Bangalore District Court
Sri. Mahendra Kumar vs Smt. Gangamma. B on 13 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
:: PRESENT ::
SRI. NAGARAJEGOWDA.D., B.Com, L.L.B.,
C/C. XII A.C.M.M., Bengaluru
C.C.NO.32891/2014
Dated: This the 13th Day of NOVEMER -2019
COMPLAINANT/S: Sri. Mahendra Kumar,
S/o. Sri. Mohanlal @ Sumermal
Aged about 46 Years,
R/at: No.282, 14th Main,
38th Cross, 4th "T" Block,
Jayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 041.
ACCUSED: Smt. Gangamma. B,
W/o. H. Vishwanatha,
R/at. No:2511, 26th Cross,
17th Main, B.S.K. 2nd Stage,
Near BDA Complex,
Bengaluru - 560 070.
Offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Acquitted
**
JUDGMENT 2 C.C.No:32891/2014
:: JUDGMENT ::
The complainant filed this private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C alleging that, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case reads as follows:
The accused and her husband are friends of the complainant for several years. The accused is a builder and doing construction business in the name of "Gangaviswa Constructions" since several years. In the month of second week of February 2014, the accused approached and expressed his intention of buying 3 residential flats in a good conditioned apartment. The accused stated to the complainant that the accused and one Raghunath Menon have already entered into a joint development agreement in order to put residential apartment over the property bearing Site Nos:4 and 5, totally measuring to an extent of 4072 Sq. Ft. situated at Annasandrapalya, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South JUDGMENT 3 C.C.No:32891/2014 Taluk and the accused has stated that the construction of flat would be completed by the end of September 2014. There afterwards, the accused took the complainant to see the construction work and showed him the apartment place and has offered the complainant to buy 3 residential flats in the aforesaid apartment. The accused further represented to the complainant that the accused will sell her share of 3 residential flats and assured the complainant that the accused will get the sale deed registered in respect of the 3 residential flats in favour of the complainant on or before September 2014 and deliver possession of the residential flats to the complainant. The complainant believing the representation and assurance of the accused has agreed to buy 3 residential flats each for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. On demand an advance amount of Rs.60,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to the accused on 15/02/2014 by way of cash towards advance sale consideration. The complainant has agreed to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.90,00,000/- at the time of registration. On 10/04/2014, the accused has approached the complainant due to some internal issues JUDGMENT 4 C.C.No:32891/2014 between the accused and Sir. Raghunath Menon the construction work of the apartment has been stopped and the accused expressed her inability to complete the sale transaction as agreed by her with the complainant in respect of the residential flats and further agreed to return advance amount paid by the complainant. The accused issued 12 cheques for a sum of Rs.60,00,000/-, each for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in discharge of advance sale consideration paid by the complainant. The cheques issued by the accused to the complainant are as follows.
1. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699241 dated 14/06/2014.
2. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699246 dated 07/08/2014.
3. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699240 dated 16/08/2014.
4. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699237 dated 17/09/2014.
5. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699236 dated 17/09/2014.
6. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699247 dated 01/11/2014.
7. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699239 dated 03/11/2014.
JUDGMENT 5 C.C.No:32891/2014
8. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699244 dated 04/11/2014.
9. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699242 dated 05/11/2014.
10. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699238 dated 06/11/2014.
11. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699243 dated 07/11/2014.
12. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699245 dated 10/11/2014.
All the said cheques are drawn on Canara Bank, Hanumanthanagar Branch, Bengaluru. The cheques as stated at Serial Nos:1 to 5 totally for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- is realized by the complainant. The complainant presented the cheques stated at Serial Nos:6 to 12 to his Banker for encashment, but it was received back with remarks as "Funds insufficient" on 11/11/2014 at 10.30 A.M. The complainant got issued legal notice on 11/11/2014 through speed post to the accused calling upon her to come forward and pay the cheque amount of Rs.35,00,000/- to the complainant. The legal notice was duly served to the accused on 13/11/2014. Despite service of legal notice, the accused failed to clear the cheque JUDGMENT 6 C.C.No:32891/2014 amount of Rs.35,00,000/-. After service of notice, the accused herein replied in her reply notice adopting untenable and false defence instead of making payment to the complainant. As such, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and punish the accused in accordance with law by awarding compensation amount of Rs.35,00,000/- i.e, double the cheque amount of Rs.70,00,000/- to the complainant and punish the accused in accordance with law in the interest of justice and equity.
3. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant with documentary evidence, this court has registered the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Summons issued to the accused. The accused appeared through her counsel and enlarged on bail. There afterwards, plea of accusation read over and explained to the accused in the language known by her and she pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
JUDGMENT 7 C.C.No:32891/2014
4. In support of the case of the complainant, the complainant filed affidavit by way of chief-examination as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and thus PW-1 has been fully cross-examined by the accused counsel and at that time he got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.11 and thus PW-1 has been fully cross-examined by the accused counsel and thus the complainant closed his side evidence.
5. There afterwards, the accused person examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C statement, in which she totally denied the entire case of the complainant and submits that their side no defence evidence. Hence, her side defence evidence taken as nil.
6. I have heard the arguments of the complainant counsel on merits. In support of his contention, the complainant counsel relied on citations reported in
(i) Criminal Appeal Nos.917-944 of 2019 (Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal V/s. Virender Gandhi) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that under Section JUDGMENT 8 C.C.No:32891/2014 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment of two years and to pay cheque amount + 1% as interest and litigation expenses as fine etc.
(ii) Further relied on decision reported in Criminal Appeal No.508/2019 (Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel V/s. State of Gujarat and another) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that Trial court acquitting accused on ground of creation of doubt. Decision of the Trial court held suffering from perversity and fundamental error approach.
(iii) Further relied on decision reported in 2019 (1) Kar. L. R. 171 (S.M.Nataraja V/s. B.M.Prakash) in which Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that in a situation, more particularly, in a case like this where the accused has not denied the loan transaction and also issuance of cheque, and more particularly, the alleged financial condition of the complainant, the legal presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act crystallizes in favour of the complainant etc.
(iv) Further relied on decision reported in Criminal Appeal No.1545 of 2019 (Uttam Ram V/s. Devinder Singh Hudan and another) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that as per Section 138 of N.I.Act, the cheque in question admitted by the accused belongs to her and hence the accused may be acquittal in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT 9 C.C.No:32891/2014 Accordingly, the learned counsel for the complainant prays for convict the accused in accordance with law.
7. I have heard the arguments of the accused counsel on merits. In support of the case of the accused, the learned counsel for the accused submitted written arguments by narrating the facts and circumstances of the case and submits that the complainant has not fulfilled all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and also relied on the following decisions reported in
(i) Criminal Appeal No.2402/2014 (K.Subramani V/s. K.Damodara Naidu) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that it is the duty of the complainant to prove his source of income to lend Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused and he failed to prove the existence of legally recoverably debt by the accused to him.
(ii) Further relied on decision reported in Criminal Appeal No.636/2019 (Basalingappa V/s. Mudibasappa) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that after considering the evidence and material of record held that the accused JUDGMENT 10 C.C.No:32891/2014 is hereby raised the probable defence which creates doubt about the debt or liability etc. Hence, the learned counsel for the accused prays for acquittal of the accused in accordance with law.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the following points arises for my considerations:
POINTS
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that for repayment of the advance amount of Rs.60,00,000/-, the accused had issued 12 cheques. Among them 1 to 5 cheques are realized and the remaining cheques from Sl.No.6 to 12 issued in favour of the complainant were dishonoured due to "Funds insufficient" on 11/11/2014. There afterwards, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 11/11/2014 sent by speed post and the same is duly served to the accused on 13/11/2014. In spite of issuance of legal notice to the accused, instead of complying the notice, the accused issued an untenable reply by denying the entire case of the complainant and thus she has committed JUDGMENT 11 C.C.No:32891/2014 an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What order?
9. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative,
Points No.2: As per the final order,
for the following.
REASONS
10. POINT No.1: In support of the case of the complainant the complainant filed affidavit by way of chief-examination as PW-1 in which he has stated that he knows the accused and her husband and they are good friends for several years. The accused is a builder and doing construction business in the name of "Gangaviswa Constructions" since several years. In the second week of February 2014, he approached the complainant and expressed his intention of buying 3 residential flats in a good conditioned apartment. The accused and one Raghunath Menon have already entered into a joint development agreement in order to put residential apartment over the property bearing Site Nos:4 JUDGMENT 12 C.C.No:32891/2014 and 5 situated at Annasandrapalya, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk totally measuring to an extent of 4072 Sq. Ft. The accused informed that the construction will be completed by end of September 2014. There afterwards, the accused has taken him to see the construction work and showed him the apartment place and has offered him to buy 3 residential flats in the aforesaid project. The accused represented that she will sell her share of 3 residential flats and further assured that the accused will get the sale deed registered in respect of the 3 residential flats in favour of the complainant on or before September 2014 and deliver possession of the residential flats to the complainant. Believing the words of accused, the complainant agreed to buy 3 residential flats for Rs.50,00,000/- and paid advance amount of Rs.60,00,000/- to the accused on 15/02/2014 by way of cash towards advance sale consideration. Further stats that this complainant agreed to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.90,00,000/- at the time of registration. On 10/04/2014, the accused has approached the complainant and informed that due to some internal JUDGMENT 13 C.C.No:32891/2014 issues between the accused and Sir. Raghunath Menon the construction work of the apartment has been stopped and the accused expressed her inability to complete the sale transaction as agreed by her with respect to the aforesaid flat and the accused agreed to return the advance amount paid by this complainant. Accordingly, the accused issued 12 cheques for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each as refund of advance sale consideration paid by the complainant. The cheques issued by the accused to the complainant are as follows.
1. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699241 dated 14/06/2014.
2. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699246 dated 07/08/2014.
3. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699240 dated 16/08/2014.
4. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699237 dated 17/09/2014.
5. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699236 dated 17/09/2014.
6. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699247 dated 01/11/2014.
7. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699239 dated 03/11/2014.
JUDGMENT 14 C.C.No:32891/2014
8. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699244 dated 04/11/2014.
9. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699242 dated 05/11/2014.
10. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699238 dated 06/11/2014.
11. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699243 dated 07/11/2014.
12. Rs.5,00,000/- is paid through cheque bearing No:699245 dated 10/11/2014.
All the said cheques are drawn on Canara Bank, Hanumanthanagar Branch, Bengaluru. The cheques as stated at Serial Nos:1 to 5 totally for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- is realized by the complainant. The complainant presented the cheques stated at Serial Nos:6 to 12 to his Banker for encashment, but it was received back with remarks as "Funds insufficient" on 11/11/2014 at 10.30 A.M. The complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 11/11/2014 through speed post and the said notice is duly served to the accused on 13/11/2014. But instead of complying the terms of notice, the accused issued a reply notice with an untenable ground and thus the accused has committed an offence punishable under JUDGMENT 15 C.C.No:32891/2014 Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 are the cheques alleged to be issued by the accused from the name of "Gansaviswa Constructions" and as the Proprietor this accused has put her signature and identified her signature as Ex.P.1(a) to Ex.P.7(a). All the cheques are returned unpaid with an endorsement "Funds insufficient" as per Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.14. After dishonour of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 cheques, the complainant got issued legal notice as per Ex.P.15 on 12/11/2014 to the accused. The said notice has been sent to the accused as per Ex.P.16 is the postal receipt and Ex.P.17 is the speed post receipt. After receipt of the said demand notice, the accused issued reply notice through her counsel as per Ex.P.18 in which it is stated that the notice issued by the complainant is misconceived one. Hence the same is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the accused and the accused had issued cheque slips under No:699239 to 699246 drawn on Canara Bank, Hanumanthangar Branch, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each for purchase of residential apartment situated at Gavipuram, Bengaluru on the basis of the JUDGMENT 16 C.C.No:32891/2014 representation made by the complainant and one H.Ravikala. The accused states that she believed the complainant to be true and genuine owner of the residential apartment purchased under registered sale deed dated 02/04/2014. Though the sale deed states that the entire sale consideration was fixed at Rs.20,00,000/-, in fact the same was fixed for Rs.60,00,000/- and considering the prevailing market value of residential flats. It is needless to state that the complainant by issuing the present notice and another notice dated 21/11/2014 has already admitted the receipt of Rs.45,00,000/- out of the total consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-. From the records and papers submitted by the complainant, the accused came across the copy of the PAN card standing in the name of the complainant wherein the complainant is described as Mahendra Kumar S/o. Sumermal Kanunga and not a son of Mohan Lal as mentioned in the sale deed. This accused has made an extensive search and secured the information from documentary evidence which reflected that the complainant impersonated and professed himself to be the son of Mohan Lal and executed registered sale JUDGMENT 17 C.C.No:32891/2014 deed dated 02/04/2014. The flat was purchased for the purpose of residence cum office. Thus the complainant and one Ravikala have committed the grievous offences which are triable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code for which this accused has already instructed to proceed against the complainant in the criminal courts. That apart, the complainant having committed the offence of fraud, misrepresentation and deception does not deserved even a plaint reply to your legal notice dated 12/11/2014, nonetheless to be on the safer side and also to comply with the requirements enjoined under the provisions of N.I.Act this reply notice is addressed. This accused has already instituted a civil suit in OS.No:9117/2014 on the file of Hon'ble Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru, wherein against the complainant and H. Ravikala are also parties, have taken serious note of the matter and has ordered emergent notice against the complainant as to why the complainant should not deposit the cheque slips numbers 699239 to 699246 (except, the five which are already encashed) in the court. Under these circumstances, this complainant on the face of the records appears to be JUDGMENT 18 C.C.No:32891/2014 impostor and as such the accused has made herself clear that unless the complainant establishes in a legal manner that the complainant is the son of Mohan Lal, there is no question of making payment as expected in the notice much less in terms of the cheque slip stated above which are issued to this complainant. Believing the complainant to be true and real owner of the property purchased under the registered sale deed dated 02/04/2014 by this accused. For the reasons meticulously spelt out in the above paragraphs, I request your goodself to ask this complainant to withdraw the notice dated 12/11/2014 with a direction to refund a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- which are reflected in two notices within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice with a further condition to take back the same if the complainant establishes that he is the son of Mohan Lal and not Sumermad Kanunga. Hence, take this reply and comply. Against the contents of Ex.P.18 reply notice, the complainant has not issued any rejoinder by admitting or denying the facts stated in the reply notice. Ex.P.19 is the Rowdy Concerned Register in the name of Rowdy mentioned as Vishwanath S/o. Venkataramanappa JUDGMENT 19 C.C.No:32891/2014 dated 25/10/1992. Ex.P.20 is the black and white photo of Vishwanatha. Ex.P.21 is the certified copy of OS.No:9117/2014 (CCH-12) filed by the complainant Smt. Gangamma against Mahendra Kumar and others which claims to be Mahendra Kumar S/o. Mohanlal, along with the interim application along with the affidavit of the accused in this case. Ex.P.22 is the E-stamp paper submitted by Sumermal Kanunga @ Mohanlal Devichandji Kanunga S/o. Late Devichandji Kanunga, aged about 75 years, residing at No:14/1, 1st Main, 2nd Block, Thyagaraja Nagar, Bengaluru, in which he stated that he was born and brought up at Siwana, Barmer District and residing at Kundagol, Karnataka about 25 years. There afterwards, he shifted his family to Bengaluru about 30 years and was residing at above mentioned address. Further states that he has been called as names and thereby declared one Mohanlal Devichandji Kanjunga and also as Summermal Devichandji Kanunga and some of the statutory documents are standing in the name of Mohanlal Devichandji Kanunga etc. Ex.P.23 is the paper publication about two names of the complainant in The Hindu newspaper.
JUDGMENT 20 C.C.No:32891/2014 Ex.P.24 is the certified copy of MFA No:10396/2008 c/w. MFA No:11149 of 2008 (MV) in which Mahendra Kumar and Piyush Kumar and Kumari Prerana have filed the said case against the Respondent and after contesting in the said case, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka enhanced the compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- each with proportionate interest etc. These documentary evidence shows that the complainant's father is also called as Sumermal etc.
11. The accused has denied the entire case of the complainant. In support of his denial, the accused counsel cross-examined PW-1. In the cross-examination, he trying to elicit that from 2013 he knows the accused from Jayanagar Anthony and his father name from the year 2013 is called as Mohan Lal @ Sumermal in two names and he has not examined his father before this court, but he voluntarily stated that his father is not able to appear before the court due to paralysis. There was a sale deed taken between the complainant and the accused on 02/04/2014, for that the certified copy of the sale deed is got marked as Ex.D.1 and in the said absolute sale deed JUDGMENT 21 C.C.No:32891/2014 dated 02/04/2014, in which his father name is mentioned as Mohan Lal and as per Ex.D.2 PAN card is mentioned as Sumermal Kanunga and further got marked Ex.D.3 is the Criminal Petition No.4371/2011 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by the complainant herein and his father's name is mentioned as Sumermal. Further got marked Ex.D.4 is the original suit in OS.No:9117/2014 in which the accused herein Smt. Gangamma has filed the case for permanent injunction against the accused and the accused father name is shown as Mohanlal, with respect to the piece and parcel of the residential flat property situated at first Floor of Prajwal Apartment, Bengaluru with the schedule. Further got marked Ex.D.5 is the certified copy of OS.No:619/2015, in which the accused herein Smt. Gangamma filed a case against the complainant herein for decree annulling the sale deed dated 02/04/2014 bearing document No:14/14-15 for the schedule property for want of saleable interest etc, in which the complainant's father name is shown as Mohanlal during the year 2015. Ex.D.6 is the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 in that suit. Ex.D.7 is the original suit in OS.No:9591/2014 in JUDGMENT 22 C.C.No:32891/2014 which the complainant herein who is Mahendra Kumar S/o. Mohanlal @ Sumermal filed the suit against the accused herein for recovery of Rs.64,80,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Ex.D.8 is the certified copy of OS.No:9591/2014, in the said suit the accused herein filed memorandum of written statement by narrating the facts and circumstances of the case as stated in her reply notice. Ex.D.9 is the memo in the said suit for withdrawal, in which the complainant had filed for recovery of Rs.64,80,000/- and he had paid court fee etc. The plaintiff does not intend to prosecute the above suit as he is suffering from Osteoarthritis and Plaintiff may shortly undergo knee surgery and hence prays for dismissing the above suit. Ex.D.10 is the certified copy of Writ Petition No:25902/1999, in which one Vishwanatha has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for all the records from 3rd respondent pertaining to the petitioner's Rowdy list and to direct the Respondent No.3 to remove the name of the petitioner from the Rowdy list etc. In which the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "the action of the respondents JUDGMENT 23 C.C.No:32891/2014 including the name of the petitioner in the rowdy list of the Police station referred to in writ petition is illegal and to quash the same" etc. Ex.D.11 is the memorandum of understanding taken between the accused with the complainant in which as per the memorandum of understanding taken on 15/11/2014, the name of the complainant's father is Mohan Lal and it is mentioned as in relating to the property mentioned in the sale deed dated 02/04/2014, in No.14-2014-15 in favour of Smt. Gagamma by Sri. Mahendra Kumar, Gangamma as sale consideration for Rs.60,00,000/- and has been kept the same for which Gangamma same should be yield interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the above said accused and the accused has to pay interest regularly till realization of the sale consideration etc, and it is mentioned he received 12 cheques for total amount of Rs.60,00,000/- etc. On the basis of the cross-examination of PW-1, the accused counsel given rebuttable evidence to the case of the complainant and at Page No.9 of his cross- examination, the same is in kannada and it is elicited that JUDGMENT 24 C.C.No:32891/2014 "F ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¥sÁèmïUÀ¼À°è vÀ¯Á MAzÀÄ ¥sÁèmïUÉ 50 ®PÀë gÀÆUÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¤UÀ¢AiÀiÁVvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ 60 ®PÀë gÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄß £ÀUÀzÁV PÉÆnÖzÉÝ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä zÁR¯É E®è.
The said suggestion itself goes to show that the complainant has not approached this court in a proper manner. If any balance from the accused, the complainant has to file a civil suit for recovery of the said amount. Hence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable either in law or in facts. Hence, from the cross-examination of PW- 1, it clearly establishes that the alleged cheque in question is not at all issued for discharge of any liability towards the complainant. As such, the complainant has not approached this court in a proper manner. Though the accused did not lead her side evidence, but it is the duty of the complainant to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts. As such, whatever the arguments addressed by the complainant counsel and the citations relied by him as stated above are not applicable to the case of the JUDGMENT 25 C.C.No:32891/2014 complainant on hand. Whereas the written arguments and the citations relied by the learned counsel for the accused are applicable to the case of the accused. As such, the written arguments by the accused counsel and the citations relied by her are clearly establishes that the accused had given a rebuttable evidence to the case of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has failed to proved the alleged guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answered Point No.1 in the Negative.
12. POINT NO.2: From the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C the accused is acquitted from the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
JUDGMENT 26 C.C.No:32891/2014 The accused is set at liberty and her bail bond and surety bond if any will be continued for a period of 6 (six) months in compliance under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of November 2019) (NAGARAJEGOWDA.D) C/C. XII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witness examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW-1 : Sri. Mahendra Kumar Documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 : 7 cheques.
Ex.P.1(a) to Ex.P.7(a) : Signatures of the accused.
Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.14 : 7 Bank endorsements.
Ex.P.15 : Legal notice
Ex.P.16 : Postal receipt
Ex.P.17 : Speed Post acknowledgement
Ex.P.18 : Reply notice.
JUDGMENT 27 C.C.No:32891/2014
Ex.P.19 : Copy of Rowdy Concerned
Register.
Ex.P.20 : Black and white photo of one
Vishwanatha.
Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of
OS.No:9117/2014 (CCH-12)
filed by the complainant Smt.
Gangamma against Mahendra
Kumar and others
Ex.P.22 : E-stamp paper
Ex.P.23 : Paper publication about two
names of the complainant's
father in The Hindu
newspaper.
Ex.P.24 : Certified copy of MFA
No:10396/2008 c/w. MFA
No:11149 of 2008 (MV).
Witness examined on behalf of the accused:
None Documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of absolute sale
deed dated 02/04/2014
Ex.D.2 : Copy of PAN card of the
complainant.
Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of Criminal
JUDGMENT 28 C.C.No:32891/2014
Petition No.4371/2011 on the
file of Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka.
Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of original suit
in OS.No:9117/2014.
Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of
OS.No:619/2015
Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of written
statement filed by the
defendant No.1 in that suit.
Ex.D.7 : Certified copy of the original
suit in OS.No:9591/2014.
Ex.D.8 : Certified copy of
OS.No:9591/2014
Ex.D.9 : Copy of the memo in the said
suit.
Ex.D.10 : Certified copy of Writ Petition
No:25902/1999.
Ex.D.11 : Copy of memorandum of
understanding taken between
the accused with the
complainant.
(NAGARAJEGOWDA.D)
C/C. XII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT 29 C.C.No:32891/2014
13/11/2019
Complainant - BKC
Accused - SAC
Judgment
(Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C the accused is acquitted from the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused is set at liberty and her bail bond and surety bond if any will be continued for a period of 6 (six) months in compliance under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C.
(NAGARAJEGOWDA.D)
JUDGMENT 30 C.C.No:32891/2014
C/C. XII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.