Bangalore District Court
Sri. Lingegowda.K vs Sri. Krishnaiah.G on 14 June, 2018
1 C.C.No.8802/16 J
THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 14th day of June, 2018
Present: Smt. Saraswathi.K.N, B.A.L., LL.M.,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.8802/2016
Complainant : Sri. Lingegowda.K,
S/o. Late Kempegowda,
Ageda bout 45 years,
Residing at No.35,
2nd Floor, "Madhu Nivas",
4th Cross,
Kalidasa Layout,
Srinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 050.
(Rep.by Sri.D.Satish, Adv.,)
- Vs -
Accused : Sri. Krishnaiah.G,
S/o. Giriyappa,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at. Sangabasavanadoddi,
Mayaganahalli Psot,
Bangalore-Mysore Highway
Road,
Ramanagara District.
Working at :
Integrated Electric Co., Pvt.,
Ltd.,
No.497A, 4th Main Road,
4th Phase, 3rd Stage,
2 C.C.No.8802/16 J
Peenya Industrial Area,
Bengaluru - 560 058.
(Rep. by Sri.R.Srinivas and Ors.,
Adv.,)
Case instituted : 31.3.2016
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 14.6.2018
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, being his friend had sought for a financial assistance from him and as he knew the Accused well, he was pleased to advance a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs to him by way of cash. The Accused had executed an on Demand pronote and consideration receipt in his favour on 5.7.2015 and had agreed to repay the said loan amount to him, within 6 months along with interest at the rate of 2% p.m. After the expiry of 6 months, when he demanded for the repayment of the said amount from the Accused, the Accused paid the interest as and when accrued as on date and towards the repayment of the loan amount, he issued a cheque bearing 3 C.C.No.8802/16 J No.0077001 drawn on the Syndicate Bank, Peenya Industrial Estate Branch, Bengaluru, for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs in his favour on 10.2.2016.
3. The Complainant has further submitted that as per the instructions of the Accused, when he presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker, the same returned dishonoured as "Funds Insufficient" vide bank endorsement dated: 12.2.2016. Thereafter he got issued a legal notice to the Accused through RPAD calling upon him to pay the cheque amount to him within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said legal notice and though the Accused has caused an evasive reply to the same, he has failed to pay the cheque amount to him. Hence the present complaint.
4. The Complainant submits that, the dishonour of the cheque by the Accused has been malafide, intentional and deliberate. Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of the Accused, he has filed the present complaint praying that he be summoned, tried and punished in accordance with Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. The Complainant has led his pre-summoning evidence on 1.4.2016 and he has filed his affidavit-in-lieu of his sworn statement, in which, he has reiterated the complaint averments.
4 C.C.No.8802/16 J6. In support of his oral evidence, C.W.1 has produced and relied upon the following documentary evidence as per Ex.C1 to C7:-
The cheque dated 10.2.2016 as per Ex.C1, the signature on the said cheque identified by C.W.1 as that of the Accused as per Ex.C1 (a), the Bank Challan as per Ex.C2, the Bank memo as per Ex.C.3, the office copy of the legal notice as per Ex.C4, the Postal Receipt as per Ex.C5 and the Postal Acknowledgment as per Ex.C6 and the Reply notice as per Ex.C.7.
7. Prima-facie case has been made out against the Accused and he has been summoned vide the order of the same date.
8. The Accused has appeared before the court on 26.5.2016. He has been enlarged on bail and the substance of the accusation has been read over to him, to which he has pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has the defence to make.
9. In his post summoning evidence, the Complainant is examined as P.W.1 and he has filed his affidavit, in which, he has reiterated the complaint averments.
10. In support of his oral evidence, P.W.1 has produced and relied upon the documentary evidence at Ex.P.8, which is an on Demand Pronote and Consideration Receipt dated:
5 C.C.No.8802/16 J5.7.2015 and the signatures in the said document identified by P.W.1 as those of the Accused are as per Ex.P.8(a) and P8(b) respectively.
11. P.W.1 has been cross-examined by the learned Defence Counsel.
12. The statement of the Accused u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence found against him and has chosen to lead his defence evidence.
13. The Accused has examined as D.W.1 and he is examined on oath and during the course of his evidence, the gist of his defence is that he knows the Complainant since 25 years, as both of us were classmates in the college and also roommates. He is working as an employee in a private company, while the Complainant is working as a clerk with an advocate by name Sri. Mokashi.
14. It is his further defence that, the grand-daughter of his paternal uncle had filed a suit for partition against his father and his own brother had filed a suit for partition against his father. In this regard, initially he had approached the Complainant seeking his advice in the matter and he referred him to an advocate by name Sri. Hanumanthu, assuring that, the said Advocate would assist him in the said proceedings. In this regard there was an oral agreement 6 C.C.No.8802/16 J between the Complainant and his father to the effect that, upon the success of the said two proceedings in their favour, his father had to pay some amount to the Complainant. Among the said two suits, the suit filed by his cousin sister against his father was decided in favour of his father. Thereafter the Complainant started pressuring him for the purpose of the payment of the amount that his father had assured to pay him. At that time, he told him to contact his father directly, since it was his father, who had assured to pay the amount to him. The Complainant was demanding Rs.20,000/- to be paid by his father to him. As the Complainant is his friend since 25 years, he used to visit his house regularly.
15. It is the further defence of the Accused that, the claim of the Complainant that, he has availed a loan of Rs.5 lakhs from him and towards the repayment of the same, he has issued the cheque in dispute to him is false and that he does not know as to who has written the contents of the cheque in dispute. Likewise the signatures at Ex.P-8(a) and P-8(b) are not his signatures and that he had not issued any such signed pronote and the consideration receipt in favour of the Complainant. The signature found on the cheque at Ex.C-1 is his signature.
16. D.W.1 has also deposed that, he had a fancy stores by name Dayana Fancy Stores, for which, his wife was the owner and he used to keep his one or two cheques in his 7 C.C.No.8802/16 J house for the purpose of making payments towards the purchase of the fancy materials for his shop.
17. It is also deposed by D.W.1 that he has his accounts in the Syndicate Bank, Bank of India and Canara Bank. While shifting his house, he noticed that, his cheque books and the house documents were missing and that he does not know as to when they were misplaced. During the month of June 2015, he shifted his house from Vijayanagar to Kamakshipalya. On 29.09.2015, he lodged a complaint about the missing of his cheque books and his house documents before the Vijayanagar Police Station on 29.09.2015.
18. In support of his oral evidence, D.W.1 has produced and relied upon the following documentary evidence:-
i) Affidavit dated 29.09.2015 sworn by the Accused with regard to the alleged missing of his cheque books and the house documents as per Ex.D1;
ii) Endorsement issued by the Vijayanagar Police in this regard are marked as Ex.D2;
iii) The certified copy of the Judgment of O.S.No.95/2008 as per Ex.D.3;
iv) The Trade License Certificate as per Ex.D.4 and
v) The ration card of the family of the Accused as per Ex.D.5.8 C.C.No.8802/16 J
Accordingly he has prayed for his acquittal.
19. DW.1 has been cross-examined extensively by the learned counsel for the Complainant.
20. The learned counsel for the Complainant has filed his written arguments, in which, he has prayed for the conviction of the Accused on the ground that, the case of the Complainant is proved with his oral evidence which is corroborated with the documentary evidence as per Ex.C.1 to C.7 and Ex.P.8.
21. It is also argued that, the Accused has examined as DW.1 and relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.D.1 to D.5. However the Accused has not produced any proof in order to prove his defence version that, he had kept his signed blank cheque in his house for the purpose of the business of his wife and there are contradictory answers given by the Accused in his cross-examination with regard to the alleged demand for Rs.20,000/= by the Complainant from his father and when the Accused has admitted in his cross-examination that his father died in the year 2014, it is obviously clear that there was no pressure for the amount and the Complainant not to visit the house of the Accused regularly.
22. It is further argued that, though the Accused has claimed in his cross-examination that, he had given stop 9 C.C.No.8802/16 J payment instructions to his banker, admittedly he has not produced the copy of the same before this court. Moreover the Accused has claimed that he shifted his residence from Vijayanagar to Kamakshipalya in the month of June 2015, but the date of the alleged complaint before Vijayanagar Police Station is on 29.9.2015. There is no satisfactory explanation offered by the Accused for the delay in lodging the complaint. Moreover if the Accused had really lodged a complaint before the Vijayanagar police station, then he had no impediment to give stop payment instructions to his bank. Admittedly there is no mention with regard to the date of the complaint in the reply notice at Ex.C.7. Therefore it is clear that the Accused has created the document as per Ex.D.1 and D.2 for the purpose of the present case as an after thought.
23. It is also argued that, the Accused has admittedly not taken any legal action against the Complainant for having allegedly misused his signed blank cheques and on the other hand, he has taken dual contentions before this court by claiming that, he had kept the cheques in his house and that the Complainant used to visit his house regularly and that he has misused the same.
24. However contrary to the said claim, he has claimed contrarily by alleging that his cheque books and house documents were misplaced in the month of June 2015, in 10 C.C.No.8802/16 J respect of which, he claims to have lodged the complaint before the Police Station on 29.9.2015.
25. Therefore the inconsistent evidence of the Accused is sufficient to hold that, the Complainant has failed to establish the existence of the legally payable debt by the former (Accused) in his favour and on the contrary, the Accused has failed to probabalize his defence. Accordingly he has prayed for the conviction of the Accused.
26. Per contra, the learned Defence Counsel has addressed his arguments, during the course of which, he has prayed for the acquittal of the Accused on the ground that though the acquaintance between the parties is admitted, according to the Accused, the Complainant is a clerk under an advocate and the said fact has been proved by the Accused through the documentary evidence at Ex.D3, which goes to show that, the family of the Accused has succeeded in the said suit.
27. It is further argued that, as per the documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 to D.2, the cheque in dispute was lost by the Accused, in respect of which, he had lodged a complaint on 29.9.2015 itself. However, the claim of the Complainant that the cheque in dispute came to be issued by the Accused for his favour on 10.2.2016 is highly impossible to be believed, since as on that day, the Accused was not at all in possession of the said cheque.
11 C.C.No.8802/16 J28. It is further argued that, the Accused has denied that the signatures at Ex.P.8(a) and P.8(b) are his and the address of the Accused shown in the said document and that shown in the ration card at Ex.D.5 are entirely different and in view of the same, the documentary evidence at Ex.P.8 has not been proved by the Complainant as per law and it is clear that he has created the said document.
29. It is also argued that, the Complainant has failed to prove his source of funds and the defence of the Accused is that, he used to keep his signed blank cheque/s for the purpose of the business of his wife and that Complainant used to visit his house and during such occasion, the latter has misused the cheque in dispute.
30. It is also argued that, though the Accused has been cross-examined, nothing is elicited from him so as to disbelieve his defence evidence and as such, it is also argued that, the defence of the Accused is probable and for the said reasons, he is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly he has prayed for the acquittal of the Accused.
31. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
32. Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been enacted to lend credibility to the financial transactions.
12 C.C.No.8802/16 JThe main ingredients of the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are:-
(i) Drawing up of a cheque by the Accused towards payment of an amount of money, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or any other liability;
(ii) Return of the cheque by the Bank as unpaid;
(iii) The drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money within 15 days of the receipt of the notice under the proviso (b) to Section 138.
The Explanation appended to the Section provides that, the "debt or other liability" for the purpose of this Section means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
33. Apart from this, Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lays down a presumption in favour of the holder of cheque in the following terms:-
"It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that:-
The holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec. 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability".
34. Also, Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act states, "Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-
13 C.C.No.8802/16 J(a) That every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."
35. Thus, the Act clearly lays down presumptions in favour of the Complainant with regard to the issuance of the cheque by the Accused towards the discharge of his liability in favour of the Complainant.
36. Under the scheme of the Act, the onus is upon the Accused to rebut the presumptions in favour of the Complainant by raising a probable defence.
37. It is a well settled position of law that, the defence of the Accused, if in the nature of a mere denial of the case of the Complainant will not be sufficient to hold it as a probable defence. The bare denial of the passing of consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable must be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proof to the Complainant.
38. It is also a well settled position of law that, once the cheque is proved to be relating to the Account of the Accused and he accepts and admits the signature on the said cheque, then the initial presumption as contemplated under Sec. 139 of the N.I.Act has to be raised by the courts in favour of the 14 C.C.No.8802/16 J Complainant. The presumption referred to in Sec.139 of the N.I.Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the Accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption. What is required to be established by the Accused in order to rebut the presumption is different from each case under given circumstance. But the fact remains that a mere plausible explanation is not expected from the Accused and it must be more than a plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. The defence raised by the Accused by way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and capable of being accepted by the court.
39. No doubt the initial mandatory statutory presumptions under Sec.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act are in favour of the Complainant. However they are rebuttable presumptions and the Accused is expected to rebut the presumptions by raising a probable defence.
40. Such being the legal position, it would be pertinent to refer to the defences raised by the Accused to rebut the presumptions in favour of the Complainant in this case.
41. Admittedly there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the cheque in dispute belongs to the Accused with his signature of it. Likewise there is also no dispute with regard to the fact that, the Accused and the Complainant are known to each other for more than 20 years and that they were the classmates.
15 C.C.No.8802/16 J42. However there is a serious dispute with regard to the existence of the alleged loan transaction of Rs.5 Lakhs between them as claimed by the Complainant in this case. No doubt, in such circumstance, the burden of proving the transaction beyond reasonable doubt is on the Complainant. However the moment, the Accused admits that, the cheque in dispute belongs to him with his signature of it, the statutory presumptions U/s.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act are to be drawn in favour of the Complainant.
43. However before raising the said presumptions, when the Accused raises some doubts in the case of the Complainant, it is the bounden duty of the court to analyse them to find out, as to, if they are probable defence/s, sufficient to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the Complainant.
44. In the light of the aforesaid well settled position of law, it could be seen that, though during the cross- examination of the Complainant, a vague defence has been raised by the Accused with regard to the financial capacity of the former, there is no serious dispute with regard to the financial capacity of the Complainant in this case.
45. Likewise, though during the course of his arguments, the learned Defence Counsel has also argued that, the Complainant has failed to prove his financial 16 C.C.No.8802/16 J capacity so as to have lent the loan to the Accused, while cross-examining the Complainant, there is nothing elicited from him so as to disbelieve his claim for having lent a loan of Rs.5 Lakhs to the Accused.
46. Therefore it is clear from the evidence on record that, there is no serious doubt raised by the Accused with regard to the financial capacity of the Complainant and as such, it is not necessary to dwell into the said aspect in detail.
47. Likewise, it is seen that, though it is suggested to the Complainant in his cross-examination that, the first address shown in the complaint as the address of the Accused is the address of his native place and that he has not given the residential address of the Accused of Bengaluru, the said defence is also not in any way helpful to the Accused, since there is a reply as per Ex.C.7 caused by him to the Complainant through his counsel.
48. In such circumstance, even if it is assumed for a moment that, the legal notice has been sent by the Complainant to the Accused to his native place address only, it makes no difference, since the service of the same is admitted by the Accused, which is also proved through the reply notice caused by the Accused. Therefore this defence on the part of the Accused is also not a tenable one.
17 C.C.No.8802/16 J49. It is further pertinent to note that, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the signature found on the cheque in dispute is that of the Accused, but on the contrary, the Accused has denied that the signatures found on the Pronote and the Consideration Receipt at Ex.P.8 as per Ex.P.8(a) and Ex.P.8(b) as his signatures.
50. No doubt, in such circumstance, the onus of proving the said document as per law is upon the Complainant. However, it is pertinent to note that, while cross-examining the Complainant, there is no suggestion put to him to the effect that Accused has not executed the said document in his favour, while availing the loan from him, which according to the latter (Complainant) was on 5.8.2015.
51. Therefore merely because the Accused has denied the signatures found on the document at Ex.P.8, it cannot be inferred that the said document has not been proved as per law by the Complainant.
52. Moreover the main defence of the Accused in this case is that, the Complainant used to visit his house occasionally and that the Complainant is working as a clerk under an advocate and that he came to know that, he had lost his cheques pertaining to his Syndicate Bank, Canara Bank and Bank of India accounts and that on 29.9.2015 he 18 C.C.No.8802/16 J has lodged a complaint with regard to the missing before the Vijaynagar Police Station.
53. It could be seen that, the Accused has raised his defence first in point of time, at the earliest point of time by causing a reply notice as per Ex.C.7, in which it is his defence that, he is in the habit of keeping his signed blank cheque/s in his premises and that the cheque in dispute was lost during transit i.e., while changing his residence and regarding the same, he had already lodged a complaint before the Vijayanagar Police Station.
54. It is alleged by the Accused in the reply notice that, by misusing the said cheque, the Complainant has filled up the same and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 420, 468 and 479 of the IPC.
55. It is interesting to note that, in the cross- examination of the Complainant, the Accused has taken two inconsistent defences - one by claiming that his cheques were lost and with regard to the same, he had lodged a complaint on 29.9.2015 and secondly that, the Complainant, being a clerk under an Advocate has stolen the cheque in dispute, since the latter (Accused) and his family members were supposed to pay him the amount towards the disposal of a suit for partition, which was filed against his father by his family members.
19 C.C.No.8802/16 J56. Thus the ill will and the motive attributed against the Complainant for having allegedly misuse the cheque in dispute by the Accused is that, the latter (Accused) and his family members were supposed to pay him some amount, which was allegedly agreed to be paid by his father to him, since it was the Complainant who had allegedly helped the Accused and his family members by engaging a counsel in the said suit.
57. It could be seen that, though the Accused has reiterated the same defence even in his chief evidence, during the cross-examination, he has admitted that, he has no document to show that the Complainant is working as a clerk with an advocate since 25 years and that he had gone to an advocate by name Sri.Hanumanthu about 8 or 10 years from then.
58. It is seen that, it is elicited from the Accused in his cross-examination that, during the pendency of the suit for partition as well as after the disposal of the said suit, the Complainant was allegedly pressurizing him for the purpose of paying him the amount ant he was demanding to pay him Rs.20,000/- during the month of May 2015. However he himself has claimed that, his father expired in the year 2014.
59. In such circumstance, it is highly improbable to believe the claim of the Accused, that the Complainant could 20 C.C.No.8802/16 J have allegedly pressurized him for a sum of Rs.20,000/- during the month of May 2015 as claimed by him, since as per his own version his father expired in the year 2014 itself.
60. Even otherwise, when the defence version of the Accused is carefully appreciated by this court, it could be observed that, though he has produced an affidavit dated:
29.9.2015 as per Ex.D.1 and an Endorsement as per Ex.D.2, admittedly in the affidavit at Ex.D.1, there is no mention with regard to either the date of the complaint or the details of the cheques that were allegedly kept by the Accused as the signed blank cheques in his house.
61. Moreover in the affidavit at Ex.D.1, it could be seen that, there is a reference to the 3 cheque books pertaining to the 3 bank accounts of the Accused, while in Ex.D.2, there is mention of only a cheque book and the Accused has further claimed that, it was his practice to keep one or two blank cheques in his house for the purpose of making payments towards the purchase of the fancy materials for the shop of his wife.
62. Thereafter, even in his chief evidence, the Accused has not stated that, he had kept his one or two cheques with his signatures on them. However, in the present case, he has not denied that the cheque at Ex.C.1 bears his signature. In such circumstance, it is the burden cast upon the Accused to 21 C.C.No.8802/16 J explain as to why he had kept the cheque in dispute with his signature on it. Interestingly no explanation is offered by the Accused in this regard.
63. Moreover the claim of the Accused that, his 3 cheque books along with his house documents were lost cannot be believed by this court, because if his said defence was really true, then he would have definitely given stop payment instructions to his banker with regard to the said cheques, which according to him are not one or two in number, but the 3 entire cheque books.
64. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, during his cross-examination, the Accused has come up with a new defence that, he had also given stop payment instructions to his banker with regard to the cheque in dispute and that he could produce copy of the same before this court. However, this fact has not been pleaded by him in his reply notice and likewise there is no such copy of stop payment letter produced by him before this court. Therefore the conduct of the Accused in claiming that he had given stop payment instructions to his banker also goes to show that, he has come up with a false and highly improbable defence as an afterthought.
65. Therefore viewed from any angle, the defence of the Accused suffers from serious doubt and as such, I have no 22 C.C.No.8802/16 J hesitation to conclude that, the same is not sufficient to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the Complainant.
66. Moreover, even if the defence version of the Accused is presumed to be true, then nothing prevented him from taking appropriate legal action against the Complainant since the date of the service of the legal notice till date and the omission on his part to do so also leads to an adverse inference against the Accused.
67. No doubt, the documentary evidence at Ex.D.3, being the certified copy of the judgment of O.S.No.95/2008 proves that the civil dispute among the family members of the Accused has been disposed by the competent Civil Court. But the said fact by itself does not prove the defence of the Accused.
68. Likewise the documentary evidence at Ex.D.4, being the Trade License Certificate is not in any way helpful to the defence of the Accused, though it proves the fact that his wife was granted the trade license.
69. Similarly the Ration Card produced by the Accused as per Ex.D5 also does not support his defence in any manner, since the service of the legal notice is proved with the reply notice at Ex.C.7.
23 C.C.No.8802/16 J70. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the case of the Complainant suffers from serious doubts and the appreciation of the entire evidence on record goes to show that, the Accused has failed to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the Complainant u/Sec.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act and on the other hand, the Complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER By exercising the power-conferred u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby convicted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
He is held liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,25,000/= (Rupees Five Lakh and Twenty Five Thousand Only).
If the fine amount is so realized, Rs.5,15,000/= (Rupees Five Lakh and Fifteen Thousand Only) is ordered to be paid to the Complainant as Compensation and the balance of Rs.10,000/= (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is ordered to be adjusted towards cost to the State Exchequer.
In default of payment of such compensation, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (Six) Months.
His bail bond and surety bonds stand discharged.24 C.C.No.8802/16 J
Issue free copy of the Judgment to the Accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer and transcribed and print out taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of June, 2018).
(SARASWATHI.K.N), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant:-
P.W.1 : Sri. Lingegowda
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 Challan;
Ex.C-3 : Bank Memo;
Ex.C.-4 : Office copy of the Legal Notice;
Ex.C-5 : Postal Receipt;
Ex.C-6 : Postal Acknowledgment;
Ex.C-7 : Reply Notice;
Ex.P-8 : On Demand Promissory note and
Consideration Receipt;
Ex.P.8(a) and : Signatures of the Accused
8(b)
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused:-
D.W.1 : Sri.Krishnaiah;
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-25 C.C.No.8802/16 J
Ex.D1 : Affidavit;
Ex.D.2 : NCR;
Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of the judgment of O.S.No.95/2008;
Ex.D.4 : Trade License Certificate; Ex.D.5 : Ration Card;
(SARASWATHI.K.N), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.26 C.C.No.8802/16 J
14.6.2018 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER By exercising the power-conferred u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby convicted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
He is held liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,25,000/= (Rupees Five Lakh and Twenty Five Thousand Only). If the fine amount is so realized, Rs.5,15,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh and Fifteen Thousand Only) is ordered to be paid to the Complainant as Compensation and the balance of Rs.10,000/= (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is ordered to be adjusted towards cost to the State Exchequer.
In default of payment of such compensation, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (Six) Months.
His bail bond and surety bonds stand discharged.
Issue free copy of the Judgment to the Accused forthwith.
XVI ACMM, B'luru.
27 C.C.No.8802/16 J