Bangalore District Court
Praveen vs M/S. Manan Fashions on 23 March, 2026
KABC010015382024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2026
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. MALA N.D.,
BAL, LL.M
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
Crl. Appeal No.107/2024
APPELLANT:- Sri. Praveen,
S/o Mallikarjuna,
Aged about 37 years,
Proprietor,
M/s Parameshwari Silks
& Sarees, J.C. Circle,
Opp. Vijaya Bank,
Hosakote.
(By Sri. SR., Advocate)
/Vs/
RESPONDENT:- M/s Manan Fashions,
Proprietor,
Sri. Chinthan.J.,
Aged about 35 years,
UG-3, Victory Avenue,
No.16, Hospital Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.VV., Advocate.)
2
Crl.Appeal No.107/2024
JUDGMENT
Appellant has filed this appeal U/s.374(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.23688/2021 dated 13/12/2023 on the file of 21st ACMM, Bengaluru.
2. Rank of the parties is referred to as per their ranks assigned before the trial court.
3. The facts of the case leading to this appeal may be summarized as under;
The respondent is complainant before the trial court. He has filed a private complaint U/s.200 of Code of Criminal Procedure alleging the offence committed by the accused punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (herein after referred as N.I.Act). According to the complainant, he is dealing in the business of purchase and sale of Sarees, dress materials and other clothes, accused is also dealing in 3 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 the business of purchase and sale of clothes under the name and style of M/s Prameshwari Silk and Sarees, having shop at J.C. Circle, Hoskote Town, Bengaluru rural district, accused being one of complainant's customer, gained good faith, in that faith, he purchased sarees, dress materials and other cloth goods etc., on credit basis from 22/09/2017 till 10/04/2019 and complainant had supplied the materials to the accused as per his order worth Rs.7,97,187/- and the same was duly acknowledged by the accused, he is due of Rs.7,97,187/- towards supply of consignment, accused had also promised that if there is any delay in payment of bill amount, he will pay interest at 18% p.a. on the total amount, as such Rs.2,00,175/- interest is accrued, on repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to pay the due amount, accused has paid a sum of Rs.1,14,292/- and he is liable to pay a sum of 4 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 Rs.8,83,070/-, for repayment of remaining amount, accused issued a cheque bearing No.200165 dated 06/10/2019 for Rs.7,90,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Hoskote branch, upon presentation of said cheque same came to be dishonored on 10/10/2019 with an endorsement as 'other reasons/FATCA CRS Pending', as such complainant got issued legal notice dated 21/10/2019, same was duly served on accused on 31/10/2019 for which accused gave an untenable reply on 04/12/2019 by denying the averments made in the notice. Thus by complying the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I.Act, a complaint under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. is filed. The trial court took cognizance and after going through the materials found the prima facie case against accused for an offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, registered criminal case and issued summons.
5
Crl.Appeal No.107/2024
4. Before the trial court, accused appeared, got enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation was recorded, he claimed trial. The complainant got examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked in all 12 documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and closed its side. The accused was examined U/s.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to prove his defense accused himself examined as D.W. 1. Trial court after hearing arguments on both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, found accused guilty for commission of an offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of ₹.8,00,000/- (Eight lakhs rupees), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
6
Crl.Appeal No.107/2024
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, accused person is appeared before this court urging the following grounds;
a) The judgment and sentence is opposed to law, facts and documentary evidence without considering the contentions raised by the accused.
b) The impugned judgment is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art.14 of Constitution of India.
c) The judgment and sentence passed by the trial court is erroneous, unjust and against the circumstances of the case, as such the same needs to be interfered by this court.
d) The trial court has not considered the fact that cheque in question was issued in the year 2013 which is non CTC cheque, bank account was inactive from the year 2015, therefore cheque in question was issued for security purpose in the year 2013-14.
7
Crl.Appeal No.107/2024
e) The trial court failed to consider the fact that bills mentioned by the complainant alleged to have pending from the accused towards purchase of materials, out of which 8 bills have been paid bill to bill by the accused which has also been admitted by P.W. 1 in his cross-examination on 09/10/2022, despite the same, trial court lost its sight and not considered the said admissions and proceeded to pass the impugned conviction which is liable to be set aside.
f) The learned trial court has failed to consider the documents in a proper manner, complainant has created the story as if he had supplied the materials to the accused on credit basis, the same only fabricated story, hence, same cannot be accepted by this court, therefore, interference by this court is very much needed.
g) The trial court has failed to consider the fact that complainant has computed the interest on the 8 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 alleged bills pending, but there was no contract between the complainant and accused which has been admitted by P.W. 1 in his cross-examination on 09/12/2022.
h) The interest computed and claimed by the complainant is as per his whims and fancies which clearly indicates that complainant has misused the cheque and presented for encashment, when there is no iota of documents produced in support of the claim by the complainant the trial court ought to have dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.
i) The trial court without drawing adverse inference against the complainant, has accepted the case of the complainant as gospel truth without properly scanning the evidence and documents on record.
j) Present complaint is filed by the complainant in order to harass the accused and pressurize him to purchase the materials form complainant, which is abuse 9 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 of process of law and misuse of court mechanism, as such, impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and accused deserves acquittal.
k) The trial court failed to consider the proper and relevant bills in respect of alleged materials supplied by him, accused has successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act, same has not been considered by the trial court, as such passing of judgment of conviction is miscarriage of justice.
l) There is no debt or legally enforceable debt between the accused and complainant and accused has not issued any cheque in favour of complainant towards legally enforceable debt, same was issued towards security, but the complainant with malafide intention misused the same in order to harass the accused and to gain illegally.
10
Crl.Appeal No.107/2024
m) Complaint filed by the complainant if false and frivolous, nothing but an abuse of court process, no merits in the case, as such impugned judgment is perverse, capricious and surmise, needs to be set aside.
On these grounds, the accused prayed to set aside the judgment dated 13/12/2023 in C.C.No.23688/2021 passed by the 21st ACMM, Bengaluru.
6. After registration of the appeal, notice was issued. The respondent appeared through counsel. The trial court records have been secured.
7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the written submissions of both sides along with available materials on record.
The learned counsel for appellant has relied on the following decisions:-
11
Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 a. (2019) 5 SCC 418 Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa b. (2009) 2 SCC 513 Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets c. (2008) 4 SCC 54 Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G Hegde d. Crl. P No.367/2018 Manoj Kumar Panchal Vs. Mahendra Kumar Panchal The learned counsel for respondent has also relied on the decision reported in (1996) 2 SCC 739 ( Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd., Secunderabad Vs. Indian Technologists and Engineers (Electronics) Pvt. Ltd., and another ) Perused the decisions. Ratios laid down in the aforesaid decisions are taken note of.
8. The points do arise for my consideration are as under;
1. Whether the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned XXI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act is sustainable in law?
2. What order?
9. On re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, in the light of the arguments canvassed by 12 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 learned counsel for respondent, my findings on the aforesaid points as follows:-
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
10. POINT No.1 :- The learned counsel for the accused canvassed in his written arguments that, cheque in question was issued in the year 2013-14 as blank security cheque and not towards any legally enforceable debt therefore complaint itself is a false one amounting to an abuse of process of law as there was no legally enforceable debt. It is further canvassed on behalf of the accused that, appellant has successfully rebutted statutory presumption available under Section 139 of N.I. Act by establishing that cheque in question was issued in the year 2013-14 as blank signed cheque during a transaction between complainant's previous 13 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 proprietor and appellant's father, there was no credit transaction between present complainant and appellant, in order to give raise liability, the cheque pertains to an inactive bank account and is a non CTS cheque where banks have stopped accepting such cheques from 01/01/2019 as per RBI guidelines and the reasons assigned in the cheque for dishonoured for FATCA CRS Pending is a technical defect unrelated to insufficient funds under Section 138 of N.I. Act, thus, the reasons shown in the endorsement for dishonour of cheque is excluded from Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is further canvassed on behalf of the accused that, complainant herein has misused the security cheques with a malafide intention, the cheque in question was issued in the year 2013-14 by the appellant's father as a security for minor transaction with the complainant's predecessor Jayanthi Lal which was not returned to the 14 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 accused's father and later misused by the complainant by presenting it after five years.
It is canvassed on behalf of the accused that, the ledger account i.e. Ex.P.10 relied by the complainant shows an unexplained opening balance of Rs.5,04,856/- as on 01/04/2017, whereas no bills or documents are attached to such amount and the trial court failed to consider the inconsistencies in complainant' case and also failed to consider fabricated ledger, admitted payments and bill to bill settlements, trial court has completely ignored Ex.D.1 and D.2 tax invoices and invoices which are not reflecting in complainant's ledger, trial court ignored the admissions of P.W.1 regarding past payments and also failed to consider the absence of invoices in support of claim of Rs.7.09 lakhs as due, further trial court ignored the fact that there was no contractual agreement for interest, thereby accused successfully rebutted the presumption available in favour of the complainant as the entire case of the 15 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 complainant amounts to misuse of cheque and abuse of court process, therefore, by relying on aforementioned decisions it is prayed to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial court.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant canvassed in his written arguments that, the trial court has rightly concluded that, the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of debt or liability, absolutely there is no cogent and convincing evidence to support the version of the accused to the effect that, disputed cheque was issued as security and there is no liability.
It is further canvassed on behalf of the complainant that, accused in his cross-examination has admitted that his father was carrying on the business with respondent from 2010-11 and he is the proprietor of Parmeshwari Silks and Sarees, doing business from past 15 years and while purchasing cloth goods, he 16 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 used to purchase personally and some time he used to get door delivery, there are series of invoices to establish that respondent was doing business with the appellant and appellant was placing orders, used to purchase goods from the complainant which were being delivered to him through SRVS transport and other transport vehicles and appellant has duly acknowledged the receipt of same, among them Ex.D.1(a) is also one of the invoices, he has admitted all other invoices produced by him as he purchased cloth goods though he has taken contention that he had purchased cloth goods on cash basis.
It is further canvassed that, appellant has admitted that he is not in the habit of issuing blank signed cheque/s which is contrary to the contents of his reply notice where he has stated that he had issued a blank signed cheque through his father to complainant 's 17 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 predecessor Sri. Jayanthilal. Further, accused in his cross-examination has admitted that, he used to make cash payment for whatever goods he receives and used to obtain receipts of such cash bills and though he admits issuance of Ex.P.1 at the same time he pleaded his ignorance as to mention about quantum of amount except stating that he was present along with his father. It is further canvassed that, entire cross-examination of accused/appellant discloses that he has made transactions of purchase of clothes from the respondent on credit basis and though he issued cheque in favour of the respondent he denied the same for having issued the same for purchase of clothes and on the contrary he admits the issuance of cheque in the year 2013-14 on the pretext that his father had purchased some goods, since he had no sufficient amount equivalent to the bill, he issued blank signed cheque on behalf of his father 18 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 and this contrary admission of the accused itself establishes that accused has set up false theory to suit his convenience in order to escape from the liability. Therefore, it is canvassed on behalf of the respondent that, accused has failed to establish that he had sufficient amount in his account as on the date of issuance of cheque or as on the date of presentation of the same for encashment. Therefore, the learned counsel for respondent by relying the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1996) 2 SCC 739 in the case of Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd., Secunderabad Vs. Indian Technologists and Engineers (Electronics) Pvt. Ltd., and another canvassed that, oral and documentary evidence placed by the respondent before the trial court proves his case beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the trial court has arrived at right conclusion holding accused appellant 19 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 guilty of the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act. Accordingly, the learned counsel submits that, the appeal deserves dismissal.
12. In this background of the rival submissions, this court has meticulously considered the complaint averments, documents placed by the complainant along with the oral testimony and defence evidence placed by both parties. Before proceedings further, it is relevant to reassert preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in connection with the cheque bounce cases. In the latest decision reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan, the Hon'ble court pleased to held in para No.9 that;
"Ordinarily in cheque bounce cases, what the courts have to consider is whether the ingredients of the offence enumerated in Sec.138 of the Act have been met, if so, whether the accused was able to rebut the statutory 20 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 presumption contemplated by Sec.139 of the Act".
The Hon'ble Court observed that, the presumptions U/s.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act is a presumption of law, it is not a presumption of fact. This presumption has to be raised by the court in all cases once the factum of dishonour is established. The onus of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused. The standard of rebuttal evidence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The mere explanation is not enough to rebut this presumption of law, as reported in AIR 2001 SC 3897; Hiten P:. Dalal V/s. Bratinderanath Banerjee and (2006) 6 SCC 39; M.S.Narayan Menon alias Mani V/s.State of Kerala and another and ILR 2009 KAR 1633; Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets.
13. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex court, in a case of this nature, court shall consider the compliance 21 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 of ingredients of the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Complainant has produced following documents;
1. Ex.P.1 Cheque dated 06/10/2019
2. Ex.P1(a) Signature of accused
3. Ex.P.2 Return memo
4. Ex.P.3 Legal notice
5. Ex.P.4 Postal receipt
6. Ex.P.5 Postal acknowledgment
7. Ex.P.6 Reply notice
8. Ex.P.7 21 tax invoices
9. Ex.P.7(a) Certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act
10. Ex.P.8 14 parcel receipts
11. Ex.P.9 GST registration certificate
12. Ex.P.10 Ledger account
13. Ex.P.11 Certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act
14. Ex.P.12 Debtor ledger
15. Ex.P.12(a) Certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act Complaint filed on 06/01/2020.
Perusal of these documents show that, complainant has presented the cheque within validity period of 3 months. Cheque returned unpaid with 22 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 banker's memo for the reason "other reasons/FATCA CRS Pending". Within one month from the date of bank endorsements, legal notice has been issued. After expiry of 15 days period to comply the terms of notice, present complaint filed within one month from the date of cause of action. The accused has not disputed the signature present on the disputed cheque and also admitted that, cheque in question belong to the bank account maintained by him. Therefore, it is claimed by the complainant that, legal presumptions enshrined U/s.139 and 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act could be raised in his favour, which includes the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
14. It is worth to note that, the accused has not disputed nor denied the issuance of the subject cheque. Hence, initial statutory presumption attached to the cheque as per Section 118(a) and 139 of N.I.Act has to 23 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 be raised in favour of the complainant. Section 139 of N.I.Act reads as under;
Sec.139. Presumption in favour of holder.
--It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
In so far as the payment of the amount by the complainant in the context of the cheque having been signed by the accused, the presumption for passing of consideration would arise as provided U/s.118(a) of N.I.Act, which reads as under;
Sec.118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.--Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:--
(a) of consideration:--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, 24 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 negotiated or transferred for consideration;
The above noted provisions are explicit to the effect that such presumptions would remain, until the contrary is proved. In the case on hand, it is clear that, signature on the cheque having been admitted, a presumption shall be raised under Section 139 of the N.I.Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability. The question to be looked into is as to whether any probable defence was raised by the accused.
15. The next point for consideration is whether the accused has placed cogent material on record sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption? In a case of this nature, the defence of accused could be gathered from the reply notice. Plea of defence, suggestions and admissions in the cross-examination of 25 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 Pw.1. The contentions taken in the reply notice acquires more credibility, as it is the first and foremost opportunity to the accused to place his defence by explaining the circumstances under which the disputed cheque reached the custody of the complainant. In this case accused has given reply denying entire allegations of the complainant by stating that cheque was issued towards business transactions done by his father with the complainant's predecessor in the year 2013-14 and said cheque is non CTS cheque which is withdrawn by all the banks as per RBI guidelines w.e.f 2015 and all banks are not accepting such CTS cheques from 01/01/2019 and he is not due of any amount as claimed by the complainant.
16. On over all appreciation of evidence on record, the findings of the trial court, grounds of appeal, it is necessary to discuss the defense raised as well as 26 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 grounds urged by the appellant in order to ascertain the flaws and unsustainability if any in the judgment of trial court.
17. It is the specific defence of the accused that, during the year 2013-14 his father had purchased dress materials and other clothes from one Jayanthi Lal, the total price of goods purchased by the father of accused had exceeded the amount which he possessed on that day, when the same was brought to the notice of said Jayanthi Lal i.e predecessor of complainant considering his request as accused's father was regular customer, he agreed to give materials on issuance of one signed blank cheque for security, his father had no any bank account at that time, since on that day he accompanied his father, on the demand of said Jayanthi Lal he issued his signed blank cheque which is a cheque in question towards security purpose.
27
Crl.Appeal No.107/2024
18. Admittedly, as per bank endorsement which is marked at Ex.P.2 the cheque in question is returned for "Other reasons/FATCA CRS Pending" and this reason i.e. other reason/"FATCA CRS Pending is a technical defect where bank blocks the account and this will not come in the purview of Section 138 of N.I. Act as to say funds insufficient, payment stopped by the drawer, account closed etc., Even it is not the case of complainant/respondent that, the cheque in dispute is a CTS cheque and not an inactive cheque as contended by the accused. The fact that RBI has issued guidelines not to accept the non CTS cheque from 01/01/2019 is not in dispute.
19. In this case admittedly alleged transaction of supply of Sarees and dress materials on credit basis was from 22/09/2017 onwards till 10/04/2019 and it is the case of complainant that, accused has issued the 28 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 disputed cheque in his favour on 06/10/2019 and it is thereafter on 06/10/2019 said cheque was presented before Bank of India and the same was returned for reasons as mentioned above on 10/10/2019. This clearly establishes the fact that the complainant herein presented the invalid cheque before the bank. The cheque in dispute which is marked at Ex.P.1 is dated 06/10/2019, whereas the guidelines issued by RBI clearly discloses about directions to all the banks not to accept any non CTS cheque from 01/01/2019 and this fact is also not disputed by the complainant/respondent. Even the complainant no where states whether he has made any attempt to approach the accused with regard to issuance of Non CTS cheque in his favour on 06/10/2019 and requested to issue another proper CTS cheque. There is no discussion on this point in the judgment of trial court rather it concentrated more on the 29 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 evidence and available documents furnished by the complainant.
20. Even the reply notice of the accused which is marked at Ex.P.6 speaks about non CTS cheque by contending that, he issued the said cheque to the transaction made by his father as a security as his father was not having amount for excess purchase of dress materials. According to the accused he issued the said cheque as security in the year 2014 and the same was misused by the complainant in the year 2019 and by that time the CTS i.e. Cheque Truncation System i.e. the electronic clearing method where scanned images replaced the physical cheques, further, these non CTS cheques where people used to present physically were banned by RBI by introducing these Cheques Truncated System as such, upon presentation of the cheque in dispute which is admittedly a non CTS cheque on 30 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 06/10/2019 became invalid, as such the bank has issued an endorsement stating "FATCA CRS Pending". Under these circumstances, the defense of accused which was raised by him in his reply notice as well as in the cross- examination of P.W.1 and also in his defence evidence that he had issued the said cheque towards business transaction of his father some where in the year 2013-14 as security and same was misused by the complainant appears to be genuine in view of rejection of said disputed cheque for the reason of non CTS cheque and corroborates the defense version of the accused, the trial court has not attempted to look into this angle.
21. Further as contended by learned counsel for accused the reasons for non acceptance of the cheque by the bank no where attracts the ingredients of insufficient funds as mandated under the provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act. Thus the reasons assigned is a 31 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 technical defect unrelated to insufficient funds which is excluded in the provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, the fact that the disputed cheque is rejected for the reason of invalid cheque i.e. non CTS cheque itself is sufficient to hold that it will not come under the purview of Section 138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, accused before the trial court has rebutted the presumption of Section 139 of N.I. Act available in favour of complainant, as such preponderance of probability lies in favour of accused. Under such circumstances, any number of evidence other than the point of non CTS cheque is of no use.
22. Even the accused herein no where admits the alleged transaction that he personally purchased cloth goods on credit basis by issuing a cheque and right from the beginning i.e. from the reply notice accused is asserting that the non CTS cheque was issued on behalf 32 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 of his father's transaction in favour of the complainant's predecessor one Sri. Jayanthi Lal in the year 2013-14 as security, the same was misused by the complainant in the year 2019 after lapse of 5 years. Therefore, from the available materials on record the accused herein has convincingly rebutted the presumption available in favour of the complainant. As rightly pointed out, the trial court has not attempted to answer the point of validity of non CTS cheque after 01/01/2019.
23. In view of above discussions, it is clear that the judgment and order of conviction dated 13/12/2023 in C.C. No. 23688/2021 passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained in law. The appellant has successfully demonstrated that he had issued disputed cheque in the year 2013-14 towards security and the same was misused and presented in the year 2019, by that time, RBI has introduced CTS cheques i.e. Cheque 33 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 Truncation System i.e. the electronic clearing method of scanned images to replace the physical cheques. In this background the grounds urged by the accused in this appeal survives, hence, accused deserves acquittal and that the reliance of the trial court on the statutory presumption was erroneous. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. Given the facts and circumstances, the judgment of the trial court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
24. Point No.2 : In view of the reasons assigned above and findings arrived at on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant u/s 374(3) of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
34
Crl.Appeal No.107/2024
The judgment and order of
conviction dated 13/12/2023 in
C.C.No.23688/2021 is hereby set aside.
The appellant-accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.
Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record to the trial court.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed and computerized by her, then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this 23rd day of March, 2026).
(MALA.N.D.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.35
Crl.Appeal No.107/2024 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate judgment ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant u/s 374(3) of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
The judgment and order of conviction dated 13/12/2023 in C.C.No.23688/2021 is hereby set aside.
The appellant-accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.
Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record to the trial court.
(MALA.N.D.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
36 Crl.Appeal No.107/2024