Bangalore District Court
Kalavathi vs Padmakumari on 9 July, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 9th day of July - 2020
PRESENT: SRI. SHRIDHARA.M, B.A., LL.M.,
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.21363/2016
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : Kalavathi,
W/o.Prasanna,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at C/o.Basavaraju,
No.1415, 2nd Floor,
1st B Main Road, Manuvana,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Sri.Shivakumar S Naregal, Adv.)
V/S
Accused : Padmakumari,
W/o.Chikkanarasimhaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at. No.55, 16th Main,
Maruthi Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru-40.
(Rep.by Sri.N.Suresh, Adv.)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Convicted.
DATE OF ORDER : 09.07.2020.
(SHRIDHARA.M)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
Judgment 2 C.C.No.21363/2016
JUDGMENT
The complainant has presented the instant complaint against the accused on 28.07.2016 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for dishonour of cheque of Rs.3 lakhs.
2. In a nut shell, the case of the complainant is:
The complainant and accused are known to each other from past 4 years and accused being a family friend of the complainant. The accused approached the complainant on 10.07.2015 and requested for financial assistance for the tune of Rs.3 lakhs, as the same is required to her for meet out her urgent domestic problems and she promised to repay the same within 6 months. Believing the version of the accused, the complainant mobilized the fund and paid to the accused by way of cash and while receiving the money, accused executed On demand promissory note in favour of complainant.
The complainant has further alleged that, after the stipulated period, the complainant approached the accused and demand for repayment of the said hand loan, to that effect, the accused got issued cheque bearing No.000003 dated:20.06.2016 for sum of Rs.3 lakhs, drawn on Bank of Baroda, Vijayanagar Judgment 3 C.C.No.21363/2016 Branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant with instruction to present it for encashment on the date mentioned therein, towards repayment of hand loan and taken back the On demand promissory note.
The complainant has further alleged that, on the assurance of accused, complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through her banker viz., Canara Bank, Adhichunchanagiri Branch, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. But on seeing the bank endorsement dated:22.06.2016, the said cheque came to be dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" and she got utter shock and surprise. Thereafter, she approached the accused and intimated the said fact, then accused intentionally and deliberately evaded to repay the amount covered under the cheque. Hence, on 28.06.2016, she gave legal notice to the accused by way of R.P.A.D through her counsel, calling upon her to pay the amount covered under the cheque. The notice issued to the accused, got returned with shara stating "Door Locked, Intimation Delivered" dated:30.06.2016 and it was returned to the complainant on 11.07.2016, as accused not paid money. Thereby, she committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, filed the present complaint.
Judgment 4 C.C.No.21363/2016
3. After receipt of the private complaint, my predecessor in office took the cognizance and got registered the PCR and recorded the sworn statement. Since made out prima-facie grounds to proceed against the accused for the alleged offence, got issued process.
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared through her counsel and obtained the bail. As required, complaint copy was supplied to the accused. Thereafter, accusation was read over and explained to her, wherein, she denied the same and claimed to have the defence.
5. To prove the case of the complainant, she herself choosen to examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11(d). The PW.1 was subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the accused. In the cross-examination of DW.1, complainant counsel got confronted two documents and same are marked as Exs.P12 and P13.
6. Thereafter, incriminating evidence made against the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied the same and the answer given by her was recorded. In support of the defence, the accused herself was examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D4 to D6. In order to Judgment 5 C.C.No.21363/2016 prove her contention, the accused got choosen to examined joint manager by name Smt.Neethu Payus as DW.2 and through herself got marked Exs.D1 to D3. The DW.1 and D2 were subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the complainant.
7. I have heard the arguments of both side counsels. The accused counsel has also submitted his detailed written arguments.
8. On going through the rival contentions, based on the substantial evidence available on record, the following points have been arising for determination:
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond the reasonable doubt that, she paid sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as hand loan to the accused, and in turn, for discharge of legal recoverable debt, the accused issued the Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.000003, dated:20.06.2016 for sum of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru?
2) Whether the complainant proves the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
3) What Order?
9. On appreciation of materials available on record, my findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Judgment 6 C.C.No.21363/2016 Point No.2 : In the Affirmative Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NOs.1 and 2: Since both the points are connected with each other, they have taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
The PW.1 to prove his case choosen to examined himself and filed affidavit by reiterating the complaint averments in toto, and produced the documents at Exs.P1 to P13, they are:
a) Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.000003 issued by the accused for sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
dated:20.06.2016, drawn on Bank of Baroda, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru.
b) Ex.P1(a) is the alleged signature of accused.
c) Exs.P2 and P3 are the Bank Memos dated:
22.06.2016.
d) Ex.P4 is the Legal Notice dated:28.06.2016.
e) Ex.P5 is the Postal receipt.
f) Ex.P6 is the unserved R.P.A.D cover.
g) Ex.P6(a) is the legal notice at Ex.P6.
h) Ex.P7 is the executive Commission Ledger.
i) Exs.P8 to P10 are the pay slips pertaining to Jayashree.P.
j) Ex.P11 is the On demand promissory note and consideration receipt dated:10.07.2015 executed by accused in favour of complainant.
Judgment 7 C.C.No.21363/2016
k) Ex.P11(a) to P11(d) are the signatures of accused and her husband.
l) Ex.P12 is the copy of house lease agreement dated:10.11.2012 executed by one Smt.Mala Ramachandra in favour of accused herein and
m) Ex.P13 is the house rent agreement dated:
29.05.2015 executed by one Smt.Mala Ramachandra in favour of accused herein.
The PW.1 was subjected to the cross-examination by the advocate for the accused.
11. In order to prove the defence of the accused, she herself choosen examined as DW.1 and produced the documents at ExsD4 to D6. They are:
a) Ex.D4 is the copy of house rent agreement dated:02.11.2015.
b) Ex.D4(a) is the signature of accused.
c) Ex.D5 is the letter dated:22.12.2016 written by accused to the Bank Manger regarding issue of attested specimen signature.
d) Ex.D5(a) is the signature of accused and
e) Ex.D6 is the copy of letter dated:05.09.2018 written by one K.Chikkanarasaiah, who is the husband of accused to the Bank Manager of Bank of Baroda.
Apart from lead defence evidence, the DW.1 through her counsel has produced the citations and relied upon same. They are:
a) 2018 (3) Civil LJ 902
b) 2010 (1) DCR 7 Judgment 8 C.C.No.21363/2016
c) 2010 (1) DCR 13
d) 2012 (2) DCR 558
e) 2012(2) DCR 561
f) 2012 (2) DCR 741
g) 2012 (2) DCR 743
h) 2012 (3) KCCR 2057
12. That apart, to prove her defence, the accused got choosen to examined Joint Manager by name Smt.Neethu Payus as DW.2 and through her got marked Exs.D1 to D4. They are:
a) Exs.D1 & D2 are the attested copies of account ledger inquiry reports pertaining to accused issued by Bank of Baroda.
b) Ex.D3 is the attested copy of specimen signatures pertaining to the accused.
c) Ex.D4 is the statement of account pertaining to accused herein, for the period from 10.03.2006 to 17.11.2018 issued by Bank of Baroda.
The DW.1 and DW.2 were subjected to the cross- examination by the advocate for the complainant.
13. While appreciate the materials on records and evidence, this court has gone through the decisions stated supra apart from the other decisions.
14. After cross-examination of PW.1, the incriminating evidence made against the accused was read over and explained to her as Judgment 9 C.C.No.21363/2016 required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, she denied the same and admitted the issuance of notice by complainant, at that time, she claimed to be went to Tumkur, hence, notice was returned. Thereby, the accused has clearly admitted that, complainant has issued legal notice to her.
15. Apart from that, to prove the probable defence of the accused, herself choosen to examined as DW.1 and filed affidavit evidence, the same is not opposed by the advocate for complainant, hence, affidavit evidence taken on record for appraisal. The accused in her affidavit evidence has contended that:
The accused is innocent as to the alleged commission of offence and false case been filed by the complainant in order to harass the accused. The complainant is a maid and she know the complainant since 15 years, as she used to do house hold works in the owners house of the accused at Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, when complainant came for the house hold works of the owner of the accused also used to visit the house of accused, as the same is in the same building. Somewhere in the year 2015-16, the complainant somehow stolen the blank cheque of the accused and filled the same and forged the signature of the accused and Judgment 10 C.C.No.21363/2016 presented it for encashment and the same got returned unpaid and she filed cooked-up cock and bull story, filed the false case. After receipt of summons, then only she came to know about the misuse of her cheque.
The accused has also contended that, there is no transaction between complainant and accused and there is no financial or legal liability to the accused towards the complainant. Hence, issuance of questioned cheque by the accused to the complainant does not arise. The accused and her family members are well settled in financially and economically and avail the hand loan from the complainant does not arise at all and the complainant had no financial capacity to advance that much huge amount to the accused, as she is maid by profession and earning very meager amount, which is not sufficient for her livelihood and hence, prayed for dismissal of the present case. The accused earlier not produced any document, but got marked some documents through the PW.1. The DW.1 was subjected for cross- examination from the side of advocate for complainant.
16. That apart, to prove the probable defence of the accused, she choosen to examined the Bank Manager of Bank of Baroda as DW.2. The DW.2 in her oral evidence, she produced attested Judgment 11 C.C.No.21363/2016 copy of the document at Exs.D1 to D4 and specimen signature of accused, those documents are marked from Exs.D1 to D4. The advocates for complainant and accused choosen to cross- examine the DW.2.
17. On going through the rival contentions of the parties, it discloses, the complainant based on Ex.P1-cheque filed the present case stating, the amount covered under the cheque is the existence of legally recoverable debt payable by the accused, after its dishonour, though complainant gave legal notice, accused not paid the amount, hence, brought the present case. Therefore, as per Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it made clear that, the statutory presumption shall be drawn in favour of complainant that, as she is in possession of questioned cheque, it has to be presume that, the accused got issued the said cheque to the complainant for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt, unless and until contrary prove.
18. Whereas, the accused in this case, while record 313 of Cr.P.C. statement admitted, the complainant got issued legal notice, but stated, by that time, she went to Tumkur and not collected the notice, but she not denied the issuance of legal notice to the complainant as contemplated under Section 138(b) Judgment 12 C.C.No.21363/2016 of Negotiable Instruments Act, to maintain the present case. Thereby, complainant has successfully proved the compliance of mandatory provision.
19. The accused has put forth her specific defence that, she knew the complainant, she is the house maid used to came to the house of owner's of the accused todo work and by that time, she came to visit the house of accused, as same is situated in same building and somehow, she stolen the blank cheque of the accused and forged her signature and filled it, got dishonoured and filed the false case with cooked-up story. Thereby, the accused has denied the very transaction put forth by complainant.
20. Any how, it is the initial burden on the accused to prove her probable defence to rebut the statutory presumption as well as facts and circumstances narrated by complainant, as to the alleged loan transaction between complainant and accused.
21. The accused strongly denied the monetary transaction as put forth by the complainant, but stated, complainant is the house maid, when she used to came to the house of her building owner's, the complainant came to her acquaintance and in one of her visit to the house of accused in the year 2015-16, somehow stolen the blank cheque and misused the same.
Judgment 13 C.C.No.21363/2016
22. On going through the said probable defence of the accused, the factum of knowingness or acquaintance between the complainant and accused is not in dispute. From the defence of accused, it also made clear that, during the period 2015-16 the questioned cheque came to the possession of the complainant is not in dispute, subject to prove that, somehow complainant stolen the said cheque. The fact that, compliance of mandatory provision is not in dispute. The fact that, the complainant doing the cooking work in the house of building owner of accused and used to came to the house of accused is not in dispute.
23. It was the specific case of complainant that, accused borrowed loan of Rs.3 lakhs by cash on 10.07.2015 and undertakes to repay the same within 6 months and got executed On demand promissory note and consideration receipt in favour of complainant and after lapse of 6 months, as accused not paid the money, she approached her, then she gave questioned cheque at Ex.P1 dated:20.06.2016. The said cheque came to be dishonoured, despite, she gave legal notice; she not collected, hence, the complaint.
24. On rival contentions of the parties, the statutory presumption has to be drawn in favour of complainant that, Judgment 14 C.C.No.21363/2016 accused got issued the questioned cheque for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt. Whereas, it is the initial onus on the accused to rebut the case of complainant. As per the defence of the accused, questioned cheque was somehow stolen by the complainant in the year 2015-16. She very particularly contended in her affidavit evidence after receipt of summons from this court, then she came to know about the said fact. From the said contention, it made clear that, the present case is registered as criminal case in the year 2016. On going through the order sheet entries it discloses, summons was duly served on accused on 12.01.2017, accused got appeared before this court through an advocate. As per the say of accused, after receipt of summons, she came to know about the present case, therefore, it has to be presume that, in between 2016-17, the summons got served on the accused, hence, she appeared. Therefore, as per say, after receipt of summons in the fag end of 2016-17, she came to know about the stolen of the said cheque by the complainant.
25. If at all, it was her contention, on which basis she gave her 313 of Cr.P.C. statement, stating that, notice came to her address issued by the complainant, as she went to Tumkur, the said notice went back. On going through the notice at Ex.P6, it discloses, as Judgment 15 C.C.No.21363/2016 per the receipt of notice dated:28.06.2016, notice sent through R.P.A.D as per Ex.P6. On going through the shara it discloses, on 11.07.2016, the said cover returned by made shara unclaimed. The said entry discloses, issuance of legal notice by the complainant to the accused is very much known in the month of July, 2016 itself. Therefore, she perhaps understood the contents of legal notice could have avoided to receive the same. But in her affidavit evidence stated, after receipt of summons in the fag end of 2016 or in the year 2017, she came to know the stolen the cheque by the complainant. The very probable defence of the accused, it contradicts from the point of her 313 of Cr.P.C. statement, as she admitted the issuance of legal notice by the complainant as per Ex.P6 and she came to know about the stolen the said cheque, after receipt of summons is not corroborates each other and it creates doubt, as to the bonafidness of the contention of the accused. Therefore, it has to be presume that, at least as on the date of issuance of legal notice, at Ex.P5 by way of R.P.A.D at Ex.P6, she already knew that, the complainant has initiated the proceedings based on the questioned cheque, therefore, she avoided.
26. At least from 11.07.2016 onwards the accused came to know about the complainant initiated the proceedings against her, Judgment 16 C.C.No.21363/2016 based on the questioned cheque. If at all, as alleged by the accused, the questioned cheque was stolen in the year 2015-16, she came to know about the thing of stolen only after receipt of summons, there is no substance in the say of accused. It discloses, the accused is not deligent in manage her cheque, therefore, in view of the complainant initiated legal proceedings, for sake she took the defence somehow, it was stolen. It is not the specific say of accused, complainant was stolen the said cheque from her house in the year 2015-16. If at all, it was stolen as she alleged, the accused could have initiate necessary legal action by way of lodge complaint before the jurisdictional Police Station or make necessary paper publication, as to stolen or lost of her cheque in order to avoid misuse by the general public or could have give stop payment instruction to her bank, or could have issue legal notice to the complainant, if she certain. But none of the option did exercise by the accused to safeguard her interest for avoid misuse of the questioned cheque. As per the rival contentions, it made clear that, the accused though she was educated of 8th standard, her husband and son are practicing advocates at Bengaluru. Therefore, under the guise of their advocacy, the accused cannot be presume that, she is layman. She is the responsible lady, though, she back up by her husband Judgment 17 C.C.No.21363/2016 and son, she kept quite all these days without initiate necessary legal action, as to stolen or lost cheque itself creates doubt, as to the bonafidness of the accused. At least, to know, who got misuse or stolen the cheque, it was best opportunity to the accused to receive the legal notice issued by the complainant at the earliest point of time and if the case of the complainant were to be untrue definitely, she could have cause necessary reply, but nothing has did by her. But, to the sake of disturb the case of the complainant, she took unreasonable, unacceptable, bald and baseless probable defence. Thereby, the accused utterly failed to prove the questioned cheque was stolen by the complainant.
27. Even in the course of cross of DW.1, she deposed, nothing legal action has been initiated by her against the complainant as to stolen or misuse of her cheque. Definitely, if as alleged by the accused, it was stolen or misplaced, it is her to initiate necessary action, but for the reasons better known to her, she kept quite all these days and protract the matter by taking bald and baseless defence. The very act of the accused is condemned.
28. On meticulous perusal of perusal of the defence evidence of the accused, it discloses, though complainant has projected the present case as to alleged payment of loan to the accused on Judgment 18 C.C.No.21363/2016 10.07.2015 and on receipt of the said money, the accused got executed and issued the On demand promissory note and consideration receipt. Accordingly, in the later portion of the trial, the complainant got produced the same as per Ex.P11, which consists On demand promissory note and consideration receipt. Even, the PW.1 in her cross-examination withstood her contention stating, the accused and her husband got singed the Exs.P11 and P12 after receipt of Rs.3 lakhs from the complainant. But regarding the promissory note, there is no contention taken by the accused, though she led her evidence on 25.04.2018 as against the document at Ex.P11 On demand promissory note and consideration receipt were produced by the complainant on 27.11.2017. Thereby, the accused is very much silent as to the execution of On demand promissory note and consideration receipt as per Ex.P11. The non mentioning of those documents against the pleading and evidence of the complainant, it has to be presume that, the accused not seriously disputed the due execution and issuance of On demand promissory note and consideration receipt. However, its genuineness is subject for appraisal, as accused has denied her signature at Ex.P1. From the evidence of accused, it discloses, she has not challenged or say anything on the Exs.P11 and P12. Nothing contending on the Judgment 19 C.C.No.21363/2016 Ex.P1 On demand promissory note and consideration receipt by the accused, it discloses, in the force of accused denied her signature from the available documents produced by the complainant, she not stated anything on the On demand promissory note and consideration receipt. Therefore, except the signature found therein of the accused and her husband, the genuineness of the document produced by the complainant and its contents not disputed by the accused.
29. No doubt, the DW.1 has subjected for cross-examination. Though, she has not whispered anything on the Ex.P11. The complainant during the course of cross-examination clearly admitted that, after receipt of legal notice issued by the complainant, then only she came to know about her questioned cheque was stolen by the complainant. More particularly, she deposed, she not initiated any legal proceedings against the complainant. Even she stated, not give complaint to the banker. More particularly, she deposed, she remembers what is contended in her affidavit evidence. Therefore, it made clear that, wantonly the accused not pass any remark on the genuineness of Ex.P11. However, the complainant has not kept quiet, but in the line of prove the due execution and issuance of Ex.P11 - On Judgment 20 C.C.No.21363/2016 demand promissory note and consideration receipt as well as questioned cheque, necessary suggestions were made to DW.1.
30. In the cross-examination of DW.1, she deposed that:
"¦gÁå¢ 3-4 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ MAzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¤¦.1 ZÉPÀÄÌ £À£Àß SÁvÉUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ. ¤¦.1J ¸À» £À£ÀßzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¤¦.11 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 12, ºÀt ¸ÀAzÀ gÀ¹Ã¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ rªÀiÁåAqï ¥Àæ£ÀÆÃmï £ÀÉÆÃnøÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQëUÉ vÉÆÃj¹ CzÀgÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¸À»UÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ªÀÄäzÉ JA§ÄzÁV PÉýzÀ ¸À®ºÉUÉ ¸ÁQë, CzÀÄ £À£Àß ¸À» C®è JA§ÄzÁV £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀ PɼÀUÉ EgÀĪÀ ¸À» AiÀiÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £À£Àß ¸À»AiÀÄ PɼÀUÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, £Á£ÀÄ GzÉÝñÀ¥ÀǪÀðPÀªÁV ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉüÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
31. On meticulous perusal of the evidence of DW.1 re-produced above, she clearly admitted the knowingness of the complainant to her since 3 - 4 years. The DW.1 has specifically deposed that, she used to sign in a single manner. She categorically admitted, questioned cheque at Ex.P1 is of her. The suggestion made to her that, signature found in Ex.P1-cheque at Ex.P1(a) is of the accused, is been denied by the accused. That apart, very particularly, the complainant advocate has tendered the On demand promissory note and consideration receipt, which are in Judgment 21 C.C.No.21363/2016 one document at Ex.P11 and tendered the signature found therein as Padma and another signature and suggested to her that, the signature found therein as Padma made in English, she on seeing the same deposed, it was not her signature. Even she deposed, below the alleged signature of the accused at Ex.P11(a) to (c), the alleged signature of husband of accused were show to her, she deposes, she does not know to whom it belongs. She denied the suggestion that, though her husband got signed the Ex.P11 wantonly, the accused deposed false been denied by her.
32. On going through the said testimony, she categorically denied the signature found in Ex.P11(a) to P11(c) is not of her. The complainant advocate has specifically stated, those signature including the cheque is of the accused. When the said document at Ex.P11 tendered and shown to the accused, except she denied the signature, nothing has stated about its contents. From the evidence of DW.1, she deposes, she used to sign in the similar manner. On going through the affidavit evidence of the accused available on record, it discloses, the accused has signed in English language as H.Padmakumari. The said signature is after she started, disputed signature found in the affidavit. Likewise, when gone to 313 of Cr.P.C. statement and prior to that, in the plea, the accused has used to put her signature as Judgment 22 C.C.No.21363/2016 H.Padmakumari. That apart, those documents are in the present case, came to be placed, after the accused took upon the defence of denial of her signature. Then, it may be after thought filing vakalath in the present case. Hence, reliance cannot be placed as signature therein is made in English, pertaining to the subsequent period of dispute. Therefore, it is the accused need to produce document to show that, she not in the habit of sign in Kannada and the signature found in Ex.P1 and P11 is not of her.
33. In that regard, the accused choosen to examine her bank manager, wherein, she maintained her account. On going through the documents produced by the said bank manager, DW.2 at Exs.D1 to D4, it discloses, Exs.D1, D2 and D4 are pertaining to account ledger enquiry and bank statement of the accused. Those documents do not bare the signature of the accused. However, the Bank Manager got produced the specimen signature extracted from the computer, which discloses, the signature of the accused at Exs.D3(a) and D3(b). Wherein, the accused used to put her signature as H.Padmakumari. Though, the word Kumari in cursive letter, the said document at Ex.D3 is the specimen signature of the accused can be seen from the bank manager pertaining to the money transaction of the accused. Therefore, the accused cannot deny the genuineness of Judgment 23 C.C.No.21363/2016 Ex.D3. Therefore, the Ex.D3 is the available document which bares the undisputed signature of the accused. If at all, the accused used to signature in uniformity, it should be in accordance with Ex.D3(a) and D3(b).
34. On meticulous perusal of the vakalath filed by the accused in the present case, H.Padma is tallied and the cursive letter work Kumari is not tallied in accordance with the vakalath. Likewise, on bare perusal of the signature at Ex.D1 compared with plea, 313 of Cr.P.C. statement and affidavit evidence of the accused is also the first H.Padma all most tallied and cursive letter word Kumari is not tallied. Therefore, on appraisal of the signature available on record, it made discloses, the Kumari word in front of her signature H.Padma is not tallied with Exs.D3(a) and D3(b). Therefore, the accused contention as to she used to sign almost similar is not been proved. Likewise, from the point of the undisputed signature maintained in the bank of accused, which available on record at Ex.D3(a) and D3(b), on close perusal with Ex.D11 - On demand promissory note and consideration receipt, Ex.P1(a) signature discloses, H.Padma and the same is almost tallied with the specimen signature. Likewise, the Ex.P11(b) also almost tallied with the 1st portion of signature of the accused came to her and borrowed loan of Rs.3 lakhs and executed the Ex.P11 Judgment 24 C.C.No.21363/2016
- On demand promissory note and consideration receipt and got issued questioned cheque at Ex.P1. But she stated, the accused got executed and affixed her signature. Therefore, it can assume that, without showing the earlier admitted signature of the accused, herself could have executed the said document and put her signature. Who knows the fully signature and name of the accused, as maintained in the bank, in order to insist her to make sign to cheque as it was. Whatever the signature put to the document at that movement could have been accepted by the layman, like complainant and it would not be ground to deceit any, as projected by the accused. The accused used to sign in the bank as H.Padmakumari, but in the Ex.P11(a) and P11(b) signatures discloses, her part of signatures. Moreover, the accused did not say anything on the said document in her affidavit evidence to discard its genuineness. By avoiding full signature, for the reasons better known to her, is not a ground to accept the contention of the accused as it was not her signature. That apart, the DW.2 in his cross-examination has deposed, the accused has her account in the bank and more particularly deposed, while cross-examine by the advocate for the accused that:
Judgment 25 C.C.No.21363/2016 "¤r.11(J) ¥ÀzÁä JA§ EAVèõï£À ¸À» ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤r.3(J) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3(©) ¸À»UÉ ºÉZÀÄÑ-PÀrªÉÄ vÁ¼ÉAiÀiÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
35. The DW.2, who is the bank manager, wherein, accused had maintained account has categorically deposed that, the signature found in Ex.D11(a) in part 'Padma' is tallied with her specimen signature found in Ex.D3(a) and D3(b). In that regard, no cross- examination done by the advocate for the accused, as to the signature of the accused is not in accordance with specimen signature. Therefore, the Bank Manager is the authorized person has deposed, part of the signature found in specimen card, produced by downloaded from the internet, as maintained in the bank of the DW.2 is tallied with the signature of the accused, as found in Ex.D11(a) and D11(b). The DW.2 has proved that, the Ex.D11(a) and D11(b) signatures if of the accused.
36. Thereafter, to prove the defence of the accused, she choosen to produce the document at Exs.D4 and D5, which are Xerox rent agreement dated:02.11.2015 and requisition submitted to the bank on 22.12.2016. On going through the Ex.D4, it was pertaining to the accused, subsequent to the alleged loan transaction dated:10.07.2015. The Ex.D4 rent agreement Judgment 26 C.C.No.21363/2016 discloses, the signature of the accused at Ex.D4(a) as H.Padma Kumari and the word Kumari runs in short, it is also not in accordance the specimen signature maintained in the bank. Likewise, she produced the document at Ex.D5 request made by the accused to furnish her specimen signature. In the letter at Ex.D5, the accused also singed as H.Padma Kumari, but the Kumari word is also in cursive letter and which is not tallied with specimen signature. Thereafter, the said document also disclose, the specimen signature of the accused made in the left top of the letter, which discloses, 'H.Padma Kumari', wherein also, the signature made and verified by the Canara Bank official on 22.12.2016, on comparison it discloses, both are not one and the same. Those specimen signature is altogether appears to be different and on which capacity the said Canara Bank Manager or authorized person got obtained the specimen signature of the accused in the letter dated:22.12.2016 and given to the accused, it creates doubt as to the bonafidness.
37. It is not her contention that, the accused had a bank account in Canara Bank, wherein, she furnished her specimen signature enable her to obtain as found in Ex.D5. The specimen signature furnished in the Ex.D5 at the top also not tallied each other and it appears to be subsequent to the cheque Judgment 27 C.C.No.21363/2016 dated:20.06.2016 as well as alleged loan transaction dated:10.07.2015, hence, the specimen signature alleged to be verified by the Canara Bank Manager in a letter forwarded by the accused as per Ex.D5 is not authenticated document to rely upon the contention of the accused. Therefore, the Ex.D5 appears to be the subsequent document, which forwarded by her to the sake of her defence. Hence, it is not safe to rely upon. Ex.D6 letter is submitted by the advocate for the accused by name K.Chikka Narasaiah, addressing to the Manger of Bank of Baroda to furnish the S.B.Account open Form and specimen signature of the accused. The said document in view of production of Ex.D3 has no separate value and it is merged with the Ex.D3. Therefore, it has no separate significance to appreciate.
38. On careful perusal of the Ex.D3, It is significant fact to note that, it has been produced by the Bank of Baroda, wherein, the accused has her bank account and obtained cheque at Ex.P1. On careful perusal of Ex.D3, it discloses, it is none other than, the scanned copy, wherein, found the scanning of signature of the accused at the time of she opened her account. Though, it was not original, the factum of the same is copied and scaned and the bank has issued the Ex.D3. Which also discloses, the photographs of the accused, therefore, it clearly manifest the Judgment 28 C.C.No.21363/2016 signature found at Ex.D3 is the genuine signature of the accused, which is ascertained and admitted by the accused for the purpose of money transaction held through bank only. Therefore, it is the accused shall have to use the signature in respect of every transaction made through her bank account. The said signature has to be found in the document produced by the accused also.
39. As discussed above, some of the court documents, first part of signature as 'H.Padma' is tallied and later portion cursive letter made as 'Kumari' is not similar. However, the accused has not disputed her signature found in the case record of the court. As per the say of accused, she not put signature in Kannada. To that effect, the accused also choosen to produced her lease agreement entered into with the building owner got produced at Ex.D4. The accused has admitted the Ex.D4 was rent agreement entered into building owner by name Smt.Mala Ramachandra and with the accused. It is pertinent to note that, Ex.D4 is the Xerox copy notarized copy of rent agreement. The accused has not stated anything about its original. However, she relied upon the same, the said document; the accused put her signature as H.Padma Kumari. As observed earlier, the said word 'Kumari' as found in Ex.D3 specimen signature not made by the accused, and it was reduced into very short form. However, the accused has Judgment 29 C.C.No.21363/2016 contended, she used to sign in English, hence, she produced the Ex.D4 Xerox copy of rent agreement. On meticulous perusal of the said document, it discloses, where about of original not been defined her. However, the said document got notarized, therefore, in order to ascertain her signature put into notarized register, she not examine the notarize public by name M.K.Devaki and in order to ascertain the register number mentioned in her book, no particulars is been found in the said document. Therefore, the said document has no significant and to show that, she used to singed as per Ex.D4(a), she ought to call the said notary register, wherein, she and her landlord put her signature. Therefore, it discloses, even Ex.D4 signature is not in accordance with her specimen signature made in the bank.
40. Likewise, the accused has clearly admitted that, Smt.Mala Ramachandra was the building owner, wherein, accused was tenant. During the course of cross-examination of DW.1, she admitted, the rent agreement entered into between accused and her land lard as per Ex.P12 and P13. The Ex.P12 is dated:10.11.2012 and Ex.P13 is dated:29.05.2015. On meticulous perusal of the said admitted rent agreements, it discloses, at the earliest point of time agreement dated:10.11.2012 produced by the accused, wherein, it found the Judgment 30 C.C.No.21363/2016 signature of the accused as H.Padma, even in the particulars of the agreement also. The accused put her signature as H.Padma and even the same is not in accordance with the Ex.D3 specimen signature maintained in the bank.
41. That apart, the complainant also tendered another document at Ex.P13, it was the subsequent rent agreement entered into between accused and her landlord by name Smt.Mala Ramachandra dated:29.05.2015. Wherein, accused name is mentioned as 'Padma Kumari.H', unlike the Ex.P12 'H.Padma'. The name mentioned in both the document, which is admitted by the accused discloses, different name and Kumari is added in the subsequent document at Ex.P13, for the reasons better known to her. That apart, in the Ex.P13, the accused put her signature in Kannada as 'Padma Kumari'. The landlord also singed in Kannada. The admitted document at Ex.P13, it collapse the own defence of the accused, as though she claiming through out the case, as put her signature in English. On what circumstances, the Ex.P13 rent agreement dated:29.05.2015 pertaining to undisputed point of time, then to the alleged transaction dated:10.07.2015, the accused used to put her signature as Padma in Kannada. Therefore, Ex.P13 document is the only document which attack on the probable defence of the Judgment 31 C.C.No.21363/2016 accused and the complainant has successfully proved that, she was in the habit of put signature in Kannada.
42. The complainant while presenting the Exs.P12 and P13 lease agreement entered into between accused with her landlord and she stated, at the time of accused borrowed loan, she gave those documents to her. In that line, no suggestion is made to PW.1, as to challenging the genuineness of the said document. Therefore, the Ex.P13 pivotal role in deciding the case of complainant, with regard to the claim put forth by the her and disproved the very defence of the accused that, she only used to put her signature in English is ruled out. The Ex.P13 clearly manifest, the accused used to put her signature in Kannada also. Therefore, it has to be considering that, the accused used to put her signature in Kannada. Likewise, whatever the signature found in Ex.P1(a) questioned cheque produced by the complainant alleged to be issued by the accused in respect of payment of loan of Rs.3 lakhs, it has to be presume that, the accused has put her signature by mentioning initial in English and her name in Kannada, for the reasons better known to her. If at all, the accused not put her signature, definitely, when the movement of the complainant got issued legal notice to her, she could have initiate necessary legal proceedings, because she could have Judgment 32 C.C.No.21363/2016 issued the said cheque for discharge of her liability, for the reasons better known to her, not initiate any action.
43. That apart, if at all, the accused has not signatory to the cheque, definitely, she could have sought for expert opinion, but in this case, she not taken such pain, but complainant do effort, but the said application came to be dismissed. The Ex.P13 is the document, wherein, the admitted signature of the accused discloses, Padma Kumari which is almost similar to the cheque at Ex.P1(a). Even though, the accused ought to put her signature as per the specimen signature furnished to the bank, she has continued it in her records, but for the reasons better known to her, in order to avoid the liability from the beginning itself, she used to put her signature in different hand writing. That apart, the On demand promissory note and consideration receipt produced by the complainant at Ex.P11 alleged to be executed by the accused and her husband, the accused has not stated anything about the same in her affidavit evidence. The accused is not suspected the genuineness of the said On demand promissory note and consideration receipt and she unchallenged. However, the complainant has earlier not produced the On demand promissory note and consideration receipt, but on the later course of evidence, she produced the same. As observed earlier, the Judgment 33 C.C.No.21363/2016 said document is spread of ink in the middle portion of the same, to the same, the PW.1 has stated, her kid spread ink, the same is not challenged by the accused.
44. On going through the said document, it also discloses, the accused put her signature as 'H.Padma', even, as found in specimen signature 'Kumari' is not there and on the same day as on the alleged borrowal of loan, she got executed Ex.P11 by putting signature of English. The signature found in the same also denied by the accused, but she not say anything of her husband signature found at Ex.P11(b) and P11(d). Therefore, perusal of the signature of the accused, the husband of the accused put her signature is not been disproved. The accused denied the signature on the On demand promissory note and consideration receipt. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that, on the date of borrowal of loan, accused got executed On demand promissory note and consideration receipt. Therefore, the date revealed in the Ex.P11 On demand promissory note and consideration receipt as 10.07.2015, which is on the alleged date of lent of loan.
45. The complainant has alleged that, for discharge of loan amount, the accused took time for six months to repay the same.
Judgment 34 C.C.No.21363/2016 But when she not repaid the same as agreed, the complainant gone to her and requested for repayment, then claiming accused got issued the questioned cheque at Ex.P1. Therefore, admittedly, there was time gap in between execution of On demand promissory note and consideration receipt as well as issuance of questioned cheque. Nobody is remembering, in which manner the others can sign on earlier document, while taking signature on subsequent document, after lapse of several months. Accordingly, there was gap about one year in between execution of the On demand promissory note and consideration receipt as well as issuing questioned cheque dated:20.06.2016. The accused made use of the said time gap, as she was in the habit of changing her signature time and again. She put together different signature to the questioned cheque at Ex.P1 and got issued same to the complainant. The complainant by way of producing the undisputed document at Ex.P13 clearly manifest that, the accused got issued the questioned cheque by putting her signature in differently, it does not release the burden on the accused to pay the amount covered under the cheque.
46. No doubt, there is some hand writing and ink changing in filling the cheque. As per Section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act, inchoate instrument can be issued authorized person to fill Judgment 35 C.C.No.21363/2016 the amount and present it for encashment as the liability is issued. Accordingly, Section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to rescue of the complainant, if at all, she filled the same and presenting the same for encashment. The accused through out the case has put forth her baseless inconsistent and bald defence, which no way damage the case of complainant. But the complainant got produced the Ex.P13, which brushes away the probable defence of the accused, thereby, the accused utterly failed to prove the initial burden casted upon her by virtue of Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
47. The complainant in the line of complaint allegation withstood her contention and stated that, the accused known to her and very particularly she deposed that:
"¢.10.07.2015gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ £Á£ÀÄ gÀÆ.3 ®PÀë ºÀt ¤ÃrzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 10-15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À »AzÉ DgÉÆæ ºÀt PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ ªÉÆúÀ£ï£À ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÁV ºÀt PÉÆnÖzÉÝ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ£À ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DV ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ JgÀqÀƪÀgÉ ªÀµÀð DVzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ zÀÄqÀÄØ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DV®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. D jÃw £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉüÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
Judgment 36 C.C.No.21363/2016
48. On going through the testimony of PW.1, she withstood her contention re-asserting that, she paid Rs.3 lakhs loan to the accused on 10.07.2015. She also stated, prior to 10 to 15 days then issued, the accused requested for the loan and it was paid for the purpose of marriage of accused, even she stated the reason. Though, the accused counsel has suggested, his son marriage was happened 2 ½ years back, he not suggested, where it was solemnized after borrowal of the loan dated:10.07.2015 or prior, nothing has been whispered. More particularly, the ending sentence suggestion, it made clear that, at the time of complainant gave money to the accused, no marriage was happened. By making such suggestion, the accused has admitted, at the time of alleged lent of loan, no marriage was happened, when the accused has received money, then what purpose she obtained money is not suggested to PW.1, though, he suggested to PW.1 that, she deposed falsely, she denied the same.
49. In the formal suggestion, it was suggested that, complainant is the house maid and she had no source of income. Contrary to the same, PW.1 in her evidence, she gave explanation stating that, her elder daughter working as Manager in Kanva Bank, and younger daughter is working in Commercial Department. Even, Judgment 37 C.C.No.21363/2016 she stated, she also gathered monthly income of Rs.10,000/-, in all she is having the monthly income of Rs.30,000/-. The said factum is not denied by the accused. It is significant fact to note that, the complainant has deposed, while borrow money, the accused and her daughter were present and her husband along with accused got executed On demand promissory note and consideration receipt. The relevant portion runs thus:
"DgÉÆæUÉ ºÀt ¤ÃqÀĪÁUÀ DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÄ. DgÉÆæ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÖ D£ï rªÀiÁåAqï ¥ÉÇæ£ÉÆÃl£ÀÄß FUÀ PÉù£À°è ºÁdgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D£ï rªÀiÁåAqï ¥ÉÇæ£ÉÆÃl£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÖgÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £É£À¦®è. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÉÇæãÉÆÃmïUÉ DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DPÉAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D jÃw AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà D£ï rªÀiÁåAqï ¥ÉÇæãÉÆÃmï£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ £ÀqÀÄªÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀtPÁ¹£À ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ DV®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÀzÀÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸À» £ÀPÀ®Ä ªÀiÁr ¸ÀļÀÄî PÉøÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
50. The said testimony of PW.1 made it clear that, accused deposed, at the time of she borrow loan, her daughter was present. The said factum remains undisputed. The PW.1 has deposed that, she had no impediment to produce On demand Judgment 38 C.C.No.21363/2016 promissory note and consideration receipt executed by the accused, but she stated, she does not remember the date. More particularly, by that time, itself she stated, the accused and her husband affixed their signatures to the said On demand promissory note and consideration receipt. Simply the accused has suggested, it was not executed by the accused and no suggestion made as to the signature of the accused as well as her husband as found in Ex.P11. Formal suggestion made to the complainant that, there was no transaction happened between complainant and accused and made the scandals suggestion to the complainant that, the complainant stolen the cheque of the accused and forged her signature and filed the false case. Without any base, there was scandals suggestion made to the complainant, as to stolen the cheque from the house of accused. The complainant has proved that, she lent loan of Rs.3 lakhs to the accused on 10.07.2015 and accused and her husband got executed the On demand promissory note and consideration receipt and after lapse of about one year, for discharge of the said existence of legal liability, the accused got issued the questioned cheque. Though, the accused borrowed loan from the complainant and made use of her money inspite of repay the same, she made derogatory statement against the complainant, Judgment 39 C.C.No.21363/2016 as to stolen the cheque. The very act of the accused is to be condemned.
51. It at all, it was stolen, it is the accused has to initiate necessary proceedings, but till the fag end, though she came to know about the proceedings initiated by the complainant by way of issuing legal notice till this period, the accused not taken any action, if at all, her defence were to be true. It clearly manifests that, in order to protract the matter and see the chance of avoid the payment, the accused took such contention, the same has no significance and it no way disturb the case of complainant. The complainant has discussed above has successfully proved her case, beyond the reasonable doubt. The accused though supported by legal precautionaries in her house, she not repay the money to the complainant, which covers under the Ex.P1-cheque. Despite got issued legal notice and prosecuted the matter years together, but contested the matter with baseless, bald defence and troubled the complainant, thereby; waste the precious time of the court as well as public. Therefore, the very act of the accused is condemned. The complainant has successful in establishing her case beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, she is able to prove that, the amount covered under the cheque, existence of legally recoverable debt.
Judgment 40 C.C.No.21363/2016
52. The accused is in the habit of changing her signature after obtaining the loan from the complainant and affixing her signature in different languages, as against her specimen signature found at Ex.D3 maintained in Bank, in order to avoid the repayment of loan. Therefore, it is the consider opinion of this court, accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite gave sufficient time years together, the accused not set the right by way of repay money to the complainant. Hence, the offence is still continued, therefore, the accused is liable to be punished by imposing fine sentence of Rs.3 lakhs with 18% interest from the date of cheque dated:20.06.2016 till its payment. Otherwise, the very act of the accused is against the object of Negotiable Instruments Act, and people like, accused inspite of make use of the cheque for day to day transaction and repose confidence, used for avoid the repayment and protract the matter thereby, the original lender would put hardship for her no fault. Moreover, the accused enjoyed the hard cash of Rs.3 lakhs of the complainant years together, hence, as per Section 80 of Negotiable Instruments Act, she require to pay the amount covered under the cheque of Rs.3 lakhs together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of cheque dated:20.06.2016 till its payment. If the accused failed to pay the Judgment 41 C.C.No.21363/2016 said amount, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The same offence has been continued till this day; therefore, the complainant has successfully established the guilt of the accused, regarding commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant has complied the mandatory requirement and established her case successfully. Despite that, the accused has not set right the wrong committed by her as per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
53. As discussed above by way of furnishing clear, convincing, corroborative, oral as well as documentary evidence has proved that, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, looking into the transaction, it is the considered opinion of this court that, the accused has taken bald, inconsistence defence without any base and failed to prove her improbable defence. Contrary, the PW.1 has established her case beyond the reasonable doubt through oral as well as documentary evidence. Thereby, unnecessarily cause the complainant to approach this court of law, therefore, the accused is liable to be punished by way of imposing fine sentence. Therefore, the accused is to be convicted by imposing the cheque amount, coupled with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of issuance of cheque dated:20.06.2016 till its Judgment 42 C.C.No.21363/2016 realization. Out of the said fine amount, sum of Rs.2,95,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of cheque dated:20.06.2016, shall be payable to the complainant as compensation and remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be payable to the state as fine amount. Accordingly, if the accused fails to pay the whole fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 12 months. Thereby, one more opportunity has provided to the accused to comply the order. Otherwise, the very purpose of filing complaint will be defeated. As discussed above, the complainant has proved her case beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the accused shall sentence to pay the fine amount as detailed in the order portion. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
54. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence to pay fine of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of cheque Judgment 43 C.C.No.21363/2016 dated:20.06.2016 till its realization within appeal period.
Out of the said fine amount, sum of Rs.2,95,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of cheque dated:20.06.2016 till its realization shall be payable to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be payable to the state as fine amount.
In default of pay the fine amount, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 12 (Twelve) Months.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
The office is hereby directed to supply the copy of this Judgment to the accused on free of cost.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of July - 2020) (SHRIDHARA.M) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : Kalavathi Judgment 44 C.C.No.21363/2016
List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P1 : Original Cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of accused
Exs.P2 & P3 : Bank endorsements
Ex.P4 : Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P5 : Postal receipt
Ex.P6 : Unserved R.P.A.D cover
Ex.P6(a) : Legal notice at Ex.P6
Ex.P7 : Executive commission ledger extract
Exs.P8 to P10 : Pay slips
Ex.P11 : On demand promissory note and
consideration receipt
Ex.P11(a) to P11(d) : Signatures of accused and her husband
Ex.P12 : Xerox copy of lease agreement
Ex.P13 : Xerox copy of rent agreement
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
DW.1 : Padmakumari DW.2 : Neethu Fayus
List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
Exs.D1 & D2 : Account Ledger Inquiry
Ex.D3 : Specimen signature
Ex.D4 : Statement of account
Ex.D4 : Xerox copy of rent agreement
Ex.D4(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.D5 : Letter dtd:22.12.2016
Ex.D5(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.D6 : Letter dtd:05.09.2018
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 45 C.C.No.21363/2016
09.07.2020.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment
Case called out.
Complainant and accused are absent.
No representation from both side advocates, despite, web-host the case proceedings and intimate the date of pronouncement of judgment. Hence, as per Section 353(6) of Cr.P.C. the following judgment is pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
***** ORDER Accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence to pay fine of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of cheque dated:20.06.2016 till its realization within appeal period.
Out of the said fine amount, sum of Rs.2,95,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of cheque dated:20.06.2016 till its realization shall be payable to the complainant as compensation as per Section Judgment 46 C.C.No.21363/2016 357 of Cr.P.C. Remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be payable to the state as fine amount.
In default of pay the fine amount, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 12 (Twelve) Months.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
The office is hereby directed to supply the copy of this Judgment to the accused on free of cost.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.