Bangalore District Court
S/O. Late Krishna Reddy vs Demanding For Repayment Of The Said Loan on 20 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XL ADDL., CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY.
SCCH-14
Dated this the 20th DAY OF MARCH 2018
PRESENT: Sri. S.R.PARADESHI.,
B.Com.,LL.B.,(Spl.)
XL ACMM,
BENGALURU.
C.C.No.17993/2013
Name of the Sri. N.Sambasiva Reddy,
Complainant S/o. Late Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at No.151,
14th Main Road,
Near West of Chord Road,
Shankarmutt,
Bengaluru - 560 086.
(By pleader Sri.G.P.)
Name of the Accused Sri. D.S.Ramakrishna,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at No.26/O,
'E' Block, Shankaranagara,
Bengaluru - 560 092.
(By pleader Sri.G.N.)
1. The offence complained Under Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
of
2. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
SCCH-14 2 C.C.17993/2013
3. Final order Accused is convicted
4. Date of such order 20-03-2018
******
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF Cr.P.C
This is a complaint filed by the complainant
U/s.200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence
punishable under Sec.138 and 142 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
2. Brief averments of the complaint case are as
under:
According to the complainant, he and the accused
are known to each other very well and very often used to
meet the complainant and maintained very good cordial
relationship with the complainant. It is further submitted
that due to good relationship and the accused was facing
financial difficulties and problems in running his
building contract business and for this he sought
financial help from and requested to provide an amount
of Rs.1,50,000/- to improve his business. It is further
submitted that to maintain the relationship the
complainant agreed to give hand loan. It is further
submitted that the accused has taken hand loan from
the complainant in the month of April 2009 and assured
SCCH-14 3 C.C.17993/2013
to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24%
p.a. and the same will be payable within 3 to 4 years
from the date of borrowing. It is further submitted that
the accused has failed to pay the said amount as agreed
by him. Thereafter, the complainant approached the
accused demanding for repayment of the said loan
amount with interest thereon. It is further contended
that the accused requested the complainant to waive of
the interest as he was in critical financial position and
looking to the critical financial position of the accused,
the complainant has agreed to waive off the interest and
agreed to accept the principal amount. It is further
submitted that on repeated requests and remainders, the
accused with a view of security to the loan has issued a
cheque bearing No.453559 dated 18-02-2013 for
Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on Karntaka Bank Ltd.,
Shankaranagar Branch, Bengaluru and requested the
complainant to present the said cheque and on
presentation of the same, it will be honoured. It is
further submitted that he presented the said cheque on
18-02-2013 through his banker, Karntaka Bank Ltd.,
and it was came to be dishonoured on the ground,
insufficient funds on 19-02-2013 and the same was
SCCH-14 4 C.C.17993/2013
intimated to the complainant by his banker.
The complainant further submitted that
immediately he informed about the dishonour of the
cheque to the accused, but the accused has not at all
responded. It is further submitted that without alternate,
the complainant has issued a legal notice on 15-03-2013
to the accused to his residential address by way of RPAD
and the same was returned with a shara, intimation
delivered/not claimed dated 26-03-2013. Inspite of
service of notice, the accused has failed to repay the
amount. Hence, the complainant company constrained
to file this complaint praying for convicting the accused,
punishing him in accordance with law and for awarding
compensation.
3. In pursuance of the process, the accused has
appeared before the court through his counsel and he is
enlarged on bail. Then, substance of accusation was read
over and explained to the accused. He has pleaded not
guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the complainant was
called upon to prove his case.
4. During trial, the complainant himself
examined as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1
SCCH-14 5 C.C.17993/2013
to Ex.P7 including Ex.P.1(a) & 1(b). Thereafter, the
statement of accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C was
recorded and all the incriminating evidence appearing
against him explained to the accused, accused denied the
same and submitted that he will lead his evidence.
Subsequently the accused examined himself as DW1 and
got marked documents as Ex.D.1, D.1(a) to D.1(e). In
support of his case, he examined the Handwriting Expert
of Truth Lab as DW2 and he got marked Ex.D.2, D2(a),
Ex.D.3, Ex.D.4 and ExS1 to S3 and Ex.P.1(A), Ex.P.1(B)
and Ex.P.1(B1) and also examined a witness by name
Anand as DW3.
5. Heard the arguments. I have perused the
records.
6. Now the points that arise for my consideration
are:
1. Whether the complainant has proved
that the accused has issued Ex.P-1
cheque in his favour for
Rs.1,50,000/- towards discharge of
legally enforceable liability without
maintaining sufficient balance in his
bank account and has failed to pay
the amount of cheque inspite of
deemed service of notice?
2. What order or decree?
SCCH-14 6 C.C.17993/2013
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
POINT NO.1 : In the Affirmative
POINT NO.2 : As per final order,
for the following.
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1: At the first instance, this case is
came to be filed before 16th ACMM Bengaluru and
thereafter recorded the sworn statement of the
complainant and they have issued process/summons
against the accused. The accused has appeared before
the Court and enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the said case
was transferred to this Court.
9. It is the case of the complainant that, he and
the accused are known to each other very well and very
often used to meet the complainant and maintained very
good cordial relationship with the complainant. It is
further submitted that due to good relationship and the
accused was facing financial difficulties and problems in
running his building contract business and for this, he
sought financial help from the complainant and
requested to provide an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to
SCCH-14 7 C.C.17993/2013
improve his business. It is further submitted that to
maintain the relationship, the complainant has agreed to
give hand loan. It is further submitted that the accused
has taken hand loan from the complainant in the month
of April 2009 and assured to pay the said amount with
interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and the same will be
payable within 3 to 4 years from the date of borrowing.
It is further submitted that the accused has failed to pay
the said amount as agreed by him. Thereafter, the
complainant approached the accused demanding for
repayment of the said loan amount with interest thereon.
It is further contended that the accused requested the
complainant to waive off the interest as he was in critical
financial position and looking to the critical financial
position of the accused, the complainant has agreed to
waive off the interest and agreed to accept the principal
amount. It is further submitted that on repeated
requests and remainders, the accused has issued a
cheque bearing No.453559 dated 18-02-2013 for
Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd.,
Shankaranagar Branch, Bengaluru and requested the
complainant to present the said cheque saying that on
presentation of the same, it will be honoured. It is
SCCH-14 8 C.C.17993/2013
further submitted that he presented the said cheque on
18-02-2013 through his banker, Karnataka Bank Ltd.,
and it was came to be dishonoured on the ground,
insufficient funds on 19-02-2013 and the same was
intimated to the complainant by his banker.
The complainant further submitted that
immediately he informed about the dishonour of the
cheque to the accused, but the accused has not at all
responded. It is further submitted that without alternate,
the complainant has issued a legal notice on 15-03-2013
to the accused to his residential address by way of RPAD
and the same was returned with a shara, intimation
delivered/not claimed dated 26-03-2013. Inspite of
service of notice, the accused has failed to repay the
amount. Hence, the complainant has constrained to file
this complaint praying for convicting the accused,
punishing him in accordance with law and for awarding
compensation.
10. In order to prove his case, the complainant
himself examined as PW1 and in support of his case, got
marked Ex.P.1 to P.7 documents on his behalf. On the
other hand, the accused examined himself as DW1 and
SCCH-14 9 C.C.17993/2013
got marked documents as Ex.D.1, D.1(a) to D(e). In
support of his case, he examined a Hand writing expert of
Truth Lab as DW2 and he got marked Ex.D.2, D2(a),
Ex.D.3, Ex.D.4 and Ex.S1 to S3 and also Ex.P.1(A),
Ex.P.1(B) and Ex.P.1(B1)and also examined a witness by
name Anand as DW3.
11. On the contrary, the accused himself
examined as DW1. On perusal of the evidence of
accused, according to him, he was working as an
Architect since 25 years, he does not know the
complainant and he has seen the complainant for the
first time before the Court. He further stated that he had
not borrowed the amount as contended by the
complainant and he has not at all issued the cheque.
However, he contended that the Ex.P.1-cheque is belongs
to him and it is pertaining to his account. He also
admitted that the signature appearing on the said cheque
i.e. Ex.P.1(a) is also belongs to him, however another
signature appearing on Ex.P.1 marked as Ex.P.1(b) is not
belongs to him and the contents of Ex.P.1 are not in his
hand writing. He further deposed that he know one
Anand, who was supplying building materials to him and
SCCH-14 10 C.C.17993/2013
he delivered the cheque i.e. Ex.P.1 to said Anand as
security for the payment of amount towards building
materials. He further taken contention that he has not
at all liable to pay any amount to the said Anand either
as on the date of cheque or today. He further contended
that he had delivered the blank signed cheque to said
Anand as a security in the year 2008, it was an open
cheque, he had not strike off the date on the cheque and
he has not written the new date on it. He has further
taken contention that he has paid the entire amount
towards building materials which were supplied by said
Anand, but he did not take back the said cheque from
said Anand. It is also taken contention that he had
stopped his business transaction with the said Anand
during the year 2010 and he does not know the
relationship in between the complainant and accused. He
has taken contention that the complainant has not
supplied any building materials to him. He has no
business with the complainant. He further contended
that he did not receive any legal notice and the address
mentioned in the RPAD cover i.e. Ex.P.4 is not correct
address.
12. Now, it is necessary to say about the evidence
SCCH-14 11 C.C.17993/2013
of PW1 in his cross-examination. In the cross-
examination made by learned advocate for accused, the
PW1 deposed that one of the friends of accused,
introduced to the accused to him and accused was in
need of building materials and he has supplied the
building materials to the accused for construction of
several buildings. There was personal relationship
between him and the accused apart from business
relationship. He further admitted that in the year 2009
the accused approached him with his friend by name
Anand for borrowing the money. He further admitted
that apart from supplying the building materials he has
paid him by way of cash totally amounting Rs.1,50,000/-
. He further admitted that he has paid the said amount
after two days of the request and paid the same in his
house and no third party was present at that time when
he has paid the said amount to the accused.
13. He further admitted that, accused promised to
repay the amount within two months. He further deposed
that it was interest free loan. He further deposed that he
had not raised any invoice for having supplied building
materials to the accused and he had supplied the same
SCCH-14 12 C.C.17993/2013
to the accused only once. He further deposed that there
was no contact with the said Anand during the year 2008
to 2010 and the accused issued post dated cheque at the
time of borrowing the money and it was duly filled
cheque and witness volunteers that there was a different
date on the said cheque, that the accused strike off the
date and wrote different date with his signature. It is
suggested that it was a blank cheque and the contents
are not filled by the complainant, for that he denied. It is
further suggested that except signature remaining
contents of Ex.P.1 are not in the hand writing of the
accused, for that he denied. Further as per the
contention of the accused is that the complainant himself
forged the signature, entered the date, column including
old, date, new date and signature is marked as Ex.P.1(b),
for that he denied. So, it came in the evidence that the
accused has issued the cheque marked as Ex.P.1 by
striking off the old date stating that he was having no
other cheques. He further deposed that he has not
insisted him to issue another cheque without corrections.
It is suggested that no transaction between him and the
accused regarding supply of building materials, for that
he denied. It is suggested that Ex.P.1-cheque was given
SCCH-14 13 C.C.17993/2013
to him by the said Anand, for that he denied. It is
further suggested that he has misused the said cheque,
which was issued by the accused for security purpose,
for that he denied. It is further he denied to the
suggestion that he has never seen the accused prior to
the first appearance before the Court.
14. In the cross-examination of DW1, he admitted
that said Anand used to supply the building materials to
him. He has supplied the building materials from 1998
to 99 and 2004 to 2005. He had no business dealing
with said Anand from the year 2005. He had no money
transaction with said Anand since 2005. He further
admitted that he used to issue cheque to Anand as
security for payment of the amount towards supply of
building materials. He further admitted that he used to
get back the cheque after payment of the amount
towards building materials. He further deposed that
some times he used to request him to get the cheque
encashed. He further admitted that he did not remember
that during the year 1998-1999 and 2004-2005, how
many cheques were given by him to said Anand as a
security purpose. He further admitted that the said
SCCH-14 14 C.C.17993/2013
Anand was absconding since from 3 to 4 years and he
did not know where about of Anand and he was missing
since 2011 to 2012. He further deposed as per his
knowledge, Anand is not residing in Bengaluru till today.
He further admitted that he has not issued any notice to
Anand calling upon him to return his cheque. He further
admitted that he has not filed any complaint against
Anand for returning of said cheque. He further admitted
that he has not taken any legal action against the
complainant and Anand alleging that misusing of Ex.P.1-
cheque by them.
15. In support of his case, the accused examined
one Anand S/o. Devappagowda as DW3. In his
examination-in-chief, DW3 deposed that he knows the
complainant and he used to supply the building
materials to the accused through the complainant. He
further deposed that some times he paid the amount to
the complainant and sometimes the accused paid the
amount. He further deposed that sometimes he
supplied building materials on credit basis and whenever
he supply the building material on credit basis, he used
to collect the cheque from the accused. In turn he gave
the cheque to the persons from whom he purchased the
SCCH-14 15 C.C.17993/2013
building materials. According to the accused, he has
given Ex.P.1-cheque to Anand as a security for payment
of the amount towards supply of said materials. In the
examination-in-chief of DW3, the advocate for accused
shown the Ex-P1-cheque and asked him whether he
delivered the said cheque to the complainant, for that he
deposed that he did not know. Further it is asked him,
whether the hand writings appearing in Ex.P.1 are
belongs to him, for that he deposed that they are not in
his handwriting. He further deposed that there is no
dispute between him and the complainant and also no
dispute between him and the accused. If this is the fact,
the accused has to establish that he has delivered the
Ex.P.1-cheque to Anand and said Anand delivered it to
the complainant. By perusing the above evidence, it is
clear that Anand deposed that he himself did know about
Ex.P.1. Then the contention of accused that he has
delivered the Ex.P1-cheque to Anand is not proved by
leading the evidence of Anand as DW3.
16. In the cross-examination of DW3 made by the
advocate for the accused, he admitted that the accused
has not issued the notice to him, calling upon him to
return the cheque which was issued to him nor the
SCCH-14 16 C.C.17993/2013
accused has taken any action against him till so far. The
accused in his cross-examination he admitted that he is
maintaining the counter foil of the cheque for his
memory, whenever he has delivered the cheque to Anand.
But the accused has not produced any counter foils to
show that he has delivered the Ex.P.1-cheque to said
Anand. The accused has further admitted that he used
to issue the cheque as security in business dealings to
number of persons. He further admitted that he issued
the said cheque to Srinidhi Ceramics, Vinayaka
Hardwares, Katta Ceramics, Venugopal and others. He
further admitted that he did not remember the cheque
number which was given to the Anand as a security. In
such circumstances, it is not possible to believe the
contentions of the accused that he has issued Ex.P.1 as a
security to the said Anand, when no documents
produced to show that this particular cheque given to the
Anand. I have already discussed that the accused in his
cross-examination deposed that said Anand was
absconding since from 3 to 4 years and he did not know
his where abouts. The evidence of accused was recorded
on 06-07-2015, at that time he deposed that said Anand
was absconding since 3 to 4 years and he did not know
SCCH-14 17 C.C.17993/2013
where abouts of Anand. The accused himself filed an
application to issue witness summons to said Anand to
give evidence in the year 2016. On one count, he
deposed that said Anand was absconding and his where
abouts not known, on the other hand, he prayed for to
issue witness summons to said Anand, when this is the
fact, then how the accused came to know the address of
the said Anand. So, it shows that the accused knew
where the Anand has been residing, instead of having
knowledge of this fact, he has taken only contention that
he did not know where the said Anand was residing,
only to support his contention that he has not taken any
action against Anand for not returning the cheque.
17. Another contention of the accused is that his
signature appearing as Ex.P.1(b) is not belongs to him.
So, he has filed an application under Section 254 of
Cr.P.C. R/w. Sec.45 of Evidence Act, to refer the cheque
to ascertain the signature i.e. Ex.P.1(b) is not belongs to
his handwriting. After hearing on his application, it
came to be allowed and Ex.P.1-cheque is referred to
Hand Writing Expert for comparison of disputed
signature as Ex.P.1(b) with admitted signature as
Ex.P.1(a). Thereafter, the Hand Writing Expert filed his
SCCH-14 18 C.C.17993/2013
report and he is of the opinion that the admitted
signature and disputed signature were made by the same
person.
18. In this case, the Handwriting Expert himself
examined as DW3. The accused has filed the written
arguments. In his written arguments, at Para No.10, he
stated that it is pertinent to note that even in his report
at Ex.D.2, the Commissioner makes only general
statements regarding the cheque and has not even
mentioned the plainly visible alterations or modifications
made on the cheque or the visible change of signatures,
nor does the report mention the specific techniques and
analyses done by the commissioner in coming to his
conclusion. It is submitted that the DW2 in his cross-
examination admitted that the length of signature on
Ex.P.1(a) and Ex.P.1(b) are differs and there is a
difference between letter 'D' in Ex.P.1(B) as against letter
'D' in Ex.P.1(A) and Ex.P.1(B1). Further there is
difference in the between letter 'S' in Ex.P.1(B) as against
letter 'S' in Ex.P.1(a) and Ex.P.1(B1) and there is
difference between letter 'K' in Ex.P.1(B) as against letter
'K' in Ex.P.1(A)
SCCH-14 19 C.C.17993/2013
19. The DW2 further submitted that none of these
factors are mentioned in the generic report/opinion filed
by the commissioner but such factors were brought out
only during his cross-examination, when they were
elicited from DW-2 and as such, it is contended that that
the opinion of DW-2 does not qualify as an expert
opinion. It is further submitted that scientific
examination means ascertainment of facts by observation
and experiments critically tested, systematized and
guided by a fixed/certain set of guidelines. It is
submitted that the commissioner in his report has not
stated a single (scientific) principle which has guided or
influenced his opinion and has instead merely stated the
instruments supposedly used by him. It is submitted
that as such, it is submitted that the commissioner has
simply used his skills of observation and has not
conducted a proper scientific enquiry into the signature
in dispute and hence, it is reiterated that the opinion of
DW2 does not qualify as an expert opinion and the same
ought to be discarded by this Court, which can by its
own skills of observation notice the plain differences
between the disputed and admitted signatures in the
present case.
SCCH-14 20 C.C.17993/2013
20. However, DW2 in his cross-examination
deposed that the difference which he has admitted was
due to the only natural variation of the person who has
written it. Whatever admissions given by DW2, in my
opinion they are the minor contradictions and only on
the basis of minor contradictions, the report cannot be
rejected in toto.
21. The DW2 further deposed that he is of the
opinion that the person who wrote the admitted
signatures marked as Ex.S.1 to Ex.S.3 and also wrote
the questioned signatures marked as Ex.P.1(A), Ex.P.1(B)
and Ex.P.1(B1) are one and the same. The report is
marked as Ex.D.2, wherein the hand writing expert is of
the opinion that, "in short, cumulative consideration
aforesaid similarities are significant and sufficient in
questioned and standard signatures, in both general and
individual writing habits which constitutes the basis for
his opinion that the questioned signatures marked as
Ex.P.1(A), Ex.P.1(B) and Ex.P.1(B1) and the standard
signatures marked as S1 to S3 were written by one and
the same person". So, in my opinion the signature
marked as Ex.P.1(b) is belongs to the accused.
SCCH-14 21 C.C.17993/2013
22. Apart from this, when the cheque was
presented to the bank for collection, which came to be
dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds, but not
on the ground of signature appearing in his cheque is of
different person. By perusing the evidence of accused,
he has not established that said Anand has delivered the
Ex.P.1-cheque to the complainant and he has misused
it.
23. The learned advocate for accused has relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
reported in, Criminal Appeal No. 161/1994 dated 22-09-
2000 (Sasseriyil Joseph V/S Devassia), wherein it is
observed that;
"Negotiable Instruments Act, 1991 - Sec.138 -
Section is attracted only if the cheque was issued
in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other
liability - A time barred debt is not a legally
enforceable debt."
24. On the other hand, I have relied upon the ruling
reported in, ILR 2006 KAR 4242 (H.Narasimha Rao V/S
R. Venkataram), wherein it is held as under;
SCCH-14 22 C.C.17993/2013
"Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(amendment Act,1988)- Sec.138 - Offence under
-repayment of time barred debt - issue of cheque
- whether constitute an offence barred debt, and
there is no legal bar for the debtor agreeing to
pay the time barred debt, the dishonoured
cheques issued towards repayment of time
barred debt does constitute an offence under
Sec.138 of the Act - Order of acquittal is set
aside."
25. Further I have relied upon the ruling reported
in, ILR 2008 KAR 1883 (Latha K. Nail V/S M/s. Gold
Mohar Foods and Feeds Ltd.,) wherein it is held as under;
"Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(amendment Act,1988)- Sec.138 - Offence under
- Conviction and sentence - Appealed against -
Dismissal of appeal - Revision against - Cheque
issued for repayment of loan or security - Held,
Cheque issued for repayment of loan or security
makes not difference under Sec.138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. - If the cheque is
dishonoured, then the accused is liable to pay
SCCH-14 23 C.C.17993/2013
the cheque amount - On facts, Held, The
presumption available for the complainant under
Sec.138 of N.I. Act should be rebutted - The
revision petition was not successful in his
attempt to rebut the evidence available on record
- The evidence available on record reliable and
trustworthy to pass an order of the conviction -
No reasons to interfere in the judgment of
conviction."
26. Further, I have relied upon the ruling reported
in, 2001(4) KAR.L.J. (S.R.Muralidhar V/S Ashok G.V.),
wherein it is held as under;
"Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(amendment Act,1988)- Sec.20, 138, 139 and
140 - Blank cheque - Issue of - Issuing of cheque
duly signed by maker thereof authorizing payee
to fill up amount agreed upon will not invalidate
cheque as such practice is recognized and
permitted by law - Dishonour of such cheque
attracts penal liability."
In view of the above said rulings, in my opinion, the
SCCH-14 24 C.C.17993/2013
complainant has proved that the accused has issued
Ex.P.1-cheque towards discharge of legally enforceable
debt.
27. The learned advocate for accused has relied
upon the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal
No.609/2007 dated 06-11-2012 (Wilson Marcelin
Carvalho V/S Krishna Budhaji Patil), the facts mentioned
in that case and the present facts of the case are
different. In the present case, the accused has
mentioned another date on the cheque and also he has
put his signature on the another date i.e. marked as
Ex.P.1(b). the DW2 i.e. the Handwriting expert is of the
opinion that the signature appearing on Ex.P.1(a) and
Ex.P1(b) are one and the same.
28. Another contention taken by the accused that
no notice was served upon him, but the complainant has
produced a RPAD cover marked as Ex.P.5. The said
RPAD cover returned on the ground that he has not
claimed the notice. So, it is sufficient to show that the
notice is served to the accused.
29 . In this case, the accused has produced his
SCCH-14 25 C.C.17993/2013
bank statement, which is marked as Ex.D.1 and its
relevant portions are marked as Ex.D.1(a) to 1.(e). In his
examination-in-chief, he deposed that he used to issue
the cheque in respect of said account for his business
transaction and other cheque in the series were issued by
him in the year 2008. So, he has produced his bank
statement which is marked at Ex.D.1. The accused
himself has taken contention that he used to issue
cheque to different persons as he was dealing his
business with others. The Ex.D.1 does not shows that
this particular cheque was issued to said Anand.
Though said Anand is examined as DW3, he has failed to
prove that, the Ex.P.1-cheque was delivered to
complainant, because in his examination-in-chief he
deposed that, he did not know about Ex.P.1. Under such
circumstances, the accused has failed to prove that he
has issued the Ex.P.1-cheque to the Anand and said
Anand has given it to the complainant. Apart from this,
according to the accused he does not know the
complainant, then how the complainant came to know
about the accused and his address. It is not the case of
accused that the DW3 and the complainant were
colluded with each other and misused the cheque in
SCCH-14 26 C.C.17993/2013
order to harass the accused. The DW3 in his
examination-in-chief, he has specifically deposed he does
not know about the Ex.P.1. The DW3 never deposed that
he has handed over the Ex.P.1-cheque to the
complainant.
30. Hence, for the above reasons and discussion,
this Court is of the opinion that, the accused has issued
Ex.P.1-cheque towards legally enforceable and failed to
pay the cheque amount inspite of service of legal notice.
Hence, in my opinion looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case the accused is liable to pay
Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant. Hence, I answer Point
No.1 in the Affirmative.
31. POINT No.2: In view of above discussion and
finding, I pass following:
ORDER
Acting under Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, shall under go SCCH-14 27 C.C.17993/2013 simple imprisonment for six months.
Acting under Sec.357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,48,000/- towards compensation amount.
Acting under Sec.357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. remaining amount of Rs.2,000/- has to be confiscated to the state.
Free copy of this order has to be supplied to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 20th Day of March 2018.) (S.R.PARADESHI) XL ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for complainant:
P.W.1 - N.Sambasiva Reddy List of documents marked for complainant:
Ex.P1 - Cheque
Ex.P1(a) - Signature of accused
SCCH-14 28 C.C.17993/2013
Ex.P1(b) - Signature of accused
Ex.P2 - Bank endorsement
Ex.P3 - Challan
Ex.P4 - Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P5 - RPAD receipt
Ex.P6 - Returned RPAD cover
Ex.P7 - Complaint
List of witnesses examined for defendant :
D.W.1 - Sri. D.S.Ramakrishna D.W.2 - Sri. Shankrappa D.W.3 - Sri. Anand List of documents marked for complainant:
Ex.D1 - Bank statement
Ex.P1(a) to (e) - 5 Relevant entries in ExD1
Ex.D2 - Report of DW2
Ex.D2(a) - Signature of DW2
Ex.D3 - Specimen signatures sheet i.e.
memo dtd.11-03-2016
Ex.S1 to S3 - Signatures
Ex.P1(A), -
Ex.P1(B) & Questioned signatures
Ex.P1(B1)
Ex.D4 - Photograph of Comparison of
the signatures
XL ACMM,
BENGALURU.