Bangalore District Court
Chandrashekar.M vs Puttaraja.G.S on 8 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 8th day of April - 2021
PRESENT: SRI. SHRIDHARA.M, B.A., LL.M.,
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.14190/2018
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : Chandrashekar.M,
S/o.Manjunatha,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.7, 6th Main, 11th Cross,
Chowdappa Layout,
Sri Sapthasagara Provision Store,
Bengaluru-26.
(Rep. by Sri........., Adv retired.)
V/S
Accused : Puttaraja.G.S,
S/o.Shivalinge Gowda,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at. No.1, 6th Main,
Govindarajanagar,
Magadi Main Road,
KEB Quarters, Bengaluru-79.
Also office at address:
Puttaraja.G.S,
S/o.Shivalinge Gowda,
Aged about 43 years,
Office KPTCL, 66/11, KVMuss,
Byadaharahalli, Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru-91.
(Rep.by Sri.Venkatareddy.N, Adv.)
Judgment 2 C.C.No.14190/2018
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Acquitted.
DATE OF ORDER : 08.04.2021.
(SHRIDHARA.M)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has presented the instant complaint against the accused on 28.04.2018 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for dishonour of cheque of Rs.2 lakhs.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case is as follows:
The complainant has pleaded that, he and accused are known to each other since 20 years and became close friends.
Accused is working in KTPCL at Bengaluru. In that acquaintance, the accused had approached the complainant during the month of May, 2017 and requested for hand loan of Rs.2 lakhs for the purpose of fulfill the accused and his wife's business activities, hence on their request obliged and paid sum of Rs.2 lakhs by way of cash to the accused on the same month i.e., May, 2017 for short term loan.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.14190/2018 The complainant has averred that, the accused after receipt of the said loan amount, he not returned the said amount to the complainant and many times he approached the accused and demanding for its repayment, finally he got issued a cheque bearing No.565672 dated:03.03.2018 for sum of Rs.2 lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, Industrial Estate, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.
The complainant has further contended that, when he presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker viz., State Bank of India, Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru, the same came to be dishonoured for the reasons "20 Payment Stopped by Drawer" as per banker memo dated:05.03.2018.
Thereafter, when he try to contact the accused, but he neglected the words of complainant. Thereafter, on 23.03.2018 by way of R.P.A.D., he gave legal notice to the address of accused.
Wherein, it was returned with an endorsement stating "Refused".
The accused not paid the amount covered under the cheque.
Thereby, he committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, filed the present complaint.
3. After receipt of the private complaint, this court took the cognizance and got registered the PCR and recorded the sworn Judgment 4 C.C.No.14190/2018 statement. Since made out prima-facie grounds to proceed against the accused for the alleged offence, got issued process.
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and obtained bail. As required, complaint copy was supplied to the accused. Thereafter, accusation was read over and explained to him, wherein, he denied the same and claimed to have the defence.
5. To prove the case of the complainant, he himself choosen to examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. The PW.1 tendered for partly cross-examination and when the case stage was set for further cross-examination of PW.1, despite given sufficient opportunities, he not tendered for further cross- examination.
6. Thereafter, incriminating evidence made against the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied the same and answer given by him was recorded. In support of the defence, the accused himself was orally examined as DW.1, but not produced any documents in support of his defence.
Judgment 5 C.C.No.14190/2018 7. I have heard the arguments of accused counsel.
Complainant counsel has not addressed his side arguments.
8. On going through the rival contentions, based on the substantial evidence available on record, the following points have been arising for determination:
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond the reasonable doubt that, he paid sum of Rs.2,00,000/- during the month of May, 2017 as hand loan to the accused, and in turn, for discharge of legal recoverable debt, the accused issued the Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.565672, dated:03.03.2018 for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Industrial Estate, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru?
2) Whether the complainant proves the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
3) What Order?
9. On appreciation of materials available on record, my findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NOs.1 and 2: Since both the points are connected with each other, they have taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
Judgment 6 C.C.No.14190/2018 To substantiate the case of complainant, he himself choosen to entered into witness box and his sworn statement as per Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act, treated as complainant side evidence. Wherein, he got produced the documents at Exs.P1 to P8(a), they are:
a) Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.565672 issued by the accused for sum of Rs.2 lakhs dated:03.03.2018, drawn on State Bank of India, Industrial Estate, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.
b) Ex.P1(a) is the alleged signature of accused.
c) Ex.P2 is the Bank Memo dated:05.03.2018.
d) Ex.P3 is the Legal Notice dated:23.03.2018.
e) Exs.P4 & P5 are the Postal receipts.
f) Ex.P6 is the postal acknowledgment card.
g) Ex.P7 is the unserved R.P.A.D cover.
h) Ex.P7(a) is the legal notice at Ex.P7.
i) Ex.P8 is the private complaint.
j) Ex.P8(a) is the signature of complainant.
11. Thereafter, the advocate for accused choosen to cross- examine the PW.1 on 17.01.2020 and when it was adjourned for further cross-examination of PW.1 on the request of the advocate for accused, the PW.1 came to be remained absent and not choosen to tender for further cross-examination. Thereby, he avoided to enter into witness box for the reasons better known to Judgment 7 C.C.No.14190/2018 him and not let the accused to disprove the case of complainant by way of himself ran away from the witness box. Under such circumstances, the advocate for complainant without having any alternative got retired to appear for the complainant by filing retirement memo by gave notice to the complainant. Even then, the complainant not been appeared before the court, for the reasons better known to him.
12. Thereafter, whatever the incriminating evidence made against the accused was read over and explained to him as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he denied the same and gave his specific statement that, since 20 years the complainant was known to him and oftenly he used to visit his house. When he kept unsigned Ex.P1 blank cheque on the TV in his house, it was came to be misplaced. Therefore, he gave stop payment instruction to his banker. He specifically stated, he not borrowed the alleged loan from complainant, not issued questioned cheque to the complainant and legal notice was not been served on him. Hence, he not liable to pay the amount covered under the cheque.
13. To prove his statement and probable defence, the accused choosen to entered into witness box and orally examined as DW.1 Judgment 8 C.C.No.14190/2018 on oath. The accused has deposed again, since 20 years he knew the complainant and as alleged in the complaint, he not borrowed the loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant and for its repayment he not issued the questioned cheque at Ex.P1 to him. He deposes that, for the payment of school fee of his children, he kept the Ex.P1 unsigned blank cheque leaf on the TV in his house and he does not know, how the same came to be misplaced from there. He not issued the questioned cheque to the complainant and signature found therein at Ex.P1(a) is not of him. Therefore, regarding misplace of his cheque, he gave stop payment instruction to his banker. After receipt of summons from the court, he came to know that, filing of present case by the complainant by misusing his unsigned blank cheque at Ex.P1. Therefore, he not liable to pay the amount covered under the cheque and no notice was reached to him. Despite, gave sufficient opportunity, the complainant not choosen to appear and cross-examine the DW.1, thereby, made the evidence of DW.1 is unchallenged.
14. It is significant fact to note that, though he came up with the affidavit evidence, for the reasons better known to him, he choosen to entered into witness box and tendered for cross- examination, despite, gave sufficient opportunities to the complainant, he not cross-examined the DW.1 and also the PW.1 Judgment 9 C.C.No.14190/2018 himself not tendered for further cross-examination and ran away from the witness box.
It is worthy to cite the decision reported in Criminal Revision Case No.1486 of 2005 (Syed Dastageer V/s State of A.P.) Wherein, it was pleased to held that:
Evidence Act, Section 138 - Cross-examination - No evidence affecting a party is admissible against that party unless the latter has had an opportunity of testing its truthfulness by cross-examination - It is certainly implied by Section 138 of Evidence At, that a part must have had an opportunity to cross- examine and it does not mean that merely a right to cross-examine a witness without an opportunity being offered for cross-examination is sufficient compliance with the requirements of law".
"Object of the cross-examination is (1) to test the credibility of the witness (2) to test the truthfulness of the facts which he has stated in chief examination (3) to put the defence version in the mouth of the witness (4) to know the facts which the witness did not state - The further object of the cross-examination is two fold - to weaken, to qualify or destroy the case of the opponent and to establish the party's own case by means of his opponent's witnesses - The further objects are to impeach the accuracy, credibility, and general value of the evidence given in chief, to sift the Judgment 10 C.C.No.14190/2018 facts already stated by the witness, to detect and expose discrepancies, or to elicit suppressed facts, which will support the case of the cross- examining partly."
In the decision reported in Criminal Misc.No.15266-M of 1995 (Jagvinder Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another). the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, it is held that:
"Section 319 criminal trial - Statement of witness without cross - examination cannot be treated as evidence and cannot be relied to exercise power under section 319 Criminal Procedure Code."
15. From the point of the above said relevant provisions, it made clear that, the complainant not tendered for further cross- examination. On going through the rival contentions of the parties, it made clear that, the complainant based on the questioned cheque at Ex.P1 brought the present case by alleging that, the said amount is payable by the accused as repayment of loan borrowed from him. Despite, he gave legal notice, accused not paid the said amount, hence, the case. Therefore, as per Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the initial statutory presumption shall be drawn in favour of complainant.
As per Section 118 of the act, it lays down a special rule of evidence applicable to negotiable instruments. The presumption Judgment 11 C.C.No.14190/2018 is one of law and thereunder a court shall presume that the instrument was endorsed for consideration. This was so observed in a decision reported in AIR 2005 Mad 90, (Natarajan vs Marapna Gounder).
16. On going through the relevant provision under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it is clear that, the court is obliged to presume that, the promissory note was made for consideration until the contrary is proved. Initial burden lies on the accused to prove to non existence of consideration which would lead the court to believe the non existence of consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was in improbable, doubtful or illegal. It was so held in a decision reported in 2008 (7) SCC 655 (Mallavaruppa Kasivisweswara Rao V/s. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm). By virtue of the above dictums as well as from the gambit of provisions of Section 118, it made clear that, until the contrary consideration the presumption is to be draw in favour of the complainant.
It is also equally important to cite the another decision reported in 2008 AIR SC 738 (Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya Judgment 12 C.C.No.14190/2018 G. Hegde). Wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to held that:
"The provisions under Section 139 has been inserted to regulate the growing business, trade, commerce and industrial activities of the country and the strict liability to promote greater vigilance in financial matters and to safeguard the faith of the creditor in the drawer of the cheque which is essential to the economic life of a developing country like India. This, however, shall not mean that the courts shall put a blind eye to the ground realities. Statute mandates raising of presumption but it stops at that. It does not say how presumption drawn should be held to have rebutted. 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 delicately balanced. Such balancing acts, indisputably would largely depend upon the factual matrix of each case, the materials brought on record and having regard to legal principles governing the same".
"The courts must be on guard to see that merely on the application of presumption as contemplated under Section 139, the same may not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction".
17. On going through the said dictums, it made clear that, by virtue of those provisions, it is the court needs to draw the Judgment 13 C.C.No.14190/2018 presumption, as to the questioned cheque was issued by the accused for discharge of legally recoverable debt and the accused needs to prove that, non existence of consideration either by direct or circumstantial evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that, existence of consideration was not in improbable and doubtful. In that backdrop, it requires to appreciate the evidence of accused, as it is the initial burden of him. No doubt, when accused by asserting certain set of facts attack on the claim of the complainant, which goes to the root of the case, though he himself tendered for cross-examination, complainant has not come forward to cross-examine the accused.
18. As discussed above, on account of the complainant not cross-examined the DW.1, it made clear that, whatever the evidence placed by the accused by oral examination remains unchallenged and hence, against the case put forth by the complainant, as he not tendered for further cross-examination, it is inevitable to accept the probable defence placed by the accused. Thereby, the accused has clearly demonstrated that, he not borrowed the alleged nor issued the questioned cheque and the said cheque unsigned blank cheque kept in his house on the TV, kept in blank for misplaced and for the reasons better known to the complainant. Therefore, from the unchallenged evidence of Judgment 14 C.C.No.14190/2018 DW.1 as well as the PW.1 not tendered for further cross- examination, the defence of the accused stands proved, thereby, rebutted the statutory presumption as well as liability of the accused emerged from the Ex.P1-cheque. Therefore, as per Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it creates reverse burden on the complainant to prove his case beyond the reasonable doubt.
It is an appropriate to cite the decision of ILR 2009 KAR 1633 (Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets). Wherein, it was pleased to held by the Hon'ble Apex court that:
(D) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 118, 139 and 138 - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 - How to be rebutted - Standard of proof required rebuttal - HELD, Rebuttal does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt - Something probable has to be brought record - Burden of proof can be shifted back to complainant by producing convincing circumstantial evidence - Thereafter the said presumption arising under Section 118 and 139 case to operate - To rebut said presumption accused can also rely upon presumptions under Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114 (common course of natural even human conduct and public and private business) -
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Presumptions of fact under".
Judgment 15 C.C.No.14190/2018
19. From the said point of dictum also it made clear that, it is the complainant needs to prove his case beyond the reasonable doubt, in order to convict the accused. For doing so, first of all on appreciation of his pleading, it is very much silent as to exactly on which date, the accused had approached the complainant and he being a grocery shop business runner without taking any valid licence, as he deposed in his part cross-examination, how he mobilized the huge amount of Rs.2 lakhs and on which date, on which security and on whose presence, got paid the said loan to the accused is not been pleaded.
20. That apart, even for what duration the complainant had lent and what was the stipulated period to be repaid by the accused and exactly on which date, where the said cheque was executed and issued by the accused is not been pleaded. Even demand notice got issued by way of R.P.A.D., was returned stating refused. Though, the accused has denied the service of demand notice. The complainant knew that, the accused is his friend and he is working in KPTCL, therefore, in order to safeguard his interest could have issued legal notice to the address of the accused when he is working, but for the reasons better known to him, he not issued notice to the said address. The R.P.A.D., got returned stating refused. Therefore, it is the complainant needs to Judgment 16 C.C.No.14190/2018 prove by tendering cross-examination as well as cross-examining the DW.1, but he not opt for the same. Whatever the acknowledgment got produced at Ex.P6 it discloses, the signature of the accused, but it is not in accordance with the signature available on record, therefore, it has to be considered, notice also not been served on the accused. Though, in the notice at Ex.P3 cited the address of the accused at KEB Quarters, the same is not been seen in the acknowledgment at Ex.P6 or postal cover as per Ex.P7, thereby, also the primary defect is found in the pleadings of the complainant.
21. That apart, in the part cross-examination done by the accused got extracted his financial capacity and other things. No doubt, the PW.1 has deposed, he run the grocery shop since 15 years without having any licence. He also deposed, monthly income at Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- is gain by him and sometimes he is kept in his bank and sometimes made use in his business and he had no impediment to produce his bank statement pertaining to the period 2017. Though, he deposed as such, to establish his income as such and he was in the habit of deposit money in his bank account for the reasons better known to him, he not produced the said bank statement.
Judgment 17 C.C.No.14190/2018
22. That apart, he also categorically admitted, Rs.10,000/- was need for his house expenses and the rentals of his house and grocery shop of Rs.2,500/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. Taken in to consideration of the same, it discloses, his monthly expenses was Rs.15,500/- as against his earnings of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Then how he saved the amount and deposited itself creates doubt. Therefore, expecting him to produce his bank statement does not arise and for the reasons might that, since he had no such income, he would avoid to produce his bank statement.
23. That apart, he had an opportunity to prove his case at least tender for cross-examination and give necessary explanation. Whatever the lacks which observed in the earlier part it also continued in his cross-examination by deposing that, he does not remember on which date the accused came to him and requested for the loan amount. But gave the vague answer stating, during 1st week of May, 2017 he came and requested for the loan, but unable to specified dates. Even he deposes, to show that, he had Rs.2 lakhs as on the date of alleged lent to the accused, admittedly he not possessed any document, but he clarifies that, sum of Rs.1,50,000/- withdrawn from his bank account ans rest of Rs.50,000/- was in his hand and mobilized together and gave Judgment 18 C.C.No.14190/2018 Rs.2 lakhs to the accused during last week of May, 2017 in his house in between 5.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. While take money, the accused along with his wife and friend of complainant by name Mr.Narayan were present. Even deposes, he does not know the name of wife of accused and he had no impediment to produce his bank statement held in Karnataka Bank. Though such contradictions and confusion statement were extracted from the mouth of PW.1 as to disbelieve his own claim, for the reasons better known to him to establish he withdrew money from his bank account not choosen to produce any statement, even not examined his friend Mr.Narayan, who was the eye witness to the said transaction, which depicts, since no such incident were took place, therefore the complainant though deposes as such, not taken pain to prove those elements. Thereby, himself withdraw to prove his case.
24. The PW.1 also admitted that, accused was working as Lineman in KPTCL, but denied the suggestion that, since he had sufficient income from his job as well as from his home town from the property, he was no need to borrow the loan and accordingly, not borrowed the loan. Though, PW.1 has denied, the fact remains as such, because the PW.1 on the subsequent dates not tendered for further cross-examining and thereby ran away from Judgment 19 C.C.No.14190/2018 the witness box and court, not participated in the proceedings including not opt for cross-examining the DW.1. It clearly manifest that, the complainant has brought the present case as false claim by misusing unsigned blank cheque of the accused at Ex.P1 and projected the present case, therefore, he unable to disclose exactly on which date the accused had requested and how he mobilized the fund and lent to the accused and in turn, accused got issued the questioned cheque at Ex.P1 for discharge of his legally recoverable debt. The complainant has utterly failed to demonstrate his case beyond the reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the accused has successfully proved his probable defence by attacking on the PW.1 and extracted contradictions, developments and omissions in the available part cross- examination. Thereby, even whatever the evidence led by the accused remains unchallenged, which clearly manifest the defence of the accused and misuse of his unsigned blank cheque. Therefore, rather the evidence of PW.1 and his documents, to prove his case, it creates doubt as to the genuineness of claim put forth by the complainant. Hence, it is fit case to acquit the accused by negativate the claim put forth by the complainant.
25. On overall appreciation of the material facts available on record, it discloses that, despite the accused harping on the very Judgment 20 C.C.No.14190/2018 claim of the complainant, he fails to demonstrate his very case. While appreciate the materials available on record, this court has humbly gone through the decision relied by both parties apart from the following decisions.
In the decision reported in AIR 2007 NOC 2612 A.P. (G.Veeresham V/s. Shivashankar and another). Wherein, the Hon'ble Court has held as under:
"Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881). S. 138 Dishonour of cheque - Presumptions available to complainant under S. 118 and S. 139 of Act - Rebuttal of cheque in question was allegedly issued by accused to discharge hand loan taken from complainant. However, no material placed on record by complainant to prove alleged lending of hand loan said fact is sufficient to infer that, accused is liable to rebut presumptions available in favour of complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of Act, Order acquitting accused for offence under S. 138 proper".
26. The principle of law laid down in the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. In the case on hand also, as discussed above, the complainant has failed to prove with cogent evidence as to the lending of loan of Rs.2 lakhs to the accused. Thus, that fact itself is sufficient to infer that, accused is able to Judgment 21 C.C.No.14190/2018 rebut presumptions available in favour of complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
In a decision reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3366 (M.S.Narayana Menon Alian Mani V/s. State of Kerala and another). The Hon'ble Apex court held that:
"Once the accused discharges the initial burden placed on him the burden of proof would revert back to the prosecution".
27. In this case on hand also, on the lack of the complaint failed to prove the alleged loan transaction, it can gather the probability that, he is not liable to pay Ex.P1 cheque amount of Rs.2 lakhs and it is not legally recoverable debt. So, the burden is on the complainant to prove strictly with cogent and believable evidence that, the accused has borrowed the cheque amount and he is legally liable to pay the same. Just because, there is a presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, that, will not create any special right to the complainant so as to initiate a proceeding against the drawer of the cheque, who is not at all liable to pay the cheque amount. The accused has taken his defence at the earliest point of time, while record accusation and statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by way of denial. The evidence placed on record clearly probablize that, complainant Judgment 22 C.C.No.14190/2018 has failed to prove that, accused issued the cheque for discharge of liability of Rs.2 lakhs. Hence, complainant has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
28. From the above elaborate discussions, it very much clear that, the complainant has failed to adduce cogent and corroborative evidence to show that, accused has issued cheque Ex.P1 for discharge of his legally payable debt, for valid consideration. Hence, rebutted the legal presumptions under Section 139 and 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the accused.
29. The sum and substances of principles laid down in the rulings referred above are that, once it is proved that, cheque pertaining to the account of the accused is dishonoured and the requirements envisaged under Section 138 of (a) to (c) of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied, then it has to be presumed that, cheque in question was issued in discharge of legally recoverable debt. The presumption envisaged under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is mandatory presumption and it has to be raised in every cheque bounce cases. Now, it is settled principles that, to rebut the presumption, Judgment 23 C.C.No.14190/2018 accused has to set up a probable defence and he need not prove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
30. Thus, on appreciation of evidence on record, I hold that, the complainant has failed to prove the case by rebutting the presumption envisaged under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant has failed to discharge the reverse burden to prove his contention as alleged in the complaint. Hence, the complainant has not produced needed evidence to prove that, amount of Rs.2 lakhs legally recoverable debt. Therefore, since the complainant has failed to discharge the reverse burden, question of appreciating other things and weakness of the accused is not a ground to accept the claim of the complainant in its entirety, without the support of the substantial documentary evidence pertaining to the said transaction. The complainant utterly fails to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. As discussed above, the complainant has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answered the Point Nos.1 and 2 are Negative.
Judgment 24 C.C.No.14190/2018
31. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8 th day of April - 2021) (SHRIDHARA.M) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : Chandrashekar.M List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P1 : Original Cheque Ex.P1(a) : Signature of accused Ex.P2 : Bank endorsement Ex.P3 : Office copy of legal notice Exs.P4 & P5 : Postal receipts Ex.P6 : Postal Acknowledgment card Ex.P7 : Unserved R.P.A.D., cover Ex.P7(a) : Legal notice at Ex.P7 Ex.P8 : Private complaint Ex.P8(a) : Signature of complainant Judgment 25 C.C.No.14190/2018
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
DW.1 : Puttaraju.G.S List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
- Nil -
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 26 C.C.No.14190/2018
08.04.2021.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment
While preparing the judge, this court
gone through the order sheet in detail.
In this case, the PW.1 was subjected for
cross-examination on 07.01.2020. Thereafter, he remained absent to tender for further cross- examination, therefore, this court took the cross-examination of PW.1 taken as nil, as per order dated:10.02.2021. By oversight inspite of further cross-examination of PW.1 taken as nil.
Since, he already tendered for cross- examination, question of entire cross of PW.1 taken as nil does not arise. Therefore, it shall be read as further cross-examination of PW.1 taken as nil. This order shall be read as part and parcel of order dated:10.02.2021.
In this case, the stage was already set for judgment, hence, kept by for pronouncement of judgment.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Case again called out.
Complainant and accused are
absent. No representation from both side
advocates, despite, web-host the case
Judgment 27 C.C.No.14190/2018
proceedings and intimate the date of
pronouncement of judgment. Hence, as per Section 353(6) of Cr.P.C. the following judgment is pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
***** ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.