Bangalore District Court
Ramani Guna vs M/S Reddys Chits Pvt. Ltd on 2 December, 2024
1
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
KABC010057772024
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70)
Present: Smt. Shirin Javeed Ansari, B.A.,LL.B (Hon's) LL.M.,
LXIX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 2nd day of December , 2024
Crl.A.No.383/2024
Appellant : Smt. Ramani Guna
W/o Gunashekar K,
Aged about 50 years,
No.3/1, Chandra Bhavan,
Chikkaadugodi,
Bengaluru 560029.
(By Sri.Mohan S Reddy, Advocate)
-V/s-
Respondent : M/s Reddys Chits Private Ltd.,
Office at No.19, 2nd floor,
BKM Plaza,
5th B Main Road,
Tata Silk Farm,
KR Road, Bengaluru - 560070,
Rep By Its Manager,
Mr. V Rajeev Reddy,
S/o Late G. Venkararama Reddy,
46 Years.
(By Sri.C.N.Raghavendra., Advocate)
2
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused, assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02/02/2024 passed by the Hon'ble XXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court"), in C.C. No. 26909/2023. The trial court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the NI Act"), sentencing her to pay a fine of Rs.11,25,000/-,(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) out of which Rs.11,20,000/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) was directed to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation, with a default sentence of six months simple imprisonment.
2. The accused in CC No 26909/2023 before the trial court having preferred the instant appeal against the 3 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT complainant as appellant and the respondent are hereby assigned with their original ranks before the trial court that is the appellant as accused and the respondent as complainant in CC No. 26909/2023 in the instant discussion for the purpose of brevity and convenience to avoid con-foundation and perplexity.
3. The epitomized facts of the complainant`s case in CC No. 26909/2023 before the trial court run thus;
3(a). The respondent/complainant, M/s Reddys Chits Private Ltd., filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) alleging that the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 287217 dated 28/08/2023 for Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) drawn on Federal Bank, Tavarekere Branch, Bengaluru, towards discharge of a legally enforceable liability. The said cheque was dishonored due to "Insufficient Funds" as per the bank endorsement dated 29/08/2023. A statutory legal notice was issued to the accused on 30/08/2023, calling upon her to pay the 4 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT cheque amount within 15 days. Despite service of notice, the accused neither replied nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the complaint was filed.
3(b). The complainant contended that the accused had entered into a compromise under a joint memo in previous proceedings, agreeing to pay a total sum of Rs.18,00,000/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only), out of which the cheque in question was issued towards part payment.
3(c). The trial court registered the case and, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and verifying the documents, took cognizance of the offence.
The accused entered appearance, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.
3(d). The cheque in question was issued as a security cheque during the chit transaction and not towards discharge of any legally enforceable liability. The amount due under the joint memo had been fully paid, 5 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT and the complainant misused the cheque in question.
The complainant failed to report the alleged issuance of the cheque to the court when executing the NBW and FLW. The complainant failed to produce cogent evidence to substantiate its case.
3(e). The trial court, upon appreciation of evidence and the principles of law governing Section 138 of the NI Act, held that the complainant successfully proved:
The accused issued the cheque towards discharge of a legally enforceable liability. The cheque was dishonored for want of sufficient funds. The statutory notice was deemed served as per law.
3(f). The trial court further observed that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. It rejected the defence of the accused as improbable and unsupported by evidence. 8.
Consequently, the trial court convicted the accused and passed the sentence mentioned above.
6Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, the appellant being accused before the trial court has preferred the instant appeal against the respondent who was the complainant before the trial court on the following:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
a) That the impugned order of judgment of conviction & sentence passed by the Trial Court is against the facts of the case and law.
b) That the respondent has not supported his case and there is a clear admission by the respondent/accused that still the earlier complaints are alive he has not returned the NBW & FLW issued by the court which was taken by the complainant and the same is evident in his cross examination at Para-01 "ನಾವು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಲಯದಿಂದ NBW and FLW ಪಡೆದು ಜಾರಿ ಮಾಡಲು ಹೋದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿ ಸದರಿ ಚೆಕ್ನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎನ್ನು ತ್ತಾರೆ. ಈ ರೀತಿ NBW and FLW ಪಡೆದು ಜಾರಿ ಮಾಡಲು ನಾನೇ ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಜುಲೈ 2023 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ , ಆ ರೀತಿ ನಾನು ಯಾವುದೇ NBW and FLW ಜಾರಿ 7 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT ಮಾಡಲು ಹೋಗಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . ದಿ 19. 08. 2023 ರಂದು ಸಹ ಸದರಿ NBW and FLW ಜಾರಿ ಆಗಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶ ಪುಟದಲ್ಲಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ, ಆರೋಪಿ ಜಂಟಿ ಮೆಮೋ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಹಣ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡದೇ ಡಿಪಾಲ್ಟ ಆಗಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ನಾವು ಚೆಕ್ನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ನಾವು ಆ ರೀತಿ ಆರೋಪಿ ಇಂದ ಚೆಕ್ ಪಡೆದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಿಂದ ಪಡೆದ NBW and FLW ಹಿಂತಿರುಗಿಸಿಲ್ಲ "
the contradictions, omissions and improvements clearly disprove the case of the complainant at one stage he says when he went to execute NBW & FLW the cheque in question was issued. He doesn't remember the date on which day he went for execution, Complainant admits that there is no recital in the order sheet dated19-08-2023 in CC No. 17640/2021 case which is at Exhibit D-01. still that case is alive. The respondent has played fraud upon the appellant as well as the Trial Court.
c) That the appellant had rebutted the presumptions U/s. 118 & 139 NI Act not only by examining herself but also through the cross-examination of the complainant who is the only complainant witness. To rebut the legal presumption in question, the accused 8 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT need not require direct evidence to disprove the existence of consideration.
d) Whether Trial Court has right to pass the judgment and sentence one-sided by brushing up the valuable and probable defense of the accused? On page 22 of the Judgment the learned Magistrate has given a reasoning stating that "But as per the complainant version when they went to execute NBW and FLW, the accused issued a said cheque in July 2023. As such, on 19/8/23 the same fact should have been reported to the court. But non-reporting the same would not render the case of the complainant untenable, because the chances of complainant intending to report the same after realizing the said cheques cannot be brushed away.". The trial court had ordered for re-issuance of NBW & FLW ON 19-08-
2023 and the next date was given as 30-09- 2023 which is evident in the order sheet. complainant utterly failed to prove that he either returned the NBW/FLW or reported to the court he collected the cheque in question in lieu of his settlement towards Joint Memo 9 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT dated 18-12-2021 on the file of CC No. 17633/2021, C/W 17636/2021 C/W 17637/2021 C/W 17640/2021 C/W 7643/2021. Still CC17640/2021 case is alive and the complainant can't conduct parallel proceedings which is evident in Exhibit D-01.
e) Whether the complaint maintainable in the present form? The complaint filed was by an incompetent person without the requisite averments in the complaint, despite which the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and issued a summons.
f) A bare perusal of the complaint statutory notice and examination-in-chief discloses V Rajeev Reddy is the manager of M/s Reddy Chits Pvt Ltd, but the seal affixed on the statutory notice indicates he is the Managing Director. In the sworn statement, he adduces his evidence in the capacity of a proprietor. further Exhibit P-01 the letter of authorization dated 04-01-2020 issued in terms of the resolution dated 15-05-2018 is in terms of Claiming said V Rajeev Reddy as the Managing Director of the complainant's 10 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT firm. Exhibit P-02 dated 30-12-2019 the extract of the minutes meeting is produced and in the said minutes, it indicates the authorisation is for an indefinite period is much against the law. Usually, in company cases, the person connected with the affairs of the company in the normal run of things may be either its manager, partner, managing partner or director, or any other person authorized by the company, who can represent it during legal proceedings before the court, not the Managing Director. It is important to quote the Judgment reported and the relevant portion of the judgment in A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra & another. (2014) 11 SCC 790 has held that there is no mention in the complaint or affidavit as to when and in what manner the company had authorized its General Manager (Accounting) to represent the company to file the complaint. It is further held that there is no averment in the complaint as to whether the General Manager (Accounting) had knowledge about the transaction or he was a witness to the transaction. It was also held, 11 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT that neither any resolution of the Board of Directors of the complainant company nor any authorization of the company in favor of the person representing it in the complaint was filed for perusal perusal of the Magistrate. Only an authorization letter issued by the Managing Director of the complainant company in favor of the General Manager (Accounting) was produced and the said authorization does not indicate whether the Board of Directors had authorized the Managing Director to subdelegate his powers to General Manager (Accounting) to file the complaint on behalf of the company.
g) It is humbly submitted that the accused is not guilty, predominantly on the finding that there was no averment in the complaint regarding the proper status of the complainant and that the Managing Director was not competent to file and prosecute the complaint because in the notice he claims himself as a Manager, in the complaint he claims as Manager but in his sworn statement as Proprietor but his company seal and the alleged letter of authorization 12 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT indicates him as Managing Director, hence suppression of facts and misleading the court with various positions is a sheer abuse of law. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is important to mention here that as per the dictum in Narayanan A.C. (Supra), which was followed in Shibu.L.P v. Neelakantan (2021), it had been laid down that there ought to be a specific assertion in the complaint that the power of attorney holder has the knowledge of the cheque, and that otherwise, the power of attorney holder cannot be examined as a witness. In the case in hand there is not a single whisper that the complainant had the personal knowledge, hence the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the case in hand.
h) When seen in the statutory notice, complaint, and sworn statement there is no recital to show that the Manager had personal knowledge of the alleged transaction or he is deposing before the Hon'ble court or whatsoever. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
i) Whether the learned magistrate is right in 13 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT passing the Judgment without recording 313 statements of the accused, in its true spirit and perspectives? Plea and 313 statements cannot be recorded simultaneously.
j) The Trial Court, therefore, ought to have disbelieved the false story concocted story created by the Respondent in respect of collecting the cheque in question while executing the NBW & FLW in CC No. 17640/2021 case which is at Exhibit D-01. In reality, no such NBW & FLW were executed by the court the trial court had not handed over/issued such warrant either to the police or to the complainant and even otherwise the respondent has no locus standi to execute on his own and also without having any respect to the Hon'ble court has failed to return it back and thereby committed disobedience to the trial court. However, the trial court ought not to have issued NBW & FLW to the complainant as such provisions do not prevail in Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, therefore, ought to have believed, considered, and taken into account the said piece of evidence in favor of the Appellant. Furthermore, the case 14 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT of the appellant is that the cheque in question was taken as security at the time of joining the chit.
k) The complainant himself admits the accused has paid a sum of Rs3,00,000/- towards the joint memo at the time of the alleged execution of FLW in CC No. 17640/19 and the remaining amount stands due. As per the case of the complainant, the entire amount due as per the joint memo including interest is Rs 19,90,500/- which is evident in Para10 of the Affidavit out of which he claims he has collected a sum of Rs 10,00,000/- from the accused and another sum of Rs 9,90,500/- from accused daughter Kumari Harshitha against her also a separate complaint is filed in CC No.26906/2023. If that happens to be true the appellant and her daughter did not have to issue cheques for Rs 10,00,000/- and 09,90,500/- it is a clear case the complainant has misused the cheques of the appellant and daughter which was collected at the time of the commencement of the chit. There is a clear falsification of accounts on this score alone complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is 15 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT needless to submit that when a part or whole of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in Section 56 of the Act. The cheque endorsed with the payment made may be used to negotiate the balance, if any. If the cheque that is endorsed is dishonored when it is sought to be encashed upon maturity, then the offense under Section 138 will stand attracted; in this regard, it is worth quoting the decision on the aforesaid ratio "Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel versus Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and others Crl. Appeal. No. 1497/2022", Citation: 2022 Live Law (SC)
830.
l) The accused has proved she has not issued the cheque in question and it was the old cheque that was collected during the commencement of the chit. The relevant cross-examination is reproduced for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble court " ಎರಡು ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳ ನಿಪಿ 5 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳು 2016 ಮತ್ತು 2018 ರ ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ, ಸದರಿ ಚೆಕ್ಗಳಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಸಹಿಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಇತರ ಬರವಣಿಗೆಗಳ ಹಸ್ತಾಕ್ಷರಗಳು ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಎಂದರೆ 16 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ." It is a well-settled principle of law that, "No Court shall come to the aid of a party to an illegal transaction". reliance has been placed on the case of G.Pankajlakshmi Amma & Ors. V. Mathai Mathew V (2005) SLT
599. Therefore, it is humbly prayed to allow the appeal and acquit the accused.
m) The specific legal issue that is required to be resolved in the present case is "Whether the cheques in these cases can be said to have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable liability?", it is worth mentioning that, the complainant has, and quite cleverly, drafted the complaint the cheque in question was issued at the time of execution of FLW thereby denoting the financial transactions the parties. The same are euphemisms, an eye wash to create a fictitious cause of action.
n) The Learned Magistrate erred in law in recording the finding of guilt against the Appellant and further erred in law in sentencing the Appellant for the alleged offense. The Learned Magistrate ought to have appreciated, seen, and held that the Respondent had failed to establish the basic 17 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Learned Magistrate, therefore, could not have held the Appellant guilty of an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
o) The learned Magistrate ought to have appreciated and seen that in support of his contention of not furnishing any document in writing to establish that the accused had issued the cheque in question at the time of the alleged execution of NBW & FLW as contended by him, furthermore the respondent/complainant has not produced any record to substantiate the same. The respondent has miserably failed to produce a single document to substantiate the aforesaid contention. Per contra, the respondent has led his evidence and got marked the order sheet in CC No. 17640/2021 case which is at Exhibit D-01 which discloses no such coercive steps were either issued or executed.
p) The Learned Magistrate has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 313 of CR.P.C. in its true spirit and perspectives. Since the Appellant was not afforded a just, 18 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT fair, and adequate opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the Respondent, the Learned Magistrate could not have utilized the said pieces of evidence for recording the finding of guilt against the Appellant.
q) The learned Magistrate has not assigned any valid reasons or grounds for recording the finding of guilt against the Appellant. The learned Magistrate ought to have dismissed the said complaint and acquitted the Appellant for the alleged offense. The learned Magistrate ought to have held that the Respondent had failed to prove the case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
r) The entire approach adopted by the learned Magistrate adduced by the in appreciating the evidence complainant by adopting different yardsticks is illegal, improper, and contrary to the well-settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. The entire evidence of the accused is brushed away by the learned Magistrate without appreciating the same in its true spirit.
19Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
s) Undeniably, as per the settled legal position, to rebut the statutory presumptions arising in favor of the complainant under Section 118 read with Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused is not expected to prove his defense beyond reasonable doubt as expected of the complainant in a criminal trial, yet the accused has to raise a probable defense and prove on record such facts and circumstances that are sufficient to rebut the presumptions having arisen in favor of the complainant in terms of Section 118 read with Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the said Judgment and order are passed which is opposed to law based on facts and circumstances of the case. As such the Judgment and order are bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside. The appellant submits that the judgment and order are one-sided and consequently there is a miscarriage of Justice. Therefore, the Judgment and order need to be set aside.
t) The appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the trial court is otherwise opposed to the law, facts, probabilities, and 20 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT equities of the case.
u) The trial court has erred and committed an error that has resulted in a grave failure of justice. There are glaring defects in the procedures and manifest errors on point of law which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Hence, the appellant prays to Call for records, to verify the legality of the Judgment and to set aside the said Judgment and order dated 02-02-2024 passed by the learned magistrate of XXVII ACMM, Bengaluru.
5. After registering the case on issuing the notice to the respondent, the respondent appeared through their counsel The trial court records were secured. .
6. Heard both the sides both the sides. Perused the court records, impugned judgment.
7. Out of the above said facts and circumstances of the case the points that arises for due consideration are;
1. Whether the judgment of conviction 21 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT and order of sentence passed by the trial court is sustainable in law?
v) What order?
8. This court upon re-appreciation of available materials in the file with reference to prevailing law of land, My finding to the above points are as follows:-
POINT NO.1 :- In the Affirmative POINT NO.2 :- As per final order, on the following;
:REASONS:
9. POINT NO.1 :- The learned trial court has meticulously analyzed the facts and legal issues in the matter, supported by cogent reasoning and relevant precedents. This court finds no error in the conclusions drawn by the trial court.
10. The complainant has established compliance with all procedural mandates of Section 138 of the Act.
The cheque in question was presented within the validity period, dishonored due to insufficient funds, 22 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT and followed by a statutory notice served on the accused. The complaint was filed within the limitation period. The trial court rightly relied on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 6 SCC 555, holding that once the statutory notice is sent to the correct address of the drawer, the service is presumed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, even if the notice is unclaimed.
11. Presumption Under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The issuance of the cheque and the signature thereon are undisputed. The statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, therefore, operates in favor of the complainant, as elucidated in Rangappa v. Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, which held that these presumptions include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The appellant's defense, that the cheque was issued as security and 23 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT misused by the complainant, lacks evidentiary support.
The accused failed to produce contemporaneous records, such as counterfoils of the cheque book or evidence of alleged security cheques. Furthermore, the absence of any protest or demand for the return of purported security cheques weakens the appellant's claim.
12. The appellant's challenge to the authorization of the complainant's representative is unsustainable. The complainant produced sufficient evidence, including the authorization letter and board resolution, to establish locus standi. The trial court rightly applied the ratio in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 11 SCC 790, wherein it was held that mere procedural irregularities do not vitiate proceedings unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice.
13. The appellant examined herself as DW1 but failed to substantiate her defense. The contention that Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) was paid in cash 24 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT is not supported by any credible evidence, such as receipts or bank statements. As held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in B. Girish v. S. Ramaiah, 2010 (2) KCCR 284, transactions involving substantial amounts require corroborative evidence, which the appellant failed to produce.
14. The trial court complied with the requirements of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused was afforded an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances, which she failed to rebut convincingly.
15. The trial court has rightly concluded, on the basis of sound legal principles and factual evidence, that the accused failed to rebut the presumption of legal liability under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The reasoning adopted by the trial court is consistent with the legal framework and judicial precedents.
16. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds that the learned Magistrate has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the appellant has committed the 25 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The findings of the trial court are based on sound appreciation of evidence and in accordance with the settled principles of law. There is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment warranting interference by this Court. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C. No. 26909/2023, is sustainable in law. In light of the foregoing reasons, point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative,
17. Point No. 2 : In View of the reasons assigned above and findings arrived at on point No. 1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant u/s. 374(3) of Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of the trial court passed in C.C.No.26909/2023 dated:26
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT 02/02/2024 is hereby confir med and upheld.
The of fice is hereby directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the trial court for further needful action.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-1 directly on the computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 2nd day of December, 2024) (Shirin Javeed Ansari) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
27
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
Judgment not ready due to rush of
work. Hence, for judgment by
29/11/2024
LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Judgment not ready due to rush of
work. Hence, for judgment by
02/12/2024
LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate Judgment ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant u/s. 374(3) of Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of the trial court passed in C.C.No.26909/2023 dated: 02/02/2024 is hereby confir med and upheld.
The of fice is hereby directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the trial court for further needful action.
LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, 28 Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT Bengaluru.