Bangalore District Court
Smt. Srividhya. E vs Harish.K on 13 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BENGALURU
: PRESENT :
M.Vijay, BAL, LLB.
XXXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
DATED IS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022.
C.C.No.56923/2018
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Srividhya. E
D/o Ethiraj,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.19, Mamundi Pillai Street,
Sivan Shetty Garden,
Bengaluru560042.
.Vs.
ACCUSED : Harish.K
Son of Krishnappa,
R/at No.180, 2nd Cross, M.V.Layout,
Banaswadi,
Bangalore560043.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this private complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2C.C.No.56923/2018 The factual matrix of the case are as follows:
2. The complainant averred that, the accused was her colleague, both were working in OCWEN financial during 2005 to 2010, later, the accused quit the job and joined another financial company ISGN, accordingly, the accused known to her and also her family friend, accordingly based on this acquaintance, the accused borrowed sum of Rs.7,00,000/ on 05.07.2016 and issued post dated cheque bearing No.683752 dated 20.03.2018 drawn on City Bank and again on 11.07.2016 borrowed further sum of Rs.6,50,000/ from the accused by assuring to repay it with an extra amount of Rs.1,00,000/ and issued a cheque bearing No.683753 dated 28.03.2018 drawn on City Bank in her favour as a security, in all she claims to have paid hand loans amount of Rs.13,50,000/ and accused on it receipt, agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/ an extra amount for good gesture and timely help, in all, the accused liable to pay her sum of Rs.14,50,000/.
3. Further she averred that, as per the assurance of the accused she claims to have presented both the cheques ie., cheque bearing No.683752 dated 20.03.2018 for sum C.C.No.56923/2018 of Rs.7,00,000/, another cheque bearing No.683753 dated 28.03.2018 for sum of Rs.7,50,000/ presented through her banker ICICI bank, Coxtown branch, Bengaluru, but both the cheques were returned unpaid vide memo dated 11.04.2018 for "account closed"
immediately, she brought to the notice of accused about dishonored. But, the accused did not care to repay it, as such, she was constrained to issue legal notice on 02.05.2018, calling upon the accused to pay the cheques amount of Rs.14,50,000/, same was returned as refused on 09.05.2018, which is nothing but deemed to have been served accordingly alleged that, the accused had deliberately issued both the cheques towards discharge of legally enforceable debt, even though, he knew that, his account was closed with a dishonest intention. Hence, alleged that, the accused has committed an o/p/u/s.138 of NI.Act. Accordingly prays to convict the accused for o/p/u/s.138 of NI.Act.
4. Considering the complainant, sworn statement affidavit, documents filed along with the complainant, the court was pleased to take cognizance for an o/p/u/s.138 of NI.Act., and ordered to be registered a C.C.No.56923/2018 criminal case against the accused for an o/p/u/s.138 of N.I.Act.
5. Upon service of the summons issued by the court, the accused appeared through his advocate on 08.07.2019, he was enlarged on court bail, substance of plea was recorded, he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
6. The complainant in order to prove her case got examined herself as P.W.1 and placed reliance upon Exs.P1 to P7. On closure of complaint side evidence, the accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C., and denied the incriminating materials on record and got examined as D.W.1 and placed reliance on Ex.D.1 to D.3.
7. Heard both the sides.
8. Perused the materials on record, the following points arises for my determination.
1. Whether the complaint proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused has committed an o/p/u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?"
2. What order?
9. My findings to the above points are follows;
C.C.No.56923/2018 Point No1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for forgoing;
REASONS
10. Point No.1: The accused denies the borrowal of total sum of Rs.13,50,000/, as well as issuance of cheque bearing No.683752 dated 20.03.2018 for sum of Rs.7,00,000/, and cheque bearing No.683753 dated 28.03.2018 for sum of Rs.7,50,000/ in totally for sum of Rs.14,50,000/, and denied the service of legal notice and contended that, he and the exhusband of the complainant were doing second handle car business in the name of RovidCarJAZZZ, accordingly, he used to keep his signed blank cheques, Pan card and other documents with the exhusband of the complainant.
11. However, later the differences arose in between the complainant and exhusband of the complainant, therefore, after divorce the complainant had thrown out the exhusband of the complainant Rohit from her house and retained the entire documents, further the complainant has misused his two signed black cheques despite his account was closed in the year 2007 itself. Accordingly, he claims to be an innocent.
C.C.No.56923/2018
12. So, before appreciating the evidence on record, it is worth to note the admitted facts between the parties, it is not in disputes that, the complainant was the colleague of the accused well known to each other, further one Rohit is the exhusband of the complainant, however, the accused denied the financial transaction as alleged by the complainant and also issuance of cheques towards discharge of legally enforceable debt as well as service of legal notice, accordingly the burden is on the complainant to prove the compliance of section 138A to C and the existence of legally enforceable debt, as well as issuance of cheques in question, towards discharge legally enforceable debt.
13. So far as, compliance of section 138A to C is concern, the accused during the course of cross examination of P.W.1 specifically suggested that, the address in the cause title shown as Banasavadi instead of Chikkabanasavadi, accordingly the notice was not served upon him. Hence, the accused contends that, the complainant has not complied the mandatory requirement. However, on careful perusal of shara relied by the complainant that, as per Ex.P.7 the notice caused to accused was returned with shara that, refused but, the C.C.No.56923/2018 accused claiming that, instead of Chikkabanasavadi, the complainant purposefully mentioned Banasavadi which is quite different than the Chikkabanasavadi, therefore, the notice was served upon him.
14. But, for the very same address the court summons was issued and it was served on 08.07.2019, in pursuance of it appeared through his counsel. So, when such being the case, in correct or wrong address cannot be acceptable, as the summons issued by this court was duly served upon the accused. Therefore, the accused cannot blow hot and cold in same breath that, the address mentioned in cause title is in correct.
15. So, once it is addressed the notice properly to the address of the accused, the shara of postal authority ie., "refused" shall be accepted unless and until contrary is proved, as there is presumption Sec.27 of General Clauses Act., in contrary to it, the accused not brought out on record, that, the address shown in cause title is in correct or improper. In absence of that, the shara "refused" is nothing but deemed to have been service as per Sec.27 of General Clauses Act. Therefore, the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption, but, in contrary C.C.No.56923/2018 nothing has brought out on record. Therefore, the service of legal notice has to be accepted. Accordingly the contention of the accused about non service of legal notice cannot be acceptable.
16. So far as, alleged financial transaction is concern, the complainant reiterated the complaint averments in her examination chief affidavit that, the accused is her ex colleague known to each other from long time for construction of house, the accused approached her initially for loan of Rs.7,00,000/ and then Rs.6,50,000/ in totally she claims to have advanced Rs.13,50,000/, on it receipt, the accused agreed to pay an extra amount of Rs.1,00,000/ on the principle amount in totally, the accused issued two cheques bearing No.683752 dated 20.03.2018, cheque bearing No.683753 dated 28.03.2018 for sum of Rs.7,50,000/, in totally she claims that the accused had issued two cheques in her favour for total sum of Rs.14,50,000/, but, both were returned unpaid for "account closed" vide memo dated 11.04.2018 despite service of notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount. Accordingly, she alleged that, the accused has committed an o/p/u/s.138 of NI.Act.
C.C.No.56923/2018
17. In support of her case, she placed reliance on two cheques, return memos. The accused though cross examined the P.W.1 and denied the financial transaction ie.,alleged borrowal of sum of Rs.13,50,000/ from the complainant on 05.07.2016 and 11.07.2016 respectively, as well as issuance of Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheque in question in favour of the complainant. But, during the course of cross examination, he categorically admits, the signatures found on Ex.P.1 and P.2 belongs to him and cheques pertains to his account. However, he denies the issuance of cheque in question in favour of the complainant and contends that, he had issued both the cheques to ex husband of the complainant ie., Rohit for car business as they were doing car business jointly from 201618, that has been misused by the complainant. However, in view of admission of Ex.P.1 and P.2 and signatures found thereon is of the accused, it is mandatory upon the court to draw the presumption in favour of the complainant is that, the cheques were issued by the accused towards discharge of legally enforceable debt of Rs.14,50,000/, in the year 2016 for consideration, unless and until the contrary is proved as ruled by Hon'ble Apex Court i.e., Rangappa V/s Mohan as held that;
C.C.No.56923/2018 "Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accept and admit the signature on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Sec.139 of N.I. Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to in Sec.139 of N.I. Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption."
18. Accordingly, the presumption has been drawn in favour of the complainant that, the accused has issued both the cheques in her favour for sum of Rs.14,50,000/, towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. However, it is a rebuttable presumption, therefore, the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is distinct from beyond all reasonable doubt ie., preponderance of portabilities. So, the strict proof for rebutting the presumption is not necessaryat this stage, it is worth to note the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to requirement for rebutting the presumption has been C.C.No.56923/2018 enunciated in Sumethi Viz Vs. M/s. Paramount Tech. Fab. Industries, held that, " To disprove the presumption, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt didn't exist or their nonexistence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they didn't exist".
19. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued by denying the existence of legally enforceable debt between the parties that, the accused has challenged the financial capacity and source of money, despite of it the complainant has not produced any Iota of evidence, as such as per the ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in Basavalingappa V/s Mudibasappa the burden is on the complainant to prove her financial capacity as on the date of advancement of loan, so on its failure the case of the complainant cannot be acceptable, accordingly, the accused rebutted the presumption, that apart, the P.W.1 C.C.No.56923/2018 admits that, her mother was a money lender, thereafter, the P.W.1 carrying out the money lendering business but without holding license to that effect, therefore, as per money lendering act, the claimed transaction is illegal, as the complainant did not posses the money lending license as on the date of the transaction, further as per the sec 9 and 43, the complainant is not the holder in due course, as the cheques were with the custody of ex husband of the complainant soon after divorce between the complainant and her exhusband who is business partner of the accused, the complainant has misused the cheque of the accused without any authority.
20. Therefore, as per section 9 and 43, the complainant is not holder in due course, accordingly, the cheques ie., negotiable instruments does not supported with the consideration, accordingly, the debt was not in existence, hence, he claims to have rebutted the presumption, that apart, he also argued by referring the admission that, the complainant is an income tax assesse, admittedly shown, the alleged advancement of loan in ITR, but despite asked to produce the ITR, the complainant failed to produce it. Therefore, the claimed debt is doubtful in nature, besides that, the handwriting found on both the cheques are C.C.No.56923/2018 different than the signatures admitted by the accused and alleged advancement of loan are made during the time of demonetization, there was scarcity of hard cash, on these grounds, the counsel for the accused vehemently argued that, the accused has sufficiently rebutted the presumption stands in favour of the complainant, accordingly, prays to convict the accused.
21. On the contrary, the counsel for the complainant argued that, the complainant was not the money lender during the time of alleged advancement of loan, therefore, question of money lending act does not arise, as she was not doing any money lending, her mother was doing money lending. Further, the accused produced Ex.D.3 which is not connected to his cheques Ex.P.1 and P.2. Further, the accused failed to examine Mr.Rohit to prove his defence that, he had issued cheques in question for car business and its custody with Mr.Rohit, in absence of that, the accused failed to rebut the presumption. Accordingly, prays to convict the accused.
22. So for as financial capacity is concern, as rightly argued by the counsel for the accused, when the accused C.C.No.56923/2018 challenges the financial capacity to advance the alleged loan, the complainant has to prove that, her sources and she had capacity to pay the loan in the year 2016, as ruled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Basavalingappa V/s Mudibasappa. On these aspect, the accused vehemently cross examined the complainant. However, the accused not disputed or denied the financial capacity to advance the loan during the course of cross examination or in his evidence. That apart, the accused only suggested, the complainant has filed several cheque bounces cases and doing money lending business, which clearly goes to shows that, in one breath the accused claims that, without denying the financial capacity during the course of cross examination, alleged that, the complainant has not produce any materials to show that, she had money to pay the amount, in another breath he only suggested that, a cheque bounce case filed before 34 th ACMM, in CC.No.59361/2018 by the complainant and she has filed many cheque bounce cases against others. So, admittedly, the complainant is a working woman, further the accused suggested to the complainant that she doing finance business along with her mother, but, she denied that, she is not a money lender. However, she obtained C.C.No.56923/2018 the license in the year 2017, but, not during the time of alleged advancement of loan in the year 2016. So, on this clear suggestion it clearly stands proved that, the complainant had sufficient sources to lend the amount as alleged in the year 2016. As suggested by the accused, she advanced loans to many other persons, which clearly goes shows that, the accused himself has suggested that, the complainant was financially capable to advance the money to so many persons. Moreover, the complainant is admittedly earning woman and her mother is money lender, as per the complaint, she borrowed money from her mother and out of her savings, she paid the amount to her excolleague the accused. Therefore, in view of the suggestion of the accused, as well as admission about earning woman, the complainant has proved her capability to lend alleged advancement. Further, the accused not brought out any materials on record to show that, the complainant was incapable to lend the amount or invest to others or in debt to others. As such, the financial capability as contended by the accused not tenable under law as the accused himself suggested the P.W.1 that, she has advanced loans to so many persons.
C.C.No.56923/2018
23. Further, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued by relying upon section 9 and 43 of NI.Act., that, the cheques in question were obtained by the complainant from her exhusband Rohit, both along with other documents used keep in the house of Mr.Rohit, after his friend Mr.Rohit got divorced from complainant, the complainant misused her cheques Ex.P.1 and P.2, even though, his account was closed in the year 2007 itself, for that by referring sec 43 of NI.Act., the accused counsel argued that, the complainant is not holder in due course as it was obtained illegally, accordingly, as per section 43 of NI.Act., the cheque was obtained by the complainant illegally, as such it was not issued for consideration and it does not creates any obligation on the accused. However, it is burden on the accused to prove his assertion or contention that, firstly, he must prove that, he and his friend Rohit were doing car business jointly and custody of his cheques with Mr.Rohit, for that, the accused cross examined the P.W.1, wherein he suggested that, one Rohit is the exhusband of the complainant, same is not in dispute. However, the P.W.1 denied the suggestion of the accused that, the custody of Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheques with her ex C.C.No.56923/2018 husband in her residential house from 2006 to 2008. So on this denial, it is burden on the accused to prove the custody of the cheques and other documents with Mr.Rohit since 2006, for that, as rightly argued by the counsel for the complainant examination of exhusband of the complainant Mr.Rohit is a paramount to prove the joint business carried out by the accused and one Mr.Rohit as well issuance of Ex.P.1 and P.2 signature to Mr.Rohit in the year 2006, for that, the accused produced Ex.D.3 statement of account, but which doesn't disclose that, they were doing business jointly except paymet made thorough cheque for one time to Mr.Rohit. So, in absence of evidence from the accused side by examining Mr.Rohit and absence of materials to show either they were carrying the business jointly or the issuance of cheques to Mr.Rohit, so, absolutely there is no materials on record about custody of Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheques with Rohit. So, once the accused failed to prove the custody of the cheques the section 43 and section 9 of NI.Act., does not come to his aid, because, the accused must prove the custody of the cheques with Rohit since 2006, for that, absolutely nothing brought on record. Even, the accused admittedly is not a layman he is working in private C.C.No.56923/2018 company as a representative in callcenter having worldly knowledge about consequences of issuance of signed blank cheques that too in the year 20062008, further, admittedly till date, the accused not taken any action against either Rohit or against the complainant for getting back of his cheques and also alleged misused. Therefore, at this stage it is worth to note the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in T.P. Murugan(dead) through Lrs. Vs. Bojan, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, " The defence of the respondent that he had allegedly issued 10 blank cheques in 1995 for repayment of loan, has been disbelieve both by trial court and session court, on the ground that, the respondent did not ask for return of the cheques for a period of 7 years from 1995. this defence was obviously a cover up and lacked credibility".;
24. Accordingly, the accused knew that, the signed blank cheques held by one Rohit in the house of complainant and they got divorced and Rohit was residing separately, even after knowing the same, the accused not taken any action against Rohit or the C.C.No.56923/2018 complainant. Therefore, the issuance of Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheque to one Rohit and its custody from 2006 is nothing but an after thought, cannot be acceptable without proof of custody of since 2006 with one Rohit. Therefore, the issuance of these cheque in the year 2018 by the accused cannot be ruled out, accordingly, section 9 and 43 does not comes to aid of the accused contention, since the accused admitted cheque Ex.P.1 and P.2 are pertains to his account and signatures found thereon is of the accused, therefore, as per section 118A of NI.Act., it has to be presumed that, the every instruments issued for consideration, therefore, the contention of accused that, the cheques were obtained or without authority of accused as per sec 43 does not creates obligation cannot be acceptable.
25. So, far as non production of ITR is concern, which is not fatal to the case of the complainant case it is between incometax department and the complainant, if at also he failed to disclose the alleged loan is concern, it is the duty of the incometax department to see the contravention, but it doesn't mean that transaction is illegal. Accordingly, it is not fatal to the case of the complainant.
C.C.No.56923/2018
26. Further, so far as non production of money lending license is concern, during the course of cross examination of P.W.1, though P.W.1 admits that, she obtained money lending license, but, she specifically stated she obtained it in the year 2017, ie., subsequent to the transaction claimed herein, therefore, the non production of money lending license is not fatal to the case of the complainant, accordingly it is not tenable.
27. Further, so far as difference in between signature of the accused and contents of cheques is concern, the learned counsel for the accused argued that, there is a differences in the handwriting in the both the cheque Ex.P1 and P.2., accordingly, the complainant has manipulted the cheque, but, the accused admits the signature found on both the cheques. Therefore, once it is admitted and failed to prove the custody of the cheque with one Rohit, case of the complainant has to be accepted, that both were issued in favour of the complainant, even though there is difference of the handwritings and signatures found thereon of the accused but which does not itself cannot be construed that, the cheque has been manipulated as sec 20 of NI.Act., is clearly empowered the complainant to fillup C.C.No.56923/2018 the cheque, once it is issued the cheques voluntarily with his signature by the drawer. Therefore, the alleged different of handwriting found on cheques Ex.P.1 and P.2 is not fatal to the case of the complainant.
28. Further, the accused to prove his defence that, is bank account pertaining to cheques was closed in the year 2007 itself, accordingly, the cheques have been manipulated by the complainant by misusing the custody of the cheque of her exhusband has relied upon Ex.D.1 that his account was closed in the year 2007, but the accused even though he has taken specific contention that, his cheques were with the exhusband of the complainant from 2006, admittedly he did not surrender his cheques even after closer of his bank account to his banker or he has not intimated to his banker about custody of these cheques with Rohit before its closer. Further, he failed to prove very custody of these cheques with one Rohit. So, except his oral contention, nothing ison record to prove the alleged custody of cheques Ex.P.1 and P.2 by Rohit since 2006 and it was illegally obtained by the complainant from said Rohit after divorce in between them. In absence of that, the case of the complainant cannot be ruled out that, after closure of C.C.No.56923/2018 account the accused with a dishonest intention has issued cheques in question in favour of the complainant.
29. Accordingly, mere closure of account in the year 2007, it does not prove that, the transaction between the complainant and accused did not exist in the year 2016, when the accused not taken any steps to take back his cheques either from Rohit or from the complainant and even he did not take any action for taking back, so his inaction to take back of his cheques would clearly falsifies his defence that, till date since 2006 he has not taken any legal action to take back cheques, which clearly reflects that, no prudent man would keep mum without taking action despite knowing that, his cheques with signatures in the custody of others. Accordingly, the defence of the accused cannot be acceptable. As the cheques even though dishonored for account closed which attract sec.138 of NI.Act. Further, so far as Ex.D.3 concern, during the course of cross examination, the accused clearly admitted that, it is not pertains to the account of cheques in question, but he claims to have produced Ex.D.3 to show that, he had business jointly, but Ex.D.3 reflects that, it is on individual account of accused but not joint account and also not standing in the name of Rohid C.C.No.56923/2018 car Jazz., ie., business concern said to have been carried out by the accused and Rohit, in absence of that, the reference with respect to cheque clearance on 08.10.2019, through, the account of Rohit it does not itself proof for conducting the business jointly and issuance of Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheques with the exhusband of complainant and it was made in the year 2009 but, as per the accused from 20062008, he had business with the exhusband of the complainant Mr.Rohit. Therefore, any financial transaction subsequent to 2008 cannot be construed as joint business carried out by the accused and his friend Rohit, accordingly, which is not helpful to the defence of the accused.
30. So, considering the entire materials on record, the accused has taken multiple defences, so far as custody of the cheques Ex.P.1 and P.2 held by one Rohit since 2006 and that has been allegedly manipulated by the complainant soon after got divorced from Rohit who said to have run the business with the accused since 2006 2008 is concern, the accused though taken specific contention, but failed to examine the Rohit and also produced documents to shows that, both run Auto consultant business jointly in the name of Rohid car Jazz C.C.No.56923/2018 and issuance of Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheques for the said car business, so except the suggestions or contentions absolutely the accused failed to brought out the custody of Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheque with exhusband of the complainant Mr.Rohit since 2006, on failure to prove that, how his cheques gone into the hands of the complainant the defence of the accused about alleged misuser and wrongfully obtained by the complainant from her exhusband cannot be acceptable. Further, the accused in one breath taken specific contention, that the complainant failed to produce the documents with respect to her financial capability, but on the contrary to his contention, the accused only suggested, the complainant had advanced money to many persons and filed cheques bounce cases, doing money lending business, but failed to establish the alleged money lending business and very suggestion of the accused about advancement of loans to many others clearly stands proved that, the financial capacity of the complainant to advance the money as she was earning woman. Accordingly, the complainant also establishes her financial capacity to advance sum of Rs.13,50,000/ by cash much prior to demonetization. Therefore, the C.C.No.56923/2018 incapacity to held cash cannot be believable, as such the accused failed to brought out the materials on record to show that, the legally enforceable debt was not in existence and cheques were issued to one Rohit, but not in favour of the complainant. So, on failure to prove this crucial materials the accused failed to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant has proved the existence of legally enforceable debt and issuance of cheques in question towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Accordingly, the accused found guilty for an o/p/u/s.138 of NI.Act.
31. So, far as sentence and compensation is concern, an o/p/u/s.138 of NI.Act, is primarily compensatory in nature, punitive is secondary, considering the above settled principal of law with facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant specifically stated the accused is her excolleague borrowed loan in the year 2016 and issued cheques in the year 2018 by adding Rs.1,00,000/ to principle amount ie., totally for sum of Rs.14,50,000/, so, considering the nature of transaction and duration of pendency of the case it is just and necessary to impose fine of Rs.15,05,000/ to meet the ends of justice, C.C.No.56923/2018 accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.15,05,000/ out of that the complainant is entitled for sum of Rs.15,00,000/ as a compensation as per Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. remaining amount of Rs.5,000/ is to be appropriated to the state, in case of default the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Accordingly, I answered the above point in "Affirmative".
32. Point No.2: In view of above finding to Point No.1, I proceed to pass following;
ORDER Acting under section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.15,05,000/ (Rupees Fifteen lakh Five thousand only) in default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the fine amount received, Rs.5,000/ is to be appropriated to the State and by way of compensation as per the C.C.No.56923/2018 provision u/Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. the complainant is entitled for Rs.15,00,000 /.
The bail bonds and surety bond of the accused shall stand cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish a free copy of the judgment to the accused u/s 363(1) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 13th day of April, 2022) (M.Vijay), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 : Smt. Srividhya. E
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 & 2 Original cheque:
Ex.P.1(a) & 2(a) :
Signature of the accused
Ex.P.3 & 4 :
Bank returned memos
Ex.P.5 :
Office copy of the Legal notice
Ex.P.6 Postal receipt :
Ex.P.7 :
Returned postal cover
Ex.P.7(a) :
Returned postal cover opened in the
open court and notice therein marked
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 : Sri. Harish
C.C.No.56923/2018
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 & D2 : Letter issued by the bank dated 25.07.2019 Ex.D.3 : Statement of account (M.Vijay), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.