Karnataka High Court
Smt. Usha Suresh vs R.V. Shashidaran on 27 October, 2005
Equivalent citations: II(2007)BC660, 2006CRILJ904, AIR 2006 (NOC) 445 (KAR), 2006 CRI. L. J. 904, 2006 (2) ALL LJ NOC 406, 2006 (2) ABR (NOC) 338 (KAR), 2006 (1) AJHAR (NOC) 311 (KAR), 2006 (1) AIR KANT HCR 666, (2006) 4 CURCRIR 245, (2006) 2 RECCRIR 320, (2007) 2 BANKCAS 660, (2006) 2 ALLCRILR 752, 2011 ACD 1521 (KAR), 2006 (1) AIR KAR R 666
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. The appellant before this Court is the complainant before the trial Court. The un-disputed facts in the present case are the respondent/accused was working for the husband of the appellant by name Mr. Suresh Kumar. The husband of the appellant was running M/s. Uma Enterprises at Bangalore. Normally, Mr. Suresh Kumar was looking after the said business and during his absence, his wife was managing the said work. The accused was working as the Manager in the said M/s. Uma Enterprises since October, 1998.
3. It is the case of the complainant that in the year 1999, the accused intended to purchase a flat in M/s. Pranam Foundation, Indranagar, Bangalore and he approached her and also her husband for financial assistance as the accused was aware that the complainant's-husband was receiving a substantial sale proceeds of the fiat sold by them at Delhi. The accused was employed in M/s. Uma Enterprises and the husband of the complainant knew the accused since 1984. Having regard to these facts, a sum of Rs. 45.000/- was sent by way of demand draft drawn on Canara Bank dated 27-3-1999, Tagore Garden, New Delhi, in favour of the accused by the husband of the complainant. It was encashed by him through his account on 7-4-1999. It was also agreed between them that he would pay said Rs. 45,000/- together with interest at 11.5% p.a. within a period of one year from the date of borrowal.
4. It is the further case of the complainant that after several requests and demands by the complainant and her husband, the accused came forward to settle the dues by issuing a cheque in favour of the complainant for Rs. 50,100/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Race Course Road Branch, Bangalore. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned with an en-dorsement as "insufficient funds" on 5-5-2000. When it was brought to the notice of the accused, he requested them to present the cheque again. But the said cheque was returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds." Thereafter, the mandatory notice was issued. A private complaint came to be lodged when the accused failed to pay the amount under the dishonoured cheque.
5. After service of summons, the accused contested the matter very seriously and ac-cording to him, the demand draft sent by the husband of the complainant was not at all towards any financial assistance sought by him. A notice was issued which was re-plied by the accused. According to him, he was working for the husband of the complainant-Mr. Suresh Kumar who was running M/s. Uma Enterprises business as a supervisor. He admits that the complainant used to look after the business whenever Mr. Suresh Kumar was out of station. At no point of time, he sought financial assistance either from the complainant or from her husband. His specific defence with regard to demand draft of Rs. 45.000/- is that the said demand draft was sent by Sri Suresh Kumar to this wife i.e. the complainant. This was handed over to the accused by Smt. Usha asking him to take his own months' salary @ Rs. 6.250/- and out of the balance amount, he paid Mr. Sampath Kumar and one Mr. Alexander, the piece work contractors who worked for Mr. Suresh Kumar. Even the debit vouchers from the above said per-sons were collected by Smt. Usha and the balance of Rs. 7000/- was paid back to Mr. Suresh Kumar on his return. So far as the amounts paid to Sampath Kumar and' Alexander are concerned, he paid by cash by drawing the amount from his account. This was by utilising a self-cheque. The vouchers were collected by Smt. Usha for the entire amount except for Rs. 7000/- in the presence of Sampath Kumar, Alexander and one Smt. Mary.
6. The marriage of the brother of Mr. Suresh Kumar was fixed in May, 2000 at Kerala. Mr. Suresh Kumar was to spend for the said marriage. Therefore, he approached the accused for financial assistance in the middle of April, 2000. He handed over the said cheque to him in the name of the complainant Usha Suresh as per the instructions of Mr. Suresh Kumar because Mr. Suresh Kumar told him that he may not be in station at the relevant point of time. Both the complainant and her husband were present when this talks were held and so also when the cheque was handed over. It is the further defence of the accused that Mr. Suresh Kumar instructed him that if any amounts pertaining to the business of Suresh Kumar were to be received, said amount has to be deposited to the personal account of the accused towards the said cheque. If no amounts are received, Mr. Suresh Kumar promised to pay the amounts towards the cheque by the end of April, 2000 through some other source. According to him, he did not get any amount from the business concern of Mr. Suresh Kumar and he informed Mr. Suresh Kumar accordingly. At that point of time Mr. Suresh Kumar in-formed him that he has made some other alternative arrangement towards the expenses of his brother's marriage and, there-fore, he need not bother about arranging the money under the cheque. According to accused, he had handed over another cheque for Rs. 25.000/- to Mr. Suresh Kumar in the name of M/s. Uma Enterprises. This was for making some bank arrangements. The said cheque also came to be dishonoured.
7. From the pleadings of both the parties, it is seen that the main contention of the accused that there was no privity of contract of any nature between the complainant and the accused, therefore, in the absence of any relationship of creditor and debtor, he is not liable for any punishment Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also his contention that no amount was lent to him under demand draft sent from Delhi for a sum of Rs. 45.000/- as the said amounts were to be adjusted towards the account of Mr. Suresh Kumar as he was due to pay many persons including the salary of the accused. Therefore, according to him, the disputed cheque was not issued towards any legally recoverable debt or liability on the part of the accused. Both the parties let in lengthy evidence and also got marked several documents. In support of the case of the complainant, the sale deed Ex. D4 in favour of accused for purchasing a flat from Pranam Foundation, Indranagar, is produced by the accused. The date of the sale deed is 16th February, 2001. The learned trial Judge by relying upon Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ultimately came to the conclusion that the initial presumption raised in favour of the complainant was not distorted or rebutted by the accused and he failed to establish the defence raised by him and, therefore, the accused was found guilty of the offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal came to be filed by the accused before the first appellate Court. The learned Judge of the appellate Court has come to conclusion that as the transaction between P.W. 1 and the accused was in connection with the business of Mr. Suresh Kumar, the defence raised by the accused could be probable. He further opines that as there was no creditor or debtor relationship between the complainant and the accused, the cheque even if issued by the accused was not towards a legally recoverable debt or liability so far as Smt. Usha Suresh is concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-complainant has come up before this Court challenging the impugned order.
8. Whenever a private complaint is filed seeking prosecution of the accused for an offence punishable Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, if the issuance of cheque and the signature on the cheque is accepted and admitted by the accused, an initial presumption has to be raised by the Court in favour of the complainant that the cheque in question was issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Of course this presumption is a rebuttable presumption. Such rebuttal evidence has to be placed before the Court by the accused. According to the accused, the demand draft for Rs. 45.000/- sent under his name was handed over to him by Smt. Usha Suresh to be adjusted to his personal account and then make payments to Mr. Alexander, Mr. Sampath Kumar and also towards the salary of the accused for two months. Apparently, M/s. Uma Enterprises, a business concern dealing with indoor and outdoor paintings was in existence for quite sometime prior to 1999. It is also not disputed that said M/s. Uma Enterprises was having a bank account in the name of M/s. Uma Enterprises. It is also the case of the accused that for the payments made to Mr. Sampath Kumar, Mr. Alexander and Smt. Mary, vouchers were taken by Mrs. Usha Suresh in his presence. If at all this amount of Rs. 45.000/- was meant for the expenses of M/s. Uma Enterprises the business concern of Mr. Suresh Kumar, a demand draft would have been naturally sent in the name of M/s. Uma Enterprises. There was no reason why it had to be sent to the wife of Mr. Suresh Kumar who in turn had to entrust it to the accused. It is the case of the accused himself that in the absence of Mr. Suresh Kumar, Smt. Usha Suresh was looking after the business and in all probability, she was even authorised to operate the bank accounts of the business. In that event, either the demand draft ought to have been sent in the name of Smt. Usha Suresh or in the name of the business concern i.e. M/s. Uma Enterprises. No doubt the passbook of the accused is produced to show that on such and such a date, he drew money by drawing a self-cheque and according to him, this money was paid to Mr. Alexander, Mr. Sampath Kumar and also Mrs. Mary. If the vouchers were taken from Mrs. Mary and others by Mrs. Usha Suresh as their business would be subject to taxation, definitely, they have to disclose the source of income towards said vouchers. No business person would invite such a trouble just by taking vouchers without showing the source of income. It is not the case of the accused that Mr. Suresh Kumar was having unaccounted money, therefore, he was intending to send money to the account of the accused. To support the contention of the defence, he ought to have examined either Mr. Sampath Kumar or Mrs. Mary or Mr. Alexander. If the balance amount of Rs. 7000/- out of Rs. 45.000/- came to be given to Mr. Suresh Kumar, definitely, the accused ought to have taken a voucher from Mr. Suresh Kumar for having paid the amount. If the accused draws certain amount from his personal account by drawing a self-cheque, he could have 101 names or expenses because the passbook does not reflect for what purchase it was spent. On the other hand, if it is self-cheque, one has to presume that it was towards the personal expenses of the accused.
9. The other defence raised by the accused was that towards the marriage expenses of brother of Mr. Suresh Kumar, he was asked to give a cheque for Rs. 50,100/-so that as and when the business concern M/s. Uma Enterprises received the money, the accused could credit such amounts towards the adjustment of Rs. 50.100/-. It is to be noted that except the employer and employee relationship, the accused and the husband of the complainant were not close friends. On the other hand, the accused was only an employee under the complainant. It is not the case of the accused that Mr. Suresh Kumar's financial condition was so poor that he could not have raised Rs. 50,100/- towards the marriage expenses of his brother. It is also not the case of the accused that he had enough money in his bank account to lend the money to Mr. Suresh Kumar towards the marriage expenses of his brother. It is his case that if no money is received to the business concern of Mr. Suresh Kumar, Mr. Suresh Kumar would make other alternative arrangements to see that such money is credited to the account of the accused so that the cheque of Rs. 50,100/- would get honoured. If Mr. Suresh Kumar was capable of arranging other source of income other than from his business concern, why he had to choose such a dubious method to get Rs. 50.100/- from the account of the accused seems funny and strange. If we calculate the interest at Rs. 1.50 from the date of demand draft i.e. 7-4-1999 till the date of cheque i.e. April, 2000, the interest would come to Rs. 5.175/-. The cheque is issued for Rs. 50.100/-. It is the case of the complainant and Mr. Suresh Kumar that after several requests and demands, the accused settled the account for Rs. 50.100/-. No doubt, accused has cleverly raised several defences, but, ultimately he was not successful in explaining the circumstances under which the demand draft of Rs. 45.000/- came to his hand and the issuance of cheque for Rs. 50.100/- in favour of the complainant. On the other hand, P.W. 1 the husband of the complainant who is the General Power of Attorney holder for the complainant has explained before the Court that he promised to buy certain jewellery for his wife Smt. Usha Suresh, therefore, he asked the accused to issue the cheque in favour of his wife Smt. Usha Suresh towards the dues of Mr. Suresh Kumar and accordingly, the accused issued a cheque in favour of Smt. Usha Suresh. This is also not denied by the accused. On the other hand, according to him, on the instructions of Mr. Suresh Kumar alone this cheque for Rs. 50.100/- came to be issued in the name of Mrs. Usha Suresh. This probabilises the situation explained by Mr. Suresh Kumar has deposed before the Court that he was aware of the entire incident and it was him who actually lent Rs. 45.000/-, according to the complainant as per the averments of the complaint. He being the general power of attorney holder for the complainant is authorised to speak before the Court. He was also well aware of the entire facts leading to filing of the private complaint against the accused. Therefore, he was competent to represent and give evidence on behalf of the complainant.
10. Then, the only question would be whether the cheque could have been issued in favour of Smt. Usha Suresh towards the dues of Mr. Suresh Kumar?
11. It is not in dispute that Smt. Usha Suresh Kumar is the wife of Mr. Suresh Kumar. From the evidence of the accused and P.W. 1, it is to be noticed that Smt. Usha Suresh was not just a housewife but she was actively participating in the business concern of her husband and she was assisting him in the business. She was aware of the business transactions and she was even taking vouchers for payments made from different persons in the business concern of M/s. Uma Enterprises. This would clarify that she is a worldly -- wise person. According to Mr. Suresh Kumar, towards the promise to purchase some jewellery for his wife, he requested accused to issue a cheque towards the dues of Mr. Suresh Kumar in favour of Mrs. Usha Suresh. As already stated, the accused admits issuance of cheque in favour of Mrs. Usha Suresh at the instance of Mr. Suresh Kumar. Then the question would be whether there is creditor and debtor relationship between Smt. Usha and the accused and whether the cheque in question Ex. P1 is towards legally recoverable debt or liability.
12. Learned Counsel for the appellant relies upon several judgments, which are mentioned below:
1) In Crl. A. No. 957 of 2000 dt. 19-1-2001, reported in Supreme Court on Dishonor of Cheques, Page 36 : AIR 2001 SC 676 Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd.:
In this case, their Lordships had an occasion to observe the specific object in bringing a new legislation by enacting Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, having regard to the changes in the business and trade world across the globe. To get credibility to such negotiable instruments, the legislature thought of giving penal action towards dishonour of cheques. At para No. 3, their Lordships have discussed what was the object in bringing such a change in Negotiable Instruments Act, which reads as under:
3. The Act, was enacted and Section 138 thereof incorporated with a specified object of making a special provision by incorporating a strict liability so far as the cheque; a negotiable instrument, is concerned. The law relating to negotiable instrument is the law of commercial world legislated to facilitate the activities in trade and commerce making provision of giving sanctity to the instruments of credit which could be deemed to be convertible into money and easily pass-able from the person to another. In the absence of such instruments, including a cheque the, trade and commerce activities, in the present day would, are likely to be adversely affected as it is impracticable for the trading community to carry on with it the bulk of the currency in force. The negotiable instruments are in fact the instruments of credit being convertible on account of legality of being negotiated and are easily passable from one hand to another. To achieve the objectives of the Act, the legislature has in its wisdom, thought it proper to make provisions in the Act for conferring such privileges to the mercantile instruments contemplated under the Act and provide special penalties and procedure in case the obligations under instruments are not discharged. The laws relating to the Act are, therefore, required to be interpreted in the light of the objects intended to be achieved by it despite there being deviations from the general law and the procedure provided for the redressal of the grievances to the litigants. Efforts to defeat the objectives of law by resorting to innovative measures and methods are to be discouraged, lest it may affect the commercial and mercantile activities in a smooth and healthy manner, ultimately affecting the economy of the country.
By reading the above decision, it makes it clear that the accused, no doubt, is entitled to raise defence, but ultimately, the Court has to see whether the effort of the accused was to defeat the objectives of law by resorting to innovative and strange measures. It further says such attempt on the part of the parties must be discouraged and put an end to by the Court. As a matter of fact, it says it is the duty of the Court to curb such attempts on the part of the par-ties who deviate the objectives of law contemplated Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2) Crl. A. 688/95 dt. 11-7-2001 reported in Supreme Court on Dishonour of Cheques, Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee:
Learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant; in this case relied mainly on the nature of presumption that has to be raised by the Court Under Section 139 of the Act and what is expected from an accused while leading evidence to rebut the presumption.
From the above decision, it is noticed that the Apex Court was making a distinction between the general presumption and mandatory presumption and because of the words used Under Section 139 of the Act that the Court "shall presume", it is the duty of the Court to raise initial presumption in every case, if the circumstances Under Section 139 of the Act are in existence. It further says plausible explanation is alone not expected from the accused in support of his rebuttal evidence. He is required to render plausible explanation though he may not be required to establish his defence beyond reasonable doubt. In this context, what he is required to do is explained at para No. 20 by the Apex Court, which reads as under (Para 22 of AIR):
20. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exists, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the Contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, "after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists". Therefore, the rebuttal does hot have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the Court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonable, probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the "prudent man".
Therefore, whenever an accused leads rebuttal evidence to discharge the presumption initially raised in favour of the complainant, the Court must see whether the defence raised by the accused would be that of a prudent man. In other words, the Court must be able to accept the existence of probability in the defence raised by the accused. So, by giving mere explanation, the accused cannot get away from penal action. He must be able to put before the Court in support of defence evidence which would amount to a case of probability or acceptable to the Court. In the present case, for the reasons mentioned above, the defence raised by the accused is neither probable nor acceptable to the Court. Therefore, one has to hold the accused fails in establishing the evidence to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant.
3) Crl. A. No. 949/01 dt. 17-9-2001 reported in Supreme Court on Dishonour of Cheques, Punjab and Sindh Bank v. Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd.;
This case was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant to impress upon the Court what is the presumption contemplated Under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Apex Court held in this case that a "holder of a negotiable instrument" has to be presumed to be a "holder in due course" unless the contrary is proved.
No doubt, in the normal course, Under Section 9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, passing of consideration is one of the relevant factors to hold a person as a holder in due course. In the present case, we need not go to that stage at all because of the admission of the accused that at the instance of the husband of the complainant, he issued the cheque in favour of the complainant who is none other than the wife of Mr. Suresh Kumar. The initial presumption Under Section 118 of the N.I. Act, is also in favour of the appellant/complainant.
4) 1999 Cri LJ 1349 (Allahabad) Devendra Kumar Rai v. Ram Gopal Rai;
This case was relied upon by the learned Counsel to substantiate his contention that no law requires that the cheque should be issued to the creditor alone. In this case, while reading Section 138 of the Act and also the Explanation to Section 138, their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court held that the law does not require that the cheque is to be issued to that person only from whom the liability was incurred. This was a case where the liability was incurred from father of the complainant. The cheque came to be issued in favour of the son of the person who had actually lent money. Their Lordships held that if the person i.e. (accused) choses or intends to discharge his legal liability by drawing a cheque in favour of the son of the person to whom he was indebted to, such a situation also would get attracted toSection 138 of the N.I. Act.
In the present case, it is the case of the Complainant that the accused was due a sum of Rs. 45.000/- together with interest at 11.5% p.a. to the husband of the complainant and at the request of the husband of the complainant, the accused issued the cheque in favour of the complainant. This is not at all denied by the accused. Therefore, in view of the previous decision referred to above and this decision, the complainant has to be held as "holder in due course" and she becomes the creditor for the reasons mentioned above.
5) 2002 (4) Crimes 32 : 2002 Cri LJ 4194 (Kerala) Gopi v. Sudarsanan.
In this case, the High Court of Kerala had an occasion to deal with similar situation and hold that Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the expression "any debt" in Section 138 of the Act would cover liability of another person as well.
6) 2001 (1) Crimes 1 : 1999 Cri LJ 4246 (Madras) Gummadi Industries Ltd. v. Khushroo F. Engineer:
In this case, a post-dated cheque was issued by the second petitioner in his individual capacity as security for the liability of the company. In that situation, it was held that the person who issues the cheque in individual capacity as a security is also liable as a debtor Under Section 138 because the words used in Section 138 includes "any liability" (security as well).
7) I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer:
This was a case where the wife stood as a surety and issued a cheque in favour of the financier who had lent money to the husband of the accused towards hire purchase of a vehicle. Then, the question was whether surety can be a personal liability Under Section 138 of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court said the question of liability of a surety as co-extensive with that of a guarantor cannot be gone into to decide the said issue and the words used Under Section 138 of the Act alone have to be looked into and read in order to know the actual object of bringing out such provision of law. The word "any" used in the Section and also the word "any debt or other liability" would include the liability of such person who issues the cheque. Though it was not a direct transaction between the guarantor and the person who issued the cheque, because of the word legally recoverable liability, the Court held that the person who issues the cheque is also liable Under Section 138 of the Act.
13. Learned Counsel for the respondent relies upon the following decisions:
1) Tarachand Kevalram v. Sikri Brothers:
This ease is in respect of Section 9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act." This decision was much prior to the enactment of Section 138 of N.I. Act. In this case it is held that it is only a person who comes into possession of a negotiable instrument having paid consideration for it and being a bona fide transferee can be a holder in due course within the meaning of Section 9. Section 9 implies and contemplates that there must be a negotiation or a transfer to the holder in due course by someone who had the authority to transfer or negotiate the negotiable instrument. The transfer and the negotiation must be of a negotiable instrument, not the transfer of an inchoate document which is not a negotiable instrument at all under the Act.
2) C. Antony v. K. G. Raghavan Nair:
It is held in this case the power of High Court to interfere with, on reappreciation of evidence in appeal, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot, in appeal, substitute its finding merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of the material on record.
3) 2001 Cri LJ 4457 (Guj) Bhikhabhai Ranchhodbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat:
In this case the appellate Court acquitted the accused as no privity of contract was established between the petitioner and the accused and the High Court held as no liability of either past, present or future proved, the acquittal was proper.
4) 2001 Cri LJ 745 : 2001 AIR - Kant HCR 310 B.P. Venkatesulu v. K.P. Mani Nayar:
In this case it is held that material legal infirmities in complainant's story effectively displaces and successfully rebuts the presumption under Section 139 available in favour of existence of debt or liability against accused -- No other evidence brought on record by complainant in independent proof of the fact of the said loan transaction between him and accused -- Acquittal of accused proper.
5) 1992 (1) Crimes 973 Indmark Finance and Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 28th Court
11. Taking the wordings of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the alleged complaint (Annexure-"D") as a whole and also the letters (Annexure-"C"), it is thus quite clear that the petitioners had no debt or other liability to the respondent No. 2 and the cheques were merely issued as per the instructions of the respondent No. 3 and as per the loan application made by the respondent No. 3, which ultimately was withdrawn and/or recalled by the respondent No. 3 and as per the intimations of the respondent No. 3, the petitioners did not arrange for sufficient funds to have the said cheques encashed and neither there was any privity of contract between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 nor the said cheques were issued for discharge of any debt or other liability of the petitioners to the respondent No. 3 and so prima facie, the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioners and that being the case, the criminal proceeding started on such complainant can be quashed in a writ proceeding by a High Court as per the decision of the Supreme Court as referred to above.
14. No doubt, in the present case the Court of first instance i.e. the trial Court did convict the accused accepting the case of the complainant but the first appellate Court reversed the judgment for the reasons explained above. In that situation, this Court has to look into the entire evidence once again and has to decide the case afresh. No doubt the first appellate Court has given benefit of doubt in a way by holding there is no relationship of creditor and debtor between the parties. From the facts established before the trial Court and in view of the judgments relied upon by the appellant, the position of the complainant would squarely fall within the definition of a "creditor" and for all practical purposes, she would be entitled to seek prosecution of the accused Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The very approach of the first appellate Court towards the case on hand is nothing but a perverse approach. Under these circumstances, this Court has to interfere and do the justice. Accordingly, the judgment of acquittal of the first appellate Court is set aside confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. The appeal is allowed. The respondent/accused is found guilty of the offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
15. Heard regarding sentence.
16. The respondent/accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 85.000/- within three months from today, in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the fine amount of Rs. 85.000/-, Rs. 80.000/- shall be paid to the complainant/appellant.