Bangalore District Court
Lucid Beeline Opc Pvt Ltd vs Abhishek Patre on 17 April, 2025
KABC010261952023
Presented on : 26-09-2023
Registered on : 26-09-2023
Decided on : 17-04-2025
Duration : 1 years, 6 months, 21 days
IN THE COURT OF LXVI ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-67)
PRESENT
SHRI. JAYAPRAKASH A.
B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH-67)
Dated this the 17th day of April, 2025
Crl.Appeal.No.1396 of 2023
APPELLANT/S 1. Lucid Beeline (OPC) Pvt.Ltd.
(A Company incorporated under the
Provisions of the Companies Act)
At No.11/2, Ground Floor,
Ramaswamy Layout, 19th Cross,
20th Main, JP Nagar,
5th Phase, Bengaluru 560 079.
Represented by its Director
Abhishek Murali,
Office at 3rd Floor,
Aditya Towers,
Venkataswamy Naidu Road,
Shivajinagar,
Bengaluru 560 051.
2. Abhishek Murali,
Director,
Lucid Beeline (OPC) Pvt.Ltd.
2
Crl.A.No.1396/2022
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.002,
Harmony Apartments No.19,
Palmgrove Road,
Victoria Layout,
Bengaluru 560 047.
(By Sri.B.Laksha Kalappa, Advocate)
V/s.
RESPONDENT/s:- Abhishek Patre,
S/o P.V.Anilkumar,
Aged 27 years,
R/at No.178,
Siri, 5th Main, BCC Layout,
Chandra Layout,
Vijayanagara,
Bengaluru 560 040.
(By Sri.SA, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The appellant / accused has filed appeal under section 374(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment dated 01/09/2023 passed in C.C.No.20346/2021 on the file of XXIII ACMM, Bangalore.
2. The appellant is the accused and respondent is the complainant before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred by their ranks before the trial Court.
3Crl.A.No.1396/2022
3. The brief facts of the complainant's case is that accused No.1 is a registered company and accused No.2 is the Managing Director of accused No.1 concern. Accused No.2 approached him for loan to meet out certain commitments agreeing to repay the same within a short period. In pursuance of the said request he lent an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the accused No.2 by way of cheque on 17/02/2021. After stipulated period when he demanded the accused for repayment of the said amount, towards discharge of legally enforceable liability accused issued cheque bearing No.000107 dated 13/03/2021 for Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru. When the cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment through his banker State Bank of India, Vijayanagar II Stage Branch, Bengaluru same came to be dishonoured with shara 'funds insufficient' on 14/05/2021. The complainant issued legal notice dated 31/05/2021 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. Inspite of said legal notice appellant has not repaid the loan amount. Therefore, the complainant has filed the private complaint before the learned Magistrate.
4. The trial Court recorded sworn statement of the complainant by way of affidavit. Thereafter cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act and summons was issued to the accused. The accused appeared through his counsel and he has been released on bail. His plea was recorded.
4Crl.A.No.1396/2022 He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant got examined himself as PW1 and got marked 15 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. The accused No.2 was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused No.2 denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The accused No.2 examined himself as DW-1 and got marked documents Ex.D.1 to D3.
5. After hearing arguments of both sides and considering materials on record, the trial Court passed a judgment of conviction sentencing the accused to pay fine of Rs.25,20,000/- with a direction to pay a sum of Rs.25,15,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
6. Being aggrieved by the above said judgment the appellant / accused preferred this appeal on the following among other grounds:
(i) The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate is erroneous, capricious, perverse and without application of mind,
(ii) The case pleaded by the respondent is most unbelievable with the created and concocted version woven with a false fiber which cannot be believed by any prudent man.5
Crl.A.No.1396/2022
(iii) The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the fact that PW.1 has admitted that he visited the factory of Nirani Sugars to establish a relationship and procure a contract. The complainant witness has admitted that he knew appellant No.2 for a short period of time through a common contact. It is unclear that during the said short period why the respondent lent loan of Rs.25,00,000/- to an individual whom he barely knew but has only traveled across the state to help him to set up a business.
(iv) The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the fact that PW.1 has admitted that he intended to start a business with appellant No.2. It is relevant to highlight that in Ex.D.3 the respondent referred appellant No.2 as his partner and has lied in cross examination to cover the truth.
(v) The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the fact that Nirani Sugars failed to complete the order and misappropriated the money paid by the appellant and the complainant. The complainant was aware of the same and despite the requests of appellant No.2 he has deposited the cheque and cheated the appellant and the same is clearly borne out in Ex.D.1. The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the complainant utilised the said information to his advantage with an intention to arm twist the accused into paying him money and proceeded to deposit the cheque.
6Crl.A.No.1396/2022
(vi) The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the fact that appellants have made out a clear case to show that the essential ingredients of Section 118(a) and 139 was not made out as there was no legally recoverable debt and the accused clearly rebutted the presumptions under Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act.
(vii) The learned trial Court stressed the absence of any documented ties between the complainant and the accused despite the presence of whatsapp chats and the audio recordings, Ex.D1 to 3. The learned trial Court overlooked the fact that business dealings can be established based purely on a verbal agreement. It was the case of the appellant that the complainant wanted to use appellant No.1 company to start the business and assured appellant No.2 that the paperwork would be completed in due course.
(viii) The financial capacity of the appellant No.1 company and its workings were elicited in the cross examination of DW.1/Appellant No.2. This begs the question of whether the respondent/complainant conducted due diligence before handing out a friendly loan and if he did it begs the question of why he would lend a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to someone who do not have any financial capacity to pay the same.
(ix) The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the cheque was handed over by the appellant No.2 as the 7 Crl.A.No.1396/2022 respondent wanted payment after completion of the order and no evidence has been led to disprove the same.
(x) The learned trial Court has incorrectly held that nothing has been elicited from the mouth of the respondent when in fact PW.1 has admitted facilitating the entire transaction for purchase of the sugar.
(xi) The learned trial Court has incorrectly held that in the absence of a written agreement the relationship cannot be justified though when the respondent has especially admitted that he intended to start a business with appellant No.2.
(xii) The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that there exists no legally dischargeable debt and the complainant has miserably failed to prove the burden cast on him to prove his case in the light of the defence urged by the appellant. The complainant has not elicited anything in the cross examination of appellant No.2 to show that it was infact a friendly loan and has not led any evidence to prove the same, despite the same learned trial Court has held that the respondent has proved his case.
(xiii) The learned trial Court has completely ignored the case of the appellants and has not provided any reason that would merit disregard of a case of a party. It has been clearly biased against the appellants and has on the basis of the bias passed the impugned judgment. The bias is clear from the fact that the learned trial Court has chosen to exclude the fact that the 8 Crl.A.No.1396/2022 appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as interim compensation by way of two demand drafts which has been recorded in the order sheet dated 16/05/2023 and 29/08/2023, and has passed an order to pay the entire cheque amount instead of deducting the interim compensation amount.
On the above among other grounds the appellant / accused prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment of Trial Court.
7. After registering the appeal notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent appeared through his counsel and trial Court records were secured.
8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellant and respondent and perused the materials placed on record. Perused the notes of arguments submitted by counsels for appellant and respondent. The learned counsel for appellant has relied on the following citations;
i) 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 588 (SC) in the case of K.Prakashan Vs P.K.Surenderan.
ii) (2010) II SCC 441 in the case of Rangappa Vs Mohan.
Iii) R.Ramachandra Reddy Vs R.Malavathi MANU/KA/0262/2022.
9Crl.A.No.1396/2022
iv) (2019) 1 SCR 731 Anss Rajashekar Vs Augustus Jeba Ananth.
v) (169) SCC 298 Vivek Bhaskaran Vs State of W.B. 2022.
vi) (1999) 4 SCC 253 NEPC Micon Ltde. Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.
Vii) (Crl.A.No.3257 of 2024 @ SLP (Criminal) No.13179 of 2023) in the case of Sri.Dattatraya. Vs Sharanappa.
Viii) Crl.A.2000/2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in the case of R.Pramod Vs Gangadaraiah.
The learned counsel for respondent has relied on the following citations:
i) 2009 AIR SCW 1018 in the case of M/s Kumar Exports Vs M/s Sharma Carpets.
ii) 2019 (4) SCC 197 in the case of Bir Singh Vs Mukesh Kumar.
Iii) (2007 (4) KARLJ 489 in the case of J.Ramaraj Vs Illiyaz Khan
9. On hearing the arguments and on perusal of the materials placed before the Court the points that arise for consideration are:
10Crl.A.No.1396/2022 (1) Whether the finding of the trial Court that the accused failed to discharge the presumption under section 138 of N.I. Act with probable defence that the cheque was not issued for discharge of legally recoverable debt or liability is justified ?
(2) Whether the finding of the trial Court that the complainant proved that cheque is issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt is justified ?
(3) Whether the impugned judgment of the trial Court is capricious and erroneous and liable to be interfered ?
(4) What order ?
10. My answer to the above points are:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative.
Point No.3 Partly in the Affirmative
Point No.4: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1 & 2: Since these points are inter-linked with
each other they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and appreciation of evidence.
11Crl.A.No.1396/2022
12. It is the case of the complainant that accused No.1 is a registered company and accused No.2 is the Managing Director of accused No.1 concern. Accused No.2 approached him for loan to meet out certain commitments agreeing to repay the same within a short period. In pursuance of the said request he lent an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the accused No.2 by way of cheque on 17/02/2021. After stipulated period when he demanded the accused for repayment of the said amount, towards discharge of legally enforceable liability accused issued cheque bearing No.000107 dated 13/03/2021 for Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru. When the cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment through his banker State Bank of India, Vijayanagar II Stage Branch, Bengaluru same came to be dishonoured with shara 'funds insufficient' on 14/05/2021.
13. In support of the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as PW1 and has filed his affidavit in lieu of oral evidence. In his evidence he has testified regarding the transaction, issuance of cheque towards discharge of liability, subsequent dishonour of cheque, service of legal notice and failure of accused to pay the amount. In his further examination he got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15.
12Crl.A.No.1396/2022
14. In the proceeding under section 138 of N.I.Act, the plaintiff is not required to establish either legality or enforceability of the debt or liability. He is guarded by the presumption under section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. By virtue of these presumptions the accused has to establish that the cheque in question was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt or other liability and the burden is upon the accused to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant.
15. In the present case the accused has not disputed Ex.P1 cheque. The factum of dishonour due to "funds insufficient" is not in dispute. After the service of legal notice, accused has not repaid the amount within the period of limitation. Therefore the complainant has discharged the initial burden that was caste upon him and consequently it is for the accused to rebut the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act and to show that the cheque in question was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused is required to rebut the presumption not by plausible explanation but by cogent evidence in support of his defence.
16. The complainant in support of his case got examined himself as PW.1 and produced Ex.P.1 cheque. Ex.P.2 is the endorsement which indicates that cheque was dishonoured for the reason funds insufficient. Ex.P.3 is the legal notice wherein the complainant called upon the appellant to pay the cheque amount. Ex.P.4 is the 13 Crl.A.No.1396/2022 postal receipt, Ex.P.5 is the envelop deposit receipt, Ex.P.6 is the track consignment, Ex.P.7 to 10 are the WhatsApp chat messages, Ex.P.11 is the track consignment, Ex.P.12 is the reply notice, Ex.P.13 is the RPAD cover, Ex.P.14 is the copy of company/LLP Master data and Ex.P.15 is the details of the company obtained through portal of Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
17. It is the contention of the accused that he wanted to start a business with the complainant and wanted to secure sugar from Nirani Sugar Factory. The complainant paid the amount to start the business as a partner of the company which was about to be registered and accused was expected to return the money after securing the sugar from the Nirani Sugar Factory. The accused has relied upon Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 to substantiate his contention that the complainant has paid the amount to the accused as a partner. It is pertinent to note that Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 was confronted to PW.1 during the cross examination. Now, it is to be ascertained whether Ex.D1 and D2 confronted to the witness can be relied upon to come to any conclusion. It is to be noted that Ex.D1 and D2 were marked since PW.1 admitted the same during the cross examination. There is nothing on record as to through which device Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were copied and who was in possession of the device from which it was copied. It is pertinent to note that a certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act has to be produced if any copy of the document which is 14 Crl.A.No.1396/2022 copied from a device has to be admitted in evidence. But, no such certificate is produced before the Court. Therefore, it is not possible to rely upon Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 produced by the accused.
18. In so for as the issuance of cheque is concerned accused has categorically admitted during his cross examination that he has issued Ex.P.1 cheque in favour of the complainant and same was filled by him. When there is a categorical admission by the accused regarding issuance of cheque, statutory presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act will have to be raised. Under these circumstances, burden is upon the accused to rebut the presumption by producing cogent evidence. It is the contention of the accused that the cheque issued to the complainant was not intended to be encashed. But, he has not produced any cogent materials to establish the same. It is the contention of the accused that he wanted to commence a business along with the complainant. But there are no materials to show that he intended to commence a business with the complainant and the complainant had agreed to be a partner in the said business with the accused. During the cross examination of PW.1 it has been elicited that complainant had paid the amount on the basis of his friendship with the accused but not as EMD amount for procuring sugar from Nirani Sugar Factory. Except the suggestion the accused has failed to establish his contention 15 Crl.A.No.1396/2022 that complainant had paid the amount towards payment of EMD amount to Nirani Sugar Factory.
19. It is pertinent to note that as per Ex.P.12 the accused has sent a reply notice to the complainant wherein it is stated that complainant had insisted him to issue a cheque for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the same bank account from which the EMD amount was transferred through Nirani Sugar merely for the purpose and sake of surety and mental satisfaction. The reply notice indicates that cheque was issued as a security for the existing liability. It is not in dispute that complainant has paid Rs.25,00,000/- to the accused. Further at para 13 of the reply notice it is stated by the accused that he has full honest intention of returning the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- that was willfully lent by the complainant for the initiation of the business transaction within two weeks of the completion of the business transaction. The above said aspect clearly indicates the receipt of money by the accused from the complainant and his liability to repay the same.
20. On perusal of the oral evidence as well as materials placed before the Court it appears that the defense taken by the accused is not consistent. At one breath it is contended that cheque was issued as a security on the other hand it is contended that cheque was obtained forcefully. Therefore, the said defense of the accused 16 Crl.A.No.1396/2022 does not inspire the confidence of the court to accept the contention of the accused.
21. The accused got examined himself as DW.1. During the cross examination he has categorically admitted that he has issued Ex.P.1 cheque in favour of the complainant. He has also stated that he himself has filled the cheque. On perusal of the same it indicates that the accused has issued the cheque in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the contention of the accused that cheque was obtained by force as no legs to stand. During cross examination the accused has also admitted his residential address. Ex.P.3 is the legal notice issued by the complainant. On perusal of the evidence of DW.1 it indicates that complainant had issued notice to the correct address of the accused. Though the accused has taken a contention that complainant is his partner in the business, during the cross examination he has admitted that he has no documents to show that complainant is his partner in the business. The contention of the accused is not corroborated any cogent evidence. Therefore, the said contention of the accused cannot be considered.
22. The counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that there is no legally dischargable debt but the complainant has lent a friendly loan. When it is admitted by the accused that he has received the amount from the complainant, burden is upon the 17 Crl.A.No.1396/2022 accused to explain as to why and how Ex.P.1 cheque reached the hands of the complainant. The burden is upon the accused to prove that the cheque was not intended to be encashed, but the accused has failed to establish the same by producing cogent evidence.
23. The counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant had no financial capacity to lend a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in favour of the accused. When accused himself has admitted that he has received the amount from the complainant, the accused is estopped from contending that complainant has no financial capacity to lend a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-.
24. The learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that accused has requested the complainant not to deposit the cheque for collection by way of Whats App message. When issuance of the cheque is admitted and it is also admitted that accused himself has filled the cheque, the request of the accused not to deposit the cheque for encashment does not render the debt unenforceable. Therefore, the said contention cannot be accepted.
25. It is pertinent to note that as per the version of the accused cheque was issued as a security. Even though cheque was issued as security, it would attract the provisions of section 138 of N.I. 18 Crl.A.No.1396/2022 Act. Therefore the accused has to prove with cogent evidence that complainant has presented the cheque not for legally recoverable debt and the accused has failed to prove the same. The fact of issuance of cheque and the statutory presumption available in favour of the complainant is not rebutted by the accused.
26. At this juncture it is necessary to go through a ruling rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2016) 10 SCC 458 in the case of Sampelly Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited wherein it is held that a post-dated cheque described as 'security' in the loan agreement is dishonoured, the same would be punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the accused has taken a contention that he had issued the cheque as security, it indicates that there was existing liability on the part of the accused and accused issued the cheque in respect of the same. Under these circumstances the above ruling is squarely applicable to the facts of this case.
27. At this juncture it is worthwhile to go through a judgment reported in AIR (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 441, 1898, in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan, wherein by relying upon the ruling of Hithen P Dalal Vs. Bratheendranath Banerji, it is reiterated that once the accused admits his signature the legal presumption will have to be raised in favour of the complainant. The accused can prove non-existence of a consideration by raising 19 Crl.A.No.1396/2022 a probable defence. In the case on hand the accused has failed to raise probable defence.
28. I have perused the above citations produced by the appellant. The ruling relied by the counsel for the appellant reported in 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 258 SC is not applicable to the case on hand, for the reason that accused has admitted the receipt of amount and issuance of cheque. The ruling relied upon by the counsel for appellant in the case of R.Ramachandra Reddy Vs R.Kalavathi and ANSS Rajshekar Vs Augustus Jeba Ananth are not applicable to the case on hand for the reason that the accused has failed to raise a probable defense. The ruling relied upon by the counsel for appellant reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 and Crl.Appeal.No.2784/2012 are not applicable to the case on hand for the reason that facts and circumstances of the case are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
29. The ruling relied upon by the counsel for appellant reported in (2022) 1 HCC (CAL) 169 is not applicable to the case on hand for the reason that the accused himself has admitted the receipt of amount and issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant.
30. The ruling relied upon by the counsel for appellant reported in (1999) 4 SCC 253 is not applicable to the case on hand for the 20 Crl.A.No.1396/2022 reason that accused has not established mischief on the part of the complainant as contended by him.
31. The counsel for appellant has also relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl.Appeal.No.3257/2024 in the case of Dattatreya Vs Sharanappa and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Appeal.No.2000/2022 in the case of R.Pramod Vs Gangadharaiah. The facts and circumstances of the case relied upon by the counsel for the appellant are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, the said rulings are not applicable to the case on hand.
32. In a proceeding under section 138 of N.I. Act it is for the accused to prove that cheque was not issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. He has to lead credible evidence for rebuttal of this presumption. The presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act is a presumption of law, it is not the presumption of fact. This presumption has to be raised by the Court in all the cases. Once the factum of dishonour is established, the onus to rebut the presumption lies on accused and such evidence must be sufficient, cogent, and to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore mere explanation is not enough to repel this presumption of law. In the present case the complainant has discharged his initial burden that the accused had issued the cheque in question in his favour and the same was dishonoured. He has also complied with the mandatory provisions prescribed by 21 Crl.A.No.1396/2022 law. Such being the case, burden is caste on the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued towards any legally recoverable debt.
33. The cumulative effect of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the complainant is that accused issued cheque bearing No.000107 dated 13/03/2021 for Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru. When the cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment through his banker State Bank of India, Vijayanagar II Stage Branch, Bengaluru same came to be dishonoured with shara 'funds insufficient' on 14/05/2021 and the accused has failed to make payment within stipulated period prescribed by law. Accordingly point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
34. Point No.3: The trial Court has passed the judgment of conviction against the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.25,20,000/- and in default to pay fine ordered him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year by considering oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it. The trial court has failed to consider the fact that the accused has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of DD to the complainant before the court on 16/05/2022. The learned trial court has also failed to consider the fact that the accused had paid a sum of 22 Crl.A.No.1396/2022 Rs.1,50,000/- by way of DD in favour of the complainant before the Court on 29/08/2022. The payment of the said amount by the accused before the Court is reflected in the order sheet of learned trial Court. It is pertinent to note that the said amount was paid to the complainant as per the order dated 5/09/2022. Under these circumstances, the learned trial Court ought to have deducted the said amount while imposing the sentence of fine. Though the order of conviction is proper, it is just and necessary to modify the order in so for as the imposition of fine is concerned. Except the said aspect I find no perversity or error of judgment on the part of the learned Magistrate in convicting the accused. Therefore point No.3 is answered partly in the Affirmative.
35. Point No.4:- In view of the findings given on point No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant under section 374(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure is partly allowed.
The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.20346/2021 dated 01/09/2023 passed by XXIII ACMM, Bangalore is hereby modified as follows:23
Crl.A.No.1396/2022 The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.22,55,000/- (Rupees Twenty two lakhs fifty five thousand only). In default to pay fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
By virtue of powers vested under Section 357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C on recovery of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.5,000/- shall be defrayed to the state towards prosecution expenses.
By virtue of powers vested under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, on recovery of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty two lakh Fifty thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Office is directed to transmit the records to the trial Court along with the copy of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, Online, typed by her directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 17th day of April, 2025) (JAYAPRAKASH. A) LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 24 Crl.A.No.1396/2022 Pronounced vide separate judgment with following operative portion:
ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant under section 374(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure is partly allowed.
The judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the trial Court in
C.C.No.20346/2021 dated
01/09/2023 passed by XXIII ACMM,
Bangalore is hereby modified as
follows:
The accused is sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs.22,55,000/- (Rupees
Twenty two lakhs fifty five thousand
only). In default to pay fine, the
accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year.
By virtue of powers vested under
Section 357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C on recovery
of the fine amount, a sum of
Rs.5,000/- shall be defrayed to the
state towards prosecution expenses.
By virtue of powers vested under
Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, on
recovery of the fine amount, a sum of
Rs.22,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty two
lakh Fifty thousand only) shall be
paid as compensation to the
complainant.
25
Crl.A.No.1396/2022
Office is directed to transmit the
records to the trial Court along with
the copy of this order.
LXVI Addl. CC & SJ,
Bengaluru