Bangalore District Court
Nagaraju.N.S vs Byresh.M on 24 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 24th day of January - 2020
PRESENT: SRI. SHRIDHARA.M, B.A., LL.M.,
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.14131/2017
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : Nagaraju.N.S,
S/o.Late.Sanjeeva Shetty,
Aged about years,
R/at No.15, 4th Cross,
Hosahally, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru-40.
(Rep. by Sri.C.H.Ramesh, Adv.)
V/S
Accused : Byresh.M,
S/o.S.M.Mallaiah,
Aged about years,
Kala Byreswaranilaya,
No.2044, 4th Cross, Prashanth Nagar,
Ward No.104, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru-40.
(Rep.by Sri.C.S.Srinivas, 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 : 24.01.2020.
(SHRIDHARA.M)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
Judgment 2 C.C.No.14131/2017
JUDGMENT
The complainant has presented the instant complaint against the accused on 25.02.2016 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for dishonour of cheque of Rs.3,75,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case is as follows:
The complainant and accused are knew to each other since six years. Keeping such acquaintance, the accused approached the complainant in the 1st week of September, 2014, for hand loan of Rs.3,75,000/-, as the accused was badly needed money for tour domestic and urgent family necessities and he assured to repay the same within six months without fail. As per the request of accused, the complainant had paid sum of Rs.3,75,000/- to the accused by way of cash on 20.09.2014.
The complainant has further alleged that, after lapse of six months, the accused as agreed not paid the hand loan, hence, in the month of April, 2015, the complainant had requested him to repay the same and after several requested and demanded, he sought another six months time for repayment of the hand loan and complainant had agreed for the same and wait for another six months time for repayment.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.14131/2017 The complainant has further contended that, after lapse of another agreed 6 months time also, the accused did not come forward to repay the said hand loan, hence; once again during the 1st week of October, 2015, the complainant had requested the accused to make repayment of the hand loan. Even after several requests and demanded made by him, instead of repay the loan amount, he had sought another two months time for repayment and got issued a post dated cheque bearing No.854318 dated:17.12.2015 for sum of Rs.3,75,000/-, drawn on Indian Bank, Prashanth Nagar Branch, Bengaluru-79. The accused had requested the complainant to present on the date of cheque and he would maintain sufficient funds in his account. When the complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker viz., Janatha Seva Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru, on the date of presentation, the said cheque came to be returned as per memo dated:22.12.2015 by stating "Signature Differs". Thereafter, the complainant had issued legal notice through his counsel to the accused by R.P.A.D. The acknowledgment has neither received by the complainant nor returned the R.P.A.D cover. As, the accused not paid money covered under the cheque. Thereby, he committed Judgment 4 C.C.No.14131/2017 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 the 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 P6. To prove his case, the complainant has also choosen to examined one witness by name Suggarajaiah as PW.1. The PW.1 and PW.2 were subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the accused.
6. Thereafter, incriminating evidence made against the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied the same and the answer given by him was recorded. In support of the defence, the accused himself was Judgment 5 C.C.No.14131/2017 examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 and D5 and also subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the complainant.
7. I have heard the arguments of both side counsels.
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.3,75,000/- on 20.09.2014 as hand loan to the accused, and in turn, for discharge of legal recoverable debt, the accused issued the Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.854318, dated:17.12.2015 for sum of Rs.3,75,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Prashanthnagar Branch, Bengaluru?
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:
Judgment 6 C.C.No.14131/2017
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 P6, they are:
a) Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.854318 issued by the accused for sum of Rs.3,75,000/-
dated:17.12.2015, drawn on Indian Bank, Prasanth Nagar Branch, Bengaluru.
b) Ex.P1(a) is the alleged signature of accused.
c) Ex.P2 is the Bank Memo dated:22.12.2015.
d) Ex.P3 is the Legal Notice dated:20.01.2016.
e) Ex.P4 is the Postal receipt.
f) Ex.P5 is the complaint lodged by the complainant counsel before the Post Master, regarding report of delivery of notice sent by R.P.A.D and
g) Ex.P6 is the detailed track events.
11. In order to prove his case, the complainant got choosen to examined one witness by name Suggarajaiah as PW.2. The PW.1 and PW.2 were subjected to the cross-examination by the advocate for the accused.
Judgment 7 C.C.No.14131/2017
12. In order to prove the defence of the accused, he himself choosen examined as DW.1 and produced the documents at Exs.D1 to D5. They are:
a) Ex.D1 is the certified copy of police complaint dated:17.10.2012 lodged by accused before the Police Inspector of Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru.
b) Ex.D2 is the certified copy of endorsement issued by Kamakshipalya Police Station.
c) Ex.D3 is the sworn affidavit dated:17.10.2012 pertaining to the accused herein and
d) Exs.D4 and D5 are the computer generated copies of case status pertaining to CC No.1200/2014 and 3454/2014.
The DW.1 was subjected to the cross-examination by the advocate for the complainant. Apart from lead defence evidence, the DW.1 through his counsel has produced the citations and relied upon same. They are:
a) 2015 (2) KCCR 1666
b) 2016 (4) KCCR 2891
c) 2016 (5) KCCR 1341
d) Crl.A.No.574/2010
e) Crl. A.No.200095/2018
13. While appreciate the materials on records and evidence, this court has gone through the decisions stated supra apart from the other decisions.
Judgment 8 C.C.No.14131/2017
14. After cross-examination of PW.1, the incriminating evidence made against the accused emerged from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 were read over and explained to him as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., then the accused has stated that, during October, 2012, when he went to public toilet at Kamakshipalya, he lost his Indian Bank and ICICI Bank cheques and also cheques of his father along with Pan Card, LIC Bond, Identity Card and Mobile. In that regard, he lodged complaint to the Kamakshipalya Police Station. The accused had not borrowed loan from the complainant nor issued questioned cheque to him and the PW.2 has deposed falsely. In order to prove his probable defence, the accused himself entered into witness box and orally examined as DW.1. In his evidence, the DW.1 has deposed that, the complainant not known to him and after mark his appearance in the present case, he 1st time saw the complainant herein and not did any monetary transaction with him. Specifically denied the alleged borrowing of loan of Rs.3,75,000/- from the complainant and not issued questioned cheque for its repayment. The accused admitted that, questioned cheque at Ex.P1 is of him, but denied the signature at Ex.P1(a), stating not of him and also stated, the hand writing found in the cheque is not of him and he used to sign as Byresh.M. Judgment 9 C.C.No.14131/2017
15. The accused has further contended that, on 17.10.2012 in order to purchase the chemical, he kept his ICICI Bank cheque book and cheques belongs to his father, Pan Card, Voters I.D, Card, LIC Bond, his Indian Bank Cheque as well as Nokia Super Nova Mobile in a bag, he went to public toilet at Kamakshipalya, by that time, he kept the said bag on the table and went inside. After return, he say his back with the above said documents were not there. Hence, he lodged complaint before the Kamakshipalya Police Station and to that effect, produced the copy of complaint, acknowledgment and affidavit submitted to the Police Station at Exs.D1 to D3.
16. The accused has also alleged that, against him, one Suggarajaiah - PW.2 herein, through one B.K.Krishna had filed cheque bounce case for Rs.2 lakhs before the Hon'ble 16th ACMM Court, Bengaluru. That apart, also filed another cheque bounce case for Rs.2 lakhs before the Anekal Court through one Singrigowda and he got acquitted. In connection to those proceedings, he had produced the documents obtained through CIS entry at Exs.D5 and D5. The accused specifically contended that, Suggarajaiah by misused the lost cheque in a bad and filed the cases through complainant, Singrigowda and Krishnegowa falsely. The questioned cheque belongs to H.S.Enterprises of Judgment 10 C.C.No.14131/2017 him. The accused earned Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per day by way of sell phenoyal business. The complainant deposed falsely that, at the recommendation of PW.2-Suggarajaiah, complainant gave loan to the accused. The cheque bounce notice is not served on him. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the case. The DW.1 was subjected for cross-examination.
17. On going through the rival contentions of the parties, the fact that, the name and address of the complainant and accused as made mentioned in the legal notice as well as cause title of the complaint is not in dispute. The fact that, the questioned cheque belongs to the accused is not in dispute. The fact that, Singrigowda and Krishnegowda also filed separate cheque bounce cases for Rs.2 lakhs each against the accused herein, as found in Exs.D4 and D5 is not in dispute. The fact that, regarding lost of cheques and other documents, the accused lodged complaint before the Police Inspector of Kamakshipalya Police Station, as found in Exs.D1 to D3 prior to 17.10.2012 is not in dispute.
18. No doubt, the complainant had filed the present case based on the questioned cheque. Therefore, the initial statutory presumption has to be drawn in favour of complainant that, the Judgment 11 C.C.No.14131/2017 accused for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt got issued the questioned cheque unless and until contrary prove.
19. In this case, the accused strongly attack on the claim of complainant by alleged that, by misusing the lost cheque, the PW.2 filed false case through unknown complainant against accused. The accused by alleged that, borrowed loan of Rs.3,75,000/- and got issued the questioned cheque for repayment and infact, he claimed not borrowed the alleged loan nor issued questioned cheque, but through complainant, the PW.2 had filed the false case. Therefore, it made clear that, it is the initial burden on the accused as per Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, to prove the probable defence. If at all, he is successful in proving his probable defence, then it will be reverse burden on the complainant to prove the alleged loan transaction. Therefore, it is initial burden; the accused has to prove his probable defence.
20. In this case, the complainant has alleged that, he lent loan of Rs.3,75,000/- to the accused during 1st week of September, 2014. Directly as he approached him, for the purpose of meet out his badly needed money for tour domestic and urgent family necessity. Therefore, it made clear that, complainant projected Judgment 12 C.C.No.14131/2017 the case by contending lent loan during 1st week of September, 2014. Whereas, the accused has specifically taken up the defence that, he does not know the complainant and not borrowed any loan nor issued questioned cheque for discharge of any liability, but it was lost on 17.10.2012, when he went to public toilet at Kamakshipalya, the said cheque including other documents were lost, which was kept on the table of the said public toilet. Hence, as per Ex.D1, he lodged complaint and police have gave endorsement at Ex.D2, to that effect, he submitted affidavit to the Police Station as per Ex.D3. The accused not only taken up the oral say, but relied upon the documents at Exs.D1 to D3.
21. On meticulous perusal of the Ex.D1 as well as evidence of DW.1, it made clear that, the accused has contended, on 17.10.2012 itself the accused along with other documents were lost. Therefore, the said date of event is very much vital, as the same attack on the claim of complainant, as to the alleged lent of loan during 1st week of September, 2014 and during 1st week of October, 2015, accused got issued questioned post dated 17.12.2015 cheque of him for discharge of loan of Rs.3,75,000/-. The Ex.D1 is the copy of complaint endorsed by the police officials of Kamaksihpalya Police Station, on the very date of Judgment 13 C.C.No.14131/2017 lodging of complaint dated:17.10.2012. Not only endorsed as to receipt of complaint, but also they gave endorsement at Ex.D2, which is certified copy is been produced by the accused, which also reveal the date:17.10.2012. Wherein also mentioning of lost of mobile, cheques pertaining to Indian Bank and ICICI Bank, so also cheque of the father of accused with other documents have been mentioned as lost. Therefore, Exs.D1 and D2 are the vital document, which proves the contention of accused that, on 17.10.2012 itself the questioned cheque were lost stands proved and thereby rebutted the statutory presumption as well as the very case put forth by the complainant, as to the alleged lent of loan including issuance of questioned cheque for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt. The Ex.D3 - Affidavit copy submitted on 17.10.2012 also discloses, the accused has declared about lost of cheques and other documents. Therefore, Exs.D1 to D3 are the prima facie documents pertaining to undisputed point of time clearly manifest probable defence of the accused that, including questioned cheque bearing No.854318 pertaining to the account of Indian Bank got lost. Including lost of Indian Bank cheque could have been made mentioned in the Exs.D1 to D3. Therefore, the said document is the prima facie document are corroborates the probable defence of the accused, Judgment 14 C.C.No.14131/2017 as to lost of the questioned cheque. Under such circumstances, the accused gave questioned post dated 17.12.2015 cheque during 1st week of October, 2015 itself created doubt.
22. The accused strongly stated that, by misusing those lost cheques, the PW.2-Suggarajaiah got filed the present case as well as separate cases through Singrigowda and Krishna.B.K as per Ex.D4 and D5 before the Anekal Court and 16th ACMM Court, Bengaluru for dishonour of cheque of Rs.2 lakhs each. On going through the case status, as found in Exs.D4 and D5, it made clear that, the accused on contest got acquitted. Therefore, the serious allegation made against the PW.2 and complainant is to be rebutted by the complainant, as it attacks the very claim of complainant and created reverse burden on the complainant. The accused also subjected for cross-examination. During the cross- examination, the DW.1 has withstood his contention, as to the lost of questioned cheque and other cheques as mentioned in the complaint at Ex.D1. The DW.1 has denied the borrowing loan of Rs.3,75,000/- from the complainant during 1st week of September, 2014. Even, he withstood his contention stating, he does not know the complainant, but rarely at once he met him. But he denied the suggestion of borrowed loan from complainant. To the DW.1, it also made suggestion that:
Judgment 15 C.C.No.14131/2017 "¦AiÀiÁ𢠧½ gÀÆ.3,75,000/- ªÀ£ÀÄß 2014 gÀ ¸É¥ÉÖA§gï wAUÀ¼À ªÉÆzÀ® ªÁgÀzÀ°è ¸Á®ªÁV ¥ÀqÉ¢zÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ DvÀ AiÀiÁgÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀÄUÀÎgÁdÄ J¯ÉÆèà MªÉÄä ªÀÄzÀsåzÀ°è ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĪÁzÀ £É£À¥ÀÅ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀÄUÀÎgÁdÄ §½ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß PÉýzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀÄUÀÎgÁdÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß §½ ºÀt E®è, ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀjAzÀ ¸ÁzÀsåªÁzÀgÉ PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀÄUÀÎgÁdÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ gÀÆ.3,75,000/- ªÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ¸Á®ªÁV PÉÆr¹zÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÀÄUÀÎgÁdÄ, ¦AiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ ¥ÀjavÀjzÀÄÝ, ¦AiÀiÁð¢ PÀÆqÀ £À£Àß ¸ÉßûvÀ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. DzÀgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ, ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÁPÀëå £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
23. On going through the above said testimony of DW.1, he clearly denied the alleged borrowing of loan and knowingness of the complainant, but volunteers that, once he introduced. The said suggestion made to DW.1 also reveal that, the accused asked the loan with Suggarajaiah, who is none other than PW.2, he told him that, he had no money and assured to arrange loan through someone else, accordingly, PW.2 asked the complainant to pay loan of Rs.3,75,000/- to the accused and accordingly, complainant at the instance of PW.2 got paid the alleged loan is been denied by the DW.1. The DW.1 also denied that, PW.2, Judgment 16 C.C.No.14131/2017 complainant are known to accused and complainant is the friend of accused, the said suggestion was clearly denied by the accused. By way of making suggestion, the complainant as against his own pleading, has put forth the contention that, the accused not directly asked loan, but through PW.2 asked the loan and at his instance, complainant got paid the loan amount. The said suggestion goes against the pleading as well as the evidence of PW.1. Therefore, it made clear that, the role of PW.2 can be seen during the course of cross of PW.1 and PW.2 as well as DW.1. Therefore, it made clear that, the accused not directly approaching the complainant seeking for loan, but at the say of complainant, it draw the inference that, PW.2 brought the accused with the complainant to provide loan of Rs.3,75,000/-, the same is goes against the very case of the complainant. Therefore, it clearly shake the very case of the complainant and substantiate the probable defence of the accused.
24. The accused has denied the suggestion, as to borrowing of alleged loan and got issuance of questioned cheque for discharge of loan amount and he withstood his contention. No doubt, during the course of address the arguments, the advocate for complainant has harping on the contention of the accused that, though accused has alleged that, the signature at Ex.P1(a) is not Judgment 17 C.C.No.14131/2017 of him, but he deposed in his cross-examination that, he used to sign the cheque by mentioning the initial sometimes, earlier sometimes later. Therefore, the alleged signature found at Ex.P1(a) is of the accused and he deposed falsely. The DW.1 has denied that, questioned signature is of him, as he put his initial first, as against usual signature and initial put at last and deposed falsely. No doubt, the accused himself has admitted that, sometime he used to put initial at 1st and sometimes at last. Therefore, the very contention of the accused that, his signature is forged is very difficulty to accept, as he not produced any document, as to actual in which manner he used to sign. Even, he could have produced the specimen signature, but not produce the same before this court.
25. On meticulous perusal of the Ex.D1 - complaint lodged by the very accused herein, which clearly discloses that, the accused himself has declared that, cheque pertaining to ICICI Bank and Indian Bank with signature got lost. Therefore, it made clear that, at the undisputed point of dated:17.10.2012, the accused himself admitted his signed blank cheque was lost. Therefore, now he estopped from taking the contention that, the signature at Exs.P1(a) is not of him, in view of his own contradictory statement. However, signature at Ex.P1(a) itself does not binds Judgment 18 C.C.No.14131/2017 on him to pay the amount made mentioned in the cheque, unless the complainant has to establish that, it is the existence of legally recoverable debt. The accused has successfully proved that, including the Ex.P1-questioned cheque, other cheques and documents were lost much earlier, to the alleged loan transaction, therefore, it is the reverse burden on the complainant to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
In that regard, it is just and proper to cite the decision reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 791 (John K.Abraham V/s. Simon C Abraham and another). Wherein it was pleased to held that:
"It has to be stated that in order to draw the presumption under Section 118 read along with Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden was heavily upon the complainant to have shown that he had the required funds for having advanced the money to the accused; that the issuance of the cheque in support of the said payment advanced was true and that the accused was bound to make the payment as had been agreed while issuing the cheque in favour of the complainant."
26. As per the above dictum, it is the complainant has to prove his financial capacity as well as alleged lent of loan of Judgment 19 C.C.No.14131/2017 Rs.3,75,000/- to the accused, very particularly during 1st week of September, 2014 to meet out his requirement as narrated in the complaint and for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt, after lapse of 14 months, the accused got issued present post dated cheque.
27. On meticulous perusal of the complaint and evidence of PW.1, it does not discloses, exactly on which date, the accused approached him seeking for the loan. But in his pleading, he clearly stated that, complainant and accused are known to each other since 6 years, in that acquaintance, accused approached him during 1st week of September, 2014 and he paid the loan of Rs.3,75,000/-. But as discussed earlier, the suggestion made to DW.1 and the evidence of PW.2, which discloses that, directly accused not approached the complainant, but the PW.2 brought the accused and recommended the complainant to give loan of Rs.3,75,000/-, even the evidence of PW.1 also discloses, the acquaintance of the accused that:
"DgÉÆæ 5-6 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ. DvÀ ¥Éǰøï E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄUÀÎgÁdAiÀÄå gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ. DgÉÆæ ºÀtzÀ «ZÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖAvÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĪÁVzÁÝgÉ. DgÉÆæ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÀtPÁ¸ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀĸÉå EzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄUÀÎgÁdÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉýPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ.
Judgment 20 C.C.No.14131/2017 DUÀ ¸ÀÄUÀÎgÁdÄ £À£ÀUÉ DgÉÆæUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ. CzÀPÀÆÌ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÉÝ, DzÀgÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«gÀ°®è."
28. On going through the said testimony of PW.1, he deposed that, since 5 - 6 years he knew the accused and very particularly deposes through PW.2 the farmer employee of police department. Very particularly PW.1 has deposed that, regarding money matter, the accused came to known to him. The evidence of PW.1 also discloses that, directly accused not approached the complainant, but accused in the house of PW.2 expressed his financial difficulties, at that time, PW.2 has advised the complainant to help the accused. He also deposed that, prier to that, he saw the accused, but not known to him. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 itself contradicts the very pleading of the complainant that, on one stretch he stated, since 5 - 6 years, he knew the accused. At the fag end of the cross-examination deposed that, he only saw the accused not known to him, therefore, since 6 years, as he pleaded the accused acquainted to the complainant itself is created doubt and the accused has successfully proved that, accused not known to the complainant directly.
Judgment 21 C.C.No.14131/2017
29. The said evidence of PW.1 also discloses that, the accused not directly asked loan to the complainant. But he stated that, in the house of PW.2, he asked the loan and he paid loan at the instance of PW.2. But the said averments are lacks in the complaint as well as the affidavit evidence. Therefore, it also difficult to accept the very contention of the complainant. The PW.1 in his further cross-examination has deposed that, he is an income tax assessee and not ready to produce its particulars. Very particularly the PW.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that:
"£Á£ÀÄ DzÁAiÀÄ vÉjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. D zÁR¯É ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¸À®Ä ¸ÁzÀså«®è. ¢£ÁAPÀ:20.09.2014 gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ £Á£ÀÄ gÀÆ.3,75,000/- ¸Á® PÉÆnÖzÉÝ£ÀÄ. DUÀ ¸ÀÄUÀÎgÁdÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆæUÉ, ¸ÀÄUÀÎgÁdÄ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀĪÉà PÉÆnÖzÉÝ£ÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß FªÀgÉUÀÆ w½¹®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CµÀÄÖ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀUÀzÁV DgÉÆæUÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÝ£ÀÄ. DUÀ gÀÆ.500/- ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀÆ.1000/- ªÀÄÄR¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ £ÉÆÃl£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÉÝ£ÀÄ, JµÀÄÖ PÀlÄÖUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀݪÀÅ JAzÀÄ £É£À¦®è. DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ D ¢£À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gɬĹPÉÆAr®è. D ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß §rØ gÀ»vÀªÁV ¤ÃrzÉÝ£ÀÄ."
30. On going through the said testimony of PW.1, he deposed that, he is not able to produce his income tax returns and very particularly deposes, on 20.09.2014 he gave Rs.3,75,000/- to the Judgment 22 C.C.No.14131/2017 accused at the house of PW.2 in his presence. He also clearly admitted that, those factum not discloses in the present case and stated, the denomination of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- in cash paid to him and does not remember how much bundles it was. Even, he deposed, the said money was paid without interest and without obtaining any documents. The said factum discloses, without knowing the accused, without obtaining any security documents lent the huge amount of Rs.3,75,000/- to the accused, mere because of advise of PW.2 itself created doubt, as to the involvement of complainant and PW.2 each other. No doubt, in the complaint he stated, during 1st week of September, 2014, he lent loan Rs.3,75,000/-, but contrary to the same, he deposed on 20.09.2014 paid the amount. In the 1st week of September, 2014 dated:20.09.2014, never came. Therefore, the very evidence of PW.1, as to the alleged lent of loan itself created doubt and accused successfully proved that, he not borrowed the loan. Thereby, complainant has utterly failed to prove the mobilization of cash of Rs.3,75,000/-, as on 1st week of September, 2014 and lent as loan to the accused. His own contradictory evidence, as to the alleged lent of loan being educated person itself goes against the very claim put forth by the complainant and created doubt, as Judgment 23 C.C.No.14131/2017 to the alleged lent of loan of Rs.3,75,000/- to the unknown accused.
31. No doubt, in the pleading the complainant took dual version alleging, accused approached during 1st week of September, 2014 and he paid money to accused on 20.09.2014. If at all, in the 1st week of September, 2014, accused asked him and how he mobilized the fund, why he took time of all those days is not been satisfactorily explained. The said pleading contradicts the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. Therefore, though he stated, the alleged loan lent on 20.09.2014, it was hand transaction held directly between complainant and accused, and complainant not discloses the role of PW.2 and in his person lent the alleged loan to the accused. Therefore, it creates strong doubt, as to the alleged loan transaction.
32. In the complaint he stated, the said loan was badly needed for tour domestic and urgent family necessities. If it was badly needed money for tour domestic and urgent family necessity, definitely, why the unknown complainant, merely because of the advise of PW.2 taken the risk to pay the said loan also not satisfactorily convinced by the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. As per the averments made in the pleading, earlier the accused took Judgment 24 C.C.No.14131/2017 the loan undertakes to repay the same within six months and after lapse of the same, once gain, he got extended time of another six months, even then not paid and when he asked during 1st week of October, 2015, the accused got issued post dated 17.12.2015 cheque at Ex.P1 to him. But in his cross-examination, he deposed that:
"¤¦.1 ZÉPï ºÉZï.J¸ï JAlgï ¥ÉçʸÀ¸ï£À ºÉ¸Àj£À°èzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D ¸ÀA¸ÉÞUÉ £ÉÆÃn¸ï ¤Ãr®è. CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀPÀëzÁgÀ£ÁV ªÀiÁr®è. DgÉÆæ D ZÉPï£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £É£À¦®è. D ZÉPï£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄUÀÎgÁdÄ JA§ÄªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. D ¸ÀAzÀ¨Àsð DgÉÆæ, £Á£ÀÄ ªÀivÀÄÛ ¹zÀÝgÁdÄ EzÉݪÀÅ. D ZÀÉPï£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄUÀÎgÁdÄ gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀÄUÀÎgÁdÄ ZÉPï£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ CzÉà ¢£À C°èAiÉÄà PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. D ZÀÉPï£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ §gÉ¢zÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. DgÉÆæ ¤¦.1(J) ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄUÀÎgÁdÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ. DvÀ£À£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉƽ¥Àr¸À®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ E®è. ¸ÀzÀj ZÉPï £À£Àß PÉÊUÉ §gÀĪÁUÀ CzÀÄ ¨ÀswðAiÀiÁVvÀÄÛ. D ZÉPï£À°è ¸À» ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ §gÀºÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ EAQ¤AzÀ PÀÆrzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
33. On going through the said evidence of PW.1, he clearly admitted that, cheque is in the name of H.S.Enterprises and he not cause any notice to which and not arrayed as party. He deposed that, he does not remember when the cheque was Judgment 25 C.C.No.14131/2017 issued by the accused to him. But he deposed that, in the house of PW.2, he handed over. He also deposed that, at the time of issued the cheque, the accused, PW.1 and Suggaraju were present and accused gave the said cheque to PW.2 and the said PW.2 on the very same day handed over the said cheque to PW.1. Therefore, it made clear that, the accused not directly handed over the questioned cheque to the complaint, but PW.2 handed over the same and now both PW.1 and PW.2 are claiming that, the accused gave the cheque to PW.2 and in turn, he handed over to the complainant is also very difficult to accept. If at all, as alleged by PW.1 and PW.2, the alleged lent of loan by the complainant to the accused, definitely, he could collect the documents directly from the accused. But the evidence of PW.1 goes against his own pleading and it creates doubt. The cheque handed over by the accused in the presence of PW.2 and Suggaraju is not been whispered. But the complaint allegations goes against his own evidence, therefore, it also creates doubt, as to the bonafidness of the transaction put forth by the complainant.
34. No doubt, the complainant choosen to examined the PW.2, who also filed affidavit evidence and stated, during 1st week of September, 2014 accused asking for the loan and he asked being a friend to pay the said loan to the accused. Accordingly, on Judgment 26 C.C.No.14131/2017 20.09.2014, complainant paid loan amount of Rs.3,75,000/- to the accused by way of cash and promised to repay the same within six months and as agreed not paid, another six months time he took, later also not paid. Then, when asked by the complainant during December, 2015, he took another two months time and gave post dated singed cheque in his presence to the complainant. But the evidence of PW.1 extracted earlier discloses, not discloses in the presence of PW.2 questioned cheque was not issued to the complainant, but he deposes the PW.2 has gave the questioned cheque, therefore, factum of accused got executed and issued the questioned cheque directly to the complainant is not been proved by the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2.
35. During the course of cross of PW.2 also suggestion were made that, there was no direct acquaintance between complainant and accused. The PW.2 in his cross-examination has deposed that, he does not remember that, he asked the complainant to give loan to the accused is not remembered. The evidence of PW.2 is to be extracted as false that:
"¦AiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ £ÀqÀÄªÉ £ÉÃgÀªÁzÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ EgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. DgÉÆæ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£Éßà ºÉÆÃV ¸Á® Judgment 27 C.C.No.14131/2017 PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ, £À£Àß §½ PÉýgÀ°®è. £À£Àß ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è DgÉÆæ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸Á® PÉýzÀÄÝ, £Á£ÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢¬ÄAzÀ ¸Á® PÉÆr¹zÉ JAzÀÄ §gɹzÀ §UÉÎ £É£À¦®è, EzÀÝgÀÆ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. DgÉÆæ gÀÆ.3,75,000/- ªÀ£ÀÄß ¦AiÀiÁ𢠧½ PÉýzÀÄÝ, D «µÀAiÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁ𢠣À£ÀUÉ w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæ M¼ÉîAiÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ, ¸Á® PÉÆr JAzÀÄ £Á£Éà ºÉýzÉÝ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ."
36. On going through the evidence of PW.2, he denied the suggestion regarding acquaintance between complainant and accused. The PW.2 has deposed that, accused directly approached the complainant and asking for the loan and he not approached the PW.2. Even, he does not remember that, in his affidavit evidence, accused directly approached him is cited are not. PW.2 also deposed that, complainant has informed him that, accused asked for loan of Rs.3,75,000/-, then PW.2 has told him that, accused was gentleman, hence, he recommended to pay the said loan amount. Therefore, the said evidence of PW.2 contradicts the very case and evidence of PW.1. Therefore, it creates doubt, as to the alleged request made by the accused either directly to the complainant or through PW.2 is not been proved. Even, the evidence of PW.2 also does not disclose any confidence. But rely up the same. The PW.1 has clearly admitted that, accused is his relative and he does not know about the Judgment 28 C.C.No.14131/2017 phenoyal business of the accused and his income. Even, he does not know nature of the business conducted by the accused. Under such circumstances, on which guarantee, he recommended the PW.1 to provide loan, also created doubt.
37. The PW.1 has discussed earlier as deposed that, in the house of PW.2, through him only questioned cheque was given by the accused. But PW.2 has deposed that:
"DgÉÆæ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉzÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀð 2 wAUÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À PÁ®, DgÉÆæ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀªÀgÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¦AiÀiÁð¢ DvÀ¤AzÀ §gɬĹPÉÆAr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÆæ £ÉÃgÀªÁV ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. ¦AiÀiÁ𢠣À£ÀUÉ, DgÉÆæ r¸ÉA§gï wAUÀ¼À ¢£ÁAPÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹, ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¨Àswð ªÀiÁr PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. D ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß §ºÀıÀB £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀįÉèà DgÉÆæ ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ PÉÆnÖgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, ¤RgÀªÁV £É£À¦®è. D ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ ¨Àswð ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¦AiÀiÁð¢, DgÉÆæAiÉÄà ¨Àswð ªÀiÁr ZÉPï PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉ DgÉÆæ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¨Àswð ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁUÀ°Ã ªÀiÁr®è."
38. On goring through the said testimony of PW.2, he deposed that, for the period of 12 months, till the accused got issued questioned cheque, complainant not obtained any loan document.
Judgment 29 C.C.No.14131/2017 Very particularly, PW.2 has deposed that, accused directly gave the questioned cheque to the complainant. Even, PW.2 has deposed that, complainant has informed him that, the accused by mentioning the date of December got filled cheque and handed over to the complainant. The said evidence is contradicts the pleading and case of the PW.1. The PW.2 has deposed that, probably questioned cheque was issued by the accused to the complainant in his house and he does not remember exactly. If at all, it was directly issued to the complainant, definitely, then no need to inform by the complainant to the accused. Therefore, the said evidence of PW.2 itself created doubt. Even, PW.2 has deposed that, he does not know, who filled the cheque and in his presence, accused has not filled or singed the questioned cheque, but he said, complainant told him that, the accused himself got issued the filled cheque to him.
39. If at all, questioned cheque was issued by the accused to the PW.1 in the presence of PW.2, definitely, question of complainant intimating the same to the PW.2 does not arise. The evidence of PW.2 discloses, probably he try to filled lacks of complainant in his evidence as well as pleading, taken up the risk to entered into the witness box, but he failed to convince the very loan transaction held between complainant and accused. Rather Judgment 30 C.C.No.14131/2017 the evidence of PW.2 strengthen the very loan transaction, it creates doubt and suspect the very transaction. The evidence of PW.2 appears to be more interested one, hence, no reliance can be placed of him on his evidence in prove the case of complainant. But it strength the probable defence of the accused, as to the involvement of the PW.2 in put forth the present case.
40. On appraisal of the above facts and circumstances, it made clear that, as the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is not corroborates the case of complainant and his pleading which contradicts each other in establishing the very case of the complainant. The complainant has utterly failed to prove that, he had sufficient fund of Rs.3,75,000/- in his hand and paid to the accused on 20.09.2014. In turn, for discharge the said loan amount, the accused after lapse of 14 months got issued questioned cheque, in view of those cheques already lost, as found in Ex.D1, question of accused got issued the same to the complainant is not been proved.
41. The complainant has pleaded that, he got issued the legal notice to the accused, but not received any acknowledgment as to the receipt of same. The Ex.P5 - complaint lodged to the postal authority discloses that, no proof is received by the complainant, Judgment 31 C.C.No.14131/2017 to show that, legal notice was served on the accused. However, the Ex.P6 - Track Consignment particulars discloses, the article was delivered to the address of Vijayanagar. Therefore, the said postal authority report also discloses, legal notice at Ex.P3 not served on accused. Thereby, the complainant has not complied the mandatory requirement under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act.
42. Hence, on over all appraisal of materials available on record, it made clear that, the complainant has utterly failed to prove that, he lent loan of Rs.3,75,000/- to the accused and in turn, after lapse of 14 months, accused got issued questioned cheque for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt. Therefore, mere because of possess the questioned cheque through unexplained source and proved the signature of accused, itself does not created inference that, it was issued for discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt. In order to construed an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, service of legal notice is must, but the same is also not done. Therefore, it is the consider opinion of this court, the complainant has utterly failed to prove the alleged loan transaction and liability of the accused covered under the questioned cheque. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for acquittal.
Judgment 32 C.C.No.14131/2017
43. On overall appreciation of the material facts available on record, it discloses that, despite the accused harping on the very claim of the complainant, he fails to demonstrate his very case. While appreciate the materials available on record, this court has humbly gone through the decision relied by both parties apart from the following decisions.
In the decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2331 (B.Indramma V/s. Sri.Eshwar). Wherein, the Hon'ble Court held that:
"Held, when the very factum of delivery of the cheque in question by the accused to the complainant and its receipt by complainant from the accused itself is seriously disputed by the accused, his admission in his evidence that, the cheque in question bares his signature would not be sufficient proof of the fact that, he delivered the said cheque to the complainant and the latter received if from the former".
44. The principle of law laid down in the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Merely because, the accused admits that, cheque bares his signature, that, does not mean that, the accused issued cheque in discharge of a legally payable debt.
At this stage, this court also relies upon another decision reported in AIR 2007 NOC 2612 A.P. (G.Veeresham V/s. Shivashankar and another). Wherein, the Hon'ble Court has held as under:
Judgment 33 C.C.No.14131/2017 "Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881). S. 138 Dishonour of cheque - Presumptions available to complainant under S. 118 and S. 139 of Act -
Rebuttal of cheque in question was allegedly issued by accused to discharge hand loan taken from complainant. However, no material placed on record by complainant to prove alleged lending of hand loan said fact is sufficient to infer that, accused is liable to rebut presumptions available in favour of complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of Act, Order acquitting accused for offence under S. 138 proper".
45. The principle of law laid down in the above decisions is applicable to the facts of this case. In the case on hand also, as discussed above, the complainant has failed to prove with cogent evidence as to the lending of loan of Rs.3,75,000/- to the accused. Thus, that fact itself is sufficient to infer that, accused is able to rebut presumptions available in favour of complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
46. In this case on hand also, on the lack of the complaint failed to prove the alleged loan transaction, it can gather the probability that, accused is not liable to pay Ex.P1 cheque amount of Rs.3,75,000/-and it is not legally recoverable debt. So, the burden is on the complainant to prove strictly with cogent and believable Judgment 34 C.C.No.14131/2017 evidence that, the accused has borrowed the cheque amount and he is legally liable to pay the same. Just because, there is a presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, that, will not create any special right to the complainant so as to initiate a proceeding against the drawer of the cheque, who is not at all liable to pay the cheque amount. The accused has taken his defence at the earliest point of time, while record accusation and statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by way of denial. The evidence placed on record clearly probablize that, complainant has failed to prove that, accused issued the cheque for discharge of liability of Rs.3,75,000/-. Hence, complainant has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Apart from that, in the decision reported in Criminal Appeal No.2402 of 2014, between K.Subramani V/s K.Damodara Naidu, the Hon'ble Apex court held that:
"The Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the Judgment of Trial Court acquitting the accused on the ground of capacity to pay the amount of cheque. In the above said ruling the Trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the complainant had no source of income to lend sum of Rs.14,00,000/-. In the appeal the 1st Appellate Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to give an opportunity to complainant to prove the same.
Judgment 35 C.C.No.14131/2017 The accused went in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the order of the 1st Appellate Court and upheld the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court".
47. In the case on hand, accused has questioned the financial capacity of complainant. Complainant has not produced any document to show his financial capacity to lend an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- to accused. When complainant has failed to prove the transaction alleged in the complaint, then the question of issuing the cheque for discharge of Rs.3,75,000/- does not arise. The evidence placed on record clearly probablize that, complainant has failed to prove that, accused issued the cheque for discharge of liability of Rs.3,75,000/-. Hence, complainant has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
48. From the above elaborate discussions, it very much clear that, the complainant has failed to adduce cogent and corroborative evidence to show that, accused has issued cheque Ex.P1 in discharge of his legally payable debt for valid consideration. Hence, rebutted the legal presumptions under Section 139 and 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the accused.
Judgment 36 C.C.No.14131/2017
49. The sum and substances of principles laid down in the rulings referred above are that, once it is proved that, cheque pertaining to the account of the accused is dishonoured and the requirements envisaged under Section 138 of (a) to (c) of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied, then it has to be presumed that, cheque in question was issued in discharge of legally recoverable debt. The presumption envisaged under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is mandatory presumption and it has to be raised in every cheque bounce cases. Now, it is settled principles that, to rebut the presumption, accused has to set up a probable defence and he need not prove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
50. Thus, on appreciation of evidence on record, I hold that, the complainant has failed to prove the case by rebutting the presumption envisaged under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant has failed to discharge the initial burden to prove his contention as alleged in the complaint. Hence, the complainant has not produced needed evidence to prove that, amount of Rs.3,75,000/- legally recoverable debt. Therefore, since the complainant has failed to discharge the reverse burden, question of appreciating other things and weakness of the accused is not a ground to accept the claim of Judgment 37 C.C.No.14131/2017 the complainant in its entirety without the support of the substantial documentary evidence pertaining to the said transaction. The complainant fails to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. As discussed above, the complainant has utterly failed 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 Negative.
51. 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.
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 24th day of January - 2020) (SHRIDHARA.M) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 38 C.C.No.14131/2017
ANNEXURE
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : Nagaraju.N.S PW.2 : Suggarajaiah
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 : Complaint Ex.P6 : Detailed track event
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
DW.1 : Byresh.M List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
Ex.D1 : CC of complaint
Ex.D2 : CC of Acknowledgment
Ex.D3 : CC of sworn affidavit
Exs.D4 & D5 : Computer generated copies of case status
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 39 C.C.No.14131/2017
24.01.2020.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment
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.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.