Bangalore District Court
Sri Gopal Das Thakur Das vs M/S. Southern Metal Finishers on 1 December, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2016
PRESENT: SMT. ISHRATH JAHAN ARA, B.A.L., L.L.B.,
XIX ADDL.C.M.M.BANGALORE.
Case No: CC No. 9217/2015
Complainant: Sri Gopal Das Thakur Das
S/o. Thakur Das,
Aged about 63 years,
No.2/5, Shanthinagar,
Bengaluru -560 027.
Accused: M/s. Southern Metal Finishers,
B-80, KSSIDC Phase-1,
Bommasandra Indl. Estate,
Bengaluru -560 099.
Rep. by Sri M. Muralidhar,
Proprietor,
Also at:
M. Muralidhar,
Aged about 50 years,
No.253, Teachers' Colony,
Chandapura,
Bengaluru -560 081.
Offence complained of: U/s.138 of N.I. Act
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
Opinion of the Judge Accused found guilty
Date of order: 1st December 2016
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint that, the accused is the proprietor of M/s. Southern Metal Finishers and he approached this 2 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 Complainant for the hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to meet his urgent business necessities. The Complainant by considering the request of the accused, had advanced a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.731250 dtd 31.12.2013 drawn on YES Bank Ltd., Bengaluru and after receipt of the loan amount, the accused had executed an On Demand Promissory Note and Consideration Receipt in favour of this Complainant for having acknowledged the loan amount. The accused towards the discharge of the loan amount and towards part-payment had issued his three cheques bearing No.094828 dtd. 28.10.2014 for Rs.50,000/-, cheque bearing No.094829 dtd.28.11.2014 for Rs.50,000/- and a cheque bearing No. 094830 dtd. 28.12.2014 for Rs.50,000/- all are drawn at Karnataka Bank Ltd, Industrial Area, Bommasandra, Bengaluru with a request to present the said cheques for encashment and it will be honoured on its presentation.
3. It is further submitted by the Complainant that as per the assurance of the accused, he presented all three said cheques before his banker Vijaya Bank, Shanthinagar branch, Bengaluru for encashment on 11.1.2015 but all the said cheques returned dishonoured with endorsements "Account closed" on 12.1.2015 and the same was informed to this Accused. As the Accused has failed to make payment of the cheques amount, the Complainant got issued the Legal Notice through his advocate on 19.1.2015 by RPAD, calling upon the Accused 3 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 to make payment of the cheques amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and the said notice was duly served upon this accused on 20.1.2015. The accused even inspite of receipt of Legal Notice, neither chosen to make payment of the cheques amount nor he has sent his reply by denying the transaction. The accused knowingly fully well that his account was already been closed, had issued bogus cheques only with an intention to cheat this Complainant and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
4. After recording of sworn statement of the complainant the Private Complaint lodged by the complainant was registered as a Criminal Case, summons was issued as against the accused. The accused appeared through his Counsel and he was enlarged on bail. Plea of accusation was read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The complainant himself got examined as PW1 and he got produced 10 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and closed his side of evidence.
6. After closure of complainant side evidence, accused statement u/s.313 Cr.P.C. recorded and read over to the accused. The accused denied the entire incriminating evidence in toto and he intended to lead 4 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 his evidence. The accused got himself examined as DW1 and no documents were marked from his side and closed his side of evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments from both sides and perused the entire records. The learned Counsel for the accused has also filed his written arguments.
8. The only point arise for my consideration is:
1. Whether the Complainant has proved the guilt of the accused u/s 138 of N.I. Act beyond all reasonable doubts?
2. What order?
9. My findings to the above point are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS:
10. Point No.1: The entire burden is on the complainant to prove his case and also to prove the above point. In order to prove the same, the complainant stepped into the witness box, got examined as PW-1 and he filed his affidavit in lieu of the oral evidence by reiterating the complaint averments.
11. PW1 deposed that the accused being the proprietor of M/s. Southern Metal Finishers had approached him for the hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to meet his urgent business necessities and he by considering the request of the accused, had advanced a sum of 5 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.731250 dtd.31.12.2013 drawn on YES Bank Ltd., Bengaluru and after receipt of the loan amount, the accused had executed an On Demand Promissory Note and Consideration Receipts in his favour for having acknowledged the loan amount. He deposed that the accused towards the discharge of the loan amount and towards part-payment had issued his three cheques bearing No. 094828 dtd.28.10.2014 for Rs.50,000/-, cheque bearing No.094829 dtd.28.11.2014 for Rs.50,000/- and a cheque bearing No.094830 dtd. 28.12.2014 for Rs.50,000/- all are drawn at Karnataka Bank Ltd, Industrial Area, Bommasandra, Bengaluru with a request to present the said cheques for encashment and it will be honoured on its presentation.
12. He further deposed that as per the assurance of the accused, he presented all three said cheques before his banker for encashment on 11.1.2015 but all the said cheques returned dishonoured with endorsements "Account closed" on 12.1.2015 and the same was informed to this Accused. He deposed that as the Accused has failed to make payment of the cheques amount, he got issued the Legal Notice through his advocate on 19.1.2015 by RPAD, calling upon the Accused to make payment of the cheques amount and the said notice was duly served upon this accused on 20.1.2015. He deposed that the accused even inspite of receipt of Legal Notice, has neither chosen to make 6 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 payment of the cheques amount nor he has sent his reply by denying the transaction. He deposed that the accused knowingly fully well that his account was already been closed, had issued his bogus cheques only with an intention to cheat him and thereby the accused committed an offence.
13. PW1 in order to prove his case, got produced three original cheques issued by this accused marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 . He deposed that the signature found on Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 is that of this accused and he got identified the signature found on the cheque marked as Ex.P1(a) to Ex.P3(a). He got produced three bank endorsement marked as Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 respectively. He got produced copy of the legal notice along with two RPAD receipts marked as Ex.P7, Ex.P7(a) and Ex.P7(b) respectively. He got produced the Postal Acknowledgement Due Card for having served the notice to the accused marked as Ex.P.8 and one unserved postal cover marked as Ex.P.9. He got produced the his bank account statement of his YES Bank marked as Ex.P.10.
14. Even though the accused has denied the entire case of the Complainant and also denied the very fact that he had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from this Complainant by way of cheque and towards part-repayment of the loan amount, he had issued his three cheques in favour of this Complainant and his cheques were bounced on its presentation for encashment. Even though the accused denied the 7 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 very issuance of cheques in favour of this PW1 and also denied his liability to pay the cheques amount. The learned Counsel for the accused even subjected PW1 for cross-examination and he extensively cross-examined the PW1.
15. On the contrary, during the cross-examination of PW1, the accused except putting some suggestions to PW1 that he had not borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from him as a hand loan for his business purpose and even he has not issued his Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 cheques towards part repayment of the loan amount, has not chosen to deny the documentary evidence marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P10. PW1 in order to prove the loan transaction and also to prove that he advanced hand loan for Rs.6,00,000/- to this accused on his request by way of cheque bearing No. 731250 and the same was encashed by this accused from his account, got produced his bank statement before this court marked as Ex.P.10. This document clearly proves that on 2.1.2014 the accused got encashed the cheque bearing No.731250 of this Complainant from his bank account amounting to Rs.6,00,000/-. The accused has neither chosen to deny the testimony of PW1 with respect to the contents of Ex.P10 nor he has denied the contents of Ex.P10. The accused during the cross-examination of PW1, except putting some suggestions to him that the handwriting found on Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 along with the signature found on the said cheques, is in different handwriting and he has not 8 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 written the contents of the cheques and issued the cheques in his favour towards part repayment of the loan amount, which has been categorically denied PW1 nothings has been elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his testimony or to discard his documentary evidence. The PW1 categorically deposed that the accused after receipt of loan amount, had repaid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in installments by way of cheques and for the remaining part-payment of the loan amount, had issued his cheques in his favour and the same were bounced on its presentation for encashment.
16. PW1 further stated in his cross-examination that the accused after receipt of the loan amount for the security of the loan amount, had also executed an On Demand Promissory Note with Consideration Receipt by acknowledging the receipt of the loan amount and also by agreeing to repay the loan amount as and when demanded. Even this fact has not denied by this accused. On the contrary, the accused during the cross-examination of PW1, put a suggestion to PW1 that he after receipt of the loan amount, had issued his duly signed blank cheques for the security of the loan amount and subsequently, even after this accused repaid the entire loan amount, he instead of returning the cheques, misused his cheques and filed this false complaint. The said suggestion was categorically denied by PW1. The accused by putting this suggestion to PW1 has categorically admitted the loan transaction 9 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 and also admitted the receipt of the loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from this Complainant by way of cheque and also admitted the issuance of cheques in favour of this Complainant towards the loan transaction. In such situation, the burden shift on to this accused to prove that subsequently after receipt of the loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from this Complainant, he had already repaid the entire loan amount and this Complainant even after receipt of entire loan amount, instead of returning his cheques issued towards the security of the loan amount, misused his cheques and filed this false complaint.
17. The PW1 in his cross-examination has denied the entire suggestions put to him and denied the suggestion that by misusing the duly signed blank cheques of this accused for his convenience and created and concocted the same as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and filed this false complaint against the accused even though the accused was already repaid the entire loan amount borrowed from him.
18. Even though the accused has denied the issuance of cheques in favour of this PW1 towards repayment of the loan amount, however, he has categorically admitted the fact that the Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 cheques are belonged to his bank account number and even the accused admitted his signature found on Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 marked as Ex.P.1(a) to Ex.P3(a). Likewise, the accused has not chosen to deny a fact that his Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 cheques were produced before this court by PW1 and 10 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 even admitted the fact that he himself issued his cheques in favour of PW1. The accused even did not chosen to deny a fact that his Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 cheques were bounced on its presentation for encashment for the reason "Account closed". No doubt, the accused has stated that he has not received any notice from this Complainant earlier to the date of filing of this complaint and as such, he was not aware of the proceedings till he received the summons from this court. However, PW1 in his cross-examination categorically denied the suggestion that the accused has not personally received the notice issued as per Ex.P7.
19. The accused except putting some suggestions to PW1 during his cross-examination that he has not issued Ex.P7 notice to his correct address and as such, no notice is served on him, which has been categorically denied by PW1, nothing has been elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his testimony or to discard his evidence. The accused except putting some suggestions to PW1 that no notice is served on him, has not chosen to deny his address disclosed in Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 documents. The Ex.P8 document clearly proves that the notice issued by PW1 u/Sec.138(b) of N.I.Act calling upon the accused to make payment of the cheques amount and also by intimating the dishonour of the cheques to his correct address and the same was duly served upon the accused.
11 C.C.No.9217 of 2015
20. The accused in order to prove his defence and to rebut the presumption available to this Complainant, stepped into the witness- box and got examined as DW1. He has deposed that there was no any loan transaction in-between him with this Complainant and even he has not borrowed any kind of loan from this Complainant. He deposed that one Sindhi Finance Agency approached him and even the customers of the said financers were used to approach him for the loan amount and he towards the security of the loan amount, had issued his duly signed blank cheques in favour of Sindhi Finance Agency and its customers and even after completion of the transaction, they have failed to return his cheques. He further deposed that even though he repaid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to this Complainant he has failed to return his cheques. He further deposed that he has not issued his Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 cheques towards repayment of the loan amount to this Complainant. He further deposed that he has not received any notice from this Complainant before filing of this complaint. He further deposed that the Complainant by misusing his cheques, created the cheques as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and filed this false complaint even though he is not liable to pay any kind of amount to this Complainant. DW1prays to dismiss the e complaint.
21. The Complainant has categorically denied the testimony of DW1 and his learned Counsel subjected DW1 for cross-examination. The DW1 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that the 12 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 address disclosed in Ex.P7 and Ex.D8 is belonged to him and even admitted that he will personally receive the letters sent to this address and even he is receiving letters to this address. He admitted the suggestion that the summons issued by this court to this address was personally served on him. DW1 in his cross-examination except denying the suggestion that he has not personally received the notice issued as per Ex.P7, has failed to explain before this court why the notice was not served on him when the others letters and summons were served to him on the very same address.
22. Moreover, the DW1 has not chosen to deny his signature found on Ex.P8 - Postal Acknowledgement Due Card. This clearly proves that the DW1 only with an intention to ran away from his liability and once he admits the receipt of Ex.P7 notice, he will be held liable, has deposed false before this court that he has not received Ex.P7 notice sent by this Complainant. Likewise, DW1 in his cross- examination categorically admitted that on 31.12.2013 he personally executed On Demand Promissory Note and Consideration Receipt in favour of this Complainant after putting his signature to the said document. Likewise, he admitted the suggestion that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from this Complainant through cheque bearing No.731250 dtd.31.12.2013 and he personally encashed the said cheque into his name. He further admitted the suggestion that towards the said 13 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 loan transaction and in order to make part-payment of the loan amount, he had issued his Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 cheques in favour of this Complainant and even admitted that the signature found on the said cheques is that of him.
23. Likewise, the DW1 admitted the suggestion that all his three cheques were returned dishonoured on its presentation for encashment for the reason "Account closed". DW1 admitted the suggestion that he has not repaid the loan amount to this Complainant in his hand. However, DW1 stated that he repaid the loan amount borrowed from this Complainant into the hands of one Sri Ramesh by way of cash. The DW1 in order to prove this fact that he had repaid the loan amount to Sri Ramesh, has not chosen to produce any documents before this court. Moreover, it is not the testimony of DW1 that he repaid the entire loan amount of this Complainant in favour of one Sri Ramesh.
24. As I have discussed supra, the DW1 in his examination-in- chief deposed that there was no loan transaction in between him with this Complainant and at no point of time, he had borrowed any loan from this Complainant much less amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- and even he has not issued his cheques in favour of this Complainant towards the part-payment of the loan amount. The examination-in-chief of DW1 14 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 is fully contrary to his cross-examination wherein, he has admitted the entire case of the Complainant and also admitted the loan transaction along with issuance of cheques towards the part-payment of the loan amount.
25. As I have discussed supra, the DW1 except adducing the oral evidence that he had already repaid the entire loan amount borrowed from this Complainant to this Complainant, has utterly failed to prove his defence to the satisfaction of the court. The evidence of DW1 clearly proves that the DW1 only with an intention to ran away from his liability to pay the cheques amount and if once he admitted the loan transaction and issuance of cheques in favour of this Complainant towards part-payment of the loan amount, he will be held liable for the cheques amount, has given false evidence before this court.
26. As I have discussed supra, unless the accused deny his address found on Ex.P7 notice, his testimony that the no notice is served on him and the notice is not issued to his correct address, cannot be acceptable. The testimony of DW1 that he has not personally received the notice, as such the complaint is not maintainable, cannot be acceptable and believable. As I have discussed supra, the DW1 is a businessman by profession having own industry in his name and his testimony that he has given his blank cheques in favour of the Sindhi 15 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 Finance Agency and its customers for the security purpose, cannot be acceptable and believable.
27. The evidence adduced before this court by the accused will not take away the case of the Complainant and it will not rebut the presumption available to this Complainant u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act. The accused has utterly failed to prove that there was no any loan transaction in-between him with this Complainant much less amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- and he has not issued his Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 cheques in favour of PW1 towards part-repayment of the loan amount. The defence taken by the accused during the course of trial, cannot be believable and acceptable.
28. Even when the Accused was questioned u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. by this court, the Accused except denying the incriminating evidence made against him by the PW1, has not put forth any evidence from his side before this court. The Accused except denying the incriminating evidence made against him by PW1 has not stated anything with respect to his defence. Likewise, the Accused has utterly failed to rebut the presumption available to this Complainant u/Sec.118 and also u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act it reads thus respectively.
29. As per the provisions of Sec.118, which reads thus:
a. Of consideration - that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every 16 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;
b. As to date - that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;
c. As to time of acceptance - that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity; d. As to time of transfer - that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity; e. As to order of endorsements - that the endorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon; f. As to stamps - that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped; g. That holder is a holder in due course - that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course;
30.. Likewise, he also failed to rebut the presumption available u/s. 139 of NI Act which reads:
It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt o other liability.
31. There is nothing on record to believe the defence of the accused and to discard the case of the Complainant.
32. The learned counsel for the accused has filed his written arguments by stating that the Complainant misused the duly signed 17 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 blank cheques of this accused collected for the security of the loan amount and subsequently, created the same for each of Rs.50,000/- and filed this false complaint, even though there was no any loan transaction in-between them and this accused has not issued his Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 cheques in favour of this Complainant, is not convinced this court and it cannot be acceptable.
33. Likewise, his arguments that the Complainant himself has written the contents of the cheques for his convenience, by misusing the blank cheque and created the same as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and presented the cheques for encashment and by considering all these facts, the complaint has to be dismissed, is also not convinced this court.
34. Likewise, his arguments that this accused by adducing evidence before this court, has successful rebutted the presumption available to this Complainant u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act is also not convinced this court. Likewise, his further arguments that there is no burden on this accused to prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubts and this accused can very well discharge his burden by preponderance of probabilities and even by cross-examining PW1 and this accused by cross-examining PW1 and also by leading his evidence, has successfully rebutted the presumption available to this Complainant u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act and after this accused led his evidence, the Complainant has failed to discharge his burden shift on 18 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 to him to prove the loan transaction and by considering all these facts, the complaint has to be dismissed, is also not convinced this court and it holds no merit.
35. He further argued that no notice is served on this accused prior to filing of this complaint and even the signature found on Ex.P8 is not that of this accused and by considering all these facts and by holding that no notice is served on this accused, the complaint has to be dismissed as not maintainable, is also not convinced this court and it holds no merit. The learned Counsel for the accused in support of his arguments has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2008 CRI.L.J. 3411 (Karnataka High Court) between K. Narayana Nayak Vs. M. Shivarama Shetty wherein it is held that;
"When the notice is not received by the "Addressee himself"
and when it is not clear that the signature found on the endorsement was really affixed by the accused herself then service of notice is not satisfactory proved".
(2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 397 between Sridhar M.A. Vs. Metalloy.N. Steel Corporation wherein it is held that;
"Notice should not be deemed to have served as a matter of course and when the accused denies having received the notice' it should be held on facts that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.".
2005(3) KCCR 1576 (Karnataka High Court) between Deviprasad Rai Vs. A.M. Ganesh Rai wherein it is held that;
Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 - Section 94 - "The Complainant must establish that the accused has received the notice by putting his signature on the postal acknowledgement - To discharge his burden totally, the Complainant has to examine the 'Postman' to prove that 19 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 the Postman has delivered the demand notice to the accused by obtaining his signature on the postal acknowledgement - On facts, held, the Complainant has not discharged the burden to establish that the signature found on the Postal Acknowledgement belong to the accused."
I2014 AIR SCW 2158 John K. Abraham vs. Simon C. Abraham and another wherein it is held that;
"For drawing presumption u/Sec.118 r/w 139 of N.I. Act, the burden is heavily upon the Complainant - Complainant not sure as to who wrote cheque nor aware as to when and where existing transaction took place for which cheque was issued by the Accused. Defects in evidence of Complainant leads to an acquittal."
The law laid down in this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand and it will nowhere helpful to the defence taken by the accused in this case.
36. Here in this case, the accused except denying the fact that he has not personally received the notice, has not either chosen to deny his signature on Ex.P8 nor he has denied his address found on Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. Moreover, the DW1 in his cross-examination categorically admitted the fact that he will personally receive the other letters and documents served on him to this address. This clearly establishes that the notice issued as per Ex.P7 was personally served on this accused and even the signature found on Ex.P8 is that of this accused.
37. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the Complainant has vehemently argued that this the Complainant has followed all the procedures prescribed u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act and this Accused even 20 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 after receipt of the Legal Notice, neither chosen to make payment of the cheques amount nor he has sent his reply by denying the transaction and as such, by taking an adverse inference against the accused that he after receipt of the Legal Notice, issued as per Ex.P7, by admitting the contents of the notice, did not resist the claim of the Complainant\.
38. He further argued that the accused, who is a businessman by profession having post-graduate cannot issue his duly signed blank cheques to any third person without any transaction, with an intention to help that person, even without taking any document towards security. He has argued that the accused only for the sake of defence, has taken up the false defence before this court that he has given the duly signed blank cheques in favour of the Sindhi Finance Agency and its customers for the security purpose with respect to some other transaction. He further argued that the accused only with an intention to ran away from his liability, taken up the false defence during the course of trial. The arguments canvassed by the learned Counsel for the Complainant, is fully convinced this court.
39. The complainant by adducing oral and documentary evidence before this court has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no whatsoever doubt in the mind of court about the case of the complainant. The oral and documentary evidence adduced before this court by the complainant, is fully corroborating with each other and convinced this court about his case. The 21 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 complainant by adducing oral and documentary evidence before this court, bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record, I answer this Point No.1 in affirmative.
40. Point No.2. In view of my findings on the above point and the reasons stated therein, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/Sec. 255 (2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,05,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs and Five Thousand only). In any
default to pay fine amount shall undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 months.
Out of fine amount recovered under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) shall be paid to the complainant which includes the cheques amount and also cost of the proceedings. Remaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be forfeited to State.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
Office to furnish free copy of the judgement to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 1st day of December, 2016) (ISHRATH JAHAN ARA) XIX ADDL.C.M.M., Bengaluru 22 C.C.No.9217 of 2015 ANNEXURE:
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant: PW.1 Mr. Gopal Das Thakur Das Witnesses examined on behalf of the Accused: D.W.13 Mr. Muralidhar Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P3 Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) to Ex.P3(a) Signature of the Accused
Ex.P.4 to Ex.P6 Bank endorsements
Ex.P.7 Copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.7(a) & Ex.P7(b) Postal receipts
Ex.P.8 Postal Acknowledgement Due Card
Ex.P.9 Unserved postal cover
Ex.P.10 Bank Account statement
Documents marked on behalf of the Accused:
Nil
XIX ACMM, B'lore.
23 C.C.No.9217 of 2015