Bangalore District Court
Sri.U.M.Bhat vs Mr.Sripathi.S.Bhat on 2 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 2nd day of January 2017
Present: Smt. Saraswathi.K.N, B.A.L., LL.M.,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C. No.3349/2014
Complainant : Sri.U.M.Bhat,
S/o.Late M.G.Bhat,
Aged about 68 years,
R/at No.10,
5th "A" Cross,
Syndicate Bank Layout,
Thunganagar Post,
Vishwaneedam,
Bengaluru-91.
(Rep. by Sri.U.J.Hari Prasad.,
Adv.,)
- Vs -
Accused : Mr.Sripathi.S.Bhat,
Aged about 57 years,
R/at.No.9/148,
5th D Cross, Tunganagar,
Vishwanedam Post,
Bengaluru-91.
(Rep. by Sri.B.R.Sridhara.,
Adv.,)
2 C.C. No.3349/2014 J
Case instituted : 8.5.2013
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I. Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is acquitted
Date of order : 2.1.2017
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that, he is a retired official and the Accused is his family friend for the past 10 years and with the said acquaintance, the Accused approached him to give him a hand loan of Rs.9,50,000/= on 10.1.2010 to fulfil his business commitments and agreed to repay the said loan amount within one month. Believing the words of the Accused, he gave a hand loan of Rs.9,50,000/= to him, by way of cash on 16.4.2010, which the Accused promised to repay within one month.
3 C.C. No.3349/2014 J3. The Complainant has further submitted that, in respect of the aforesaid transaction, he demanded the Accused to repay the said hand loan amount several times. But the Accused went on postponing the same by giving one reason or the other and finally, towards the part payment of the said loan, the Accused issued a cheque bearing No.104843 drawn on the Union Bank of India, Vijayanagara Branch, Bengaluru, for a sum of Rs.9,50,000/= dated 20.3.2013. At that time, the Accused had also promised that, he had sufficient Bank balance in his account and that, the cheque would be encashed as soon as it is presented. Accordingly, when he presented the said cheque for encashment through his Banker, it came to be returned with an endorsement "Account Blocked" on 27.3.2013.
4. The Complainant has further submitted that, thereafter he got issued the legal notice to the Accused on 9.4.2013, appraising him about the dishonor of the cheque in question. Inspite of the service of the notice, the Accused neither replied nor repaid the amount covered under the cheque.
4 C.C. No.3349/2014 J5. The Complainant submits that, the dishonour of the cheque by the Accused has been malafide, intentional and deliberate. Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of the Accused, he has filed the present complaint praying that the Accused be summoned, tried and punished in accordance with Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
6. The Pre-summoning evidence has been led by the Complainant on 15.2.2014. Prima-facie case has been made out against the Accused and he has been summoned vide order of the same date.
7. The Accused has appeared before the Court on 3.1.2015, he has been enlarged on bail. The substance of the accusation has been read over to him on 3.6.2015, to which, he has pleaded not guilty and has claimed the trial.
8. In his post-summoning evidence, the Complainant has examined himself as PW1 and has filed his affidavit, wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. P.W.1 has also relied upon the following documentary evidence:-
5 C.C. No.3349/2014 JEx.P1 is the cheque, in which, the signature is identified by P.W.1 as that of the Accused as per Ex.P1(a), the Bank Endorsement as per Ex.P2, the office copy of the legal notice as per Ex.P3, the postal receipt as per Ex.P4, the postal acknowledgement as per Ex.P5, the receipt as per Ex.P6 and the complaint as per Ex.P7 and the signature on the complaint at Ex.P7 as per Ex.P7(a). The Invitation Cover is marked through the Accused as per Ex.P8.
The certified copies of the Complaint in C.C.No.12654/13 and the order sheet of the said proceedings are marked as Ex.P9 & 10 respectively through PW2.
9. In support of the case of the Complainant, a witness by name Sri.V.Subramanya is examined as PW2, who has sworn in his affidavit that, he does not know the Accused and that, he knows the Complainant for the past several years and that the latter is his friend. He has further deposed that, the Complainant had filed a cheque bounce case in C.C.No.12645/13 against M/s.Samruddi Chit Funds, wherein, he was also one of the Directors of the said chit funds and that in the said case, he had been arrayed as one of the Accused and that 6 C.C. No.3349/2014 J the said case was disposed off recently convicting him. According to him, the Accused is a total stranger to him and that he never had any transaction with him and that he never issued any of his cheques to the Accused.
10. In his cross-examination, it is admitted by P.W.2 that, in C.C.No.12645/13, he was convicted only because of the fact that, he did not appear and contest the said case, but he has denied that Ex.D1 is the cheque issued by him to the Accused and that, it contains his hand writing. He has also denied that, he is a financier running M/s. Samruddi Finance Business. However he has admitted that, in C.C.No.12645/2013, the Accused No.1 was M/s. Samruddi Chits Pvt Ltd., With regard to the transfer of the amounts to his accounts as per Ex.D6(a) and D7(a) through the cheques of the Accused, PW2 has claimed that, there is only mention of the name as "V.Subramanya", but according to him, no amounts have been credited to his account. He has further denied that, the accounts shown in Ex.P6 & 7 are one among his various other accounts and as per the entries at Ex.D6(a) & Ex.P7(a), the amounts shown therein have been credited to his account.
7 C.C. No.3349/2014 J11. P.W.2 has also denied the defence version of the Accused that, the latter had availed Rs.3,25,000/= from him in the year 2009 and that towards the security of the same, the Accused had issued his 4 cheques to him. However PW2 had admitted that, he had obtained the signatures of the Accused and his wife on blank white papers and he has pleaded ignorance to the suggestion that thereafter the Complainant has created Ex.P6 i.e., the receipt on the same full scape blank paper, on which, he had obtained signature of the Accused. Thereafter he has denied the entire defence of the Accused.
12. The statement of the Accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., has been recorded on 5.3.2016.
13. In Defence evidence, the Accused has examined himself on Oath under Sec.315 of Cr.P.C., as DW1.
In his evidence, DW1 has deposed that, he is a BE Graduate, working in a private company, since 1985 till date and that he knows the Complainant since 2002, during which the latter was his neighbour and that even presently both of them are residing in the same area.
8 C.C. No.3349/2014 J14. DW1 has further deposed that, in December 2008, he had applied for the housing loan in the Punjab National Bank, for the purpose of the renovation of his house, as well as to construct a house in the first floor and during the first week of January 2009, the said Bank had directed him to produce his house documents, which were already mortgaged by him with the IDBI Home Finance and accordingly he had to pay Rs.3,30,000/= to the said Bank, for the purpose of taking back the documents. At that time, he did not have so much amount with him and that he was not in a position to arrange the said amount. For the same purpose, he sought for a loan of Rs.3,25,000/= from the Complainant and his other friends and that he had sought the said amount from the Complainant on 9.1.2009 or 10.1.2009. At that time, the Complainant had told him that, as he was a retired person, he did not have so much amount, but he would arrange for the same from his friend Subramani a financier and that he had also told him that, his friend Subramani would charge a monthly interest at 3 % for the said loan, but he could get it reduced to 2.5% and for the same purpose, he required his signed 4 blank cheques and a signed blank receipt.
9 C.C. No.3349/2014 JThereafter the Complainant informed him that, the said financier Subramanya had agreed to lend the said amount on 13.1.2009 and thereafter on 14.1.2009, he would collect the said cheques and the receipt from him from his house. At that time, though, he enquired with the Complainant that such blank cheques might be misused, the latter assured him that, he being a Bank Manager, is aware of the legal consequences and therefore, the said documents could be given by him on his guarantee. Thereafter on 14.9.2009, at about 7.45 am, when the Complainant came to his house, he told him that, instead of 4 cheques, he would give him his 2 cheques and that there was no revenue stamp for the receipt, to which, the Complainant told him that, he himself would bring the Revenue Stamp in the evening and that at that time, he had kept his 2 cheques bearing No.104840 & 104841 ready and at the same time, he gave his cheque bearing No.104842 to the Tata Communication Company and on the same day, the Complainant visited his house at 7.00 p.m., and told him that, he had to give his 4 cheques, as a result of which, he gave his 4 cheques bearing No.104840, 104841, 104843 and 104844 as blank cheques, drawn on the 10 C.C. No.3349/2014 J Union Bank of India and that the Complainant himself had brought a revenue stamp and thereafter he obtained his signature, along with the signature of his wife at the instance of the Complainant and thereafter on 15.1.2009, the financier Subramani would pay him Rs.3,25,000/=.
15. D.W.1 has further deposed that, on 15.1.2009, the said Subramani lent Rs.3,25,000/= to him, through his cheque in the house of the Complainant, in which, he had written the amount in words and figures and gave the same to the Complainant. When he insisted the said Subramani to fill up the contents of the said cheque, the latter told him that, they would be filled up by the Complainant himself and accordingly the Complainant filled up the said cheque, by writing the name of the payee as IDBI Finance Ltd., and Shreepati S Bhat and also the date as 15.1.2009 and thereafter instructed him to mention the account number after going to the Bank and at that time, the said Subramanya told him that, if there were any other transaction, the same could be informed to the Complainant.
11 C.C. No.3349/2014 J16. To substantiate his oral evidence, DW1 has produced and has relied upon the following documentary evidence as per Ex.D3 to D31 which are as follows:-
17. The IDBI Home Finance Bank Receipt as per Ex.D3, the letter as per Ex.D4, the PNB letter as per Ex.D5, the Bank Statements as per Ex.D6 & 7 respectively, the relevant entries as per Ex.D6(a) & 7(a) respectively, the Appointment Letter as per Ex.D8, the Salary Slips as per Ex.D9 to 11 respectively, the Acknowledgments as per Ex.D12 & 13 respectively, the Bank Statements as per Ex.P14 to 16 respectively, the Letter of Appointment as per Ex.D17, the copy of the Voter ID Card as per Ex.D18, the copies of Mutation Extracts as per Ex.D19 & 20 respectively, the Agreement of Sale as per Ex.D21, the Certificate as per Ex.D22, the Pass Book as per Ex.D23, the Circulars as per Ex.D24 to 26 respectively, the Letter as per Ex.D27, the Medical Reports as per Ex.D28 & 29 respectively, the Receipt issued by the Lodge as per Ex.D30 and the e-Ticket as per Ex.D31.
18. During the course of his further chief- examination, DW1 has deposed that, he has repaid the 12 C.C. No.3349/2014 J loan of Rs.3,50,000/=, which he had availed from Subramanya on 15.1.2009 and at that time, though he sought for the return of his signed 4 blank cheques and the signed Blank Receipt 3 to 4 times, the latter did not return them and instead, demanded him to pay the commission amount to him and during the course of time, he forgot about the said documents.
19. According to DW1, only after the receipt of the legal notice to his office address, he came to know that the cheque in question is one of his 4 cheques given by him to the Complainant, which has been misused by the Complainant.
20. During his cross-examination, it is admitted by DW1 that, the cheque at Ex.P1 and the signature at Ex.P1(a) belongs to him and likewise the first signature on the Receipt at Ex.P6 is his signature and the second signature is that of his wife. DW1 has pleaded ignorance about the signature found on the Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P5 and has denied that it is the signature of his wife.
21. It is elicited from DW1 in his cross-examination that, he knows the Complainant since 10 years and that 13 C.C. No.3349/2014 J both of them used to visit each other house's occasionally and that, he has not taken any legal action either against Subramanya or against the Complainant, alleging the misuse of the cheque in question by them and likewise he has not enquired with Subramanya about his cheque having been misused.
22. It is further elicited from DW1 that, the Accused by name Subramanya shown in PCR No.10850/13 and Subramanya, who according to him has lent loan to him are one and the same persons and that he has deposited the amount to the account of the said Subramanya.
23. According to the Accused, the cheque at Ex.D1 relates to the account of Subramanya and he has denied that, the cheque at Ex.D1 does not relate to the account of Subramanya and that the account pertaining to the said cheque does not relate to Subramanya.
24. The Invitation Cover pertaining to the house warming of the Accused is confronted to him and the same is marked as Ex.P8.
25. It is further deposed by the Accused that, on 13.4.2010, he along with his family had been to Kumta 14 C.C. No.3349/2014 J and they returned from there on 30.4.2010 and that his mother expired on 16.4.2010 at 5.30 a.m., and that on 15.4.2010, all his family members were in Kumta. However D.W.1 has denied the suggestion that, the documents at Ex.D28 to 31 have been created by him for the purpose of the present case. Likewise it is elicited from DW1 that, he has availed loan from various bankers for various purposes. It is denied by him that, Ex.D1 does not belong to Subramanya and that he has issued the cheque at Ex.P1 in favour of the Complainant, towards the discharge of his legal liability. Thereafter he has denied the entire case of the Complainant as suggested to him.
26. The learned counsel for the Complainant has prayed for the Conviction of the Accused on the ground that, the Accused has admitted that the cheque at Ex.P1(a) belongs to him and that he has not brought on record any probable evidence in order to prove his alleged loan transaction with the financier Subramanya. It is also argued that, the main defence of the Accused is based upon the financier Subramanya, which he has failed to prove. It is lastly argued that, the Accused has 15 C.C. No.3349/2014 J failed to rebut the presumption available under Sec.118 & 139 of the N.I. Act.
27. The learned Defence Counsel has filed his detail written arguments, in which, he has prayed for the acquittal of the Accused on the ground that, the Complainant has utterly failed to prove the purpose of the alleged loan and also the service of the legal notice upon the Accused. Though the financial capacity of the Complainant having been seriously disputed by the Accused, the has not been proved by the former and likewise the issuance of the cheque in question towards the discharge of the legally enforceable debt as well as the execution of the cheque at Ex.P1 in favour of the Complainant is not proved. Likewise the relevancy of the Receipt at Ex.P6 to the present case is also not proved.
28. It is further argued that, on the contrary, it is proved by the Accused that, no such account was maintained by him as on the date of the alleged issuance of the cheque i.e., on 20.3.2013 and it is further proved by the Accused that, 4 signed blank cheques and a signed blank Receipt was issued by him to the financier Mr.Subramanya in the year 2009, but not to the 16 C.C. No.3349/2014 J Complainant and that the same has been misused by the Complainant.
29. It is also argued by the learned Defence counsel that, the Accused has also successfully proved the plea of Alibi i.e., he was not in town on both the days i.e., on the date of the alleged lending of the loan by the Complainant to him, as well as on the day of his alleged issuance of the cheque in favour of the Complainant. Therefore, according to the learned Defence Counsel, the Complainant has miserably failed to prove that, the cheque in question has been issued by the Accused in his favour towards the discharge of the legally enforceable debt and on the contrary, the defence raised by the Accused is proved in preponderance of probabilities and as such the Accused deserves to be acquitted.
30. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
31. Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been enacted to lend credibility to the financial transactions.
17 C.C. No.3349/2014 JThe main ingredients of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act are:-
(i) Drawing up of a cheque by the Accused towards the payment of the amount of money, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or any other liability;
(ii) Return of the cheque by the bank as unpaid;
(iii) The drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money within 15 days of the receipt of the notice under the proviso (b) to Section
138.
The Explanation appended to the Section provides that, the "debt or other liability" for the purpose of this Section means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
32. Apart from this, Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lays down a presumption in favour of the holder of cheque in the following terms:-
"It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that:-
The holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec. 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability".18 C.C. No.3349/2014 J
33. Also, Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act states, "Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-
(a) 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;"
34. Thus, the Act clearly lays down the presumptions in favour of the Complainant with regard to the issuance of the cheque by the Accused, towards the discharge of his liability in favour of the Complainant.
35. Under the scheme of the Act, the onus is upon the Accused to rebut the presumptions in favour of the Complainant by raising a probable defence.
36. Such being the legal position, it would be pertinent to refer to the defences raised by the Accused to rebut the presumptions in favour of the Complainant in this case.
19 C.C. No.3349/2014 J37. The first defence raised by the Accused is that, he was and he is in employment and as such there was no necessity for him, so as to avail any loan from the Complainant as alleged in the complaint.
38. In order to substantiate this defence version, during the course of his evidence, D.W.1 has deposed that, he is a BE graduate and since 1985, till date, he is working and he has sufficient handsome salary.
39. To substantiate his claim, in support of his oral evidence, DW1 has produced and relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.D8 to 17 and on the basis of the said documentary evidence, it is his claim that, as he is working, he is financially stable and as such, there was no necessity for him to avail any loan by him from the Complainant.
40. In this regard the claim of the Complainant is that the documents relied upon by the Accused in support of his evidence is not supported by any pleading and therefore the same cannot be considered by the Court. However it is pertinent to note that, the aforesaid 20 C.C. No.3349/2014 J documents could be relied upon by the Court only to the limited extent of coming to the conclusion that, the Accused has been in continuous employment since 1985 till date. Further it is not the case of the Complainant that the Accused is not employed or that he had no source of income. Therefore it is pertinent to note that, as the document at Ex.D8 to 17 have not been seriously challenged by the Complainant, while cross-examining the Accused, the same are deemed to have been admitted by the Complainant.
41. The next defence raised by the Accused is that, the Complainant has failed to prove the purpose of the alleged loan.
42. According to the Complainant, the Accused had sought for a loan of Rs.9,50,000/= from him on 10.1.2010 to fulfil his business commitments, undertaking to repay the same within one month from the date of borrowal. In this regard, during his cross- examination, the Complainant has deposed that, the Accused had sought loan from him during the second week of January 2010 to start a business in the name of his wife and that he had lent the said loan to the Accused 21 C.C. No.3349/2014 J on 16.4.2010. But except such claim, the Complainant has failed to prove the alleged purpose, for which, the Accused had sought the said loan from him. Moreover the Complainant himself has suggested to the Accused in his cross-examination that, the latter is a BE graduate and that he has availed loans in various banks for various purposes. In such circumstance, even if it is assumed that, the Accused was in need of any loan, he could have approached the Bankers, instead of approaching the Complainant. However it is to be noted that, it is not the defence of the Accused that, he was not at all in need of any loans. It is the very defence of the Accused that, during December 2008 he had approached the Punjab National Bank, for Housing Loan for the purpose of renovating his house, as well as to construct a house in the first floor and for the same reason, in January 2009, he was required to deposit Rs.3,30,000/= to the IDBI Finance, with whom, he had mortgaged his property documents and for the same reason, as he did not have so much amount with him, he approached the Complainant and his other friends to arrange for the said loan and that it is in that circumstance that, the Complainant introduced the financier by name 22 C.C. No.3349/2014 J Subramanya to him, in respect of the said loan transaction of Rs.3,35,000/=. Therefore this clearly goes to show that, though the loan transaction by the Accused is admitted, according to him, it is not with the Complainant, but with the financier Subramanya. If at all, it was the Complainant, who had lent the loan to the Accused as claimed by him, then nothing prevented the Complainant from stating the purpose of the alleged loan. However as could be seen from the evidence on record, the Complainant has taken contrary stands in his evidence about the purpose of the loan as pleaded by him in the compliant. Therefore it could be believed that, the Complainant would not have lent a huge sum of Rs.9,50,000/= to the Accused, without even knowing it's purpose. Therefore it is seen that, the Complainant has failed to prove that the cheque in question has been issued by the Accused, towards the discharge of his alleged loan from the Complainant.
43. The next defence raised by the Accused is that, if at all the cash loan was advanced by the Complainant to the former for business commitments, then why he has not charged any interest for the said loan?
23 C.C. No.3349/2014 J44. In this regard, according to the Complainant, the Accused had undertaken to repay the loan within one month from the date of borrowing i.e., from 16.4.2010. However according to the Complainant, after his persistent demands, the Accused issued the cheque in question to him on 20.3.2013. If at all the Accused had really undertaken to repay the said loan, within one month from 16.4.2010, then nothing prevented the Complainant from seeking for the repayment of the said loan immediately after the expiry of one month from the said date. It is casually deposed by the Complainant that, though he demanded for the repayment of the loan amount from the Accused several times, but the latter went on postponing the same, by giving one or the other reason. However except the self serving testimony of the Complainant in this regard, there is no iota of evidence led by him to substantiate the same.
45. It is pertinent to note that, admittedly the Complainant is a Pensioner and that he had lent Rs.9,50,000/=, without even charging any interest and without even getting executed any documents in his favour by the Accused. The cumulative effect of this circumstance raises a serious doubt about the alleged 24 C.C. No.3349/2014 J transaction. Moreover it is elicited from the Complainant that, it has not come to his notice, as to, if the Accused really started any business by opening any shop. If at all the Complainant had really advanced such a huge amount of loan to the Accused, in order to start a business of installing cable lines in the name of his wife, nothing prevented him from taking appropriate action against the latter, for the non-repayment of such huge amount of loan against the Accused. Admittedly the Accused is neither a relative nor a family friend of the Complainant. In such circumstance, it is hardly possible to believe the claim of the Complainant that, he being a Bank Manager, would part with such a huge amount of money on a casual ground to someone, even if it be his close family friend or a relative. Therefore it is highly doubtful that the Complainant, being a Bank Manager would part with such huge amount of money, without even knowing, the purpose for which, the said loan is sought and if the said purpose is being fulfilled.
46. The next defence raised by the Accused is with regard to the financial capacity of the Complainant to have allegedly lent the loan to the Accused.
25 C.C. No.3349/2014 J47. It is an admitted fact that, the Complainant is a retired Bank Manager and as such, he would be expected to be financially sound. But just because the Complainant is a retired Bank Manager, it cannot be presumed that, he would also have the financial capacity to lend a loan of Rs.9,50,000/= to the Accused as claimed by him. In such circumstance the burden of proving the same beyond reasonable doubt is on the part of the Complainant. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, according to the Complainant he has lent a sum of Rs.9,50,000/= to the Accused on 16.4.2010 by way of cash. According to the Complainant, the Accused had sought for the said loan from him during the second week of January 2010 in order to start a business in the name of his wife and according to him, at that time, the Accused as well as his wife had come to his house and that except them, no one else was present, but he does not remember the time at which the said loan has been lent by him. It is admitted by PW1 that, he is getting a monthly pension of Rs.18,000/=, but he has admitted that, he has not produced any documents to substantiate the same. With regard to his source of having arranged the said loan amount, according to the Complainant, his 26 C.C. No.3349/2014 J two children are in the USA and that whenever they come to India, they give the money to him, but he has admitted that, he has not produced any documents to prove that he had withdrawn the amount from the Bank. According to PW1, he has not declared in his Income Tax Returns about having lent Rs.9,50,000/= to the Accused and that he has not produced any documents to show that, his children had given the money to him. Admittedly the alleged loan advanced by the Complainant to the Accused is a taxable amount, therefore it cannot be expected that the Complainant could not file his IT Returns in respect of the same or declared the same in his IT returns.
48. It is pertinent to note that, even if it is assumed that, the Complainant has not declared about the alleged loan transaction of Rs.9,50,000/= in his IT returns, it is impossible to believe that the Complainant, being a retired Bank Manager, would keep such a huge amount of cash with him in his house and moreover he being a senior citizen, would have the option of investing the same to some proper profitable purpose, instead of keeping the amount idle at home.
27 C.C. No.3349/2014 J49. Moreover the Complainant, being a Bank Manager claims that, he has advanced the said amount to the Accused for the purpose of the business commitments of the latter, that too without charging any interest. But this seems to be unbelievable, because, even if it is assumed that, the Complainant had possessed so much funds with him, definitely he would have thought of investing the same in order to earn additional income, instead of lending it to the Accused, that too without charging any interest and without even collecting any documents from him. Likewise it is elicited from PW1 that, except his pension, there is no other source of income to him and though he has claimed that, his children give him the money during their visit to India, nothing prevented the Accused to substantiate the same by producing either his Bank Pass Books or statement of accounts, which would have justified his claim. Therefore even if it is assumed by the Court that, the children of the Complainant used to give him money during their visit to India, definitely he, being a Bank Manager could not be expected and believed to keep the said amount by way of cash in his house, without there being any special purpose for doing the same. Therefore 28 C.C. No.3349/2014 J the claim of the Complainant that, he has the financial capacity so as to lend a sum of Rs.9,50,000/= to the Accused is highly impossible to be believed.
50. Moreover according to the Complainant, at the time of his alleged lending the loan to the Accused, the latter has not executed any document to him as a security for the said loan transaction. However according to the Complainant as on 16.4.2010, the Accused had executed a Receipt, which was got typed-written by him and according to him, it is the Receipt at Ex.P6, which was executed by the Accused. But it is seen that, interestingly neither in the legal notice nor in the complaint nor in his affidavits, has the Complainant stated about the document at Ex.P6. It is for the first time, during his evidence before the Court that the Complainant has produced the Receipt as per Ex.P6, without pleading about the same even in his affidavit. Therefore the said document cannot be relied upon by this Court. However it could be seen that, it is admitted by PW1 that, he has not pleaded about the Receipt at Ex.P6 earlier and according to the Accused, the Receipt at Ex.P6 is a concocted document which had been created by the Complainant on a signed blank paper, 29 C.C. No.3349/2014 J which was obtained by the financier Subramanya at the time of his lending of Rs.3,35,000/= to the Accused. Though the Complainant has denied about the same, during the evidence of the witness V.Subramanya who is examined as PW2, it is elicited from him that, he had obtained the signatures of the Accused and his wife on blank white paper and he has pleaded ignorance that, thereafter the Complainant has created Ex.P6 on the said full scape blank paper, on which, he had obtained the signatures of the Accused. If the claim of the Complainant that Ex.P6 was a Receipt issued by the Accused in his favour, then the witness who is examined as PW2 supporting the claim of the Complainant could not be expected to plead ignorance about the suggestion that Ex.P6 is a created document and nothing prevented the said witness from denying the said suggestion categorically, instead of only pleading ignorance. Therefore it clearly goes to show that, when the Accused is denying and disputing the genuinety of the receipt at Ex.P6, the onus is shifted upon the Complainant to prove the said document as per law.
30 C.C. No.3349/2014 J51. Therefore in the ultimate analysis, it clearly goes to show that, the Complainant has utterly failed to prove that, he has the financial capacity to lend such huge amount of Rs.9,50,000/= in cash on 16.4.2010. Likewise Ex.P6 which is a receipt, without any pleading in support of the same is not admissible in evidence and cannot support the claim of the Complainant in any manner. Therefore this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that, the Complainant has failed to prove his financial capacity so as to have allegedly lent Rs.9,50,000/= to the Accused.
52. Moreover the Complainant being a retired Bank Manager is expected to be aware of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and the rules, while allegedly lending a huge amount to the Accused. It is a well settled principle of law that, ignorance of law is not an excuse. It is clear that the non-disclosure of the alleged amount of friendly loan to the Accused in a circumstance is to be reckoned against the Complainant and an adverse inference is liable to drawn against him. Therefore the Accused has probabalised his defence that the Complainant had no financial capacity to have allegedly lent the loan to him.
31 C.C. No.3349/2014 J53. The next technical defence raised by the Accused is with regard to the legal notice sent to his wrong address and as a consequence the non receipt of the legal notice by him.
54. In this regard it is pertinent to note that, the defence of the Accused is that the legal notice has not been sent to his correct address and that as on the date of the issuance of the legal notice, he was not residing in the said address and as a result the Postal Acknowledgment at Ex.P5 has been created by the Complainant. According to the Complainant, he has not got issued the legal notice to the work place of the Accused and though the Complainant has pleaded ignorance to the suggestion that, the summons has been sent to the office address of the Accused and for the same reason, the Postal envelope is marked as Ex.D2, in which the admitted office address of the Accused is shown to him. It is elicited from P.W.1 that since the Accused was not residing in the address shown in Ex.P5, the former has got issued summons to his office address shown on Ex.D2.
32 C.C. No.3349/2014 J55. With this defence, it is evident that, the Accused has taken up the technical defence that, the signature on Ex.P5 is not that of his wife and that there is no service of the legal notice upon him. To substantiate the same, the Invitation Cover as per Ex.P8, which relates to the House Warming Ceremony of the Accused is got marked through him as per Ex.P8 and admittedly the address found on Ex.P8 is different from the one shown in Ex.P3 and Ex.P5. Therefore with the documentary evidence at Ex.P8, the Complainant himself has admitted that, he has not got issued the legal notice to the Accused to his correct address and as a result, the technical defence that there is no service of the legal notice to the Accused is proved by the latter and the same is admitted even by the Complainant through Ex.P8. Moreover the Accused has produced the copy of his voter ID card as per Ex.D18, and as per Ex.D19 to 21 respectively, the Accused was staying in the address shown in the said documents and the same address was already submitted by him to this court while his executing bail bond, which clearly goes to show that, his address is not the one, which is shown by the Complainant either in the complaint or in the legal notice. Likewise even Ex.P8 33 C.C. No.3349/2014 J depicts the address of the Accused as found on Ex.D18, which is the admitted address, since it was produced by the Complainant himself. Therefore it is clear that, as on the date of the issuance of the legal notice, the Accused was not staying in the address shown in Ex.P3 in the year 2013, but was staying in the address as in Ex.D18 and the same is supported by Ex.P8.
56. Moreover when the Complainant claims that, he used to go to the house of the Accused for seeking the repayment of the loan by the latter and he also admits that he knew the correct address of the working office of the Accused, nothing prevented him from causing the legal notice to the correct address of the Accused. Therefore from the overall materials available on record, an inference could be drawn that the Accused was staying in the address as in Ex.D18 at the time, when the legal notice at Ex.P3 was sent in the year 2013 and the same was very well known to the Complainant at the time of the issuance of the legal notice at Ex.P3, but inspite of it, the Complainant has caused the notice to his wrong address.
34 C.C. No.3349/2014 J57. Therefore it is clear that, though the Complainant had knowledge that the Accused is not residing in the address shown in Ex.P3 as on the date of it's issuance, intentionally he has sent the legal notice to his wrong address. Therefore the technical defence of the non-receipt of the legal notice is also available to the Accused.
58. It is pertinent to note that, by virtue of the signature found on Ex.P5, the Complainant has taken up a claim that, when the Accused does not admit the signature on Ex.P5 either as his signature or that of his wife, the onus is shifted upon the Complainant to prove that the same has been received by any of the family members of the Accused. In this regard, the Complainant has not produced any cogent evidence to prove that the Accused was residing in the said address or to prove that either the Accused or any of his family members has received the said legal notice. Moreover the Complainant has not made any allegation in the pleading that the Accused has avoided the receipt of the legal notice and therefore it is clear that the presumption of the deemed service of the legal notice on the Accused as per Sec.27 of the General Clause Act as well as the service of the notice 35 C.C. No.3349/2014 J as per clause (b) of the Proviso to Sec.138 of the N.I.Act is also not available to the Complainant. Hence this court can conclude that the Complainant has failed to prove the due service of the legal notice to the Accused.
59. The next defence important defence raised by the Accused is with regard to his transaction with the financier V.Subramanya.
60. It is pertinent to note that, it is not the defence of the Accused that, he was not in need of loan, but according to him, he was in need of loan in the year 2009 and during the cross-examination of the Complainant, the Accused has taken up the defence that his loan transaction is of the year 2009, but not with the Complainant, but with the financier V.Subramanya. According to the Accused, he sought for a loan of Rs.3,25,000/= from the Complainant, which he got arranged through the financier Subramanya, by placing himself in the position of a mediator. To substantiate this defence, the photocopy of a cheque bearing No.221573 dated 15.1.2009 drawn on the Janatha Co-operative Bank Ltd., Amarajyothinagar Branch, Bengaluru is marked through PW1 as per Ex.D1 and according to the 36 C.C. No.3349/2014 J Accused, under the said cheque, the said Subramanya advanced a loan of Rs.3,25,000/= to him and at that time, the Complainant had collected his 4 cheques, including the cheque in question from him for the purpose of security and the remaining 3 cheques are still in the possession of the Complainant. According to the Accused, the other 3 cheques which were collected from him by the Complainant so as to give them to the said financier Subramanya are the cheques bearing No.104840, 104841 and 104844 and along with them, the Complainant had also collected a signed blank white paper consisting of a revenue stamp of Rs.1/=, on the pretext that, they were to be given to the fianancier Subramanya and by collecting the monthly interest of 2,50,000/= in cash, the Complainant used to pay the said interest amount to the said Subramanya and that as per the instructions of the Complainant, he has repaid the said loan through his account to the account of V.Subramanya through account transfer and even though, he has repaid the entire loan to the financier Subramanya and sought for the return of his cheques and signed blank paper, instead of returning them to him, he demanded the commission amount and since he 37 C.C. No.3349/2014 J failed to pay the same, the Complainant by misusing one of the said 4 cheques, has filed this false case against him. This defence version is entirely denied by the Complainant.
61. However the Complainant has admitted his acquaintance and friendship with Subramanya and he has also admitted that, the said Subramanya is a financier. It is also an admitted fact that there was a criminal case filed by the Complainant against M/s. Samrudhi Chits, in which, the said Subramanya was arrayed as the Accused No.3. It is also an admitted fact that, the said case is already concluded, in which, the said Subramanya has been convicted by the Court.
62. It is to be noted that it is elicited from Subramanya/PW2 that, in the said he case has been convicted by the court, because he was not appearing before the court and that he did not defend himself. It is to be noted that, when the said Subramanya was sought to be examined as a witness by the Accused, the same was seriously opposed by the Complainant. But subsequently at the instance of the Complainant himself, the said Subramanya came to be examined as PW2 and 38 C.C. No.3349/2014 J as already discussed, the said witness has supported the case of the Complainant, by denying his acquaintance with the Accused, as well as his lending of the loan to the Accused. He has gone to the extent of even denying that, he is a financier, but which unfortunately has been admitted by the Complainant himself. Though PW2 has denied has he is a financier in his chief evidence by producing the documentary evidence as per Ex.P9 and 10, he has denied the same in his cross-examination. Likewise PW2 has also denied that, Ex.D1 is a cheque which relates to his account. Similarly he has also denied that, as per Ex.D6(a) & D7(a), amounts have been credited to his account through the cheques of the Accused. According to PW2, though there is mention of his name in Ex.D6(a) and D7(a), no amounts have been credited to his account. It is pertinent to note that, even though PW2 has denied that Ex.D1 belongs to him, by denying that, there is credit of the amounts to his account, the said witness has falsified the entire case of the Complainant, because the Complainant has not denied or disputed the loan transaction between the Accused and the said Subramanya. In his cross- examination the Complainant has admitted that, there 39 C.C. No.3349/2014 J existed a transaction between the Accused and Subramanya by stating that, the transaction stated in the present case is in no way concerned to the said Subramanya. This is sufficient to come to the conclusion that, PW2 is not a believable witness and no importance and credibility could be attached to his evidence. Moreover with regard to the Receipt at Ex.P6 that, it is created by the Complainant, instead of denying the same PW2 has pleaded ignorance. This is also sufficient to come to the conclusion that PW2 is a witness, who is created by the Complainant so to prove his case against the Accused. Interestingly PW2 has failed to prove that as per Ex.D6(a) and D7(a), no amounts have been credited to his account and therefore it is clear that, the Complainant and V.Subramanya, by colluding with each other, have hatched a plan so as to make wrongful gain from the Complainant. Moreover the very fact that PW2, who was convicted in a case filed against him by the Complainant himself, comes before the Court and give evidence in support of the Complainant itself goes to show his interestedness in the matter and in such circumstance, this court cannot rule out the possibility of the existence a vested interest in the said witness to see 40 C.C. No.3349/2014 J that, by hook and crook, the Accused is convicted by the court.
63. The learned Defence Counsel has also raised a serious objection with regard to the affidavit of PW2, which is admittedly not identified either by any advocate or any other authority and as such, the said affidavit is a defective one. No doubt even on the basis of merits, the evidence of PW2 is not trustworthy and believable and therefore the fact that the affidavit of PW2 is not identified by the advocate also adds significance to disbelieve his testimony.
64. The next defence raised by the Accused is that, Ex.P1 was a blank cheque was given by him to Subramanya in the year 2009 and that, it belongs to the year 2008. According to the Accused, one of the cheques which is prior to the disputed cheque of the same series was encashed in February 2009. According to the Accused, the cheque in dispute is a Non-CTS cheque, which is admitted even by the Complainant. According to DW1, the cheque at Ex.P1 belongs to the cheque book series from Nos.104831 to 104850, issued by the Union Bank of India on 14.2.2008 as per Ex.D22 and the Pass 41 C.C. No.3349/2014 J Book at Ex.D23. According to the Complainant, the cheque of that series was issued in March 2013. However the Complainant has not stated either in his notice or in complaint or in his affidavit, about the date on which the cheque in question was issued by the Accused in his favour. Moreover when the Complainant claims that the cheque in question was available with him since 2013, the documentary evidence at Ex.D23 goes to show that one cheque prior to Ex.P1 bearing No.104842 was honoured by the Bank in February 2009, which goes to show that the said series cheques was used by the Accused only during the year 2008-09 and not in the year 2013. Moreover the Complainant, being a retired Bank Manager is aware of the fact that, the issuance of non-CTS cheques came to be stopped as per the RBI guidelines after August 2011 and since then, it is the CTS cheque which are issued by the Banks and therefore even if it is assumed that, the Accused issued the cheque in question to the Complainant on 20.3.2013, the latter has accepted the same, without questioning the Accused about the same. Moreover as per Ex.D24, the Circular of the RBI, dated 19.12.2012, the RBI had set a Dead line as dated 31.3.2013 to all the Banks to withdraw the non-
42 C.C. No.3349/2014 JCTS cheques. In this regard, the Complainant has admitted that, he was not aware of the fact that the cheque in question was a non-CTS cheque and therefore the court cannot expect him to plead ignorance about the said RBI circular. Therefore it is evident that, the court could draw an inference that, the cheque at Ex.P1 was a blank cheque issued in the year 2009 to the financier through the Complainant and it was presented to the Bank by the Complainant with his ulterior motive to make wrongful gain.
65. It is pertinent to note that, according to the Accused, his account was blocked as on 27.2.2011 as per the Bank letter dated 3.11.2015 at Ex.D22 and Bank Pass Book at Ex.D23 and it's relevant entries therein. Therefore it is clear that when the cheque at Ex.P1 was given on 14/01/2009, the account was operative and the entire loan of Rs.3,25,000/= was repaid to the financier Subramanya by 15/4/2009 ( as per Ex.D6 and D7) and the account became dormant only on 27/2/2011 ( as per Ex.D22). That means when the Accused gave the cheque at Ex.P1 to Subramanya through the Complainant and repaid the loan, the account was operative, which probabalises that the Accused had no intention to cheat 43 C.C. No.3349/2014 J at the time of issuance of the 4 blank cheques which includes Ex.P1 and that the Account became inoperative as a much later date after about 2 years and moreover the account was blocked by the Banker only on 27.2.2011 not at the instance of the Accused, but at its own instance. That means, even if it is assumed that, the Accused had blocked his account after the loan was repaid by him to the financier, the provision of Sec.138 of the N.I.Act is not attracted. Therefore from the materials evidence placed on record by the Accused, the defence version of the Accused that the cheque in question belonging to the year 2008 series along with 3 other cheques were issued by him in relation to the other transaction with V.Subramanya through the Complainant on 14.1.2009 and not in relation to the alleged transaction of Rs.9,50,000/= by the Complainant is probable and believable. Therefore it is proved by the Accused that, the cheque in question was not issued by him in favour of the Complainant towards the discharge of any liability, but issued to the Financier along with 3 other cheques only for the purpose of security for a loan of Rs.3,25,000/= which has been repaid.
44 C.C. No.3349/2014 J66. The next defence raised by the Accused is with regard to the execution of the cheque at Ex.P1 is not proved by the Complainant.
67. No doubt as per Sec.20 of the N.I.Act, the holder of the Negotiable Instrument Act is authorized to fill the amount therein, but the same should not be more than the amount intended to be paid by the drawer, if there exists the alleged debt, if any. Therefore as far as the holder is concerned, the drawer is liable only to the amount intended to be paid under such instrument. In the present case, the defence of the Accused that the cheque in questioin was given as blank, through the Complainant to the financier V.Subramanya at the time of his loan in the year 2009 clearly probabalises the defence of the Accused and the liability to the original holder i.e., V.Subramanya and the receipt at Ex.P6 ceases to exist on 15.4.2009 on the repayment for an amount of Rs.3,25,000/= in full, taken vide the cheque at Ex.D1 and hence the amount intended to be paid to the drawee in this case is nil, which means there is no liability under the cheque in question.
45 C.C. No.3349/2014 J68. Moreover the conduct of the Complainant shows that, though he alleges to have lent the amount to the Accused in the year 2010, but claims that, he did not take any action for it's recovery till March 2013 clearly raises a serious doubt about his claim, since he, being a retired Bank Manager would not keep quite, if in reality, he had parted with a huge amount of money to the extent of Rs.9,50,000/=, without even charging any interest. Therefore it is clear that, in the present case the Complainant has utterly failed to prove that the cheque at Ex.P1 has been issued by the Accused in his favour towards the discharge of his legally enforceable debt.
69. The next and the important defence raised by the Accused is with regard to the Plea of Alibi.
It is interesting to note that, according to the Complainant, he has lent the amount to the Accused to an extent of Rs.9,50,000/= by way of cash on 16.4.2010, which the latter agreed to repay within a period of one month. According to the Complainant, towards the repayment of the said loan, the Accused has issued the cheque in question to him on 20.3.2013. But interestingly on neither of the two dates, the Accused was present in Bengaluru, either to have allegedly received 46 C.C. No.3349/2014 J the said loan amount or to have issued the cheque at Ex.P1 in favour of the Complainant.
70. In order to substantiate this defence theory the Complainant has been cross-examined by the learend Defence Counsel, during which the former has denied that as the Accused was not at all in Bengaluru on 16.4.2010, the alleged loan transaction is false.
71. To substantiate this defence version, the Accused has produced the documentary evidence as per Ex.D27 to 29 and according to Ex.D27 & 28, it is the defence put forth by the Accused that his mother expired on 16.4.2010 at Kumta and in connection with the same, he along with his family members were in Kumta since 3 days prior to 16.10.2010. However the Complainant has disputed the genuineness of Ex.D27 to 28. However the factum of the death of the mother of the Accused is not denied by the Complainant. Therefore even though the Complainant has denied that the mother of the Accused died on 10.4.2010, the documentary evidence relied upon by the Accused to substantiate his defence version.
47 C.C. No.3349/2014 J72. Likewise the defence of the Accused is that, as on the date of the alleged issuance of the cheque in question by the Accused in favour of the Complainant on 20.3.2013, he was not at all in Bengaluru, but was at Chennai in connection with his office work.
73. To substantiate the same, the Accused has relied upon the documentary evidence at Ex.D30 to D31 and as per the said documents it is proved by the Accused that, on the said date, he was at Chennai in connection with his office work.
74. During the cross-examination of the Complainant, a suggestion was made to him that, the disputed cheuqe was not given by the Accused to him on 20.1.2013, to which he has not denied, but has pleaded that he does not remember the same. Therefore the admission on the part of the Complainant that he does not know the date itself it is sufficient to come to the conclusion that, the date of the alleged issuance of the cheque on 20.3.2013 is a fictitious date and if at all the Complainant was confident that, the Accused was in Bengaluru on the said date, then the Complainant had no impediment to give a specific answer in respect of the 48 C.C. No.3349/2014 J same. Therefore, the conduct of the Complainant in pleading ignorance about the fact that, on 20th March 2013, the Accused was in Chennai and not in Bengaluru also probabalises the defence of the Accused. Moreover during the cross-examination of the Accused, no suggestion has been made to him that, either on the date of the alleged lending of the loan or on the date of the alleged issuance of the cheque, he was very much present in Bengaluru. Therefore the non-questioning the Accused about the same probabalises the defence of the Accused about his plea of alibi as probable and believable. Moreover when the Accused denies that either on 16.4.2010 or on 20th March 2013, he was in Bengaluru, the burden is upon the Complainant to prove before the court, as to how he came in possession of the cheque in question and from whom he got it and as well as to prove, to whom, he has lent the amount of Rs.9,50,000/= so as to pay the same to the Accused. Though the Accused has proved his plea of alibi as per the documentary evidence, the Complainant has failed to disprove the defence theory raised by the Accused. Therefore it is clear that, the Accused has successfully 49 C.C. No.3349/2014 J rebutted the presumption available under Sec.118 of the N.I.Act.
75. No doubt, the presumption under Sec.139 of the N.I.Act is in favour of the Complainant. However the Accused has successfully proved that, the alleged transaction with the Complainant has not taken place at any point of time and that there existed no legally enforceable debt or liability at any point of time. Moreover the Accused has successfully probablised his defence that the cheque at Ex.P1 was issued for collateral security during the year 2009, in the form of the blank cheque, along with a blank receipt at Ex.P6 for the transaction relating to the financier Mr.V.Subramanya. It is further proved by the Accused that, though he has repaid the entire loan amount to the financier V.Subramanya during the year 2009 itself, the cheque in question was not returned either by V.Subramanya or by the Complainant, who was the mediator to the said transaction and thereafter the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant, in collusion with the financier V.Subramanya, by misusing the blank cheque at Ex.P1 and the blank receipt at Ex.P6, which were obtained from him during 2009, after making the false 50 C.C. No.3349/2014 J entries in them, without his knowledge or consent for making unlawful gain.
76. Therefore this court has no hesitation to hold that, the entire case of the Complainant is highly doubtful and that he has miserably failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
77. The learned counsel for the Complainant has also relied upon the following decisions in support of his arguments.
1. In Sunita Dubey Vs., Hukum Singh Ahirwar & ano, reported in 2015(2) DCR 605,
2. In N.Ayyasamy Vs., S.K.Chinnasamy, reported in 2008(2) DCR 231,
3. In Bhanwarlal Kumawat Vs., State of Raj & ano., reported in 2014(2) DCR
782.
78. The learned Defence Counsel has also relied upon various decisions, which have been referred to by him in the course of his written arguments.
51 C.C. No.3349/2014 J79. In view of the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER By exercising the power conferred u/s 265 of Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of January 2017).
(SARASWATHI.K.N), XVI Addl.CMM., Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
PW.1 : U.M.Bhat; PW.2 : V.Subramanya.
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.P-1 : Original Cheque;
52 C.C. No.3349/2014 J
Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of the Accused;
Ex.P-2 : Bank Endorsement;
Ex.P-3 : Copy of the Legal Notice;
Ex.P-4 : Postal receipt;
Ex.P-5 : Postal acknowledgement;
Ex.P-6 : Receipt;
Ex.P-7 : Complaint;
Ex.P-7(a) : Signature on the Ex.P7.
Ex.P-8 : Invitation Cover (Marked through
D.W.1)
Ex.P-9 : Copy of the complaint in
C.C.No.12645/13 (Marked through
P.W.2)
Ex.P-10 : Copy of the order sheet of the complaint
in C.C.No.12645/13 (Marked through
P.W.2)
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Accused:
DW-1 : Sripathi S.Bhat
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:
Ex.D1 : Copy of the cheque (Marked through P.W.1) Ex.D2 : Postal Envelope (Marked through P.W.1) ;
Ex.D3 : IDBI Home Finance Bank receipt;
Ex.D4 : Letter; Ex.D5 : PNB letter; Ex.D6 & 7 : Bank statements; Ex.D6(a) & : Relevant entries; 7(a) 53 C.C. No.3349/2014 J Ex.D8 : Appointment letter; Ex.D9 to 11 : Salary slips; Ex.D12 & 13 : Acknowledgments; Ex.D14 to 16 : Bank statements; Ex.D17 : Letter of appointment; Ex.D18 : Certified Copy of the Voter ID Card; Ex.D19 & 20 : Copies of Mutation Extracts; Ex.D21 : Agreement of sale; Ex.D22 : Certificate; Ex.D23 : Pass Book; Ex.D24 to 26 : Circulars; Ex.D27 : Letter; Ex.D28 & 29 : Medical reports; Ex.D30 : Lodge receipt; Ex.D31 : E-Ticket. (SARASWATHI.K.N), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City. 54 C.C. No.3349/2014 J 2.01.2017 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order. ORDER By exercising the power conferred u/s 265 of Cr.P.C., the Accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. (SARASWATHI.K.N),
XVI Addl.,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.