Bangalore District Court
Is Not Proprietor Of Firm To vs Who Is The Person Sitting With The on 20 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., AND XXXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 20th day of April, 2017.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
C.C.No.56334/2014
Mr. H.M. Basavaraju, ..... COMPLAINANT
Residing at C.A.R. Police Quarters,
Tippu 'A' Block, Door No.11,
Adugodi,
Bangalore-560030.
(By Sri. Shiva Rama Shetty, Adv.,)
V/s
Mrs. Suguna, ..... ACCUSED
W/o. Sri. Shekar,
No.19, P.K. Colony,
Food Godown Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bangalore-560 027.
(By Sri. M.N. Ravishankar, Adv.,)
1. Date of commencement of offence : 05.10.2014
2. Date of report of offence : 20.10.2014
3. Arrest of Accused : --
4. Name of the Complainant : Mr. H.M. Basavaraj
2 C.C.NO.56334/2014
(SCCH-7)
5. Date of recording of the evidence : 19.12.2015
6. Date of closing of evidence : 21.11.2016
7. Offence complained of : 138 of N.I. Act
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
9. Complainant represented by : Sri. Shiva Ram Shetty
10. Accused defence by : Sri. M.N. Ravishankar
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR)
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Accused under Sections 190(a) and 200 of Cr.P.C. R/w Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act praying to take cognizance offence committed by the Accused under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and punished her with imprisonment for a term which may extended to 2 years and also with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or both in accordance with law.
2. The brief averments of the Complainant's case are as follows;
a) He was working in the Police Department as a Head Constable since 1974 and he is retired from the service in the year 2008 by getting all the benefits/dues from the Police Department 3 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) and now, he is working as a Security Gun-Man in Axis Bank at Shanthinagar, Bangalore since July 2011.
b) The Accused approached him on 11.08.2014 and requested for a temporary hand loan as the Accused is acquainted to him through her husband Mr. Shekar since 2010 and since the husband of the Accused is also working as a Security Guard at Nanjappa Circle, Shanthinagar, Bangalore - 560 025.
c) He has lent the Accused in cash Rupees 3,00,000/- on 11.08.2014 on the condition that, the amount to be repaid within seven days and in consideration, the Accused issued a Cheque bearing No.133722 dated 11.08.2014 for Rupees 3,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Langford Town, Nanjappa Circle, Banglaore - 560025 to him.
d) He was assured about the honour of the said Cheque by maintaining sufficient balance in her Account at the drawer Bank, viz. Syndicate Bank, Langford Town, Nanjappa Circle, Bangalore - 560025.
e) The Cheque No.133722 dated 11.08.2014 for Rupees 3,00,000/- was presented for collection to the drawer Bank through his Banker, viz., Canara Bank, Madiwala Branch, Banglaore - 560 068 on 49.08.2014 and the said Cheque was dishonoured on 20.08.2014 for want of funds with the drawer Bank's endorsement "funds Insufficient" and the information as to the dishonour was received by him from his Banker on 4 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) 21.08.2014. The Accused in contrary to his assurances made, did not maintain sufficient balance in her account with an ulterior motive.
f) As contemplated under Section 138 (b) and Section 94 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he had got issued a legal notice dated 05.09.2014 to the Accused demanding the payment and discharge the liabilities of the dishonoured Cheque bearing No.133722 dated 11.08.2014 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, which sent through his Advocate Sri Shiva Rama Shettty, Advocate, Bangalore.
g) He has sent legal notice dated 05.09.2014 through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due to the residential address of the Accused. The legal notice sent through RPAD to the Accused was received by her and since postal acknowledgment card was not returned by the postal authority and the legal notice sent through speed post was also received by her.
h) The Accused with a deceitful intention did not make the payment of the dishnoured Cheque inspite of having received the statutory notice sent through RPAD and speed post and failed to pay the Cheque amount of Rupees 3,00,000/- to him till this date even after completion of 15 days period. Hence, he is filing the present complaint after waiting for more than 15 days period for compliance.
5 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7)
i) Section 138 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides undisputed presumption in favour of him that, the Cheque given by the Accused to him is to discharge the liabilities and dues, which are legally recoverable. Hence, in view of the legal presumption and facts stated in the complaint and the documents produced will be sufficient material evidence for this Hon'ble Court to prima-facie constitute an offence and this Hon'ble Court has got jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence committed by the Accused under Sections 139 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments act. Hence, this complaint.
3. After registration of the case, when the summons was issued by the Court, the Accused has appeared before the Court through her Learned Counsel and she was enlarged on bail and the complaint copy was served on her. The Court has recorded the Accusation on 03.06.2015 and the Accused has denied all the allegations leveled as against her and claims to be tried.
4. In support of his case, the Complainant himself has been examined as P.W.1 by filing an affidavit as his examination- in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. After the evidence of the Complainant, the statement of the Accused is recorded Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the Accused herself has been examined as D.W.1 and has also examined one witness as D.W.2 by filing the affidavits as their examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 are marked, by confrontation.
6 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7)
5. Heard the arguments. The Learned Counsels appearing for the Complainant and the Accused have filed the written arguments. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Accused has also filed reply notes.
6. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant Sri. Shiva Rama Shetty, has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,
i) 1988(4) Kar.L.J. 717 High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore (M/s. Metalloy - N - Steel Corporation, Bangalore V/s. M.A. Sridhara), wherein it is observed that, (A) NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881, Sections 138 and 142 - Dishonour of cheque - Payee's complaint of - Offence of - Acquittal of Accused on grounds that, complainant is not proprietor of firm to which cheque was issued, that, complaint was premature and that, complainant has not filed civil suit for recovery of money - Where complainant has complied with all requirements under law, of presenting complied with all requirements under law, of presenting cheque to Bank within six months from date of drawal of cheque to Bank within six months from date of drawal of cheque and during its validity period of, issue of notice of demand for payment within 15 days of receipt of information from Bank regarding dishonour of cheque and of filing of complaint within one month of date of which cause of action arose, Magistrate committed grave error in acquitting Accused.
7 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7) HELD: In this case, the Accused issued the cheque dated 17-5-1993. The complainant sent the cheque for collection through their bankers. The said cheque was returned dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient funds" on 30-6-1993. A notice of dishonour was issued by the complainant on 14-7-1993 within the stipulated time....The notice was returned with an endorsement "not claimed" on 24-7-1993. The complainant waited for 15 days and filed the complaint on 10-8-1993. On perusal of the dates and the endorsements, it is abundantly clear that, the complainant has complied with all the requirements of law under Section 138 of the Act..... The complainant has clearly complied with Section 138 of the Act and the learned Judge has completely lost sight of the provisions of the Act and the evidence before the Court..... In this case, the Trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case has committed grave error in acquitting the Accused. The Accused is guilty of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
ii) Criminal Appeal No.631 of 1995 High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore (M/s. Devi Tyres V/s. Sri. Nawab Jan), wherein it is observed that,
16. Before parting with this case, this Court deems it necessary to lay down certain guidelines for the conduct of this class of cases. There has been an almost universal grievance projected by the complainants in this class of cases that, whereas the objective of engrafting S.13BA 8 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) on the statute book was in order to provide an effective and expeditious remedy in cases of dishonour of cheque, that, experience has shown that, the criminal proceedings are now being dilated and dragged on for a period of time that, are almost co-extensive with civil proceedings. This has happened only because the Courts have lost sight of the fact that, in this class of cases the scope of defence is very limited and it is therefore, literally for ulterior purposes that, the Accused who is the person sitting with the money and the one who has refused to part with it, gets the maximum mileage through protracted litigation. This Court therefore considers it necessary to lay down certain broad guidelines for the conduct of this class of cases. Firstly, the Court will ensure if necessary by having resort to the coercive steps provided for under the Criminal Procedure Code that, the appearance of the Accused is secured without any undue delay. Necessary steps shall then be taken to ensure the presence of the Accused when required end it will be desirable that, the learned Magistrate should record the plea of the accused on the first date when the Accused appears or on the very next date of hearing. The evidence required in these cases is again minimal and the complainants shall be required to keep the evidence ready so that, the recording can commence on the next date of hearing. The Presiding Officer shall also take special care to ensure that, long adjournments are not granted, that, time is not wasted in irrelevant cross-examination, that, the arguments are confined to the aspects of the case that, are strictly relevant for decision and that, the proceeding is disposed of within an outer limit of six months from the date on which the Accused appears before 9 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) the Court. It is necessary that, the message goes out loud and clear that, the Courts mean business and that, while the Court will not come in the way of any genuine bonafide settlement or compromises, that, they will at the same time not permit any situation whereby the aggrieved party is subjected to harassment at the expenses of the one who is benefiting from the delays. What also needs to be noted is the fact that, while the time factor is probably the most oppressive aspect that, it is equally important for the Courts to take not of the fact that, the aggrieved party who has approached the Court should not be punished for doing so by being subjected to heavy expenditure and harassment.
Furthermore, this Court has observed that, in a many as 92 percent of this class of cases that, have been decided in this state that, unfortunately, the trial Courts have been upholding quite unfair, unjust and totally untenable defences and technical pleas that, are totally unjustified. In these instances, the trial Judges seem to have forgotten that, it is their basic duty to decide the case according to law, they have been bending over backwards to virtually assist the Accused and the orders passed are nothing short of a travesty of justice. Bad enough, the complainant who has approached the Court for legal redressal has been dragged through extensive, onerous and time consuming litigation and is then required to go in appeal or revision because of an unsatisfactory order. There is another set of situations in which the Accused have been convicted and awarded such light sentences which this High Court had occasion to define as flea-*** punishments which, instead of acting as a deterrent and bringing down the number of dishonoured 10 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) cheques, only acts as an incentive or encouragement to the Accused and send out the wrong signals by infusing a confidence that, even if one is or, the wrong side of the law, the Courts will let the offender off very lightly. The primary purpose of prescribing a fine equivalent to double the face value is in order to ensure that, not only the amount but, the outstanding interest thereof is recovered and can be awarded to the complainant. The trial Courts shall take serious note of these observations.
iii) (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 441 (Rangappa V/s. Sri. Mohan), wherein it is observed that, E. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Ss. 138 and 139-Dishonour of cheque-
Conviction confirmed-Appellant-Accused, drawer of cheque in question, neither raising a probable defence nor able to contest existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability - High Court reversing his acquittal legally enforceable debt or liability
- Since appellant admitted that, signature on the cheque was his, statutory presumption under S. 139 comes into play and the same was not rebutted even with regard to the materials submitted by complainant - Appellant not able to prove "lost cheque" theory-Apart from not raising a probable defence, appellant was also not able to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability - Hence, his conviction by High Court, held, proper.
11 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7)
iv) Criminal Appeal No.1020 of 2010 Supreme Court of India, (Rangappa V/s. Sri. Mohan), wherein it is observed that,
6. Once the cheque relates to the account of the Accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised by the Court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to in Section 139 of the N.I. Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but, the Accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption. What is required to be established by the Accused in order to rebut the presumption is different from each case under given circumstances. But, the fact remains that, a mere plausible explanation is not expected from the Accused and it must be more than a plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. In other words, the defence raised by way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and capable of being accepted by the Court. The defence raised by the Accused was that, a blank cheque was lost by him, which was made use of by the complainant. Unless this barrier is crossed by the Accused, the other defence raised by him whether the cheque was issued towards the hand loan or towards the amount spent by the complainant need not be considered....' Hence, the High Court concluded that, the alleged discrepancies on part of the complainant which had been noted by the trial Court were not material since the Accused had failed to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption placed on him by Section 139 of the Act.
12 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7)
v) AIR 1983 DELHI 240 DELHI HIGH COURT (Union Bank of India V/s. Swastika Motors and Another), wherein it is observed that, The drawer of a bill of exchange or cheque is bound in case of dishonor by the drawee or acceptor thereof to compensate the holder, provided due notice of dishonor has been given to or received by the drawer. When the drawee dishonors the hundis the drawer would be liable to the holder, payee, the only requirement is of the due notice or dishonor. The drawer would be liable to the holder, payee on dishonor the hundis by the drawee even if the documents of title, accompanying the hundis, were delivered to the drawee without a valid acceptance.
vi) AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2895 (K.N. Beena V/s. Muniyappan and Another), wherein it is observed that, Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138, S.139, S.118- Cheque dishonour complaint - Burden of proving that, cheque had not been issued for any debt or liability - Is on the Accused -
Denial/averments in reply by Accused are not sufficient to shift burden of proof onto the complainant - Accused has to prove in trial by leading cogent evidence that, there was no debt or liability - Setting aside of conviction on basis of some formal evidence led by Accused - Not proper.
13 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7)
vii) (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 16 (Hiten P. Dalal V/s. Bratindranatah Banerjee), wherein it is observed that, B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Ss. 138, 139 and 118-presumptions under- nature of -Standard of requisite proof for rebuttal-held it is obligatory on the court to presume the liability of the drawer for the amount of the cheque in every case where the factual basis for such presumption is established-Such a presumption can be rebutted by the drawer by proving on evidence that, the holder of the cheque had not received the same towards the discharge of any liability-Such rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established-The Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable-But, mere explanation given by the drawer, although plausible held, would not suffice-on facts, held the appellant drawer failed to discharge the burden of proof to rebut the statutory presumptions-Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.114, 101-103, 3 and 4- Criminal Trial-Presumption of innocence- presumptions under Ss.118, 138 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, if in conflict with-Words and Phrases-'Shall presume'. 'May presume".
viii) AIR 2001 6 SUPREME COURT 3897 (Hiten P. Dalal V/s. Bratindranatah Banerjee), wherein it is observed that, (B) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.139, S.138 - Dishonour of cheque
- Presumption that cheque was drawn for 14 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) discharge of liability of drawer - is presumption of law -Ought to be raised by Court in every case - Rebuttal evidence - Nature - Mere plausible explanation is not sufficient - Proof of explanation is necessary.
(C) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.139, S.138 - Dishonour of cheque
-Prosecution for - Plea by accused drawer that cheques issued by him to complainant bank were not given to discharge his debt due to bank but were given for intended transactions - No defence witness giving evidence in support of such plea - Even accused himself giving different answer to notice issuing under S.138 - Plea of accused that as his properties stood attached he could not have paid money within notice period - Not tenable since he had not applied to Court for permission to fulfill obligation - Held accused's defence was improbable - His conviction by raising presumption was proper.
ix) ILR 2000 KAR 1570 (Dr. K.G. Ramachandra Gupta V/s. Dr. G. Adinarayana), wherein it is observed that, (A) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (CENTRAL ACT NO.2 OF 1974) -
SECTION - 378 AND NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS Act 1881 (CENTRAL ACT NO.26 OF 1881) - SECTIONS 138 AND 139 -
Burden of proving that the cheques are issued in discharge of debts or other liability cannot be put on the Complainant - Drawee, particularly in view of the presumption available in Section 139.
15 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7)
x) AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 3762 (K. Bhaskaran V/s. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another), wherein it is observed that, (B) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.139, S.138(1) Proviso Cl.(b), S.138(1) Proviso Cl.(c) - General Clauses Act (10 of 1897), S.27 - Cheque dishonour - Cause of action - Presumption of service of notice - Offence complete on failure of drawer to pay cheque amount within 15 days from date of giving notice - Notice sent by post returned by accused as "unclaimed"
- Period of 15 days commences from such date - Notice is presumed to have been served - Failure of accused to rebut presumption - Accused is guilty of offence under S.138.
It is true, if a judicial magistrate of first class were to order compensation to be paid to the complainant from out of the fine realized the complainant will be the loser when the cheque amount exceeded the said limit. In such a case a complainant would get only the maximum amount of Rupees five thousand. However, the magistrate in such cases can alleviate the grievance of the complainant by making resort to S.357(3) of the Code. No limit is mentioned in the sub- section and therefore, a magistrate can award any sum as compensation. Of course while fixing the quantum of such compensation the Magistrate has to consider what would be the reasonable amount of compensation payable to the complainant. Thus, even if the trial for cheque dishonour was before a Court of magistrate of first class in respect of a cheque which covers an 16 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) amount exceeding Rs.5,000/- the Court has power to award compensation to be paid to the complainant.
(D) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138, S.118, S.139 - Cheque dishonor - Accused denied having issued the cheque although he owned his signature therein - Presumption that cheque was made or drawn for consideration on date which cheque bears, arises - Holder of cheque presumed to have received it for discharge of liability - Burden is upon accused to rebut presumption.
xi) AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 2127 (Hari Kishan and State of Haryana V/s. Sukhbir Singh and Others), wherein it is observed that,
11. The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable. What is reasonable, may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment may also vary depending upon the acts of each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by installments, may also be given. The Court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default.
17 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7)
xii) ILR 2001 KAR 3399 (Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel V/s. State of Gujarat and Another), wherein it is observed that, (B) NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 (CENTRAL ACT NO.26 OFG 1881) -
SECTIONS 138 AND 142 AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (CENTRAL ACT NO.2 OF 1974) SECTIONS 29(2) AND 357 -
Magistrate cannot impose fine beyond Rs. 5,000/- in Cheque Bounce cases. But, under Section 357 he has power to award compensation to the complainant for which no limit is prescribed.
xiii) ILR 2000 KAR 2855 (B. Harikrishna V/s. Macro Links Pvt. Ltd., and Another), wherein it is observed that, NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 (CENTRAL ACT NO.26 OFG 1881) -
SECTIONS 138 - SENTENCING FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 - In this revision adequacy of sentence o fine of Rs.10,000/- for Two bounced cheques of Rupees ten Thousand and Rs.16,501/- is questioned - HELD - Courts must take in to consideration all aspects of the case including financial loss caused.
xiv) (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 260 (R. Vijayan V/s. Baby and Another), wherein it is observed that, B. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 - Ch.17 and S.138 - Inconsistencies in Ch.17 pointed out and remedies suggested for adjudicatory and legislative mechanisms - Ch.17 providing for both 18 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) traditional punitive provisions as well as compensatory and restitutive provisions - Difficulties for complainants with regard to recovery fo cheque with interest pointed out (as courts might follow traditional punitive approach rather than a compensatory and restitutive approach) (both approaches being valid) - Therefore, suggested that: (a) either approach of courts should be more uniform, practical and realistic, or (b) provisions of Ch.17 be amended suitably - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S.357(3) - Penology - Punitive vis-à-vis compensatory and restitutive approach.
7. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Accused, Sri. M.N. Ravishankar, has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,
i) ILR 2009 KAR 1633 (Supreme Court) (Kumar Exports V/s Sharma Carpets), wherein it is observed that, Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Sections 139 - and 138 - presumption that, Cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability - presumption how to be displaced - Declaration made by the Complainant himself to the sales tax department that, no sale had taken place - Accepted as a valid proof that, Cheques were not issued by Accused in discharge of any debt or liability to Complainant - Accused therefore by producing this evidence, held to have displaced the presumption under Section 139 and therefore offence under Section 138 not proved against Accused.
19 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7)
ii) AIR 2010 (NOC) 514 (KAR) (Smt. B. Indramma V/s. Eshwar), wherein it is observed that, Negotiable Instrument Act (26 of 1881), S.139 - Dishonor of Cheque - "Legally enforceable debt" - Presumption -
Complainant failed to establish that, she lent money to Accused and Accused delivered Cheque to Complainant - Entire transaction took place between husband of Complainant and Accused - Complainant had no direct transaction with Accused - Delivery of Cheque to and receipt of Cheque by Complainant disputed by Accused -
Merely because Accused admitted signature in alleged Cheque not sufficient proof that, Complainant received Cheque from Accused
- Complainant failed to prove existence of legally enforceable debt payable to her by Accused - presumption cannot be raised in favour of Complainant - Acquittal of Accused - Proper. AIR 2008 SC 1325, Relied on.
iii) 2008 (1) DCR 65 Madras High Court (ER. S. Karuppusamy V/s. C. Sugumar), wherein it is observed that, Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Section 138 - Dishonor of Cheque -
Acquitted - Sustainability of - Appreciation of evidence - issued undated and unnamed Cheque - only the amount and signature admitted - fact also admitted in cross- examination of Complainant - Loan transaction - consideration of - Held - it cannot be said that, ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act attracted to warrant 20 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) conviction - No interference - Appeal dismissed.
iv) 2012 (2) DCR 147 Bombay High Court (Nandkumar Rajkumar Harane V/s. Vishwas Vilasrao Kshirsagar and Another), wherein it is observed that, Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Section 138, 139 and 118(a) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Comparison of hand writing - Justification - Held - Court should be lenient to meet the ends of justice and to enable the Accused to substantiate his defence before Court properly, hence it is necessary to send documents for obtaining expert opinion.
v) 2012 (2) DCR 156 Jharkhand High Court (Hari Ram Sariwala @ Hari Ram V/s. State of Jharkhand and Another), wherein it is observed that, Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Section 138 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - plea of blank Cheque as Security
- scope - held - Prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts -
Standard of proof so as to prove a defence on part of Accused is "Preponderance of probabilities" - Inference of preponderance of probability can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but, also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.
21 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7)
vi) 2008 (1) DCR 334 Madras High Court (S. Gopal V/s. D. Balachandran), wherein it is observed that, Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Section 20 - "inchoate stamped instrument"
- scope of provisions under - Held - Section 20 of N.I. Act applies only to a stamped instruments like promissory note and bill of exchange and not to blank Cheque issued after signature of drawer.
Held: A bare reading of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments act would got to show that, it would apply to only a stamped instrument viz., pronote and bill of exchange and not to be Cheques. As per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the holder in due course has every authority to complete the blank pronote and bill of exchange delivered to him after properly signing therein by the maker of the instrument. But, Section 20 will have no application to the blank Cheques issued after signing by the drawer.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 45
- Contents of Cheque Admissibility of - held
- age of ink cannot be determined and by an expert with scientific accuracy and use of old ink on purpose would only dent opinion of expert and result in further confusion.
vii) AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1898 (Rangappa V/s. Mohan), wherein it is observed that, 22 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) (A) Negotiable Instrument Act (26 of 1881), S. 138 - Dishonour of Cheque - on account of 'stop payment' instructions sent by Accused to Bank in respect of post dated Cheque - S. 138 is attracted - Insufficiency of funds in account, irrespective.
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138 - Existence of legally recoverable debt or liability - Is matter of presumption under Section 139.
viii) 2011 (3) AIR Kar R 434 (B. Girish V/s. S. Ramaiah), wherein it is observed that, Negotiable Instrument Act, (26 of 1881), Ss. 139, 118, 138 - Dishonour of Cheque -
Presumption as to legally enforceable debt - Rebuttal of - Accused specifically denied monetary transaction and that Cheque was not issued for discharge of any debt or liability - No documentary evidence led by Complainant to show alleged transaction - though Complainant alleged that, he lent money to Accused after borrowing from other sources - there was no documentary evidence to show alleged borrowings nor any agreement for payment of interest between Complainant and Accused - Except Cheque no evidence produced to show that, Accused had acknowledged receipt of money -
Moreover since transaction was above Rupees 20,000/- there was no Account payee Cheque issued by Accused hence alleged Cheque was in violation of S.269 (ss) of Income Tax Act - In absence of any oral and documentary evidence from Complainant - Presumptions U/Ss.138, 118 stood rebutted.
23 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7)
ix) 2008 AIR SCW 738 (Krishna Janardhan Bhat V/s. Dattatraya G. Hegde), wherein it is observed that, (C) Negotiable Instrument Act, (26 of 1881), S.138 - Presumption under -
Rebuttal - Duty of Court - Presumption of innocence as human rights and doctrine of reverse burden introduced by S.139 -
Should be delicately balanced - It largely depends on factual matrix of each case.
8. Now the Points that arise for my consideration are as follows;
POINTS
1. Whether the Complainant proves that, the Accused has issued Cheque bearing No.133722 dated 11.08.2014 for Rupees 3,00,000/-, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Langford Town, Nanjappa Circle Branch in his favour for legally enforceable debt?
2. Whether the Complainant proves that, the said Cheque issued by the Accused is dishonoured for the reason that "Funds Insufficient"?
3. Whether the Complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the Accused has committed an offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
4. What order?
24 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7)
9. 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 Affirmative, Point No.4 : As per final Order, for the following;
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1 :- The P.W.1, who is the Complainant has stated in his examination-in-chief that, he was worked in the Police Department of the Government of Karnataka since 1974 and retired from the services on 29.02.2008 and got around Rupees 4,49,040/- on his retirement from the Police Department and after retirement, he started working as a Security Guard in Axis Bank at Shanthinagar, Bangalore. The P.W.1 has further started in his cross-examination that, in February 2008, he retired from the Services as Head Constable. He has further stated that, initially, he worked in I-Security along with the husband of the Accused and thereafter since 2011, he was working as a Security in ISS and since he and the husband of the Accused were working together in the same place, he knows the Accused and in the year 2009, he and the husband of the Accused were worked together. In this regard, the Complainant has produced Ex.P.6 Pension Payment Order and Ex.P.7 Postal Documents, which obtained 25 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) through Internet. The D.W.1, who is the Accused, has stated in her examination-in-chief that, the Complainant was working in the Police department since 1974 and he has retired from the services on 29.02.2008. She has further admitted that, after retirement from his services, the Complainant was working as a Security Guard in Axis Bank, Shanthinagar, Bangalore. From the said evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 as well as the contents of Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7, it is clearly proved that, the Complainant was working in the Police Department since 1974 and he retired from the services on 29.02.2008 and he got retirement benefits at the time of his retirement and now also, he is working as a Security Guard in Axis Bank, Shanthinagar, Bangalore. From this, it is further made crystal clear that, the financial condition of the Complainant was in good condition and the Complainant and the Accused are well known to each other.
11. The P.W.1 has stated that, the Accused approached him on 11.08.2014 and requested him for a temporary hand loan of Rupees 3,00,000/- and since she was introduced to him through her husband Mr. Shekar, who was known to him since 2010 and he is also working as a Security Guard at Nanjappa Circle, Bangalore. He has further stated that, he has paid a hand loan of Rupees 3,00,000/- by cash on 11.08.2014 to the Accused on the assurance that, she will return the said amount within 7 days from 11.08.2014 and he has also drawn a sum of Rupees 4,50,000/- from Canara Bank, Madivala Branch, Bangalore, on 27.23.2013 for the purpose of marriage of his daughter and kept the said amount at his residence and this fact was known to Mr. 26 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) Shekar, who is the husband of the Accused, who requested for the temporary hand loan. He has further stated that, the Accused gave him her Cheque for Rupees 3,00,000/- in consideration of the amount received by her on 11.08.2014.
12. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, on 11.08.2014, he has paid a sum of Rupees 3,00,000/- to the Accused and Rupees 1,50,000/- to one Nagaraj and he has also filed similar case as against the said Nagaraj.
13. The Complainant has produced Ex.P.1 Cheque. The signature of the Accused, which is found of Ex.P.1 Cheque is marked at Ex.P.1(a). The Complainant has also produced Ex.P.5 Statement of Accounts.
14. The D.W.1, who is the Accused, has stated in her examination-in-chief that, at the time of receiving the loan amount from the Complainant, he had taken a blank Cheque with her signature and without mentioning the date and amount in the said Cheque bearing No.133722, drawn on Canara Bank, Madiwala Branch, for security purposes. She has further stated in her cross-examination that, the said Cheque is issued by her.
15. From the said oral evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 as well as the contents of Ex.P.1 Cheque and Ex.P.1(a) Signature of the Accused, which is found of Ex.P.1 Cheque and Ex.P.5 Statement of Accounts, it is made crystal clear that, on 11.08.2014, the Complainant had sufficient amount and on 11.08.2014, the 27 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) Accused has issued Ex.P.1 Blank signed Cheque in favour of the Complainant.
16. According to the complaint, the Accused has issued Ex.P.1 Cheque in question for a sum of Rupees 3,00,000/- issued on 11.08.2014 in respect of hand loan of Rupees 3,00,000/-, which was borrowed by the Accused from him on 11.08.2014, as, she had agreed to repay the said amount within 7 days from 11.08.2014. The same has been clearly denied by the Accused in her examination-in-chief and she has taken a specific defence by stating that, due to friendship with her husband, the Complainant had paid a sum of Rupees 50,000/- to her in the month of August 2013 as a hand loan for their family necessity and due to domestic problems, she was not able to repay the said loan amount of Rupees 50,000/- to the Complainant within time and at the time of receiving the loan amount from the Complainant, he had taken a blank Cheque with her signature and without mentioning the date and amount in the said Cheque bearing No.133722, drawn on Canara Bank, Madiwala Branch for security purposes and now, the Complainant has misused the said Cheque after a lapse of 1 ½ years by concoction and manipulation of the said Cheque by filling up a sum of Rupees 3,00,000/- for the purpose of grabbing money and she was admitted to the Sita Bhatija Specialty Hospital for uterus operation on 23.04.2014 and on 28.04.2014, she had discharged from the Hospital and immediately after discharge from the Hospital, i.e., on 11.05.2014, she has paid the loan amount of Rupees 50,000/- along with interest of Rupees 5,000/- to the Complainant in front of her 28 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) uncle Yengaiah and one Nagaraj, who is also a loanee, who had also borrowed the loan from the Complainant, but, after receiving the said amount, the Complainant had not returned her blank Cheque and in turn, he has given a slip mentioning that, she has to pay interest @ 10% with penal interest from 27.12.2013 and the Complainant has stated that, until and unless the interest is paid, the Cheque will not be returned, but, she was not able to pay so much of interest to the principal amount of Rupees 50,000/- and hence, the Complainant has manipulated the Cheque amount of Rupees 3,00,000/- and claiming false and illegal money from her. The Accused has produced Ex.D.3 True Copy of Discharge Summary.
17. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, on 11.08.2014, he has paid a sum of Rupees 3,00,000/- to the Accused and Rupees 1,50,000/- to one Nagaraj and he has also filed similar case as against the said Nagaraj. Further, during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 Hand written documents are marked, by confrontation. Further, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, he does not know the handwritings, which are found in Ex.P.1 Cheque in question, which are not written by the Accused.
18. Further, the Accused has examined her relative D. Yangaiah as D.W.2, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that, the Accused is working as a house servant in the locality and her husband Shekar is working as a Security Guard and both of them are coming from poor and socially backward community. He 29 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) has further stated in his cross-examination that, the husband of the Accused is a son of his Aunt and since 20 years, the Accused is working as a house servant and on that day, the Accused has paid a sum of Rupees 50,000/- to the Complainant with a denomination of Rupees 500/- and at that time, the Accused, her husband, he, Complainant and a women were present and at that time, the Complainant not returned the Cheque to the Accused.
19. From the said evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 as well as the suggestions put to P.W.1 during the course of cross- examination by the Accused, it appears that, the Accused had only borrowed a loan of Rupees 50,000/- from the Complainant in the Month of August 2000 as a hand loan for her family necessitity, i.e., for domestic purpose and at that time, the Complainant had taken Ex.P.1 Blank signed Cheque from the Accused in respect of repayment of the said amount of Rupees 50,000/- with interest of Rupees 5,000/- and the Complainant has not returned the said Blank singed Cheque to the Accused and the said Ex.P.1 Cheque is in the custody of Complainant and the Complainant has written on the blank singed Cheque by mentioning the amount of Rupees 3,00,000/- and misused it as against the Accused.
20. But, based on the said grounds, it cannot be believed and accept the defence taken by the Accused that, she had issued Ex.P.1 Blank singed Cheque in favour of the Complainant in respect of Rupees 50,000/- and inspite of repayment of Rupees 50,000/- with interest of Rupees 5,000/-, the Complainant has 30 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) not returned Ex.P.1 Cheque to her and it has been misusing by the Complainant, as, if really, the Accused had issued Ex.P.1 Blank signed Cheque in favour of the Complainant in respect of the alleged monetary transaction of Rupees 50,000/- and if really the Accused had repaid the said loan amount with interest to the Complainant and inspite of that, the Complainant has not returned the said blank signed Cheque to the Accused, immediately, the Accused could have taken a legal steps as against the Complainant for return of Ex.P.1 Blank signed Cheque to her. But, in this regard, no legal steps have been taken by the Accused as against the Complainant. Further the signature of the Complainant is not found on Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 written documents. Further, the said Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 are not the authenticated documents and they are not properly written on the proper document. Further, no authenticated documents came into existence in between the Complainant and the Accused in respect of the said alleged hand loan of Rupees 50,000/- in the present of D.W.2. Therefore, whatever the defence taken by the Accused through oral evidence of her and the D.W.2 cannot be believed and accept.
21. As this Court has already observed and come to the conclusion that, at the time of issuance of Ex.P.1 Cheque in question, the Complainant is having sufficient means. Further, the P.W.1 has clearly denied the defence taken by the Accused in his cross-examination. Further, he has clearly stated that, Ex.P.1 Cheque is not written in his presence and when, he paid the loan amount to the Accused, the Accused has given the said Cheque in 31 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) question to him and the Accused had already written the said Cheque in question. From the said evidence of P.W.1, it is made crystal clear that, the Accused had issued Ex.P.1 Cheque in question in favour of the Complainant by filling all its particulars with signature and she has not given a blank signed Cheque in favour of the Complainant as alleged by her in the defence.
22. Further, the Complainant has produced Ex.P.3 Copy of Legal Notice dated 05.09.2014 and Ex.P.4 Postal Receipts 2 in numbers, which clearly disclosed that, after dishonor of Ex.P.1 Cheque, by issuing a legal notice, the Complainant has brought to the notice of the Accused about the dishonor of the Cheque for a sum of Rupees 3,00,000/-, which issued by her in his favour towards the discharge of the said debt and the said legal notice was issued by the Complainant to the Accused through RPAD. Further, Ex.P.7 Postal Documents clearly disclosed that, the said Ex.P.3 Legal Notice, which was issued by the Complainant to the Accused, was duly served on the Accused. In this regard, the D.W.1 in her cross-examination has shown her ignorance by stating that, she does not know that, as per the Post Office Endorsement, the said notice was duly served on her. From this, it appears that, the Accused has not specifically denied the very issuance of Ex.P.3 Legal Notice dated 05.09.2014, wherein, the Complainant has narrated about the monetary transaction of Rupees 3,00,000/- which was taken place between him and the Accused and handing over Ex.P.1 Cheque in question on 11.08.2014 in respect of the said transaction. In this regard, the D.W.1 in her cross-examination has only stated that, she has not 32 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) received any legal notice from the Complainant. But, the oral version of Accused is quite contrary to the contents of Ex.P.7 Postal Documents. If really, there are merits in the defence taken by the Accused, she could have been definitely issued a reply to to Ex.P.3 Legal Notice to the Complainant and she could have definitely taken legal steps as against the Complainant for return of Ex.P.1 Cheque. But, no such legal attempts have been made by the Accused, which clearly implies that, only after filing of the present complaint, that too, during the course of cross- examination of P.W,.1, she has taken such defence only to escape from her liability, which involved in the present complaint. Therefore, there are no merits in the defence taken by the Accused in respect of Ex.P.1 Cheque in question and as such, it cannot be believed and accept.
23. From the above said material evidence, both oral and documentary adduced by both the parties, it is made crystal clear that, the Accused has issued Ex.P.1 Cheque dated 11.08.2014 for a sum of Rupees 3,00,000/- in favour of Complainant for legally enforceable debt. When once, the Cheque in question is proved by the Complainant, under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption would arise with regard to consideration. To rebut the said presumption, the Accused has not produced any acceptable material evidence. On the other hand, the Complainant by producing Ex.P.5 Statement of Accounts and Ex.P.6 Pension Payment Order, has clearly proved beyond all reasonable doubt, that, as on the date of issuance of Ex.P.1 Cheque, he was having sufficient means to pay the hand loan of Rupees 3,00,000/- to the 33 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) Accused to meet her domestic problems and on the same day itself, the Accused has issued Ex.P.1 Cheque in question in his favour to discharge of the said debt, i.e., for legally enforceable debt. Accordingly, I answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
24. POINT NO.2 :- The P.W.1 has stated that, the said Cheque given to him by the Accused was presented for collection through his Bank Canara Bank, Madivala Branch, Bangalore, on 19.08.2014 and the said Cheque was returned unpaid on 20.08.2014 for want of funds with the Drawees Bank's endorsement "funds insufficient" and the information as to the dishonor of the Cheque was received by him for his Banker on 21.08.2014 .
25. The Complainant has produced Ex.P.2 Bank memo dated 20.08.2014, which disclosed that, the Complainant has presented Ex.P.1 Cheque in question for encashment through his Banker, which was returned for the reasons "funds insufficient' in the account of the Accused.
26. From the oral evidence of P.W.1 as well as the contents of Ex.P.2 Bank Memo, it is clearly proved that, Ex.P.1 Cheque in question, which is issued by the Accused in favour of the Complainant for the legal discharge of debt, is dishonored for the reasons funds insufficient in the account of Accused.
27. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, the Accused has not disputed about the dishonor of Ex.P.1 Cheque for 34 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) the reasons insufficient funds in her account. Even no question or suggestion put to P.W.1 in this regard during the course of cross- examination. Further the D.W.1, who is the Accused, has not stated anything about the dishonor of Ex.P.1 Cheque for the reasons insufficient funds in her account. From this, it is made crystal clear that, there is no material evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the Accused, to disprove the said oral evidence of P.W.1 and the contents of Ex.P.2 Bank Memo, i.e., dishonor of Ex.P.1 Cheque in question issued by her in favour of the Complainant that, "funds insufficient" in her account.
28. By adducing acceptable material evidence, both oral and documentary, the Complainant has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, Ex.P.1 Cheque in question, which was issued by the Accused, was dishonored for the reasons "funds insufficient" in the Bank account of the Accused. Accordingly, without much discussion, I answered Point No.2 in the Affirmative.
29. POINT NO.3 :- The P.W.1 has stated that, the Legal Notice dated 05.09.2014 was got issued by the Accused and the legal notice was sent through RPAD and speed post both dated 06.09.2014 and the legal notice sent to the Accused both by RPAD and speed post was delivered to her. He has further stated that, the Accused has not paid any amount towards the Cheque even after filing of the complaint on 20.10.2014.
35 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7)
30. The Complainant has produced Ex.P.3 Copy of Legal Notice dated 05.09.2014 and Ex.P.4 Postal Receipts 2 in numbers. On perusal of the contents of Ex.P.3 Legal Notice and Ex.P.4 Postal Receipts, it appears that, by issuing a legal notice through RPAD, the Complainant has brought to the notice of the Accused about the dishonor of Ex.P.1 Cheque in question for the reasons funds insufficient in the account of the Accused and called upon the Accused to pay the Cheque amount of Rupees 3,00,000/- together with interest and other incidental charges within 15 days from the date of service of notice. Though the Accused in her cross-examination has stated that, she has not received any legal notice from the Complainant, to consider the same, she has not adduced any acceptable material evidence. On the other hand, by producing Ex.P.7 Postal Documents, the Complainant has proved that, the said Ex.P.3 Legal Notice was duly served on the Accused on 08.09.2014. No questions or suggestions put to P.W.1 by the Accused in this regard, during the course of cross-examination. While answering Issue No.1, this Court has already observed that, the Accused has not issued any reply to the said Ex.P.3 Legal Notice. Even, the Accused has not taken any legal steps as against the Complainant in respect of Ex.P.1 Cheque in question. Even, the Accused has not disputed the contents of Ex.P.2 Legal Notice in her evidence. From the contents of Ex.P.2 Bank Memo and Ex.P.3 Legal Notice, it is made crystal clear that, after receipt of Ex.P.2 Bank Memo, the Complainant had issued Ex.P.3 Legal Notice to the Accused within 30 days by giving 15 days time from the date of receipt of the notice, calling upon the Accused to repay Ex.P.1 Cheque amount of Rupees 3,00,000/-. On perusal of 36 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) Ex.P.7 Postal Documents, it further appears and clear that, within 30 days from the date of return of postal acknowledgement, the Complainant has filed the present complaint as against the Accused. Hence, the complaint filed by the Complainant is well within time.
31. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances placed before this Court by the Complainant and in view of the evidence given by the P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, this Court has come to the conclusion that, the Complainant has complied all the ingredients contained under Section 138 of N.I. Act and has proved his case beyond all reasonable doubt that, the Accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. On the other hand, the Accused has utterly failed to prove her specific defence and she has failed to rebut the presumption available under Section 118, 139 and 138 of N.I. Act and hence, she is liable to face the consequences. Accordingly, I answered Point No.3 in the Affirmative.
32. POINT NO.4 :- If the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is held to be proved, then, the Court can impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years or with a fine which may be extent to two years or with a fine which may be extent to two years or with a fine which may extent to twice the amount of Cheque or with both. In the present case, while answering Points No.1 to 3, this Court has already come to the conclusion that, the Complainant has proved that, the 37 C.C.NO.56334/2014 (SCCH-7) Accused has issued Ex.P.1 Cheque bearing No.133722 dated 11.08.2014 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Langford Town, Nanjappa Circle, Shanthinagar, Bangalore-560 025 for Rupees 3,00,000/-, in his favour for legally enforceable debt and the said Cheque issued by the Accused was dishonored for the reason that, 'funds Insufficient' in her Bank account and he has proved his case beyond all reasonable doubt that, the Accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In the present case, the Complainant has not established that, the Accused is previously convicted and she is involved in similar such offence. Under such circumstances, this Court feels that, it is just and proper to impose a fine of Rupees 3,05,000/- on the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Further, this Court feels that, out of the said fine amount of Rupees 3,05,000/-, the fine amount of Rupees 3,00,000/- has to be paid to the Complainant as compensation, so that, the ends of justice will be met with.
33. For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
38 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7) The Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rupees 3,05,000/-.
In default of payment of fine, the Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years.
The Accused shall pay a sum of Rupees 3,00,000/- to the Complainant as compensation out of the fine amount of Rupees 3,05,000/-.
Supply free copy of this Judgment to the Accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 20th day of April, 2017.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINANT :-
P.W.1 : H.M. Basavaraj
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE COMPLAINANT :-
39 C.C.NO.56334/2014(SCCH-7) Ex.P.1 Cheque:
Ex.P.1(a) :
Signature of Accused found on Ex.P.1 Cheque Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo Ex.P.3 : Notice copy Ex.P.4 : Postal Receipts (2 in nos.) Ex.P.5 : Statement of Accounts Ex.P.6 : Pension Payment Order Ex.P.7 : Postal Documents (Internet copies)
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED :-
D.W.1 : Suguna
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE ACCUSED :-
Ex.D.1 : Hand Written Document
Ex.D.2 : Hand Written Document
Ex.D.3 : True copy of Discharge Summary
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR)
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.