Bangalore District Court
Kumara.C vs Chethan on 26 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 26th day of March - 2021
PRESENT: SRI. SHRIDHARA.M, B.A., LL.M.,
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.27604/2018
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : Kumara.C,
S/o.Chidanand,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No.6, Bhargav Yadav Nilaya,
Vishweshwriah Layout,
Near Bandematt,
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bengaluru-60.
(Rep. by Sri.B.K.Ravikumar, Adv.)
V/S
Accused : Chethan,
S/o.Manjunatha,
Aged about 28 years,
C/o.Doddamane B.K.Ramamurthy,
R/at. No.105, 1st Floor House No.29,
4th Cross, 1st Main,
New Byatarayanapura,
Near Govt. School,
Bengaluru-26.
(Rep.by Sri.C.R.Venkatesh, Adv.)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
Judgment 2 C.C.No.27604/2018
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Acquitted.
DATE OF ORDER : 26.03.2021.
(SHRIDHARA.M)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has presented the instant complaint against the accused on 20.08.2018 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for dishonour of cheque of Rs.2,50,000/-.
2. In precise, the facts of the complainant case is:
The complainant and accused are the close friends. During the last week of August, 2017, the accused had approached the complainant seeking for hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- for meet out his urgent family requirements. In that acquaintance, in order to help the distress condition of the accused, complainant had paid Rs.1,50,000/- on 31.08.2017 and also further paid sum of Rs.1 lakh on 01.09.2017 to the accused, in all he lent Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused. The accused had promised to repay the said loan amount within 3 months, but after lapse of the said agreed period, the accused has not repaid the said loan amount, thereafter, the complainant had approached the accused on several times and Judgment 3 C.C.No.27604/2018 demanded for repayment, but on one or other reasons he had postponed the same. After made several requests and demands of the complainant, finally the accused has gave a cheque bearing No.000027 dated:27.03.2018 for sum of Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Jayanagara 3rd Block Branch, Bengaluru, and assured to honour the said cheque on the date of its presentation.
The complainant has averred that, on the assurance of the accused, when he presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker viz., Karnataka Bank Ltd., City Market Branch, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru. But the said cheque as per memo dated:29.03.2018 came to the dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient". Immediately, he approached the accused and brought the same to his notice, he took 2 months time to repay the said loan amount. Even after lapse of 2 months, the said cheque was re-presented by him on 22.06.2018 through his banker, but the same also came to be dishonoured as per bank endorsement dated:25.06.2018 for the reasons "Funds Insufficient". The said factum brought to his knowledge, but he neglected to pay the amount covered under the cheque.
Therefore, on 06.07.2018 by way of R.P.A.D., he gave legal notice to the accused, which was served on him and he gave evasive reply, but he not paid the amount covered under the cheque.
Judgment 4 C.C.No.27604/2018 Thereby, he committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, filed the present complaint.
3. After receipt of the private complaint, this court has 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 his counsel and obtained bail. As required, complaint copy was supplied to the accused. Thereafter, accusation was read over and explained to him, wherein, he denied the same and claimed to have the defence.
5. To prove the case of the complainant, he himself choosen to examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. The PW.1 was subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the accused. In the cross-examination of PW.1, accused counsel got confronted five documents and same are marked as Exs.D1 to D5.
6. Thereafter, incriminating evidence made against the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied the same and answer given by him was recorded.
Judgment 5 C.C.No.27604/2018 In support of the defence, the accused himself was examined as DW.1 and also subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the complainant.
7. Both side counsels have not addressed their arguments. Inspite of given liberty to file their written arguments, but both side counsels have not submitted their 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, he paid sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 31.08.2017 and sum of Rs.1 lakh on 01.09.2017, in all Rs.2,50,000/- as hand loan to the accused, and in turn, for discharge of legal recoverable debt, the accused issued the Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.000027, dated:27.03.2017 for sum of Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Jayanagar 3rd Block 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 Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative Judgment 6 C.C.No.27604/2018 Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
-:UNDISPUTED FACTS:-
10. The fact that, the complainant and accused are known to each other and they were friends are not in dispute. The fact that, the address made mentioned in the cause title of the complaint is of the complainant and accused are not in dispute. The fact that, the questioned cheque at Ex.P1 and signature made therein is of the accused is not in dispute. The fact that, the exchanges of notices between complainant and accused are not in dispute.
The fact that, the accused was the owner of motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA-02-HR-8539 is not in dispute. The fact that, the said motor bike was taken by the complainant herein and when he brought the pillion riders by names Sudha.N and Shambhavi, came from Hirehalli to Tumkur, there met with an accident and Sudha.N succumbed to the injury and Shambhavi got accidental injuries is not in dispute. The fact that, in connection to the said accident, FIR was registered in Cr.No.37 of 2017 in the Kyathasandra Police Station based on the complaint lodged by one Mr.Narayanappa as found in Exs.D1 and D2 are not in dispute. In connection to the said case, police have seized Judgment 7 C.C.No.27604/2018 the motor bike of the accused and through court, it got released for the interim custody of the accused is not in dispute. The fact that, the complainant and accused were working together and accused had the monthly salary up to Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/- is not in dispute.
11. 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 P8, they are:
a) Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.000027 issued by the accused for sum of Rs.2,50,000/-
dated:27.03.2018, drawn on HDFC Bank, Jayanagar 3rd Block Branch, Bengaluru.
b) Ex.P1(a) is the alleged signature of accused.
c) Exs.P2 and P3 are the Bank Memos dated:31.03.2018 and 25.06.2018.
d) Ex.P4 is the Legal Notice dated:06.07.2018.
e) Ex.P5 is the Postal receipt.
f) Ex.P6 is the postal acknowledgment card.
g) Ex.P7 is the private complaint.
h) Ex.P7(a) is the signature of complainant and Judgment 8 C.C.No.27604/2018
i) Ex.P8 is the Summary of Account as on 30.09.2017 pertaining to complainant herein issued by ICICI Bank.
The PW.1 was subjected to the cross-examination by the advocate for the accused.
12. After detailed cross-examination done by the advocate for accused to the PW.1, the complainant got closed his side. Thereafter, whatever the incriminating evidence made against the accused was read over and explained to him as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he denied the same and gave his statement that:
ದ , ಅಪಘತಕಕ "ನನನ ದದಚಕ ಕ ವಹನ ಪರರದ ತಗದದಕಕಕಡದ ಹಕಹಗದದ ಒಳಪಡಸ ಒಬಬ ಹದಡದಗ ಮಮತಳಗರದತತರ. ಆ ಕಹಸಗ ಸಕಬಕಧಸದಕತ ವಹನ ಬಡಸಕಕಳಳಲದ 3 ಖಲ ಸಹ ಮಡದ ಚಕದ ಕ ಗಳದ ಬಹಕದ ಎಕದದ ನನನಕದ ಪಡದರದತತರ. ನನನಕದ ಸದಳದ ಳ ಹಹಳ ಚಕದ ಕ ಗಳನದ ನ ಪಡದದ, ಅದನದ ನ ದದರದಪಯಗಪಡಸಕಕಕಡದ, ಮದಲದ ರಕರ1,10,000/- ಚಕ ಮತತ ನಮಕದಸ ಅಮನನಪಡಸಕಕಕಡದ, ಈ ಪಪಕರಣದ ಚಕಕನದ ನ ಕಕಡ ದದರದಪಯಗಪಡಸಕಕಕಡದರ. ಅವರಕದ ರವದಹ ಸಲ ಪಡದಲಲ.
ಚಕದ
ಕ ಗಳನದ
ನ ಹಣ ಪವತಗಗ ನಹಡಲಲ. ಚಕದ
ಕ ಗಳ ಮತತ ನಹಡಲದ
ಭದನನಲಲ."
13. In order to prove the defence of the accused, the accused himself choosen to entered into witness box and examined as DW.1 on oath and filed affidavit evidence.
Judgment 9 C.C.No.27604/2018
14. No doubt, in this case, the accused was entered into witness box and filed affidavit evidence. The filing of affidavit by the accused in lieu of his probable defence is not opposed by the complainant. Mere because of he not sought permission under Sections 315 and 316 of Cr.P.C., it does not a ground to out-rate reject the probable defence set out by the accused. Mere because Section 145(1) of Negotiable Instruments Act does not expressly permit the accused to filed affidavit evidence, it does not mean that, the court cannot allow the accused to give his evidence on affidavit. By applying the same analogy, unless there is just and reasonable ground to refuse such permission. There is no express bar on accused to give evidence on affidavit either in the accused or in the court.
In a decision reported in 2006 SCC online, Bombay 703, in a case between Peacock Industries Limited Vidhyadhar and others V/s. Dudhrani Finance Limited Bombay and another . Ratio layout therein was partly firm in a decision reported in (2010) 3 SCC 83, in a case between Mandovi Co-operative Society Ltd., V/s. Nimesh B Takore. Wherein, by citing the decisions reported in KSL and Industries Ltd., case, it was pleased to observed that, the observation made by the Division Bench in KSL and Industries Ltd., case, clearly indicate that, even the accused should be given Judgment 10 C.C.No.27604/2018 option to lead her evidence on affidavit. But such request should be made in writing as providing for Section 315(1) of Cr.P.C. Wherein, lordship was pleased observed that, fine no justified reason to refuse permission to the accused to give his evidence on affidavit subject to the provisions contained in Sections 315 and 316 of Cr.P.C.
That apart, in a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated:13th Day of February 2020 in a case between Jagadeesh Hiremath and R. Venkatesh in Criminal Appeal No.907 of 2017 A/W Criminal Appeal No.908 of 2017 is pleased to observed that, in view of the orders of this court in Criminal Petition No.9331/2017 C/w Criminal Petition No.9332/2017 dated:
02.07.2019, wherein following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indo International Ltd., & Another V/s. State Of Maharasthtra & Another, 2005 Crl.L.J.208, it is held that, " The court dealing with a complaint under Section 138 of the said Act of 1881 had an option to take evidence of the witnesses on the side of the prosecution as well as evidence of the accused and the defence witnesses, if any on affidavit"
15. Hence, it is very much necessary to appraise the probable defense taken by the accused in the present case. The accused in his affidavit evidence has contended that, the complainant is his Judgment 11 C.C.No.27604/2018 friend, in the month of August, 2017 he had no financial difficulties, in that regard, he not borrowed any amount from the complainant as alleged. The complainant collected his 2 cheques for the purpose of release of his vehicle in the Police Station, because the complainant has met with an accident by using vehicle of the accused, in that connection the police have seized his vehicle.
The accused has further contended that, after collecting blank signed cheques by the complainant, himself filled the same and misused by filing the present complaint for making illegal gain. He not issued the questioned cheque in respect of repayment of any hand loan, as he not borrowed, but it was issued in connection to the release of vehicle, hence, he is not liable to pay the amount covered under the cheque.
16. Apart from, at the time of cross-examination of PW.1, accused counsel got confronted five documents and same are marked as Exs.D1 to D5. They are:
a) Ex.D1 is the true copy of complaint dated:17.02.2017 lodged by one Narayanappa.
b) Ex.D2 is the true copy of FIR in C.R.No.37/2017 registered by the Kyathasandra Police Station, Tumkur District.
Judgment 12 C.C.No.27604/2018
c) Ex.D3 is the reply notice dated:01.08.2018 issued by accused herein through his counsel to the complainant counsel and
d) Exs.D4 and D5 are the postal receipts.
The DW.1 was subjected to the cross-examination by the advocate for the complainant.
17. On going through the rival contentions of the parties, it made clear that, the accused in this case has seriously attack on the claim put forth by the complainant. On going through the materials it discloses, the complainant has brought the present case against the accused based on the questioned cheque at Ex.P1. Therefore, it is needs to draw the presumption as per Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As per Section 118(g), it shall be presume that, unless the contrary is prove, the holder of the cheque, the complainant received the cheque for discharge of legal liability. This presumption is rebuttable. Accordingly, Sections 139 and 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it also requires to presume that, cheque was drawn for discharge of liability of drawer, it is presumption under law. Therefore, it made clear that, by virtue of the above said sections stated, it made clear that, it requires to draw statutory presumption in favour of complainant that, in respect of discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt, the accused got issued Judgment 13 C.C.No.27604/2018 the Ex.P1-cheque unless and until contrary prove. Therefore, as per those sections, it made clear that, it is the initial onus on the accused to prove his case based on the principles of 'Preponderance of Probabilities'.
It is require to cite the decision reported in AIR 2010 SCC 1898, in a case between Rangappa V/s Mohan. Wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court pleased to observe that, the obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumption of law or facts unless the accused adduce evidence showing the reasonable probability of non-existence or presumed fact. Wherein also it was pleased to observed that, the accused can prove the non-existence of consideration by raising probable defence. If accused is able to discharge the initial onus of proof of showing that, the existing of consideration was improbably or adverse or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant, who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact, and upon its failure to prove would dis-entitle his to grant the relief on the basis of Negotiable Instruments Act. The burden on the accused of proving the non-existence of consideration can either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by referring to the circumstances upon which, he relies could bare denial of passing consideration apparently does not appears to be Judgment 14 C.C.No.27604/2018 any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the complainant. To disprove the presumption, the accused has to bring on record such facts and circumstances upon the consideration of which the court may either believe that, consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that, a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon that, it did not exist. Therefore, it made clear that, the accused need to take the probable defence mere denial is not enough.
That apart, in a decision reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4672, in a case between J.Ramaraj V/s Hiyaz Khan. Wherein, it was pleased to observed that, mere denial of issuing cheque, whether is sufficient to discharge the initial burden is to be looked into. In that dictum, it was pleased to held that, mere denial of issuing cheques would not be sufficient as it is time and again noted that, once the cheque issued duly signed by the accused, the presumption goes against him as per Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
18. On going through the provisions referred supra, it made clear that, whereas the presumption must prove that, guilt of Judgment 15 C.C.No.27604/2018 accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The standard or proof so as to prove a defence on the part of the accused is 'Preponderance of Probabilities'. Inference of 'Preponderance of Probabilities' can be drawn, not only from the materials brought on record by parties, but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.
19. On going through the above authorities as well as dictums, it made clear that, it is the initial burden on the accused to prove his probable defence in order to rebut the statutory presumption as well as the case put forth by the complainant. Therefore, the initial statutory presumption has to be drawn in favour of the complainant that, it was issued by the accused for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt, unless and until contrary prove. It was the burden on the accused to prove his probable defence by rebut the statutory presumption as well as facts. In that regard, the accused from the inception by way of caused reply, as attack on the claim of complainant and same has been continued till the fag end. It was the specific defence of the accused that, his motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA-02 HR-8539 was taken by the complainant and he rode the same along with pillion riders and one of the pillion rider succumbed to the injury and Judgment 16 C.C.No.27604/2018 police have seized the said vehicle in connection to the case registered as per Exs.D1 and D2.
20. No doubt, normally in accidental cases the police would seized the questioned vehicle, which met with an accident and subsequently by obtaining necessary order from the court would release interim custody of the vehicle owner subject to the conditions. No law courts demanded the vehicle owner to issue cheque or signed blank cheque as a security for release the interim custody of the vehicle, therefore, the very contention raised by the accused, gave his signed blank cheque being a owner of the said two wheeler motor bike is highly improbable and even it cannot be imaged. Even to establish, it was handed over to the complainant either in the Police Station or in the court for the purpose of release his interim custody of the said vehicle, he handed over the said signed blank cheques does not arise. If at all, any security is asked by the accused to indemnify the vehicle in the even of owner of the vehicle is not produced before the court for the purpose of trial, it is the owner of the vehicle needs to indemnify before the court. But as projected by the accused, he handed over the signed blank cheque either in the court or in the Police Station, has no water to accept his contention. Therefore, it is the accused needs to prove that, the said cheque was issued Judgment 17 C.C.No.27604/2018 by him to the complainant in connection to the said transaction. In that regard, no materials nor any evidence placed by the complainant and accused.
21. Looking out from the evidence of DW.1, it made clear that, the accused has not admitted the claim put forth by the complainant, but contended, he had no financial crisis to borrow the loan and hence, not issued the questioned cheque. From which it made clear that, the accused has strongly denied the borrowing of loan and issuance of cheque to the complainant. On going through the Exs.D1 and D2 it made clear that, the complainant by made use of motor bike of the accused met with an accident on 16.02.2017. The said factum is not been in- dispute. When complainant himself got caused loss to the motor bike of accused on 16.02.2017 itself creates doubt, as to when complainant himself not possessed his own vehicle, but he took the motor bike of the accused for his personal use, then would arise doubt about the financial financial capacity of the complainant from the appraisal of the sequences.
22. It is pertaining to note that, in the complaint, the complainant has pleaded and PW.1 has deposed that, he lent loan to the accused on 31.08.2017 and 01.09.2017 for the tune of Judgment 18 C.C.No.27604/2018 Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1 lakh respectively. He not stated anything about the previous loan transaction held between complainant and accused. Contrary to the same, during the course of cross- examination of DW.1, it was suggested by the complainant that:
"ಈ ಮದಲದ ಕಕಡ ನನದ ಪರರದಯಯಕದಗ ಸಕಷದ
ಷ
ಹಣಕಸದ ವನವಹರ ಮಡದ ಎಕದರ ಸರಯಲಲ. ನನದ ಪರರದಗ
ಕ ಕಕಡ ಅಮನನವಗತದತ ಎಕದರ
ಆ ಸಕಬಕಧ ಮದಲದ ನಹಡದ ಚಕದ
ಸರಯಲಲ. ಆ ಚಕಕಗ ಸಕಬಕಧಪಟಷಕತ ಪರರದ, ನನದ ಹಣವನದ
ನ
ಮರಳಸದ ಕರಣ ಮದಲ ಚಕಕನದ
ನ ಹಕದರದಗಸದರದ ಎಕದರ
ಸರಯಲಲ. ಸಕ ಸದತರ ಮದಕದದವರದದ ಪರರದಯಕದ ನನದ
ನ ಪಡದಲಲ ಎಕದದ ನದಡಯದತತರ."
ರವದಹ ಹಣವನದ
23. From the appraisal of the said testimony of DW.1, it was contention of the complainant that, prior to the alleged loan transaction, there were so many loan transactions were happened between complainant and accused.
24. That apart, further suggestion also discloses, the earlier cheque given by the accused to the complainant also came to be dishonoured. Thereafter, the accused got paid amount to the complainant and took back the said dishonoured cheque, but the said suggestion was denied by the DW.1 by alleging, he not borrowed any such loan. From the said testimony of DW.1, it revealed the another fold of transaction held between complainant and accused. As per the suggestion of the complainant, earlier Judgment 19 C.C.No.27604/2018 cheque came to be dishonoured, therefore, it is the complainant needs to explain, in which connection the accused gave earlier cheque and if at all, it was dishonoured, definitely, it should be reflected in the bank statement of the complainant. Therefore, regarding the dishonour of earlier cheque it is the complainant needs to furnish necessary document nor gave any explanation in his evidence. Therefore, the complainant possessed the previous cheque of the accused and it came to be dishonoured could have been seen and prove the defence of the accused that, he gave 2 signed blank cheques to the complainant is to be accepted and proved. If it was earlier transaction were happened between complainant and accused, was it repaid by the accused to the complainant or not, is not been disclosed. If at all, earlier transaction was concluded definitely, the complainant needs to furnish necessary documents, but the same lacks.
25. The complainant was not whispered anything about the earlier transaction held between complainant and accused and the presentation of previous cheque of the accused by the complainant itself creates doubt, as to the misuse of cheques of the accused. Therefore, the very said suggestion made from the side of complainant to the DW.1, it substantiate the probable defence of the accused that, his 2 signed blank cheques were in Judgment 20 C.C.No.27604/2018 the custody of the complainant, therefore, it is the complainant needs to explain in what connection he possessed the same, therefore, it creates serious doubt as to the happening of the alleged loan transaction. In view of the accused has rebutted the statutory presumption as well as the alleged transaction, it is reverse burden on the complainant to establish his case beyond the reasonable doubt.
It is well worthy to cite the decision reported in 2008 AIR SCC 7702 (P. Venugopal V/s.Madan P. Sarathi). Wherein, it was pleased to held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"The presumption raised does not extent to the expenditure that cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or liability. Which is required to be proved by the complainant. However, it is essentially a question of fact".
In another decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1633 (Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets). Wherein, it was pleased to held by the Hon'ble Apex court that:
(D) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 118, 139 and 138 - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 - How to be rebutted - Standard of proof required rebuttal - HELD, Rebuttal does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt -
Something probable has to be brought record -
Judgment 21 C.C.No.27604/2018 Burden of proof can be shifted back to complainant by producing convincing circumstantial evidence - Thereafter the said presumption arising under Section 118 and 139 case to operate - To rebut said presumption accused can also rely upon presumptions under Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114 (common course of natural even human conduct and public and private business) -
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Presumptions of fact under".
Added to that, in a decision of AIR 2008 SC 278 between John K John V/s. Tom Verghees, the Hon'ble Apex court it is held that:
"The presumption under Section 139 could be raised in respect of some consideration and burden is on the complainant to show that he had paid amount shown in the cheque. Whenever there is huge amount shown in the cheque, though the initial burden is on the accused, it is equally necessary to know how the complainant advanced such a huge amount".
26. From the point of above dictums also, it was the reverse burden casted upon the complainant to establish the very case beyond the reasonable doubt in order to convict the accused. On going through the pleading of the complainant as pleaded that, during last week of August, 2017, the accused had requested for Judgment 22 C.C.No.27604/2018 hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- to meet out his urgent family requirements. Therefore, on understanding the distress condition of the accused, he lent Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1 lakh on 31.08.2017 and 01.09.2017 respectively and he undertakes to repay the same within 3 months. On going through the said pleading, the complainant has pleaded that, on exact which date the accused was requested for the loan is not been specified. In the complaint he stated, to meet out urgent family requirements, on understanding the distress condition of the accused, he alleged to be paid money.
27. On going through the cross-examination of PW.1, he discloses that, "2017gÀ DUÀ¸ïÖ wAUÀ¼À PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀ°è DgÉÆæ, £À£ÀߣÀÄß gÀÆ.2,50,000/- ¸Á® PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ UÉÆwÛ®è. DgÉÆæUÉ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß wÃj¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV vÀ£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É MvÀÛqÀ EzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹ £À¤ßAzÀ ¸Á® PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. DgÉÆæ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÉÆåÃVAiÀiÁVzÀÝjAzÀ DvÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtð ªÀiÁ»w EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CµÉÆÖAzÀÄ w½¢®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆæ PÉʸÁ®, PÉærmï PÁqïð£À ¸Á®, ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ¸Á® EzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. D «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ w½¹gÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÆæAiÀÄ §½ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß Judgment 23 C.C.No.27604/2018 ªÀÄgÀ½¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ gÀQëvï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ PÉýzÀÝ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ PÀArzÉÝãÉ. DvÀ£À §½ JµÀÄÖ ¸Á® ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è."
28. On going through the said testimony of PW.1, though he reasserted, during last week of August, 2017 accused asking for the loan of Rs.2,50,000/-, he does not remember the date. He also deposed that, for the purpose of clear his own loan, since he had pressure, he asked for loan from the complainant. The advocate for the accused has asked the explanation as to the knowingness of the accused, personally being a colleague he deposed, he does not know the entire particulars of the accused. If at all, the accused is friend of the complainant, he must know the particulars and family requirements as he pleaded, but he not stated. In the said further cross-examination he deposed, the accused for the purpose of clear his hand loan, credit card loan as well as personal loan took money. He clearly admitted that, the said reason was not cited in his pleading. If it was his personal commitment of the accused, definitely, it is not urgent family requirement as pleaded by the complainant. Therefore, it creates doubt, as to what purpose the accused was borrowed the alleged loan from the complainant. He also deposed, one Mr.Rakshith was asking the accused for repay the loan he saw, but he does not know what was that loan amount. As per the say of PW.1, the Judgment 24 C.C.No.27604/2018 accused himself under pressure of suffering from loan to the various persons definitely, on which basis he expected, the accused is going to repay his loan itself creates doubt. It is not his contention that, he does not know to whom the accused needs to pay the said loan, but stated he had hand loan, credit card loan and personal loans. If it was true, it is the complainant needs to explain, what was the amount so due and inspite of lent the said loan directly to the said lenders, why he lent to the accused itself creates doubt. The very purpose pleaded and he deposed contradicts each other which creates doubt, as to the requirement of the loan of accused as contended by the complainant.
29. In the pleading he contended, on 31.08.2017 and 01.09.2017 he lent Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1 lakh to the accused. In that regard, the PW.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that:
"DgÉÆæUÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:31.08.2017 gÀAzÀÄ gÀÆ.1,50,000/- PÉAUÉÃjAiÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½, ¸ÀAeÉ 5.30. ರAzÀ 6.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ºÀt PÉÆnÖzÉÝ£ÀÄ, D ¸ÀAzÀ¨Àsð ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ EgÀ°®è. ªÀiÁgÀ£Éà ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ 01.09.2017 gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ gÀÆ.1 ®PÀëªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀzÁV, PÉAUÉÃjAiÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½ EgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ JnJA £À ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 12.00 UÀAmÉUÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÝ£ÀÄ. D JgÀqÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀ §UÉÎ zÁR¯É EzÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß Judgment 25 C.C.No.27604/2018 ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ E®è. £À£Àß L¹L¹L ¨ÁåAPï£À°è gÀÆ.1 ®PÀë ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨ÁåAPï£À°è gÀÆ.1,50,000/- £À£Àß SÁvɬÄAzÀ JnJA ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ £ÀUÀ¢ÃPÀj¹ PÉÆnÖzÉÝ£ÀÄ. D ¸ÀA§AzÀs ¨ÁåAPï£À ¸ÉÖÃmïªÉÄAmï ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ E®è."
30. The PW.1 has deposed that, on 31.08.2017 in between 5.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. in his house he lent the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused, by that time none were present in his house. He did not explain, on that day how he mobilized the fund and on whose presence he gave to the accused. Even not discloses, on which security he lent loan to the accused. That apart, further deposed, on the very next day on 01.09.2017 he lent loan of Rs.1 lakh by way of cash to the accused by withdrawing money through his ATM and gave it to the accused at 12.00 noon. Even he stated that, on those 2 days he gave money to the accused, he had document and no impediment to produce the same. If at all, he had any document which revealed on such and such date, he lent the said sum to the accused definitely, it is the best piece of evidence, but till the fag end of the case, the complainant has not produced the same which revealed, he concede some of the factum, therefore, it creates doubt as to the alleged lent of loan to the accused. Even he stated, those amount were taken from his bank account through ATM. In that regard he Judgment 26 C.C.No.27604/2018 produced the Ex.P8 his bank statement. On meticulous perusal of the said statement it disclose, on 31.08.2017 two times he withdraw money through his ATM for the tune of Rs.35,000/- and Rs.65,000/- and on the very same day, by way of MMT transfer he transacted. The said withdrawal discloses, the complainant himself withdrawn from his ATM and it does not revealed the said sum was given to the accused.
31. That apart, on 01.09.2017 he withdraw sum of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.20,000/- through ATM and on the very same day he made money transaction through MMT. It revealed that, the complainant was conversant with transacting through bank account, but the said account does not discloses, the transfer of amount to the accused, but it revealed he withdraw the same. On 01.09.2017 he only withdraw sum of Rs.80,000/-, but he claimed gave it to the accused for sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Then how again Rs.50,000/- he mobilized is not been clearly convinced to this court. The bank statement revealed the withdrawal of money by the complainant for his purpose, not revealed handed over to the accused. If at all, he withdraw money and given to the accused, since already he caused damage to the motor bike of the accused and there was rift between them as suggested by the advocate for the accused, definitely, the complainant needs to obtain security Judgment 27 C.C.No.27604/2018 document to establish the said transaction. But it is not his case that, any such security document is been taken by him from the accused. Even he did not transacted in the presence of witnesses it creates doubt, as to the genuineness of the transaction put forth by the complainant.
32. In order to show that, the complainant by withdrawing money from his bank account as found in Ex.P8 given to the accused no acceptable evidence placed by him. Therefore, it creates doubt as to the bonafidness of the complainant.
33. That apart, the complainant has pleaded, as undertaken within 3 months accused not issued the questioned cheque, but after his repeated requests and demands gave the cheque dated:27.03.2018. But in his cross-examination contrary to the same, he discloses different transaction has not been done with the accused. In that regard, he deposed that:
"DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¤¦.1 gÀ ZÉQÌUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖAvÉ gÀÆ.2,50,000/- zÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀzÀ «£ÀB DvÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁr®è."
34. On meticulous perusal of the said testimony of PW.1, he categorically admitted, except the alleged complaint loan transaction, he not did any other transaction with the accused.
Judgment 28 C.C.No.27604/2018 More categorically he deposed, in order to show that, he withdraw money from his account through ATM, not produced any document. It was the suggestion made to him that, per day only maximum extent of Rs.25,000/- can be draw through ATM, but he denies the said suggestion and deposes, at once withdraw maximum limit of Rs.1 lakh through ATM. On going through his own bank statement it discloses, though he alleged to be paid Rs.1,50,000/- on 31.08.2017, on the same day in his bank account maximum at twice in 2 transactions he got withdrawn Rs.35,000/- and Rs.65,000/- as as alleged by him, Rs.1,50,000/- was not withdrawn from his account, though it was withdrawn to an extent of Rs.1 lakh, it was for his personal, not produced any document to establish the said amount was on account transferred to the accused. Even in order to show that, whatever the amount he withdrawn was handed over to the accused is also no evidence not done in the presence of witnesses or any security document or receipt received in that regard.
35. As per say of PW.1, if he withdrawn Rs.1 lakh, then how he mobilized another sum of Rs.50,000/- as on 31.08.2017 in order to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused, no satisfactory explanation is forth coming from the side of complainant. Therefore, whatever the amount of Rs.1 lakh so withdrawn on 31.08.2017 is in the Judgment 29 C.C.No.27604/2018 name of complainant alone, it was paid to the accused no documents or evidence placed. That apart, on 01.09.2017 as he pleaded and deposed, he gave Rs.1 lakh to the accused, the said bank statement produced at Ex.P8 does revealed the withdrawal of Rs.1 lakh, the said amount personally withdrawn by th complainant to establish it was handed over to the accused as loan also no evidence or document is been produced.
36. No prudent man when lent the huge amount as such, without obtaining any security would not take risk to do such loan transaction. It is pertinent to note that, when the complainant himself put the motor bike of the accused in accident and cause damaged,, definitely, the accused having some dis-satisfaction about the complainant. Therefore, by ignoring the same, the complainant came forward to pay that much huge amount, even he met with an accident itself creates doubt and the complainant has not try to remove the same.
37. That apart, in the later part of above said deposition of PW.1, it was suggested to PW.1 that, accused gave 2 signed blank cheques to the complainant, but he categorically admitted that, on 31.05.2017 the complainant has presented one of the cheque of the accused for collection for the tune of Rs.1,10,000/-.
Judgment 30 C.C.No.27604/2018 In that regard, he had no impediment to produce the said cheque as well as bank statement. The said later portion of cross- examination revealed, the significance of presentation of another cheque pertaining to the accused for the tune of Rs.1,10,000/- dated:31.05.2017. The said presentation of the cheque dated:31.05.2017 it destroyed the very case of complainant that, as he deposed earlier he had not having any transaction with the accused. Then for what purpose the complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment on 31.05.2017 for sum of Rs.1,10,000/- itself creates doubt as to the bonafidness of the complainant. Taken in to consideration of the presentation of cheque on 31.05.2017 pertaining to the accused, it made clear that, it is past transaction alleged to be held between complainant and accused prior to the alleged complaint loan transaction dated:31.08.2017 and 01.09.2017 for the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. From the clear cut admission made by the PW.1, when he admitted the presentation of cheque on 31.05.2017 pertaining to the accused for sum of Rs.1,10,000/- it made clear that, prior to the alleged loan transaction made mentioned in the complaint, some transactions were happened, but the complainant has conceded the same. As per his say, earlier no transaction were happened, then why he presented the another cheque of the Judgment 31 C.C.No.27604/2018 accused on 31.05.2017 itself creates doubt and goes to the root of the present case. The presentation of cheque dated:31.05.2017 it made clear that, under the guise of Rs.1,10,000/- payable by the accused to the complainant might have been presented the cheque on the said date. If it is not the case of complainant and accused that, the said cheque was honoured or not honoured. The accused taken up the defence that, for the reasons stated in his evidence, he gave 2 signed blank cheques. By way of extract the said admission it made clear that, the complainant had possessed 2 cheques of the accused.
38. As per say of PW.1 admittedly, he presented the cheque dated:31.05.2017 for encashment of Rs.1,10,000/-, it leads to draw the adverse inference that, since the earlier transaction were pending as on the presentation of the said cheque at least to an extent of Rs.1,10,000/-, can expected the complainant to lent the loan again as alleged in the complaint it creates doubt. When cheque presented on 31.05.2017 it revealed that, by that time the relationship between complainant and accused already damaged, as the complainant ventured to move presentation of his cheque. Therefore, when earlier cheque itself was presented by the complainant pertaining to the accused, it needs to accept the Judgment 32 C.C.No.27604/2018 defence of the accused for the reasons better known to complainant, he took 2 signed blank cheques of the accused and made use of the same by presenting one on 31.05.2017 and another on 27.03.2018, therefore, it creates strong doubtful circumstances as to the bonafidness of the complainant. If at all, the earlier cheque presented on 31.05.2017 for the tune of Rs.1,10,000/- itself not got cleared, no prudent man would come forward to pay again for the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. That too, on 2 installments without any security document or in the presence of witnesses is highly improbable. Even the PW.1 has stated that, except the alleged loan transaction he did not have any transaction with the accused. Then which transaction has to be accepted either it was for Rs.1,10,000/- or for Rs.2,50,000/- itself not been satisfactorily explained. The accused has taken up the specific defence that, since the complainant has caused damage the motor bike of the accused in road accident he was in not good terms with the complainant and quarreled each other, therefore, he borrowed loan from the complainant as alleged and got issued the questioned cheques is to be accepted and by way of extracting the above said clear cut admission, the accused has successfully demonstrated his probable defence and destroyed the very case of the complainant in its entirety. Thereby, he Judgment 33 C.C.No.27604/2018 rebutted the statutory presumption as well as facts and circumstances narrated by the complainant. In the cross of PW.1, he categorically admitted that, whatever the amount deposited in his bank account for the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- dated:01.09.2017, it was an advance amount received by way of sell his property. Even he clearly admitted that, normally for the necessity of the vendor used to sell the property. He clearly admitted the same. Therefore, unless he produced his sale deed or sale agreement to establish what purpose he sold that property, the said amount was given to the accused without any profit as alleged by the complainant creates doubt. Even it was suggested to PW.1, whatever the amount so withdrawn from his bank account, it was for his personal use, not lent as alleged to the accused.
39. The accused has strongly suggested to the PW.1 that, questioned cheque was not issued by him to the accused for payment of any debt. In that regard, in the cross-examination of PW.1 it was suggested as to the fillings of Ex.P1-cheque signature at Ex.P1(a) and other writings are made in different hand writing and ink, but the PW.1 for the reasons better known to him has deposed he unable to understand. Even he categorically admitted that, his name in the cheque made mentioned in capital hand writing and ink.
Judgment 34 C.C.No.27604/2018
40. On meticulous perusal of the Ex.P1-cheque, it also discloses to the bare eyes that, the hand writing with regard to the mentioning of name of the complainant, amount and date is altogether different from the hand writing and ink of the admitted signature of Ex.P1(a), itself it creates doubtful circumstances that, no prudent man in different 3 hand writing filled the cheque and handed over to the complainant. It prima-faice made disclose, the complainant himself had not executed the Ex.P1-cheque. The complainant is also not satisfactorily demonstrated, who executed the said cheque in different hand writing and ink, thereby, it creates doubt, as to the due issuance of the same by the accused for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt. Mere the complainant possessed the questioned cheque of the accused, without establishing the legal transaction and liability of the accused, question of the accused got issued or executed the questioned cheque at Ex.P1 for discharge of legally existence of liability does not arise and complainant has utterly failed to prove discharge the reverse burden.
41. As discussed earlier, the accused is able to prove his probable defence that, for the some other reasons the questioned cheque and another cheque of the accused, which already presented by the complainant by mentioning the date:31.05.2017 Judgment 35 C.C.No.27604/2018 for Rs.1,10,000/- was possessed by him through the unknown means and got projected the present case by misusing his signed blank cheque. Therefore, he unable to establish the alleged loan transaction as made mentioned in the complaint. Even he utterly failed to demonstrate, the accused got issued the questioned cheque in respect of payment of legally recoverable debt. When complainant utterly failed to demonstrate,he had lent the loan of Rs.2,50,000/-, the question of accused got executed and issued questioned cheque to the complainant does not proved by the complainant. Therefore, mere because of got dishonoured his cheque would not create any financial liability on the accused to pay amount covered under the cheque. The complainant has utterly failed to demonstrate, he had lent the said loan to the accused and in turn, the accused got issued the questioned cheque for its repayment. When the complainant utterly failed to prove the factum of lent loan of Rs.2,50,000/-, question of draw the statutory presumption does not arise, in view of accused has successfully rebutted. The complainant has failed to demonstrate his case by furnishing clear, convincing and cogent evidence in establish the guilt of the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for acquittal.
Judgment 36 C.C.No.27604/2018
42. On overall appreciation of the material facts available on record, it discloses that, despite the accused harping on the very claim of the complainant, he fails to demonstrate his very case. While appreciate the materials available on record, this court has humbly gone through the decision relied by both parties apart from the following decisions.
In the decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2331 (B.Indramma V/s. Sri.Eshwar). Wherein, the Hon'ble Court held that:
"Held, when the very factum of delivery of the cheque in question by the accused to the complainant and its receipt by complainant from the accused itself is seriously disputed by the accused, his admission in his evidence that, the cheque in question bares his signature would not be sufficient proof of the fact that, he delivered the said cheque to the complainant and the latter received if from the former".
43. The principle of law laid down in the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Merely because, the accused admits that, cheque bares his signature, that, does not mean that, the accused issued cheque in discharge of a legally payable debt.
At this stage, this court also relies upon another decision reported in AIR 2007 NOC 2612 A.P. (G.Veeresham V/s.
Judgment 37 C.C.No.27604/2018 Shivashankar and another). Wherein, the Hon'ble Court has held as under:
"Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881). S. 138 Dishonour of cheque - Presumptions available to complainant under S. 118 and S. 139 of Act - Rebuttal of cheque in question was allegedly issued by accused to discharge hand loan taken from complainant. However, no material placed on record by complainant to prove alleged lending of hand loan said fact is sufficient to infer that, accused is liable to rebut presumptions available in favour of complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of Act, Order acquitting accused for offence under S. 138 proper".
44. The principle of law laid down in the above decisions is applicable to the facts of this case. In the case on hand also, as discussed above, the complainant has failed to prove with cogent evidence as to the lending of loan of Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused. Thus, that fact itself is sufficient to infer that, accused is able to rebut presumptions available in favour of complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
In a decision reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3366 (M.S.Narayana Menon Alian Mani V/s. State of Kerala and another). The Hon'ble Apex court held that:
Judgment 38 C.C.No.27604/2018 "Once the accused discharges the initial burden placed on him the burden of proof would revert back to the prosecution".
45. In this case on hand also, on the lack of the complaint failed to prove the alleged loan transaction, it can gather the probability that, he is not liable to pay Ex.P1 cheque amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and it is not legally recoverable debt. So, the burden is on the complainant to prove strictly with cogent and believable evidence that, the accused has borrowed the cheque amount and he is legally liable to pay the same. Just because, there is a presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, that, will not create any special right to the complainant so as to initiate a proceeding against the drawer of the cheque, who is not at all liable to pay the cheque amount. The accused has taken his defence at the earliest point of time, while record accusation and statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by way of denial. The evidence placed on record clearly probablize that, complainant has failed to prove that, accused issued the cheque for discharge of liability of Rs.2,50,000/-. Hence, complainant has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Judgment 39 C.C.No.27604/2018
46. From the above elaborate discussions, it very much clear that, the complainant has failed to adduce cogent and corroborative evidence to show that, accused has issued cheque Ex.P1 for discharge of his legally payable debt, for valid consideration. Hence, rebutted the legal presumptions under Section 139 and 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the accused.
47. The sum and substances of principles laid down in the rulings referred above are that, once it is proved that, cheque pertaining to the account of the accused is dishonoured and the requirements envisaged under Section 138 of (a) to (c) of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied, then it has to be presumed that, cheque in question was issued in discharge of legally recoverable debt. The presumption envisaged under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is mandatory presumption and it has to be raised in every cheque bounce cases. Now, it is settled principles that, to rebut the presumption, accused has to set up a probable defence and he need not prove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
48. Thus, on appreciation of evidence on record, I hold that, the complainant has failed to prove the case by rebutting the Judgment 40 C.C.No.27604/2018 presumption envisaged under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant has failed to discharge the reverse burden to prove his contention as alleged in the complaint. Hence, the complainant has not produced needed evidence to prove that, amount of Rs.2,50,000/- legally recoverable debt. Therefore, since the complainant has failed to discharge the reverse burden, question of appreciating other things and weakness of the accused is not a ground to accept the claim of the complainant in its entirety, without the support of the substantial documentary evidence pertaining to the said transaction. The complainant utterly fails to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. As discussed above, the complainant has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answered the Point Nos.1 and 2 are Negative.
49. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Judgment 41 C.C.No.27604/2018 The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of March - 2021) (SHRIDHARA.M) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : Kumara.C 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 : Postal Acknowledgment card Ex.P7 : Private complaint Ex.P7(a) : Signature of complainant Ex.P8 : Summary of account
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
DW.1 : Chethan List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
Exs.D1 & D2 : True copies of complaint and FIR Ex.D3 : Reply notice Exs.D4 & D5 : Postal receipts XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 42 C.C.No.27604/2018
26.03.2021.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide
separate order.
*****
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Judgment 43 C.C.No.27604/2018
The bail bond and cash security/surety
bond of the accused stands cancelled.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.