Bangalore District Court
Ramaiah B A vs Parvathy on 24 January, 2025
1 CC.NO.16305/2019
KABC030516222019
IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2025.
:Present:
Smt. PREETH. J., B.A.L., LLB.,
XII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore.
CC.No.16305/2019
1. Name of the : Sri.Ramaiah B.A.,
Complainant Since deceased by his LRS
Sri.B.R.Ravindra,
S/o. Late Ramaiah.B.A,
Aged about 42 years,
No.17, Rathnagiri, 1st Main,
2nd Cross,
Near Nargunda College,
Dattatreya Nagar,
Hoskerehalli,
B.S.K. 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-560085.
(By Sri.T.S, Advocate)
2. Name of the Accused Smt.Parvathy,
Aged about 35 years,
Viskan Group,
Plant Engg, LPE Building
Milcom,
Bharath Electronic (BEL),
Jalahalli,
Bengaluru-560013
(By Sri.L.K.N.S., Advocate)
2 CC.NO.16305/2019
3. The date of commission of : 22.05.2019
the offence
4. The offence complained of : Under Section 138 of the
or proves Negotiable Instrument Act.
5. Plea of the accused and his : Pleaded not guilty.
examination
6. Final Order : Accused is Acquitted
7. Date of such order for the : 24.01.2025
following
JUDGMENT
01. The complainant has filed the present case against the accused alleging commission of the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
02. In brief case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant and the accused are known to each other as both of them worked in the same factory some time back. The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the complainant for the purpose of renovation of her house and other domestic purposes. The said loan amount is paid to the accused in the year 2017. The complainant gave the loan to the accused from his retirement benefits and also by selling his site. The accused promised to repay the money immediately after her commitments were over. But later on the accused willfully started avoiding the complainant. The complainant even went to the house of the accused to request her to repay the money so as to meet the expenses of complainant's son who met with an accident. But the 3 CC.NO.16305/2019 accused did not heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant had written several letters to the accused and also made several phone calls to the accused asking her to repay the money borrowed by her. But she did not respond to this requests. The accused issued a cheque for Rs.4,50,000/- which is drawn on State Bank of India, Jalahalli Branch. when the said cheque was presented for encashment the same got dishonoured on 22-05-2019 with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The complainant got issued demand notice to the accused on 06-06-2019 calling upon her to repay the loan amount. Inspite of service of notice on the accused she did not pay the amount covered under the cheque nor she has replied to the demand notice. As such cause of action arose to file the present complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
03. On filing the complaint, cognizance of the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I Act, was taken and Sworn Statement of the complainant was recorded. As, there was prima-facie material, the Accused was summoned and his plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Statement of the Accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., where he has denied the evidence of the Complainant recorded by way of Affidavit is treated as the Evidence of the 4 CC.NO.16305/2019 Complainant. The Documents were also marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The complainant who is examined as PW1 was cross examined in part. But later when the case was posted for further cross examination, the complainant was reported to be dead. Accordingly one of the sons of the complainant is impleaded to prosecute the accused. Accordingly he is also examined in chief as PW2 and the counsel for the accused thoroughly cross examined PW2. The Accused examined herself as DW1 and got marked 03 documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3. She is cross examined by the counsel for the complainant.
04. Heard arguments on behalf of the complainant and the accused. The counsel for the complainant filed written arguments along with following citations:
1. ILR 2001 KAR 4127, K Sreedhar Rao Justice, SR Muralidar Vs. Ashok GV
2. 2015 (1) KCCR 235, Karnataka High Court (Circuit Bench at Gulbarga) K Sreedhar Rao Justice, Lale Patel Vs. Sharanabasappa,
3. 20242 (1) KCR 695 (SC) Supreme Court of India, Crl A Ajith Singh Chechuji Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat & another.5 CC.NO.16305/2019
4. 2022 (3) AKR 381, AIR Online 2022, KAR 2570, Ms Sathya Narayan Vs. Lingaraje Urs.Crl. R Petition
5. (2010)11, Supreme Court cases 441, Criminal Appeal 1020/2010, Rangappa Vs.Sri.Mohan
6. (2001)6 Supreme Court cases, Hiten P Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee
7. 2002 Crl.L.J 4392 Kerala High Court, Joseph Joseph Vs. J Baby Puthuval Puravidan Poothoppu and another.
05. The counsel for the accused has relied upon the following authorities:
1. Crl.R.P.No.438/2017 between R L Varma & Sons(HUF) Vs. P C Sharm
2. AIR 2019 SC 1983 Supreme Court Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa
3. (2015) 1 SCC 99 K.Subramai Vs. K.Damodara Naidu
4. Crl AP-86/2023 - (Madras H.C) Kanakala Satyanarayana Vs. Vungarala Veera Venkata Subrahmanyam
5. (2014) 2 SCC-236 6 CC.NO.16305/2019 John K Abraham Vs. Simon C Abraham & another
6. 2023 Live Law - (SC) 46 Rajaram S/o. Sriramulu Naidu LRS Vs. Maruthchalam through L.Rs.
7. 2008 4 SCC - 54 Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G Hegde
8. 2012 2 DCR - 368 Pawn Singhal Vs. Gauri Shankar Deora & Anr.
06. The following points arise for my consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I Act?
Point No.3: What Order or Sentence?
07. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative, Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
08. POINT No.1: The complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked 06 documents. The cheque is marked as Ex.P1, Endorsement is marked as Ex.P2, Legal Notice is marked as 7 CC.NO.16305/2019 Ex.P3, Postal Receipt is marked as Ex.P4, Postal Acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P5, Sale Deed is marked a Ex.P6. The counsel for the accused cross examined PW1 in 07 installments and when the case was in the stage of further cross of PW1, he was reported to be dead. As such PW1 is not fully cross examined. Though the cross examination of PW1 could not be completed due to his death, the evidence given by PW1 has to be taken into consideration. In other words the evidence of PW1 cannot be brushed aside.
09. As could be seen from the cross examination done to PW1 it goes to show that the first and foremost defence of the accused is that she did not avail any loan from the complainant. On the other hand it is her defence that the complainant was making recommendations to get job in BEL company. It is her defence that the accused used to collect the bio data of the people who issued to approach him for the job and along with the bio data he also used to collect some other documents also for the purpose of security. It is her defence that the complainant was also taking cheque for the purpose of security when receiving the documents. All the suggestion are denied. The relevant portion at page no.7 is as here below:
"It is false to suggest that, I was recommending for appointment of persons at BEL. I was appointed as a 8 CC.NO.16305/2019 general secretary I was issuing appointment orders. It is true to suggest that, I was collecting the bio data of the persons and the documents who were seeking appointment at BEL for security purpose. It is false to suggest that, at that time, I was taking the cheques as a security at the time of receiving the above said documents."
10. But no where it is suggested to PW1 that the accused had approached the complainant seeking some job at BEL nor it is suggested to PW1 that the complainant had taken the bio data, some documents or the cheque leaf from the accused for securing the job at BEL. It is quite strange as to why any one would take the cheque leaf of any person for the purpose of securing the job or for the purpose of making recommendations to secure any job. At page no.11 of the cross examination of PW1 it is suggested as follows:
"It is false to suggest that, at the time of appointment of accused at BEL during the year 2008 the accused has given the Ex.P.1 cheque as a security and also obtained other documents."
11. From the above suggestion it goes to show that the accused is well acquainted with the complainant. It also goes to show that the accused was also working at BEL in the yer 2008. 9 CC.NO.16305/2019 But why the complainant had to take the cheque leaf from the accused at the time of appointment of the accused at BEL is not at all explained nor the same is suggested to PW1. Simply suggesting that the cheque is given for the purpose of security to the complainant when she was appointed at BEL is not suffice. For what purpose the cheque will be taken by the complainant is not forthcoming. After cross examining PW1 fully, the accused examined herself as DW1 and she has produced three documents. Among those documents Ex.D1 and 2 will be discussed at the later stage. Ex.D3 is the letter written by the complainant to the accused on 08.04.2019. This document is produced by the accused herself.
12. As per the said document, the complainant has very clearly mentioned about the accused availing the loan from him and he has also mentioned with regard to issuance of the cheque by the accused in his favour towards the repayment of the loan availed by her. No doubt in the said letter it is mentioned that the cheque is bearing only the signature of the accused, but the said letter is very clear that the cheque is issued by the accused for the repayment of the loan availed by her. When the accused herself has admitted this document and produced by her, and when the said document clearly goes to show that the cheque is issued by the accused for the purpose of repayment of the loan amount, 10 CC.NO.16305/2019 Now the accused cannot taken a U turn and contend that she has not issued the cheque for repayment. This goes to show that the defence of the accused that the complainant has taken her cheque leaf for the purpose of security when getting her appointed to the job at BEL is totally false. After producing and getting the letter marked as Ex.D3, once again PW1 was recalled and was further cross examined. And during the said cross examination, Ex.D3 was shown to him and he has admitted to have written the said letter to the accused.
13. The counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that Ex.D3 is silent about the loan amount. He has argued that the said letter simply says that the accused has taken money from the complainant in lakhs but has not mentioned the specific amount. Admittedly, in Ex.D3 there is no mention about the exact loan amount, but it is mentioned as " ಲಕ್ಷಗಟ್ಟಲೆ ". But, the fact remains that the accused has availed loan from the complainant and she has issued the blank signed cheque in favour of the complainant for the repayment of the loan amount. Inspite of the accused not disputing the contents of Ex.D3, she has taken the defence that she has not availed any loan from the complainant but her cheque is taken by the complainant for the purpose of security when she was appointed at BEL.
11 CC.NO.16305/2019
14. If really the accused had not availed any loan from the complainant as pleaded in the complaint or if really she had not issued the cheque for the repayment of the loan amount then what prevented her from taking any legal action against the complainant at the earliest point of time. Ex.D3 is dated 08.04.2019 . The cheque is dated 22.05.2019. This goes to show that before presenting the Cheque issued by the accused, the complainant had approached the accused and had requested her to repay the loan availed by her, but as she did not turn up, he filled up the cheque and presented the same to the bank for the purpose of encashment.
15. At this juncture it is necessary to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court In Sripati Singh / State of Jharkhand, the Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme court opined that" where a cheque is issued as security for a time specific loan, then on default of repayment of loan the security cheque issued would mature, if then the security cheque is dishonored, the consequences contemplated under section 138 and other provisions of NI Accused would flow.
16. In another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [2019] 2 S.C.R. between BIR SINGH VS MUKESH KUMAR, it is held as follows:
12 CC.NO.16305/2019
"The onus to rebut the presumption under Section 139 that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused and the fact that the cheque might be post dated does not absolve the drawer of a cheque of the penal consequences of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.
It is further held that "If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque and would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence."
17. Now if the accused had not issued the cheque to the complainant for the purpose of repayment of the loan amount as mentioned in Ex.D3, then definitely she would taken some legal 13 CC.NO.16305/2019 action against the complainant much before he could present Ex.P1 cheque for collection. Having not done so, now taking the defence that she had issued the cheque for the purpose of security when getting appointed for the job at BEL, is nothing but a cooked up story, so as to get away from her liability.
18. The accused has also taken the defence that the complainant did not have the financial capacity of lending money to the accused. In this regard also lengthy cross examination is done to PW1 and also to PW2 who is the son of PW1. As stated supra, after the death of the complainant, one of his sons got himself impleaded and he also examined himself as PW2. Even he is cross examined thoroughly with regard to the financial capacity of PW1 to lend that much money to the accused. It has come in the evidence of both PW1 and 2 and also it is admitted fact that the complainant and the accused were working in the same company. It has also come in the evidence that the complainant got retired in the year 2010. It has also come in the evidence that one of the sons of the complainant met with an accident in the year 2016. PW2 has deposed that they have spent for the treatment of his brother and they have not filed any claim petition, as his brother was covered under some Medical Insurance.
14 CC.NO.16305/2019
19. The counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that the complainant did not have the financial capacity to lend that much money to the accused, because the complainant got retired in the year 2010, and he also had to spend huge amount for his son's treatment who met with an Road Accident. The counsel for the accused has relied upon Ex.D3 and argued that the complainant had expressed his financial difficulties in the said letter. Now admittedly the said letter is written in the year 2019. The transaction between the accused and the complainant is of the year 2017. The accident had taken place in the year 2016. It has come in the evidence that for the medial expenses, the injured had medical insurance.
20. No doubt the complainant has not produced any document to show that the injured son of the complainant was covered under Medical insurance, but that has nothing to do with the case on hand, because if really the accused had not taken any hand loan from the complainant, then what had prevented her from countering the letter which is marked as Ex.D3. When the complainant at an undisputed point of time had addressed a letter to the accused claiming that she had availed hand loan from him in lakhs together and towards the repayment of the said loan she has issued the cheque, the accused sat quite and now is trying to take false defence in order to get away from her liability 15 CC.NO.16305/2019 of repaying the loan amount. The very document produced by the accused i.e., Ex.D3 is the answer to the false defence taken by the accused. As such the defence of the accused that she has not availed any loan from the complainant and that she has not issued Ex.P1 cheque for the repayment of the loan amount but for the purpose of security as contended by her is totally false and not believable at all.
21. Yet another defence of the accused is that non mentioning cheque number in the demand notice is fatal to the case of the complainant. On perusal of the copy of the demand notice which is marked as Ex.P3 it goes to show that the Cheque number is not at all mentioned. Now the question as to whether the non-mentioning of cheque number in the demand notice and any particulars relating to the cheque and dishonour of cheque in the notice issued in pursuance of clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of NI Act would be fatal to the case or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
22. It is pertinent to note that the object of issuing the demand notice is to know as to which cheque issued by the accused has been dishonoured, and therefore as to payment of what amount covered by the concerned cheque should she make to avoid the prosecution. It is therefore that necessary particulars need to be mentioned in the said notice. The purpose of giving 16 CC.NO.16305/2019 such notice is to bring it to the notice of the drawer of the cheque that the cheque she has issued has been dishonoured and to put her on guard with regard to making of payment covered by that cheque within 15 days so as to avoid the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that if there is only one incidence of issuing a cheque between the parties, then, if all other necessary particulars are furnished in the notice, the mere fact that cheque number is not mentioned would not be fatal.
23. At this juncture it is relevant to refer the decision reported in ILR 2001 Kar 5469 between Nityanand Vs. Jamuna Prakash, wherein it is held that when only one cheque is issued by the accused, non mentioning of the cheque number in the notice is not fatal to the case of the complainant. In the case on hand also, the absence of cheque number in the demand notice is not fatal because it is not the case of the accused that she has issued number of cheques. Further as per Ex.D3 which is produced by the accused herself, i.e., the letter written by the complainant to the accused before presenting the cheque goes to show that only one cheque is issued by the accused in his favour. As such the above decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand. And I am of the considered opinion that in the case on hand non mentioning of the cheque number in the demand notice is not fatal to the case of the complainant. 17 CC.NO.16305/2019
24. The next defence of the accused is that the demand notice is not served on the accused. The copy of the demand notice is marked as Ex.P3. The address shown in the said notice is "Viskam Group, Plant Engg, LPE Building Milcom (B.EL), Jalahalli, Bangalore-560013". The very same address is also shown in the complaint. It is the defence of the accused that from 01-02-2019 to 28-02-2020 she was working at VISKAAN ASSOCIATES, No.2, 2nd floor, 1st main road, Muneshwara Block, Mahlakshmi Layout, Bengaluru - 560 086. It is her defence that she is not served with any notice to the said address nor to her residential address. Admittedly the demand notice is addressed to Viskan Group Jalahalli. In this regard PW1 is cross examined. It is suggested to him that another group of VISKAN is located at Mahalaxmi layout, Bengaluru for which he has deposed that he do not know about the same. He has deposed that he do not know if the said company has issued I.D card to the accused for the period from 01-02-2019 to 28-02-2020. It is suggested to PW1 at page no.8 as follows:
"If it is suggested to me that, the notice issued by my counsel is sent to Viscan group plant at Jalahalli, but the accused was working at the Viscan plants situated at Mahalakshmi Layout, hence the notice issued by my counsel is not served on accused 18 CC.NO.16305/2019 witness says that, he has sent the notice at the place where the accused was working."
25. From the above suggestion it goes to show that the accused is admitting that the VISKAN group had two branches, one at Jalahalli and the other one at Mahalaxmi layout. PW1 has deposed that the demand notice is sent to the address where the accused is working. Now the accused by placing documentary evidence before the court i.e., Ex.D2 has established that she was working at Mahalaxmi layout branch from 01-02-2019 to 28-02- 2020. On the back side of Ex.D2 the address is shown as "VISKAAN ASSOCIATES". Ex.D2 was produced by the accused during the lifetime of the complainant/PW1. But the said document si not disputed. PW2 is the son of the complainant, when he has not disputed the said document. In other words the authenticity of Ex.D2 is not disputed either by PW1 nor by PW2. When the accused has placed some evidence before the court in proof of her defence that the demand notice is not served on her and the address shown in Ex.P3 and 5 is not that of hers, the burden shifts of the complainant to prove that the accused was working at Jalahalli branch i.e., in the address shown in Ex.P3/Ex.P5. Further more, admittedly the signature found in the A.D card is not that of the Accused.
19 CC.NO.16305/2019
26. At page no.11 of the cross of PW2 he has deposed that he do not know as to how many people by name Paravthy are working at BEL factory. He has also admitted that the notice will be served only when the I.D number of the worker is shown on the notice the same will be served. It is also admitted that in the demand notice her husband's name is not shown. Further PW2 has admitted that the the accused was working in the address shown in Ex.D2 I.D card from 01-02-2019 to 28-02-2020. The relevant portion at page no.11 is reproduced here below:
"ನಿಡಿ.2 ರ ದಾಖಲೆಯ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ದಿಃ 01.02.2019 ರಿಂದ 28.02.2020 ರವರೆಗೆ ನಿಡಿ.2 ರ ಐ ಡಿ ಕಾರ್ಡ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದು ಇರುವ ವಿಳಾಸದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದು ಸೂಚಿಸಿದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಇರುಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ಉತ್ತರಿಸಿ, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಮೇ ಮಾಹೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಡಿ.2 ರ ದಾಖಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದು ಇರುವ ವಿಳಾಸದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಿದ್ದು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಎಂದು ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ."
27. PW2 at one stretch admits that the accused was working in the address shown in Ex.D2 but has voluntarily deposed that she was not working in the said address in the month of May. PW2 cannot blow hot and cold at a time. When Ex.D2 which is admitted by PW2 says that the accused was working at Mahalaxmi layout from 01-02-2019 to 28-02-2020, only in the month of May it cannot be said that she was not there in the said address. Further more the demand notice Ex.P3 is issued in the 20 CC.NO.16305/2019 month of June and not in the month of May. AS such even if the evidence of PW2 is taken into consideration that in the month of May she was not working at Mahalaxmi layout branch, the demand notice is issued after one month i.e., in the month of June. When the accused has strongly contended that she was not working in the address shown in the demand notice and when she has produced positive evidence to show that she was not working at Jalahalli at the relevant point of time, the burden is cast heavily upon the complainant to prove that the demand notice is sent to the accused to her proper address and it is the burden on the complainant to show that the demand notice is served on the accused. But the complainant has utterly failed to prove the same.
28. At this juncture it is relevant to rely upon the decision reported in (2013) 10 SCC 72 between Nishant Aggarwal Vs. Kailash Kumar Sharma, wherein it was observed that " it is only on service of notice and failure on part of accused to pay demanded amount within a period of 15 days, commission of offence u/Sec. 138 stands completed.
It is further held that "issuance of notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action but communication of notice would".
29. Demand notice in cheque bounce case is a crucial legal instrument that initiates the proceedings U/Sec. 138 of NI Act. A 21 CC.NO.16305/2019 defective notice U/Sec. 138 of the NI Act prevents the accused from being found guilty. The complainant must prove that accused received the notice. The cause of action for filing a complaint arises when the drawer receives the notice and does not make payment within 15 days. In the case on hand there is no evidence to show that the demand notice is served on the accused. Because, admittedly the signature found in Ex.P5 is not that of the accused. Further it is also proved by the accused that she was not working in the address shown in the demand notice from 01-02-2019 to 28-02-2020. Though in the evidence of PW1 and 2 it has come that PW1 knew the residential address of the accused, no notice is sent to the said address.
30. The counsel for the accused has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court At New Delhi between R.L Varma and Sons VS P.C Sharma wherein it is held that when the statutory notice under section 138 of the Act was neither addressed to the correct address nor served to the petitioner no cause of action will arise to file the complainant. I have gone through the said decision in detail and the same is applicable to the case on hand.
31. Proviso to Sec.138 of NI Act stipulated that 3 conditions must be satisfied before dishonour of cheque can constitute an offence and become punishable. The first condition is that the cheque ought to have been presented before the bank within 22 CC.NO.16305/2019 stipulate time from the date on which it is drawn, or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. The second condition is that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque must make a demand for payment of the amount by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid. The 3rd condition is that the drawer of such cheque should have failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. It is only upon the satisfaction of all the aforesaid three conditions an offence u/Sec.138 can be said to have been committed by the person issuing the cheque. Thus issuing demand notice to the payee within the stipulated period after dishonour of a cheque is one of the necessary conditions for making out the offence U/Sec.138 of the NI Act. For constitution of an offence u/Sec.138 of the Act, the notice must be received by the accused or there must be deemed service of notice u/Sec.27 of General Clauses Act. Thus, in the case on hand the pre-condition of filing a complaint U/Sec.138 of the Act by sending a statutory notice have not been satisfied. Therefore no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant to file the complaint. So, it has to be necessarily held that, the complainant has failed to prove the 23 CC.NO.16305/2019 alleged guilt against the accused and accused has not committed the offence under Sec.138 of N.I. Act. Consequently, point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
32. POINT No.2 :- In the light of the reasons on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Sec. 255 (1) of Cr.PC, the
accused is Acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 138 and Section
142 of NI Act.
The bail bond of the accused shall stand
cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 24th day of January, 2025.) (Smt.Preeth.J) XII ACJM, Bengaluru ANNEXURES Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
P.W.1 : Ramaiah B.A P.W.2 : B.R.Ravindra
Documents exhibited for the Complainant:
Ex.P.01 : Cheque,
Ex.P.02 : Memo of the Banker
Ex.P.03 : O/Copy of Legal Notice,
Ex.P.04 : Postal Receipt
24 CC.NO.16305/2019
Ex.P.05 : Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.P.06 : Sale deed
Witnesses examined for the defence Accused:
D.W.1 : Smt.Parvathi Documents exhibited for the defence Accused:-
Ex.D.01 : Aadhar Card Ex.D.02 : Identity Card Ex.D.03 : Letter dt: 08.04.2019 Digitally signed by PREETH J PREETH Date:
J 2025.01.27
17:28:12
+0530
(Smt.Preeth.J)
XII ACJM, Bengaluru