Bangalore District Court
Smt. N. Sukanya Devi vs Smt. Sheela @ Sheela Suresh on 18 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 18th day of March 2015
PRESENT: SRI. NAGARAJEGOWDA.D, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Case No. : C.C No. 25364/2014
Complainant : Smt. N. Sukanya Devi,
W/o. Nanjappa,
Aged about 69 years,
R/at; No.293, 2nd 'H' Cross,
3rd Block, 3rd stage,
Basaveshwar Nagara,
Rajaji nagar,
Bangalore-560079.
(By Sri. Nagaraju & Ramesh S.D. Adv.)
Accused : Smt. Sheela @ Sheela Suresh.
W/o. Suresh, Occ: Teacher,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at. No. 138,
Venkateshwara Nilaya,
Ist Floor, Ist Cross,
Karnataka Layout,
Mahalakshmi puram,
Bangalore. 50.
(By Sri. M.K.Venkataramana., Adv.)
2 C.C.No. 25364/2014
Date of Institution : 05/09/2014
Offence complained of : U/s 138 of N.I.Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is acquitted.
Date of Order : 18.03.2015.
The complainant filed the private complaint u/s 200 of
Cr.P.C alleging that, the accused person has committed an offence
punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint averments reads as
under:-
As per Ex.P6 complaint, the complainant contended that
the accused is known to this complainant for several years and
the accused was residing near Vani School, Basaveshwar nagar,
Bangalore and accused used to complainant to complainant
building for performing tuitions for 3rd standard to 7th standard,
during that time, complainant and accused came in contact with
each other. The accused was facing some financial problems.
Hence, she approached and requested the complainant for hand
loan of Rs 5,00,000/- in order to meet the immediate financial and
domestic expresses and to clear debts on various occasions. Due
3 C.C.No. 25364/2014
to close friendship and cordial relationship, the complainant
agreed for the same and paid said loan amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-
to accused on 3 occasions by way of cash Rs. 2,50,000/- on
25/3/2009, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 7/5/2010 and Rs. 1,50,000/- on
16/7/2012 the accused duly acknowledged the receipt of the
same and she further promised and agreed to repay the said hand
loan amount till such time accused has agreed to pay interest on
the said amount. The accused availed loan from complainant's
husband also. In the month of May 2014 the complainant was in
need of urgent funds to clear her commitments, as such the
complainant has requested the accused to repay the loan amount
of Rs. 5,00,000/- in order to discharge accused legal liability, the
accused has issued a cheque bearing No. 602191, dt: 20/05/2014,
for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, drawn on Central Bank of India,
Kamalanagar Extension, Bangalore, in favour of the complainant
and also assured the complainant that she will maintain sufficient
balance in her account and on presentation of said cheque for
encashment and same will be honoured. As per the assurance of
accused, the complainant presented the said cheque through her
Banker 'The Rajajinagar Co-operative Bank Ltd.,' Basaveshwar
nagar Branch, Bangalore, but the said cheque is returned unpaid
with endorsement to that effect 'Account closed,' on 28/7/2014.
4 C.C.No. 25364/2014
The complainant brought to the notice of accused, but the accused
did not respond properly. Hence, the complainant without no the
alternative except got issued legal notice dt: 13/8/2014 through
RPAD to the address of the accused, The Legal notice sent to the
accused returned with shara intimation delivered " Not claimed" on
19/8/2014. The accused deliberately refused to receive the notice
and did not repaid the loan amount. Thus, the accused has
committed an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act and
punish the accused in accordance with law by awarding
compensation to the complainant in the interest of justice and
equity.
3. After presenting this case, this court has taken cognizance
of the offence and after recording the sworn statement of the
complainant's side, this court registered the criminal case against
the accused alleging that, she has committed an offence
punishable U/s 138 of N.I.Act. Summons issued to the accused.
The same is served upon the accused. The accused appeared
through her counsel, enlarged on bail and she denied the entire
case of the complainant at the time of recording her plea of
accusation and case to be tried.
5 C.C.No. 25364/2014
4. In support of the case of the complainant, the
complainant adduced her oral evidence as PW.1 and got marked
Ex.P1 to P6 and this PW.1 has been fully cross-examined by the
accused counsel and thus, the complainant closed her side
evidence.
5. Thereafter, the case was posted for recording statement of
accused person under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, in which, the accused
totally denied the entire case of the complainant and in support of
their denial case, she adduced her oral evidence as DW-1 on oath
and this DW-1 has been fully cross-examined by the complainant
counsel and thus, accused closed his side evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments of both complainant and
accused side counsel. In support of case of complainant the
complainant counsel relied on the following decisions reported in ;-
1) AIR 2010 SC 1898 Between Rangappa .Vs. Mohan.
2) (1999) vol. 97 Kerala at page 664
Accordingly, complainant counsel prays for convicting the
accused in accordance with law.
6 C.C.No. 25364/2014
7. In support of case of accused, the accused counsel also
relied on the following decisions reported in :-
1. Crl. A. No. 2402/14
2. 2014(2) Supreme Court cases page 241.
3. AIR 2009 SC 1518
4. 2013(2) Bankers Journal 518. Allahabad High Court
5. 2013(1) Bankers Journal 319. Bombay High Court
6. 2013 Bankers Journal 101.Bombay High Court
7. 2013(1) Bankers Journal 123. Rajastan High Court
8. 2013 Banking cases page 113 Delhi High Court
9. 2013 Bankers Journal 93. Jharkand High Court
10. 2012(2) Bankers Journal 385. Karnataka High Court
11. 2009 Bankers Journal 11 Supreme Court
12. 2008 Banking cases 370
13. 2009 Banking cases 85
14. 2012 Banking cases 119
Accordingly, accused counsel prays for acquitting the accused
in accordance with law.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the following points arise for my consideration:
7 C.C.No. 25364/2014
1) Whether the complainant proves that, beyond all
reasonable doubt for payment of loan advanced
by the complainant, the accused issued a post
dated cheque bearing No. 602191, dt:
20/05/2014, for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-,
drawn on Central Bank of India, Kamalanagar
Extension branch, Bangalore in favour of the
complainant, the same is dishonoured due to
'Account closed' and in spite of issuance of legal
notice, the accused did not reply or comply to
the notice and thus, she has committed an
offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
8. My answer to the above points are as follows:
1) In the Negative.
2) As per final Order,
For the following:
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1: In support of the case of the complainant,
she adduced her oral evidence as PW-1, filed by way of affidavit, in
which, she reiterated the contents of complaint and got marked
Ex. P1, is the cheque alleged to be issued by the accused and
identified the signature of the accused as Ex.P1.a. This issuance
of cheque in favour of complainant has been disputed by the
accused stating that the alleged cheque has been misused by the
complainant. Further got marked Ex.P-2 is the endorsements
8 C.C.No. 25364/2014
issued by the Banker stating that Ex.P1 cheque is dishonoured
due to 'Account closed' normal re-. Ex.P-3 is the copy of legal
notice, this notice has been sent to the accused as per Ex.P4 the
RPAD receipt, this legal notice does not contain the signature of
complainant. Ex.P-5 is the postal cover i.e., the RPAD notice sent
to the accused is returned with postal endorsement in the backside
of cover Door locked, intimation delivered, out of station, returned
to sender etc., But the contention of complainant is that the
accused has not claimed the legal notice deliberately etc., because
the accused is denying the receipt of legal notice. Ex.P6 is the
complaint is under dispute.
10. The accused has denied the entire case of complainant.
In support of her denial, she lead her oral evidence as DW1 on
oath, in which, she has stated that she is residing in the
neighboring of complainant's house and the grand children of
complainant namely Varshini, and their friends children Gowri and
Guru used to come to her house for the purpose of taking tuitions
in the year 2012-13. She admitted that Ex.P1 cheque and the
signature found on the cheque at Ex.P1a is belong to her. But the
contents of the Ex.P1, cheque is not belongs to her. The said
cheque was misplaced when she was kept in her purse in order to
9 C.C.No. 25364/2014
pay water bill. Till today she has not paid an amount of Rs. 1 lakh
to any body through cheque. Her second daughter Sunitha went to
foreign for the purpose of education in the year 2011 and her
husband is working as Manager in State Bank of India, he was
retired during the year 2014 and at the time of his retirement, he
is getting salary of Rs. 80,000/- P.M. and hence she has not in
need of obtaining any loan from complainant during the year 2011-
12 for the purpose of her daughter's education. She denied that
during the year 2013 in order to send her daughter to foreign for
education purpose, she obtained hand loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from
this complainant and for repayment of said loan amount, she
issued the Ex.,P1 cheque, same is dishonoured etc., She came to
know about the alleged cheque in question is misplaced, when she
was closed down her account in the Bank. Hence, she prays for
acquittal from this case in accordance with law.
11. As per the defence taken by the accused, the accused
counsel cross-examined PW1. In the cross-examination of PW1
she has stated that for the purpose of education of daughter of
accused and also to send her to foreign, the accused obtained loan
amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from this complainant. Further in order
to show that she had so much of amount with her, she has not
10 C.C.No. 25364/2014
produced any documentary evidence and this accused is not
belongs to her community or caste and her husband was an
employee of NGEF Factory and now retired from the factory and
he is not getting any pension and she was paid Rs. 5 lakhs hand
loan to accused, same is drawn from her bank account i.e., from
the Rajajinagar Co-operative Bank Ltd., on 25/3/2009 amounting
to Rs. 2,00,000/- and from Basaveshwar nagar co-operative Bank
of Akkipet she with drawn Rs. 1,50,000/- on 16/7/2012 and from
the State Bank of India Basaveshwar nagar Branch, on 6/5/2010
she has withdrawn Rs. 1 lakh and in order to show that she
withdrawn said amounts from her Bank accounts, she has not
produced any documentary evidence and the alleged amount has
been paid to this accused containing Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/-
denomination notes, but she admitted that the contents of Ex.P1
cheque and the signature found on the said cheque are in different
ink and different handwriting and the alleged cheque has been
given to this complainant by this accused about 4 P.M. when she
was taking tuitions at her terrace and she do not know how much
she is having as Bank balance in her Bank account and accused
agreed to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 2%
P.M., but there is no documents taken place between them
regarding interest and she denied that the accused second
11 C.C.No. 25364/2014
daughter Sunitha is not at all went to foreign for education
purpose in the year 2013, but she went in the year 2011 and she
denied the entire contention of the accused in her further cross-
examination except denial to the case of accused in order to prove
the alleged guilt of the accused, prima-facie the complainant has
not produced any documentary evidence to show that she has
withdrawn so much of amounts from her Bank account and same
has been paid to accused by way of cash. Hence, on the basis of
the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, case of
complainant crates doubtful whether she really lent huge amount
of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash.
12. The complainant counsel also cross-examination DW1, in
the cross-examination accused admitted during the year 2012 this
complainant and accused are neighbors and at that time she was
working as teacher in Florence school, but she denied that after
the closure of classes, she used to take tuition in the terrace of
complainant, she denied that the legal notice issued to accused is
returned with shara 'Not claimed' and she intentionally failed to
take notice etc., But she admitted that one Jayanna filed a cheque
bounce case against her before the 13th ACMM Court, Bangalore
and she used to pay water bill to the concerned authorities
12 C.C.No. 25364/2014
sometimes by way of cheque some times by way of cash. In order
to show this fact she has not produced any documentary evidence
except denial to case of complainant, the accused also failed to
produce any documentary evidence to show that she used to pay
water bill by way of cheque etc., But it is the duty of the
complainant to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubt, but
she failed to do so.
13. In support of the contention of the case of complainant,
the learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued before this
court that for discharge of legal liability, the accused has issued
the cheque in question, same is dishonoured due to 'Account
closed' intentionally without having sufficient funds in her account
accused has issued the Ex.P1 cheque in question in favour of
complainant and closed her account and in support of his
contention the complainant counsel relied on the decisions
reported in ;-
1. AIR 2010 SC 1898 Between Rangappa .Vs. Mohan.
B-Negotiable Instrument Act (26 of 1881),S. 138-Existence
of legally recoverable debt or liability- is matter of
presumption U/s. 139 NI Act.
13 C.C.No. 25364/2014
2) (1999) vol. 97 Kerala at page 664K.I.George .Vs. Mohd.
Master.
There is presumption under Sec. 139 of N.I. Act that unless the
contrary is proved, the holder of cheque received the cheque for the
nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge in whole or in
part of any debt or liability. The presumption available under Sec.
139 can be rebutted by the accused by adducing evidence. So the
burden of proof is on the accused and the evidence available on
record will have to be appreciated by bearing in mind the above
fact regarding burden of proof.
Held, also that was for the accused to rebut the presumption
available under Sec. 139 of the Act and to establish that the case
set up by him regarding the issuance of the cheque is true. The
trial court had taken a wrong approach in appreciation of the
evidence on the assumption that it was for the appellant to prove
that the cheques were supported by consideration.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the complainant, prays for
convicting the accused in accordance with law.
14. In support of the defence taken by the accused, the
learned counsel for accused vehemently argued before this court
14 C.C.No. 25364/2014
that the accused never issued the alleged cheque in question for
discharge of legal liability, but the alleged cheque has been mis-
used by the complainant and filed this case etc., and in support of
his contention the learned counsel for accused, relied on the
following decisions reported in :-
1. Crl. A. No. 2402/14 ) In the unreported decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2402/2014
between K. Subramanai .Vs. K. Damodara Naidu, where in its
held as under:
" On the assumption that the presumption under Sec. 139
of the NI Act would enure to the benefit of the complainant only if
he proves his financial capacity and on the contrary the trial court
had for reasons recorded found that the accused has rebutted the
presumption by placing cogent evidence that there was no legally
recoverable debt or liability."
2. 2014(2) Supreme Court cases page 236. Between John
K.Abraham. Vs. Simon C. Abraham and another. Where in it is
held :
Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws-Negotiable Instruments
Act 1881-Ss. 118, 139 and 138-Dishonour of cheque- Drawing
15 C.C.No. 25364/2014
presumption under S. 118 R/w. 139- Prerequisites for, when
cheque is for repayment of a loan/advanced money- Proof required
on the part of complainant-Held, in order to draw presumption
under S. 118 R/w. 139, burden lies on complainant to show; (i)
That he had the requisite funds for advancing the sum of
money/loan in question to accused, (ii) that the issuance of cheque
by accused in support of repayment of money advanced was true,
and (iii) That the accused was bound to make payment as had
been agreed while issuing cheque in favour of complainant- In
present case, complainant not aware of the date when substantial
amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was advanced by him to appellant-
accused - Respondent complainant failed to produce relevant
documents in support of the alleged source for advancing money to
accused- Complainant also not aware as to when and where the
transaction took place, for which the cheque in question was
issued to him by accused- Complainant also not sure as to who
wrote the cheque and making contradictory statements in this
regard- In view of said serious defects/Lacuna in evidence of
complainant, judgment of High Court reversing acquittal of
accused by trial court, held, was perverse and could not be
sustained- Acquittal restored.
16 C.C.No. 25364/2014
3. AIR 2009 SC 1518 (M/s. Kumar Exports vs. M/s
Sharma Carpets)
"Presumption that cheque was for discharge of
debt/liability-Rebuttal of-Need not be by proof of defence
beyond reasonable doubt."
4. 2013(2) Bankers Journal 518. Allahabad High Court
between Hazi Bhhoore Hussain Ansari .Vs. State of U.P. & anr.
where in its held as under:
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Sec. 138 and 139- Dishonor
of cheque- presumption under Sec. 139- complainant not filed any
agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by accused in her
favour- Complainant failed to discharge her initial burden to
prima-facie, establish that accused had issued dishonoured
cheque for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other
liability- Presumption U/s. 139 not applicable- Magistrate failed to
consider important aspects of matter and wrongly taken
cognizance on complaint of complainant against accused-
Impugned order not in conformity with entire ingredients of Sec.
138 of NI Act- Order illegal and set aside.
17 C.C.No. 25364/2014
5. 2013(1) Bankers Journal 319. Between Ramesh .Vs.
Eknath & anr. Bombay High Court, where in its held as under:
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.Sec. 138- Dishonor of
cheque-Appeal against acquittal- Apparently that when said
cheque given, there was no legally enforceable liability and right to
receive money not accrued in favour of complainant- complainant
specifically agreed that he had no correspondence with him as to
giving intimation to accused persons to receive crop cultivated by
him- No case of complainant that he had cultivated crop and
delivered it to accused persons and thus was entitled to receive the
sale proceeds of said crop from accused persons- Nothing found to
interfere in said judgment of acquittal.
6. 2013 Bankers Journal 101. Bombay High Court between
Smt. Shobha .Vs. Gajanan. Wherein it is held:
(a) Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Sec. 138, 139-
Dishonour of cheque- Appeal against acquittal- Defence evidence
probable- Reasonable doubt created about genuineness of
prosecution case- accused denied transaction, that he never issued
cheque in the sum of Rs. 1 lac- Accused defended the proceeding
son ground that he had given blank cheque duly signed to A2-
accused entered in defence after he put up his defence in
18 C.C.No. 25364/2014
statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., -Explanation of accused held
reasonable-No perversity or un reasonableness in impugned
judgment and order-View of trial court held probable under
circumstances- No interference required in appeal against
acquittal.
7. 2013(1) Bankers Journal 123. Rajastan High Court, between
Firm M/s. Kanahiya Lal Ghamandi Lal .Vs. Subhash, where in it is
held:
(a) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881)Ss. 138,- Dishonour of
cheque- Acquittal of accused by appellate court-Misuse of blank
cheque-Ink used for signing cheque and ink used for entering date
and amount different- Books of account not produced to prove
factum of loan- Material or relevant evidence withheld-
Presumption- against accused stood Rebutted- Learned judge
certainly justified in acquitting the accused -Legal and cogent
reasons given for acquitting accused- No illegality or perversity
found in the impugned judgment.
8. 2013 Banking cases page 113, between Kulvinder Singh
.Vs. Kafeel Ahmed where in it is held:
19 C.C.No. 25364/2014
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Sec. 138- Sec. 269-
Dishonour of cheque- Appeal against Acquittal- benefit of doubt-
Cheque issued in discharge of debt- Presumption gets dislodged
because of testimony of respondent apart from fact that petitioner
is not able to give source of such a huge amount advanced as a
loan- Benefit of this doubt rightly given to respondent by Trial
court and he is acquitted-Not a fit case to grant leave to appeal t o
petitioner.
9. 2013 Bankers Journal 93. Jharkand High Court between
Bhaskar Gupta .Vs. State of Jharkand and Anr. Wherein it is held:
(a) Negotiable Instruments Act 1881,Sec. 138 and 139-
Offence U/s 138- Acquittal- Respondent accused has been
acquitted on ground that the complainant has not been able to
prove the allegation beyond the shadows of all reasonable doubt-
Scope of interference with-Legally enforceable debt- Rebuttal of
presumption- Nothing brought on record to prove the case of
complainant - Accused has rightly been acquitted- Interference
with acquittal declined- Appeal dismissed.
10. 2012(2) Bankers Journal 385. Karnataka High Court
between M.B.Rajashekar .Vs. Savithramma. Wherein it is held:
20 C.C.No. 25364/2014
(a) Negotiable Instruments Act 1881,Sec. 138 & 139-
Dishonour of cheque- presumption under execution of cheque-
Once execution of cheque is admitted a presumption arises under
Sec. 139 in favour of complainant, that said cheque was issued
towards discharge of debt or liability; presumption that arises is
rebuttable-if accused raised a probable defence, it is sufficient to
rebut presumption raised U/s. 139 of the Act- Blank cheque given
by accused to complainant's wife who promised to send her abroad
to work as domestic help in house of complainant as security-
contents of cheque being in different handwriting-Subsequently
offer of job rejected by accused but cheque not return to her-
Defence of accused held probable and acceptable- Complainant
failed to discharge the initial burden of getting a post dated cheque
as a security for repayment of loan.
11. 2009 Bankers Journal 11 Supreme Court Between P.
Venugopal .Vs. Sri. Madan P.Sarathi .
Dishonour of cheque- presumption- Failure to discharge-
Complainant discharge initial burden that he gave loan to
appellant- Finding of fact arrived at by courts below that appellant
failed to discharge his burden- It does not require any interference
by this Court- Question of service of notice in terms of Sec. 138
21 C.C.No. 25364/2014
proviso is again question of fact and requires no interference in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of constitution- Further,
appellant was aware about address of respondent complainant -No
case made-out for interference by this Court with impugned
judgment- Constitution of India 1950 Art. 136- Negotiable
Instrument Act (26 of 1881), S. 138, 118(a) and 139-
12. 2008 Banking cases 371, Between M. Senguttuvan. .Vs.
Mahadevaswamy where in it is held:
(a) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881)Ss. 138, 139-
Dishonour of cheque-Presumption-Rebuttal- Presumption under
Sec. 139 need not be rebutted only by leading defence evidence,
but can be rebutted on basis of facts elicited in cross-examination
of complainant.
13. 2009 Banking cases 85 Between K.Narayana Nayak.
.Vs. M.Shivarama shetty, where in it is held:
(a) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881)Ss. 118, 138, 139-
Dishonour of cheque- Cheque issued for consideration-
Presumption- failure to discharge burden by appellant - Cheque
issued by respondent to appellant is only as security and not for
22 C.C.No. 25364/2014
discharge of any existing debt, as on date of issuance of cheque-
Accused respondent has discharged initial onus of proof- Appellant
ha snot satisfactorily discharged burden of proof- Non-production
of pass book by appellant in relation to amount lent by him to
respondent through cheques, is fatal to case of complainant/
appellant- No good reason to interference with order of acquittal
passed by Court below.
14. 2012 Banking cases 119, between Dilawarsinh Modubha
zala .Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr, where in it is held:
(a) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881)Ss. 138,- Dishonour
of cheque-Acquittal by trial court- Appeal against challenging
legality- complainant a money lender holding moneylenders
Licence, advanced alleged amount to the accused as money lender-
No cogent and convincing evidence produced to indicate that
complainant advanced aggregate amount of Rs. 7 lakh as alleged
in complaint - simply because accused did not reply to legal notice,
it cannot be said that accused admitted the allegations made in the
notice- Accused was able to raise probable defence and re butted
the presumption U/s. 139 of the Act- complainant failed to prove
that cheque in question was given towards discharge of existing
recoverable debt- Trial court justified in passing order of acquittal.
23 C.C.No. 25364/2014
On the basis of the aforesaid decisions coupled with defence
taken by the accused, the accused counsel prays for acquit the
accused in accordance with law.
13. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case,
primafacie the complainant failed to establish that she has paid
huge amount of Rs. 5 lakh to the accused by way of cash and
towards discharge of said legal liability the accused issued the
Ex.P1 the cheque in question, same is dishonoured due to
'Account closed' not due to 'Insufficient Funds'. Hence, the case of
complainant creates doubtful whether she really lent huge
amount of Rs. 5 lakhs to the accused and for discharge of said
legal liability the accused issued said cheque in question, same is
dishonoured. The aforesaid decisions relied on by the accused
counsel in support of his contention is squarely applicable to the
case on hand. The decisions relied on by the complainant counsel
is not squarely applicable to the case of complainant to prove the
alleged guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the
case of complainant creates doubtful and the benefit of doubt goes
in favour of the accused. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.
Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in Negative.
24 C.C.No. 25364/2014
14. POINT NO.2: For the above said reasons, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
Acting u/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the alleged offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act.
Accused is set at liberty and her bail bond and surety bond shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2015) (NAGARAJEGOWDA.D) XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City.
*** ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 Smt. N. Sukanya Devi. Witness examined for the accused:
DW.1. Smt. Sheela @ Sheela Suresh.25 C.C.No. 25364/2014
List of Documents marked for the Complainant: Ex.P1. Cheque Ex.P1(a) Signature of accused Ex.P2. Endorsement.
Ex.P3 Legal notice. Ex.P4 RPAD Receipt. Ex.P5 Unserved notice. Ex.P6. Complaint.
List of Documents marked for the accused:
-Nil-
XXII ACMM, Bangalore.26 C.C.No. 25364/2014
18.03.2015 Compt.
Accd.
For Judgment Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order with the following operative portion ORDER Acting u/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the alleged offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act.
Accused is set at liberty and her bail bond and surety bond shall stand cancelled.
XXII ACMM, Bangalore.