Bangalore District Court
M/S. Leoch Batteries (I) Pvt. Ltd vs R.B. Electronics on 4 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (ACMM34)
PRESENT: Sri KAMALAKSHA D, B.A., LLB.
XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE,
Dated : This the 4th day of January, 2020.
C.C.No.53399/2018
COMPLAINANT : M/s. Leoch Batteries (I) Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. By its authorized person
Sri S Paramesh,
S/o. Late Siddalingappa,
Aged 32 years,
Plot No.A 53(B), 2nd Main Road,
Peenya 2nd Stage, Industrial Area,
Bengaluru 560 058.
(By Smt.Nirmala B Hansi Advocate)
V/s
ACCUSED : R.B. Electronics
Rep. by its Proprietor,
Sri Balaji P R,
Aged about 45 years,
No.203, Kamraj Road,
Opp. Ganesha Temple,
Bengaluru 560 042.
(By Sri Bharath Kumar V, Advocate)
1 Date of Commencement 31.08.2017
of offence
2 Date of report of offence 17.11.2017
Presence of accused
3a. Before the Court 30.06.2018
3b. Released on bail 30.06.2018
4 Name of the Complainant M/s. Leoch Batteries (I) Pvt. Ltd.,
Date of recording of 14.03.2018
evidence
6 Date of closure of evidence 26.09.2019
2 C.C.No.53399/2018
7 Offences alleged U/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
8 Opinion of Judge Accused is found guilty.
JUDGEMENT
The Private Complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submits that it runs a power batteries business. The accused is one of its customers since 15 years.
The Complainant believing the accused was supplying materials on credit basis. The accused has taken delivery of more than Rs.55,00,000/ worth materials from the Complainant. The materials was received from the accused and Complainant approached the accused to make payments as it was due since long time.
3. It is further submitted that the accused issued 2 Cheques bearing No.871182 dtd.31.8.2017 for Rs.9,30,900 and another Cheque bearing No.871179 dtd.31.8.2017 for Rs.8,73,921/ both drawn on Canara Bank, 3 C.C.No.53399/2018
4. It is further submitted in the compliant that the said Cheques were presented by the Complainant through his banker HSBC Bank on 31.8.2017. But the said bank issued an endorsement for "funds insufficient" on 4.9.2017. After dishonour of the Cheques, the Complainant personally met the accused and informed regarding dishonour of Cheques. The accused did not respond to the request of the Complainant. After that the Complainant got issued Demand Notice through RPAD on 3.10.2017, calling upon the accused to pay the Cheques amount and the same was served to the accused on 6.10.2017. After receipt of the notice, the accused has not paid the cheques amount, but he has sent a reply entice dtd.23.10.2017. Therefore, the contention of the Complainant that the accused deliberately issued the Cheques in favour of the Complainant knowingly the fact of insufficient funds in his account. Therefore, the Complainant prays to convict and grant compensation.
5. The cognizance for offence was taken of my learned predecessor. The criminal case came to be registered against the accused. The summons was issued to the accused. The 4 C.C.No.53399/2018 accused in obedience of the summons appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail.
6. The substance of the accusation was framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him by the learned predecessor of this Court. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to try the case. Hence, the case was posted for complainant's evidence.
7. The Representative of the complaint company got examined himself as PW1 and got marked 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11.
8. The statement as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence appeared against him. The Accused himself has given up defence evidence. Ex.D.1 to Ex.D7 documents came to be marked through confrontation during the cross examination of PW1.
9. I heard the arguments of both side.
10. Now the following points that arise for the consideration of this Court are :
5 C.C.No.53399/2018
1. "Whether the Complainant proves the cheques issued by the accused person dishonoured with an endorsement as "funds insufficient" and inspite of service of legal notice and demand the accused person failed to pay the cheques amount within stipulated period as such he has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?"
2. What order ?
11. My answer to the above points are as follows :
POINT No.1 : In the Affirmative POINT No.2 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
12. POINT No.1 - The PW1 in the evidence stated that Accused has issued two cheques for sum of Rs.18,04,821/. The trustworthy of the PW1 is questioned in the cross examination. It has come in the evidence of the PW1 that the Accused company is in business transaction with the complainant company from 2014. The evidence of the PW1 shows that the complainant company has to maintain the service of batteries. However, the PW1 clarified that the complainant company has to maintain the service of battery upto warranty period. PW1 admits that the Accused company continuously intimated the defect of batteries from 2014 by way 6 C.C.No.53399/2018 of email letters. Therefore, one email letter is marked as Ex.D.1 upon confrontation. Again on 28.3.2015 the Accused company wrote another similar letter by mentioning the defects of batteries. The said intimation email letter has been marked as Ex.D2. As same process the Accused company wrote back to back 5 letters by mentioning the defects of the supplied batteries. Therefore, the defence of the Accused is that the complainant company had supplied defective batteries and the Accused company informed to the complainant company of said defective batteries. The PW says that complainant company had returned more than 500 batteries to the complainant company. Hence, it is proved that the Accused company returned more than 500 batteries. The suggestion of the Accused is that his company returned batteries of worth of Rs.8 to 9 lakhs. But the PW1 has answered stating that the said fact is not known to him. The further defence of the Accused is that the complainant company misused security cheques which was taken 2 - 3 years back. In spite of full payment of the amount the complainant company has filed false case. But the complainant denied it.
7 C.C.No.53399/2018
13. The complainant has produced 11 documents. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are the cheques issued in favour of of complainant company. The Accused being the proprietor of R.B. Electronics has issued two cheques. Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the two endorsements as to dishonour of cheques. Ex.P5 is the authorization letter. Ex.P6 is the demand notice dtd.3.10.2017. Ex.P7 is the Postal Receipt. Ex.P8 is the acknowledgement. Ex.P9 is the reply notice. Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 are the two email letters issued by the Accused company.
14. As discussed above, during the course of cross examination, the complainant has admitted issuance of 6 e mail correspondences regarding intimation of defects in the batteries supplied by the complainant company. Therefore, the total defence of the Accused is that complainant company had supplied defective batteries and those batteries were returned. The complainant has admitted the fact of return of many batteries, but he denies that the worth of returned batteries is not Rs.89 Lakhs. The crux of the case of the complainant is that the Accused company has issued 2 cheques for payment of dues of supplied items. The Accused never objected or denied the fact of issuance of 2 cheques. But his contention is that the 8 C.C.No.53399/2018 complainant company misused the security cheques which were issued 23 years back. It is for the Accused to explain the circumstances for issuance of security cheques. If the disputed cheques were issued for security purpose, the Accused could request with the complainant to return those cheques. Therefore, it is proved that the cheques are not issued for 'security purpose'. However, even the cheque is issued for 'security purpose' also comes under the definition of 'Sec.138 of N.I.Act.' Mere explanation is not enough to rebut the case of the complainant. There must be some proper explanation in the nature of cogent and rebuttal. Therefore, presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I.Act may be rebutted with strong piece of evidence. Mere explanation is not sufficient to disbelieve the case of the complainant.
15. As discussed above, the Accused never denied the fact of issuance of cheques. Similarly, the Accused has not denies the supply of batteries. Therefore, complainant and Accused have participated in business transaction and it is presumed that for discharge of payment of value of the batteries the, Accused has issued 2 cheques in question. Moreover, the Accused has not denied his signatures in disputed cheques. 9 C.C.No.53399/2018 Therefore, the guidelines of Rangappa V/s. Mohan case is very much applicable to this case. Because, once the signature is admitted in disputed cheque, another type of evidence is not required to believe that cheque in question is issued for discharge of debt or liability. The same concept is also applicable to this case since the Accused has not introduced evidence. Therefore, this court this court has come to the conclusion that the disputed cheques are issued for discharge of debt or liability. Therefore, the Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
16. POINT No.2 : In view of discussion held in Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act by sentencing to pay fine of Rs.21,09,821/ (Rupees Twentyone Lakhs Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Twentyone only). Out of which, Rs.21,04,821/ (Rupees Twenty one Lakhs Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Twentyone only) shall be paid as compensation to the Complainant in term of Sec.357 (1) of Cr.P.C 10 C.C.No.53399/2018 and Rs.5,000/ (Rs. Five Thousand only) shall be paid to the State ExChequer as fine. In default of payment of fine accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a tenure of 3 months.
The bail bonds executed by the accused stands continued.
Office is directed to comply the Sec.363 (1) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4th day of January, 2020) (KAMALAKSHA D), XXXIV ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 Mr.S Paramesh
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.2 Cheques Ex.P.3 & Ex.P.4 Bank endorsements Ex.P.5 Letter issued by the Complainant Ex.P.6 Office copy of Legal Notice Ex.P.7 Postal receipt Ex.P.8 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P.9 Reply notice
Ex.P.10 & Ex.P.11 Email correspondences
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused : NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused :
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 Email correspondences Ex.D.7 Delivery Challan (KAMALAKSHA D), XXXIV ACMM, BENGALURU.