Bangalore District Court
Murali Melwani vs Brij Mohan Vasishta on 25 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 25th day of October - 2016
PRESENT: SRI. S.G.SALAGARE, B.Sc., LL.B.,(Spl)
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.19516/2013
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : Murali Melwani,
S/o.Late.Tejumal Melwani,
Resident of R46,
Golden Enclave,
Airport Road, Bengaluru-17.
Rep. by his GPA Holder
Deepak Melwani.
(Rep. by Diwakara & Associates,
Advocates)
V/S
Accused : Brij Mohan Vasishta,
S/o. D.N.Vasishta,
Aged about 66 years,
Managing Partner/
Authorized Signatory,
Trans-Asia Biotech,
Residing at No.506,
Silicon Towers, 209/1,
4th Cross, Byrasandra,
C.V.Raman Nagar Post,
Bengaluru-93.
(Rep. by Siji Malayil & Associates,
Advocates)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
Judgment 2 C.C.19516/2013
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Convicted.
DATE OF ORDER : 25.10.2016.
(S.G.SALAGARE)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The accused is new to complainant and his son Deepak Melwani. Accused used to meet complainant and his son at the Ashram of Bhagawan Shri Satya Sai Baba at Puttaparthi frequently. Accused got introduced himself as the Managing Partner of Trans Asias Biotech which deals with specialized molecules (medicines) manufactured on contract basis from very renowned pharma manufacturing facilities having world health organization approval and he intends to develop his business. Accused induced the complainant and his son to invest money in his company and assured them to pay good interest for their investment. Judgment 3 C.C.19516/2013 Believing the words of accused the complainant and his son invested a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in the business of accused between 28.06.2009 to 12.11.2010. Accused accepted the investment of complainant and his son, but accused has failed to keep up his promise and assurance. Complainant demanded for return of his investment money of Rs.25 lakhs with simple interest at 10% per annum, and in this regard accused entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 07.03.2013 with complainant. Accused acknowledged the liability and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25,90,000/- as full and final settlement in two installments. The accused in order to discharge his liability has issued two post dated cheques bearing No.069491, dated:30.06.2013 for Rs.12,15,000/- in favour of complainant, and another cheque bearing No.069490, dated:30.04.2013 for Rs.13,75,000/- in favour of complainant's son by name Deepak Melwani, both the cheques were drawn on HDFC Bank, Padmanabhanagar Branch, Bengaluru, and accused assured that the said cheques will be honoured on their presentation. Judgment 4 C.C.19516/2013
It is further case of complainant that, on 02.07.2013 he has presented the cheque bearing No.069491, dated:30.06.2013 through his banker viz., State Bank of India, NAL Branch, Bengaluru for collection, but the said cheque was returned unpaid on 03.07.2013 for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" in the account maintained by the accused. On 04.07.2013, the complainant brought this fact to the knowledge of accused by issuing demand notice through RPAD and through courier and also sent to mail to email ID of accused, and the said demand notice were duly served upon accused on 08.07.2013 and also the mail is delivered immediately. After receipt of notice accused has neither paid the cheque amount nor replied the legal notice. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and prayed to punish the accused with maximum sentence and to award compensation to the complainant.
3. My predecessor after perusing records, took cognizance of offence, and recorded sworn statement, ordered to register Criminal Case against the accused for Judgment 5 C.C.19516/2013 the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused after service of summons put his appearance through his counsel and has been enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the court has recorded the plea of accused and the accused has pleaded not guilty of the offence and claims to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.
4. The complainant in order to prove his case, got examined his GPA holder - Deepak Melwani as PW-1 and got marked fourteen documents at Exs.P1 to P14 and closed his side. After completion of the evidence of complainant, the substance of the evidence has been read over and explained to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating evidence arisen against him. The accused has been given sufficient opportunities to lead his defence evidence, but the accused has not led any oral evidence and not produced any document.
5. On 29.12.2014, GPA Holder of complainant has filed an application under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. and reported that complainant Murali Melwani has expired on Judgment 6 C.C.19516/2013 29.11.2014 and he prayed to bring him on record as legal heir of complainant Murali Melwani and continue to prosecute the case. Accused has not filed any objections to the said application till the end. Consequently the said application is allowed by this court. Order sheet dated:23.04.2015 disclose that, both counsels present. Accused counsel adopts the cross-examination of PW.1 made in C.C.No.14529/2013 and files a memo to that effect. Office is directed to keep the certified copies of cross-examination of PW.1 made in C.C.No.14529/2013 in this case.
6. I have heard the arguments of both side counsels, and perused the materials placed on record.
7. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, he and his son had invested Rs.25 lakhs in the business of accused and accused has failed to keep up his promise and accused agreed to return investment money with simple interest at 10% per annum, and in this regard Ex.P3-cheque bearing No. 069491, dated:30.06.2013 for Rs.12,15,000/-
drawn on HDFC Bank, Padmanabhanagar Judgment 7 C.C.19516/2013 Branch, Bengaluru and same was issued in favour of complainant for discharge of the part payment, and on its presentation, cheque came to be dishonoured for the reasons 'Funds Insufficient' and even after service of notice, the accused has failed to repay the amount and thereby accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
8. 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
9. POINT NO.1: It is alleged that, the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.25 lakhs from complainant and his son, and to discharge his partial liability has issued a post dated cheque bearing No. 069491, dated:30.06.2013 for Rs.12,15,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Padmanabhanagar Branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant. When said cheque was presented for encashment, same was dishonoured for the reasons 'Funds Insufficient'. Even after issuance of demand notice, Judgment 8 C.C.19516/2013 accused has not made any arrangement for return of cheque amount. The accused has denied the accusation made against him.
10. To prove his case, the complainant got examined his GPA Holder - Deepak Melwani as PW.1. PW.1 filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief evidence. In the affidavit, PW.1 has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and in support of his contention; PW.1 has got marked fourteen documents. Among them Certified copy of GPA dated:02.04.2013 executed by complainant in favour of his son Deepak Melwani is marked as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 is the Certified copy of Memorandum of Understanding dated:07.03.2013 executed by accused in favour of complainant and his son is marked as Ex.P2, Ex.P3 is the certified copy of cheque bearing No. 069491, dated:30.06.2013 for Rs.12,15,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Padmanabhanagar Branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant. The signature of accused is marked as Ex.P3(a), Ex.P4 is the Certified copy Bank Endorsement issued by the State Bank of India, the contents of Ex.P4 disclose that, the cheque bearing No.069491, for Judgment 9 C.C.19516/2013 Rs.12,15,000/- is dishonoured for the reasons 'Funds Insufficient, Ex.P5 is the Demand Notice dated:04.07.2013, the recitals of Ex.P5 disclose that, the complainant has issued this notice to the address of accused through his counsel. By issuing this notice complainant called upon the accused to repay the cheque amount of Rs.12,15,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Ex.P6 is the postal receipt, Ex.P7 is the Professional courier receipt, Ex.P8 is the postal acknowledgment card, Ex.P9 is the letter of Parshva Tours and Travels, Ex.P10 is the copy of spicejet booking information letter, Ex.P11 is the copy of customer communication letter, Ex.P12 is the gmail letter dtd:08.10.2013 sent through whatsup screen shots, Ex.P13, P13(a) to P13(j) are the computer print photographs and Ex.P14 is the gmail letter dtd:03.10.2013.
11. In order to substantiate his contention accused has not entered the witness box. In the cross-examination of PW.1 accused has suggested that, "DgÉÆæ JgÀqÀÄ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀUÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, DgÉÆæ ¤ÃrzÀ 2 ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ºÁUÉ JA.N.AiÀÄÄ vÀAiÀiÁj¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ, ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JA.N.AiÀÄÄ C£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ". Judgment 10 C.C.19516/2013 These suggestions are denied by PW.1. From these suggestions it is crystal clear that, Ex.P3 cheque belongs to accused and signature marked at Ex.P3(a) is that of accused. When accused has admitted the cheque and his signature then the initial presumptions arises in favour of complainant under Section 118(a) of N.I.Act that, complainant is holder in due course of cheque Ex.P3 for due consideration. Further, from the perusal of records, it reveals that complainant has complied the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the initial presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act arises in favour of complainant that accused has issued the cheque Ex.P3 for discharge of legally recoverable debt. The initial presumptions arisen in favour of complainant under Sections 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable presumptions, and accused can rebut the presumptions by cross- examining PW.1 or by adducing the defence evidence or by both.
12. To rebut the presumptions, accused has choosen to cross-examine PW.1. Accused has not entered the witness Judgment 11 C.C.19516/2013 box to lead the defence evidence. Accused has submitted his written statement under Section 243(1) of Cr.P.C. By suggesting in the cross-examination of PW.1 that, Ex.P3 cheque is given in police station and same is signed by accused in police station, accused has admitted the execution of cheque. From perusal of cross-examination of PW.1, it reveals that accused has taken contention that, his signatures on cheques and bond paper are obtained by the complainant with the help of police by giving threat to him. It is suggested to PW.1 that "DgÉÆæ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV®è JAzÀÄ ªÁ¢¹zÀgÀÄÁ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî PÉù£À°è M¼ÀUÉ ºÁPÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, DgÉÆævÀ£À£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ 4 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è EnÖzÀÝgÀÄ, £ÁªÀÅ M¥ÀàzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀ ¨ÉzÀjPɬÄAzÀ DgÉÆæ JA.N.AiÀÄÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ½UÉ ¸À» ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ". But these suggestions are denied by PW.1. By suggesting the above facts to PW.1, accused tried to establish that his signatures on MOU and Ex.P3 cheque under dispute are obtained by complainant by giving threat to him through police, and accused tried to establish that he has not executed the MOU and cheque Ex.P3 voluntarily. Judgment 12 C.C.19516/2013
13. It is the case of complainant that, accused has got introduced himself as managing partner of Trans Asias Biotech which deals with specialized molecules (medicines) manufactured on contract basis from very renowned pharma manufacturing facilities having world health organization approval and he intends to develop his business which he had started recently and expressed that he was in need of funds. Accused has approached the complainant and his son and induced them to invest money in his company and in-turn accused offered and assured them to pay good interest for their investment. Believing the words of accused, complainant and his son invested a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in total with the accused between 28.06.2009 to 12.11.2010. The investment amount of Rs.25 lakhs is received by accused and he acknowledged the investment and had also issued a letter in his own hand writing on the letter head of the company clearly mentioning for which purpose he intended to use the amount received from the complainant and his son.
14. Accused has submitted the written statement under Section 243(1) of Cr.P.C. In the written statement accused Judgment 13 C.C.19516/2013 has admitted that, complainant and his son had invested Rs.25 lakhs in his company M/s. Trans Asias Biotech and after investing the said amount of Rs.25 lakhs some misunderstanding arose between complainant and himself and the complainant started filing false cases against him. Accused has further stated that, he has utilized all the amounts in the company. The company suffered huge loss because of bad / unfavourable market conditions and various other reasons and he was regularly updating the complainant on the developments in the company and as such they were fully aware of his investments and subsequent loss suffered by his company. Thus accused has admitted the receipt of Rs.25 lakhs from complainant and his son. It is further stated that complainant lodged complaint against him before the Airport Police Station and police summoned him to appear on 06.03.2013 at 5 pm, accordingly he appeared before the police station on same day, again on 07.03.2013 he went to Airport police station at about 10 am. The police inspector M.H.Naagthe, complainant's son Deepak Melwani and his advocate Madhukar.D.K were in police station and they forced the accused to prepare MOU as per the dictates of the Judgment 14 C.C.19516/2013 complainant's son and his advocate, later they got typed the MOU and obtained his signature on MOU forcibly. At the same time the police inspector has directed him to issue two cheques in favour of complainant. Police threatened him to issue the cheques and therefore under the threat he issued post dated cheques in favour of complainant's son for Rs.13,75,000/- dated:30.04.2013 and another cheque in favour of complainant for Rs.12,15,000/- dated:30.06.2013 bearing cheque Nos.069490 and 069491 respectively, both drawn on HDFC Bank, Padmanabhanagar, Bengaluru. It is also stated that, the police inspector has directed the partner of accused by name Zulfaqar Ali to sign MOU as a witness and out of fear and coercion accused and his partner have signed the MOU without uttering a word. After obtaining the signatures on MOU and cheques, the police inspector handed over the cheques and MOU to complainant, and complainant has filed this instant case and another case bearing C.C.No.14529/2013 against him. Accused has also stated that, complainant's son has filed a case in O.S.No.5854/2013 before the Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Judge, on the same cause of action. Judgment 15 C.C.19516/2013 Complainant's son was preferred Civil Revision Petition bearing No.100/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble High Court by its order dated:
03.04.2014 in Civil Revision Petition No.100/2014 directed the defendant (accused herein) to deposit a sum of Rs.18,75,000/-. As per the directions of Hon'ble High Court he has deposited a sum of Rs.10 lakhs vide DD No.357857 dated:29.04.2014 and Rs.8,75,000/- vide DD No.628751 dated:02.07.2014 both drawn on Andhra Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru favoring Registrar, City Civil Court, Bengaluru. It is stated that accused has returned the total amount of Rs.25 lakhs invested by complainant in his company. It is stated that complainant has voluntarily invested a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in his company, out of the said Rs.25 lakhs he has repaid Rs.6,25,000/- to complainant and balance due amount of Rs.18,75,000/- is also repaid by depositing in O.S.No.5854/2013 as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court, and hence the entire amount is repaid to complainant and his son, and he is not in due to any amount to complainant and his son.Judgment 16 C.C.19516/2013
15. By filing written statement under Section 243(1) of Cr.P.C, accused has admitted that, complainant and his son had invested Rs.25 lakhs. It is the contention of accused that, complainant and his son have invested the amount of Rs.25 lakhs in Trans Asias Biotech Company. But it is the contention of complainant that, they have invested money with accused and not in the company. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he stated that, "mÁæ£ïì §AiÉÆÃnPï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è §AqÀªÁ¼À ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. DzÀgÉ DgÉÆæ ºÀtPÁ¹£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉýPÉÆArzÀÝ. DgÉÆæUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀªÁV ¸Á® PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DgÉÆæ ¸Á® vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è mÁæ£ïì PÀA¥À¤UÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖ PÉ®ªÉÅÁAzÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ gÉ¥ÀÅåmÉõÀ£ï £ÉÆÃr PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è ºÀt §AqÀªÁ¼À ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è". From this oral evidence of PW.1 it is crystal clear that, complainant and his son have paid money to accused, and not invested in the company. If the money was invested in the company then accused would not have stated that complainant is entitled for interest. If the money was invested in company then complainant is entitled for dividend or debenture but not interest. It is Judgment 17 C.C.19516/2013 nowhere stated that, complainant has received dividend or debenture. Accused has not suggested to PW.1 that, complainant and his son have became share members of the company and invested the money in the company. Ex.P2 is Certified copy of MOU and it is not entered between company and complainant and his son, but the same is entered between accused and complainant and his son. Thus the contention of accused that complainant invested the amount in company cannot be accepted. PW.1 has clearly stated that, they have invested the money with accused, and they have invested the money on the instigation of accused. However the investment of money of Rs.25 lakhs by complainant and his son is not denied by the accused.
16. In the cross-examination of PW.1 accused has suggested that, complainant colluding with police inspector of Airport Police Station has obtained his signatures on two cheques and one bond paper forcibly by giving threat and coercion. PW.1 has stated that, at the time of executing MOU accused has issued cheque Ex.P3. At that time accused, his another partner Mohammed Julfalqar, Judgment 18 C.C.19516/2013 complainant and his advocate G.Vishwanath were present. It is the contention of accused that, his signature is obtained on MOU and cheques under the threat and coercion of police. Accused has admitted that, his partner was also accompanied him to the police station. In written statement, accused stated that, on 07.03.2013 police inspector M.H.Naagthe called him to his chamber and under force and coercion compelled him to sign MOU document on stamp paper prepared by complainant's son and his advocate, and M.H.Naagthe the police inspector asked him to prepare two post dated cheques in favour of complainant and his son. Accused further stated that, M.H.Naagthe directed his partner Mr.Julfaqar Ali to sign the MOU as a witness. Out of fear and coercion, they were forced to the commends of police inspector M.H.Naagthe without uttering a word. This contention of accused that, he executed MOU and cheques under threat and coercion cannot be accepted, because accused has not entered the witness box and substantiated his contention. Accused has not examined his partner Julfaqar Ali in support of his contention. Accused has not taken any steps to call his partner Julfaqar Ali to come and give evidence in respect of Judgment 19 C.C.19516/2013 the threat and coercion given by the police. Admittedly, MOU bears the signature of Julfaqar Ali as an witness. The Julifaqar Ali who is also partner of accused company is the best witness to depose about the alleged incident taken place in the police station. Accused has not examined the best witness available in his favour. When accused admits that, Julfaqar Ali signed the MOU as a witness, then an inference has to be drawn that, accused has executed MOU as per Ex.P2.
17. Admittedly, accused is not an illiterate person. Accused is a Managing partner of a company and having worldly knowledge, and who is a businessman, under such circumstances it cannot be expected that, if police have given threat then accused would keep mum. If police have given threat and coercion then accused would have lodged complaint before the higher police officials or accused could have lodged the private complaint against the police inspector M.H.Naagthe. Accused has not taken any action against the police inspector M.H.Naagthe till today. Thus an inference can be safely drawn that, accused is telling lie before the court.
Judgment 20 C.C.19516/2013
18. Ex.P5 is a notice issued by the complainant to accused on 04.07.2013. By issuing this notice complainant informed about the dishonour of cheque and also called upon the accused to repay the amount. Complainant had issued notice through RPAD and Courier. Ex.P8 acknowledgment is returned back. Accused has not denied the receipt of notice. Accused has not denied the contents of Ex.P5. If really the police had given threat and coercion then the accused would have issued the reply notice and denied the execution of MOU and cheques immediately. Off course accused has made allegations in the written statement but the written statement is filed after closure of complainant side evidence. Accused had an opportunity of denying the case of complainant when he received the notice at the first instance. Accused has not utilized the opportunity of denying the case of complainant at the first instance. That apart, the contents of written statement submitted by accused itself is sufficient to hold that accused has admitted his liability. The only contention of accused that, complainant invested the money in the company and not with him and therefore he is not liable for repayment of amount. But accused has Judgment 21 C.C.19516/2013 failed to establish that complainant and his son have invested the money of Rs.25 lakhs with the company. Ex.P3 cheque is issued by the accused in his individual capacity. MOU is entered between the complainant, his son and accused in their individual capacity. Thus accused has failed to establish that, Ex.P3 cheque was not issued for discharge of his legal liability. Accused stated that, he has already paid Rs.6,25,000/- to complainant, but to believe this accused has not produced any receipt. Further, accused stated that he has deposited an amount of Rs.18,75,000/- in the City Civil Court, Bengaluru and he is not in due to the complainant and his son. Accused has not paid the amount of Rs.18,75,000/- to complainant and his son and he has merely deposited in the court on the direction of Hon'ble High Court. Till today the said amount is not received by complainant and his son. Therefore it cannot be stated that accused has paid entire amount. On the contrary the evidence placed on record clearly disclose that, complainant has proved that accused issued Ex.P3 cheque for discharge of partial liability towards the complainant, and thereby complainant proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable Judgment 22 C.C.19516/2013 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, in view of the above said reasons, I hold point No.1 in the Affirmative.
19. Point No.2: In view of my findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay total fine amount of Rs.14,50,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs fifty thousand only). In default accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 1 (one) year.
Out of the total fine amount a sum of Rs.14,45,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs forty five thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. The balance amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall be remitted as fine to the State. Judgment 23 C.C.19516/2013
The bail bond and 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 25th day of October - 2016) (S.G.SALAGARE) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : Deepak Melwani List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P1 : CC of GPA
Ex.P2 : CC of MOU
Ex.P3 : Copy of cheque
Ex.P3(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P4 : Copy of bank endorsement
Ex.P5 : Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P6 : Postal receipt
Ex.P7 : Courier receipt
Ex.P8 : Postal acknowledgment card
Ex.P9 : CC of letter of Parshva Tours and
Travels
Ex.P10 CC of spicejet booking reference
Ex.P11 : CC of Customer communication letter
Ex.P12 : CC of Gmail computer print letter
Ex.P13, P13(a) to : Computer print photos
P13(J)
Ex.P14 : CC of Gmail letter dtd:03.10.2013
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
- None -Judgment 24 C.C.19516/2013
List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
- Nil -
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.Judgment 25 C.C.19516/2013
25.10.2016.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
*****
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(2) of
Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay total fine amount of Rs.14,50,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs fifty thousand only). In default accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 1 (one) year.
Out of the total fine amount a sum of Rs.14,45,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs forty five thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
The balance amount of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees five thousand only) shall be
remitted as fine to the State.
Judgment 26 C.C.19516/2013
The bail bond and surety bond of the
accused stands cancelled.
The office is hereby directed to
supply the copy of this Judgment to the
accused on free of cost.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.