Bangalore District Court
Furnished Corporate Guarantee For The ... vs As Required U/S 313 Of Crpc Was Recorded. ... on 11 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XL ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: BASAVARAJ CHENGTI., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
XL ACMM,
BANGALORE.
C.C.No.29849/2007
Dated this the 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017
1. Sl.No. of the case C.C. No.29849/2007
2. The date of Institution 14.11.2007
3. The date of commencement of
the evidence 28.01.2016
4. Name of the Complainant M/S SHABARI BISCUITS AND
CONFECTIONERS PVT.,LTD.,
No.55, Bommasandra
Industrial Area,
Hosur road, Bangalore.
Rep., by its Managing Director
Sri.Srikanth @ Kanta.S Nagaraj
(By pleader Sri LSK)
5. Name of the Accused 1. M/S NUCLEAR WELDING
ALLOYS PVT., LTD.,
No. 306/A, 7th main,
HAL III stage,
Bangalore-38.
2. N.T. SEBASTIAN
Authorised Signatory of
M/s Nuclear Welding Alloys
Pvt.,Ltd.,
No.2997, 5th cross,
12th main,
Indiranagara II stage,
Bangalore-38.
SCCH-14 2 CC No.29849/2007
3. SAROGHI
Director of
M/s Nuclear Welding Alloys
Pvt., Ltd.,
No.609,
Ansal Krishna Apartments,
Hosur main road,
Bangalore-560 030.
(By pleader Sri BSR)
6. The offence complained of or Under Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
proved
7. Plea of the accused on his Pleaded not guilty
examination
8 Final Order Accused is convicted
9. Date of such order 11.01.2017
XL ACMM,
BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 3 CC No.29849/2007
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant U/s 200 of CrPC against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the Act).
2. Brief averments of the complaint are as under:
The accused no.2 is the Authorized signatory and the accused no.3 is the Director of the accused no.1 company. The accused no.2 and 3 are looking after the business of the accused no.1 company. On the request of the accused no.2 and 3 and assurance that any liability incurred will be duly discharged, the complainant furnished corporate guarantee for the facilities availed by the accused no.1 company from Dhanalakshmi Bank. Since, the accused have committed default in discharging the facilities availed from the said Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, the said bank invoked the corporate guarantee offered by the complainant and recovered a sum of Rs.42,81,103/- from him. Thus, the accused have become liable to pay to the complainant the said amount jointly. The accused have issued four cheques viz., Sl.No. Cheque Date Amount Nos., 1 567696 12.03.2007 Rs.3,00,000/- 2 567697 12.04.2007 Rs.3,00,000/- 3 567698 12.05.2007 Rs.3,00,000/- 4 567699 12.06.2007 Rs.3,00,000/-
which were drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Ulsoor Branch, Bangalore. The complainant has presented the said SCCH-14 4 CC No.29849/2007 cheques for encashment through ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Sadashivanagar Branch, Bangalore, but the said cheques came to be returned dishonoured for the reason as "ACCOUNT CLOSED/Account transferred to other bank" vide memo dated 14.09.2007. The complainant informed the same to the accused no.2 and 3, but they have dodged to pay the amount of cheques for one or the other reason and ultimately failed to pay the same. Therefore, the complainant has got issued a legal notice on 12.10.2007 through RPAD calling upon the accused to discharge their liability. The said notice was duly served to the accused no.1 and 2 on 16.10.2007. Notice sent to the accused no.3 by RPAD has been returned. But, notice sent through COP was duly served. Inspite of service of notice, the accused have neither paid the said amount nor replied the notice, as they have intentionally issued the said cheques in favour of the complainant company only with an intention to cause wrongful loss to him. The accused have committed an offence punishable U/s 138 of the Act. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint against the accused and sought for punishing the accused in accordance with law.
3. Cognizance of offence was taken on the basis of complaint. PCR No.17787/2007 was registered. After recording sworn statement of the GPA of the complainant and after hearing the counsel for the complainant, the Court found sufficient material to issue process against the accused for the offence U/s 138 of the Act. Accordingly, this criminal case came to be registered and process against the accused was issued for the said SCCH-14 5 CC No.29849/2007 offence. Initially, the complaint was presented before 13th ACMM Bengaluru. It was transferred to 19th ACMM Bengaluru and later, it is came to be transferred to this Court. In pursuance of summons, the accused no.2 and 3 have appeared before the court through their counsel and they are enlarged on bail. Inspite of granting sufficient time, the complainant has not taken proper steps against the accused no.1. Hence, case against the accused no.1 came to be split up. Office direct to register a separate criminal case against the accused no.1 on production of copies of complaint, documents, order sheet in this case. This case is preceded against the accused no.2 and 3 only. Then, substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused no.2 and 3. They have pleaded not guilty. Hence, the case has seen the stage of trial.
4. During the evidence, the complainant has examined his Managing Director and authorized signatory as PW1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. Then, statement of accused as required U/s 313 of CrPC was recorded. The accused have not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
5. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the complainant has filed his written arguments. The counsel for the accused no.2 and 3 has relied upon following rulings:
1. 2002 Crl.LJ 1003(SC): Suganthi Suresh Kumar V.Jagdeeshan
2. AIR 2005 SC 1624: M/s Dale & Carrington Invt.(P) Ltd., & Anr., P.K Prathapan & Ors., SCCH-14 6 CC No.29849/2007
3. Crl., Appeal No.2653/2008: M/s Canara Workshops Ltd., V. Mantesh
4. AIR 2008 SC 1325: Krishna Janardhan Bhat V. Dattatraya G.Hegde
5. AIR 2010 SC 1898: Rangappa V.Mohan
6. Crl.,Appeal Case No.143(K) 2012:
Sri Dulal Sen Vs. M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,
7. 2015 AIR SCW 64: K.Subramani V. K.Damodara Naidu I have gone through the said written argument, rulings and perused the records.
6. Now, the points arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant has proved that the accused no.2 and 3 being authorised signatory and director of the accused no.1 company have drawn Ex.P1 to 4 cheques for Rs.3,00,000/- each in his favour towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability without maintaining sufficient balance and they have failed to pay the amount of cheques in spite of service of demand notice?
2. What order?
7. My findings are:
Point No.1: In affirmative. Point No.2: As per final order REASONS
8. POINT NO.1: The accused no.1 is a registered company. Case against said company is split up. The accused no.2 SCCH-14 7 CC No.29849/2007 and 3 are admitted to be the authorized signatory and director of said company respectively who have contested the matter. They have got common defence. The complainant is also a registered company represented by its managing director Srikanth who is also called as Kantha S. Nagaraj. The accused no.2 and 3 have disputed the authority of PW-1 to file the present complaint and to depose on behalf of the complainant. Copy of resolution is got marked as Ex.P-19 which reveals that PW-1 is authorized to file suits to recover the dues from the accused no.1. The counsel for the accused has argued that Ex.P-19 is a copy and its original is not produced, that PW-1 is not authorized under Ex.P-19 to prosecute the accused and as such, the complaint filed by PW-1 is unauthorized, that Ex.P-19 is signed by PW-1 before it is produced before the Court. It is to be noted that original resolution will be in the company. Production of copy of resolution is sufficient. PW-1 is stated to be the managing director of the complainant. Signing the copy of resolution by him as managing director is permissible. An authority is given to PW-1 to file suits against the accused no.1 to recover the dues. The word 'suits' include other proceedings. This is a cheque bounce case. The complainant is the holder/ payee of the cheques. The accused shall be prosecuted for issuing cheques without maintaining sufficient balance in his account and his failure to pay the amount of cheques. The authority given to PW-1 under Ex.P-19 deemed to include the power to file complaint and to prosecute the accused for the said offence. There is nothing on record to believe that PW-1 has exceeded his power in prosecuting SCCH-14 8 CC No.29849/2007 the accused. Rulings relied by the accused in that regard cannot be applied to this case.
9. The second point raised by the accused is that there is no evidence that the complainant company is in existence and it is carrying on the business on the date of complaint or thereafter, that PW-1 has admitted as to sale of property shown as address of the complainant before filing of this complaint, that the complainant has not furnished his new address with ulterior motive. It is to be noted that PW-1 has stated that property shown in cause title of the complaint is already sold, but sale of said property does not indicate that the complainant company is not in existence and it is not carrying on any business. PW-1 has categorically stated that complainant company is in existence, but its operations and transactions are closed. There is nothing on record to disbelieve his evidence. It is not mandatory that a company shall continue his operations and transactions to prosecute the drawer of a cheque. I am of the opinion that the complainant is in existence and the complaint is properly and lawfully instituted.
10. The complainant has asserted that at the request of the accused no.2 and 3, he has furnished corporate guarantee to Dhanalakshmi bank for facilities availed by the accused no.1, that the accused no.1 has failed to discharge his liability towards said bank and as such, the bank enforced corporate guarantee and recovered Rs.42,81,103/- from him, that the accused are jointly SCCH-14 9 CC No.29849/2007 liable to pay the said amount to him, that the accused have issued the cheques in question for Rs.3,00,000/- each in his favour towards discharge of said debt or liability which came to be dishonored for reason 'account closed/account transferred to other bank', that in spite of service of demand notice, the accused have not paid the amount of cheques and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 138 of the Act. Hence, he has sought for convicting the accused and punishing them in accordance with law. He has examined his Managing director Srikanth as PW.1 who has deposed as per the averments of the complaint. During trial, he has come up with a plea that the cheques, bank memo, copy of notice, receipts and acknowledgement pertaining to this case are misplaced and are not traced and sought for permission to lead secondary evidence. After hearing both the sides, the complainant was permitted to lead secondary evidence as to said documents. Ex.P-1 to 20 are produced to corroborate the evidence of PW-1.
11. The accused no.2 and 3 have denied the case of the complainant as false. They have disclosed their defence during cross examination of PW-1. Their defence is of total denial. They have not adduced any oral evidence on their behalf. But, they have got marked documents during cross examination of PW-1 as Ex.D-1 to 3 to prove their defence and to disprove the case of the complainant. Specific suggestions were given to PW-1 during cross examination which read as under:
"It is true to suggest that my father was one of the directors in accused company. It is true to suggest that the SCCH-14 10 CC No.29849/2007 father was one of the directors of complainant company also".
"It is true to suggest that there is nexus between the business of complainant and that of the accused".
"It is true to suggest that the accused no.2 was not the director of accused no.1. Witness volunteers that he was authorised signatory of the accused no.1".
"It is true to suggest that we have given the said property as corporate guarantee to Dhanalakshmi Bank".
"It is true to suggest that the document now shown to me is the copy of said covering letter. Same is marked as Ex.D3".
12. Ex.D-1 and 2 are copies of sale agreements dt.12.5.2004 and 5.3.2005 pertaining to the property shown in the cause title of the complaint. These sale agreements and above mentioned suggestions clearly reveal that there were business transactions between the complainant and the accused. The accused no.2 and 3 have impliedly admitted the issuance of Ex.P-1 to 4 on behalf the accused no.1 in favour of the complainant. Such implied admission can be gathered from cross examination of PW-1 and contents of letter at Ex.D-3. The said letter reads as under:
Ex.D3:
M/s Sabari Biscuits & Confectionaries Pvt.Ltd., Plot No.55, Bommasandra Industrial Area Anekal Taluk, Bangalore-562158.
SCCH-14 11 CC No.29849/2007
Dear Sir,
We are enclosing herewith the
following 10 cheques of Karur Vysya Bank, Ulsoor, drawn in the name of M/s Sabari Biscuits & Confectioneries Pvt.Ltd., Sl.No. Cheque No. & Date Amount 1 567690/12.09.2006 3,00,000.00 2 567691/12.10.2006 3,00,000.00 3 567692/12.11.2006 3,00,000.00 4 567693/12.12.2006 3,00,000.00 5 567694/12.01.2006 3,00,000.00 6 567695/12.02.2006 3,00,000.00 7 567696/12.03.2006 3,00,000.00 8 567697/12.04.2006 3,00,000.00 9 567698/12.05.2006 3,00,000.00 10 567699/12.06.2006 3,00,000.00 These payments are inclusive of interest. If Nuclear Welding Alloys Pvt. Ltd clears this loan from M/s Sabari Biscuits Pvt.Ltd., earlier proportionately interest amount will be reduced.
These cheques are issued only for the purpose of settling the dues of M/s Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., and if the loan is not availed all these cheques should be returned and they should not be presented for encashing.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Nuclear Welding Alloys Pvt.,Ltd., For Sabari Biscuits and Confectionaries(P) Ltd., Authorized Signatory. Mr.Kanta S.Nagaraj Director By producing Ex.D-3 and by making suggestions to PW-1, the accused no.2 and 3 have admitted the delivery 10 cheques on SCCH-14 12 CC No.29849/2007 behalf of the accused no.1 in favour of the complainant for Rs.3,00,000/- each. Saving clause in Ex.D-3 discloses that if the loan is not availed by the accused no.1 from Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, then the cheques shall have to be returned to the accused no.1. But, Ex.P-13, 14, 16 and 17 reveal that there were transactions between the accused no.1 and the complainant and between both of them with Dhanalakshmi bank, that the accused no.1 has availed cash credit facility from Dhanalakshmi bank and for which, the complainant has offered corporate guarantee and executed relevant documents, that the accused no.1 has become defaulter and his loan has become NPA, that the accused no.1 has failed to repay the installments as agreed, that the accused have issued cheques for Rs.3,00,000/- each in favour of the complainant towards discharge of debt or liability. Bank memo's at Ex.P-5 and 6 confirm that the cheques at Ex.P-1 to 4 came to be dishonored on 7.9.2007. Ex.P-7 to 10 disclose that the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused, that the notice was served on the accused no.1 and 2, whereas notice sent to the accused no.3 by RPAD was returned unserved. Evidence of PW-1 that notice sent through UCP was duly served on the accused no.3 remained unchallenged. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. PW-1 has stated that in spite of service of demand notice, the accused have not paid the amount of cheques and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s138 of the Act. Ex.P-11 and 12 disclose that original cheques, memo's, copy of notice and postal records are misplaced after filing of the complaint SCCH-14 13 CC No.29849/2007 and the complainant has filed complaint in that regard before HSR police.
13. Ex.P-13 and 16 are material documents. They read as under:
Ex.P13:
THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., No.100, 18th main, 6th block, KORAMANGALA, Bangalore-560 095. To Mr.Kantha Nagaraj Director Sabari Biscuits and Confectioners Pvt.,Ltd., No.55, Bommasandra Industrial Area 2nd Phase Bangalore-55.
Dear Sirs, Sub: Satisfaction of the charge created in favour of Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited on the property of M/s Sabari Biscuits and Confectioners Pvt.,Ltd., At Plot No.55, Bommasandra Industrial Area 2nd phase Bangalore -55 to guarantee the repayment of cash credit facility of Rs.45 lakhs provided to Nuclear Welding Alloys Pvt., Ltd., This is to confirm that the charge created in favour of Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited Koramangala Branch Bangalore on the property of M/s Sabari Biscuits and Confectioners Pvt.Ltd., At Plot No.55, Bommasandra Industrial Area 2nd Phase Bangalroe-55 to guarantee the repayment of credit facilities of Rs.45 lakhs provided to Nuclear welding Alloys Pvt., Ltd., 53/1, 1st cross, 4th main, HAL 3rd stage Bangalore has come to an end with the closure of the above cash credit facility arrangement with Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited and SCCH-14 14 CC No.29849/2007 there are no dues pending on 15th of December 2006.
This certificate is issued to enable you to file necessary satisfaction of charge with ROC.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Branch Manager Ex.P16:
DBL/KRML/949/06-07 M/s Sabari Biscuits and Confectioners Pvt.Ltd., No.21, 8th cross, Cubbonpet Bangalore.
Dear Sir, Sub: Payment of overdue liabilities of M/s Nuclear Welding alloys Pvt.,Ltd., With reference to the above, this is to place on record that you have furnished the corporate guarantee for the facilities availed by M/s Nuclear Welding Alloys Pvt., Ltd., We have received a net amount of Rs.42,81,103.00 (Rupees Forty-two lakhs eight-one thousand one hundred and three only) from you towards the liabilities of M/s Nuclear Welding and Alloys Pvt., Ltd., and the subject account stands closed on 13.12.2006.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Branch Manager.
The above letters disclose that the accused no.1 has availed cash credit facility and failed to repay it to Dhanalakshmi Bank, SCCH-14 15 CC No.29849/2007 Bangalore, that said bank has classified the loan as NPA and recovered the amount from the complainant. The said letters further confirm the existence of debt or liability payable by the accused no.1 to the complainant. Ex.P-1 to 4 are cheques in question which are drawn in the name of the complainant. Ex.D-3 reveals that the accused have delivered the said cheques to the complainant under specific agreement. Since, credit facility is availed by the accused no.1, payment of amount shown in cheques shown in Ex.D-3 can be enforced by the complainant.
14. Bank memo at Ex.P-5 and 6 disclose that the cheques at Ex.P-1 to 4 are dishonored for reason 'account closed/account transferred'. The accused have shown ignorance regarding dishonor of cheques during statement. There is no evidence that address of the accused shown in demand notice is incorrect. Hence, it can be said that the address on Ex.P-7 is correct. Notice was sent to correct address of the accused by prepaid postal service. There is nothing on record to believe that notice addressed to the accused no.1 and 2 were served on a different person. There is deemed service of notice upon the accused no.3. The accused have not issued reply and have not paid amount of cheques. Hence, their defence is baseless.
15. The accused have not disputed that the cheques at Ex.P-1 to 4 belong to the accused no.1 and is signed by the accused no.2. The accused have not contended that they were having sufficient funds in the bank account as on the date of SCCH-14 16 CC No.29849/2007 cheques or on the date of presentation of cheques. Denial of the accused that notice is not served on them is not sufficient to disbelieve the contention of the complainant and documents at Ex.P8 to 10. The cheques were sent for encashment within time. Notice was issued to the accused no.1 to 3 and there is proper service of said notice to them on or about 17.10.2007. Notice sent to the accused no.3 is returned unserved and there is deemed service of notice. There was time up to 01.11.2007 for payment of amount of cheques. But, the accused have not paid the amount. Cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 02.11.2007. This complaint was filed on 14.11.2007 which is well within time. Thus, the complainant has discharged his primary burden to prove his case by producing oral evidence of PW-1 and documents at Ex.P-1 to 20. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said oral and documentary evidence. Hence, legal presumptions U/s 118 and 139 of the Act come into play. The court is bound to believe that the cheques are issued for consideration and towards discharge of legally enforceable debt of liability. The said presumptions are rebuttable presumptions. The accused have to rebut the presumptions by preponderance of probabilities.
16. The accused no.2 and 3 have no specific defence. They have denied entire case of the complainant as false. Cross examination of PW-1 reveals that the defence of the accused is of total denial. They have not entered the witness box to disprove the case of the complainant. Though, it is not mandatory for them to enter the witness box to prove their defence as per ruling relied by SCCH-14 17 CC No.29849/2007 them, but there evidence is required to prove their defence and to disprove the case of the complainant. They have produced Ex.D-3 which goes against their vague defence. On the contrary, Ex.D-3 is helpful to the case of the complainant. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from PW-1 to disbelieve his evidence. Since, there is no specific and probable defence, the presumptions remained unrebutted. It is pointed out by the counsel for the accused that the cheques were given to the complainant as security and not for discharge of debt or liability. But, it is to be noted that Ex.P-13 and 16 reveal that the complainant has paid the dues of the accused no.1 to Dhanalakshmi bank. Therefore, the accused no.1 is liable to pay the said amount to the complainant. On perusal of Ex.D-1, 3, vakalath, it discloses that the signature on Ex.P-1 to 4 and the signature of the accused no.2 are similar. Ex.D-3 makes it clear that 10 cheques were issued in favour of the complainant for encashment if loan is availed or else same are to be returned. Ex.P1 to 4 are among those 10 cheques mentioned in Ex.D3. Availement of loan by the accused no.1, repayment of same by the complainant are established. It is not the defence that the accused have paid the amount of cheques after service of notice. Therefore, it can be said that the accused have failed to pay the amount of cheques and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s 138 of the Act. The accused no.2 is the signatory of the cheques. The accused no.3 is the director of the accused no.1 company. Signature of the accused no.3 can be found on copy of sale agreement at Ex.D-1. Hence, it can be said that the accused no.2 and 3 were managing the affairs of the SCCH-14 18 CC No.29849/2007 accused no.1 company and have played role in issuing of cheques at Ex.P-1 to 4 in favour of the complainant. The rulings relied upon by the accused are not helpful to prove their defence and to disprove the case of the complainant. Hon'ble Supreme Court has overruled the principle laid down in Krishna Janardhan Bhat case. Ruling in Rangappa Vs.Mohan case is helpful to the complainant rather than the accused. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that existence of debt is also a matter of presumption. The burden was upon the accused to rebut the presumption. Ex.D1 to 3 are not sufficient to rebut the said presumption. Ex.D3 goes in favour of the complainant. Presumptions U/Sec.118 and 139 of the Act remained un-rebutted. Evidence of PW.1 and contents of Ex.P1 to 20 substantiate the averments of complaint. I am of the opinion that the accused no.2 and 3 have committed the offence punishable U/s 138 of the Act and are liable for conviction. Hence, I answer the point in affirmative.
17. POINT NO.2: In view of above discussion and finding, I pass following:
ORDER The accused no.2 and 3 found guilty and are convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused no.2 and 3 sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.13,00,000/- or IDSI for 6 months. Out of fine amount, Rs.12,90,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation.SCCH-14 19 CC No.29849/2007
The bail bond of accused no.2 and 3 stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 11th day of January 2017.) BASAVARAJ CHENGTI XL ACMM, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 20 CC No.29849/2007
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 - Srikanth LIST OF DOCUMENT MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 to 4 - Copies of 4 cheques with bank memos Ex.5 and 6 - Copy of Bank Endorsement Ex.P7 - Copy of legal notice Ex.P8 & 9 - Copy of postal acknowledgments Ex.P10 - Copy of postal covers(2 in nos.,) Ex.P11 - Copy of complaint dt.21.03.2016 Ex.P12 - Police Endorsement Ex.P13 - Copy of letter of Dhanalakshmi Bank Ex.P14 - Letter of Dhanalakshmi Bank Ex.P15 - Copy of letter of complainant to bank Ex.P16 - Copy of letter dated 07.02.2007 Ex.P17 - Bank Statements(2 in nos.,) Ex.P18 - Counter foils (4 in nos.,) Ex.P19 - Copy of resolution dated 08.10.2007 Ex.P20 - Ledger extract LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: Nil LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE Ex.D1 - Copy of sale agreement dated 12.05.2004 Ex.D2 - Copy of sale agreement dated 05.03.2005 Ex.D3 - Copy of letter XL ACMM, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 21 CC No.29849/2007
Dt;11.01.2017 C-LSK A-BSR For Judgment Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The accused no.2 and 3 found guilty and are convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused no.2 and 3 sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.13,00,000/- or IDSI for 6 months. Out of fine amount, Rs.12,90,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation.
The bail bond of accused no.2 and 3 stand cancelled.
XL ACMM, BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 22 CC No.29849/2007