Bangalore District Court
Kuriakose N V vs Uthaman P K on 5 June, 2024
KABC0C0302902018
IN THE COURT OF XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (ACMM-34)
PRESENT: Smt.PARVEEN A BANKAPUR,B.Com.LLB.
XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE,
Dated : This the 5th day of June, 2024.
C.C.No.59000/2018
COMPLAINANT : Mr. Kuriakose N V
Aged 49 years
S/o. Aliyas
R/at No. 243, 3rd Cross,
L G Lake View, Bilishivale,
Kothannur,
Bengaluru - 560 077.
(By Mr. Thyagarajan - Advocate)
V/s
ACCUSED : Mr. Uthaman P K
Aged about 50 years,
S/o Karnan,
R/at New Parackal House, Lake Side
Avenue, 1st Main, Shettihalli,
Bengaluru - 560 015.
And also at:
R/at Parackal House,
Manthuruthy Post,
Changanacherry,
Kottayam- 686 542.
(By Mr. Sridhara T. - Advocate)
1 Date of Commencement 26.02.2021
of offence
2 Date of report of offence 17.02.2018
3 Presence of accused
3a. Before the Court 10.06.2019
3b. Released on bail 10.06.2019
4 Name of the Complainant Mr. Kuriakose N.V.
5 Date of recording of 30.10.2018
evidence
2 C.C.No.59000/2018
6 Date of closure of evidence 16.01.2024
7 Offences alleged U/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
8 Opinion of Judge Accused is found guilty
JUDGEMENT
The Private Complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submits that, the Accused is his friend and known to him from several years. Out of friendship, the Accused had approached him informing that he was starting chit business on multiple occasions on various amount i.e.
a) On 25.3.2015 for a chit of Rs.25 lakhs and every month the chit amount was Rs.1,00,000/- and Complainant has paid 20 months chit amount, as such Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.20 lakhs
b) On 25.12.2015 for a chit of Rs.30 lakhs and every month the chit amount was Rs.1 lakh and Complainant has paid 11 months chit amount, as such Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.11 lakhs.
c) On 30.05.2016 for a chit of Rs.30 lakhs and every month the chit amount was Rs.1 lakh and Complainant has paid 6 months chit amount, as such Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.6 lakhs 3 C.C.No.59000/2018 In total the Accused has received a sum of Rs.37 lakhs and Accused was suppose to refund him a sum of Rs.37 lakhs plus benefits accrued with the said payments, out of which the Accused had paid Rs.5 lakhs to the Complainant by cheque and took some time for repaying the balance sum.
It is further submitted by the Complainant that as agreed by Accused even after lapse of agreed period, the Accused did not repay the balance amount of Rs.32 lakhs plus benefits and Accused went on delaying the repayment on one or the other pretext, finally in lieu of above said balance amount, the Accused in the month of November 2017 had issued a cheque bearing No.221919 dtd.29.11.2017 for Rs.14,00,000/- drawn on Federal Bank, Jalahalli Branch, Bengaluru as part payment of the said balance sum of Rs.32 lakhs plus benefits accrued with an assurance that the cheque would be honoured on its presentation.
It is further submitted by the Complainant that as per the instruction of the Accused, the Complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker i.e., South Indian Bank Ltd., Kothannur branch, Bengaluru. But the said came to be returned with a reason "Kindly contact drawer/drawee 4 C.C.No.59000/2018 Bank" and please present again on 29.11.2017. Thereafter, as per the request of the Accused, he re-presented the said cheque for twice before his banker for encashment, but on both occasions it came to be dishonoured for the reason "Kindly contact drawer/drawee Bank" on 7.12.2017 and 20.12.2017 respectively. Thereafter, the the Complainant got issued demand notice through RPAD on 5.1.2018, through his counsel to the Accused. Further due to oversight the above said notice was not signed by the counsel and immediately on the same day i.e., on 5.1.2018 the Complainant sent a corrigendum notice to the Accused. The notice and corrigendum notices sent to the 1st address of the Accused were duly served on 6.1.2018 and the notice and corrigendum notice sent to the 2 nd address of the Accused have returned unserved on 12.1.2018. After receipt of the notice, the Accused has not paid the cheque amount but he has sent his reply dtd.22.1.2028. Hence, the Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit, and documents etc., took cognizance of an offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act by following the guidelines of 5 C.C.No.59000/2018 Apex Court issued in Indian Bank Association case and ordered to be registered a criminal case against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
4. After issuance of summons, accused appeared before the court and enlarged himself on bail. Plea was recorded, read over and explained to the accused, who pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for complainant's evidence.
5. The Complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and the Complainant got examined one more witness from his end as PW2 and closed his side.
6. Accused was examined U/S 313 of Cr.P.C.
Incriminating evidence appearing in the complainant's evidence was read over and explained to the accused who denies the same. The Accused examined got examined himself as DW1 and Ex.D1 to 8 documents were marked from his end.
7. Heard counsel for Complainant at length in great detail. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for Complainant has filed the written arguments. 6 C.C.No.59000/2018
8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the materials placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration.
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused in discharge of legally recoverable debt, has issued a Cheque No.221919 dtd.29.11.2017 for Rs.14,00,000/-
drawn on Federal Bank, Jalahalli Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant, but cheque came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "Kindly contact drawer/drawee Bank" on 20.12.2017 and in spite of service of notice accused has not paid the Cheque amount and thereby committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
9. My findings on the above points is:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS Point No.1:-
10. Existence of legally recoverable debt is a sine qua non for prosecuting the case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. For convenient purpose the essential ingredients to constitute offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is summarized as below:
7 C.C.No.59000/2018
(i) That there must be a legally enforceable debt.
(ii) That the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes the legally enforceable debt.
(iii)That the cheque so issued had been returned due to "insufficient funds".
11. It is the core contention of the complainant that, the Accused is his friend and known to him from several years. Out of friendship, the Accused had approached him informing that he was starting chit business on multiple occasions on various amount i.e.,
a) On 25.3.2015 for a chit of Rs.25 lakhs and every month the chit amount was Rs.1,00,000/- and Complainant has paid 20 months chit amount, as such Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.20 lakhs
b) On 25.12.2015 for a chit of Rs.30 lakhs and every month the chit amount was Rs.1 lakh and Complainant has paid 11 months chit amount, as such Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.11 lakhs.
c) On 30.05.2016 for a chit of Rs.30 lakhs and every month the chit amount was Rs.1 lakh and Complainant has paid 6 months chit amount, as such Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.6 lakhs In total the Accused has received a sum of Rs.37 lakhs and Accused was suppose to refund him a sum of Rs.37 lakhs 8 C.C.No.59000/2018 plus benefits accrued with the said payments, out of which the Accused had paid Rs.5 lakhs to the Complainant by cheque and took some time for repaying the balance sum. After lapse of agreed period, the Accused did not repay the balance amount in the month of November 2017 had issued a cheque bearing No.221919 dtd.29.11.2017 for Rs.14,00,000/- drawn on Federal Bank, Jalahalli Branch, Bengaluru as part payment of the said balance sum of Rs.32 lakhs plus benefits accrued with an assurance that the cheque would be honoured on its presentation and same was dishonoured with reason "Kindly contact drawer/drawee Bank" and please present again on 29.11.2017. Thereafter, as per the request of the Accused, he re-presented the said cheque for twice before his banker for encashment, but on both occasions it came to be dishonoured for the reason "Kindly contact drawer/drawee Bank" on 7.12.2017 and 20.12.2017 respectively. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued legal notice through RPAD on 5.1.2018, through his counsel to the Accused. The notice and corrigendum notices sent to the 1 st address of the Accused were duly served on 6.1.2018 and the notice and corrigendum notice sent to the 2nd address of the Accused have returned 9 C.C.No.59000/2018 unserved on 12.1.2018. After receipt of the notice, the Accused has not paid the cheque amount, but he has sent his reply dtd.22.1.2028. Hence, the Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
12. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, complainant has examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the contents of complaint in his examination-in-chief. He has also placed the original Cheque bearing No.221919 dtd.29.11.2017 at Ex.P.1, the bank endorsements at Ex.P2 to 4, office copy of legal notices issued by the Complainant to the Accused on 5.1.2018 at Ex.P5 and 6, postal receipt at Ex.P7, postal acknowledgements at Ex.P8 and 9, returned postal covers and Ex.P10 and 11 and reply notice by the Accused at Ex.P12.
13. The documents produced by the complainant of course established that complainant meets out the procedural requirements of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but it is to be considered whether all these documents establish the offence committed by the accused.
10 C.C.No.59000/2018
14. The Negotiable Instruments Act raises two presumptions. One contained in Section 118 and the other in Sec. 139 thereof. For the sake of convenience Sec 118(1) of the N.I. Act is extracted here below:
118. Presumptions as to negotiable Instruments--
Until 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 transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
1. To (g) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Provided that where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from an person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence of fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence of fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him".
15. Further Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under:
"139, Presumption in favour of holder. It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the 11 C.C.No.59000/2018 holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."
Scope and ambit and function of the presumption U/s 118(a) and Sec 139 of NI Act came to be considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court of Indian in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde (2008 AIAR (Criminal 151) The Supreme Court has laid down the law in the following phraseology.
" D Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Secs 139, 138--Presumption under-same arises in regard to second aspect of the matter provided under Sec 138-- Existence of legally enforceable debt is not a matter of presumption under Sec 139- It merely raises presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability - Merely an application of presumption contemplated under Section 139 of N.I.Act should not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction."
16. Further, said decision was followed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Kempanarasimhaiah Vs P.Rangaraju & Others (2008 (5) KCCR 3371). Relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: -
"12. As to the provisions of Sections 138 of N.I.Act, the following principles emerge from the above 12 C.C.No.59000/2018 observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court at para Nos 21, 23, 25, 26 and 34 of its Judgment in the above said case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde, AIR 2008 SC 1325.
(i) Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption that the cheque was issued towards discharge in whole or in part in any debt or other liability, which presupposed legally enforceable debt. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability." ( para 21)
(ii) The question as to whether the presumption stood rebutted or not, must be determined keeping in view the other evidences on record. Where the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration. (para 26)
(iii) An accused, for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute, need not examine himself.
He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on records (para 23)
(iv) Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different. Further more where as prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is " preponderance of probabilities'" ( para 23 & 25)
(v) Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies ( para 25) 13 C.C.No.59000/2018
(vi) Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be deliberately balanced (para 34)
17. Thus from the observations extracted above, it is clear that presumption Under Section 139 of the N.I,.Act is only to the extent that the cheque was drawn for discharge in full or in part of any debt or other liability and the said presumption do not relate to the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore, before drawing the presumption under section 139 of the N.I.Act, it is the duty of the Court to see whether or not the complainant has discharged his initial burden as to existence of legally enforceable debt. No doubt, as per Section 118(a) of the Act, there is a rebuttable presumption that every negotiable instrument, is accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."
18. Factual matrix of the case is required to be tested on the anvil of principles emerging from the above-referred decisions.
19. The defence taken by the Accused is that, the Complainant had borrowed Rs.5 lakhs from him and still has 14 C.C.No.59000/2018 not repaid and filed false complaint against him colluding with his relative by name Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla. It is further stated that the Accused has borrowed Rs.10 lakhs from Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla and repaid the entire amount with huge interest in sum of Rs.20 lakhs through bank payment to Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla. It is further submits that at the time of loan transaction, the said Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla had collected two Cheques bearing No.245559 and 221919 from him and after repayment of his loan, when Accused requested to return the said Cheques but, Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla did not return and misusing the Cheques colluding with Complainant by forging his signature, created document of undertaking affidavit and filed false complaint against him.
20. To substantiate his claim, the Complainant himself examined as PW1. He deposed that, Accused is well known to him and considering their relationship and friendship Accused approached him informing that the Accused was running chit business in multiple occasions and various amounts. It is further deposed that in 3 chits for different amount the Accused totally received Rs.37 lakhs from him and Accused 15 C.C.No.59000/2018 was supposed to refund Rs.37 lakhs plus benefits accrued with the said payments, out of which Accused has paid Rs.5 lakhs by Cheque and took some more time for repayment of balance amount. It is further deposed that, after lapse of agreed period, out of Rs.32 lakhs balance amount, in the month of November 2017 the Accused has issued Ex.P1 Cheque in favour of Complainant, which was dishonoured with reason Kindly contact drawer/drawee bank and present again. It is further deposed that on the instructions of the Accused, the Complainant represented the Cheque to the banker and said Cheque was again dishonoured on reason. It is further deposed that,the Complainant issued legal notice which was not duly signed by the counsel and on the same day, the counsel of the Complainant send corrigendum notice with duly signed, which was served upon the Accused and Accused reply the notice as per Ex.P12.
21. The Complainant examined his relative by name Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla as PW2. He deposed that, the Accused has borrowed handloan of Rs.30 lakhs from him for his daughter's marriage and also clear some debts, which accrued in his chit 16 C.C.No.59000/2018 business. He further deposed that, Accused has repaid part amount of Rs.20 lakhs and for balance he has issued Cheque bearing No.245559 for Rs.10 lakhs to him, which was dishonoured and he has filed private complaint against the Accused punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. He further deposed that the Accused has filed private compliant in PCR No.4220/2021 before XXXI ACMM, Bengaluru against him and Complainant and in which the jurisdictional police have filed 'B' Report.
22. On perusal of oral evidence of above both witnesses and documents produced by the Complainant at Ex.P1 to 12 are reveals that presumption that Ex.P1 Cheque was issued by the Accused for the payment out of balance amount of Rs.32 lakhs.
23. To rebut the presumption, the learned Counsel for Accused cross examined the PW1 in full length. In the cross- examination PW1 stated that his monthly salary is Rs.2 lakhs. He further stated that since from 2015 he was paying amount to the Complainant in the month of March 2015 the chit was commenced and he has paid Rs.25 lakhs and in the month of 17 C.C.No.59000/2018 December 2015 another chit amount of Rs.30 lakhs and he has paid every month Rs.1 lakh subscription and he has paid Rs.16 lakhs to him for second chit. He further stated that in the month of May 2016 third chit was commenced for Rs.30 lakhs and he has paid Rs.1 lakh per month and about Rs.5-6 lakhs was paid by him for the third chit. In the cross-examination he admits that he has totally paid Rs.47 lakhs. He also admits in the complaint he stated Rs.37 lakhs. In the cross-examination in the month of November, 2017 he asked to return the chit amount to the Accused and at that time the Accused paid Rs.5 lakhs only, which was transferred to his account. He further stated that Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla is brother of his wife. He clearly denied that he was borrowed Rs.5 lakhs from the Accused in the month of November 2017. He also stated that, the Accused borrowed amount from Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla. In the cross- examination he further stated that Ex.P1 Cheque was took by him from the house of Accused in the year 2017 and the handwriting and signature on Ex.P1 was belongs to the Accused. He further stated that, out of Rs.32 lakhs the Accused has issued part amount of Cheque of Rs.14 lakhs. 18 C.C.No.59000/2018
24. In the cross-examination of PW2 the learned Counsel for accused putting questions about criminal case filed by him against the Accused in C.C.No.29423/2018 before XX ACMM, Bengaluru. In the cross-examination PW2 deposed that, he is the relative of Complainant and he not received any witness summons from the court. He further deposed in the cross- examination that, Accused was availed loan of Rs.30 lakhs to him out of which, Rs.20 lakhs he was repaid and for Rs.10 lakhs he has issued Cheque in his favour. He denied in the cross-examination that Accused has issued two Cheques for the security purpose to him, out of one Cheque he filed complaint against the Accused in C.C.No.29423/2018 and another Cheque was given to the Complainant and through Complainant he has filed present case.
25. The Accused himself examined as DW1. He deposed that, the Complainant colluded with his relative i.e., his sister's husband Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla has filed this case. He further deposed that he had borrowed Rs.10 lakhs from Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla with huge interest he repaid entire loan amount I.e., sum of Rs.20 lakhs to him and at the time of loan transaction, Mr. Binoy Kuruvilla had collected two security Cheques, which 19 C.C.No.59000/2018 were misused by him by filing of false complaint against him through the Complainant and by Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla. He further deposed that, Complainant borrowed loan of Rs.5 lakhs from him and when the Accused requested the Complainant to repayment of said Rs.5 lakhs loan the Complainant postponing the same and colluded with his relative Mr. Binoy Kuruvilla and forged his signature by creating document as undertaking affidavit and collected the Cheque from his relative Mr. Binoy Kuruvilla and filled up it for Rs.14 lakhs and presented before the bank. He further deposed that, he never borrowed any loan amount from the Complainant and never issued any Cheque to the Complainant.
26. In the cross-examination he stated that, the Complainant and Accused were not friends and Accused has not running any chit business and Complainant has not given any amount to him. In the cross examination he admitted that, chit members are lodged complaint against him to Home Department, MLA, and Police Commissioner. He further stated that that false complaint filed by them against him. In the cross-examination he admits that Ex.P1 Cheque belongs to him, but he denied signature on Ex.P1. In the cross- 20 C.C.No.59000/2018 examination he further stated that, Ex.P1 Cheque was given to Mr. Binoy Kuruvilla, who is sister's husband of Complainant. In the cross-examination he further stated that, he has issued one signed and another without signed Cheque to Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla. He admits that Mr. Binoy Kuruvilla was filed criminal case against him before XX ACMM. He further admits that, he has lodged private complaint before the court against Complainant and Mr. Binoy Kuruvilla for alleging cheating. He denied that police have filed 'B' report on the said complaint. He denied that, for the repayment of loan amount, he issued filled and signed Cheque to the Complainant. He admitted in the cross-examination that, Complainant has filed police complaint against him in ACP North and also Axit Avenue Residence Welfare Association was also lodged complaint against him before MLA for the nuisance created by him to the residents. He further admits that M/s.Cotton World's Partner has filed criminal case against him in C.C.No.615/2018 in which he was convicted.
27. On considering the oral and documentary evidence of both side, the defence taken by the Accused in the cross- examination as well as in his examination in chief that, he 21 C.C.No.59000/2018 borrowed loan from Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla and at the time of loan of Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla collected 2 Cheques for security in which one Cheque was misused by this Complainant as Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla is close relative and filed false complaint against him, On the other hand, the Complainant taken contention that Accused was taken huge amount for his chit business and return of partial amount, he issued Ex.P1 Cheque to him. The Accused has admitted that Cheque belongs to him but, he denied his signature on the Cheque. Further, in the cross- examination he stated that, he issued one signed and another without signed Cheque to Mr. Binoy Kuruvilla. But he has not explained why he issued without signed Cheque to him. Further, on careful comparing the signature of the Accused on Ex.P1 with other admitted signature available on record, both signatures are tallied and it appears that signature on Ex.P1 is belongs to the Accused. Further the Accused has not taken any legal action against the Complainant and Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla for misusing of the Cheques
28. Ex.P12 is the reply notice wherein the Accused has not taken any specific defence. In Ex.P12 he only bare denial of the notice allegations. Further in the cross-examination he 22 C.C.No.59000/2018 admits that, he has filed compliant against the Complainant and Mr.Binoy Kuruvilla in which police have filed 'B' report. He further admits that, members of the chit also lodged complaint against the Accused before Home Department, MLA and Police Commissioner, Bengaluru and also locality residents are also lodged complaint against him for creating nuisance. These all is shows that, conduct and nature of the Accused. Since the Accused has admitted issuance of Cheque and on comparing the signatures it belongs to the Accused. Therefore, it presumed that, Ex.P1 Cheque was issued by him in favour of Complainant for discharge of legally enforceable debt.
29. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the cheque in question was issued by the accused to discharge the legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused can place rebuttal evidence so as to show that the cheque was not issued for consideration. As appreciated supra, accused has failed to put acceptable and satisfactory evidence to probabilise the defence. Therefore, there is no question of saying that the cheque was not issued for liability.
30. The accused himself admits that he has issued question cheque. Therefore, complainant has discharged his 23 C.C.No.59000/2018 initial onus laid on him. When he has discharged his initial onus, it raises presumption U/s 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused has failed to rebut the presumption either in cross-examining PW-1 and PW2 or in his evidence.
31. So, far as sentence and compensation is concern, an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, is a civil wrong and compensatory in nature, punitive is secondary, considering, the above settled principle of law with facts and circumstances of the case, which clearly reveals that, the complainant had paid Rs.37 lakhs to the Accused for chit business and towards repayment of part amount, the Accused has issued Ex.P1 cheque. Therefore, considering the nature of transaction, duration of pendency, litigation expenses, I am opinion that, if sentence of fine of Rs.19,20,800/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Twenty Thousand and Eight Hundred only) is imposed that would meet the ends of justice, accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.19,20,800/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Twenty Thousand and Eight Hundred only), out of that, the complainant is entitled for sum of Rs.19,15,800/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Fifteen Thousand and Eight Hundred only) as a compensation as per 24 C.C.No.59000/2018 Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C., remaining amount of Rs.5,000/-, is to be appropriated to the State, in case of default the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. year. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered in Affirmative.
32. POINT No.2 : In view of discussion held in Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.19,20,800/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Twenty Thousand and Eight Hundred only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Further, it is made clear that out of fine amount, Rs.19,15,800/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Fifteen Thousand and Eight Hundred only) is to be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be remitted to the State.
Bail bond stands cancelled.
Supply the free copy of this judgement to the Accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 5th June, 2024) Digitally signed by PARVEEN A PARVEEN A BANKAPUR BANKAPUR Date: 2024.06.11 12:00:29 +0530 (PARVEEN A BANKAPUR) XXXIV ACMM, BENGALURU.
25 C.C.No.59000/2018ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 Mr. Kuriakose N.V. P.W.2 Mr. Benoy Kuruvilla P.K.
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque Ex.P.2 to 4 Bank endorsements Ex.P.5 & 6 Office copies of legal notices Ex.P.7 Postal receipt Ex.P.8 & 9 Postal acknowledgements Ex.P.10 & Unsrved postal covers 11 Ex.P.12 Reply
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused :
D.W.1 Mr. Uthaman P.K.
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 to 5 Bank statements Ex.D.6 Certified copy of Order sheet in PCR No.4220/2021 Ex.D.7 Certified copy of Undertaking affidavit Ex.D.8 Certified copy of sworn statement in PCR No.13343/2015 Digitally signed by PARVEEN A PARVEEN A BANKAPUR BANKAPUR Date: 2024.06.11 12:00:33 +0530 (PARVEEN A BANKAPUR) XXXIV ACMM, BENGALURU.