Bangalore District Court
M/S Repose Mattress Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Supreme Enterprises on 21 December, 2024
C.C.NO.29631/2023
1
KABC030519182023
Presented on : 22-11-2023
Registered on : 23-11-2023
Decided on : 21-12-2024
Duration : 1 years, 0 months, 29 days th1
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:
Soubhagya.B.Bhusher,
B.A.,LL.B.,LL.M
XXVIII A.C.J.M.,Bengaluru City.
DATED: THIS THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER-2024
C.C.NO.29631/2023
Complainant: M/s. Repose Mattress Pvt.,Ltd.,
No.280 & 281, 100 Feet Road,
Sir.M.Vishweshwaraiah Layout,
6th Block, KLE Law College Road,
Opp:Ullal Lake, Ullal Village,
Bangalore-560110,
Rep by its Authorized Signatory
Mr.Vinay.N.
(By Sri.G.V.Ravi & Ors.,Advs.,)
V/s
Accused: M/s. Supreme Enterprises,
D/No.5-4-169/3(1) Ground Floor,
Lalbagh Towers, M.G.Road,
Mangalore. Ph.No.9108632299,
R/by its Proprietrix,
Smt.Asharani W/o Mr.Raju.
Also at:
Smt.Asharani W/o Mr.Raju,
Proprietorix, M/s.Supreme Enterprises,
C.C.NO.29631/2023
2
#3-112/108, 2nd Bajjodi, Maroli,
Bikarnakatte, Mangalore,
Dakshina Kannada, Kulshekar,
Karnataka-575005.
(By Sri.K.Chandranath Ariga & Ors.,Advs.,)
:JUDGMENT:
This case arises out of the private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused under section 200 of Cr.P.C., for an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant's in brief is as under:
It is the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a private limited company is registered under Companies Act, having its registered office at Coimbatore and having branch office at Bangalore and other places is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply mattresses, pillows and other like products for their customers, dealers and distributors. Further the accused has entered into an agreement for distribution with the complainant for the period 2021-22 and as per the said agreement, the accused had issued the cheque No.005809 drawn on Union Bank of India, Rambhavan Complex Branch, Dakshina Kannada for security purpose, to be used in the event, bills are not paid beyond the credit period. Thereafter the accused was doing business with the complainant, the complainant has supplied the C.C.NO.29631/2023 3 mattresses to the accused on credit. As per the terms the accused is required make the payment within 30 days. If the same is not paid within the due date, it would attract the interest at 24%. Further as per the statement of account as on 08.09.2023 there was an outstanding due of Rs.7,53,194.87. Thereafter same was intimated to the accused and demanded the payment for the same. With persistent demands the accused informed the complainant to present the security cheque issued by her. Accordingly, the complainant on 07.09.2023 has presented the said cheque dated: 06.09.2023 for Rs.7,53,195/- for encashment through its banker Axis Bank Ltd., Nagarabhavi 2nd stage branch, Bangalore. But the said cheque was dishonored as "Payment Stopped by Drawer" as per bank memo dated: 08.09.2023. Thereafter, on 03.10.2022 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon her to make pay the cheque amount. The said notice was duly served to the accused on 05.10.2023. After service of the notice she given an untenable reply. But failed to pay the cheque amount. As such, the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court on 06.11.2023.
3. After the complaint was filed, the cognizance of the offence cited therein was taken. Sworn statement of C.C.NO.29631/2023 4 the complainant was recorded. Since there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, an order was passed on 06.11.2023 to register the case in Register No.III and it was registered as a criminal case.
4. Thereafter, summons was issued to the accused and she has appeared before the court through counsel and secured bail. She was furnished its necessary papers as complied under section 208 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the plea of the accused was recorded by the court. She has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The complainant's in support of its case, have examined its Warehouse Incharge as PW.1 and got marked 23(a) documents at Ex.P.1 to 23(a) and closed its side.
6. After closer of the evidence of the complainant, the accused is examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. She has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against her. In her defence, the accused examined herself as DW.1 and 12 documents were marked at Ex.D.11 to 22. During the course of cross examination of P.W.1 10 documents were marked at Ex.D.1 to 10 by way of confrontation.
7. I have heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the written argument filed by the leaned C.C.NO.29631/2023 5 counsel for the accused and also perused the material placed on record.
8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the material placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the complainant proves the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability.?
2. Whether the complainant further proves that the accused had issued the cheque-Ex.P.1, towards the discharge of the said legally enforceable debt/liability.?
3.Whether the complainant further proves that cheque-Ex.P.1 was dishonored for the reasons "Payment stopped by Drawer" and thereafter the accused had failed to repay the same within the statutory period, inspite of receipt of legal notice.?
4. Whether the accused have thus committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.?
5. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: In the Affirmative Point No.4: In the Affirmative Point No.5: As per final order, for the following:
:REASONS:
10.POINT NO.1 AND 2: These points are inter-
C.C.NO.29631/2023 6 related to each other and finding given on any one point will bearing on the another. Hence, in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence, I have taken these points together for common discussion. The case of the complainant is that he was acquainted with the accused. Further the complainant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply mattresses, pillows and other like products for their customers, dealers and distributors. The accused has entered into an agreement for distribution with the complainant and as per the said agreement, the accused has issued alleged cheque in favour of the complainant for security purpose, to be used in the event, bills are not paid beyond the credit period. Thereafter the accused was doing business with the complainant, the complainant has supplied the mattresses to the accused on credit. As per the terms the accused is required make the payment within 30 days. If the same is not paid within the due date, it would attract the interest at 24%. Further as per the statement of account there was an outstanding due amount of Rs.7,53,194.87. The same was intimated to the accused and demanded the payment for the same. With persistent demands the accused informed the complainant to present the security cheque issued by her. Accordingly, the complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through its banker. But the said cheque was dishonored as "Payment Stopped by Drawer".
C.C.NO.29631/2023 7 Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon her to make pay the cheque amount. The said notice was duly served to the accused and she has given an untenable reply. But failed to pay the cheque amount. As such, the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court.
11. In support of the case, the complainant's have examined its Warehouse Incharge as P.W.1 and 23(a) documents were marked at Ex.P.1 to 23(a). In the chief examination P.W.1 has repeated the contents taken by the complainant in the complaint. Ex.P.1 is the cheque issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.7,53,195/-. Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of the accused. Ex.P.2 is the bank memo dated: 08.09.2023 informing the dishonor of the cheque as "Payment Stopped by Drawer". Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice dated: 03.10.2022. Ex.P.4 are is the postal receipts. Ex.P.5 is the postal acknowledgment. Ex.P.6 is the returned postal cover. Ex.P.6(a) is the returned legal notice. Ex.P.7 is the reply notice. Ex.P.8 is the board resolution. Ex.P.9 is the GST registration certificate. Ex.P.10 is the Ledger account statement. Ex.P.11 is the certificate under section 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.12 is the agreement held between the accused and the complainant company. Ex.P.13 to C.C.NO.29631/2023 8 21 are the tax invoices. Ex.P.22 is the complaint. Ex.P.23 is the e-mail correspondence between the complainant company and accused. Ex.P.23(a) is the certificate under section 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act.
12. In order disprove the case of the complainant, the accused examined herself as DW.1 by way of affidavit and totally 22 documents were marked at Ex.D.1 to 22. In the chief examination D.W.1 has repeated the defence taken by her. Ex.D.1 is the scheme letter. Ex.D.2 to 10 are the invoices. Ex.D.11 is the copy of the acknowledgment letter of stop payment. Ex.D.12 is the printout copy of the e-mail correspondence between the complainant company and the accused. Ex.D.13 is the e-mail correspondence between the complainant and the accused dated:
15.07.2023. Ex.D.14 is the e-mail correspondence between the complainant and the accused dated:
15.08.2023. Ex.D.15 is the e-mail correspondence between the complainant and the accused dated: 09.09.2022. Ex.D.16 is the certificate under section 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.D.17 to 21 are the bills. Ex.D.22 is the debit note.
13. In order to attract the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant is firstly required to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the cheque came to be issued. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued C.C.NO.29631/2023 9 that from the evidence placed on record, it is the fact that the complainant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply of mattresses, pillows and other like products for the customers, dealers and distributors. Further argued that the accused entered into an agreement for distribution with the complainant for the period 2021-22 and as per the said agreement the accused had issued the cheque in question for security purpose, to be used in the event, bills are not paid beyond the credit period. Thereafter, the accused was doing business with the complainant and the complainant has supplied the mattresses to the accused on credit basis, as per the invoice terms the accused is required to make the payment within 30 days. If the same is not paid within the due date, it would attract the interest @ 24% P.A. Further argued that as per the statement of account as on 08.09.2023 there was outstanding due of Rs.7,53,194.87. The complainant was intimated the same to the accused and demanded the payment for the same. At that time the accused informed the complainant to present the security cheque issued by her. As per the request of the accused the complainant presented the said cheque for Rs.7,53,195/- for encashment through its banker. But the said cheque was dishonored as "payment stopped by drawer".
14. He further argued that the accused has not C.C.NO.29631/2023 10 denied Ex.P.1 being her drawn on the account of the accused. When the signature is not disputed, the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act is to be drawn in favour of the complainant. The accused has failed to elicit anything in the cross examination of P.W.1 to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The defence have failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the accused has failed to produce any believable evidence that she had issued the blank cheques in favour of the complainant for the purpose of security and why she has not returned back the same is not clear. He further argued that under section 139 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption that the cheque has been issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability. In the present case, the accused has not disputed Ex.P.1 being her cheque drawn on the account of the accused. The said presumption is available to the complainant. Moreover, under section 118 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption that the Negotiable Instruments is drawn on the date, for the amount and in favour of the person as shown in it. It is for the accused to rebut the said presumption. But in the case on hand no such evidence forthcoming. It was also argued by him that as per the defence by the accused that she had given two blank signed cheques to the complainant for the purpose of security. As such, very defence of the accused is not believable.
C.C.NO.29631/2023 11
15. He further argued that the accused has not produced believable evidence to prove her defence. Upon careful perusal of the entire evidence of records both the oral as well as documentary evidence the complainant have proved their case. Further argued that the accused seriously disputed that the complainant company collected the blank cheques for the purpose of security and company have misused the one of cheque. However, she has miserably failed to prove the said fact. Further argued that the materials available on record clearly established that the accused admitted the issuance of the cheque to the complainant. The initial burden is on the complainant to prove that the cheque was issued in favour of the complainant towards payment of amount, then onus shifts upon the accused to prove her defence and it is for the accused to rebut the legal presumption enumerated under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As per presumption the cheque was issued for discharge of legal liability and it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by adducing the cogent and convincing evidence. It was further argued that under the facts and circumstances the complainant have proved that in order to repayment of the amount the accused had issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant. The accused has not produced any evidence to prove her probable defence. Under these circumstances the complainant have C.C.NO.29631/2023 12 established their case in compliance of 138 of the N.I.Act. Hence, he prays to convict the accused.
16. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that there was no any legally enforceable debt/liability to the complainant from the accused for which the cheque was issued. Further argued that the accused is not liable to pay any amount, much less the amount claimed by the complainant in the complaint. It is further argued that the accused has not issued the alleged cheque in favour of the complainant to discharge any liability as alleged by the complainant. It is further argued that the complainant it is falsely stated in the complaint that the accused has issued the cheque for security to be used in the event, bills are not paid beyond the credit period. It is further argued that the complainant not supplied the scheme repose mattresses to the accused, inspite of repeated request and the demand made by the accused and thereby the accused has given a stop payment letter to her banker pertaining to the cheque issued by the accused, as security. It is further argued that by taking undue advantage of the cheque the complainant has filed this false case against the accused. Further argued that as on the date of presentation of the cheque, there is no due from the accused as contended by the complainant. Further argued that the accused is not liable to pay amount to the complainant as mentioned C.C.NO.29631/2023 13 in the cheque. It is further argued that the complainant have misused the cheque, which was given for the purpose security and filed false case against the accused only to harass the accused.
17. The learned counsel for the accused has filed written argument. In his written argument it is submits that the complainant has filed a false case against the accused and claimed that the accused has an outstanding due amount of Rs.7,53,194.87. The complainant without any material documents, illegally claimed the above said amount without any basis. Further the accused is not liable to pay the amount in the cheque. Moreover the accused has not issued cheque in question to the complainant for repayment of alleged due amount as contended in the complainant. This is not legally enforceable debt amount. The complainant misused blank signed cheque of the accused filed present complaint with an intention to make unlawful gain. There is no legally recoverable amount due by the accused to the complainant. The complainant suppressing true facts has filed the present complaint with an intention to extract money from the accused without documentary proof. In the complaint, the complainant contended that as on 08.09.2023 the accused had an outstanding due of Rs.7,53,194.87 and same was intimated to the accused and the accused informed the complainant to present C.C.NO.29631/2023 14 the security cheque and the complainant presented the said cheque through their bank for the purpose of encashment. The said cheque was returned for the purpose of payment stopped by the drawer. Further submits that later legal notice was issued to the accused and the accused caused untenable reply. Later the complainant filed present complaint against the accused for alleged offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
18. It is further submits that the accused appeared through counsel and clearly denied averments made in the complainant and took specific contention that she has not issued cheque in question repayment of alleged outstanding due as stated in the complaint. The accused further took specific contention that she is due of Rs.2,21,485/-. The complainant without any documentary proof is illegally trying to claim of Rs.7,53,194/-. This is totally false. This is not legally recoverable amount. Further submits that the accused is proprietrix and she had entered into an agreement for distribution of sleeping mattress with the complainant for the year 2021-22. At the time of entering into an agreement with the complainant the accused had given two blank signed cheque No.005808, 005809 drawn on Union Bank of India, RBC Branch, Mangaluru for security purpose of business transaction. The complainant without C.C.NO.29631/2023 15 knowledge of the accused and without her consent filled particulars in the cheque and filed the case. The accused is not liable to pay cheque amount to the complainant. Further submits that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement for distribution of goods, during the course of business, the accused had promptly cleared payment of all invoices raised by the complainant. Around the time of August 2022 due to differences between the accused and the complainant, the accused had decided to stop business with the complainant and requested the complainant to take back the remaining mattress stock worth of Rs.6,37,306/- and the same was taken back by the complainant (Ex.D.17 to 22). The accused later requested the complainant to issue final ledger statement amount the transactions held between her and the complainant. The complainant has not given the final ledger statement. The complainant got created ledger statement, all the invoices and filed false case against the accused.
19. It is further submits that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement about sale mattress, the accused was entitled to free mattresses under dealer scheme. As per the dealer scheme, the accused was entitled to 35 free Repose mattresses. Out of the said 35 Repose mattresses the complainant had supplied only 9 mattresses and the complainant is due to supply C.C.NO.29631/2023 16 the remaining 24 free Repose mattresses. The value of the said 24 mattresses is Rs.3,32,294/-. The complainant in its e-mail dated 27.07.2023 clearly admitted that the accused is entitled to 35 free Repose mattress but rather supplied only 9 free Repose mattresses. The complainant has without instructions misused blank signed cheques of the accused and has filed false case against her. Therefore the accused is not liable to pay the alleged cheque amount of Rs.17,53,194.87/-. Further submits that the complainant had called for a meeting after termination of the Distribution Agency to discuss about the outstanding amount. The outstanding amount was arrived at and later payment was made by the accused to the complainant. There was final outstanding in a sum of Rs.5,84,000/- payable by the accused to the complainant company. Out of the said amount, the complainant company as per the scheme was due to supply 35 Repose Mattresses to the accused. The value of such mattresses is Rs.3,32,294/-. Therefore the accused had requested the complainant to furnish me the ledger statement. This was not furnished. Further submits that the complainant did not respond to request of the accused to issue final ledger extract. Therefore, the accused requested her banker to stop payment of the cheque No.005808 and 005809. Inspite of stopping payment of the above said cheques and informing the complainant not to present the cheques, C.C.NO.29631/2023 17 the complainant presented the cheque in question.
20. It is further submits that there is no agreement between the accused and the complainant that the cheque for the purpose of security can be encashed in the event of non-payment of bills beyond the credit period. The complainant has falsely stated that there is an agreement between the accused and the complainant to used the security cheques for payment of due bills. The alleged agreement is not placed before the court. There was no outstanding due of Rs.7,53,194.87 as on 08.09.2023. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that, the complainant has right to use security cheques for payment of pending bills. There is no legally recoverable debt from the accused to the complainant. Further the accused has not issued cheque in question to the complainant and therefore she is not liable to pay the amount shown in the cheque in question to the complainant. The complaint is therefore liable to be rejected. The complainant examined one Vinay.N an authorized signatory to the complainant. The authorization letter is not filed. He was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 23. In the cross examination of PW.1 has stated that he does not have any information as to when the accused started business with the complainant company. Further submits that he does not have any information about C.C.NO.29631/2023 18 the totally amount of business done by the accused with the complainant. He has stated that he has no proper information and gave evidence without knowledge of the business. Further he has admitted that under the dealer scheme there is a procedure to supply free mattress to the accused. Further he admitted on 27.07.2023, the complainant sent an email to the accused and informed the accused that she is eligible for 35 number of free mattress for the business done by her. It needs to be stated that under out of the 35 numbers of free mattress, the complainant company supplied 9 mattress and was due of 24 mattress. The cost of 24 free mattress amounts to Rs.3,32,294/-. The complainant company without adjusting this amount illegally claimed Rs.7,53,195/- and also further illegally added interest of Rs.1,67,332/- to the outstanding dues. This is illegal. In the agreement i.e., Ex.P.12, there is no clause to charge interest on due amount. The complainant without any agreement and documentary proof charged interest on the outstanding due. Therefore, there is no legally recoverable debt from the accused. The accused has not issued cheque in question to the complainant towards the amount due. Therefore, the provisions of section 138 of N.I.Act is not attracted.
21. It is further submits that in the month of August 2022, the accused stopped business with the C.C.NO.29631/2023 19 complainant company. Further it is admitted that they have taken back the remaining mattress from the accused. In the cross examination of PW.1 clearly admitted cost of the free mattress is Rs.3,32,294/- and it was not shown in the statement of account and further he stated that it is not possible to state these in a ledger account statement. The complainant company without adjusting cost of free mattress of Rs.3,32,294/- illegally claimed the amount outstanding as Rs.7,53,195/- as on 08.09.2023. The complainant company is trying to claim excess amount from the accused. PW.1 further admitted that the complainant company collected blank signed cheques from the distributors. PW.1 clearly admitted that the accused has not informed the complainant to mention the amount in the cheque and fill the date and other particulars in the cheque and he has stated that as per the instruction by the sales manager, he filled the particulars in the cheque. As per the statement of PW.1, the accused has not authorized the complainant company to present the security cheque for encashment. PW.1 has stated that there was an agreement between the complainant and the accused, if the accused failed to clear the due amount she authorized the complainant to present the security cheque for encashment. PW.1 has stated that he produced said document before the court. As per Ex.P.12 the accused has not authorized the complainant company present the security cheque.
C.C.NO.29631/2023 20 PW.1 admitted invoices of the complainant company which are marked as Ex.D.2 to 10. Further he admitted there was differences in the conditions in Ex.P.13 to 21 and Ex.D.2 to 10. As per Ex.P.10, the complainant without any basis illegally charged interest of Rs.1,67,332/-. As per the agreement Ex.P.12, there is no clause of interest on the payment due. Ex.P.13 to 21 are created only for purpose of this case. Now the complainant without any proof has illegally claimed Rs.7,53,195/-. The accused is not liable to pay the cheque amount.
22. Further submits that the accused examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 22. As per the documents placed by the accused, the accused is not liable to pay the cheque amount. As per Ex.D.11, after issuing stop payment letter by the accused dated:
05.08.2023, the complainant intentionally presented the cheque on 06.09.2023. Therefore it is very clear that the cheque in question was not issued by the accused for repayment of alleged outstand due amount. In the written argument he has relied upon the citations reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39: In the case of M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani V/s. State of Kerala and Anr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court Held that initial burden of proof is on the accused to rebut the said presumption by raising probable defence, if he discharges the said burden the onus there after shifts C.C.NO.29631/2023 21 on the complainant to prove his case. Burden of proof on the accused is not heavy".
23. In the case of (2007) 12 SCC 714: In the case of John K John and Tom Vargheese and Anr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that presumption under section 139 whether rebutted by the accused-conduct of the parties taken note of by court-findings of fact arrived at by High Court arrived in favour of the accused".
24. In the case of (2008) 4 SCC 54: In the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat V/s Dattathreya G.Hegde, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the presumption must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is preponderance of probabilities".
25. Further in (2009) 2 SCC 513: In the case of Kumar Export V/s Sharma Carpets, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the court need not insist in every case, that the accused should disprove the non- existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because of the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated".
26. Further in the case of CRM-M-25025-2015 dated: 17.05.2024: The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Hariyana at Chandigarh held that as per provisions C.C.NO.29631/2023 22 of section 80 of N.I.Act, either the initial contract or the notice or complaint has to specify the interest. Thus the cheque cannot contain the interest part because it will attract only when the cheque amount is not encashed i.e., dishonored" .
27. Further in (2018) SCC Online Kar 3989: In the case of Parmila Bhai V/s Bhaskar Narasimiah, the High Court of Karnataka held that section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that, there should be an existence of legally recoverable debt and in order to attract section 138 of N.I.Act, the party has to prove with regard to the existence of legally recoverable debt".
28. Further in the case of 2024 SCC online Bom 1711: In the case of Tukaram V/s. Dilip and Anr, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held that fundamental burden is on the complainant to prove existence of legally enforceable debt and only if it is so proved, only the presumption available under law".
29. He further submit that the complainant failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that the accused is due an amount shown in the complaint. The accused has not committed any offence and has not issued cheque in question to the complainant to the amount due. Therefore provision of C.C.NO.29631/2023 23 section 138 of N.I.Act is not attracted. Hence, he prays to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused.
30. The very amount due by the accused is seriously challenged. The accused also denied issuing the cheque-Ex.P-1 in favour of the complainant for discharge of any legally enforceable debt. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the evidence regarding the due amount and issuing of cheque. The complainant claims that the accused has entered into an agreement for distribution with the complainant for the period 2021-22 and as per the agreement, the accused has issued the cheque for security purpose, to be used in the event, bills are not paid beyond the credit period. Thereafter the accused was doing business with the complainant. The complainant has supplied mattresses to the accused on credit. As per the invoice terms the accused is required to make the payment within 30 days. As per the statement of account there was an outstanding of due amount of Rs.7,53,194.87 as on 08.09.2023. The same was intimated to the accused and demanded the payment for the same. With persistent demands the accused informed the complainant to present the security cheque issued by her. During the course of cross examination, DW-1 admits that:
"ನಿಡಿ.14 ರ ಪ್ರ ಕಾರ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಯವರಿಗೆ ರೂ.8,60,791/- ಹಣ ಬಾಕಿ ಇರುತ್ತ ದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಡಿ.14 ರ ಪ್ರ ಕಾರ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದು ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಯವರಿಗೆ C.C.NO.29631/2023 24 ರೂ.16,35,262/- ಹಣ ಕೊಡುವುದು ಬಾಕಿ ಇದ್ದು , ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಡೀಲರ್ ಕಡೆಯಿಂದ ರೂ.4,11,477/-, ಪೆಂಡಿಗ್ ಮಾಟ್ರ ಸ್ ರೂ.3,17,246/-, ಪೆಂಡಿಂಗ್ ಕ್ರೆ ಡಿಟ್ ನೋಟ್ ರೂ.45,748/-
ಈ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕಳೆದರೆ ನಾನು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಯವರಿಗೆ ರೂ.8,60,791/- ಹಣ ಕೊಡುವುದು ಬಾಕಿ ಇರುತ್ತ ದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಆರು ತಿಂಗಳ ಒಳಗೆ ಪಾವತಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ರೂ.8,60,791/- ಹಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಪಾವತಿಸಿರುತ್ತೆ ನೆಂದು ಹೇಳುವ ರೂ.1,14,000/- ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕಳೆದರೆ ನಾನು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದು ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಯವರಿಗೆ ಇನ್ನೂ ರೂ.7,46,791/- ಹಣ ಕೊಡುವುದು ಬಾಕಿ ಇರುತ್ತ ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಡಿ.1 ರ ಪ್ರ ಕಾರ ಡೀಲರ್ ಗಳು ಒಂದು ತಿಂಗಳ ಒಳಗೆ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪಾವತಿಸಿದರೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸ್ಕಿ ಮ್ ಮಾಟ್ರ ಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯಲು ಅರ್ಹರು ಆಗುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು ಷರತ್ತು ಇರುತ್ತ ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ದಿಃ 05.08.2023 ಕ್ಕೆ ಚೆಕ್ಕಿ ಗೆ ಸ್ಟಾ ಪ್ ಪೇಮೆಂಟ್ ನೀಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ದಿಃ 21.07.2023 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಯ ಕೃಷ್ಣ ಎನ್ನು ವವರು ಚೆಕ್ ನ್ನು ಹಾಜರಿಸುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಇ-ಮೇಲ್ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿದ್ದ ರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ದಿಃ 05.08.2023 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಖಾತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರ ಶ್ನಿ ತ ಚೆಕ್ಕಿ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿರುವಷ್ಟು ಹಣ ಇತ್ತು ಎಂದು ತೋರಿಸಲು ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ಸ್ಟೇಟ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ಹಾಜರಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯ ವಿಲ್ಲ . ನಿಡಿ.17 ರಿಂದ 22 ರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಿಪಿ.10 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ನಮೂದು ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ".
31. In the cross-examination of D.W.1 as extracted hereinabove, clearly establish that the complainant have supplied the mattresses to the accused on credit basis and the accused had received the same from the complainant. Further clear that as per the agreement for a distribution the accused has issued the cheque in question for the purpose of security, further the accused is due of Rs.7,46,791/- to the complainant. Now the moot question arises for determination is "whether the accused had issued the cheque in favour of the complainant for the purpose of security only. It is also worthwhile to consider that the C.C.NO.29631/2023 25 accused has not at all produced any iota of evidence in support of her contention. Further it is also worthy to note that the accused had issued the cheque as per the said agreement and she has purchase the mattresses on credit period. Hence, question of issuance of cheque for security purpose only does not arise at all, further she admitted the due amount to the complainant, necessarily adverse inference is to be drawn for withholding material piece of evidence as per Section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act. It is also trite that admissions are substantial piece of evidence, which can be relied upon to determine the rights of the parties in the absence of proper explanation.
32. In the case on hand the complainant and the accused having some transactions has not been seriously disputed by the accused. Further the accused has not seriously disputed she had issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant. It is not disputed that the complainant is a private limited company and the accused is a proprietary concern and the accused is a proprietrix and businesswoman. Whereas, the accused has contended that she had given two blank chaques to the complainant for the purpose of security. The accused has specifically denied having debt/liability of Rs.7,53,195/- and issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 towards the discharge of any debt/liability. She contends that the blank cheques C.C.NO.29631/2023 26 given by her to the complainant for the purpose of security one of the cheque as was misused by the complainant and the false complaint was filed.
33. In order to attract the offence of the section 138 of N.I.Act, the main ingredients of the existence of the legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the cheque drawn on the account of the accused was given for discharge of the same, are to be proved. The complainant's in order to prove its case, have examined its Warehouse Incharge as PW.1 and 23(a) documents were marked at Ex.P.1 to 23(a). In chief examination, P.W.1 has repeated the averments made by the complainant in the complaint. In the present case, the accused has not disputed Ex.P.1 being her cheque drawn on the account of the accused. The said presumption is available to the complainant.
34. As per the section 139 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption regarding the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Such presumption is rebuttable presumption and it is opinion to the accused to raise defence discharging the existence of a legally enforceable debt/liability. In the case on hand also the accused has disputed the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which cheque-Ex.P.1 was issued. In order to prove her defence, the accused has failed to produce cogent evidence.
C.C.NO.29631/2023 27
35. Since, the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act is a rebuttable presumption the accused is firstly required to produce some probable evidence to rebut the same. Though in the criminal cases, the standard of the proof required for the accused is not so strict as required for the complainant to prove the case. Further the accused has to produce some probable evidence, which creates doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability. In the present case, as per the defence taken by the accused is that she had given two blank signed cheques to the complainant for the purpose of security. Further she is due only for a sum of Rs.2,21,485/-. Except, the said defence, she has not produced any materials to prove such defence. If she had given two blank signed cheques to the complainant for the purpose of security only, what prevented the accused to file the complaint immediately after the alleged illegal act made by the complainant. Further what prevented the accused to file the complaint against the complainant for misusing of the said cheque. On which date the accused came to knew about the alleged illegal act of the complainant, she did not whisper about on what date she came to know the alleged cheque illegally misused by the complainant. Admittedly the accused is a businesswoman and having knowledge of the financial transaction, why she has given blank signed cheques to the complainant for the purpose of security only without anticipating the C.C.NO.29631/2023 28 consequence is not explained by her. So also, she has not stated anything as to what steps she took to receive back the blank signed cheques. Moreover, immediately after the alleged blank cheque misused by the complainant she has not lodge complaint before concerned police station. No steps have been taken to receive back the blank signed cheques, after he came to know about the same.
36. Once issuance of the cheque and signature are admitted, the statutory presumptions would arise under sections 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act that the cheque was issued by the drawer for legally payable debt or liability and for valid consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Rangappa V/S Mohan, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 296, the presumption that the cheque was drawn in discharge of legally recoverable debt is a presumption of law that ought to be raised in every case, though, it is a rebuttable presumption. Ofcourse, the presumption under section 139 and 118 of the N.I.Act are rebuttal presumption. Further it is also held that mere plausible explanation by the drawer is not sufficient and proof of that explanation is necessary. The principle of law laid-down in the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. In the instant case, since the complainant is in possession of the cheque-Ex.P.1 the court has to draw the initial presumption that he is the payee of that C.C.NO.29631/2023 29 cheque. Once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant, the onus shifts on the accused to rebut the complainant's case.
37. Further the accused has taken defence that the cheque was given as security. Further this is not a legally enforceable debt amount. The complainant misused the blank signed security cheque and filed present complaint with an intention to make unlawful gain. Hence, an offence under section 138 of N.I.Act, is not attracted. In this regard once issuance of cheque and signature are admitted, the statutory presumptions would arise under sections 138 of N.I.Act that cheque was issued by the drawer for legally payable debt/liability and for valid consideration. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in 2021 SCC Online SC 1002 in the case of Sripati Singh (Since deceased) through his son Gaurav Singh V/s State of Jarkhand and another as categorically held that once the cheque is issued as security for the loan and if the loan is not paid back then if the cheque is dishonored which attract 138 of N.I.Act. The principle of law laid- down in the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the contention of the accused cannot be acceptable that the cheque was given only for security purpose, but without producing any documents, then she has to pay the cheque amount when it is presented for encashment which is legally C.C.NO.29631/2023 30 recoverable debt.
38. In the case of K.S.Ranganatha V/s Vittal Shetty, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1191, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability. It is further held that the position of law makes it crystal clear that when a cheque is drawn out and is relied upon by drawee, it will raise a presumption that it is drawn towards a consideration which is a legally recoverable amount; such presumption of course, is rebuttable by proving to the contrary. The onus is on the accused to raise a probable defence and the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is on preponderance of probabilities.
39. In the case of Kalamani Tax and another V/s P.Balasubramanian, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence C.C.NO.29631/2023 31 to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
40. Applying the above said principles to the present case and before considering the point whether the accused succeeded to rebut the presumptions and to establish her defence to the extent of probabilities, it is just and necessary to accumulate undisputed facts in this case.
41. It is not in dispute that bounced cheque belongs to the bank account of the accused. It is also not in dispute that signature appearing on the bounced cheque is the signature of the accused. It is also not in dispute that the cheque presented by the complainant came to be dishonored by the banker of the accused for the reasons stated in the dishonor memo. To consider whether the accused succeeded to rebut the presumption and established the defence to the extent of probabilities, in this regard the accused has not produced any documents before this court.
42. In the defence there is no ill-will between the complainant and the accused. Hence, misuse of cheque and filing a false case is not possible. The accused admittedly having knowledge of business. It is implies, she is conversant with financial transaction. If the complainant misused the said cheque and had not return the same, inspite of collecting cheques leaves from her as security, as a prudent man, the accused C.C.NO.29631/2023 32 should have inquired with the complainant and demanded to return those cheques. No ordinary prudent man would keep quite in such circumstances, without taking any steps. The conduct of the accused is very unusual, because she did not take any legal action against the complainant, even after filing of the complaint based on Ex.P.1. Further on 21.07.2023 the representative of the complainant sent e-mail to the accused for presentation of the cheque. Thereafter, on 05.08.2023 the accused has given stop payment letter to the bank as Ex.D.11, but the accused has not issued any legal notice to the complainant regarding issuance of stop payments to the bank or she could have given complaint to the police station immediately. No such steps were taken by the accused. Further the accused has not produced any documents before this court that there was sufficient balance in the bank account on the date of presentation of the cheque. The accused simply makes a bald allegation of misuse of the security cheque against the complainant. It appears, just to escape from her legal liability, she has taken such contentions without any valid basis. Further the accused has taken the defence that the complainant company not supplied the scheme mattresses to the accused as per Ex.P.23. Further she is only due for a sum of Rs.2,21,485/-. Further the complainant with ill motive of making unlawful gains and the complainant has deposited the security cheque in the bank, for C.C.NO.29631/2023 33 which she has already made stop payment. After issuing stop payment letter the complainant presented the said cheque to the bank. If the complainant not supplied the scheme mattresses to the accused as agreed by them, action can be taken against them in the proper forum. It appears, just to escape from her legal liability, she has given stop payments letter to the bank.
43. Moreover, the complainant have got issued a legal notice to the accused by registered through its counsel calling upon the accused to make repayment to the complainant. Before a person is held to be guilty of an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant have to prove the compliance of the requirement under section 138 of N.I.Act. It is not in dispute that Ex.P.1 being her cheque drawn on account of the accused. In view of the above discussions, it is also held to be proved that it was drawn for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability. From the evidence of P.W.1 and also cheque return memo at Ex.P.2 it is established that the cheque was dishonored for the reasons "Payment stopped by Drawer''. A legal notice being issued as per Ex.P.3 within one month from the date of dishonor of the cheque is also not in dispute. In the case on hand the accused has not seriously disputed regarding notice send by the complainant on her address. But, the accused failed to repay the C.C.NO.29631/2023 34 cheque amount. In the case on hand the notice is sent to the accused at her address. When the accused has not seriously disputed, the notice sent to the correct address is sufficient compliance under section 138 of N.I.Act. Therefore, there is sufficient proof of due service of the legal notice.
44. It is not the contention of the accused that thereafter she has paid the cheque amount within stipulated time of 15 days on receiving the notice. Therefore, in the case on hand on perusal of the evidence placed on record, all the essential ingredients under section 138 N.I.Act, have been complied with. As the accused has not paid the cheque amount within stipulated period, as such the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The present complaint is filed within the period of one month after the accused failed to repay the cheque amount. Even she did not whisper anything about the defence while her plea was recorded under section 251 of Cr.P.C, except the cheque was issued for the purpose of security. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others, (2010 (5) SCC 590), it is clear that while recording the plea under section 251 of Cr.P.C., it becomes the duty of the accused to state whether he has any defence to make or he pleads guilty. Thus, unlike under section 240 of C.C.NO.29631/2023 35 Cr.P.C., the accused has no option under section 251 of Cr.P.C., just to deny the allegations made against him. If he is not willing to plead guilty, he must explain what are the defences he want to take. As such it has to be considered, whatever defence raised by the accused during the trial are all after thought, just to get ride of statutory burden cast on him.
45. In addition to this in the case of T.P.Murugan (Dead) through legal representatives V/s Bojan, reported in 2018 (8) SCC 469, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that once the cheque has been signed and issued in favour of the holder of the cheque, there is statutory presumption that the cheque is issued in respect of legally enforceable debt or liability: rebuttal of such presumption must be by adducing credible evidence. Mere raising a doubt without cogent evidence with respect to the circumstances, presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act cannot be discharged. The principle of law laid-down in the above decisions are applicable to the facts of this case. Except some bald contentions, the accused has not been able to make out a probable case on her behalf.
46. The learned counsel for the accused argued that except signature other writings on the cheque- Ex.P.1 is not in her handwriting, which was filled up by the complainant and it amounts to material alterations, so, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. When the C.C.NO.29631/2023 36 accused admits her signature, she cannot take up a defence that other contents of cheque was filled up by the complainant and it amounts to material alteration. In this respect, ruling reported in 2019 SCC On-line (SC)
138), between Bir Singh V/s Mukesh Kumar, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"37. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer, if cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provision of Section 138 would be attracted.
38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still the on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.
40. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment. Would attract presumption Under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt."
47. The principles emerging from the above C.C.NO.29631/2023 37 referred decision make it clear that, it is not mandatory and no law prescribes that the contents of the cheque should be written by the signatory to the cheque. A cheque can be written by anybody and if the account holder of the cheque signs it, the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act arises. The principle of law laid down in above decision is aptly applicable to the facts of this case. In view of section 20 of N.I.Act, the cheque being an inchoate instrument, if the drawer signs and delivers to the drawee, thereby he gives authority to the drawee thereof to make or complete the instrument.
48. As per the version of the accused is that she has nowhere denied transaction. The accused herself has admitted that she is the holder of alleged cheque. It is sufficient hold that the accused has issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 and even after she has not repaid the cheque amount the getting of receipt of notice. However, in any manner as the complainant have complied all the terms of ingredients of the provisions of 138 of N.I.Act. In case of dishonor of cheque, once the execution of cheque is admitted by the accused, then it for her to first rebut presumption arising out of section 139 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, PW.1 has established the case of the complainant, the accused has issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 in order to repay the legally recoverable amount. Therefore, the accused has failed to probables the defence taken by her.
C.C.NO.29631/2023 38 Therefore, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act. In the said circumstances, the complainant is not at all required to produce any material as to the financial transaction between the complainant and the accused, since the initial presumption is still available, when there is no rebuttal evidence.
49. PW.1 in his evidence has specifically deposed that the complainant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply mattresses, pillows and other like products for their customers, dealers and distributors. It is further deposed that the accused has entered into agreement for distribution with the complainant for the period 2021-22 and as per the said agreement, the accused has issued cheque No.005809 drawn on Union Bank of India, Rambhavan Complex Branch, Dakshina Kannada-575003, in favour of the complainant for security purpose, to be used in the event, bills are not paid beyond the credit period. Thereafter the accused was doing business with the complainant, the complainant has supplied the mattresses to the accused on credit. That as per the terms the accused is required make the payment within 30 days. If the same is not paid within the due date, it would attract the interest at 24%. Further deposed that as per the statement of account there was an outstanding due amount of Rs.7,53,194.87 as on C.C.NO.29631/2023 39 08.09.2023. The same was intimated to the accused and demanded the payment for the same. With persistent demands the accused informed the complainant to present the security cheque issued by her. So also it is not in disputed that the complainant and the accused are known to each other, some point of period. The accused has failed to probables her defence. Further the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act, non furnishing of details of financial transaction no consequences to disbelieve the case of the complainant. With these reasons, I answer point No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
50. POINT NO.3 AND 4: In order to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken together for common discussion. Before a person is held to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant have to prove all the requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act. Ex.P.1 being her cheque drawn on the account of the accused is not in dispute. The said cheque having been dishonored, when it was presented by the complainant before the bank for encashment is also not seriously disputed by the accused. The accused has not taken up any contention that thereafter she had paid the cheque amount within stipulated time of 15 days, after service of the notice. As such in the present case from perusal C.C.NO.29631/2023 40 of documents, the essential requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act, have been complied with. In this case if the accused has issued the blank signed cheques in favour of the complainant for the purpose of security only and why she has not produced any documents. After service of notice the accused has not paid the alleged cheque amount. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before the court on 06.11.2023 within the period of one month from the date of cause of action.
51. While discussing the point No.1 and 2, this court has already observed that the complainant's have proved that the cheque-Ex.P.1 was issued for discharge of legally enforceable liability/debt and in view of the mandatory requirements under section 138 of N.I.Act, being complied with. The accused is found to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. With these reasons, I answer point No.3 and 4 in the Affirmative.
52. POINT NO.5: The accused is held to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. The complainant's have proved its case. The accused has failed to prove her rebuttal for the reasons mentioned above and in view of the mandatory requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act, being complied with. The accused is found to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Since, C.C.NO.29631/2023 41 the said offence is an economic crime, the accused is not entitled for the beneficial provisions of probation of offenders Act. In view of the above discussions and the findings on point No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following;
:ORDER:
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond executed by the accused is hereby stands canceled.
The accused is sentence to pay fine of Rs.7,60,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs sixty thousand only) to the complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the said fine amount an amount of Rs.7,53,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty three thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and remaining amount of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) shall be remitted to the State.
In default of the payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of six months.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment C.C.NO.29631/2023 42 pronounced in the open court on 21 st day of December-2024) (Soubhagya.B.Bhusher) XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Sri.Mr.Vinay.N. List of documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque. Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused. Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement. Ex.P.3 : Office copy of legal notice. Ex.P.4 : Postal receipts. Ex.P.5 : Postal acknowledgment. Ex.P.6 : Returned postal cover. Ex.P.6(a) : Returned legal notice. Ex.P.7 : Reply notice. Ex.P.8 : Board resolution. Ex.P.9 : GST registration certificate. Ex.P.10 : Ledger account statement. Ex.P.11 : Certificate U/s.65(b) of I.E.Act. Ex.P.12 : Agreement. Ex.P.13 to 21 : Tax invoices. Ex.P.22 : Complaint. Ex.P.13 : Confirmation of account. Ex.P.14 to 21 : Tax Invoices. Ex.P.22 : Board resolution. Ex.P.23 : Complaint. Ex.P.23 : Email correspondence. Ex.P.23(a) : Certificate U/s.65(b) of I.E.Act.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
DW.1 : Smt.Asha Rani.
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D.1 : Scheme letter.
Ex.D.2 to 10 : Invoices.
C.C.NO.29631/2023
43
Ex.D.11 : Letter of stop payment.
Ex.D.12 to 15 : Email correspondence.
Ex.D.16 : Certificate U/s.65(b) of I.E.Act. Ex.D.17 to 21 : Bills.
Ex.D.22 : Debit note.
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.29631/2023 44 21.12.2024 (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court Vide Separate Sheet) :ORDER:
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond executed by the accused is hereby stands canceled.
The accused is sentence to pay fine of Rs.7,60,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs sixty thousand only) to the complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the said fine amount an amount of Rs.7,53,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty three thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and remaining amount of Rs.7,000/-
(Rupees seven thousand only) shall be remitted to the State.
In default of the payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of six months.
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.