Bangalore District Court
Rathna.K.L vs V.Vijayalakshmi on 10 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 10th day of March - 2020
PRESENT: SRI. SHRIDHARA.M, B.A., LL.M.,
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.24747/2016
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : Rathna.K.L,
W/o.Vasu.N,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at No.362, 4th Main,
Park Road, Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bengaluru-60.
(Rep. by Sri.A.N.Krishna, Adv.)
V/S
Accused : V.Vijayalakshmi,
D/o.Venjiappa,
Aged about 45 years,
Old No.9, New No.10/2,
9th Cross, Sarakki,
J.P.Nagar I Phase,
Bengaluru-78.
(Rep.by Sri.Shankar Reddy, Adv.)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Convicted.
DATE OF ORDER : 10.03.2020.
(SHRIDHARA.M)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
Judgment 2 C.C.No.24747/2016
JUDGMENT
The complainant has presented the instant complaint against the accused on 27.10.2016 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for dishonour of cheque of Rs.3,50,000/-.
2. The facts raised by the complainant in the complaint in brief is as follows:
The complainant and accused are known to each other and they are family friends. In that acquaintance, accused had approached the complainant seeking for hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/- in order to meet out dire need of money for establishment of her son's Tyre business. She also stated that, if not furnished financial assistance, her son going to put huge loss in his tyre business. On the request of accused, the complainant who possessed amount, on the genuine request made by the accused had paid Rs.3,50,000/- to the accused on 05.05.2016 by cash.
The complainant has alleged that, on the date of borrowal of the said amount, the accused assured to repay the entire amount along with interest at 2% p.m. on or before 05.09.2016.
As agreed the accused not at all come forward to repay the loan amount with interest, hence, in the 1st week of September, 2016, Judgment 3 C.C.No.24747/2016 the complainant demanded for repayment of the said loan, on her demand, the accused got issued cheque bearing No.795364 for sum of Rs.3,50,000/- dated:15.09.2016 drawn on Indian Bank, K.R.Road Branch, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-04, and promised to honour the said cheque on the date of its presentation.
The complainant has further alleged that, when she presented the said cheque for encashment through her banker viz., Karnataka Bank Ltd., Kengeri Satellite Town Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheque came to be dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" as per endorsement dated:17.09.2016. Thereafter, she approached the accused and intimated about the said fact and asking her for repayment, the accused postponed on one or other pretext and not bothered to repay the said loan amount. Hence, on 03.10.2016 got issued legal notice by way of R.P.A.D, calling upon her to pay the amount covered under the cheque and the said notice was acknowledged by the accused on 04.10.2016 through her son by name Dinesh.
Despite that, she neither paid the amount covered under the cheque nor issued reply notice. Thereby, she committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the complaint.
Judgment 4 C.C.No.24747/2016
3. After receipt of the private complaint, my predecessor in office took the cognizance and got registered the PCR and recorded the sworn statement. Since made out prima-facie grounds to proceed against the accused for the alleged offence, got issued process.
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared through her counsel and obtained the bail. As required, complaint copy was supplied to the accused. Thereafter, accusation was read over and explained to her, wherein, she denied the same and claimed to have the defence.
5. To prove the case of the complainant, she herself choosen to examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The PW.1 was subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the accused.
6. Thereafter, incriminating evidence made against the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied the same and the answer given by her was recorded. In support of the defence, the accused herself was examined as DW.1, but not produced any document in support of her defence.
Judgment 5 C.C.No.24747/2016
7. I have heard the arguments of both side counsels. The accused counsel has also submitted his detailed written arguments.
8. On going through the rival contentions, based on the substantial evidence available on record, the following points have been arising for determination:
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond the reasonable doubt that, he paid sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on 05.05.2016 as hand loan to the accused, and in turn, for discharge of legal recoverable debt, the accused issued the Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.795364, dated:15.09.2016 for sum of Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, K.R.Road Branch, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru?
2) Whether the complainant proves the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
3) What Order?
9. On appreciation of materials available on record, my findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : In the Affirmative Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NOs.1 and 2: Since both the points are connected with each other, they have taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
Judgment 6 C.C.No.24747/2016 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 P5, they are:
a) Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.795364 issued by the accused for sum of Rs.3,50,000/-
dated:15.09.2016, drawn on Indian Bank, K.R.Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru.
b) Ex.P1(a) is the alleged signature of accused.
c) Ex.P2 is the Bank Memo dated:17.09.2016.
d) Ex.P3 is the Legal Notice dated:03.10.2016.
e) Ex.P4 is the Postal receipt and
f) Ex.P5 is the Postal Acknowledgment Card.
11. The PW.1 was subjected to the cross-examination by the advocate for the accused. In support of his case the complainant through his counsel has produced the citation and relied upon same, it is;
a) 2015 AIR SCW 3040
b) AIR 2010 SC 1898
c) 2015 (1) KCCR 235
d) AIR 2006 (2) DCR 421
e) AIR 2066 (NOC) 445 (KAR).
12. In order to prove the defence of the accused, she herself choosen examined as DW.1, but not produced any document in Judgment 7 C.C.No.24747/2016 support of her defence. The DW.1 was subjected to the cross- examination by the advocate for the complainant.
13. While appreciate the materials on records and evidence, this court has gone through the decisions stated supra apart from the other decisions.
14. In this case, the advocate for accused has cross-examine the PW.1 in detail. Thereafter, whatever incriminating evidence made against the accused was read over and explained to her as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, she denied the same and gave her statement in person that:
"£Á£ÀÄ 2 - 3 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ¦AiÀiÁð¢¬ÄAzÀ 1 ®PÀë ªÀiÁvÀæ PÉÊ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ, DPÉ ¨ÀszÀævÉUÁV £À¤ßAzÀ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ SÁ° ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸Á® ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw¹, ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀ½¸À®Ä PÉýzÁUÀ, ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß »A¢gÀÄV¸ÀzÉ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. ZÉQÌ£À ªÉÆvÀÛ ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¨sÁzÀå¼À®è."
15. Thereafter, to prove her probable defence, accused herself choosen to entered into witness box and orally examined as DW.1 on oath. The evidence of DW.1 in brief that:
Judgment 8 C.C.No.24747/2016 The accused has stated that, she not borrowed the alleged loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant nor issued questioned cheque for its repayment. About, 5 years back, the complainant was run the chit and wherein, she was subscribed for the chit for Rs.1 lakh and the monthly premium was Rs.2,500/- and she bid the chit for Rs.32,000/-. In respect of payment of the balance amount, the complainant took the singed blank Ex.P1-cheque from the accused and later the accused got cleared the chit amount and asked for return the said cheque, the complainant assured to return the same, but she got changed her address Kengeri and filed the present case by misusing her cheque. Legal notice is not served on her; hence, she is not liable to pay any money. The accused has not produced any document, but she was subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for complainant.
16. Thus from the cross-examination of PW.1 and examination in chief of DW.1, it is crystal clear that, Ex.P1 cheque belongs to accused and signature marked at Ex.P1(a) is that of accused. When the accused admits the cheque and signature on the cheque, then the initial presumption arises in favour of complainant under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act that, complainant is holder of cheque Ex.P1 for valid Judgment 9 C.C.No.24747/2016 consideration. Further, from the perusal of records, it reveals that complainant has complied the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the initial presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act arises in favour of complainant that accused has issued the cheque Ex.P1 for discharge of legally recoverable debt. The initial presumptions arisen in favour of complainant under Sections 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable presumptions, and accused is at liberty to rebut the presumptions by cross-examining PW.1 or by adducing the defence evidence or by both.
At this stage this court has gone through the decision reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 between Rangappa V/s. Mohan, the Hon'ble Apex court is held that:
"The presumption mandated by section 139 of the Act is in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the Judgment 10 C.C.No.24747/2016 dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own".
17. From the principle laid down in the above decision, it is crystal clear that, when accused has admitted the cheque and Judgment 11 C.C.No.24747/2016 signature made on cheque, the burden lies on the accused to prove that, Ex.P1 cheque was not issued for discharge of legally recoverable debt in favour of complainant. To prove this fact accused has choosen to cross-examine PW.1 and also adduced her defence evidence.
18. On going through the rival contentions of the parties, based on the questioned cheque, the complainant has filed the present case alleging that, the accused borrowed loan of Rs.3,50,000/- on 05.05.2016, though, she was undertakes to repay the same on or before 05.09.2016 with interest at 2% p.m., she not paid, when she asked for repayment, then gave questioned cheque, the same came to be dishonoured and gave legal notice to the accused, her son got received the same, not paid the money. Therefore, from the contention of the complainant, it made clear that, based on questioned cheque, she moved the present complaint. Therefore, the initial statutory presumption has required under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, has to be drawn in favour of complainant that, for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt, the accused got issued the questioned cheque, unless and until contrary prove.
Judgment 12 C.C.No.24747/2016
19. Whereas, the accused has denied the very case put forth by the complainant and she is stated, in pursuance of the chit transaction run by the complainant, she was subscribed as a member and when she bid the chit, she took singed blank cheque and got misused the same, despite, she got cleared the chit money. Therefore, it is the initial onus on the accused to rebut the statutory presumption as well as factual circumstances raised by the complainant herein. In order to prove the contention of accused, though, she stated, she joined chit run by the complainant for Rs.1 lakh and bid the chit for Rs.32,000/- and monthly premium was Rs.2,500/- and for the payment of chit premium, she got issued signed blank cheque and despite, she cleared money not returned the cheque.
20. On carefully going through her cross-examination, as she has not produced any document, as to the complainant has run the chit and in that connection, she took the singed blank cheque, it requires to appreciate the evidence of DW.1. On perusal of the evidence of DW.1, she admitted that, since 25 years, she knew the complainant and her family and there was cordial relationship between each of them. The DW.1 also stated that, along with her son Dinesh, in the year 2016, once she went to the house of complainant, it made clear that, the complainant and accused are Judgment 13 C.C.No.24747/2016 known to each other. In order to show that, the complainant has run the chit business, as she urged. The DW.1 has deposed that:
"¦AiÀiÁ𢠥sÉÆãï PÁ¯ï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀªÉà aÃnAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. DPÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢®è. aÃn £ÀqɸÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃV®è. 2011 gÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁ𢠧½ gÀÆ.1 ®PÀëzÀ aÃn ºÁQzÉÝ£ÀÄ. D §UÉÎ zÁR¯É E®è. ¦AiÀiÁð¢ aÃn £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÝ §UÉÎ £ÉÆÃrzÀAvÀºÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ E®è. ¦AiÀiÁð¢ aÃn ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁr®è. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉüÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
21. On meticulous perusal of the evidence of DW.1, she deposed that, the complainant has run the chit through phone calls. Even, she deposed, the complainant had no office. More particularly, she deposed, in connection to run the chit business or transaction, she not went to the house of complainant. When she not went to the house of complainant and she had no office and she does not know the other persons, was it believable or not, would arise. The DW.1 further deposed that, she joined chit for Rs.1 lakh and in that regard, she had no document. More particularly, she deposes, to show that, the complainant has run the chit business, the person who saw the same is not there. The complainant's advocate has suggested to her that, no chit was run by the complainant as alleged and the accused has deposed Judgment 14 C.C.No.24747/2016 falsely, but she denies the same. One thing gathered from the evidence of DW.1 that, though she has projected the defence stating that, in connection to the chit transaction, she gave questioned cheque to the complainant, she utterly failed to prove that, the complainant has run the chit business. At least to show that, she was participated in the chit, she should attend the said transaction, but has stated, she not went to the house of complainant in that connection. If at all, any person without seeing personally was it possible to run the chit business over phone is also created doubt.
22. If at all, the complainant has run the chit, other members could have been examining, as said by the accused no one has seen the chit run by the complainant. The very evidence of DW.1, it made clear that, without any base, she take bald contention, hence, she utterly failed to prove the alleged chit run by the complainant, wherein, the chit was run by the complainant. That apart, the advocate for the accused cross-examine the PW.1, wherein also suggested about the complainant has run the chit business. But to show that, what was the chit amount, when it was commenced, how many members were there, what amount was paid by the accused and for which balance or guarantee the accused got issued the questioned cheque to the complainant is Judgment 15 C.C.No.24747/2016 not been suggested to the PW.1, but vaguely suggested, the complainant was run the chit business, the same is baseless and bald contention, it cannot be acceptable and believable.
23. It is significant fact to note that, during the course of cross of PW.1 as well as in the evidence of DW.1, she projected in respect of chit transaction, she gave questioned signed blank cheque to the complainant. But while, incriminating evidence made against accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., personally read over and explained by this court to the accused, she took altogether different defence, wherein, she stated, she borrowed loan of Rs.1 lakh from the complainant and on the security of singed blank cheque, despite, she got cleared the said money, the complainant not returned the same and filed the false case. The very statement of accused, it made clear that, without any valid grounds, she took various defence time to time and even she does not remember what defence taken earlier during course of cross of DW.1 and what statement she gave and what the evidence, she led in the witness box, it is contradicts are each other and it draw only one presumption that, the accused in order to avoid repayment, though there was no valid grounds, taken up false, baseless and reckless contention and thereby, failed to Judgment 16 C.C.No.24747/2016 prove her own defence. Hence, she gave questioned cheque for chit transaction is ruled out.
24. During the course of record 313 of Cr.P.C. statement, she categorically admitted that, she borrowed loan of Rs.1 lakh on the security of singed blank cheque about 2 to 3 years. But the complainant has projected this case, accused borrowed loan of Rs.3,50,000/- on 05.09.2016. In order to show that, accused only borrowed Rs.1 lakh, in that connection no necessary evidence is been placed. Therefore, the said contention of the accused also not worthy to relied upon.
25. The accused also taken up the contention through out the case that, she not received legal notice at Ex.P3, after dishonour of the cheque. During the course of cross of DW.1, she categorically admitted that:
"¤¦.3 gÀ £ÉÆÃn¸ï £ÀªÀÄä CAUÀrUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉ. ¤¦.3 gÀ £ÉÆÃn¸À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ §½PÀ ¦AiÀiÁ𢠪ÀQîgÁzÀAvÀºÀ ²æà J.J£ï. PÀȵÀÚ gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÀÉ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¤¦.3 gÀ £ÉÆÃn¸ïUÉ GvÀÛj¸À®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è, PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðzÀ°è¢ÝzÉÝ£ÀÄ. DPÉ £À£ÀUÀÉ «Ä¸ïUÉÊqï ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ. AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ DPÉ ºÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. ¤¦.3 gÀ £ÉÆÃn¸ï §AzÀ §½PÀ Judgment 17 C.C.No.24747/2016 ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¹zÉÝ DzÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß DPÉUÉ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è ¥ÁªÀw¹®è."
26. On meticulous perusal of the evidence of DW.1, she admitted that, Ex.P3 notice sent to the shop of accused. She denied the suggestion made by the advocate for complainant, after receipt of legal notice, she went to the office of advocate by name Sri.A.N.Krishna, the DW.1 has placed that, since she was kept in contact with complainant not reply the notice at Ex.P3. Even, she deposed that, complainant was misguided her stating no need to issue any notice. More particularly, she deposes, after receipt legal notice at Ex.P3, she contacted the complainant and later she not paid any money to the complainant. The said categorically admission made by the DW.1, it made clear that, despite, she got received the legal notice, she not paid the amount covered under the cheque. The accused has utterly failed to discharge the initial onus to rebut the statutory presumption as well as the factual matrix of the case of the complainant. Thereby, she has failed to disprove the case of complainant.
27. However, the complainant in the line of complaint averments and allegations, she reasserted during her cross-
examination. The PW.1 has clearly reasserted that, on Judgment 18 C.C.No.24747/2016
01.05.2016, the accused, her mother and son came to the house of complainant requested for the loan of Rs.3,50,000/-. Accordingly, on 05.05.2016, she gave the said sum in her house in the presence of accused, her mother and son and at that time, the husband of the complainant was also present. As accused requested money in cash to meet out the expenses for fully loss in the business of her son, at J.P.Nagar, she gave the said money. It is significant fact to note that, the accused has not disputed the financial capacity of the complainant. Even though, complainant has projected, the accused undertakes to repay the loan with interest at 2% p.m., as she not secured any licence as required, she cannot claim any interest on the said money, she has gave money in order to help the accused, she only entitle for taken back the said money from the accused not claimed any interest there on.
28. The PW.1 has also deposes that, the accused on 15.09.2016 itself in her presence got filled the cheque and handed over to her. Even through out the defence of the accused, she has projected that, she personally gave questioned cheque to the complainant, but utterly failed to prove that, it was gave in blank in connection to the chit transaction. Viewed from any angle, the complainant has reasserted and proved her case beyond the Judgment 19 C.C.No.24747/2016 reasonable doubt that, on 05.09.2016, she gave Rs.3,50,000/- to the accused and she not repaid the same. When she asked for repayment, then got issued questioned cheque, when it was presented for encashment, the same came to be dishonoured. Despite, services of legal notice as per Ex.P3, the complainant not cured the defect and clear the cheque amount, but she continued the commission of office till the day. Though, the accused has appeared before this court and prosecuted the matter from 2016, by taking false, baseless and reckless defence, not choosen to clear the amount. Therefore, the complainant has proved that, accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. There is no substance in the probable defence of the accused, contrary to the complainant has discharged her burden and proved the guilt of the accused. Therefore, keeping in the mind of the object of introduction of Negotiable Instruments Act, it appears this court, it is fit case to convict the accused coupled with the amount covered under the cheque at Exs.P1 at Rs.3,50,000/-. The same offence has been continued till this day; therefore, the complainant has successfully established the guilt of the accused, regarding commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant has complied the mandatory requirement Judgment 20 C.C.No.24747/2016 and established her case successfully. Despite that, the accused has not set right the wrong committed by her as per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
29. As discussed above by way of furnishing clear, convincing, corroborative, oral as well as documentary evidence has proved that, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, looking into the transaction, it is the considered opinion of this court that, the accused has taken bald, inconsistence defence without any base and failed to prove her improbable defence. Contrary, the PW.1 has established her case beyond the reasonable doubt through oral as well as documentary evidence. Thereby, unnecessarily cause the complainant to approach this court of law, therefore, the accused is liable to be punished by way of imposing fine sentence. Therefore, the accused is to be convicted by imposing the cheque amount. Out of the said fine amount, sum of Rs.3,40,000/- shall be payable to the complainant as compensation and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be payable to the state as fine amount. Accordingly, if the accused fails to pay the whole fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 12 months. Thereby, one more opportunity has provided to the accused to comply the order.
Judgment 21 C.C.No.24747/2016 Otherwise, the very purpose of filing complaint will be defeated. As discussed above, the complainant has proved her case beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the accused shall sentence to pay the fine amount as detailed in the order portion. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
30. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence to pay fine of Rs.3,50,000/-.
Out of the said fine amount, sum of Rs.3,40,000/- shall be payable to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be payable to the state as fine amount.
In default of pay the fine amount, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 12 (Twelve) Months.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
Judgment 22 C.C.No.24747/2016 The office is hereby directed to supply the copy of this Judgment to the accused on free of cost.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of March - 2020) (SHRIDHARA.M) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : Rathna.K.L List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P1 : Original Cheque Ex.P1(a) : Signature of accused Ex.P2 : Bank endorsement Ex.P3 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P4 : Postal receipt Ex.P5 : Postal Acknowledgment card
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
DW.1 : B.Vijayalakshmi List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
- Nil -
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 23 C.C.No.24747/2016 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
***** ORDER Accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence to pay fine of Rs.3,50,000/-.
Out of the said fine amount, sum of Rs.3,40,000/- shall be payable to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be payable to the state as fine amount.
In default of pay the fine amount, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 12 (Twelve) Months.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
The office is hereby directed to supply the copy of this Judgment to the accused on free of cost.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.