Bangalore District Court
T.S.Chandrashekar vs Manjunath.A on 3 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 3rd day of April - 2021
PRESENT: SRI. SHRIDHARA.M, B.A., LL.M.,
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.21196/2016
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : T.S.Chandrashekar,
S/o.T.S.Siddeswar,
Aged about years,
R/at No.137/E, 3rd B Main Road,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-40.
(Rep. by Sri.Aswathanarayana, Adv.)
V/S
Accused : Manjunath.A,
Father name not known,
R/at. No.39/133, Biligirinilaya,
Ramco Layout,
Near Attiguppe Metro Station,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-40.
(Rep.by Sri.Vedamurthy.A, Adv.)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Acquitted.
DATE OF ORDER : 03.04.2021.
(SHRIDHARA.M)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
Judgment 2 C.C.No.21196/2016
JUDGMENT
The complainant has presented the instant complaint against the accused on 09.08.2016 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for dishonour of cheque of Rs.25 lakhs.
2. The some of substance of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant has pleaded that, accused was knew to the complainant, in that acquaintance he approached the complainant and had borrowed loan of Rs.25 lakhs on 20.03.2015 from the complainant for the purpose of liquidate of some of his debts and other family necessities. The accused had agreed to repay the said hand loan within one year.
The complainant has further alleged that, towards the repayment of above said hand loan amount, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.203998 dated:27.05.2016 for sum of Rs.25 lakhs drawn on Janatha Seva Co-operative Bank Ltd., RPC Layout Branch, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. On the assurance of the accused, when he presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker viz., Corporation Bank, RPC Layout Branch, Bengaluru. As per memo dated:07.06.2016 the said cheque came to be dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient".
Judgment 3 C.C.No.21196/2016 Thereafter, by demanding to pay the said money, on 29.06.2015, the complainant gave legal notice to the accused by way of R.P.A.D., and the said notice was returned with a shara "Not Claimed" hence returned to sender. Since, the accused has not paid the amount covered under the cheque. Thereby, he committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, filed the present complaint.
3. After receipt of the private complaint, my predecessor in office took the cognizance and got registered the PCR and recorded the sworn statement. Since made out prima-facie grounds to proceed against the accused for the alleged offence, got issued process.
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and obtained bail. As required, complaint copy was supplied to the accused. Thereafter, accusation was read over and explained to him, wherein, he denied the same and claimed to have the defence.
5. To prove the case of the complainant, he himself choosen to examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5(a). The PW.1 tendered for partly cross-examination and when the case stage was set for further cross-examination of PW.1, despite given Judgment 4 C.C.No.21196/2016 sufficient opportunities, he not tendered for further cross- examination.
6. Thereafter, incriminating evidence made against the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied the same and answer given by him was recorded. In support of the defence, the accused himself was examined as DW.1. Though, the DW.1 tendered for cross-examination, but the advocate for complainant not choosen to cross-examined the DW.1.
7. Accused counsel has addressed his side arguments. The complainant counsel has not addressed his side arguments. Inspite of given liberty to file his written arguments, but complainant counsel has not submitted his written arguments.
8. On going through the rival contentions, based on the substantial evidence available on record, the following points have been arising for determination:
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond the reasonable doubt that, he paid sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on 20.03.2015 as hand loan to the accused, and in turn, for discharge of legal recoverable debt, the accused issued the Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.203998, dated:27.05.2016 for sum of Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on Janatha Seva Co-
operative Bank Ltd., RPC Layout, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru?
Judgment 5 C.C.No.21196/2016
2) Whether the complainant proves the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
3) What Order?
9. On appreciation of materials available on record, my findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NOs.1 and 2: Since both the points are connected with each other, they have taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
The PW.1 to prove his case choosen to examined himself and filed affidavit by reiterating the complaint averments in toto, and produced the documents at Exs.P1 to P5(a), they are:
a) Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.203998 issued by the accused for sum of Rs.25 lakhs dated:27.05.2016, drawn on Janatha Seva Co-
operative Bank Ltd., RPC Layout Branch, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru.
b) Ex.P1(a) is the alleged signature of accused.
c) Ex.P2 is the Bank Memo dated:07.06.2016.
d) Ex.P3 is the Legal Notice dated:29.06.2016.
Judgment 6 C.C.No.21196/2016
e) Ex.P4 is the Postal receipt.
f) Ex.P5 is the unserved R.P.A.D cover.
g) Ex.P5(a) is the legal notice at Ex.P5.
11. The PW.1 tendered for partly cross-examination and when the case stage was set for further cross-examination of PW.1, despite given plenty opportunities were provided to the PW.1 to tender for further cross-examination, for the reasons better known to him, he not tendered for further cross-examination. With that, the side of the complainant got closed.
12. Thereafter, whatever the incriminating evidence made against the accused was read over and explained to him as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he denied the same and gave his statement that:
"ನನನ ಸನಮರನ 2012 ರಲ ಪರರದಯಯದ ಕಕವಲ ರರರ5000/-
ಸಲ ಪಡಯನವಗ ಸಹ ಮಡದ ಖಲ ಚಕಕನನ ನ ಭದದತಗಗ ನಕಡದನನ.
ನಯತರ ಆ ಸಲ ಮರಳಸ ಚಕಕನನ ನ ಹಯದಕಕ ಕರಡಲನ ಕಕಳದಗ, ಚಕಬಕರ ಎಲ ಇಟಟದನ ಎಯದನ, ನನನ ಅಯಗಡಗ ಹಯದರನಗಸನವದಗ ಹಕಳ, ಹಯದರನಗಸಲಲ. ನಯತರ ಕಕಳದಗ, ನನನನನ ನ ಬಯಗ ಬಯದಯತ ಬಬದನ, ಹಲ ಮಡದದರನ. ನನನ ಖಲ ಚಕಕನನ ನ ದನರನಪಯಗಪಡಸಕರಯಡನ ಳ ಪದಕರಣ ದಖಲಸದರ. ಚಕನ ಮತತ ನಕಡಲನ ನನನ ಭದದನಲಲ."
ಸನಳನ Judgment 7 C.C.No.21196/2016
13. In order to prove the defence of the accused, the accused himself choosen to entered into witness box and orally examined as DW.1 on oath. The DW.1 has deposed that, as alleged by the complainant, he not borrowed the loan of Rs.25 lakhs and for its repayment he not issued the questioned cheque at Ex.P1. But categorically deposes that, about 7 - 8 years back, when he borrowed the loan of Rs.5,000/- only, on his instruction, the accused gave one signed blank cheque and later the said loan amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest got cleared and asked the complainant to return the cheque, but he told him that, it was misplaced, after trace out would return to the accused. Since, he was not returned the said cheque to the accused, further he went to the house of complainant and questioned the same in high tone voice, then the complainant thrown out the accused from his house and threatened him that, he would brought the accused on the street. Thereafter, the accused was intimated the above said fact and not returned his signed blank cheque gave to the complainant in respect of loan of Rs.5,000/-, he assured him that, he would look after the same and asked the accused to go back. One Mr.Srinivas assured the accused that, he would collect the sad cheque from complainant and give to the accused. Later, the complainant by misusing his signed blank cheque, got filed the Judgment 8 C.C.No.21196/2016 present case, he not borrowed loan from the complainant and legal notice was not served on him. The police came to his house and told him that, the matter is pending before the court. Hence, he prayed for his acquittal.
14. The accused has not produced any documents in support of his defence. Even the DW.1 has tendered for his cross- examination, but the complainant and his counsel were not choosen to cross-examine the DW.1. Thereby, they made unchallenged the evidence of DW.1. Despite, the accused tendered for cross-examination, but the complainant and his counsel has not choosen to cross-examine the DW.1, thereby, he avoided to come before the court and face the oral evidence placed by the accused. Thereby, the complainant has admitted the probable defence taken by the accused, therefore, the non cross-examination of DW.1 by the complainant itself is fatal and proved the probable defence of the accused.
15. Accordingly, though stage was set for further cross- examination of PW.1, he on face the part cross-examination, he himself ran away from the witness box and avoided to appear before the court and tender for further cross-examination. Thereby, also he not available to tender further cross-examination Judgment 9 C.C.No.21196/2016 for the reasons better known to him. Therefore, whatever the part cross-examination done by the advocate for accused available on record needs to be appraise.
16. No doubt, as per Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, though the initial statutory presumption has very much available in favour of complainant, on account of the accused attack on the complainant in view of prove his contrary definitely, it is the PW.1 needs to comply by way of cross- examination as well as question the evidence led by the DW.1, if it is not correct. In the case on hand, for the reasons better known to the PW.1, he quit from the witness box by facing part cross- examination and on the subsequent event not come forward to cross-examine the DW.1. Thereby admitted the evidence led by DW.1 either directly from mouth of DW.1 as well as whatever the portion of defence suggested by the accused to the mouth of DW.1, therefore, the accused has successfully rebutted the statutory presumption as well as facts and circumstances placed by the complainant. In that backdrop it is require to appreciate the part cross-examination of PW.1.
17. On meticulous perusal of the pleading of the complainant, though he alleged to be lent loan of Rs.25 lakhs to the accused on Judgment 10 C.C.No.21196/2016 20.03.2015, he utterly failed to demonstrate, on which date and under which compelling circumstances the accused being a tailor was in need of the said huge amount and how the complainant has mobilized the fund and exactly on which date, on which security and on whose presence of witnesses lent the loan to the accused is very much silent, for the reasons better known to him. No prudent man for the period of one year would not take risk to pay huge amount of Rs.25 lakhs to the financially less capacitated persons. Even his pleading is very much silent, as to when the accused got issued the questioned cheque including its execution. Apart from the above said serious lacks in the pleading of the complainant, the accused was able to questioned the financial capacity of the complainant.
18. The accused was projected that, he only borrowed loan of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant about 7 - 8 years back. It revealed the financial capacity of the complainant only able to pay the loan of Rs.5 lakhs, not financial capacity of Rs.25 lakhs. In that regard, the PW.1 in his part cross-examination must disclose enable him to pay huge amount of Rs.25 lakhs, he must know the address of accused as well as his financial capacity. In that regard, in his cross-examination he deposed, he does not know the father name of the accused as well as his initial including the Judgment 11 C.C.No.21196/2016 address of the accused. Though, he deposed, the accused was running Sagar Dresses Tailoring business and provide uniform to the schools, he discloses, he does not know except March and April months he did business was no earnings of the accused. By deposing so, the PW.1 has created doubtful circumstances as to the knowingness of the accused which capacitated him to pay huge loan amount of Rs.25 lakhs.
19. That apart, in the cross of PW.1, he deposes that:
"2013 jAzÀ 2015 gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢®è. D CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ C«¨ÀsPÀÛ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è ªÁ¸À«zÉÝ£ÀÄ. FUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæªÁV ªÁ¸À«zÉÝãÉ. C«¨ÀsPÀÛ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ, £À£Àß CtÚ, DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀw ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÉÆA¢UÉ MnÖUÉ ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À«zÉÝêÉ. CzÀgÀ «¼Á¸À ªÀÄ£É ¸ÀASÉåB1137/EJ, 3 £Éà © ªÉÄãï, «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ 2 £Éà ºÀAvÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ 2015 jAzÀ gÁdgÁeÉñÀéj £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è £À£Àß ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÁ¸À«zÉÝãÉ. D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 2015 gÀ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è Rjâ ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. CzÀ£ÀÄß JµÀÄÖ ಮತತಕಕ Rjâ ªÀiÁr¢Ýj JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ರರರ 1.60 PÉÆÃnUÉ Rjâ ªÀiÁrzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. D zÁR¯É ¨ÁåAQUÉ CqÀªÀiÁ£ÀPÉÌ M¼À¥Àr¹zÉÝãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ construction «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ¤«ÄvÀÛ ¨ÁåAPï¤AzÀ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä, D D¹ÛAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß MvÉÛ EnÖzÉÝãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸Á® C®èzÉà ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß Rjâ¸À®Ä £Á£ÀÄ PÉÊ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß Judgment 12 C.C.No.21196/2016 ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ 2015 gÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 4 jAzÀ 5 d£ÀgÀ §½ PÉÊ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢zÉÝ£ÀÄ, AiÀiÁgÀ §½ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÉÝ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ FUÀ £É£À¦®è. D ¸ÀAzÀ¨Àsð ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 70 jAzÀ 80 ®PÀëªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊ ¸Á®ªÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ DQì¸ï ¨ÁåAPï¤AzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ gÀÆ.1 PÉÆÃn 30 ®PÀëªÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á®ªÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝ£ÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ¨ÁåAPï¤AzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉʸÁ®ªÀ£ÀÄß, ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß Rjâ¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁVAiÉÄà £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝ£ÀÄ. ¨ÁåAPï¤AzÀ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß 2015 gÀ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À°è CxÀªÁ 2016 gÀ ªÉÆzÀ® wAUÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. gÁdgÁeÉñÀéj £ÀUÀgÀzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ £ÉÆAzÀtôAiÀiÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è."
20. On going through the said testimony of PW.1, on the one stretch he deposed that, in between 2013 - 2015, he has not borrowed any type of loan, but deposed, to the said period he was residing in the undivided joint family. Now, he resides separately. In his joint family, he was residing with his wife and brother as well as his wife, from their own residential house at door No.1137/EA, 3rd B Main, Vijayanagar 2nd Stage, Bengaluru. Since, 2015 he was resides in his own house at Rajarajeshwarinagar Branch, the said house were purchased in the year 2015. He also deposed that, in the year 2015 he purchased the said house for sale consideration of Rs.1,60,00,000/- by mortgaging the said property documents. Even he deposed, that apart, from borrowing the said loan, he Judgment 13 C.C.No.21196/2016 also obtained hand loans for the purpose of purchase of his house from 4 - 5 persons in the same year, but he deposed, he does not remember, but sum of Rs.70 lakhs to Rs.80 lakhs were borrowed by him. He deposes, from Axis Bank he got borrowed loan of Rs.1,30,00,000/- for the purpose of purchase the house either end of the year 2015 or beginning of the year 2016. He deposed, he does not remember the date of registration of the sale deed.
21. On going through the testimony of PW.1, it made clear that, for the purpose of purchase the house by the end of December, 2015, he borrowed loan of Rs.1,60,00,000/- apart from borrowing hand loans from 4 - 5 persons for the tune of Rs.70 lakhs to Rs.80 lakhs and borrowed loan from Axis Bank for the tune of Rs.1,30,00,000/-. From reading of the same, it discloses that, in the year 2015 the complainant was financial in tuff condition, as he borrowed loan from the various banking institutions as well as private persons, that too, more than Rs.2 crores. Therefore, in the year 2015, that too, as on the alleged date of lent on 20.03.2015 the complainant had requisite fund of Rs.25 lakhs, it is him to produce necessary documents as to mobilization of fund. He stated that, he does not remember the date of purchase of his house either it may be at the end of December, 2015 or beginning of the year 2016. Till then, he was residing with joint family Judgment 14 C.C.No.21196/2016 members. Therefore, while he resides with the joint family members as such, to show that, he had requisite cash of Rs.25 lakhs, he need to give necessary explanation and produce documents. The accused during the course of cross of PW.1 by way of extracting the financial commitments of the complainant as to above to indirectly prove that, as on the date of alleged lent of loan, the complainant himself was in financial critical condition, therefore, he had not lent the same. Therefore, it is reverse burden on the complainant by virtue of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, to prove that, he had requisite cash of Rs.25 lakhs as on 20.03.2015. In that context, it made clear that, though PW.1 has deposed that, the entire transaction he not used to done, through bank account to 50% only did so. Therefore, it is him to demonstrate, how much amount he did transacted through bank as well as cash. In that regard, he not choosen to produced necessary documents.
22. It is significant fact to note that, the PW.1 has deposed, he has declared in his income tax returns as to alleged lent of Rs.25 lakhs to the accused. By deposing so, when the case stage was set for further cross-examination, the PW.1 was ran away from the witness box and not tendered for further cross-examination. If at all, he has any grounds to prove that, he had requisite fund of Judgment 15 C.C.No.21196/2016 Rs.25 lakhs and how he mobilized the said amount, on which date the accused was requested him, on whose presence and on which guarantee he lent loan to the accused, needs to be explain, but before answering the same, he left from the witness box. Though stated, he had submitted his income tax returns, as to alleged lent of loan for the reasons better known to him, he avoided to produce any of the documents. Non tendering for further cross-examination it needs to draw adverse inference that, since as alleged by the accused, the complainant had no financial capacity and lent as alleged. The accused has not borrowed the alleged loan of Rs.25 lakhs as on 20.03.2015, but misusing his signed blank cheque, which got obtained while he lent loan of Rs.5,000/-, for the reasons better known to him, he projected present case, as if lent the loan of Rs.25 lakhs. Therefore, it made clear that, the case filed by the complainant is not true, therefore, he avoided from witness box in order to choosen to cross-examine the DW.1, apart from not produced any documentary evidence before this court.
23. The accused in his 313 of Cr.P.C. statement has strongly attack on the claim of complainant by contending that, for the security of loan of Rs.5,000/- he gave signed blank cheque, the same got misused, despite, he got cleared the said loan, the Judgment 16 C.C.No.21196/2016 PW.1 has not returned the questioned cheque, when questioned by the accused in raised voice, the complainant by misusing the said cheque has brought the present case has to be accepted. That apart, the complainant to show that, he had financial capacity of Rs.25 lakhs not produced any document. No prudent man, that much huge amount without obtaining any security document would not take risk to lent the same. That too, without any profit or interest, the alleged lent of loan to the accused itself is created doubt. That apart, the accused being a tailor had financial commitment of Rs.25 lakhs is also not been proved by the complainant.
24. Though, accused has attack on the claim of complainant under the compelling circumstances, on the security for repayment of loan of Rs.5,000/-, the complainant took signed blank cheque and same got misused by the complainant. Therefore, it is the complainant needs to demonstrate as on which date, on whose presence the accused got issued and executed the Ex.P1-cheque. In that regard, no satisfactory explanation is forth coming from the side of complainant.
25. On close perusal of Ex.P1-cheque it discloses, the admitted signature of the accused and other writings are made in different Judgment 17 C.C.No.21196/2016 hand writing. It is the complainant needs to demonstrate, who got filled the said cheque. But he failed to prove the same. Mere admitting the signature itself is not a ground to accept the claim of complainant. In order to make mention the amount of Rs.25 lakhs in the cheque, by virtue of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it is the complainant needs to withstood his contention by tendering further cross-examination and explain under which compelling circumstances he got secured the signed blank cheque.
26. Thereby, it made clear that, the accused has not issued and executed the questioned cheque to the complainant. After dishonour of the cheque as per Ex.P2 the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused as per Ex.P3 and as found in Ex.P5 postal cover the said notice returned unserved stating 'door lock'. If it was door lock, expecting to serve legal notice and accused issue reply does not arise. As per Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, it is mandatory to receipt of legal notice by the accused in order comply the demand made by the complainant. If at all, the accused resides in the given address definitely, notice require to be serve, but for the reasons better known to the complainant, whatever the notice issued at Ex.P5 came to be unserved, thereby, the complainant not complied the mandatory Judgment 18 C.C.No.21196/2016 requirement. The very case placed by the complainant is deviate of merits and he utterly failed to prove that, he was financial capacity of Rs.25 lakhs and alleged to be lent to the accused on 20.03.2015. Even utterly failed to demonstrate the alleged issuance and execution of questioned cheque at Ex.P1. Even, legal notice as required is not served on the accused, but filed the false case, therefore, he avoided to tender for further cross- examination and not choosen to cross-examine the DW.1, thereby, the complainant has admitted the defence placed by the accused that, in connection to the borrowing of loan of Rs.5,000/- about 7 - 8 years back by the accused from the complainant on the security of signed blank cheque, despite, accused got repaid the said loan amount, but complainant without returning the said signed blank cheque, since accused demanding for return of the said cheque with the raised voice, the complainant by misusing his cheque ventured to filed false case. Therefore, the PW.1 has avoided to enter into witness box further and cross-examined the DW.1.
It is worthy to cite that the decision reported in 2008 AIR SC 738 (Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde). Wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to held that:
Judgment 19 C.C.No.21196/2016 "The provisions under Section 139 has been inserted to regulate the growing business, trade, commerce and industrial activities of the country and the strict liability to promote greater vigilance in financial matters and to safeguard the faith of the creditor in the drawer of the cheque which is essential to the economic life of a developing country like India. This, however, shall not mean that the courts shall put a blind eye to the ground realities. Statute mandates raising of presumption but it stops at that. It does not say how presumption drawn should be held to have rebutted. Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be delicately balanced. Such balancing acts, indisputably would largely depend upon the factual matrix of each case, the materials brought on record and having regard to legal principles governing the same".
"The courts must be on guard to see that merely on the application of presumption as contemplated under Section 139, the same may not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction".
27. Looking in the object of introduction of act, the Negotiable Instruments inspite of use for day to day financial transaction to repose confidence inspite of using cash, the complainant misusing the said Negotiable Instruments against the object of Judgment 20 C.C.No.21196/2016 introduction of act, he ventured to file false case against the accused herein, therefore, it is just and proper to impose fine on the complainant for the baseless, reckless and false claim put forth by the complainant.
28. The complainant without having any satisfactory reasonable grounds, made the false accusation against the accused regarding borrowing of loan of Rs.25 lakhs and fails to prove the same. The complainant without any prima-facie grounds and materials filed the false case, only because of obtaining the questioned cheque of the accused through unexplained source and cause unnecessary trouble to made his to rush the court of law, thereby spend the time, money and energy. Therefore, it is him to pay the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- for misuse the court machinery, for prosecuting the matter all these days unnecessarily. The very act of the complainant has to be deprecated, not only by acquit the accused, but also punishing the complainant by imposing the fine of Rs.5,000/- is very much necessary. Otherwise, the complainant may be repeat the same. The complainant misused the cheque against the object of introduction of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, it is a fit case to impose fine of Rs.5,000/- on the complainant. If, the complainant failed to pay the said fine , the same shall be recover Judgment 21 C.C.No.21196/2016 as land revenue as per law by invoking coercive method or recover the same. If, that is done it will meet the ends of justice and massage to the people like complainant, who misused the cheque and court as per his whims without any sound reason.
29. In the case on hand, the accused has clearly made out a probable defence in respect of his non-liability to pay the cheque amount mentioned in Ex.P1. Therefore, it is considered view of this court that, the accused has to be acquitted and there is no bonafide reason in filing the present complaint has to be deprecated by imposing fine of Rs.5,000/-. As discussed above, the complainant has utterly fails to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answered the Point Nos.1 and 2 are in the Negative.
30. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Judgment 22 C.C.No.21196/2016 Further, as per Section 250(2) of Cr.P.C. the complainant without any prima-facie grounds made the false allegations against the accused and prosecuted the matter all along, hence, he shall pay the fine of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days. The said fine amount shall be payable to the accused as compensation.
If, the complainant failed to pay the fine within stipulated period, than the same shall be recover as land revenue.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3 rd day of April - 2021) (SHRIDHARA.M) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : T.S.Chandrashekar List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P1 : Original Cheque Ex.P1(a) : Signature of accused Ex.P2 : Bank endorsement Ex.P3 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P4 : Postal receipt Ex.P5 : Unserved R.P.A.D., cover Ex.P5(a) : Legal notice at Ex.P5 Judgment 23 C.C.No.21196/2016
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
DW.1 : Manjunath.A List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
- Nil -
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 24 C.C.No.21196/2016
03.04.2021.
Comp - TSC
Accd - MA
For Judgment
Case called out.
Complainant and accused are
absent. No representation from both side
advocates, despite, web-host the case
proceedings and intimate the date of
pronouncement of judgment. Hence, as per Section 353(6) of Cr.P.C. the following judgment is pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
***** ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Further, as per Section 250(2) of Cr.P.C. the complainant without any prima-facie grounds made the false allegations against the accused and prosecuted the matter all along, hence, he shall pay the fine of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days. The said fine amount shall be payable to the accused as compensation.
Judgment 25 C.C.No.21196/2016 If, the complainant failed to pay the fine within stipulated period, than the same shall be recover as land revenue.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
As, the complainant and his counsel are
remained absent. To recover the fine of
Rs.5,000/- from the complainant as per
judgment, issue court notice to the complainant forthwith.
Call on:22.04.2021.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.