Bangalore District Court
M/S. Siti Cable Network Limited vs M/S. Kaizen Digital Cable on 28 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.
Present: Sri. N.Muniraja B.A., LL.M.,
XXVII A.C.M.M Bengaluru
Dated: This the 28th day of October 2020.
C.C. NO.9282/2017
Complainant M/s. SITI Cable Network Limited,
Corporate Office at
FC-9, Sector-16A
Film City,
Noida,
Uttar Pradesh,
And:
Office at B-10,
Lawrence Road,
Industrial Area,
Delhi-11-35
Rep by its present
Asst General Manager (Sales)
Ms. Maria Ireland,
(Rep by Sri. Dhananjay Joshi,
Adv)
Vs.
Accused 1. M/s. Kaizen Digital Cable
Services Pvt Ltd.,
A registered company under the
Indian Companies Act
Rep by its Managing Director,
Mr. Shashi Kanth,
2. Mr. Shashi Kanth,
Managing Director
M/s. Kaizen Digital Cable Services Pvt
ltd.,
2 C.C.No. 9282/2017
Both at:
169/10, Guru Kripa,
12th Cross,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bangalore-560 086.
And Also at:
#25/2, 1st Floor,
Dr. Raj Kumar Road,
E- Block, 2nd Stage,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560 010.
(Reptd by Sri. Chandrashekar, Adv)
Offence U/s.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Judgment Date 28/10/2020
*****
JUDGMENT
The complainant company filed this complaint against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Brief facts of the complainant case are as follows:
3 C.C.No. 9282/2017
The complainant company is incorporated under the companies Act and it is pioneers in the business of establishment of Cable Networks, Retransmission of various communication signals and supply of software to various Distribution companies/local cable operators through its networks established in various parts of India. The accused approached the complainant holding that they have established business in Digital cable TV operations having about 1,20,000 active subscriber base in entire Bengaluru, beside having sufficient infrastructure and expressed their desire for joint operations in entire DAS areas of Bengaluru and assured good profits. Being induced by the words and assurances by the accused, the complainant agreed for their proposal. After negotiations, both the complainant and accused entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated:
21/03/2014 and Supplementary Memorandum of 4 C.C.No. 9282/2017 Understanding dated: 25/04/2014 outlining their terms and conditions.
3. It is the further case of the complainant that, in terms of understandings the accused had to finalize Due diligence report of their company and to complete other formalities for signing the remaining agreements with the complainant for running digital cable TV business operations jointly in Bengaluru and its surrounding areas. The complainant had released a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in the name of the accused company vide cheque No. 640352 dated: 25/04/2014 drawn on IDBI Bank, Ground Floor, Ocean Complex, P6, Sector -18, Noida, Uttar Pradesh towards part consideration for joint digital Cable TV operations in Bengaluru and its surrounding areas. The complainant found various concealed and non- disclosed facts, information, documents and papers with regard to Digital Cable TV operations besides various deals/understandings arrived with various 5 C.C.No. 9282/2017 third parties including competing MSO's in Bengaluru for carrying joint digital cable TV Operations in Bengaluru by the accused. The accused failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement and failed in finalization of Due diligence report and also indulged in certain activities against the complainant company. After knowing the same when the complainant sought for clarification, the accused company utterly failed to reply queries raised by the complainant company. The accused had also admitted various omissions and commissions in the understandings arrived with the complainant company, besides to compensate all the business losses incurred by the complainant company for Bengaluru operations due their acts. Based on the request of the accused, the complainant company had terminated the validity of the understandings and the accused had promised to refund the entire amount accepted from the complainant. The accused 6 C.C.No. 9282/2017 admitted in various meetings and discussions held with the regional office and Senior Executive of the complainant company for refund of the entire unpaid amount including the earlier cheque bounced amount and requested for some more time. But the accused completely neglected to release the entire unpaid refundable amount besides the cheque bounced amount.
4. It is the further case of the complainant that, the accused in discharge of their debt and liability issued cheque bearing No. 849486 dated: 23/06/2014 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru infavour of the complainant and while issuing the said cheque promised to honour the same as they have ensured sufficient funds. The complainant believing the words and promises of the accused, presented the cheque through their bankers IDBI Bank situated at Regional Processing Centre, E-4, Jhandewalan Extension, New 7 C.C.No. 9282/2017 Delhi Press, New Delhi and the said cheque came to be dishonoured vide banker's memo dated: 25/06/2014. for the reasons "PAYMENT STOPPED BY THE DRAWER" The complainant contacted the accused and informed about the dishonour of the cheque and the accused made reply vide e-mail dated:
29/05/2014 admitting to return the entire unpaid amount, but failed to make payment. The complainant issued statutory notice dated:
09/07/2014 through Courier demanding the accused for payment of the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and the said notice served on the accused. On receipt of notice the accused requested the complainant for some time to make payment and pleaded not to initiate any legal proceedings. But, the accused failed to adhere with their promise. Hence, this complaint.
5. The accused No.1 is the Company and accused No.2 is its Managing Director. The accused 8 C.C.No. 9282/2017 appeared through their advocate and enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation readover to the accused No.2 and he pleads as false. On behalf of the complainant company its representative examined as PW1 and got marked 11 documents as per Ex.P1 to 11 and closed its side evidence. On closure of the complainant side evidence statement of the accused recorded U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of defense, the accused No.2 examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D4 documents.
6. Heard the learned counsels for the complainant and accused. The learned counsel for the complainant has also filed written arguments and I perused the records.
7. The points that would arise for my consideration are as follows:
(i) Whether the complainant proves that the accused issued Ex.P.2 cheque towards 9 C.C.No. 9282/2017 discharge of legally enforcible debt or liability and the said cheque dishonoured ?
(ii) Whether the complainant proves that after dishonour of cheque, served notice to the accused in compliance of Sec.138(b) of the N.I Act?
(iii) What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : In the Affirmative Point No.3 : As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1: It is the case of the complainant company that, it is engaged in Cable Networks business and the accused approached the complainant holding that they have established business in Digital cable TV operations and having about 1,20,000 subscribers in Bengaluru and expressed desire for joint operations of Cable Network 10 C.C.No. 9282/2017 business. After negotiations, the complainant and accused have entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated: 21/03/2014 and supplementary Memorandum of Understanding dated:
25/04/2014 outlining the terms and conditions for joint operation of Cable Network business. As per the terms, the complainant released a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the accused vide cheque No. 640352 dated: 25/04/2014 drawn on IDBI Bank towards part consideration for joint Digital Cable TV Operations and the accused had to finalize Due diligence report of their company with regard to running Joint Digital Cable TV business operations. As the accused failed in finalize Due indulgence report and concealed various facts and indulged in certain activities against the complainant company, the complainant sought clarifications but the accused failed to reply to the quires raised by the complainant company. Thereafter at the request of the accused 11 C.C.No. 9282/2017 Memorandum of Understandings were terminated and the accused agreed to pay the amount received from the complainant and in discharge of debt, the accused issued Ex.P2 Cheque and the said cheque dishonoured for the reason payment stopped by drawer and in spite of demand notice by the complainant, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount. PW1 who is an Associate General Manager Finance of the complainant company in his evidence affidavit has reiterated the contents of the complaint averments.
10. As bone out from the cross-examination of PW1 and defense evidence, the defense of the accused is that Ex.P2 Cheque not issued in connection with Memorandum of Understanding and supplementary Memorandum of Understanding referred in the complaint. The accused issued Ex.P2 Cheque to the complainant for supply of the Set Top Boxes. Since, 12 C.C.No. 9282/2017 the complainant company not supplied Set Top boxes, the accused issued Stop Payment Instructions. The accused is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant company.
11. Before adverting the respective contentions of both the complainant and accused, let me appreciate undisputed and admitted facts. It is not in dispute that the complainant company is running Cable Networks business. The accused carrying on Cable Networks Multi System Operations business. The complainant company and accused negotiated for joint operations of Cable Networks business. The accused not denied the fact that Ex.P2 Cheque belongs to the Account of the accused No.1 Company and accused No.2 is a Signatory of the said cheque. Issuance of Ex.P2 Cheque by the accused infavour of the complainant is not in dispute. Since, the accused not denied the issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant company and signature of the accused 13 C.C.No. 9282/2017 No.2 on Ex.P2 Cheque, presumption U/sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raises in favour of the complainant that the accused issued cheque infavour of the complainant towards discharge of any debt or liability and the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the said presumption.
12. The learned counsel for the complainant has cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2001) 6 SCC 16 (Hitel P. Dalal V/s Brathindranath Banerjee), wherein it is held that It is obligatory on the court to presume the liability of the drawer for the amount of cheque in every case where the factual basis for such presumption is established. Such a presumption can be rebutted by the drawer by proving on evidence that the holder of the cheque had not received the same towards the discharge of any liability. Such rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established. The court must either believe the defense to exist or 14 C.C.No. 9282/2017 consider its existence to be reasonably probable. But mere explanation given by the drawer, although plausible would not suffice. Another decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4672 (J. Ramaraj V/s Iliyaz Khan) wherein, it is held that Mere denial of issuing cheques would not be sufficient as it is time and again noted that once the cheque is issued duly signed by the petitioner, the presumption goes against him as per Sec.139 of the N.I. Act. The learned counsel for the accused has cited the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418 (Basalingappa V/s Mudibasappa) wherein held about drawing of presumption and how to rebut the said presumption. While prosecution must established its case beyond reasonable doubt, accused to prove a defense must only meet standard of preponderance of probabilities. Keeping in mind of the principles laid down in the above cited decisions let me appreciate 15 C.C.No. 9282/2017 the evidence on record whether the accused is able to rebut the presumption U/sec. 139 of the N.I. Act available in favour of the complainant by raising probable defense.
13. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that PW1 in his chief examination has stated that he know about the facts of the case, but in the cross-examination has stated that he was not a party to negotiations and agreements taken place between the complainant company and accused and therefore PW1 has no personal knowledge about the transactions of the accused with the complainant company.
14. On behalf of the complainant company produced Ex.P1 Certified true copy Resolution passed in the Meeting of the Board of Directors in the complainant company held on 06/02/2017 to show that PW1 is Authorized to represent the complainant 16 C.C.No. 9282/2017 company. Though, in the course of cross-examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused elicited that he has not produced employment Card to show that he is working in the complainant company, but in the entire cross-examination of PW1 and defense evidence on behalf of the accused not denied the fact that PW1 is an employee in the complainant company. Further, not disputes Ex.P1 Resolution under which PW1 authorized to represent the complainant company. No doubt, PW1 in the course of cross-examination stated that he is not a party to the Negotiations and Agreements taken place between the complainant company and accused. PW1 in the course of cross- examination has stated that he is working as Associate General Manager Finance in the complainant company since 01/12/2014 and he is handling entire financial matters of Karnataka as well as Kerala State pertaining to the complainant company. PW1 has specifically denied the suggestions 17 C.C.No. 9282/2017 made on behalf of the accused to the effect that he has not personally aware of the transactions of the complainant company. Since, PW1 is an Associate General Manager Finance of the complainant company and he is handling the financial matters of the complainant company, it cannot be said that PW1 has no personal knowledge about the transactions of the accused with the complainant company. More over, in the defense evidence, the accused has not denied the personal knowledge of PW1 regarding the transactions in question. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused cannot be accepted.
15. In the course of cross-examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused denied the entering of Memorandum of Understanding dated: 21/03/2014 and Supplementary Memorandum of Understanding dated: 25/04/2014. DW1 in the course of cross- examination, clearly admits that on 21/03/2014 he entered into Memorandum of Understanding with the 18 C.C.No. 9282/2017 complainant company for joint operations business for entire DAS Area at Bengaluru. Further, stated that he do not know why supplementary Agreement dated:
25/04/2014 entered by him with the complainant company. DW1 in the course of cross-examination admits that the complainant company initiated proceedings against him before the National Company Law Tribunal at Bengaluru in Petition T.P. No. 30/2017. DW1 in the course of cross-examination has stated that he do not know whether statement of objections filed by him in the said proceedings and in the course of cross-examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused tried to deny the filing of statement of objections by the accused and also tried to deny the knowledge of accused about contents of statement of objections filed in the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal. The complainant produced the certified copy of statement of objections along with verifying Affidavit filed by the accused in the 19 C.C.No. 9282/2017 proceedings in T.P. No. 30/2017 before the NCLT. The accused even though filed statement of objections before the NCLT proceedings he tried to conceal the same before this court for the reasons best known to him.
16. In Ex.P11 Statement of objections filed by the accused before the NCLT in Petition T.P. No. 30/2017 clearly admits about the entering of Memorandum of Understanding dated: 21/03/2014 and Supplementary Memorandum of Understanding dated: 25/04/2014 for carrying of joint Operations of Cable Networks business. In the course of cross- examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused not denied the release of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- by the complainant company infavour of the accused vide Cheque No. 640352 dated: 25/04/2014 drawn on IDBI Bank. DW1 in his chief examination as well as cross-examination clearly admits the release of an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- by the complainant 20 C.C.No. 9282/2017 company. In Ex.P11 Statement of objections also the accused clearly admits about the payment of Rs.50,00,000/- by the complainant towards part consideration for Joint Operations and Cable Networks business. So, it is clear that the complainant company and accused negotiated to carryout Joint operations of Cable Networks business and entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated:
21/03/2014 and Supplementary Memorandum of Understanding dated: 25/04/2014 and the complainant company released an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the accused towards part consideration for Joint Operations of Cable Networks business.
17. The contention of the accused is that the complainant company and accused jointly appointed KPMG Company to Value the accused company and the said KPMG company submitted Due diligence report and to substantiate the said contention 21 C.C.No. 9282/2017 produced Ex.D3 Certified copy of due Diligence report. No doubt, PW1 in the course of cross-examination stated that the accused entered into agreement with DEN networks and admits that they have not produced any documents to support the allegations made against the accused regarding concealment and non disclosed facts by the accused. Further, stated that he is not specifically aware of non-performance of conditions by the accused and he cannot exactly say which conditions the accused fails to perform, but they can produce the agreement in that regard. On behalf of the complainant not produced the Agreement entered by the accused with DEN Networks and documents with regard to the concealment of facts by the accused. But the learned counsel for the complainant has rightly argued that Ex.D3 Due Diligence Report stated to be submitted by KPMG Company with regard to the valuation of the accused company is a draft and the same does not bear the 22 C.C.No. 9282/2017 signatures of the parties. Since, Ex.D3 Due Diligence Report is draft report not a final report, the said document cannot be taken into consideration. DW1 in his chief examination has stated that he was ready for joint operations but the complainant company has not come forward. In the course of cross-examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused by way of suggestion admits about the termination of Memorandum of Understandings by the complainant company. In Ex.P11 Statement of objections also the accused clearly admits about the termination of Memorandum of Understanding dated:21/3/2014 and Supplementary Memorandum of Understanding dated:
25/4/2014 entered between the complainant company and accused. So, it is clear that in pursuance of Memorandum of Understanding dated: 21/03/2014 and Supplementary Memorandum of Understanding dated: 25/04/2014 the complainant company and 23 C.C.No. 9282/2017 accused have not carried out the Joint Operations of Cable Networks business.
18. The contention of the accused is that he has issued Ex.P2 to the complainant for supply of Set Top Boxes and the complainant has not supplied the said Set Top Boxes and the accused not issued Ex.P2 cheque in respect of the Memorandum of Understanding and the Supplementary Memorandum of understanding referred in the complaint. Of course on behalf of the complainant denied the said version of the accused. On behalf of the accused except self interested oral testimony of DW1 and suggestions in the course of cross-examination of PW1 nothing is placed on record to show that the accused issued Ex.P2 Cheque to the complainant for supply of Set Top Boxes. It is not the specific defense of the accused that there was a contract between the complainant company and accused for supply of Set Top Boxes and the accused not produced any such 24 C.C.No. 9282/2017 agreement taken place between the complainant company and accused. Further the accused not placed any materials for having taken action against the complainant for not supply of Set Top Boxes. As noticed above, except self interested oral testimony of DW1 on behalf of the accused not placed any materials to show that the accused issued Ex.P2 cheque for supply of Set Top Boxes. Therefore, the accused failed to prove their contention that Ex.P2 Cheque issued to the complainant company for supply of Set Top Boxes.
19. As discussed above, in terms of Memorandum of Understanding and Supplementary Memorandum of Understanding entered by the complainant company and accused, the complainant released an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of the accused towards part consideration of Joint Operations of Cable Networks business. PW1 in the course of cross-examination has stated that out of the 25 C.C.No. 9282/2017 said amount of Rs.50,00,000/- the accused has paid Rs.30,00,000/- to the complainant company and the accused is due of Rs.20,00,000/-. As could be seen from Ex.P11 Statement of Objections filed by the accused before the NCLT, the accused admits that the balance amount of Rs. Rs.20,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant company. During the course of cross-examination DW1 admits Ex.P10 E-mail sent by him to the complainant company and also admits that in Ex.P10 agreed for repayment. In Ex.P10 E- mail the accused agreed for repayment of the amount received from the complainant and sought time. So, it is not the case of the accused that he has repaid the entire amount of Rs.50,00,000/- received from the complainant company. Rather, the accused admits that balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant company. As noticed above, the accused has not placed any materials to show that he has issued Ex.P2 Cheque to the complainant company 26 C.C.No. 9282/2017 for supply of Set Top Boxes. Under such circumstance, it can be said that the accused issued Ex.P2 Cheque to the complainant company towards discharge of the amount paid in terms of Memorandum of Understandings. On behalf of the accused produced Ex.D1 & 2 Certified copies of E- mails dated: 04/03/2014 and 08/03/2014. During the course of cross-examination DW1 admits that in Ex.D1 & 2 E-mails name of the Complainant company is not appearing and they are between himself and KPMG and its groups. Ex.D1 & 2 E-mail correspondences are between the accused and KPMG and therefore they are nothing to do with this case. On behalf of the accused produced Ex.D4 Certified copy of the proceedings before the Assistant Director of Income Tax Bengaluru. Ex.D4 proceedings between the accused and Income Tax Department and the said document is not concerned to this case. 27 C.C.No. 9282/2017
20. As per Ex.P3 Bank endorsement, Ex.P2 Cheque dishonoured for the reason "Payment Stopped by Drawer". In the course of cross-examination DW1 has stated that he do not remember what was the balance in his account at the time of presentation of cheque in question for encashment and it is not possible for him to produce his statement of account to show the balance in his account. If really there were sufficient funds in the account of the accused to meet Ex.P2 Cheque amount, the accused would have produced the statement of account to show that he had sufficient balance in his account at the time of presentation of Ex.P2 Cheque for encashment. But the accused not produced the Statement of Account for the reasons best known to him. Dishonour of cheque for the reason "Payment Stopped by Drawer"
also attracts Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant by adducing oral coupled with documentary evidence and by eliciting admissions in 28 C.C.No. 9282/2017 the course of cross-examination of DW1 established that the accused issued Ex.P2 cheque towards discharge of debt and liability and the said cheque dishonoured. In view of my above discussion, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
21. Point No.2:- It is the case of the complainant that, after dishonour of cheque issued statutory notice dated: 09/07/2014 through courier demanding the accused for payment of cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and the said notice served on the accused, but the accused has not paid the cheque amount. In the course of cross- examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused by way of suggestions denied the issuance of notice and service of notice to the accused after dishonour of the cheque and tried to contend that Ex.P5 to 8 documents are not concerned with the notice sent to the accused and the said documents are sent to some other correspondence. Of course PW1 denied the 29 C.C.No. 9282/2017 suggestions made on behalf of the accused in that regard. The complainant to prove the factum of issuance of notice to the accused after dishonour of the cheque and service of said notice produced Ex.P4 Office copy of notice, Ex.P5 & 6 Postal Receipts, Ex.P7 & 8 Postal Track Consignments and Ex.P9 Certificate U/sec. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act pertaining to Ex.P7 & 8 Postal Track Consignments. On behalf of the accused neither in the course of cross-examination of PW1 nor in the defense evidence denied the correctness of address of the accused to which Ex.P4 Notice sent by the complainant. It is not the defense of the accused that after dishonour of the cheque the complainant company sent notice to the wrong address of the accused or the address found on Ex.P4 notice not belongs to the accused. Ex.P7 & 8 Postal Track Consignments clearly goes to show the delivery of notice to the accused. It is pertinent to note that in the defense evidence the accused not denied the 30 C.C.No. 9282/2017 service of notice sent by the complainant after dishonour of the cheque. The materials placed on record by the complainant clearly goes to show that after dishonour of cheque, the complainant company sent notice to the accused demanding to pay the dishonoured cheque amount and the said notice served on the accused and thereby the complainant has complied the mandatory requirement of Sec.138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, I answer Point No.2 in the Affirmative.
22. Point No.3 :- In view of my findings on Points No.1 & 2 the complainant proved that the accused issued Ex.P.2 cheque towards discharge of debt and the said cheque dishonoured and the complainant has complied the mandatory requirement of Sec.138(b) of the N.I Act by issuing demand notice after dishonour of the cheque. Therefore, the accused liable for punishment for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the N.I Act. In cheque bounce cases apart 31 C.C.No. 9282/2017 from punishment, to the accused, compensation can also be awarded to the complainant with respect to dishonoured cheque. The accused issued Ex.P.2 cheque to the complainant towards repayment of the amount received from the complainant company. Ex.P.2 cheque is dated 23/06/2014 and amount covered there under is Rs.10,00,000/-. If the cheque was honoured when it was presented for encahsment the complainant company would have utilized the said amount for its business purpose and would have got substantial profit. But the act of the accused caused loss to the complainant and dragged to the court. The complainant spent more than 6 years for redressal. It is under these circumstances, the complainant has to be suitably compensated in the matter. It is not in dispute that the accused No.2 is the Director of the accused No.1 company and he is responsible for day to day affairs of the accused No.1 company. Therefore the vicarious liability of the accused No.1 company is 32 C.C.No. 9282/2017 fixed on the accused No.2. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant company against the accused is allowed.
Acting U/s.255(2) of Cr.PC, the accused convicted for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.11,00,000/-. In default of payment of said fine amount, the accused No.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months.
Out of the said fine amount ordered to pay Rs.10,90,000/- to the complainant as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall go to the state.
(Dictated to the stenographer and corrected and then pronounced in open court by me on this the 28th day of October, 2020) (N. Muniraja) XXVII A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW1 : SABIN BALAN 33 C.C.No. 9282/2017 Documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : C/c of Board Resolution
Ex.P.2 : Cheque
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P.3 : Bank endorsement
Ex.P.4 : Office copy of the notice
Ex.P.5 & 6 : Postal receipts
Ex.P.7 & 8 : Postal track consignments
Ex.P.9 : Certificate U/sec. 65-B of Indian
Evidence Act.
Ex.P.10 : Copy of E-mail dated:
29/05/2014
Ex.P.11 : C/c of Statement of objections
along with verifying affidavit filed in case T.P. No. 30/2017 Witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
DW1 : SHASHIKANTH. N Documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D1 & 2 : C/c of E-mails dt: 04/03/2014 & 08/03/2014 Ex.D3 : C/c of Due diligence report Ex.D4 : C/c of the proceedings before the Assistant Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru.
XXVII A.C.M.M Bangalore.34 C.C.No. 9282/2017
28/10/2020 complainant:Sri. D.J Adv., Accused:Sri. C.S Adv., For Judgment.
(Order typed vide separate sheet) ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant company against the accused is allowed.
Acting U/s.255(2) of Cr.PC, the accused convicted for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.11,00,000/-. In default of payment of said fine amount, the accused No.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months.
Out of the said fine amount ordered to pay Rs.10,90,000/- to the complainant as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall go to the state.
(N.Muniraja) XXVII A.C.M.M., Bangalore.