Bangalore District Court
Partners. The Second And Third Accused vs And The Complainant That The Said Work on 15 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU CITY
Present: Sri. MANJUNATHA, B.A, LL.B.,
XXVIII A.C.M.M
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2022
CC.No.25037/2017
JUDGMENT
1. Sl.No. of the case : C.C.No.25037/2017
2. The date of commence of Evidence : 15.03.2019
3. The date of Institution : 22.09.2017
4. Name of the Complainant :ETANCHER A Partnership Firm having address at No.9, 2nd main, Srikantan Layout, Crescent road, High Grounds, Bengaluru560 001.
Rep by its Partner L.J. Suhas
5. Name of the Accused : (1) Buildcare Innovations A Registered Partnership Firm Having address at No.2800, CC.No.25037/2017 2 II Floor, Kore Complex, I Main, Halladakeri, Mysooru570 001.
Rep by its PartNers.
2. C. NAVEEN Partner, Buildcare Innovations No.2800, II Floor, Kore Complex, I Main, Halladakeri, Mysooru570 001.
3. BASAVARAJ Partner, Buildcare Innovations No.2800, II Floor, Kore Complex, I Main, Halladakeri, Mysooru570 001.
6. The offence complained : U/s.138 of N.I. Act
7. Plea of the accused on his examination : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Order : Accused No.2 & 3 are Convicted
9. Date of such order : 15.02.2022 JUDGMENT
1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act.
2. The gist of the complainant's case is that :
The second accused is the close relative of the CC.No.25037/2017 3 complainant's partners. The second and third accused called upon the partners of the complainant to invest and participate in their ongoing contract works entrusted to the accused as subcontract by IVRCL at the plant of National Thermal Power Corporation at Kudgi, Vijapura District. After due deliberations and discussions, the complainant's partners agreed to invest and participate with the accused for carrying out the civil works by bringing in requisite infrastructure & investments. After consultation, it was advised to constitute a partnership firm and carry out the business activity in its name and accordingly, the complainant partnership firm was constituted and registered and accounts were opened in its name and funds were brought in. Upon their arranging necessary infrastructure in order to execute the civil works at NTPC Plant in Kudgi, Vijapura District, the complainant was entrusted with the works valued at Rs.30 lakh. It was specifically understood between the CC.No.25037/2017 4 accused and the complainant that the said work should be executed by the complainant by incurring all the expenditure and deploying required infrastructure and manpower and the bills for completion of the work would be submitted by the accused to IVRCL and upon realization of the said bill amounts, the accused would deduct an amount of Rs.4,40,773/ (Rupees Four lakh fourty thousand seven hundred and seventy three only) for assigning the work to the complainant and pay the balance amount of Rs.25,59,227/ (Rupees Twenty five lakh fifty nine thousand two hundred twenty seven only) to the complainant. Accordingly the complainant executed the works entrusted and thereby enabled the accused realise the bill amount to the tune of Rs.30 lakh . As per the understanding between the complainant and the accused towards the payment of Rs.25,59,227/ (Rupees Twenty Five lakh fifty nine thousand two hundred twenty seven only), the accused issued a cheque bearing No.000007 dated 15.07.2017 CC.No.25037/2017 5 drawn on HDFC Bank, Vijayanagar II Stage, Mysore for a sum of Rs.25,59,227/ (Rupees Twenty five lakh fifty nine thousand two hundred twenty seven only) and requested them to present the same. The said cheque has been signed by the second and third accused, as partners and authorised signatories of the first accused. Above understanding was however not reduced into writing, as the accused wanted to see the performance of the complainant in the first work assigned to them, and also advised that if the work executed by the complainant were to the satisfaction of IVRCL, the complainant could directly negotiate with IVRCL and obtain works from them. As per the instructions of the accused, the accused presented the cheque with their banker State Bank of India, Race Course Road branch, Bengaluru, the same was dishonoured with the endorsement for "Payment Stopped by Drawer", vide their banker memo dated 18.07.2017. The accused themselves contacted the CC.No.25037/2017 6 complainant and informed that they were unable to arrange the funds as they were required to divert the funds for another project at Hubballi, and that they are making arrangement for payment for the same, however they did not come forward to do so. Hence, within 30 days from the date of the receipt of endorsement from the bank regarding of the cheque, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 07.08.2017 to the accused at the address as shown in the cause title through RPAD demanding them to make payment of the said cheque amount. The notice sent to the accused have been duly served upon them, after receipt of the notice, the accused instead of making good the payment as per the cheque issued by them, have issued an untenable reply. As such an act of not coming forward to discharge their liability under the said cheque and also issuing the said cheque even though having knowledge that the same would be dishonoured, the accused have committed an offence CC.No.25037/2017 7 punishable under section 138 of the N.I Act. Hence, the complainant prays to punish the accused persons under sec.138, r/w 142 of the N.I Act.
3. In pursuance of the court summons, the accused persons have appeared through their Counsel and got enlarged on bail by executing necessary documents. Copy of the complaint was furnished to the accused persons, as required under law. As there was sufficient material, plea was recorded against the accused persons on 24.01.2019 and explained to them in their vernacular, for which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
4. In order to prove the case, the Partner of the complainant Company Mr. L.J. Suhas examined as PW1 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to 25. Then the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C recorded on 23.07.2019, wherein the incriminating evidence appeared against the accused persons read over and CC.No.25037/2017 8 explained which was denied by the accused persons. Accused No.2 and accused No.3 and another witness examined as DW1 to DW3 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D14 documents on their behalf.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the material placed on record.
6. On the basis of the above facts, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused persons towards discharge of legally recoverable debt issued cheque bearing No.000007 dt:15.07.2017 for Rs.25,59,227/ (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Seven only) drawn on HDFC Bank, Vijayanagar II Stage, Mysoore, in favour of complainant, on presentation for encashment it was returned as 'Payment stopped by Drawer' and in spite of receipt of legal notice, the accused persons failed to pay the cheque CC.No.25037/2017 9 amount within the statutory period and thereby the accused persons have committed an offence punishable u/s 138 r/w sec.142 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1: The complainant in order to prove its case got examined Partner of the complainant company Mr. L.J. Suhas as PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 documents are marked. PW1 being partner of the complainant company deposed that he is the partner of the complainant firm having authority to represent the complainant in the matter and he knows the facts of the case. Second accused is his close relative, the 3rd accused called upon him and his mother to invest CC.No.25037/2017 10 and participate in their ongoing works entrusted to the accused as subcontract by IVRCL at the plant of National Thermal Power Corporation at Kudgi, Vijapura District. After due deliberations and discussions, he agreed to invest and participate with the accused for carrying out the civil works by bringing in requisite infrastructure and investments. Accordingly the complainant partnership firm was constituted and registered and accounts were opened in its name and funds were brought in. Upon arranging infrastructure in order to execute the civil works at NTPC plant in Kudgi, Vijapura District, entrusted with the works valued at Rs.30,00,000/ (rupees thirty lakh only) It was specifically understood between the accused and the said work should be executed and incurring all the expenditure and deploying required infrastructure and manpower and the bills for completion of th work would be submitted by the accused to IVRCL and upon realization of the CC.No.25037/2017 11 said amounts, the accused would deduct an amount of Rs.4,40,773/ (rupees four lakh forty thousand seven hundred seventy three only) for assigning the work and pay the balance amount of Rs.25,59,227/ (rupees twenty five lakhs fifty nine thousand two hundred twenty seven only). Accordingly, complainant executed the works entrusted and thereby enabled the accused to realize the bill amount to the tune of Rs.30 Lakh. As per the understanding between them and the accused towards the payment of Rs.25,59,227/ (rupees twenty five lakh fifty nine thousand two hundred twenty seven only) the accused issued a cheque bearing No.000007 dated 15.07.2017 drawn on HDFC Bank, Vijayanagar II Stage, Mysooru for a sum of Rs.25,59,227/ (rupees twenty five lakh fifty nine thousand two hundred twenty seven only) and requested them to present the same. The said cheque has been signed by the second and third accused, as partners and authorised signatories of the first CC.No.25037/2017 12 accused. As per the instructions of the accused, the said cheque has been presented with their banker State Bank of India, Race Course Road branch, Bengaluru, the same was dishonoured with the endorsement 'Payment stopped by Drawer' in their banker's memo dated 18.07.2017. The accused themselves contacted the complainant and informed that they were unable to arrange the funds as they were required to divert the funds for another project at Hubballi, and that they are making arrangement for payment of the same, however they did not come forward to do so. Hence, within 30 days from the date of the receipt of endorsement from the bank regarding return of the cheque issued legal notice on 07.08.2017 to the accused at the address as shown in the cause title through RPAD demanding them to make good payment of the said cheque amount. Notice sent to the accused have been duly served upon them, after receipt of the notice the accused instead of making the CC.No.25037/2017 13 payment have issued an untenable reply. An act of not coming forward to discharge their liability under the cheque and also issuing the said cheque even though having knowledge that the same would be dishonoured, the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 138 r/2 142 of the N.I Act.
9. Ex.Pl is the registration certificate of complainant firm, Ex.P2 is the Vat registration certificate, Ex.P3 is cheque, Ex.P4 is the bank endorsement to the effect that the cheque has been dishnoured with the endorsement 'Payment stopped by the drawer', Ex.P5 is the legal notice, Ex.P5(a) postal receipt, Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are the returned legal notice, Ex.P6(a) and Ex.P7(a) are the returned postal covers, Ex.P8 is the reply notice issued by the accused reveals that the complainant firm was in existence as on the date and cheque issued by the accused for Rs.25,59,227/ (rupees twenty five lakhs fifty nine thousand two CC.No.25037/2017 14 hundred twenty seven only) has been dishonoured and statutory notice has been issued by the complainant to recover the amount covered under the cheque. The complainant also produced authorization letter Ex.P9, work orders Ex.P10, Machinery purchase bills Ex.P11, Cash delivery receipt Ex.P12, debt voucher Ex.P13, deisel purchase bills Ex.P14, material purchased bills Ex.P15, 10 cash delivery receipts Ex.P16, Ex.P17 to 19 account statements, Vehicle Pass Ex.P20, Temporary gate pass Ex.P21 & 22, 15 photographs Ex.P23, C.D Ex.P24 to establish that the complainant carried out the work as per oral agreement between the parties to the proceedings.
10. PW1 is subjected to cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused and PW1 is not aware about the total value of construction work entrusted to the accused, but he is aware that the construction work was entrusted to the accused in the month of CC.No.25037/2017 15 March 2017, as on the date of formation of complainant firm, the complainant had bank balance of Rs.10,000/ (rupees ten thousand only). PW1 is not aware about commencement of IVRCL project and date of completion of work entrusted to the accused, Ex.P10 work order and letter of authority signed by accused No.2, Ex.P10 admittedly does not contain page No.2 to 4, no complaint was registered in this regard by the complainant. There was no written agreement between the complainant and the accused with regard to the construction work carried out as per instructions of the accused. No measurement sheet was prepared when the work was carried out by the complainant as per the instructions of the accused.
11. The learned counsel for the accused suggested that Ex.P10 does not contain page No.2 to 4. PW1 gave an explanation that Ex.P10 work order was issued by the accused at the last moment and CC.No.25037/2017 16 conditions imposed in the Ex.P10 does not apply to the complainant as the complainant has carried out the work with mutual consent. Both parties to the proceedings not strictly relay on Ex.P10 document which is admittedly incomplete document produced before this court. The defence set up by the accused is that Ex.P3 cheque was lost on 20.07.2017 and a complaint was sent through post to the jurisdictional police station, the complainant issued statutory notice to the accused and the accused gave reply as per Ex.P8 and made allegations against the complainant that the accused committed theft of Ex.P3 cheque and misused the same for the purpose of unlawful gain. However the complainant has deposed in his evidence that Ex.P3 cheque was handed over to him in the month of July 2017 through one Hemanth Kumar, brother of accused No.2's wife. PW1 further admitted that as per instructions of the accused he has filled up the cheque and the accused persons had signed the CC.No.25037/2017 17 cheque in his presence. Issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant for legally recoverable liability has been specifically denied by the accused, but mere denial is not sufficient to disbelieve the case of the complainant as the presumption available under law is in favour of the complainant that the cheque in question has been issued in discharge of liability.
12. Accused No.2 being the Managing Partner of the accused No.1 company examined as DW1 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D14 documents are marked on behalf of the accused. DW1 Naveen .C deposed in his evidence that Ex.P10 is created document. Ex.D1 is certificate of registration of firm issued by registrar of firm in the name of accused No.1, Ex.P2 is PRO contract agreement, one Hemanth.C was working as Project Manager as per Ex.D3, there is no other document to show the relationship between NTPC project and the accused persons. The accused also produced copy of CC.No.25037/2017 18 cumulative RA bills of Buildcare Innovations issued by IVRCL as per Ex.D5, Letter correspondence between NTPC and the accused produced and marked as Ex.D6. Ex.D7. According to the accused Ex.P3 cheque was not issued in favour of the complainant. There is no relationship between the complainant and the accused persons. When the Ex.P3 cheque was presented for encashment the concerned bank telephoned him and he instructed to the bank to 'stop payment'. One Hemanth was looking after the project work had the letter head and signed the cheques of the accused company. The said Hemanth is distant relative of the complainant as such the complainant was accompanied with the Hemanth in the project work for the purpose of learning. He came to know that the complainant committed theft of disputed cheque from the custody of Hemanth misuse the same for unlawful gain. In fact the accused received only Rs.16,50,346/ (Rupees sixteen lakh fifty thousand CC.No.25037/2017 19 three hundred forty six only) from NTPC. The accused company has not completed project work. The disputed cheque was not at all issued in favour of the complainant to discharge the liability. The accused also produced bank statement, IT returns marked as ExD12 to Ex.D14 to disprove the case of the complainant. 20
13. The learned counsel for the complainant subjected DW1 for cross examination and during cross examination DW1 further deposed that the complainant is his distant relative, accused company is doing civil contract work in NTPCL Kudlu , Ex.P3 is his signature, he has challenged Ex.P10 document before the court of law, his application has been dismissed and he has preferred appeal against the dismissal order. The accused have not explained where Ex.P10 document is challenged and dismissed in which forum appeal is pending has not been CC.No.25037/2017 20 explained. No doubt Ex.P10 is an incomplete document even in the absence of Ex.P10 document materials available on record including oral evidence is sufficient to decide the case on hand.
14. DW.3 Hemanth.C is brother of his wife, he issued reply to the statutory notice, vehicle bearing No.KA.04.MG.1519 was permitted to entered into the construction site, but he is not aware as to the said vehicle belongs to PW1 or not. However he admits that permission to use the above referred vehicle must have been given by the engineers of accused company. The accused has not initiated any proceedings against the complainant for fabrication of false documents, even though the accused contended that Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 documents are fabricated. Though DW1 send a complaint through post to the effect that the cheque in question has been stolen, he has not proceeded with the matter and alleged theft committed by the CC.No.25037/2017 21 complainant is not reached to a logical end. It appears that the accused have sent a complaint through post to the concerned police for the purpose of denying their liability to pay the amount covered under the cheque. No substance in the evidence of DW1. Based on oral evidence of DW1 it can not be said that presumption available in favour of the complainant has been rebutted by the accused.
15. DW2 Basavaraju being another partner of the accused No.1 company contended that one Hemanth was looking after the project work, he cam to know that Ex.P3 cheque has been dishonoured. He does not know the complaint. Accused No.2 Naveen told him that the Ex.P3 cheque has been dishonoured. He is also partner of the accused No.1 company which carried out the sub contract work of NTPCL. DW2 admits that Ex.P3 cheque contained his signature. DW3 Hemanth further deposed in his evidence that he CC.No.25037/2017 22 was project Manager of the accused No.1 company. The complainant is his relative, the complainant was joined with him to learn the project work and he was residing with him when the project work was going on. The complainant has committed theft of Ex.P3 cheque and misused the same. It is significant to note that DW3 is not party to the proceedings, but he has been examined by the accused to establish that the complainant has committed theft of cheque belongs to accused No.1 company. The story put forth by the accused that Ex.P3 cheque was duly signed and handed over to Hemanth and the accused has committed the theft of cheque from the custody of said Hemanth is not believable as the accused has not prosecuted the complainant for committing theft of cheque from the lawful custody of the accused or their site Manager DW3. No merits in the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the accused to disprove the case of the complainant.
CC.No.25037/2017 23
16. The learned counsel for the accused filed written argument and contended that the complaint filed by the complainant for the offence punishable under sec.138 of N.I Act against the accused persons by mis using the cheque without their knowledge, there is no legally enforceable debt and liability. There is no contract or sub contract is existed between them. The alleged transaction is hit by sec.23 of The Indian Contract Act, etc,. In fact the accused have awarded with Central Government Project, all records and documents are maintained, but the complainant has created fake agreement to file above case, except cheque. It is significant to note that the accused persons have admitted their signature on the disputed cheque and contended that the cheque was with the custody of one Hemanth DW3, the accused being the room mate of DW3 committed theft of cheque and used the same for illegal gain. The involvement of the complainant in performing the construction work along CC.No.25037/2017 24 with Hemanth is admitted. However, the accused persons took defence that the complainant was with the DW3 to learn the work of construction etc., it is not believable as discussed above. This court as per the order dated 10.03.2020 rejected the application filed by the accused No.2 under sec.45 of Indian evidence Act. Though the accused contended that Crl Revision Petition No.201/2020 filed by the accused against the said order is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka it is not a ground to postpone the disposal of the case on hand. The accused No.2 though sent police complaint about the loss of cheque and letter head, he has not pursueded the matter before the appropriate court of law. As such said contention is of no consequence of the case on hand. The accused failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under N.I Act. Sec.23 of Indian Contract Act deals with "What consideration and object are CC.No.25037/2017 25 lawful and what not, the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless it is forbidden by law". Admittedly the complainant involved in the process of construction work of NTPC. Complainant has produced several documents to show that he has purchased several materials to complete the construction work under the supervision of the accused and it is the specific case of the complainant that the cheque has been issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability on the part of the accused and the accused persons stopped the payment when the cheque was presented for encashment.
17. The learned counsel for the accused relied on the following decisions:
1.ILR 2008 KAR 4629 in Shiva Murthy v/s Amurthraj.
2.2015 (2) KAR L.J 559 in Ramesh Santhanam V/s Sadashiva Rao & Ors.
CC.No.25037/2017 26
3. AIR 2019 SC5123 in Crl. Appeal 1509 of 2019 in B. Krishna Reddy v/s Syed Hafeez (died) LR Smt. Naseema Begum & anr.
4.AIR 2014 SC 71 A.K Singhania v/s Gujarat State Fertilizer Co Ltd.
5.Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Crl.R.P. No.263/2011, dt 22nd day of July 2011 Smt. Vijayakumari v/s Sri. T Vasanthakumar.
I have carefully gone through the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the accused. Ratio laid down in the above referred decisions that 'One of the conditions precedents for attracting the penalty prescribed under sec.138 of N.I Act is "there should be legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of drawal of the cheque". If the cheque is issued in advance payment for the purchase of goods and in all eventualities the purchase order is not carried to its logical CC.No.25037/2017 27 conclusion", because of cancellation, non delivery of goods, or otherwise, the 'cheque cannot be held to have been drawn for an existing debt or liability". It is only after satisfying that the complainant has proved existence of legally enforceable debt or liability, the courts could be proceeded to draw presumption under sec.139 of the N.I Act and thereafter find out as to whether or not the accused has rebutted the said presumption."
18. Coming to the case on hand, complainant in this case being the distant relative of the accused in order to execute project work at NTPC plant in Kudgi, Vijapura District, the complainant was entrusted with the works with understanding that the complainant should execute the work by incurring all the expenditure and deploying required infrastructure and manpower and the bills for completion of the work would be submitted by the CC.No.25037/2017 28 accused to concerned and upon realisation of the said bills, the accused would deduct an amount of Rs.4,40,773/ (rupees four lakh forty thousand seven hundred seventy three only) and pay balance amount of Rs.25,59,227/ (rupees twenty five lakhs fifty nine thousand two hundred twenty seven only). Accordingly cheque issued in favour of the complainant has been dishonoured with endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. The complainant is able to prove the legally enforceable debt or liability substituting on the date of drawl of the cheque. The accused on the other hand failed to rebut the presumption, as such the accused persons are liable for the offence punishable under sec.138 r/2 142 of N.I Act. Hence, I answer the above point No.1 in the affirmative.
19. Point No.2: From the material on record and considering the age, avocation of accused persons and CC.No.25037/2017 29 quantum of the cheques, if the accused persons are sent to jail, it would cause problem to them as well as to their family members. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, prevailing rate of interest in the nationalized Bank and litigation expenses, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.1 to 3 are found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 138 r/w sec.142 of N.I. Act.
Acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 and 3 being the partners of the accused No.1 firm are hereby convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.26,50,000/(Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty thousand only) in default they shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.26,50,000/(Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) a sum of Rs.26,40,000/(Rupees Twenty Six Laksh Forty CC.No.25037/2017 30 Thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant towards compensation u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the balance amount of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) shall be remitted to the State.
The bail bonds executed by the accused No.2 & 3 stand canceled.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused No.2 & 3.
(Dictated to Stenographer and computerized by her, taken print out corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the open court this the 15th day of February, 2022) (MANJUNATHA) XXVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT :
PW1 : Sri. L.J Suhas
CC.No.25037/2017
31
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
DW1 : Naveen .C DW2 : Basavaraju DW3 : Hemanth . C
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Registration certificate Ex.P2 : Vat registration certificate Ex.P3 : Cheque Ex.P3(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P4 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P5 : Legal notice dated 07.08.2017 Ex.P5(a) : 3 postal receipts Ex.P6 & 7 : Legal notice found in the returned postal covers Ex.P6(a) & 7(a) : Postal covers Ex.P8 : Reply notice Ex.P9 : Authorization letter Ex.P10 : Work Orders Ex.P11 : Mechine purchase bills Ex.P12 : Cash delivery receipts Ex.P13 : 20 debit vouchers Ex.P14 : 12 diesel purchase bills Ex.P15 : 11 material purchase bills Ex.P16 : 10 cash delivery receipts Ex.P17 to 19 : Account statements Ex.P20 : Vehicle pass Ex.P21 & 22 : Temporary gate pass Ex.P23 : 15 photographs Ex.P24 : CD Ex.P25 : Complaint CC.No.25037/2017 32 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 : Certificate of Registration of Firm Ex.D2 : PRW contract Agreement Ex.D3 : Letter of Authorisation Ex.D4 : Other correspondence and Letters dated 21.07.2017, 19.7.2017 Ex.D5 : Statement of RA Bills issued by IVRCL Ltd Company Ex.D6 : Letter issued by NTPC dated 14.02.2017 Ex.D6(a) : Bill Ex.D7 ; Gate entry and exist pass given by CISF Unit Ex.D8 : Police endorsement dated 20.07.2017 Ex.D9 : Police complaint Ex.D9(a) : Acknowledgment Ex.D10 : RTI Application dated 9.1.2018 Ex.D10(a) : Postal receipt Ex.D11 : SBI Bank Statement Ex.D12 : HDFC Bank Statement Ex.D13 & 14 : 2 IT returns XXVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
CC.No.25037/2017 33 15.02.2022 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER
The accused No.1 to 3 are found
guilty of the offence punishable u/s 138 r/w sec.142 of N.I. Act.
Acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 and 3 being the partners of the accused No.1 firm are hereby convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.26,50,000/(Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty thousand only) in default they shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.26,50,000/ (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) a sum of Rs.26,40,000/(Rupees Twenty Six Laksh Forty Thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant towards compensation u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the balance amount of CC.No.25037/2017 34 Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) shall be remitted to the State.
The bail bonds executed by the accused No.2 & 3 stand canceled.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused No.2 & 3.
XXVIII A.C.M.M, Bangaluru.
CC.No.25037/2017 35