Bangalore District Court
Ravi. M.I vs Sri. Raju. P. @ Sharvana. R on 5 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
:: PRESENT ::
SMT. C.G. VISHALAKSHI, B.A.L., L.L.B.,
XIII A.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
C.C. NO.21975/2016
Dated: This the 5th day of APRIL-2018
COMPLAINANT/S: Ravi. M.I.
S/o. Late. Iypu,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at. No.#20, 2nd Main Road,
6th Cross, Jyothinagara,
Nagarabavi,
Bengaluru-21.
ACCUSED: Sri. Raju. P. @ Sharvana. R.
S/o. Arunachalam Kanmani,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at. No.#55,
BWSSB Staff Quarters,
CJF Block, 18th Cross,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru-560055.
And also office at:
Dream Gold Benefit Scheme,
No.116/1, 2nd Floor,
1st Main Road, Lakshmipuram,
Ulsoor, Bangalore-08
OFFENCE Under Section.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
JUDGEMENT 2 C.C.21975/2016
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquitted
**
JUDGEMENT
This complaint is filed against the accused under Section.200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section.138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The gist of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant and the accused are known to each other and they are friends. The complainant is BMTC Employee since many yeas. The accused had approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on for the purpose to meet some his urgent liability in the month of 12-12-2015 by pleading his immediate business requirements and family necessities. Since the complainant had no that much of amount, he had given hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- infavour of the accused. The accused has promised to repay the said loan amount within two JUDGEMENT 3 C.C.21975/2016 months. After completion of two months, the complainant has approached the accused seeking repayment of the loan amount, the accused was circumvent with one or other reason. But on demand the accused had issued the cheque bearing No.777629, dated: 15-04-2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, BDA Complex Branch, Bengaluru- 560020 infavour of the complainant towards repayment of the loan amount and promised about honour of the cheque. As per the assurance, when complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment on 15-04-2016 through his banker i.e., Canara Bank, Chandra Layout Branch, the said cheque was returned dishonoured with shara 'Account closed' on 16-04-2016. Immediately, the complainant had informed the fact of dishonour of the cheque to the accused and then the accused had instructed the complainant to present the said cheque in the 1st week of July-2016 assuring that the said cheque would be honoured. As per the assurance, when the complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker i.e., Deepak Sahakari JUDGEMENT 4 C.C.21975/2016 Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheque was also dishonored for the reason 'Account closed' with an endorsement dated: 02-07-2016. Hence, the complainant caused notice against the accused on 11-07-2016 calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered under the cheque. The notice was sent to the accused by RPAD and COP, but the notice sent against the accused through COP was duly served on the accused, whereas the accused not collected the notice sent through RPAD, as such it was returned as 'Not claimed, refused to receive the notice'. Hence, having no other go, the complainant maintained this complaint against the accused, alleging that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and prays to deal the accused as per law.
3. On presentation of the complaint, this court has taken cognizance of the offence; sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. On perusal of the documents and on hearing the complainant, process was issued JUDGEMENT 5 C.C.21975/2016 against the accused. In pursuance of the process, the accused appeared before this court and enlarged on bail. Copies of the complaint papers supplied to him. Substance of the accusation was read over and explained to the accused. The accused did not plead guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for the evidence of the complainant.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P9 and closed his side evidence. After completion of the complainant's evidence, the accused was examined under Section.313 of Cr.P.C. and his statement was recorded. To substantiate his defence the accused not produced any evidence on his side.
5. Heard arguments.
6. Upon reading the entire materials on record and on hearing the arguments the following points that arise for my consideration:
JUDGEMENT 6 C.C.21975/2016
POINTS
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all shadow of doubt that, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section.138 Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What order?
7. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order,
for the following.
:: REASONS ::
8. POINT NO.1: As the accused did not pleaded
guilty, the complainant has chosen to examine himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P9.
As per the decision reported in ILR 2008 KAR PAGE- 4629 between Shivamurthy V/s Amruthraj and in another decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court in AIR-2008 SC-1325 between Krishna Janardhan Bhat JUDGEMENT 7 C.C.21975/2016 V/s Dattatreya G. Hegde, in order to attract Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant has to satisfy 3 essential ingredients like, 1) there is legally enforceable debt, 2) that the cheque was drawn from the account of the Bank of the accused for discharge of whole or part of any debt or other liability which pre-supposes to be legally enforceable debt, 3) cheque so issued returned unpaid due to Insufficient of funds.
9. Keeping in view the ingredients of Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, I proceed to discuss the documents of this case.
(a) Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.777629, dated: 15-
04-2016 for Rs.5,00,000/-, drawn on Canara Bank, BDA Complex Branch, Bangalore-560020. As per the say of the complainant, Ex.P1(a) is the signature of the accused.
(b) Ex.P2 is the Bank endorsement issued by the Bank authorities, dated: 02-07-2016 for having dishonour of the JUDGEMENT 8 C.C.21975/2016 cheque for the reason 'Account closed'. Ex.P3 is the endorsement.
(c) It must be noted as per Clause (b) proviso to Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant was required to make a demand for payment of the said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of cheque as un-paid.
(d) Ex.P4 is copy of the legal notice dated: 11-07-2016 which shows that the complainant made demand in writing calling upon the accused to make repayment of the said cheques amount by issuing notice against him which is within 30 days.
(e) Ex.P5 is the postal receipt and Ex.P6 is the returned postal envelope cover with notice copy, it shows that notice was sent against the accused under RPAD. Ex.P8 is the endorsement and Ex.P9 is the Statement of account.
As per Clause (C) proviso to Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused is entitled 15 days time to JUDGEMENT 9 C.C.21975/2016 make payment of money covered under cheque. Further, as per Section.142(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, complaint has to be filed within 30 days from the date of which the cause of action arose. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint well within time.
10. Thus, the complainant has fulfilled all the ingredients, which were required for the completion of the offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
11. On perusal of the entire materials on record, it shows that there the complaint maintained this complaint against the accused alleging that the accused being his friend, had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from him on 12-12-2015 to meet his legal steps, agreeing to repay the same within two months. After stipulated time, on demand the accused had issued the disputed cheque infavour of the complainant towards discharge of the said loan of Rs.5,00,000/- assured about honour of the cheque. As per the assurance, when the complainant has presented the JUDGEMENT 10 C.C.21975/2016 said cheque for encashment through his banker Canara Bank, BDA Complex, Bengaluru, the said cheque was returned with shara as 'Account closed' on 16-04-2016. Immediately he contacted the accused appraising the fact of dishonour of the cheque, then the accused has instructed the complainant to present the said cheque again in the 1st week of July-2016 assuring about encashment of the same. As per the assurance, when the complainant has presented the said cheque for clearance through his banker Deepak Sahakari Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru on 01-07-2016, it wad dishonored for the reason 'Account closed'. Despite of issuance of demand notice and its due intimation, the accused intentionally not collected the post and complied with demands of notice. Hence, he maintained this complaint in time.
12. Per-contra, on reading the line of cross-examination and the defence setup by the accused, it shows that there is no any dispute so as to the acquaintance in between himself and the complainant and also the fact that there JUDGEMENT 11 C.C.21975/2016 was no any dispute with regard to the monitory transaction i.e., loan transaction in between them. It is also not in dispute that the Ex.P1 cheque is belongs to the bank account of the accused and Ex.P1(a) is his signature. But the accused has taken up the defence that he never borrowed any loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant and he never issued this disputed cheque infavour of the complainant towards discharge of any debt or liability of Rs.5,00,000/-. On the other hand, he has taken up the defence that he had borrowed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- only from the complainant during the year 2012, on that time the complainant had obtained his signed blank cheque i.e., Ex.P1 cheque as security. Thereafter though he had discharged the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by depositing a sum of Rs.7 to 8 thousand every month to the bank account of the complainant. But despite of the same, the complainant without returning his cheque, but by misusing the same has filed this false complaint against him, though there exists no debt or liability.
JUDGEMENT 12 C.C.21975/2016
13. Thus, there is no dispute so as to the fact that Ex.P1 cheque is belongs to the bank account of the accused and Ex.P1(a) is his signature.
14. It is well settled that, admission furnishes best evidence as per the decision laid down in AIR-1981 PAGE- 2085.
Thus in my opinion, the admission given by the accused is sufficient to come to conclusion about the execution of Negotiable Instruments (cheque in question) is admitted as well as proved.
15. In view of the decision reported in 2010 SC 1898 between Rangappa V/s Mohan, once the execution of Negotiable Instruments Act is either proved or admitted, then the court shall draw a presumption under Section.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in favour of the complainant to that effect that the said Negotiable Instrument i.e., the disputed cheque has been drawn for JUDGEMENT 13 C.C.21975/2016 valid consideration and it is towards legally recoverable debt and it is drawn for valuable consideration.
16. Having admitted the fact that Ex.P1 cheque is belongs to the bank account of the accused and Ex.P1(a) is his signature, presumption arose infavour of the complainant under Section.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the burden is on the accused to rebut the same with probable evidence.
17. To prove the case of the complainant, he examined himself as PW.1 and deposed his evidence by way of an affidavit and reiterated the averments of the complaint. He also deposed about lending loan of Rs.5,00,000/- infavour of the accused on 12-12-2015 and deposed about issuance of disputed cheque by the accused in his favour towards discharge of the said debt of Rs.5,00,000/-. Further PW.1 deposed about dishonour of the cheque on two occasions for the reason 'Account Closed' and he deposed with regard to the issuance of demand notice against the accused by RPAD and its non-compliance by the accused. JUDGEMENT 14 C.C.21975/2016
18. The accused has denied the very loan transaction in question in between himself and the accused contending that he never borrowed any loan from the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and he never issued the disputed cheque infavour of the complainant towards discharge of any debt or liability of Rs.5,00,000/-. On the other hand, he has taken up the defence about borrowing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- only from the complainant in the year 2012 stating that at that time the complainant has obtained his signed blank cheque i.e., Ex.P1 cheque as security and though he had discharged the said debt of Rs.2,00,00/- by remitting a sum of Rs.7 to 8 thousand every month to the bank account of the complainant, but he by misusing his cheque has filed this false complaint against him. Thus he denied the loan transaction in question.
19. Having admitted the fact that Ex.P1 cheque is belongs to the bank account of the accused and Ex.P1(a) is his signature, presumption would arose infavour of the complainant under Section.139 of Negotiable Instruments JUDGEMENT 15 C.C.21975/2016 Act and burden is on the accused to dispel the same by raising probable defence with necessary cogent and convincing evidence. In this regard though accused has denied the fact of borrowing loan of Rs.5,00,000/-, but it is pertinent to note that the accused not denied the monitory transaction in between himself and the complainant i.e., about the loan transaction in between himself and the complainant. On the other hand it is his defence that he had borrowed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- only from the complainant during the year 2012 on furnishing the disputed cheque in blank as security. When such being the case, it is for him to prove the fact that he had borrowed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- only from the complainant during the year 2012 on furnishing the disputed cheque in blank as security. But he has not proved the same by producing any material evidence before this court nor elicited any material admission from the mouth of PW.1, as PW.1 denied each and every suggestion of the accused made to him in that regard. Thus, there is no any evidence produced before this court by the accused to substantiate JUDGEMENT 16 C.C.21975/2016 his defence of borrowing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- only on furnishing the disputed cheque in blank as security.
20. If really the accused has borrowed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- only from the complainant in the year 2012 on furnishing this dispute cheque as security, then he would have proved the same by producing any material evidence before this court. But to prove the said factum, the complainant has not produced any evidence before this court except his oral assertion and denial.
21. If really the defence of the accused was true that he never borrowed any loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant and he never issued this disputed cheque infavour of the complainant towards discharge of any loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. On the other hand, he had borrowed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant in the year 2012 on furnishing this disputed cheque in blank a security and thereafter he has cleared the said debt by depositing a sum of Rs.7 to 8 thousand every month to the bank account of the complainant etc., then certainly he would have proved JUDGEMENT 17 C.C.21975/2016 the same by producing any documents before this court for having deposited the amount of f Rs.7 to 8 thousand every month to the bank account of the complainant. That means to say that if really he had borrowed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- only on furnishing this disputed cheque as security and thereafter he has cleared the said debt by remitting a sum of f Rs.7 to 8 thousand every month to the bank account of the complainant, then certainly he would be in possession of the documents like challens or pass book to show the factum of remittance of the amount of f Rs.7 to 8 thousand every month to the bank account of the complainant. On that circumstance he would have present the same by producing such challens or pass book before this court. But to substantiate the said fact the accused not at all produced any documents like challens or pass book before this court. This creates doubt.
22. No doubt, the accused made an attempt to elicit some evidence from the mouth of PW.1 that the complainant has not produced his bank account statement for the year JUDGEMENT 18 C.C.21975/2016 2012 to 2014 suggesting that the complainant intentionally not produced the said statement before this court stating that if he has produced any such statement of account pertaining to the year 2012 to 2014, then truth would have come out with regard to the deposit of the amount by the accused to the bank account of the complainant etc. No doubt, the complainant has not produced the document like bank account statement for the year 2012 to 2014, but there was no impediment for the accused to prove the said fact by obtaining documents issued by the bank authorities. Because, it is the burden of the accused to prove the fact of remittance of the amount of f Rs.7 to 8 thousand every month to the bank account of the complainant and thereby he has discharged the alleged loan of Rs.6,00,000/-. When such being the case, if the complainant has not produced any statement of account pertaining to the year 2012 to 2014, then he would have proved the same by making any necessary application to call for necessary statement of account from the complainant's banker. But in this regard, the accused not JUDGEMENT 19 C.C.21975/2016 made any attempt. This also creates doubt with regard to the defence of the accused that he had borrowed loan of Rs.6,00,000/- only from the complainant during the year 2012 on furnishing the disputed Ex.P1 singed blank cheque as security and thereafter he has cleared the said debt by remitting a sum of f Rs.7 to 8 thousand every month to the bank account of the complainant.
23. If the defence of the accused was true that he had borrowed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- only from the complainant during the year 2012 on furnishing the disputed cheque in blank as security and thereafter he has repaid the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by remitting the amount of f Rs.7 to 8 thousand every month to the bank account of the complainant and cleared the said debt etc., then certainly he would have made any attempt to take back the cheque from the possession of the complainant which allegedly given as security in connection to the alleged loan of Rs.6,00,000/- by taking any legal steps i.e., by writing any letter to the complainant requesting him to return his JUDGEMENT 20 C.C.21975/2016 signed blank cheque allegedly given infavour of the complainant as security in connection to the alleged loan of Rs.6,00,000/- by narrating the fact of clearance of the said debt. If the complainant not obliged for his request, then he would have legal notice against the complainant demanding him to return his signed blank cheque allegedly given as security in connection to the alleged loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by narrating the fact of clearance of the said debt. If the complainant not complied with demands of notice, then he would have lodged police complaint against the complainant for non-return of his security cheques inspite of the fact of clearance of the debt in connection to which he had given his signed blank cheque as security. But no such overtact is forth coming on the conduct of the accused.
24. Unless the accused has proved that he has acted as normal prudent, he could not rebut the presumption which arose in favour of the complainant under Section.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Because, no prudent man will JUDGEMENT 21 C.C.21975/2016 remain silent without taking any legal steps to collect his security documents like signed blank cheques and other documents, if really he had given the same infavour of any person in connection to any transaction even after completion of the same as security, though even after payment of the entire amount. Hence, the defence taken by the accused in explaining the circumstance how the disputed cheque went to the hands of the complainant is not convincing and acceptable one.
25. Further if the defence of the accused was true that he never borrowed any loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant and he never issued this disputed cheque infavour of the complainant towards discharge of any debt or liability. On the other hand, he had borrowed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- only from the complainant in the year 2012 on furnishing his signed blank cheque as security and thereafter though he has cleared the said debt by remitting a sum of Rs.7 to 8 thousand every month to the bank account of the complainant and despite of the fact the JUDGEMENT 22 C.C.21975/2016 complainant has made false claim against him by misusing his signed blank cheque, then certainly he would have caused necessary reply to the demand notice of the complainant issued against him on account of dishonour of Ex.P1 cheque by taking suitable defence on earliest.
26. Because, it is the case of the complainant that soon after receipt of intimation of dishonour from the bank, he has caused notice to the accused through RPAD and COP by demanding him to pay the amount covered under the cheque by appraising the fact of dishonour of the cheque. The notice sent against the accused through COP was duly served on the accused, but since the RPAD was intentionally refused and not claimed by this accused.
27. To substantiate the said fact, the complainant has produced documents like Ex.P4 demand notice, Ex.P5 postal receipt and Ex.P6 unserved postal envelope. On perusal of the said documents, it shows that the notice was sent to the correct address of the accused. But despite of the same, the said notice was not received by the accused. JUDGEMENT 23 C.C.21975/2016 On the other hand, he has not collected the post inspite of due intimation. Hence, the said notice was returned unserved. The fact of issuance of demand notice, though denied by the accused by way of suggestion to PW.1 during cross-examination, but it is pertinent to note that he has not denied the address mentioned in the said Ex.P6 postal envelope and so also the address mentioned in the Ex.P4 demand notice. This clearly goes to show that the notice was sent to the correct address of the accused. Despite of the fact the accused himself has not collected the post and replied it suitably. If the defence of the accused was true, then certainly he would have collected the post and would have taken up his defence by causing necessary reply to the demand notice. But no such attempt has been made by the accused. Hence, whatever the defence taken by the accused during the course of evidence is nothing but after thought.
28. The very fact that the accused failed to reply to the legal notice, leads to an inference that the accused has JUDGEMENT 24 C.C.21975/2016 admitted the allegation made against him in the said demand notice. If the complainant has made false claim in respect to his cheque, then he would have rebut the same by sending suitable reply. But as stated above, the accused failed to cause any reply to the demand notice by taking his defence as taken by him during the course of evidence. Thus, he failed to rebut the presumption which arose infavour of the complainant.
29. Hence, the defence taken by the accused in explaining the circumstance in which the disputed cheque went to the hands of the complainant is not acceptable and convincing one.
30. Further though at one stretch the accused made an attempt to question the source of arrangement of funds and monitory capacity of the complainant. But PW.1 clearly deposed in his evidence that he was working at BMTC since 35 years and drawing salary of Rs.60,000/- p.m. and after deduction, he would get Rs.35,000/- p.m. Further, PW.1 has stated that he had kept the amount at JUDGEMENT 25 C.C.21975/2016 his house to get mortgage of the house and out of the amount, he had advanced loan infavour of the accused. This the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the source of income and source of arrangement of funds was not denied by the accused, since there is no any suggestion to PW.1. Even otherwise by taking the defence of borrowing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant, the accused himself has admitted the monitory capacity of the complainant. Because, the person who has capacity to lend loan of Rs.2,00,000/-, certainly he has capacity to lend loan of Rs.5,00,000/- also. Even otherwise, the person who has salary of Rs.30,000/- p.m. finds no difficulty to lend loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, mere the fact that the complainant has not produced documents to show about the arrangement of funds, it cannot be the ground to suspect the monitory capacity of the complainant to lend loan of Rs.5,00,000/- infavour of the accused.
31. Hence, with all this reason this court is of the opinion that though accused made an attempt to dispel the burden JUDGEMENT 26 C.C.21975/2016 which arose in favour of the complainant under Section.139 Negotiable Instruments Act by taking defence that he never borrowed any loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant and he never issued the disputed cheque infavour of the complainant towards discharge of any debt or liability of Rs.5,00,000/- and on the other hand, he has borrowed loan just of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant in the year 2012 on furnishing this signed blank cheque as security and it was misused by this complainant etc.. But by failed to prove the said defence by placing necessary cogent and convincing evidence.
32. Hence onus not shifted on the shoulder of the complainant in proving the fact of existence of legally enforceable debt or liability in between the complainant and the accused and about issuance of disputed cheque by the accused infavour of the complainant. On the other hand, it rests with the accused only. Thus, the complainant has proved the fact of that there was existence of legally enforceable debt or liability in between himself JUDGEMENT 27 C.C.21975/2016 and the accused and towards discharge of the said debt, the accused had issued this disputed cheque.
33. Further though the complainant proves the fact of lending loan in favour of the accused and about issuance of the disputed cheque in his favour towards repayment of the alleged loan etc., but on careful reading the entire materials on record, it creates doubt with regard to the very maintainability of the case under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
34. Because in the case on hand, as per the version of the complainant, he had presented the disputed cheque for encashment on 15-04-2016 through his banker. The said cheque was dishonoured for the reason 'Account Closed' on 16-04-2016. The complainant ought to have caused demand notice against the accused on account of dishonour of the cheuqe within 30 days from the date of dishonour of the cheque. But in the case on hand, the complainant not issued legal notice on such dishonour of the cheque. On the other hand, it is his contention that he JUDGEMENT 28 C.C.21975/2016 had contacted the accused appraising the fact of dishonour of the cheuqe and demanded him to pay the amount covered under the cheque, then the accused had instructed him to present the said cheque again in the 1st week of July-2016 assuring that the said cheque would be honoured and hence he had presented the said cheque for encashment once again and as the cheque once again dishnoured for the reason 'Account closed' and by causing demand notice against the accused and filed this case alleging that there was no compliance on the side of the accused. But whenver the cheuqe is dishonoured on the ground of 'Account closed', the payee cannot resort to successive presentation to save the limitation. The conduct of the complainant in re-presenting the cheque during July-2016 is unwarranted and it is barred by limited. Becuase, the limitations should be computed from the date of dishonour of the cheque for the first time i.e., from the date of dishonour of the cheque on 16-04-2016. On perusal of the same, it shows that, the legal notice was issued by the complainant is beyond the JUDGEMENT 29 C.C.21975/2016 period of 30 days envisaged under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and from teh date of dishonour of the cheque i.e., on 16-04-2016, it is not in accordance with law. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable.
35. This received support from the decision reported in ILR 2007 KAR 2706 in Sri. H. Nanjundappa V/s. Sri. H. Hanumatharayappa, wherein their lordship has held that:
In the case of 'account closed', the question of successive presentation makes no sense becasue the account itself is not in existence, there is no possibility of having a fruitful result by successive presentation unlike in the case of 'insufficiency of funds'.
Therefore, whenever the cheque is dishonoured on teh ground of account closed, the payee cannot resort to successive presentation to save the limitation. Hence, with all these areson, I answered Point No.1 in the Negative.
36. POINT NO.2: In view of my discussions on Point No.1 as above, I proceed to pass the following:
JUDGEMENT 30 C.C.21975/2016
ORDER Acting under Section. 255(1) Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused is set at liberty and his bail bond stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced in open court by me on this the 5th day of April-2018.) (C.G. Vishalakshi) XIII A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Ravi. M.I. Documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P1 : Cheque
Ex.P2&3 : Endorsements
Ex.P4 : Legal Notice
Ex.P5 : Postal receipt
Ex.P6 : Returned Postal envelope cover
Ex.P7 : Complaint
JUDGEMENT 31 C.C.21975/2016
Ex.P8 : Endorsement
Ex.P9 : Statement of account
Witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
- None -
Documents marked on behalf of the accused:
- Nil -
(C.G. Vishalakshi) XIII A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.