Bangalore District Court
Sri. K. Raghavendra vs Sri. Rajashakar on 15 February, 2020
1 C.C.No.10602/2016 J
THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated:- This the 15th day of February, 2020
i.
Present: Sri.S.B.HANDRAL, B.Sc., L.L.B(SPL).,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : i. C.C.No.10602/2016
Complainant : Sri. K. Raghavendra,
S/o. Kalasaiah,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at No.8,
3rd Cross, "A" Block,
Agraharadasarahalli,
Magadi Road,
Bengaluru - 560 079.
Rep. by Sri . M.G.Sateesha., Adv.,)
- Vs -
Accused : Sri. Rajashakar,
Aged about 53 years,
S/o. Thotappa,
No. 131, 2nd Cross,
Sanjivininagar,
2nd Stage, Peenya,
Bengaluru - 560 091.
(Rep. by Sri. Shantkumar.V., Adv.,)
Case instituted : 16.2.2016
2 C.C.No.10602/2016 J
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 15.2.2020
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that, the Accused have purchased the site bearing No.28, measuring 39 x 30 feet and southern side of site No.27, measuring 39 x 05 feet totally measuring 39 x 25 feet, katha No.24, assessment No.24/1, Andrahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, BBMP Ward No.40 under a registered sale deed dated: 7.11.2014, vide document No.NGB-1-07166/2014-15 from him for total sale consideration of Rs.28 Lakhs, and on the request of the Accused to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/= within a year and agreed to pay the interest of Rs.75,000/- to the said 3 C.C.No.10602/2016 J balance sale consideration the Accused and his wife have entered into separate agreement dated:
7.11.2014 with him to pay a sum of Rs.8,25,000/= on the same day, the Accused have agreed and issued post dated account payee cheque bearing No. 012226 dated: 20.10.2015 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Sunkadakatte Branch, Bengaluru mentioned in the said agreement. The complainant further contends that, under the above circumstances, on the request of the Accused sale consideration has shown of Rs.21,00,000/- in the sale deed dated: 7.11.2014 and entered into separate agreement dated: 7.11.2014 for paying above part balance sale consideration and the Accused and his wife approached the complainant on 20.10.2015 reqeusted to him not to present the said cheque on that date by requesting further time till 15th December 2015 to present the cheque bearing No. 012226 for a sum of Rs.8,25,000/= dated:
20.10.2015 drawn on State bank of Mysore, Sunkadakate Branch, Bengaluru and as per the promise and words of the Accused, he presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker i.e. on 16.12.2015, but the said cheque was returned 4 C.C.No.10602/2016 J dishonoured with a shara "Funds Insufficient"
date:17.12.2015, thereafter he was constrained to cause legal notice to the Accused through his advocate on 30.12.2015 calling upon the Accused to pay the amount due covered under the cheque, but the said notice sent through RPAD was returned with postal shara "not claimed", and the Accused was very much aware of the legal notice, Accused neither paid the cheque amount nor reply the notice. Hence the complainant has filed this present complainant against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Before issuing process against the accused, the Complainant has filed his affidavit-in-lieu of his sworn statement, in which, he has reiterated the averments of the complaint. In support of his sworn statement, P.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.C.1 to C.8 i.e, Original Cheque dated:-20.10.2015 as per Ex.C.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused as per Ex.C.1(a), the Bank Memo as per Ex.C.2, the office copy of the Legal Notice as per Ex.C.3, the Postal Receipt as per Ex.C.4, returned 5 C.C.No.10602/2016 J notice as per Ex.C.5, RPAD cover as per Ex.C.6, postal receipt as per Ex.C.7 and Original Agreement Deed dated: 1.11.2014 as per Ex.C.8.
4. Prima-facie case has been made out against the accused and summons was issued against the accused in turn he has appeared before the court and got enlarged on bail and the substance of the accusation has been read over to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. Thereafter complainant himself examined as PW.1 by adopting sworn statement filed by him and also adopted the documents which are marked as Ex.C.1 to C.8 at the time of recording of the sworn statement and closed his side.
6. Thereafter, the statement of the accused as required under Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and has chosen to lead his rebuttal evidence.
7. Accused himself examined as DW.1 and on 6 C.C.No.10602/2016 J behalf of the Accused, one Smt.Gangamma is examined as DW.2. During the cross-examination of PW.1, has produced certified copy of the sale deed dated: 7.11.2014 as per Ex.D.1 and the document issued by Bharathi AXE Life Protect Insurance company is as per Ex.D.2 and closed his side.
8. During the cross-examination of DW.1, the vakalathnama confronted to the witness is marked as Ex.N.1.
9. Heard and perused the written arguments submitted by both learned counsels for the complainant and the Accused and perused the decisions submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant and Accused and materials on record.
10. On the basis of complaint, evidence of complainant and documents and having heard the arguments of both learned counsels for the complainant and the accused, the following points that are arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued cheque for Rs.8,25,000/= bearing No.012226 dated:-20.10.2015 drawn on State 7 C.C.No.10602/2016 J bank of Mysore, Sunkadakatte branch, Bengaluru to discharge legally recoverable debt to the complainant and when the complainant has presented a cheque for encashment through his banker but the said cheques have been dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" on 17.12.2015 and the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 30.12.2015 and inspite of it the accused has not paid the cheque amount within prescribed period there by the accused has committed an offence U/s.138 of the Negotiable instruments Act?
2. What Order?
11. The above points are answered as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
12. Point No.1: Before appreciation of the facts and oral and documentary evidence of the present case, it is relevant to mention that under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to establish guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts however, a proceedings U/s.138 of N.I.Act is quasi criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof 8 C.C.No.10602/2016 J beyond all reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions as envisaged U/s.118, 139 and 136 of N.I.Act. An essential ingredient of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act is that, whether a person issues cheque to be encashed and the cheque so issued is towards payment of debt or liability and if it is returned as unpaid for want of funds, then the person issuing such cheque shall be deemed to have been committed an offence. The offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act pre-supposes three conditions for prosecution of an offence which are as under:
1. Cheque shall be presented for payment within specified time i.e., from the date of issue or before expiry of its validity.
2. The holder shall issue a notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer within one month from the date of receipt of information of the bounced cheque and
3. The drawer inspite of demand notice fails to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice.
If the above said three conditions are satisfied by holder in due course gets cause action to launch 9 C.C.No.10602/2016 J prosecution against the drawer of the bounced cheque and as per Sec.142(b) of the N.I. Act, the complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arise to file complaint.
13. It is also one of the essential ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act that, a cheque in question must have been issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I.Act envisages certain presumptions i.e., U/s.118 a presumption shall be raised regarding 'consideration' 'date' 'transfer' 'endorsement' and holder in course of Negotiable Instrument. Even Sec.139 of the Act are rebuttable presumptions shall be raised that, the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally recoverable or enforceable debt and these presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in cases of negotiable instrument, but the said presumptions are not conclusive and rebuttable one, this proportion of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in catena of decisions.
14. In the present case the complainant got 10 C.C.No.10602/2016 J examined as PW.1 by filing his affidavit evidence wherein he has reiterated the entire averments of the complaint and in his evidence testified that, he has sold the site bearing No. 28 and southern side of site No. 27 situated in Andrahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, BBMP Ward No. 40 under registered sale deed dated: 87.11.2014 for total sale consideration amount of Rs.28 Lakhs to the Accused on his request to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/= within a year and also agreed to pay interest of Rs.75,000/= on the balance sale consideration amount, to that effect the Accused and his wife have entered into a separate agreement dated: 7.11.2014 with him by agreeing to pay sum of Rs.8,25,000/= and on the same day the Accused has issued a post dated account payee cheque bearing No. 012226 dated: - 20.10.2015 and on the request of the Accused the sale consideration is shown as Rs.21 Lakhs only in the sale deed dated:
7.4.2014. It is further testified by the complainant that, Accused and his wife approached him on 20.10.2015 and requested him not to present the said cheque on the said date by requesting further time till 15th December 2015 by promising that the 11 C.C.No.10602/2016 J said cheque will be honoured without fail, believing the promise of the Accused he has presented the said cheque for realization through his banker on 16.12.2015 but said cheque was dishonoured with a shara of "Funds Insufficient" dated: 17.12.2015 thereafter he has constrained to issue legal notice to his advocate on 30.12.2015 calling upon the Accused to pay the amount due under the cheque and said notice was sent through RPAD to the address of the Accused and it was returned as not claimed, inspite of Accused residing in the same address and was very much aware about the legal notice and the Accused neither paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice.
15. In support of her oral evidence, P.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.C.1 to C.8 i.e., Original Cheque dated:-20.10.2015 as per Ex.C.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused as per Ex.C.1(a), the Bank Memo as per Ex.C.2, the office copy of the Legal Notice as per Ex.C.3, the Postal Receipt as per Ex.C.4, returned notice as per Ex.C.5, RPAD cover as per Ex.C.6, postal receipt as per Ex.C.7 and 12 C.C.No.10602/2016 J original Agreement Deed dated: 1.11.2014 as per Ex.C.8.
16. In the present case, there is no dispute between the complainant and Accused with regard to their acquaintance. It is also not in dispute by the accused that, the cheque in question presented for encashment and dishonoured for the reason of "Funds Insufficient" since as matter on record, proved by return memo i.e. Ex.C.2 issued by the concerned bank dated: 17.12.2015, therefore it is a matter on record and has been proved that, the cheque in question was presented within its validity period and dishonoured as per the bank endorsement issued by the banker of accused. It is also not in dispute that, the cheque in question i.e. Ex.C.1 belongs to the account of the accused and has not denied his signature which is appearing at Ex.C.1(a).
17. In relation to the service of notice the Accused in his evidence and during the course of cross-examination of the complainant, has denied the service of legal notice issued by the complainant 13 C.C.No.10602/2016 J to him. The complainant in order to prove service of notice upon the Accused, has produced the documents i.e copy of the legal notice, RPAD cover along with postal receipt which are at Ex.C.3 to C.7. On perusal of the Ex.C.6 i.e. the RPAD returned cover with an endorsement of "Not claimed Door locked". Hence, it goes to show that, the legal notice caused by the complainant through RPAD returned with postal endorsement of "Not claimed Door locked". The Accused during the course of cross- examination of complainant and in his evidence has not stated or disputed that, the address mentioned by the complainant in the legal notice and on RPAD cover is not of his correct address or he was/is not residing in the said address as on the date of issuance of the legal notice i.e. Ex.C.3 by the complainant. The Accused has also not produced any documents on his behalf to disprove the address mentioned by the complainant in the legal notice, RPAD cover as it is not of his correct address or he was/is not residing in the said address as on the date of issuance of notice or return of notice. Therefore in view of the said reasons it can be held that, the Accused has admitted his address 14 C.C.No.10602/2016 J mentioned by the complainant in the legal notice as well as RPAD cover as that of his correct address. In addition to that, the Accused in his cross- examination has categorically admitted that, his address shown in the cause title of the complaint is correct, hence in view of the said admission it can be held that, the Accused has clearly admitted the address shown by the complainant in the cause title of the complaint is his correct address and the address of the Accused mentioned in the legal notice i.e Ex.C.3 and address of the Accused mentioned in the cause title of the complaint are one and the same, hence on this count it can be held that the Accused has admitted the address mentioned in the legal notice is that of his correct address.
18. Even it is not the defence of the Accused that, the postal endorsement found on Ex.C.6 is not endorsed by the concerned postal authorities or has been created by the complainant and the Accused has not examined concerned postal authorities to disprove the endorsement found on Ex.C.6 i.e., RPAD cover. Therefore in view of non disputing of the address of the Accused in the legal notice as well 15 C.C.No.10602/2016 J as on the RPAD cover makes it clear that, the Accused has admitted that, the legal notice caused by the complainant was issued to his correct address through registered post, in such circumstances, it can be held that, the notice sent by the complainant to the correct address of the Accused is presumed to have been served on him U/s. 27 of General Clauses Act. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2011 ACD 1572 (KAR) in the case of Jayamma Vs. Lingamma, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, "Notice sent at correct address returned unclaimed - is deemed to be served. In another decision reported in 1998 KAR 1841 in the case of Shridhar M.A. Vs. Metalloy Steel Corporation and 1999 Cri.L.J. 4606 "K. Bhaskaran Vs. Vaidhanbalan wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was concerned with the question as to when the service of notice could be inferred and it was held that if there is an endorsement like 'not available in the house' 'house locked' 'shop closed' 'unclaimed' the service should be deemed to have been effected. It is also relevant here to refer the decision reported in 2008(4) Civil code 16 C.C.No.10602/2016 J cases 027 (SC) "M/s. Indo Automobiles Vs., M/s. Jai Durga Enterprises and others." wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, notice sent by registered post with acknowledgement to a correct address-service of notice has to be presumed. Therefore in view of the principles of law in the above decisions, it can be safely held that, the service of notice on accused in this case is presumed to have been served on him since in this case also the complainant has issued notice to the accused to his correct address through registered post and the said notice was returned with an endorsement of "Not claimed, Door locked", the notice issued by the complainant through registered post is held to be proper service and for the above said reasons, the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the accused that, the notice issued by the complainant was not served on the accused and the complainant has not complied the mandatory requirements of Sec.138(b) of N.I.Act and complaint is not maintainable cannot be acceptable and are not sustainable.
19. It is the specific defence of the Accused 17 C.C.No.10602/2016 J that, he has not entered into an agreement with the Accused as claimed by the complainant dated:
7.11.2014 and agreed to pay balance sale consideration as claimed in Ex.C.8 and either he or his wife have signed to the Ex.C.8. It is also the defence of the Accused that, the complainant had collected the cheque in dispute to secure loan for him from the bank and except his signature he had not written the rest of contents of the cheque. Hence, the defence of the Accused is that he has denied the entire claim of the complainant and also taken defence that, the complainant has collected his cheque for securing loan to him from the bank, in these back ground the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and Accused is to be examined.
20. In order to substantiate the claim of the complainant in support of his oral evidence has produced the Ex.C.1 cheque issued by the Accused and Ex.C.8 i.e. the Agreement Deed dated:
1.11.2014 executed by the Accused and his wife. It is the specific claim of the complainant that, he has sold his sites bearing No. 28 and southern side of 18 C.C.No.10602/2016 J the site No. 27 to the Accused for total sale consideration amount of Rs.28 Lakhs through a registered sale deed dated: 7.11.2014 and on the request of the Accused the sale consideration amount in the sale deed is shown as Rs.21 Lakhs only. It is also the specific claim of the complainant that, the Accused and his wife on the date of registration of the sale deed have agreed to take balance sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/= within one year and also agreed to pay interest of Rs.75,000/= on balance consideration in total sum of Rs.8,25,000/= and on the same day, the Accused have issued post dated cheque i.e. Ex.C.1 to him. On the other hand, the Accused has denied the execution of agreement i.e. Ex.C.8 and also issuance of the cheque i.e. Ex.C.1 to the complainant for sum of Rs.8,25,000/= as claimed by the complainant.
21. It is relevant here to mention that, the Accused has not disputed purchase of the site bearing No. 27 and southern part of site no. 27 situated at Andrahalli Vilalge, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, BBMP Ward No. 40 under a registered sale deed dated: 7.11.2014 from 19 C.C.No.10602/2016 J the complainant. The Accused has also produced the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated:
7.11.2014 which is at Ex.D.1. But the Accused has denied the execution of separate agreement i.e., Ex.C.8 dated: 7.11.2014 entered into between him and the complainant on the date of execution of the registered sale deed i.e. Ex.D.1 by the complainant and also denied the contents of Ex.C.8 and his and his wife's signatures found on Ex.C.8. The learned counsel for the Accused during the course of cross-
examination of the complainant i.e PW.1 has specifically denied the Ex.C.8 as the complainant got prepared the contents of the agreement at Ex.C.8 and has forged signature of the Accused and his wife by name Gangamma on Ex.C.8, but the said suggestions have been denied by the complainant. It is also suggested to the complainant that, whether he has no impediment to refer the document at Ex.C.8 to the opinion of handwriting expert with regard to signatures found therein. It is also relevant here to mention that, the Accused has filed an application U/s.45 of Evidence Act to refer the document at Ex.C.8 to the expert opinion by contending that, signature of the Accused and his 20 C.C.No.10602/2016 J wife found on Ex.C.8 is forged, the complainant has filed objections to the said application, however, on hearing both sides this court has allowed the said application on 4.5.2018 subject to condition that, Accused shall furnish his contemporary documents consisting of his admitted signatures, thereafter the Accused has produced the original contemporary documents containing his admitted signatures i.e. the subscription voucher issued by the Bharath Petroleum corporation Ltd., the original sale deed dated: 7.11.2014 containing his admitted signatures on the back side of page No.2 and on page No.8 and also three specimen signatures sheets obtained before the court on 25.5.2015 were sent to the Truth Labs Forensic Services, Bengaluru for getting opinion of the handwriting expert along with the disputed signature found on Ex.C.8. Thereafter the expert has submitted the report dated:- 13.6.2019 to this court along with the opinion report , details of the documents examined by the expert. After receipt of the report from the handwriting expert the Accused or the complainant have not filed their objections to the report and same is accepted by the court in toto. On careful perusal of the report 21 C.C.No.10602/2016 J submitted by the handwriting expert wherein he has formed an opinion the questioned signatures marked as Ex.D.1 to D.4 i.e. the signatures i.e. signatures of the Accused found on the agreement in dispute i.e. Ex.C.8 and the standard signatures marked as A.1 to A.4, S.1 to S.9 i.e. the admitted signatures of the Accused were written by one and the same person Hence, on careful perusal of the report submitted b y the expert makes it clear that, the handwriting expert has formed an opinion after examining the disputed and admitted signatures of the Accused he formed an opinion that, the person who wrote standard signatures i.e. the admitted signatures of the Accused also wrote the questioned signatures marked as Ex.D.1 to D.4 i.e. signature found on agreement dated: 7.11.2014 in question i.e Ex.C.8, in view of non disputing of the opinion and report submitted by the handwriting expert by the Accused it can be held that, the Accused has admitted and accepted the report submitted by the expert and also the procedures which are followed by the experts at the time of examination of the documents there is disputed and admitted signatures of the Accused. If really the Accused has disputed the report submitted 22 C.C.No.10602/2016 J by the expert definitely he would have file an objections to the said report and also would have made an efforts to examine the handwriting expert to elicit the facts to disbelieve or discard the report submitted by the expert, but no such efforts have been made by the Accused even the Accused has not objected the report at least by filing objections to it, in such circumstances, an adverse inference can be drawn against the Accused that, he has admitted the report submitted by the handwriting expert as true and correct. It is also important to note here that, the Accused in his evidence though he has denied the signature and execution of the Ex.C.8 but he nowhere stated that, his signatures and signatures of his wife's found on Ex.C.8 were forged by the complainant as alleged by him during the course of cross-examination of the complainant. It is also admitted by the Accused/DW.1 in his cross- examination that, he came to know about the present case as the complainant has brought the police near to his house and he has not lodge any complaint against the complainant after he came to know about the present case and he do not know the reason due to which the complainant has filed this 23 C.C.No.10602/2016 J complaint against him and also admitted that, he came to know about the present case and accusation leveled against him and his wife through his counsel. Hence, the above admissions of the Accused makes it clear that, even though he came to know about the filing of this case by the complainant and accusation leveled agiasnt him and his wife but he has not made any efforts either to file complaint against the complainant or taken any action against the complainant in respect of the accusation leveled against him, therefore in the absence of such in action by the Accused it is very difficult to accept his defence that the complainant has forged his and his wife's signatures on agreement i.e. Ex.C.8 and the contents of Ex.C.8 are created by the complainant
22. It is also relevant here to mention that the complainant has proved that, the agreement dated:
7.11.2014 i.e. Ex.C.8 bears the signature of the Accused and his wife, though the Accused and his wife have denied their signatures found on Ex.C.8 as they are forged by the complainant but nothing has been produced before the court to accept their defence, in such circumstances the burden of 24 C.C.No.10602/2016 J proving the contents of Ex.C.8 are created by the complainant is upon the Accused as the handwriting expert has submitted the court by forming an opinion that, the signature found on the Ex.C.8 i.e marked as D.1 to D.4 are those of the Accused. The perusal of the contents of Ex.C.8, it goes to show that, the Accused and his wife have entered into a separate agreement dated: 7.11.2014 with the complainant by agreeing to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.7,50,000/= within a year and after agreed to pay interest of Rs.75,000/= on the said consideration amount and on the same day the Accused has issued the post dated cheque bearing No. 012226 date: 20.10.2015 for sum of Rs.8,25,000/= as a security to the said agreed amount in the name of complainant and also agreed to present the said cheque after expiry of the date mentioned on it and also agreed after encashing the said cheque to cancel the agreement deed. Therefore, the complainant has successfully established his claim by producing the Ex.C.8 , though the Accused has cross examined on Ex.C.8 but nothing has been elicited from the complainant to believe his defence that, Ex.C.8 has been created or concocted by the 25 C.C.No.10602/2016 J complainant and the signatures found on Ex.C.8 are forged by the complainant . Even for sake of discussion, if it is assumed that, the Accused has not admitted the contents of the Ex.C.8 but the report submitted by the expert proved the fact that, the signature of the Accused is found at Ex.C.8 marked as D.1 to D.4 during the course of examination by the expert and the said report is not disputed by the Accused , in such circumstances the contents of Ex.C.8 can be taken into consideration to prove the fact to the extent of entering the cheque in dispute i.e Ex.C.1 into the hands of complainant , therefore the Accused has miserably failed to prove that, the complainant has created Ex.C.8.
23. The Accused has also produced one document i.e. Death Claim settlement of his two sons i.e. the notice issued by the insurance company to show that, they have received an amount of Rs.85 Lakhs towards the death claims of their two sons and the said amount was deposited in the name of his wife, therefore there is no need for them to retain to pay the balance sale consideration amount but the Accused and his wife have paid entire sale 26 C.C.No.10602/2016 J consideration amount, as such the Accused was not in need of any financial assistance from the complainant. But the Accused in his cross- examination has clearly admitted that, he has received the compensation amount in respect of death of his two sons only after April 2015. On perusal of the sale deed got executed by the complainant in favour of Accused i.e. as per Ex.D.1 it was executed on 7.11.2014 , therefore on the basis of Ex.D.1 and D.2 it can be held that, as on the date of registration of the sale deed i.e Ex.D.1 i.e. on 7.11.2014 either the Accused or his wife have not received any compensation in respect of the death of their sons as admitted by the Accused in his cross- examination, on this count it can be held that, the defence of the Accused that, as on the date of registration of the sale deed they have paid entire amount since they have already received the compensation towards death of their sons and there was no need of funds by the Accused cannot be acceptable one.
24. Therefore, from the Ex.C.8, and the report submitted by the handwriting expert and the 27 C.C.No.10602/2016 J admissions of the Accused makes it clear that, on 7.11.2014 the Accused and his wife have entered into a separate agreement dated: 7.11.2017 i.e., Ex.C.8 with the complainant and agreed to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/= within a year and agreed to pay interest of Rs.75,000/- to the said balance sale consideration and on the same day the Accused has issued a post dated cheque i.e Ex.C.1 dated:20.10.2015 infavour of the complainant for sum of Rs.8,25,000/= .
25. It is also relevant here to mention that the Accused in his evidence and in cross-examination, has admitted that, he had given the cheque in question to the complainant about 3 to 4 years back and also contends that, the complainant had collected his cheques on the pretext of securing loan to him from the bank and except his signature the rest of the contents on the cheque are not of his writings. It is important to note here that, the complainant has produced oral and documentary evidence i.e Ex.C.1 to C.7 and admitted facts by the Accused as it is already held in the above that, the complainant proved that the cheque in question 28 C.C.No.10602/2016 J belongs to the Accused i.e Ex.C.1 and signature found at Ex.C.1(a) is that of the signature of the Accused and also proved that, the cheque in question was presented within its validity period and it was dishonoured for the reason of "Funds Insufficient" as per Ex.C.2 and thereafter the legal notice caused by him through RPAD to the Accused was returned with a shara of not claimed, door locked" and held that, the notice was deemed to be served on the Accused, and Accused has not given any reply to the legal notice, in such circumstances, it can be held that, the complainant has discharged his initial burden by complying the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of N.I. Act and initially the presumptions are available in favour of the complainant U/s.118a and 139 of the N.I. Act. Consequently it is for the Accused to rebut the said presumptions available in favour of the complainant to show that, the cheque in question was not issued either to the complainant or towards discharge of any legally recoverable debt by producing cogent and convincible evidence but not mere suggestions or even by plausible explanation. In such circumstances, when the presumptions U/s.118 and 29 C.C.No.10602/2016 J 139 of N.I.Act are available to the complainant, even a presumption can be drawn to the extent of existence of legally recoverable debt or liability against the Accused unless and until the said presumptions are rebutted by the Accused, even in the absence of documents produced by the complainant with regard to loan transaction in question.
26. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decisions reported in 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 between 'M/s.Devi Tyres V/s.Navab Jan' and in 2011 ACD 1521 (KAR) between 'Smt. Usha Suresh V/s. Shashidharn', in 2010 SC 1898 between 'Rangappa Vs. Mohan' and 2011 ACD 1412 (KAR) between 'N.Hasainar Vs. M.Hasainar, S/o. Ibrahim'. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above decision i.e., 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 at para No.6 was pleased to hold that issuance of cheque itself was adequate proof of existence of debt or liability. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India i.e. Hon'ble Three Judges Bench Decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri. 30 C.C.No.10602/2016 J Mohan ., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - S.139 -
Presumption under - scope of - Held, presumption mandated by S. 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally
enforceable debt or liability - However such presumption is rebuttable in nature - Criminal Trial - Proof - Presumptions - Generally. Further held that "Signature on the cheque was his, statutory presumption under S.139 comes into play and the same was not rebutted even with regard to the materials submitted by complainant Appellant not able to prove "lost cheque" theory - Apart from not raising a probable defence appellant was also not able to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability - hence, his conviction by High Court, held, proper. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, reported in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2018 DT 15-03-2018 between ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATEL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR held that "Negotiable Instruments Act facts like source of funds are not relevant if the Accused has not been able to rebut the presumption. It is 31 C.C.No.10602/2016 J further held that " When such a presumption is drawn, the facts relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the Accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not". In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "
Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption under - burden to prove - the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence 32 C.C.No.10602/2016 J U/s.s.138 of NI Act. It is also held that, " the accused has failed to lead any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, a finding returned by both the Trial Court and High Court. Both courts not only erred in law but also committed perversity when the due amount is said to be disputed only on the account of discrepancy in the cartons, packing materials or the rate to determine the total liability as if the appellant was proving his debt before the civil court. Therefore it is presumed that, the cheque in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques received the same in existing debt". It is also held that, " the Trial court and the High Court proceeded as if, the appellant is to prove a debt before civil Court wherein, the plaintiff is required to prove his claim on the basis of evidence to be laid in support of his claim for the recovery of the amount due. A dishonour of cheque carries statutory presumption of consideration. The holder of cheque in due course is required to prove that, the cheque was issued by the Accused and that when the same presented , it 33 C.C.No.10602/2016 J was not honoured Since there is a statutory presumption of consideration, the burden is on the Accused to rebut the presumption that, the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability ". It is also relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2019 KAR 493 in the case of Sri.Yogesh Poojary Vs. Sri.K.Shankara Bhat, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, the presumption mandated by Sec.139 of N.I Act includes the presumption that, there existed a legally enforceable debt or liability, however such presumption is rebuttable in nature". In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Shri.V.R.Shresti Vs. Shri. Bhaskara.P. in Crl. Appeal No. 2109/2017 dated: 15.10.2019 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "the Accused has not given any reply to the notice and also in the cross- examination, he categorically admits that, the cheque has bounced on account of no sufficient fund in the bank account of the Accused. Mere non producing of the document before the court with regard to the source of income to advance a 34 C.C.No.10602/2016 J loan is not a ground to dismiss the complaint. The Accused ought to have rebutted the contention of the complainant by producing cogent evidence before the court and mere denial is not enough". Therefore on careful reading of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and High Court of Karnataka in the above referred decisions makes it very clear that, once the holder in due course i.e. the complainant proved that, the cheque in question belongs to the drawer and signature appearing on the cheque is that of the drawer i.e., Accused and complied the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of N.I.Act, a presumptions U/s.118a and 139 of N.I.Act indeed does extend to the existence of legally recoverable debt and when such presumption is drawn the facts relating to the want of documentary evidence to prove the existence of debt in question were of not relevant unless the Accused rebutted the presumption available to the complainant as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court of Karnataka in the above decisions. In the present case also the complainant has complied mandatory requirements and has proved that, the Accused has issued the 35 C.C.No.10602/2016 J cheque in question in his favour and the Accused has admitted the cheque belongs to him and signature appearing on the cheque is that of his signature and the notice issued by the complainant was returned as not claimed by the Accused and Accused has not given any reply or complied the terms of the notice, in such circumstances, presumptions have to be drawn towards existence of legally enforceable debt as per Sec.139 of N.I.Act.
27. Therefore, for the above said reasons the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the defence that, the complainant has not proved that, the Accused and his wife have executed alleged agreement i.e Ex.C.8 infavour of the complainant on 7.11.2014 by agreeing to pay balance consideration amount of Rs.7,50,000/= and also interest of Rs.75,000/= on it in total Rs.8,25,000/= and has issued the cheque in question towards discharge of the said amount and the complainant has failed to prove the contents of the Ex.C.8 and the cheque in question issued in pursuance of Ex.C.8 and the complainant had collected the cheque in question from the Accused on the pretext of securing the loan 36 C.C.No.10602/2016 J to him from the bank and has misused the said cheque and filed this false case against the Accused cannot be acceptable one.
28. The Accused has also taken the defence that, the complainant has collected the cheque in dispute on the pretext of securing loan to him from the bank but except his signature on the cheque the rest of the contents in the cheque are not written by him. But though the Accused has taken the said defence during the course of cross-examination of the complainant it is nowhere suggested that, Ex.C.1 cheque in dispute has been collected by the complainant in blank from the Accused and the said blank cheque has been misused by the complainant, even there is no suggestions made by the Accused to the complainant and the complainant has denied the suggestion made to him that, the Accused being uneducated has not filled up the contents of the cheque in dispute and there is difference in the ink between the signature and other contents of Ex.C.1. It is true that, the complainant admitted that, he has written his name on his cheque but only on that admission whether cheque in question invalidates or 37 C.C.No.10602/2016 J not is to be taken into consideration. Even for sake of discussion if it is assumed that, the contents of the subject cheque are not filled in by the Accused, unless and until the Accused has proved his defence by producing cogent and convincible evidence, it cannot be held that, the contents of the cheque have been filled in by the complainant. In this regard, it is a relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2019 SC 2446 in the case of Birsingh Vs. Mukesh Kumar., wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that, "presumption U/s.139 is presumption of law, distinguished from presumption of facts and also held that, presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with presumption of innocence which requires prosecution to prove case against the Accused and also held that obligation on the prosecution may discharged with the help of presumptions of law and presumption of fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing reasonable plausibility of non existence of presumed fact." In the present case though the Accused has denied the contents of the cheque in question except his signature but he did not prove 38 C.C.No.10602/2016 J his defence or produced any documents or satisfactory evidence to rebut the presumptions as available U/s.139 of the N.I. Act, under such circumstances in view of the above principles of law, it can be presumed even on fact also that the complainant has proved his case by discharging his burden and complying the mandatory provisions. In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex court has also held that, "presumption as to legally enforceable debt is rebuttable, the signed blank cheque if voluntarily presented to payee towards payment payee may fill up amount and other particulars and it in itself would not invalidate cheque and onus would still be on the accused to prove that, cheque was not issued or discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence." In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "
Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption under - burden to prove - the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the 39 C.C.No.10602/2016 J cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence U/s.s.138 of NI Act. In such circumstances even if it is assumed that, the complainant admitted that, he has written his name in the cheque but in view of the principles of law laid down in the above decisions that itself would not invalidates the cheque in question and it can be presumed that, the name of the complainant in the cheque was filled in by him in presence of the Accused at his consent only and the said cheque has been issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt.
29. It is relevant here to mention that, the Accused in order to rebut the presumption available to the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I. Act himself examined as DW.1, in his evidence has 40 C.C.No.10602/2016 J stated that, he do not know the complainant and no notice has been received by him and has not entered into agreement deed as per Ex.C.8 and there is no mentioning of balance payment of by him in Ex.D.1. The Accused/DW.1 further stated that, the complainant has collected the cheque in dispute on he pretext of securing loan to him from the bank and except his signature the rest of the contents are not written by him. In support of his oral evidence, has produced Ex.D.1 i.e. certified coy of the sale deed dated: 7.11.2014 and copy of the notice of death claim settlement issued by Jeevana Suraksha Ka naya nazarlya to the wife of the Accused which is at Ex.D.2.
30. The wife of the Accused by name Smt. Gangamma has also examined as DW.2 in her evidence she has denied her signature found on Ex.C.8 and also denied the execution of Ex.C.8. The DW.2 further stated that, she has received an amount of Rs.85 Lakhs from the insurances company towards death of their two sons and out of the said amount they purchased site from the complainant and also constructed house on it and 41 C.C.No.10602/2016 J they have paid entire amount to the complainant.
31. On careful perusal of the defence of the Accused that, according to him the complainant had collected his blank signed cheque by assuring him to secure a loan from the bank, but in order to substantiate his defence the Accused except his oral and self serving statement has not produced any documentary evidence. Even the Accused has not stated on which date, month and year the complainant approached him and assured him to secure loan from the bank and on which date, month and year the complainant had collected his blank singed cheque, in such circumstances, in the absence of particulars of the handing over of the cheque in to the hands of the complainant , the oral evidence of the Accused appears to be bald defence and without there being any proof to it , hence the defence taken by the Accused appears to be denial in nature and to avoid liability to pay the cheque amount has taken such defence. If really the complainant has collected his blank singed cheque for securing loan from the bank and later he did not get the loan, and even the complainant did not 42 C.C.No.10602/2016 J return the alleged blank signed cheque collected by him, in such circumstances the Accused could have taken action against the complainant either by lodging the complaint before the police or competent authority or atleast issuing notice to the complainant for non return of his alleged blank signed cheque handed over to him but no such efforts have been made by the Accused even after his appearance in this case and admitting in his cross- examination that, he came to know about the accusation leveled against him and his wife by the complainant through his counsel and he has not lodged any complaint against the complainant. Therefore except the bare denial of the Accused is not sufficient to hold that, he has rebutted the presumptions available to the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. It is also relevant here to mention that, the conduct of the Accused in not taking the action against the complainant for alleged misuse of his blank signed cheque, an adverse inference can be drawn against him that, the Accused has not initiated any action against the complainant since the cheque in question has been issued by the Accused to the complainant towards 43 C.C.No.10602/2016 J discharge of the loan amount in question not for any other purpose. In this regard it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2018 SC 3601 in a case of T.P.Murugan(dead) Thr. Lrs.V. Bhojan Vs. Posa Nandi, rep. Thr. Lrs. PA holder, T.P. Murugan V. Bhojan, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that "Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) Ss.118, 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption as to enforceable debt- cheques allegedly issued by accused towards repayment of debt- Defence of accused that 10 cheques issued towards repayment of loan back in 1995 - behavior of accused in allegedly issuing 10 blank cheques back in 1995 and never asking their return for 7 years, unnatural - Accused admitting his signature on cheques and pronote, presumption under S.139 would operate against him - Complainant proving existence of legally enforceable debt and issuance of cheques towards discharge of such debt - Conviction, Proper". Hence, in view of the principles of law held by the Hon'ble Apex Court are aptly applicable to the case on hand since in the present case also the 44 C.C.No.10602/2016 J accused has not made any efforts to get return of cheque alleged to have been given to the complainant for securing loan to him from the bank, under such circumstances, the said unnatural conduct of the accused in non taking of action, an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused that, the cheque in question issued by the accused towards discharge of the liability and presumption U/s.139 of N.I.Act would operate against him, as he has admitted the signature and cheque in question is belongs to him. In another decision reported in 2015 (4) KCCR 2881 (SC) in the case of T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that, " NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS Act, 1881- Section 138 and 139 - acquittal - If justified- Accused not disputing issuance of cheque and his signature on it - Plea that it was issued long back as security and that loan amount was repaid - Not supported by any evidence - Fact that date was printed, would not lend any evidence to case of accused- Acquittal not proper. Hence in the present case also it is the main defence of the Accused that the cheque in dispute alleged to have been 45 C.C.No.10602/2016 J issued towards security to the complainant and the complainant by misusing the said cheque has filed this complaint but the Accused has admitted the issuance of cheque and his signature on the said cheque and also taken defence that, the cheque was issued towards security but no documents or proof given by the Accused to prove his defence in such circumstances by applying the principles of law laid down in the above decision the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one. It is true that, the above principles of law pertains to the different set of facts but the principles of law held by the Hon'ble Apex Court are aptly applicable to the case on hand, since in this case also the complainant proved the fact that the Accused and his wife have executed Ex.C.8 and in pursuance of Ex.C.8 the accused in turn has issued cheque as per Ex.C.1. The accused has also failed to produce cogent and convincible evidence to rebut the statutory presumption in support of his defense in such circumstances the defense taken by the accused cannot be acceptable one.
46 C.C.No.10602/2016 J32. It is also important to note here that, the Accused has not denied or disputed that the cheque in question as well as the signature therein do belong to him and though he has taken the specific defence that, the complainant had collected his blank signed cheque by assuring him to secure a loan from the bank, but the Accused has not proved the said defence by producing cogent and convincible evidence , in such circumstances it can be held that, the Accused has failed to explain and prove how the cheque in question as come to the possession of the complainant, this would also give rise to an adverse inference against him. This preposition of law finds support from the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2010(1) KCCR 176 in the case of "Siddappa Vs. Manjappa" and in the decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.A.No.664 of 2012 dated: 19.9.2019 in the case of "M.Abbas Haji Vs. T.M.Chennakeshava" held that, " the Accused has to explain how the cheque entered into the hands of complainant". Therefore for the above said reasons the defense taken by the accused cannot be acceptable one and accused has miserably 47 C.C.No.10602/2016 J failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant by producing cogent and convincible evidence.
33. Therefore for the above said reasons arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the Accused in the written argument cannot be acceptable and are not sustainable since in view of the discussions made and findings given by the court while appreciating the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant and Accused and the Accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant as U/s.118a and 139 of N.I. Act.
34. Therefore considering all these aspects of the case and totality of the circumstances and on careful and meticulous appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant and accused the complainant has successfully established beyond all reasonable doubt that, the Accused and his wife have agreed to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/= in respect of site purchased by them through registered sale deed dated: 7.11.2014 and also agreed to pay the interest of Rs.75,000/= on 48 C.C.No.10602/2016 J balance sale consideration and in total sum of Rs.8,25,000/= and on the same day of execution of the sale deed the Accused and his wife entered into an agreement as per Ex.C.8 with the complainant and the Accused also issued the post dated cheque ie. Ex.C.1 for sum of Rs.8,25,000/= dated:-
20.10.2015 infavour o the complainant towards discharge of the said liability and thereafter the complainant has presented the said cheque through his banker and same was returned dishonoured with an endorsement of "Funds Insufficient" and thereafter he got issued legal notice to the accused and the said notice was returned with an endorsement of "Not claimed, Door locked" i.e. intimation given by the postal authorities regarding legal notice caused by the complainant and inspite of it, the Accused did not repaid amount in question, hence the complainant filed the present complaint against the accused. On the other hand, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption available infavour of the complainant with regard to the existence of legally recoverable debt under Ex.C.1 Cheque. Therefore accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act, accordingly 49 C.C.No.10602/2016 J for the above said reasons this point is answered in the Affirmative.
35. Point No.2: Negotiable Instrument Act was enacted to bring credibility to the cheque and the very purpose of enactment is to promote the use of negotiable instrument, while to discourage the issuance of cheque without having sufficient funds in their accounts. Such being the case the intention of the legislature is that, complainant be suitable compensated while accused be punished for his act. Hence while awarding the compensation the said fact is to be kept in mind and suitable compensation is awarded to the complainant certainly it will not cause injustice to the accused, accordingly the complainant is entitled for the compensation as ordered by the court and for the said reasons, it is just and proper to pass the following :-
ORDER Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.8,40,000/= (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Forty Thousand 50 C.C.No.10602/2016 J only) within one month from the date of order, in default he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of (3) three months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Further acting U/sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.8,35,000/= (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Thirty Five Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on recovery a sum of Rs.5,000/= (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
The Bail bond and surety bond of the Accused stands cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer online, printout taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of February, 2020).
(SRI.S.B. HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
51 C.C.No.10602/2016 JANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant:-
P.W.1 : Sri.K.Raghavendra;
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.C-1 : Original Cheque;
Ex.C-1(a) : Signature of the Accused;
Ex.C-2 : Bank Memo;
Ex.C-3 : Office copy of the Legal Notice;
Ex.C-4 : Postal Receipt;
Ex.C-5 : Returned Notice;
Ex.C-6 : RPAD Cover;
Ex.C-7 : Postal receipt
Ex.C-8 : Original Agreement Deed dated:
1.11.2014;
Ex.N1 : Vakalath nama of the Accused ;
(Marked through DW.1)
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused:-
DW.1 : Sri. Rajashakar; DW.2 : Smt.Gangamma;
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-
Ex.D.1 : certified copy of the sale deed dated:
7.11.2014 Ex.D.2 : The document issued by Bharathi AXE Life Protect Insurance company (SRI.S.B.HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.52 C.C.No.10602/2016 J
15.2.2020 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.8,40,000/= (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Forty Thousand only) within one month from the date of order, in default he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of (3) three months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Further acting U/sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.8,35,000/= (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Thirty Five Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on recovery a sum of Rs.5,000/= (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
The Bail bond and surety bond of the Accused stands cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C.
XVI ACMM, B'luru.