Bangalore District Court
) M/S My Country vs Smt.Damayanthi W/O on 3 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-61)
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2020
:Present:
Sri Vidyadhar Shirahatti, LL.M
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Crl. A. No. 2104/2018 and Crl.A.No.2170/2018,
APPELLANTS: 1) M/s My Country, No.895/1,
(in Crl.A.No.2104/18) Skanda, 14th Cross,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bengaluru.
(a Partnership firm represented by
T.Rupanjaya Reddy and
V.Bhaskar Reddy)
2) T.Rupanjaya Reddy, Partner,
M/s My Country, No.895/1,
Skanda, 14th Cross,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bengaluru.
3) V.Bhaskar Reddy, Partner, M/s
My Country, No.895/1,
th
Skanda, 14 Cross,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bengaluru.
All the accused are also at
No.1 and 2 Sresta,
Doddakallasandra, Kanakapura
Road, Bengaluru.
(Sri B.Siddeshwara, Adv)
2 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
VS.
RESPONDENT Smt.Damayanthi W/o
(in Crl.A.No.2104/18) A.Vijayabhaskar Reddy, R/at
No.13, Maniyellappa Garden,
Kodihalli, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.K.A.Chandrashekar. Adv )
APPELLANT: Smt.Damayanthi W/o
(in Crl.A.No.2170/18) A.Vijayabhaskar Reddy, R/at
No.13, Maniyellappa Garden,
Kodihalli, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.K.A.Chandrashekar, Adv )
Vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1. M/s My Country, No.895/1,
(in Crl.A.No.2170/18) Skanda, 14th Cross,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bengaluru.
(a Partnership firm represented
by T.Rupanjaya Reddy and
V.Bhaskar Reddy)
2. T.Rupanjaya Reddy, Partner,
M/s My Country, No.895/1,
Skanda, 14th Cross,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bengaluru.
3. V.Bhaskar Reddy, Partner,
M/s My Country, No.895/1,
Skanda, 14th Cross,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bengaluru.
3 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
All the accused are also at
No.1 and 2 Sresta,
Doddakallasandra, Kanakapura
Road, Bengaluru.
(Sri B.Siddeshwara, Adv)
COMMMON JUDGMENT
The Crl.A.No.2104/2018 and Crl.A.No.2170/2018 are
arising out the same impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence passed in C.C.No.18831/2012, dt.18/9/2018 for
offence punishable u/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act on the file of XIX
ACMM, Bengaluru. Hence, they are clubbed and taken up
together for discussion for the sake of convenience and to
avoid repetition of facts.
2. The Crl.Appeal No.2104/2018 filed u/Sec. 374(3)
of Cr.P.C., by the appellant/accused, being aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed in
C.C.No.18831/2012, dt.18/9/2018 for offence punishable
u/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act on the file of XIX ACMM, Bengaluru and
prays to set aside the impugned judgment and acquit him.
4 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
3. The Crl.A.No.2170/2018 filed u/Sec. 374(3) of
Cr.P.C., by the Appellant/complainant, being aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed in
C.C.No.18831/2012, dt.18/9/2018 for offence punishable
u/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act on the file of XIX ACMM, Bengaluru and
prays to set aside the impugned judgment and enhance the
sentence and fine imposed on the accused.
4. The appellant in Crl.A.No.2104/2018 was the
accused and respondent was the complainant and appellant in
Crl.No.2170/2018 was the complainant and respondent
accused herein was before the trial Court and they are referred
to as per the ranks assigned to them before the lower court.
5. The brief facts leading to this appeal can be stated
as under:-
The accused No.2 and complainant are well known to
each other and they are relatives. The accused No.2 had
introduced the accused No.3 to the complainant. Out of the
said acquaintance, the accused No.2 and 3 approached the
5 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
complainant and represented her that they are the partners on
partnership firm and requested the complainant to pay a sum of
Rs.2.3 crore for investment of the same in the project that was
commenced by the accused No.2 and 3. The accused assured
the complainant that the amount will be the refunded within a
year, till then they would go on paying the nominal interest on
the said sum. The complainant further contended that the
accused No.2 is a partnership firm represented by accused
No.2 and 3 who are the directors of the accused No.1
company. The accused No.2 and 3 are incharge and
responsible for the conduct and business of the accused No.1
company as well as the day to day affairs of the company.
Believing the assurance and representation made by accused
No.2 and 3 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2.3 croes to the
accused No.2 and 3 on different dates by way of cash as well
as through cheques. Further to refund the amount accused has
issued cheque. When the said cheque was presented for
encashment it was dishonoured for the reasons 'insufficient
funds/account blocked'. Then the complainant got issued legal
6 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
notice to the accused who neither replied the notice nor repaid
the cheque amount.
6. Then the complainant presented the complaint
under section.200 of Cr.P.C., for offence punishable under
Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate
took cognizance and registered the case against the accused
for offence punishable u/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act and secured the presence of accused who after
appearance, pleaded not guilty. Then the complainant
examined himself as PW1 and one Vijay Bhaskar Reddy and
M.Harinath as PW2 and PW3 and got marked documents as
per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23. After recording of statement of accused
under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused neither examined nor
produced any document on his behalf.
7. The learned Magistrate on hearing the arguments
on both sides, found the accused guilty and proceeded to
convict the accused for offence u/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of
7 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
Rs.5,00,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, the
accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of three months.
Besides, the trial Court awarded compensation of
Rs.4,99,90,000/- out of the fine amount to the complainant
acting u/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C., by passing the impugned
judgment.
8. This judgment of conviction and sentence which is
now under challenge by the appellant/accused in
Crl.A.No.2104/2018 on the following grounds:-
The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial court is opposed to the settled principles of
law, facts and probabilities of the case. The learned Magistrate
grossly erred in not properly appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence available on record in proper
perspective. The learned Magistrate failed to consider the fact
that, complainant failed to prove the source of his income. The
learned Magistrate failed to consider the fact that, though the
complainant stated that she is income tax assessed, she failed
8 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
to produce the same. The impugned judgment of conviction is
unsustainable and not tenable in the eye of law. Hence, prayed
to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and to acquit
the accused by allowing the appeal.
9. This judgment of conviction and sentence which is
now under challenge by the appellant/complainant in
Crl.A.No.2170/2018 on the following grounds:-
Sec.138 of N.I.Act deals with the quantum of sentence be
imposed, that any person is deemed to have committed an
offence u/Sec.138of N.I.Act will be punished with imprisonment
for a term can extend upto 2 years or with fine which can be
twice the amount of the cheque or both. In the case on hand,
the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate while
imposing the sentence is disproportionate to the amount
involved. The order of sentence imposed by the learned
Magistrate is insufficient and disproportionate to the amount
involved in the cheques, which deters the accused from
repeating such offences in the future. The learned Magistrate
9 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
though rightly passed the order of the conviction, however,
incorrect in imposing a inadequate sentence, since such a
penalty is on the lower side and further the default sentence is
also disproportionate to the amount involved and further which
does not adequately compensate the complainant for having
lost on the interest on the amount. The learned Magistrate was
incorrect in imposing a inadequate sentence, particularly when
the amount collected by the accused itself is Rs.3,77,66,000/-.
Such a sentence, default sentence and compensation ordered,
which are in fact are grossly inadequate and disproportionate.
The learned Magistrate was incorrect in imposing a fine of
Rs.5,00,00,000/- out of which Rs.4,99,90,000/- was ordered to
be paid as compensation to the complainant, particularly when
the learned Magistrate has affirmatively found that the accused
had a legally liable debt towards the complainant and such a
debt has not been discharged by the accused. The learned
Magistrate was incorrect in imposing meager fine amount and
default sentence. Therefore, the accused deserves to be
heavily penalized, thereby adequately compensating the
10 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
complainant for losses suffered. Further the complainant had
advanced amount to the accused on 1/10/2008 and 1/1/2009
and the impugned order passed on 18/9/2018, thus the
complainant lost interest for the amount advanced. Further the
complainant has also incurred legal expenses to recover the
amount. The compensation awarded by the learned Magistrate
below is thus insufficient and deservers to be enhanced.
Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment and
enhance the fine and sentence imposed on the accused.
10. After filing of this appeal, notice duly served on the
respondent who made his appearance through a counsel. The
trial Court records, have been secured.
11. Heard arguments of learned counsel for
complainant and accused.
12. Perused the records.
13. In the light of the contentions taken up in the
memorandum of appeals, the common points that arise for my
determination are as follows;
11 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
1) Whether the learned trial court erred in not
properly appreciating the defense set up by
the accused in proper perspective?
2) Whether the learned Magistrate erred in
convicting the appellant/accused for offence
punishable u/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act?
3) Whether there are any grounds to enhance
the fine amount and also default clause?
4) Are there any grounds to interfere with the
order of conviction and sentence?
5) What order?
14. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Affirmative
Point No.5 : As per final Order
REASONS
15. Point Nos.1 to 4:- All these points are taken
together for discussion for the sake of convenience and to
avoid repetition of facts.
12 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
16. I have carefully gone through the contents of appeal
memo, trial Court records and the impugned judgment.
17. It is the specific case of the complainant that
accused received a sum of Rs.2.3 crore for investment in the
project that was commenced by the accused No.2 and 3 and
for repayment of the said amount issued the cheques in
question i.e., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. It is the further case of the
complainant that since the cheques which were issued by the
accused came to be bounced back as insufficient
funds/account blocked, the accused is liable to be convicted for
offence punishable u/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
18. On the other hand, it is defense set up by the
accused that the accused has not borrowed any loan from the
complainant and he is not liable to pay the amount. It is further
defense set up by the accused that, complainant had not
financial capacity to lend such huge amount to the accused. It
is further defense set up by the accused that he has not
13 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
borrowed any loan from the complainant and hence, they are
not liable to pay the said cheques amount.
19. Keeping in view the rival contentions of both the
parties, I have carefully gone through the evidence let in by
both the parties to answer the points in controversy.
20. Obviously, the burden is on the complainant to
prove that the cheques in question were issued towards
discharge of legally recoverable debt or liability. In this regard,
the complainant examined herself as PW1 who in her evidence
has reiterated the averments of the complaint and got marked
original cheques, memo issued by the bank, receipt, copy of
legal notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgements, receipts,
bank statements as per Ex.P.1 to 23.
21. The learned counsel for the accused has advanced
the arguments and contended that, complainant has failed to
prove the basis ingredients and his source of income to lend
the huge amount. The learned counsel for the accused in
14 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
support of his contention has relied upon the following
decisions.
1) Abhay Kumar Jain Vs.Pankaj R Makkanna in
Crl.A.No.1148/2016 and Crl.A.No.1146/2016 by the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka where it is held that:
"8. The cash in the hands of the appellant is
admittedly unaccounted. When the cash is
unaccounted, it would mean non compliance of the
requirements of law. Therefore, the appellant cannot
expect to seek protection of the law in order to
recover unaccounted amounts. The appellant cannot
be permitted to violated the law as an when he
chooses and consequently seek protection of the law
of such violations."
2) Sanjay Mishra V. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki and
Anr. in 2009(4) Mh.L.J it held that:
"15. The Apex Court has held that the laws relating to the
said Act are required to be interpreted in the light of the
object intended to be achieved by it despite there being
deviation from general law. The Apex Court expressed
that the object of section 138 of the said Act was to
ensure that commercial and mercantile activities are
conducted in smooth and healthy manner. The
explanation to section 138 of the said Act clearly
15 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
provides that a debt or other liability referred to in
section means a legally enforceable debt or other
liability. The alleged liability to repay an unaccounted
cash amount admittedly not disclosed in the Income Tax
Return cannot be a legally recoverable liability. If such
liability is held to be a legally recoverable debt, it will
render the explanation to section 138 of the said Act
nugatory. It will defeat the very object of section 138 of
the Act of ensuring that the commercial and mercantile
activities are conducted in a healthy manner. The
provision of section amount, A cheque 138 cannot be
resorted to for recovery of an unaccounted issued in
discharge of alleged liability of repaying "unaccounted"
cash amount cannot be said to be a cheque issued in
discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability within
the meaning of explanation of section 138 of the said Act.
Such an effort to misuse the provision of section 138 of
the said Act has to be discouraged.
22. Further the learned counsel for the accused also
relied upon the decisions reported in (2010) 2 Kant LJ 284 in
B.Girish V.S.Ramaiah It is held that:
Criminology - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -
Presumption - Appellant/complainant claims to have given
hand - loan to accused/respondent in repayment cheque
issued by the accused - Returned unpaid - Hence,
complainant -accused/respondent rebutted primary
presumption under S.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
16 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
1881 - Acquitted on ground - No error by the Magi rate in
holding that complainant failed to prove existence of debt
and guilt of accused for offence under Sec.138 of the
N.I.Act.
By relying the aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel
for the accused prays to acquit the accused by setting aside the
judgments, as complainant failed to prove the guilt of the
accused.
23. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant
in support of his contention has relied upon the following
decisions:
1) AIR 2010 SC 1898 in Rangappa V.Mohan wherein it
is held that:
"© Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138
S.139 - Existence of legal enforceable debt - Presumption
as to - Blank cheque was taken up belatedly and accused
had mentioned a different date in 'stop payment'
instructions to his bank- Instructions to 'stop payment'
had not even mentioned that cheque had been lost - Trial
record also shows that accused appeared to be aware of
fact that cheque was with complainant - Fact that accused
had made regular payments to complainant in relation to
17 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
construction of his house - Does not preclude possibility
of complainant having spent his own money for same
purpose - Very fact that accused had failed to statutory
notice u/sEc.138 of N.I.Act lead to inference that the was
merit in complainant's version of spending his own money
- Can be said that accused failed to rebut presumption by
raising probable defense."
2) AIR 2019 SC 2446 in Bir Singh V.Mukesh Kumar wherein
it is held that:
(G) Negotiable Instruments Act 926 of 1881) S.138, S.139
- Presumption as to legally enforceable debt - Rebuttal -
Signed blank cheque - If voluntarily presented to payee,
towards payment, payee may fill up amount and other
particulars and it in itself would not invalidate cheque -
Onus would still be on accused to prove that cheque was
not issued for discharge of debt or liability by adducing
evidence.
3) 2018 (2) Kar.L. 490(sc) in T.P. Murugan (Dead)
Thr.LR's V. Bojan
By relying the aforesaid judgments contended that,
presumption mandated by Section 139 of the N.I. Act includes a
presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or
liability and that is a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the
18 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally
enforceable debt or liability can be contested and hence, prays
to set aside the impugned judgment and enhance the fine and
sentence imposed on the accused.
24. A careful appreciation and evaluation of the
evidence of PW1 coupled with contents of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23,
makes it clear that the accused and complainant were known to
each other very well. The present case, the complainant
examined as PW1 and in her cross examination, she had
admitted that she is not having any documents as she was
having Rs.80 lakhs in her possession and in support the same,
she has not produced any document. The same manner she
also admitted that she is not having any documents to show
that, dt:1/1/2009 had amount of Rs.11 lakhs in her possession.
Further she admits that, from 11/1/2008 to 4/10/2008 she has
having bank balance of Rs.5,271/- only and on 15/12/2008 -
2/1/2009 she having bank balance of Rs.10,042/- only. PW1
clearly admits that, there is no hurdle to transfer to huge
amount through DD or cheque to the accused. Further PW1
19 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
admits that, accused is having bank account. Further PW1
admits that she is tax payee and she has not mentioned the
amount given to the accused in her income tax returns. Further
PW1 submits that the accused had issued Ex.P.16 in her
presence on 1/10/2008 and Ex.P.17 to Ex.P.19 which issued on
1/1/2009. On perusing the Ex.P.17 to Ex.P.19 had reveals that,
the said bond purchased on 20/1/2009. But the witness submits
that, said Ex.P.17 to Ex.P.19 on 1/1/2009 which clearly goes to
show that, the said Ex.P.17 to Ex.P.19 are created documents
which is not issued on 1/1/2009.
25. In the present case the complainant is housewife
and at the relevant time and the alleged loan of Rs.2.3 cores is
claimed to have been paid by cash. That apart, though the
complainant was an income-tax assessee she had admitted in
her evidence that she had not shown the alleged transact on in
her income-tax return. On the contrary the complainant has
admitted in her evidence that in the alleged date of
transactions, the complainant is having Rs.5,271/- and
20 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
Rs.10,042/- in the year 2008 and 2009. It is relevant to that, the
accused has rebutted the presumption by placing cogent
evidence that there was no legally recoverable debt or liability
and the complainant had no capacity to lend huge amount of
Rs.2.3 crores. It is true that, merely because amount advanced
is not shown in the Income Tax Returns, once cannot jump to
the conclusion that presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I.Act. stands
rebutted. Thereby may be cases where a small amount less
than a sum of Rs.20,000/- is advanced in cash by way of loan
which may be repayable within few days or within few months.
A complainant may not show the said amount in the Income
Tax Returns as it is payable within few days or few months in
the same financial years. In such a case, the failure to show the
amount in the Income Tax Return not be itself amount to
rebuttal of presumption u/Sec.139 of the said Act. If in a given
case, the amount and is not repayable within few months, the
failure to disclose the amount in Income Tax return or books
may be sufficient to rebut the presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I.Act.
Admittedly in the present case, the amount was allegedly
21 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
advanced in the years 2008-2009 and complainant has
advanced huge amount of Rs.2.3 crore in cash and the same
has not been shown in her Income Tax Return. Therefore, I am
of the considered view that, liability to repay the unaccounted
cash amount is legally enforceable liability with in the meaning
of explanation to Sec.138 of N.I.Act and the alleged debt
cannot be said to be legally recoverable debt. .The entire
amount subject matter of the loan was an unaccounted cash
amount, which was not disclosed in the Income Tax returns.
The explanation to section 138 of the said Act clearly provides
that a debt or other liability referred to in section means a
legally enforceable debt or other liability. The alleged liability to
repay an unaccounted cash amount admittedly not disclosed in
the Income Tax Return cannot be a legally recoverable liability
and for repayment of such amounts not a legally enforceable
debt The provision of section 138 cannot be resorted to for
recovery of an unaccounted issued in discharge of alleged
liability of repaying "unaccounted" cash amount cannot be said
to be a cheque issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt
22 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
or liability within the meaning of explanation of section 138 of
the said Act. Added to this, admittedly at the time of alleged
transaction, the complainant being housewife having bank
balance is Rs.5,271/- and Rs.10,042/- only. Therefore, I safely
held that, the complainant has failed to prove the legally
recoverable debt and also source of income to lend such a
huge amount of Rs.2.3 crore. Therefore, when there is no
legally recoverable debt, the question of taking cognizance
does not arise at all. Hence, herein this case, the learned
Magistrate taking of cognizance against the violation of
constitutional liberty of accused. On this ground itself, the
impugned judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside, as
per the ratio laid down in 1) Abhay Kumar Jain Vs.Pankaj R
Makkanna in Crl.A.No.1148/2016 and Crl.A.No.1146/2016,
and Sanjay Mishra V. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki and Anr. in
2009(4) Mh.L.J and (2010) 2 Kant LJ 284 in B.Girish
V.S.Ramaiah supra.
26. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances
of the case, I am of the considered view that, the decisions
23 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
relied by the learned counsel for the accused is aptly applicable
to the case on hand. However, the decisions relied by the
learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable to the
case on hand. The learned Magistrate grossly erred in taking
the cognizance and proceeding against the accused. As such,
there are reasonable and sufficient grounds to interfere and set
aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial court. The judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the trial court is opposed to the principles
of law and procedure. Further it is relevant to note that, when
this court has formed the opinion that, there is no legally
enforceable debt, the question of enhancing the fine amount
and imposing of maximum sentence does not arise at all.
Therefore, appeal No.2170/2018 filed by the
appellant/complainant deserves to be dismissed. As such, the
circumstances warrant that by setting aside the judgment of
conviction and sentence, the matter needs to be set aside by
acquitting the accused. With these observations, the appeal
24 Crl.A.No.2104/2018
&
Crl.A.No.2170/2018
No.2104/2018 deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer
point No.1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative and 3 in the Negative.
27. Point No.5: In view of my findings on point No.1 to
3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The Crl.A.No.2104/2018 filed by appellant/accused u/Sec.374(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed.
The impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned XIX ACMM, Bengaluru, in CC No.18831/2012 dt.18/9/2018 is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the accused is hereby acquitted u/Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The Crl.A.No.2170/2018 filed by the appellant/complainant is hereby dismissed.
The trial court is hereby directed to refund the amount to the accused, if any deposited.
Send a copy of this judgment to the Trial Court along with TCR forthwith.
25 Crl.A.No.2104/2018& Crl.A.No.2170/2018 Office is hereby directed to keep the original of this judgment in Crl.A.No.2104/2018 and copy shall be thereof in Crl.A.No.2170/2018.
*** (Directly dictated to Stenographer on computer, thereafter corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of February, 2020) (Vidyadhar Shirahatti) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
26 Crl.A.No.2104/2018& Crl.A.No.2170/2018 Common Judgment pronounced in the open court. Vide separately ORDER The Crl.A.No.2104/2018 filed by appellant/accused u/Sec.374(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed.
The impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned XIX ACMM, Bengaluru, in CC No.18831/2012 dt.18/9/2018 is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the accused is hereby acquitted u/Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The Crl.A.No.2170/2018 filed by the appellant/complainant is hereby dismissed.
The trial court is hereby directed to refund the amount to the accused, if any deposited.
Send a copy of this judgment to the Trial Court along with TCR forthwith.
Office is hereby directed to keep the original of this judgment in Crl.A.No.2104/2018 and copy shall be thereof in Crl.A.No.2170/2018.
(Vidyadhar Shirahatti) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
27 Crl.A.No.2104/2018& Crl.A.No.2170/2018