Bangalore District Court
Ravi K M vs Philomena Vatsala Joseph on 28 November, 2024
CC.No.21339/2018
KABC030576452018
Presented on : 04-08-2018
Registered on : 04-08-2018
Decided on : 28-11-2024
Duration : 6 years, 3 months, 24 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 28th day of November 2024
Present: Smt.Tejaswini K.M., B.A.L.LL.M,
XVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
CC. No.21339/2018
Sri.Ravi K.M
S/o K.S.Marishetty
Aged about 43 years
No.37, 2nd Cross,
Mini Gandhinagara,
Kengeri Upanagara,
Bangalore - 560060.
....Complainant
(By Sri.Chandrashekara.K Advocate)
Versus
2 C.C .21339/2018
Mrs.Philomena Vatsala Joseph
W/o Ravikumar
No.17/B, Ahamed Sait Road,
Frazer Town,
Bangalore - 560005.
.... Accused
(By Sri .M.K.G, Advocate)
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Date of commencement
of evidence : 25.08.2018
Date of closing evidence : 01.10.2024
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
JUDGMENT
This case is registered against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3 C.C .21339/2018
2. Factual matrix of the complainant's case is as under:
The complainant and the accused are known to each other from past several years. The accused had approached the complainant for financial assistance for meeting domestic requirements and taken a loan of Rs.10 lakhs by way of cash from the complainant on 10.01.2018. Towards discharge of legally enforceable debt, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.041523 dated 14.03.2018 for Rs.10,00,000/-, drawn on Vijaya Bank, Cunningham Road Branch, Bangalore in favour of the complainant. The complainant has presented the cheque through his banker i.e. State Bank of India, Jayanagar IV Block Branch, Bangalore. But, it got dishonoured for the reason 'Funds Insufficient' on 20.03.2018. Thereafter, the complainant has issued legal notice to the accused on 14.06.2018 calling upon the accused to make payment of 4 C.C .21339/2018 the cheque amount and it has been served to the accused on 15.06.2017. However, the accused has not paid the loan amount. Hence the complainant has constrained to file the present complaint.
3. After receiving the complaint, this court has meticulously gone through the documents and affidavit filed along with it and then took cognizance of the offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered for registration of the compliant as P.C.R.
4. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and marked 10 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-10. As there were sufficient materials to constitute the offence, this court has proceeded to pass an order for issuing process against the accused.
5. In pursuance of summons, accused has appeared through her counsel and applied for bail. She was 5 C.C .21339/2018 enlarged on bail. Then the substance of accusation was read over to the accused in the language known to her, for which she pleaded not guilty.
6. As per the direction of Hon'ble supreme court in "Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others reported in (2014)(5) SCC 590, this court treated the sworn statement of the complainant as complainant evidence and posted matter for cross-examination of PW.1. PW.1 also examined one witness i.e. M.Balan as PW.2. The counsel for the accused has fully cross- examined PW.1 & P.W.2. Thereafter the complainant closed his side of evidence.
7. The statement of accused as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded vide dated 15.04.2024 and the incriminating evidence as such forthcoming against the accused in the evidence of 6 C.C .21339/2018 PW.1 and the documents has been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to her.
8. In order to substantiate her defense, the accused got himself examined as DW.1. DW. 1 was subjected for cross-examination by the learned counsel for the complainant. During the cross-examination of DW.1 Ex.P11 letter, Ex.P12 original cheque and P13 bank memo were marked by way of confrontation.
9. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the side. The learned counsel for accused has filed memo with citations. I have carefully perused the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record and also gone through the principles laid down in the cited decisions.
10. Points that arise for my consideration are as under:
7 C.C .21339/2018
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused towards discharge of her liability issued a cheque bearing No.041523 dated 14.03.2018 for Rs.10,00,000/-, drawn on Vijaya Bank, Cunningham Road Branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant, on presentation of the same for encashment, it was dishonored for "Funds Insufficient" in the account maintained by the accused, then in-spite of issuing demand notice to the Accused and in complying with statutory requirement under Negotiable Instrument Act, Accused did not repay the cheque amount, thereby she has committed an offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What Order?
11. My Answer to above points are as under:-
Point No.I :- In the Affirmative,
Point No.II :- As per the final order for
the following....
8 C.C .21339/2018
REASONS
12. POINT NO.I:- It is the case of the complainant that he acquainted with the accused through common friend Mr.Ballan. The accused has sought loan of Rs.10 lakhs and the complainant has paid Rs.10 lakhs to accused on 10.01.2018. In discharge of the said liability the accused has issued cheque in question for Rs.10 lakhs and it got dishonoured for the reason 'Funds insufficient'. Despite of giving notice the accused has not repaid the amount. Hence the present complaint.
13. To substantiate his case the complainant stepped into witness box and got examined as PW.1. He has got marked Ex.P1 to P13. He has produced a cheque issued by accused and the same is marked as Ex.P-1, the signature of the accused is marked as Ex.P-1(a), copies of bank memos are marked as Ex.P-2 & P3, copy of demand 9 C.C .21339/2018 notice dated: 14.06.2018 is marked as Ex.P-4, copy of the Postal Receipt is marked as Ex.P-5, copy of postal acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P6, copy of reply notice is marked as Ex.P7, Ex.P8 is the complaint and Ex.P 9& 10 are bank statements.
14. Defense of the accused is as follows:
(1) The complainant is stranger to her. (2) she has borrowed a loan of Rs.2 lakhs from one Mr Balan who was working as driver when the accused was working in KSIIDC.
(3) Towards security to the said loan, she has issued cheque at Ex.P1 to Mr Balan and same has been misused and false case has been filed against her.
(4) The complainant has no financial capacity to lend said amount.10 C.C .21339/2018
(5) The cheque at Ex.P1 is non CTS cheque and it is invalid and it cannot be given in the year 2018. Therefore, for the loan transaction with the Balan, it is given in the year 2012 and despite of repayment of the loan ,in the year 2013, Mr Balan has failed to return the said cheque, it is misused and this case is filed.
(6) The complainant is a retired Government Employee, she had got retirement benefits in the year 2012, her both sons are working in abroad. She has a own house, as such her financial capacity is stable and she was not in need of taking any loan from the complainant as alleged.
On these grounds, accused prays to acquit her.
15. I have carefully gone through the evidence. The complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint in his evidence affidavit. The counsel for the accused has 11 C.C .21339/2018 cross-examined the complainant at length. PW.1 has deposed that he met with the accused on 10.01.2018 in the basement of her office building and thereafter, he frequently met her. She used to take hand loans of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.15,000/- from him and also returned it. He denied that after the accused got retirement, she has no financial transaction with him. He pleaded ignorance to the suggestion that in the year 2012 she got retired and she had got more than Rs.50 lakhs as retirement benefits. He pleaded ignorance to the suggestion that after retirement there was no occasion for the accused to go her office. He has denied that he has not given loan of Rs.10 lakhs to the accused and cheque at Ex.P1 is not given to him. He pleaded ignorance to the suggestion that accused borrowed loan of Rs.2 lakhs from Mr Balan and given a cheque towards security to the said loan, Mr Balan has not returned the said cheque to her. He pleaded 12 C.C .21339/2018 ignorance about the suggetions that both the children of accused work as engineers. He denied that at the instigation of Mr Balan he has filed false case.
16. The complainant has also examined the witness i.e. Mr Balan S/o Muniswamy and he has deposed that he knows the accused, she was his colleague. The accused and the complainant known to each other through him. He deposed that complainant has given loan of Rs.10 lakhs by way of cash to the accused on 10.01.2018.
17. The counsel for the accused has cross examined him. In the cross-examination, PW.2 has deposed that accused has taken loan from him several times and returned it. He has deposed that when the accused sought loan of huge amount, he had no such money, as such he asked the accused to meet the complainant. Pw2 has deposed that he has given loan of Rs.4,75,000/- to the accused and in discharge of the said loan, she has given a 13 C.C .21339/2018 cheque and it got dishonoured and he still has that bounced cheque. He has furtehr deposed that from his office colleagues, the accused has borrowed many loans.
18. On the other hand, the accused stepped into witness box and deposed that she had a house worth of Rs.3 crores. She got retired as General Assistant Manager in KSIIDC in October 2012. That time she had got Rs.69 lakhs as retirement benefits. Her husband died in the year 2021. He was a software engineer and he was earning Rs.2,50,000/- per month. Her both sons are software engineers residing at USA and France. She had never financial constrains. If she wanted money, her sons were sending the money. She does not know the complainant, never borrowed loan of Rs.10 lakhs from him and not issued cheque at Ex.P1 to him. In her office there was a driver by name Balan and she has taken loan of Rs.2 lakhs from him, that time, she had given Ex.P1 & 14 C.C .21339/2018 P2 to Balan towards security. She has repaid Rs.2 lakhs to Balan, but he failed to return the cheque. She has given reply to the demand notice of the complainant. She never been to her office, after she got retired. Hence prays to acquit her.
19. During cross-examination of DW.1 , she admits that the cheque at Ex.P1 belongs to her account and Ex.P1(a) is her signature. She denied that she has been removed from the service in her department. She has deposed that she has not taken any action against Mr Balan for not returning her cheques. She denies that there are several cheque bounce cases against her and deposed that 2 to 3 cases are filed. She admits that as per Ex.P10, she got compulsory retirement from her department. She deposed that she has not produced any document to show that she got Rs.69 lakhs after she got retired. She denied that both her sons are not sending 15 C.C .21339/2018 money to her. She denied that complainant has given Rs.10 lakhs loan to her. She denied that the cheque given to Balan for Rs.5 lakhs has been dishonoured and it is still with Balan. She admits the cheque dated 15.05.2018 belongs to her account and it bears her signature, as such it is marked as Ex.P12. She denied that she has given Ex.P12 cheque to Balan and it has been dishonoured.
20. It is pertinent to note here that the complainant has produced Ex.P1 cheque dated 14.03.2018. During cross-examination the accused has admitted that cheque at Ex.P1 belongs to her Vijaya Bank Account and Ex.P1(a) is her signature. Therefore, it is proved that the cheque belongs to the accused and it bears her signature.
21. It is also profitable to refer judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Rasiya vs. Abdul Nazer and another 16 C.C .21339/2018 reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1131, wherein it has been observed and held that:-
" Once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant that the cheque was issued by the accused and signature of accused on the cheque is not disputed, then in that case the onus will shift upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not for discharge of any debt or other liability. The presumption under Sec 139of N.I. Act is statutory presumption and thereafter, once it is presumed that the cheque is issued in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which is in favour of the complainant/holder of the cheque that case it is for the accused to prove the contrary."
22. In view of the principles enunciated in the aforementioned judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is evident that when once issuance of cheque with signature of accused on the account maintained by him is admitted or proved then statutory presumption in terms of Sec 118 and 139 of N.I. Act will have to be drawn. However it is rebuttal presumption. The cheque has been presented within stipulated time as per Ex.P2 & 3 and it got 17 C.C .21339/2018 dishonoured for the reason 'Funds Insufficient'. The cheque has been presented twice to the bank as per Ex.P2 & 3 memos and again the cheque has been dishonoured for the same reason i.e. 'Funds Insufficient'.
23. The accused contends that the complainant is stranger to her and the cheque in question has been given to one Mr.Balan towards security to the loan obtained by him to an extent of Rs.2 lakhs. During cross- examination of PW.1 the said defense has been suggested and same is denied by PW.1. In the entire evidence of DW.1 no such contention has been taken that" 2 cheques"
given to Mr.Balan towards security to the loan of Rs.2 lakhs.
24. Interestingly, the complainant has examined Mr.Balan as PW.2 and he has deposed that in his presence the complainant has given Rs.10 lakhs to the accused on 10.01.2018. He deposed that accused has taken loans on 18 C.C .21339/2018 different occasions from him, as well from various persons and once he has given loan of Rs.4,75,000/- and in repayment of the same, the accused has given cheque for Rs.5 lakhs, but it got dishonoured.
25. The counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that PW.2 has deposed that accused has sought loan of Rs.3 lakhs, he has given Rs.4,75,000/- and in repayment of the same cheque for Rs.5 lakhs was alleged to be given by the accused. Hence it is argued that When the accused has asked loan of Rs.3 lakhs, why PW.2 lent Rs.4,75,000/- is not forthcoming as such the evidence of PW.2 is not trustworthy.
26. It is material to note here that PW.2 has been examined by the complainant to show that the cheque given to PW.2 Mr.Balan is different from the cheque given to the complainant. Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 shall be restricted to see in the context of the defense of the 19 C.C .21339/2018 accused. What is the extent of loan asked by the accused to Mr.Balan, what amount was given by him is out of the scope of this case. Thus inconsistent evidence of PW2 pertaining to amount sought to him and given is of no concern to this case.
27. Indeed the accused has admitted that she has taken Rs.2 lakhs from Mr.Balan. DW.1 in her chief- examination has specifically deposed that Ex.P1 cheque was given to Mr.Balan towards security. But Mr.Balan has produced the cheque given by the accused to him and same is marked at Ex.P12. As stated above, the accused never contended that she has given 2 cheques to Mr.Balan towards security. When Mr.Balan has appeared before the Court and given evidence and also produced the cheque given to him by the accused at Ex.P12, it is so apparent that Ex.P1 cheque cannot be the cheque given to Mr.Balan. Both cheques are different. Therefore, the 20 C.C .21339/2018 first three defense of the accused that Ex.P1 cheque was given towards security to the loan taken by Mr.Balan is disproved.
28. The counsel for the accused has asked various questions in cross examination regarding the occupation of complainant and his acquaintance with the accused, disputed the financial capacity of the complainant to lend the loan of Rs.10 lakhs to accused. PW.1 was deposed that he has met the accused several times in past 8 years and she used to get loan of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.15,000/- likewise from him and repaid them. To corroborate the said fact the complainant has examined Mr.Balan and he has also deposed that through him, complainant got to know the accused. Nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 to suspect the acquaintance of complainant with the accused.
21 C.C .21339/2018
29. The complainant has produced bank account statement at Ex.P9 & P10 and on perusal of the same it is evident that on 10.01.2018 he has withdrawn Rs.10 lakhs. His account statement proves that during the relevant period, the complainant had an amount of Rs.10 lakhs in his account. Therefore, by producing Ex.P9 & P10 the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had financial capacity to lend loan of Rs.10 lakhs to the accused. The presumption given U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act ie existence of legally enforceable debt and in discharge of the same, cheque has been issued by the accused coupled with documentary evidence at ExP9 and 10, the complainant has proved that he has financial stability to lend loan and he has given loan to the accused. Therefore, the burden lies on the accused to rebut the said evidence. The complainant has deposed that he has given Rs.10 alkhs by way of cash to the accused. He has 22 C.C .21339/2018 also examined PW.2 in support of his case and PW2 also deposed consistently with the case of the complainant that the complainant has lent loan to the accused. Therefore, the fourth defense of the accused that the complainant has no financial capacity or not given loan to the accused is not proved. Mere denying that she has not taken loan from the complainant is not suffice to believe the defense and disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant.
30. The counsel for the accused has argued that PW1 has deposed that he has shown the loan transaction in his income tax returns at one stretch and at another stretch he has deposed that he has not shown the said loan transaction in his income tax returns. Therefore, contrary evidence of PW.1 shows that he has not lent the amount. It is significant to note here that by producing the account statements at Ex.P9 & P10, the complainant 23 C.C .21339/2018 has proved his financial capacity. Whether the complainant has shown the loan transaction in the income tax returns or not is not so relevant to the present case and even if it is not shown in the income tax returns by the complainant, it will not exonerate the accused from proving her defense.
31. In Sri C.N.Dinesha V Smt.C.G.Mallika reported in 2017 CrR.530(Kant) it is observed that "The culpability of offence under Section 138 of the Act will not freeze for the reason of violation of Section 269SS of the I.T. Act and nothing prevents the operation of the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 If the complainant has not paid the income tax and not If the complainant has not paid the income tax and not produced the tax returns that would not exempt liability of the accused.
24 C.C .21339/2018
32. Bir Singh v Mukesh Kumar reported in ((2019) 4 SCC 197), Apex court has held that The fact that the appellant-complainant might have been an Income Tax practitioner conversant with knowledge of law does not make any difference to the law relating to the dishonour of a cheque. The fact that the loan may not have been advanced by a cheque or demand draft or a receipt might not have been obtained would make no difference.
33. Therefore, non furnishing of income tax returns is of no consequence as the presumption raised in favour of the complainant is not at all rebutted by the accused. Therefore, such defense of the accused holds no water.
34. Further the accused counsel has argued that accused got retired in the year 2012 and thereafter, she has never been to her office. Therefore, the evidence of the complainant that he has met the accused in the 25 C.C .21339/2018 basement of the office of the accused is false. It is significant to note here that the accused might have got retired in the year 2012. But the contention that there was no occasion for her to got to her office after retirement cannot be accepted. Such line of defense appears to be too vague.
35. It is noticed that accused has admitted that she has received the demand notice of the complainant and she has also given reply to the said demand notice as per Ex.P7. Therefore, the moment she has received the legal notice, she got to know that her cheque has been presented by the complainant to the bank. Interestingly in the present case, the cheque has been presented to the bank twice as per Ex.P2 and P3 bank memos. When the cheque got dishonoured for the first time , accused might have received SMS from the bank, about the presentment of the cheque and even during second time presentment 26 C.C .21339/2018 also she might have received SMS. The accused is a well educated lady who got retired as "General Assistant Manager in the KSIIDC". Therefore, she had all opportunity to take immediate steps against the complainant for misusing her cheque, if at all her cheque which was given to Mr Balan has been misused by the complainant. Even the accused has not taken any action against Mr.Balan so far, for not returning her signed cheque.
36. In her evidence the accused has deposed that in the year 2012 she has taken Rs.2 lakhs from Mr.Balan and repaid it in the year 2013 itself. Being educated working woman, she could have shown normal prudence of taking action to seek back her signed cheque, which is alleged to be given as the security to Mr Balan, from 2012 till filing of the case. No legal action has been taken against Mr.Balan. Neither given complaint against him nor given 27 C.C .21339/2018 notice to him seeking her cheque back. Such inaction of the accused from the year 2012 to 2018 creates suspicion about the defense. Mere taking bald contention that she has asked to Mr.Balan to return her cheque, but he has not returned it cannot be accepted, for want of evidence. Therefore fourth defence that she has given a cheque to Mr Balan as security is not proved.
37. The accused has contended that she is financially very stable, as such there was no occasion for her to seek loan from the complainant. Though she has deposed that she had received Rs.69 lakhs in the year 2012, as retirement benefits, she as not produced any iota of evidence before the Court to prove the same. Infact, her admission that before 2 months, she got retired, she has availed loan of Rs.2 lakhs from Mr.Balan, shows that she was in need of money, during that time and her admission that other cheque bounce cases pending 28 C.C .21339/2018 against her also corroborates that her financial condition was not so good. If she had such sound financial status , what was need for her to take loan of Rs 2lakhs from MR Balan,( as per her own version )is a point be considered by the court.
38. Though she has orally deposed that her sons are software engineers working at abroad, no proof is produced to prove the same and also not produced any iota of evidence to show that they were sending money to her during 2018. All her defense regarding her financial status is not at all established through documentary evidence. Therefore, self serving oral evidence of accused, in this regard does not transpires the confidence of the Court.
39. Yet another ground of attack of the accused is that the cheque at Ex.P1 is non CTS cheque and it is invalid and it cannot be given in the year 2018. Therefore, 29 C.C .21339/2018 for the loan transaction with the Balan, it is given in the year 2012 and despite of repayment of the loan ,in the year 2013, Mr Balan has failed to return the said cheque, it is misused and this case is filed.
40. It is materiel to note here that cheque is non CTS cheque. But is not dishonourd for the said reason. It has been dishonoured for the reason funds insufficient. The counsel for the complainant has brought to the notice of the court that RBI directed all the banks to withdraw non- CTS cheques in circulation to replace them with CTS 2010 of standard cheques on 03.09.2012. RBI issued a notification dated 18.03.2013, stating that all residual non- CTS cheques with customers would continue to be valid and accepted for some more period. Non-CTS cheques have not become invalid. The non-CTS cheques were discontinued w.e.f. December 31, 2018. The banks have been advised to withdraw all non-CTS cheques from 30 C.C .21339/2018 customers, however, they remain valid as negotiable instruments. The plea that a valid cheque was not presented is not acceptable.
41. In this case, the cheque in question was issued to the complainant and it was presented for payment the cheque was dishonoured as it funds insufficient and the cheque was not returned by the banker stating that the cheque was not a CTS cheque. There is no restriction by the RBI restricting the use of non-CTS cheque when it was presented on 20/3/2018 and 16/5/2018 as per Exp2 and 3 ie bank memos. . Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused is untenable .
42. Therefore, this Court of the firm view that the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of PW1 to disprove the case of the complainant. The accused has failed to probablize the defense with cogent 31 C.C .21339/2018 evidence. Accordingly court proceed to answer POINT NO.I IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
43. POINT NO.II:- In view of the reasons assigned in above point, it is ample clear that accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act. A bare reading of sec.138 of the NI Act indicates that the purport of sec.138 is to prevent and punish the dishonest drawers of cheques who evade their liability. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent decision in M/s. Meters & instrument Pvt Ltd. Vs. Kanchana Mehta reported in (2018)1 SCC-560 held at para 18(ii) that"(ii) The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found". In view of the reasons 32 C.C .21339/2018 assigned in above point, it is ample clear that accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act.
44. Therefore, having regard to the amount advanced, time from which it is lying with the accused, and keeping in mind the primary object of the provision, this court is of the opinion that, rather than imposing punitive sentence, if sentence of fine is imposed with a direction to compensate the complainant for its monitory loss, by awarding compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C, would meet the ends of justice.
45. Thus the accused is directed to pay fine of Rs.14,10,000/- and out of that amount Rs.14,00,000/- is ordered to be paid be complainant as compensation U/s.357 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass following .....
33 C.C .21339/2018
paid be complainant as compensation U/s.357 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass following .....
ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.14,10,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Ten Thousand Only), in default of fine amount, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for Six Months for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
Out of the fine amount collected from the accused, an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining fine of Rs.10,000/- shall be adjusted towards the cost of state expenses. 34 C.C .21339/2018
The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force till the appeal period is over as contemplated under the provisions of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
Office to supply the copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment pronounced in the open court on this the 28 th day of November 2024).
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M), XVI ACJM, Bengaluru ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1: Ravi K.M II. List of documents on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P-1 : Original Cheques. Ex.P-1(a) : Signatures of the accused Ex.P-2 & 3 : Bank memos. Ex.P-4 : Legal notice. 35 C.C .21339/2018 Ex.P-5 : Postal receipt. Ex.P-6 : Postal Acknowledgment. Ex.P-7 : Reply Notice. Ex.P-8 : Complaint.
Ex.P-9 & 10 : Bank Statements. III. List of witnesses for the accused:
D.W.1: Mrs.Philomena Vatsala Joseph IV. List of documents for accused:
Nil (Smt.Tejaswini K.M ), XVI ACJM, Bengaluru 36 C.C .21339/2018 28.11.2024 (Judgment pronounced in the open Court vide separate Order) ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.14,10,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Ten Thousand Only), in default of fine amount, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for Six Months for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
Out of the fine amount collected from the accused, an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs only) shall be paid 37 C.C .21339/2018 to the complainant as compensation U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining fine of Rs.10,000/- shall be adjusted towards the cost of state expenses.
The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force till the appeal period is over as contemplated under the provisions of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
Office to supply the copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith at free of cost.
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru