Bangalore District Court
Surendra B vs Gangadhara Rao Pujari on 1 July, 2024
KABC0C0098822022
IN THE COURT OF XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (ACMM-34)
PRESENT: Smt. PARVEEN A BANKAPUR,B.Com.LLB.
XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
Dated : This the 1st day of July, 2024
C.C.No.52782/2022
COMPLAINANT : Sri. Surendra B
S/o. Jambaiah B.
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.73 A/T-1, 4th Floor,
Gruhalaksmi Apartment GM Palya,
New Thippasandra Post,
Bengaluru - 560 075.
(By Mr. Venkatesha M- Advocates)
V/s
ACCUSED : Mrs. Gangadhara Rao Pujari
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No. FB-217, 1st Floor,
HAL Central Township,
Marathahalli PO,
Bengaluru 560 037.
Office Add:
Mr. Gangadhara Rao Pujari,
Manager
Grade IV, Emp ID No.76560-16,
Kiran Structure Department,
Overhaul Division, HAL ,
Vimanapura,
Bengaluru - 560 017.
(By Mr.A.N. Krishna - Advocates)
1 Date of Commencement 27.12.2021
of offence
2 C.C.No.52782/2022
2 Date of report of offence 07.05.2022
3 Presence of accused
3a. Before the Court 15.07.2022
3b. Released on bail 15.07.2022
4 Name of the Complainant Mr. Surendra B.
5 Date of recording of 07.05.2022
evidence
6 Date of closure of evidence 07.11.2023
7 Offences alleged U/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
8 Opinion of Judge Accused is found guilty.
JUDGEMENT
The Private Complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submits that, the Accused is well known to him from last several years as both were working HAL. The Accused in the month of February 2018 had approached him for a handloan of Rs.10 lakhs for purchasing flat at Nallurahalli Bengaluru East Taluk, a new apartment in 'White Orchids', Accused told that totally flat sale consideration was Rs.50 lakhs in that he had Rs.40 lakhs and Accused had approached him 3 C.C.No.52782/2022 for remaining Rs.10 lakhs. He had taken loan of Rs.6,74,460/-
from Bajaj Finance and out of that he paid to the Accused Rs.6 lakhs. It is further submitted by the Complainant that. The Accused assured to repay the same within 2 months.
It is further submitted by the Complainant that the Accused did not repay the said amount within the assured period. After several request and demands made by him, the Accused issued a Cheque bearing No.937195 dtd.27.12.2021 for Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Air Craft Factory Branch, Bengaluru with assurance that the same would be honoured on its presentation.
It is further submitted that, as per the request of the Accused, the Complainant presented the Cheque through his banker State Bank of India, Aircraft Factory Hal Complex branch, Bengaluru-17. The said Cheque has not honoured and Cheque was returned with endorse "cheque not in order" on 23.3.2022. It is further submitted that the said fact has informed to the Accused but the Accused did not pay the cheque amount. Thereafter, the complainant has got issued 4 C.C.No.52782/2022 demand notice on 12.04.2022 by RPAD, calling upon the Accused to pay the Cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and the same was duly served on the Accused. After receipt of notice, the Accused has not paid the Cheque amount, but he has issued untenable reply dtd.22.4.2022. Hence, the Complainant has filed present complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit, and documents etc., took cognizance of an offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act by following the guidelines of Apex Court issued in Indian Bank Association case and ordered to be registered a criminal case against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
4. After issuance of summons, accused appeared before the court and enlarged herself on bail. Plea was recorded, read over and explained to the accused, who pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for complainant's evidence.
5 C.C.No.52782/2022
5. The Complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and closed his side.
6. Accused was examined U/S 313 of Cr.P.C.
Incriminating evidence appearing in the complainant's evidence was read over and explained to the accused who denies the same. The Accused got examined himself as DW1 and and got marked documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.8 and closed his side.
7. Heard arguments of Complainant at full length. The learned Counsel for accused has placed the following citations;
1. 1998 Cril.L.J. 4750 Bombay High Court in the case of Babulal Naimal Jain V/s. Khimji Ratanshi Dedhia and Others
2. 2019 (5) SCC 418 Basalingppa V/s. Mudibasappa
3. 2022 ACD 79 KAR High Court of Karnataka in the case of Nagappa Poonappa Lamani V/s. Durgappa.
4. 2022 ACD 84 KAR in the case of Sameer Rafeeq Mulla V/s. Asif Abdul Hameed
5. 2019 (3) DCR 723 in the case of Jayashree Mouneshwara V/s. R. Pushpavathi 6 C.C.No.52782/2022
8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the materials placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration.
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused in discharge of legally recoverable debt has issued a Cheque cheque No.937195 dtd.27.12.2021 for Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Air Craft Factory Branch, Bengaluru in favour in favour of the complainant which came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "cheque not in order" and in spite of service of notice accused has not paid the Cheque amount and thereby committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
9. My findings on the above points is:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS Point No.1:-
10. Existence of legally recoverable debt is a sine qua non for prosecuting the case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. For convenient purpose the essential ingredients to constitute offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is summarized as below:
(i) That there must be a legally enforceable debt.7 C.C.No.52782/2022
(ii) That the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes the legally enforceable debt.
(iii)That the cheque so issued had been returned due to "insufficient funds".
11. It is the core contention of the complainant that, the Accused is well known to him from last several years as both were working HAL. The Accused in the month of February 2018 had approached him for a handloan of Rs.10 lakhs for purchasing flat and Accused told that totally flat sale consideration was Rs.50 lakhs in that he had Rs.40 lakhs and Accused had approached him for remaining Rs.10 lakhs. The Complainant had taken loan of Rs.6,74,460/- from Bajaj Finance and out of that he paid to the Accused Rs.6 lakhs. It is further submitted by the Complainant that the Accused assured to repay the same within 2 months. It is further submitted by the Complainant that the Accused did not repay the said amount within the assured period. After several request and demands made by him, the Accused issued a Cheque bearing No.937195 dtd.27.12.2021 for Rs.6,00,000/- 8 C.C.No.52782/2022 drawn on State Bank of India, Air Craft Factory Branch, Bengaluru which was returned with endorse "cheque not in order" on 23.3.2022 on its presentation. Thereafter, the complainant has got issued demand notice on 12.04.2022 by RPAD, calling upon the Accused to pay the Cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and the same was duly served on the Accused. After receipt of notice, the Accused has not paid the Cheque amount, but he has issued untenable reply dtd.22.4.2022. Hence, the Complainant has filed present complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
12. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, Complainant got examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the contents of complaint in his examination-in-chief. He has also placed original Cheque bearing No.937195 dtd.27.12.2021 at Ex.P1, bank endorsement at Ex.P2, office copy of legal notice issued by the Complainant to the Accused on 12.4.2022 at Ex.P3, postal receipt at Ex.P4, postal acknowledgement at 9 C.C.No.52782/2022 Ex.P5, Ex.P6 is the reply notice and Ex.P7 is the endorsement issued by the police.
13. The documents produced by the complainant of course established that complainant meets out the procedural requirements of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but it is to be considered whether all these documents establish the offence committed by the accused.
14. The Negotiable Instruments Act raises two presumptions. One contained in Section 118 and the other in Sec. 139 thereof. For the sake of convenience Sec 118(1) of the N.I. Act is extracted here below:
118. Presumptions as to negotiable Instruments--
Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made ;--
(a) of consideration that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
1. To (g) . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 C.C.No.52782/2022
Provided that where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from an person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence of fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence of fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him".
15. Further Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under:
"139, Presumption in favour of holder. It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."
Scope and ambit and function of the presumption U/s 118(a) and Sec 139 of NI Act came to be considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court of Indian in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde (2008 AIAR (Criminal 151) The Supreme Court has laid down the law in the following phraseology.
" D Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Secs 139, 138--Presumption under-same arises in regard to second aspect of the matter provided under Sec 138-- Existence of legally enforceable debt is not a matter of 11 C.C.No.52782/2022 presumption under Sec 139- It merely raises presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability - Merely an application of presumption contemplated under Section 139 of N.I.Act should not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction."
16. Further, said decision was followed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Kempanarasimhaiah Vs P.Rangaraju & Others (2008 (5) KCCR 3371). Relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: -
"12. As to the provisions of Sections 138 of N.I.Act, the following principles emerge from the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court at para Nos 21, 23, 25, 26 and 34 of its Judgment in the above said case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde, AIR 2008 SC 1325.
(i) Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption that the cheque was issued towards discharge in whole or in part in any debt or other liability, which presupposed legally enforceable debt. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability." ( para 21) 12 C.C.No.52782/2022
(ii) The question as to whether the presumption stood rebutted or not, must be determined keeping in view the other evidences on record. Where the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration. (para 26)
(iii) An accused, for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute, need not examine himself.
He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on records (para 23)
(iv) Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different. Further more where as prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is " preponderance of probabilities'" ( para 23 & 25)
(v) Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies ( para 25)
(vi) Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be deliberately balanced (para 34)
17. Thus from the observations extracted above, it is clear that presumption Under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is only to the extent that the cheque was drawn for discharge in full or in part of any debt or other liability and the said presumption 13 C.C.No.52782/2022 do not relate to the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore, before drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act, it is the duty of the Court to see whether or not the complainant has discharged his initial burden as to existence of legally enforceable debt. No doubt, as per Section 118(a) of the Act, there is a rebuttable presumption that every negotiable instrument, is accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."
18. Factual matrix of the case is required to be tested on the anvil of principles emerging from the above-referred decisions.
19. The defence taken by the Accused is that, in the month of September 2019 Accused requested the Complainant to provide handloan of Rs.1 lakh for his personal needs and as per the request of the Accused, the Complainant paid Rs.1 lakh subject to providing security Cheques and as per the condition, the Accused issued two blank signed Cheques for security 14 C.C.No.52782/2022 Cheques to the Complainant, which was misused by the Complainant and filed false complaint against him.
20. To substantiate his claim the Complainant examined himself as PW1. In the evidence he deposed that, Accused and himself are working in HAL and known to each other. It is further deposed that in the month of February 2018 Accused requested loan amount of Rs.10 lakhs for purchase of flat and accordingly, the Complainant availed loan of Rs.6,74,460/- from Bajaj Finance and paid it to Accused Rs.6 lakhs. It is further deposed that the Accused assured that he will repay the said loan amount within two months, but he failed to repay the loan amount within two months. It is further deposed aht after several request the Accused has issued Ex.P1 Cheque which was dishonoured with reason 'Cheque not in order as per Ex.P2. He further deposed that, thereafter the Complainant lodged the complaint before HAL Police against the Accused as per Ex.P6. He further deposed that, thereafter, he issued legal notice to the Accused as per Ex.P3, which was duly served 15 C.C.No.52782/2022 upon the Accused as per Ex.P5. It is further deposed that, the Accused replied to the notice as per Ex.P6.
21. To rebut the presumption the learned Counsel for accused cross examined the PW1 in full length. In the cross- examination he stated in the month of March 2018 the Accused told him that he will purchase house for Rs.50 lakhs. In the cross-examination he further stated that, in the month of February 2018 Accused requested Rs.10 lakhs from the Complainant. He further stated that, he availed personal loan from the Bajaj Fiance company and give it to Accused. In the cross-examination he admits that the Accused took financial assistance from his father in law also. To show that, the Complainant has availed loan from the Bajaj Finance Company, he has produced loan account details which reveals that, the Complainant availed loan from Bajaj Finance on 23.2.2018 for Rs.6,74,460/- and loan account number is 404SAF65739364 at the interest @ 14% per annum. Further he has produced his bank account statement which reveals that, after depositing of 16 C.C.No.52782/2022 loan amount to his account, he withdraw the said amount in various dates.
22. Further in the cross-examination of PW1 it is admitted by the PW1 that, Ex.P1 Cheque was dishonoured with reason 'Cheque not in order'. In this regard, the learned Counsel for accused relied decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 1998 Cril.L.J.4750 in the case of Babulal Naimal Jain V/s. Khimji Ratanshi Dedhia and Others wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that;
"N.I. Act Sec.138 Scope - Dishnour of Cheque - Cheque return due to structural defect - Sec.138 is not attracted - Structural defect in Cheque meaning of - If, a Cheque is returned on account of any structural defect i.e, any defect in its form, want of signature, date has not been properly written, figure of the Accused has been overwritten or erasures in the drawer's name etc. The same will not amount to an offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act."
23. In the present case Ex.P1 is the Cheque wherein signature of the Accused, amount in figures and in words are written in one pen and name and date were written from another pen. The amount written in the words is 'six laks only'. There is no overwritten in amount or in words. Further the 17 C.C.No.52782/2022 name of the Complainant 'D' stroke is overwritten. But the Accused has not denied issuance of Cheque and also not denied his signature on the Cheque. Further on perusal of Ex.P1 the person put the signature was wrote the amount in figure and words. Therefore, the Accused himself signed the Cheque by inserting amount in figures and words. Ex.P2 is the bank endorsement which is printed format and reason Cheque not in order was handwritten. In the Ex.P2 it is not mentioned that, how Cheque was not in order. Therefore, the handwritten amount in words is spelling mistake. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable to this case.
24. The Accused examined himself as DW1 and in the evidence he deposed that in the month of September 2019 he borrowed loan of Rs.1 lakh from the Complainant for his personal needs and accordingly, the Complainant agreed to pay the loan amount subject to providing two blank signed Cheques for security purpose. He further deposed that, in the month of September 2019 the Complainant paid Rs.50,000/- and in the month of March 2020 the Complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to the 18 C.C.No.52782/2022 Accused and Accused furnished two blank signed Cheques, out of which Ex.P1 is one of such blank signed Cheque. He further deposed that the Complainant misused the Cheque, which was issued by him for the security purpose. He further deposed that, due to Covid-19 pandemic situation he unable to repay the loan amount and requested the Complainant to wait some period of time, but the Complainant intentionally started harassing him and threatened to him and filed false complaint against him in HAL police station. He further deposed that, police have summoned him and accordingly, he appeared before the HAL police and given statement that, borrowing of Rs.1 lakh from the Complainant and undertake to repay Rs.1 lakh to the Complainant.
25. In the cross-examination of DW1, he admits that, the Complainant and himself are doing work in HAL in the same division. In the cross-examination he stated that, in the month of March 2018 he was purchased a site for Rs.41,00,000/-. He denied that at that time, he borrowed loan from the Complainant, but in the cross-examination he admits 19 C.C.No.52782/2022 that he was borrowed loan from 4-5 from co-workers and he also admits that, to all he has issued Cheques and he further admits that that all persons have been filed Cheque dishonour case against him. In the cross-examination he further admits that, on Ex.P1 signature and handwriting are written in the same ink. In the cross-examination further he stated that, in the police station he was given statement before the police, but he has not lodged any complaint against the Complainant. He further stated, he has not taken any acknowledgement from the Complainant at the time of issuance of Cheques for the security purpose. In the cross-examination he further admits that, he has issued 8 Cheques to the 8 different persons and all are filed complaint against him.
26. With regard to statement before the police, the Accused has not produced the statement which was given by him before the HAL police at the time of complaint lodged by the Complainant as per Ex.P7. On the other hand, the Complainant produced copy of complaint along with Ex.P7 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the Accused approached 20 C.C.No.52782/2022 him for loan amount of Rs.10 lakhs out of which, the Complainant availed loan from Bajaj Fiance and give it to the Accused. It is further written that, for the repayment of loan amount, Accused has issued Cheque No.937195 for the repayment of loan amount which was dishonoured with reason 'Cheque not in order'. The said complaint was lodged on 3.2.2022.
27. The only defence of the Accused is that he has borrowed Rs.1 lakh loan from the Complainant in the year 2019 and for that purpose, he has issued two blank signed Cheques including Ex.P1 Cheque to the Complainant and Complainant was misused the Cheque and filed false complaint against him. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for accused vehemently argued that, no such person has borrowed loan on interest and give it to the another person without interest. They further submits that, here the Complainant borrowed loan from Bajaj Finance on interest and gave it to Accused without interest that statement of the Complainant is not believable. For this regard, they have relied 21 C.C.No.52782/2022 on 2019 (5) SCC 418 in the case of Basalingappa V/s. Mudibasappa wherein u/Sec.118, 138 and 139 of N.I. Act - Drawing of presumption under and how said presumption can be rebutted - Standard of proof, while prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, Accused to prove a defence must only meet standard of preponderance of probabilities.
28. Further, the learned Counsel for accused relied on 2022 (ACD) 79 (KAR) in the case of Nagappa Poonappa Lamani V/s. Durgappa wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that;
"Legally enforceable debt, Complainant working as a school teacher advanced loan to Accused - He availed loan from bank on interest however advanced handloan to Accused for one and half year without any interest. Complainant did not obtain any permission from higher authorities to advance loan to third person. No documents produced to disclose his income for advancing loan without interest. It thus, creating doubt regarding his conduct. Complainant neither prove his financial captaincy to advance loan nor establish that, Cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt -Acquittal proper."22 C.C.No.52782/2022
29. But in the case on hand, both are employees of HAL. As per the Government Rules any employee for advancing and receiving the loan must take permission from the competent authority. In the present case neither the Complainant nor the Accused have produced such permission from the higher authority. In this regard, the Accused has produced Ex.D7 show cause notice issued by Chief Manager to him. On perusal of said show cause notice, it clear that, on the complaint of Complainant to the Chief Manager, the Chief Manager has issued show cause notice to the Accused stating that 'You have started heated altercation with him regarding above issue leaving assigned work and your above act of heated altercation with Sri Surendra B. at Kiran Structure Hanger during the working hour regarding your personal money transaction had with him constitute misconduct as per the rules and regulations of the company warranting disciplinary action against you. Therefore, the money transaction between the Complainant and Accused is personal one and it is with the knowledge of higher authority of Complainant and Accused. 23 C.C.No.52782/2022 Therefore, the defence taken by the Accused during the argument is not sustainable.
30. It is admitted by the Accused that, he has issued Ex.P1 Cheque for the purpose of security at the time of borrowing loan of Rs.1 lakh in the year 2019. He also admitted his signature on the Cheque. In this regard, it is useful to refer decision reported in 2014 (9) SCC 129 in the case of Dashrath Rathod V/s. State of Maharashtra and also 2019 (4) SCC 197 in the case of Bir Singh V/s. Mukesh Kumar, wherein it is held that;
"A blank undated Cheque i.e., voluntarily issued by the Accused, would not invalidate the Cheque but, would be subject to evidence adduced by the Accused. In the present case, the defence would also not be available to the Accused as the Accused as per its own submission during the course of cross- examination he stated that, the Cheque was handed over to the Complainant company by him towards security purpose.24 C.C.No.52782/2022
31. Further in the decision 2021 SCC Online SC 1002 in the case of Sripathi Singh V/s. State of Jharkhand, wherein it is held that;
"Merely issuing of Cheque towards security purpose would not absolve the Accused of the liability as the same would render the Cheque as nothing more than an on demand promissory Note. Thus the position of law on aspect of Cheques issued towards security is un-ambigious and the said defence also fails to safeguard the malafide intention of the Accused."
32. As discussed above, it has to be presumed that the cheque in question was issued by the accused to discharge the legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused can place rebuttal evidence so as to show that the cheque was not issued for consideration. As appreciated supra, accused has failed to put acceptable and satisfactory evidence to probabilise the defence. Therefore, there is no question of saying that the cheque was not issued for liability. Therefore, complainant has discharged his initial onus laid on him. When he has discharged his initial onus, it raises presumption U/s 118(a) 25 C.C.No.52782/2022 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused has failed to rebut the presumption either in cross-examining PW-1 or in his evidence.
33. So, far as sentence and compensation is concern, an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, is a civil wrong and compensatory in nature, punitive is secondary, considering, the above settled principle of law with facts and circumstances of the case, which clearly reveals that, towards discharge of loan amount, the cheque in question of issued by the accused to the complainant. Therefore, considering the nature of transaction, duration of pendency, litigation expenses, I am opinion that, if sentence of fine of Rs.6,72,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Seventy-two Thousand only) is imposed that would meet the ends of justice, accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,72,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Seventy-two Thousand only) out of that, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.6,67,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Sixty-seven Thousand only) as a compensation as per Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C., remaining amount of Rs.5,000/-, is to be appropriated 26 C.C.No.52782/2022 to the state, in case of default the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered in Affirmative.
34. POINT No.2 : In view of discussion held in Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.6,72,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Seventy-
two Thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Further, it is made clear that out of fine amount, Rs.6,67,000/-
(Rupees Six Lakhs and Sixty-seven Thousand
only) is to be paid to the complainant as
compensation and Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be remitted to the State.
Bail bond stands cancelled.
Supply the free copy of this judgement to the Accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 1st July, 2024) PARVEEN A Digitally signed by PARVEEN A BANKAPUR BANKAPUR Date: 2024.07.04 15:59:27 +0530 (PARVEEN A BANKAPUR) XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.
27 C.C.No.52782/2022ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 Mr. Surendra B.
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque Ex.P.2 Bank endorsement Ex.P.3 Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.4 Postal receipt Ex.P.5 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P.6 Reply notice Ex.P.7 Endorsement issued y the police
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 Mr. Gangadhara Rao Pujari
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 Notice
Ex.D.2 Reply notice
Ex.D.3 & 4 Postal receipts
Ex.D.5 & 6 Postal acknowledgements
Ex.D.7 Show cause notice issued by the company
Ex.D.8 Reply to the show cause notice
PARVEEN A Digitally signed by PARVEEN A
BANKAPUR
BANKAPUR Date: 2024.07.04 15:59:19 +0530
(PARVEEN A BANKAPUR)
XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.