3 the said cheque for encashment. But the said cheque was dishonored on 19.09.2022 as "Funds Insufficient". The complainant again intimated the fact of the dishonor of cheque to the accused. The accused again requested to represent the cheque in the first week of November 2022. On the requested of the accused again on 18.11.2022 represented the said cheque for encashment. But the said cheque was dishonored on 21.11.2022 as "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, on 13.12.2022 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused by registered post acknowledgment due, calling upon them to make the payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The said notice was duly served to the accused and they had issued an untenable reply. But they failed to repay the cheque amount. As such, the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court on 24.01.2023.
4. After the complaint was filed, the cognizance of the offence cited therein was taken and it was registered as P.C.R.No.5463/2023. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Since there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, an order was passed on 26.09.2023 to register the case in Register No.III.
5. Thereafter, summonses were issued to the C.C.NO.26311/2023 4 accused and they appeared before the court through advocate and secured bail. They were furnished its necessary papers as complied under section 208 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the plea of the accused was recorded by the court. They have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The complainant's in support of its case, have examined its Managing Director as PW.1 and got marked 29 documents at Ex.P.1 to 29 and closed its side. During the course of cross examination of D.W.1 one document was marked at Ex.P.30 by way of confrontation.
7. After closer of the evidence of the complainant, the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused have denied the incriminating evidence appeared against them. In their defence, the accused No.2 examined himself as DW.1 and 03 documents were marked at Ex.D.3 to 5. During the course of cross examination of P.W.1 02 documents were marked at Ex.D.1 and 2 by way of confrontation.
8. Heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the material placed on record.
9. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the material placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the C.C.NO.26311/2023 5 cheque-Ex.P.1 was issued by the accused towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability?
2. Whether the complainant further proves that the complainant have complied with all the mandatory provisions of section 138 of N.I.Act?
3.Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused inspite of want of sufficient funds they had issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 and thereafter failed to repay the amount within stipulated period inspite of receipt of the notice-Ex.P.5 and thus have committed offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act?
4. What order?
10. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3: In the Negative.
Point No.4:As per final order, for the following;
:REASONS:
11.POINT NO.1: The case of the complainant is that he was acquainted with the accused. Further the complainant doing business of Geotechnical Investigation, topographical surveys, axle road surveys, benkleman beam studies, pavement design, culverts and drain design, estimations and drawings for drilling bores, soil testing, material testing, road performance studies, DPR preparation, project management and consultant etc. The accused are being one of the C.C.NO.26311/2023 6 customers of the complainant. The accused in the month of September 2021, have approached the complainant for preparation of detailed project report for SHDP Phase-4, stage-2 for Bengaluru Rural and Ramanagar District package of selected roads. The complainant has given quotation for the same. After agreeing the quotation for Rs.21,250/- per K.M, the accused entrusted the work. The complainant carried out the work entrusted to him and given DPR report for bill of Rs.52,27,637/-, under bill dated: 07.03.2022 for Rs.41,56,934/- and bill dated: 30.03.2022 for Rs.10,70,703/-. Further out of Rs.52,27,637/- bill amount the accused have paid a sum of Rs.37,40,000/- and in due for Rs.14,87,637/-. Further the accused have failed to pay the said balance amount. Further on repeated request the accused had issued the cheque in question. As per the request of the accused the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through its banker in three times. But the said cheque was dishonored as "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused, calling upon him to make the payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. After service of notice the accused had issued an untenable reply. But failed to repay the cheque amount. As such, the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court.
C.C.NO.26311/2023 7
12. In support of the case, the complainant have examined its Managing Director as P.W.1 and totally 30 documents were marked at Ex.P.1 to 30. In the chief examination P.W.1 has repeated the contents taken by the complainant in the complaint. Ex.P.1 is the cheque issued by the accused in favour of the complainant dated: 25.08.2022 for Rs.15,00,000/-. Ex.P.1(a) and 1(b) are the signatures of the accused No.2 and 3. Ex.P.2 to 4 are the bank memos dated: 07.09.2022, 19.09.2022 and 21.11.2022 informing the dishonor of the cheque as ''Funds Insufficient''. Ex.P.5 is the office copy of legal notice dated: 13.12.2022. Ex.P.6 are the postal receipts. Ex.P.7 and 8 are the postal acknowledgments. Ex.P.9 is the reply notice dated:
05.01.2023 issued by the accused. Ex.P.10 is the registration certificate of the complainant company.
Ex.P.11 is the reconstitution of partnership deed. Ex.P.12 is the resolution. Ex.P.13 is the printed copy of letter of acceptance. Ex.P.14 is the printed copy of work order. Ex.P.15 and 16 are the printed copies of tax invoices. Ex.P.17 is the printed copy of request letter sent by the accused. Ex.P.18 is the reply given to the request letter of the accused. Ex.P.19 is the certificate under section 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.20 is the complaint. Ex.P.21 is the amended complaint. Ex.P.22 is the E-mail dated: 06.01.2021. Ex.P.23 is the E-mail dated: 08.11.2021. Ex.P.24 is the E-mail dated:
12.11.2021. Ex.P.25 is the E-mail dated: 28.02.2022.
C.C.NO.26311/2023 8 Ex.P.26 is the letter dated:10.01.2022. Ex.P.27 is the E- mail dated: 22.03.2022. Ex.P.28 is the contract document. Ex.P.29 is the certificate under section 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.30 is signature of the accused No.2 appearing on the document.
13. The accused No.2 is examined himself as DW.1 by way of affidavit and 03 documents were marked at Ex.D.3 to 5 and 02 documents were marked at Ex.D.1 and 2 through PW.1. In his chief examination affidavit DW.1 has repeated the defence taken by them. Ex.D.1 is the letter. Ex.D.2 is the bank account statement. Ex.D.3 and 4 are the bank statements of Bank of Baroda Mysore, related to the accused No.1. Ex.D.5 is the HDFC bank statement related to the accused No.2.
14. In order to attract the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant is firstly required to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the cheque came to be issued by the accused. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that from the evidence placed on record, it is fact that the complainant doing business of Geotechnical Investigation, toporgraphical surveys, axle road surveys, benkleman beam studies, pavement design, culverts and drain design, estimations and drawings for drilling bores, soil testing, material testing, road performance studies, DPR preparation, project C.C.NO.26311/2023 9 management and consultant etc. The accused are being one of the customers of the complainant and in the month of September 2021 they have approached the complainant for preparation of detailed project report for SHDP Phase-4, Stage-2 for Bengaluru Rural and Ramanagara District package of selected roads. The complainant have given the quotation for the same on 17.09.2021. After agreeing the quotation for Rs.21,250/- per K.M, the accused entrusted the work. Further argued that the complainant carried out work entrusted to them and given DPR report in January 2022 for total bill of Rs.52,27,637/- under bills dated:
07.03.2022 and 30.03.2022 respectively. Further argued that out of Rs.52,27,637/- bill amount the accused have paid a sum of Rs.37,40,000/- and they are in due for Rs.14,87,637/-. Further argued that inspite of repeated request the accused have failed to repay the said amount. Further argued that toward settlement of payment against the said transaction the accused had issued the cheque in favour of the complainant. He further argued that the accused not denied Ex.P.1 being their cheque drawn on the account of the accused No.1. Further the accused have not denied the signatures appeared on the cheque. When the signatures of the accused is not disputed, the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act is to be drawn in favour of the complainant. The accused have failed to elicit anything in the cross examination of P.W.1 to C.C.NO.26311/2023 10 disbelieve the said evidence. The defence have failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act. He further argued that the accused have failed to produce any believable evidence that they had issued the cheque for the purpose of security and also why they have not returned back the same is not clear. He further argued that section 139 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption that the cheque has been issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability. In the present case, the accused not disputed Ex.P.1 being their cheque drawn on the account of the accused No.1. The said presumption is available to the complainant.
15. Further argued that the accused failed to prove the very fact that the cheque-Ex.P.1 was given to the complainant for the purpose of security only and it was blank when it was given to the complainant. Moreover, section 118 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption that the Negotiable Instruments is drawn on the date, for the amount and in favour of the person as shown in it. It is for the accused to rebut the said presumption. But, in the case on hand no such evidence forthcoming. It was also argued by him that as per the defence by the accused that they had given the blank cheque to the complainant for the purpose of security only. As such, the very defence of the accused is not believable. He further argued that as per the instruction of the C.C.NO.26311/2023 11 accused the complainant had presented the said cheque for encashment in three times, but same was dishonor as "Funds Insufficient", thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused. After service of the legal notice the accused given untenable reply, but failed to pay the cheque amount, the complainant having no alternative have filed a complaint before this court. The defence of the accused is that they had issued blank cheque to the complainant for the purpose of security and further taken up the defence that the complainant have misused the security cheque to harass the accused and to make a wrongful gain. The accused in order to prove their defence not produced any materials to rebut the said presumption under section 138 of N.I.Act. Therefore, the accused have committed an offence. Further argued that the accused have not produced any piece of evidence except Ex.D.1 to 5. Even though issuance of cheque for security/guarantee, an offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is attracted. Hence, he prays to convict the accused.
16. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that there was no legally enforceable debt/liability to the complainant from the accused for which the cheque-Ex.P.1 was issued. Further argued that the accused had issued the blank cheque in favour of the complainant for the purpose of security. Further C.C.NO.26311/2023 12 argued that the complainant company was engaged to prepare detail project report for SHDP Phase-4, Stage 2 for Bengaluru Rural and Ramanagar District for about 177.36 K.M only for an agreed amount of Rs.21,250/- per K.M as per the work order dated: 27.09.2021. Further argued that the complainant had submitted detail final bill dated: 02.03.2022 wherein the complainant had specifically mentioned that they have completed the task to the tune of 165.89 K.M as against the work order dated: 27.09.2021 and accordingly the complainant had raised comprehensive bill dated:02.03.2022 for total amount of Rs.41,56,934/- inclusive of tax. Further argued that the alleged bill dated: 30.03.2022 is specifically denied by the accused as there is no liability would arise as against the said alleged bill for Rs.10,17,703/-. The accused company liable to pay a sum of Rs.41,56,934/- under bill dated:
02.03.2022 only. Further argued that the accused have made the payment to the complainant as against the work order dated: 27.09.2021 as and when the work progress and till today the accused was transferred a sum of Rs.38,39,000/- to the complainant through account of the accused as well as through UPI transfer from the accused No.2. Further argued that on 29.10.2021 a sum of Rs.99,000/-, on 20.11.2021 a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was transferred through RTGS, on 25.11.2021 of Rs.50,000/- was transferred through UPI, on 25.11.2021 of Rs.1,00,000/- transferred through C.C.NO.26311/2023 13 NEFT, on 26.11.2021 of Rs.35,000/- was transferred through UPI, on 23.12.2021 of Rs.2,15,000/- was transferred through NEFT, on 08.01.2022 of Rs.40,000/- transferred through UPI, on 13.01.2022 of Rs.50,000/- was transferred, on 06.04.2022 and 03.11.2022 of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/-
respectively was transferred through RTGS. The complainant till today had received a sum of Rs.38,39,000/- in total sum of Rs.41,56,934/- due to them. Further the accused are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,17,934/- only.
17. Further argued that as per the contractual obligations the complainant supposed to submit all hard as well as a soft copies of DPR of the work entrusted them under the work order dated: 27.09.2021. Since the complainant did not fulfill his part of contract, the accused company bills from the Government were not cleared and as such there was delay in making the balance payment to the complainant. Further argued that the accused given the disputed cheque towards security purpose only during the month of August 2022. Further argued that though the bill of the accused company pending before the Government Authority and though the accused did not get any payments released by the Government, in order to keep the business relationship with the complainant intact, the accused have transferred a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on C.C.NO.26311/2023 14 03.11.2022. In view of the said sum paid by the accused company the accused liability towards the complainant was reduced to Rs.3,17,934/- as on 03.11.2022. Soon after payment made, the accused have issued a letter dated: 03.11.2022 informing about the payment made by the accused and further the accused have specifically instructed the complainant to return the security cheque. Further argued that even after the payment being made on 03.11.2022, the complainant has illegally retained the security cheque and further at no point of time the accused have given any instructions to the complainant to present the said security cheque towards any payment, as there is no liability of Rs.15,00,000/- as on the date of presenting the cheque by the complainant, as claimed by the complainant under this complaint.
18. Further argued that through reply legal notice the accused have requested the complainant through their counsel to return the said security cheque to the accused company immediately, the complainant did not do so and had misused the same and filed false complaint against the accused. Further argued that in order to attract the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant is firstly required to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the cheque came to be issued. It is further argued that the complainant is only in order C.C.NO.26311/2023 15 give trouble to the accused and with an intention to make illegal money from the accused filed false case. This is not permissible under the law. Further argued that cheque was collected from the accused, as security measure in the month of August 2022. The complainant created all the documents and filed this false case against the accused. Further argued that there is no due from the accused to the complainant. Further argued that the accused have already paid almost all amount to the complainant and they are only due for Rs.3,17,934/-. When there is no due from the accused as stated in the complaint, then question of issuance of cheque does not arise at all. Therefore, from the evidence placed on record, very due amount from the accused is not clearly made out whereas the accused is succeeded in rebutting the presumption available under section 139 of N.I.Act, regarding existence of legally enforceable debt.
19. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the complainant have misconceived his purported rights in filing the above complaint on the alleged issuance of cheque by the accused. The cheque was issued by the accused only for security purpose in the month of August 2022. Hence, an offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is not attracted. There is no balance or any mismanagement from the accused. The complainant have not made out any case C.C.NO.26311/2023 16 against the accused for the alleged payment of dues as claimed in its complaint. Further argued that the complainant have not followed any mandatory procedure laid-down under law and that the claim of the complainant regarding legally recoverable debt is also not that of the amount claimed in the aforesaid cheque. Admittedly the said cheque was given as security. By taking undue advantage of possession of the aforesaid cheque, the complainant have foisted a false complaint against the accused. On this ground alone the complaint requires to be dismissed. Further argued that there is no legally dischargeable debt by the accused to the complainant as alleged in the complaint and hence the question of liability or payment of money will not arise at all under section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Further argued that the oral evidence of PW.1 and documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to 30 do not establish the due amount or issuance of cheque towards the legally recoverable debt and thereby the complainant have failed to comply all the mandates of section 138 of N.I.Act and therefore the presumption cannot be drawn in favour of the complainant under section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. Hence, he prays to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused.
20. Now keeping the provisions of section 118, 138 and 139 of Act and the arguments canvased by the learned counsels for both the sides, let us consider as C.C.NO.26311/2023 17 to whether the complainant could able to comply all the mandates of section 138 of N.I.Act, so as so to draw the presumption in their favour as contemplated under section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
21. The complainant all the while in his notice, complaint and his examination chief affidavit has stated that the accused have approached the complainant in the month of September 2021 for preparation of detail project report for SHDP, Phase-4, Stage 2 for Bengalur Rural and Ramanagar District package of selected roads. The complainant given the quotation for the same dated: 17.09.2021. After agreeing the quotation for Rs.21,250/- per K.M, the accused entrusted the work. The complainant carried out the work entrusted to him and given DPR report in January 2022 and bill of Rs.52,27,637/- under bill dated: 07.03.2022 for Rs.41,56,934/- and bill dated: 30.03.2022 for Rs.10,70,703/-. Out of Rs.52,27,637/- bill amount the accused have paid Rs.37,40,000/- and the accused in due for Rs.14,87,637/-. On the demand made by the complainant the accused have issued the cheque in question. But the complainant have not produced any documents regarding additional work entrusted by the accused to the complainant in respect of bill dated:
30.03.2022 for Rs.10,70,703/-. Further the complainant have not produced any work order given by the accused to the complainant in respect of additional C.C.NO.26311/2023 18 work. Further on perusal of the documents it reveals that the complainant company was engaged to prepare detailed project report for SHDP, Phase-4, Stage-2 for Bengaluru Rural and Ramanagara District approximate 177.37 K.M only for an agreed amount of Rs.21,250/-
per K.M as per the work order dated: 27.09.2021. Further on perusal of the documents it reveals that the complainant had submitted detailed final bill dated:
02.03.2022 wherein the complainant had specifically mentioned that they have completed the task to the tune of 165.89 K.M as against the work order dated:
27.09.2021 and accordingly they have raised comprehensive bill dated: 02.03.2022 for total amount of Rs.41,56,934/- inclusive of tax. Further on perusal of the documents it reveals that the accused not given any additional work order in respect of alleged bill dated: 30.03.2022. When the accused not given any additional work order in respect of alleged bill dated: 30.03.2022 to the complainant then question of raising the bill does not arise and thus there is no liability would arise as against the said alleged bill from the accused. If really the complainant has done additional work, then the complainant could have obtained either work order or any gazette/tender notification from the accused. But the complainant has not done so. In the absence of such documents, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the case of the complainant.
Hence, the say of the complainant that after agreeing C.C.NO.26311/2023 19 the quotation for Rs.21,250/- per K.M, the accused entrusted the work. The complainant carried out the work entrusted to him and given DPR report in January 2022 and for bill of Rs.52,57,637/-, under bill dated:
07.03.2022 for Rs.41,56,934/- and bill dated:
30.03.2022 for Rs.10,70,703/-, out of total bill of Rs.52,57,637/- the accused have paid a sum of Rs.37,40,000/- and in due for Rs.14,87,637/- is highly unbelievable and therefore it cannot be accepted.
22. The very amount due by the accused is seriously challenged. The accused also have denied issuing the cheque-Ex.P-1 in favour of the complainant for discharge of any legally enforceable debt. Therefore it is necessary to discuss the evidence regarding the due amount and issuing of cheque. The complainant claims that accused entrusted the work order to the complainant and the complainant carried out the work entrusted to him and given DPR report in January 2022 and for bill of Rs.52,27,637/-, under vide bill dated:
07.03.2022 for Rs.41,56,934/- and bill dated:
30.03.2022 for Rs.10,70,703/-, out of total bill of Rs.52,27,637/- the accused have paid a sum of Rs.37,40,000/- and in due for Rs.14,87,637/-. Further on the repeated request and demand the accused had issued the cheque for discharge of the said amount.
During the course of cross examination, PW-1 admits that:
C.C.NO.26311/2023 20 "ನಿಪಿ.13 ಸರ್ಕಾರದಿಂದ ಬಂದ ಟೆಂಡರ್ ಇರುತ್ತ ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.13ಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ವ್ಯ ವಹಾರವನ್ನು ಹೊರತುಪಡಿಸಿ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಸಂಸ್ದೆ ಯ ಜೊತೆ ಅಥವಾ ಅದರ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರ ಜೊತೆ ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ವ್ಯ ವಹಾರ ನಡೆಸಿಲ್ಲ . ನಿಪಿ.14 ರ ಪ್ರ ಕಾರ ಕೇವಲ 177.36 ಕಿ.ಮೀ.ಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಡಿಟೇಲ್ ಪ್ರಾ ಜೆಕ್ಟ್ ರಿಪೋರ್ಟ್ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಇರುತ್ತ ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.14 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವ ತರಹದ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಮತ್ತು ಅದರ ಷರತ್ತು ಮತ್ತು ನಿಬಂಧನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.14 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಟೆಂಡರ್ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಹೊರತುಪಡಿಸಿ ಬೇರೆ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಲ್ಲ . ನಿಪಿ.14 ರ ಪ್ರ ಕಾರ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣಗೊಳಿಸಿ ಡಿಟೇಲ್ ಪ್ರಾ ಜೆಕ್ಟ್ ರಿಪೊರ್ಟ್ ಆದ ನಂತರ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪಾವತಿಸುವುದಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.14 ರ ಪ್ರ ಕಾರ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಪ್ರಾ ರಂಭಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ದಿ:
02.03.2022 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಪಿ.15 ರಂತೆ ಆರೋಪಿ ಸಂಸ್ದೆ ಯವರಿಗೆ ಟ್ಯಾ ಕ್ಸ್ ಇನ್ವಾಯ್ಸ್ ನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.15 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಪಿ.14 ರ ಪ್ರ ಕಾರ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಪೂರ್ಣಗೊಳಿಸಿದ ಸಂಬಂಧ ತಯಾರಿಸಿದ ಇನ್ ವಾಯ್ಸ್ ಇರುತ್ತ ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.15ನ್ನು ಜಿಎಸ್ಟಿ ಸೇರಿಸಿ ರೂ.41,56,934/-ಕ್ಕೆ ತಯಾರಿಸಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸರ್ಕಾರದವರು ಮೌಖಿಕವಾಗಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ವರಿ ರಸ್ತೆ ಯನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಹೆಚ್ಚು ವರಿ ರಸ್ತೆ ಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಲು ಆರೋಪಿ ಸಂಸ್ದೆ ಯವರು ನಮಗೆ ವರ್ಕ್ ಆರ್ಡರ್ ನ್ನು ನೀಡಿಲ್ಲ . ಆರೋಪಿ ಸಂಸ್ದೆ ಯವರು ನೀಡಿದ ನಿಪಿ.14 ವರ್ಕ್ ಆರ್ಡರ್ ಪ್ರ ಕಾರ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಪೂರ್ಣಗೊಳಿಸಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ನಿಪಿ.15ರಂತೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಇನ್ವಾಯ್ಸ್ ನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.16ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಪಿ.14 ರಂತೆ ನೀಡಿದ ವರ್ಕ್ ಆರ್ಡರ್ ಪ್ರ ಕಾರ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ತಯಾರಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.14 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನ್ ಟೆಂಡರ್ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಲ್ಲ . ನಿಪಿ.15 ರ ಪ್ರ ಕಾರ ಆರೋಪಿ ಸಂಸ್ದೆ ಯವರು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ದೆ ಗೆ ಸುಮಾರು ರೂ.38,39,000/- ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪಾವತಿಸಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ದಿ: 03.11.2022 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ದೆ ಯವರು ಆರೋಪಿ ಸಂಸ್ದೆ ಗೆ ಒಂದು ಪತ್ರ ವನ್ನು ಬರೆದಿದ್ದು , ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ದೆ ಗೆ ಪಾವತಿಸಬೇಕಾದ ಒಟ್ಟು ಮೊತ್ತ ರೂ.41,56,934/- ಎಂದು C.C.NO.26311/2023 21 ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ".
23. In the cross-examination of PW.1 as extracted hereinabove, clearly establish that the complainant company was engaged to prepare detail project report for SHDP Phase-4, Stage 2 for Bengaluru Rural and Ramanagar District for about 177.36 KM only for an agreed amount of Rs.21,250/- per K.M as per the work order dated: 27.09.2021. Further the complainant had submitted detail final bill dated: 02.03.2022 wherein they had specifically mentioned that the complainant have completed the task to the tune of 165.89 K.M as against the work order dated: 27.09.2021 and accordingly the complainant had raised comprehensive bill dated: 02.03.2022 for total amount of Rs.41,56,934/- inclusive of tax. Further the alleged bill dated: 30.03.2022 is specifically denied by the accused as there is no liability would arise as against the said alleged bill for Rs.10,17,703/-. Further the accused company liable to pay a sum of Rs.41,56,934/- under bill dated: 02.03.2022 only. Further the accused have made the payment to the complainant as against the work order dated: 27.09.2021 as and when the work progress and till today the accused was transferred a sum of Rs.38,39,000/- to the complainant. Further the accused had not given any additional work to the complainant are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,17,934/- only. Further the accused not given any road work C.C.NO.26311/2023 22 order to the complainant. Now the moot question arises for determination is "whether the accused had issued the cheque in favour of the complainant for repayment of the amount. It is also worthwhile to consider that the complainant have not at all produced any iota of evidence in support of their contention. Further it is also worthy to note that the accused had issued the cheque for the purpose of security. Hence, then question of issuance of cheque for repayment remaining due amount does not arise at all, necessarily adverse inference is to be drawn for withholding material piece of evidence as per Section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act. It is also trite that admissions are substantial piece of evidence, which can be relied upon to determine the rights of the parties in the absence of proper explanation.
24. In the proceedings for dishonor of cheque under section 139 of N.I.Act a presumption can be raised that when a cheque is issued, it was drawn for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability. The presumption under section 139 of the act does include the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability. This is in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is opened to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt/liability can be contested. However, there is initial presumption which favours the complainant. The test of proportionality C.C.NO.26311/2023 23 should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the accused cannot be excepted to discharge an unduly high standard of proof. In the absence of the compelling justifications, revers onus clauses usually impose an evidentary burden and not a persuasive burden. It is settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the Act, the standard of proof for doing so is that of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, if the accused is able raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt/liability, the prosecution can fail. The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence on their own.
25. In the case on hand the very liability of the accused to pay an amount to the complainant as stated in the complaint is seriously disputed. The accused have contended that the complainant company was engaged to prepare detail project report for SHDP Phase-4, Stage 2 for Bengaluru Rural and Ramanagar District for about 177.36 KM only for an agreed amount of Rs.21,250/- per K.M as per the work order dated:
27.09.2021. Further contended that the complainant had submitted detail final bill dated: 02.03.2022 C.C.NO.26311/2023 24 wherein the complainant had specifically mentioned that they have completed the task to the tune of 165.89 K.M as against the work order dated: 27.09.2021 and accordingly the complainant had raised comprehensive bill dated: 02.03.2022 for total amount of Rs.41,56,934/- inclusive of tax. Further contended that the alleged bill dated: 30.03.2022 is specifically denied by the accused as there is no liability would arise as against the said alleged bill amount of Rs.10,17,703/-.
The accused company liable to pay a sum of Rs.41,56,934/- under bill dated: 02.03.2022 only. Further contended that in the month of August 2022 they had issued the cheque for the purpose of security. Further contended that the complainant have misused the cheque and filed this false case. They denies amount being due by them. They also denies issuance of the cheque for repayment of the amount on 25.08.2022.
26. To prove the factum of the case the complainant produced oral evidence of PW.1 alone and produced Ex.P.1 to 30 only. The documents produced by the complainant does not disclose that the accused is due of Rs.14,87,637/- as on the date of issuance of cheque. Further the complainant has not produced any relevant documents in order to additional work given by the accused. In the said circumstances the complainant required to prove the very due amount by the accused C.C.NO.26311/2023 25 and how an amount of Rs.14,87,637/- is still due by the accused. The complainant's have examined its Managing Director as PW.1. In his evidence has repeated the contentions taken by the complainant in the complaint. In all 30 documents are produced at Ex.P.1 to 30. The accused have denied issuance of the cheque-Ex.P.1 in favour of the complainant for discharge any legally enforceable debt/due. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the evidence regarding the amount due by the accused to the complainant and the said amount still due from the accused. Since the complainant claims that the accused in order to repayment of balance debt/due had issued the cheque- Ex.P.1 on 25.08.2022 in favour of the complainant, he is firstly required to produce evidence in this regard. But as above discussed no material is placed on record to established the said facts by producing the related/relevent documents. How the amount of Rs.14,87,637/- is due from the accused as on the date of issuance of the cheque has not been properly explained. Because the complainant has not shown what was the amount was due from the accused and how this figure came to be arrived as still due from the accused. In this case the complainant have not produced any documents like any additional work order/Tender notification or any other related documents before this court. Further as on the date of the presentation of the cheque the accused was not in C.C.NO.26311/2023 26 due as amount mentioned in the cheque. Further without producing the relevant documents and without proving the additional work entrusted by the accused to the complainant question of issuance of the cheque- Ex.P.1 dated: 25.08.2022 in favour of the complainant company does not arise at all. The complainant/P.W.1 during his cross-examination specifically admits that as per the oral information of the Government of Karnataka they have prepared an additional road. It clearly shows that the accused have not given any additional work order to the complainant. Hence, they are not liable to pay the additional road work done by the complainant.
27. When the complainant is a company maintaining account of all its transaction, it was required to produce some documents with regard to additional work given by the accused to the complainant. Further the complainant not produced those documents to prove that facts. The failure to produce these materials creates doubt regarding existence of legally enforceable debt. On the failure of the complainant to produce those documents which are in their possession it amounts to the presumption available under section 139 of N.I.Act, being rebutted by the accused. It is pertinent to note that the complainant have not produced documents relating to the actual amount in due at the time of issuance of C.C.NO.26311/2023 27 disputed cheque. Here, undisputedly the complainant company is a partnership firm and the complainant doing business of Geotechnical Investigation, toporgraphical surveys, axle road surveys, benkleman beam studies, pavement design, culverts and drain design, estimations and drawings for drilling bores, soil testing, material testing, road performance studies, DPR preparation, project management and consultant etc. It has to carry on the business in accordance with law. In these circumstances it is quite reasonable to expect the books of accounts maintained by the complainant company which throw light on the account of the accused and due of any amount by the accused during the year 2022 as on the date of issuance of subject cheque and additional work given by the accused to the complainant. The said documents are having direct bearing on the case, as the said documents who the amount in due by the said accused and they establishes the case of the complainant that the accused had issued disputed cheque towards legally enforceable debt. The said documents is withheld by the complainant without offering any plausible explanation. Since the complainant company withheld the relevant documents, the production of which directly establishes its case results in drawing adverse inference against the complainant and the said omission to produce relevant documents fortifies the defence version of issuing cheque in the month of C.C.NO.26311/2023 28 August 2022 as a security. Further the complainant have not explained how this amount is due by the accused. It shows that the cheque in question was issued by the accused for the purpose of security.
28. Moreover the contention by the complainant and their case it is reveals that the accused is one of the customer. In the month of September 2021 the accused have approached the complainant for preparation of detailed project report for SHDP, Phase- 4, stage 2 for Bengaluru Rural and Ramanagara District package of selected road. Accordingly the complainant given the quotation for the same dated:
17.09.2021. After agreeing the quotation for Rs.21,250/- per kilometer, the accused entrusted the work. The complainant carried out the work entrusted him and given DPR report in January 2022 and for bill of Rs.52,27,637/- under bill dated: 07.03.2022 for Rs.41,56,934/- and bill dated: 30.03.2022 for Rs.10,70,703/-. Out of which the accused have paid a sum of Rs.37,40,000/- and in due for Rs.14,87,637/-.
Further the accused is well know to the complainant. Further the accused had became a defaulter in repayment of the said amount. The complainant requested the accused for repayment of the said amount. Hence, the accused had issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant. Further from the evidence produced by the complainant the very fact C.C.NO.26311/2023 29 that the accused is a customer and they had issued the cheque in question. But the complainant have not proved by any reliable evidence. The exact amount still due by the accused is not clearly forthcoming. Further the complainant have failed to produce any documents to due amount from the accused as stated in the complaint. So also the cheque being issued for the amount due by the accused has not been established. Though there is an initial presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act, if the accused from the cross examination raise some reasonable doubt, the said presumption can be held to have been rebutted.
29. In proceedings under section 138 of N.I.Act the standard of proof required by the accused to rebut the presumption is not so high. It is sufficient, if the accused by way of preponderance of probabilities creates doubt regarding very existence legally enforceable debt/liability. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that when the cheque is issued for uncertain liabilities an offence under section 138 of N.I.Act, is not attracted.
30. Further the accused if reasonably produces evidence to probables their defence, it is sufficient to discharge presumption. Then the burden is on the complainant to produce probables evidence. But in the case on hand as already above discussed except producing some documents i.,e Ex.P.1 to 30 and his C.C.NO.26311/2023 30 oral evidence no material is produced by the complainant to prove the issuance of the cheque in order to discharge of liability. While on the other hand the accused have show that they have not issued the cheque for repayment of the due to the complainant and further shows that the cheque in question was issued for the purpose of security.
31. In the judgment reported in 2011 ALL MR (Crl) 1922, in the case of "Bhalla Automobiles V/s Rajesh S/o Rambhau Maurya", the Hon'ble court has discussed that the complainant has to take all grounds available to him at the filing of the complaint and he cannot be permitted to change his stand at different times. In such circumstances the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
32. In the case of Krishna Janardhana Bhat V/s Dattatreya Hegde, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1325, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the accused not required to step into witnesses box, he may discharge his burden on the basis of materials already bought on record. He can rely on the materials already on record. It was further observed that the standard of proof to prove the defence is preponderance of probabilities. Thus from the above discussion and placing reliance on the judgment noted above this court is of the opinion that the accused have succeeded in rebutting the initial presumption available to the complainant under section C.C.NO.26311/2023 31 139 of N.I.Act. When there is no other material produced by the complainant to support its contention for repayment of amount the accused had issued the cheque-Ex.P.1, the complainant have failed to prove the material ingredients of legally enforceable debt. Question whether statutory presumption rebutted or not, must be determined in view of other evidence on record.
33. In the present case, the accused raises a probable defence and also proved the same before the court by eliciting the materials facts in the cross examination of PW.1 which would indicate that the cheque in question is not issued for repayment of the said dues. If the accused succeeds in rebutting the presumption, the onus of proving the existence of legally enforceable debt for which the cheque was issued will be on the complainant. But in the case on hand the complainant's have failed to produce any evidence in order to prove that the cheque-Ex.P.1 was issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt. Whereas the accused have succeeded, in rebutting the initial presumption available in favour of the complainant. In the said circumstances the defence have succeeded in discharging their burden of rebutting the said presumption. Thus from the above discussion and placing reliance on the judgment noted above this court is of the opinion that the accused have C.C.NO.26311/2023 32 succeeded in rebutting the presumption available to the complainant under section 139 of N.I.Act. When there is no other material produced by the complainant to support of their contention, they have failed to prove the material ingredients of existence of legally enforceable debt. The discussion supra manifest that the version of defence is a probable one and worth acceptable. Thus by raising a probable defence the accused successfully rebutted the legal presumption raised in favour of the complainant and thereby shifted the anus of proof to the complainant to demonstrate the existence of legally recoverable debt as claimed, but in the instant case the complainant utterly failed to discharge the shifted onus. In this background, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
34.POINT NO.2: According to the complainant the cheque-Ex.P.1 when it was presented to the bank for encashment same was dishonor for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" in the account of the accused No.1. To prove this fact the complainant's have produced the cheque-Ex.P.1, the bank memos-Ex.P.2 to 4 and also notice-Ex.P.5. On perusal of the bank memos-Ex.P.2 to 4 it is disclosed that the cheque-Ex.P.1 was dishonored for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" in the account of the drawer namely the accused No.1. These facts are also stated in the legal notice-Ex.P.5 and the oral evidence of PW.1. The accused have not seriously C.C.NO.26311/2023 33 disputed the dishonor of disputed cheque for the reasons "Funds Insufficient". What has been disputed is the fact that the cheque-Ex.P.1 was not issued by the accused for discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability. Further they had issued the disputed cheque for the purpose of security in the month of August 2022. When the accused demanded the complainant to returned the same, but the complainant's have not returned the said cheque. On perusal of the documents clearly shows that the accused had issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.1 and the documents placed on record, the fact that the cheque-Ex.P.1 came to be dishonored for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" has been proved by the complainant.
35. In order to attract the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act a cheque has to be issued by the accused which was drawn on an account maintained by him for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. Further it is required that the said cheque when presented by the complainant was returned unpaid by the bank for any of the reasons enumerated in section 138 of N.I.Act. Thereafter the accused had failed to repay the cheque amount inspite of having received a notice demanding such payment within a period of 15 days on receipt of the legal notice. In the C.C.NO.26311/2023 34 present case it is the case of the complainant that the cheque-Ex.P.1 was issued to them on 25.08.2022 for clearance of the due amount. The said cheque was presented on 05.09.2022, 16.09.2022 and 18.11.2022 to the State Bank of India, Girinagara Branch, Bengaluru for encashment. Thereafter, the complainant have received the bank memo as per Ex.P.2 to 4 on 07.09.2022, 19.09.2022 and 21.11.2022 informing them that the cheque was dishonored for the reasons that there was no insufficient funds" in the account of the accused No.1/drawer. Thereafter within statutory period of receipt the said information the complainant has got issued a legal notice as per Ex.P.5 calling upon the accused to make payment of the cheque. The said notice is shown to have been served to the accused as per Ex.P.7 and 8. The accused have given reply to the notice, but failed to repay the cheque amount.
36. The accused have nowhere seriously denied the service of notice. However, they does not dispute the address shown on the notice. The requirement of section 138 of N.I.Act is that notice has to be sent to the correct address of the accused. In the case on hand admittedly the notice is sent to the address furnished by the accused. In the present case the first essential requirement of the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability to the complainant by the accused have not been proved. Hence, the C.C.NO.26311/2023 35 complainant have failed to comply the required mandatory provision of section 138 of N.I.Act. The basic requirement is not established. Accordingly, I answer Point No.2 in the Negative.
37. POINT NO.3: In view of the findings of this court, the essential requirements to attract the offence of section 138 of N.I.Act has not been proved by the complainant and also as there is no sufficient evidence to hold the accused liable for any offence in the present case. Hence, I answer point No.3 in the Negative.
38. POINT NO.4: The complainant has been held to have failed to prove the very transaction with the accused. Hence, the accused is found to be not guilty of the offence charged. In the said circumstances, the accused cannot be directed to pay any compensation. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following;
:ORDER:
Acting under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused are acquitted for an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The personal bail bonds and surety bonds executed by the accused hereby stands canceled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment pronounced in the open court on 16th day of October- 2024) C.C.NO.26311/2023 36 Digitally signed by SOUBHAGYA SOUBHAGYA B BHUSHER B BHUSHER Date:
2024.10.19 17:54:00 +0530 (Soubhagya.B.Bhusher) XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Sri.M.Mohan.
List of documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) & 1(b) : Signatures of the accused No.2 & 3.
Ex.P.2 to 4 : Bank endorsements.
Ex.P.5 : Office copy of the legal notice.
Ex.P.6 : Postal receipts.
Ex.P.7 & 8 : Postal Acknowledgments.
Ex.P.9 : Reply notice.
Ex.P.10 : Registration certificate.
Ex.P.11 : Reconstitution of partnership deed.
Ex.P.12 : Resolution.
Ex.P.13 : Printed copy of letter of acceptance.
Ex.P.14 : Printed copy of work order.
Ex.P.15 & 16 : Printed copies of tax invoices.
Ex.P.17 : Printed copy of request letter sent by the accused.
Ex.P.18 : Reply given to the request letter.
Ex.P.19 : Certificate U/s.65(b) of I.E.Act.
Ex.P.20 : Complaint.
Ex.P.21 : Amended complaint.
Ex.P.22 : E-mail dated: 06.01.2021.
Ex.P.23 : E-mail dated: 08.11.2021.
Ex.P.24 : E-mail dated: 12.11.2021.
Ex.P.25 : E-mail dated: 28.02.2022.
Ex.P.26 : Letter dated: 10.01.2022.
Ex.P.27 : E-mail dated:22.0.2022.
Ex.P.28 : Contract document.
C.C.NO.26311/2023
37
Ex.P.29 : Certificate U/s.65(b) of I.E.Act.
Ex.P.30 : Signature of the accused No.2.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
DW.1 : Mr.Raghunath.K.M. List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D.1 : Letter.
Ex.D.2 : Bank account statement.
Ex.D.3 & 4 : Bank Statements of Bank of Baroda, Mysore,
related to the accused No.1.
Ex.D.5 : HDFC bank statement related to the accused No.2.
Digitally
signed by
SOUBHAGYA
SOUBHAGYA B BHUSHER
B BHUSHER Date:
2024.10.19
17:54:08
+0530
(Soubhagya.B.Bhusher)
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.26311/2023
38
16.10.2024 (Judgment pronounced in the Open
Court Vide Separate Sheet)
:ORDER:
Acting under section 255(1) of
Cr.P.C., the accused are acquitted for an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The personal bail bonds and surety bonds executed by the accused hereby stands canceled.
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.