Bangalore District Court
M/S.Housing Development Finance vs Persons: Pranavasri H.V on 27 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2018.
Present: Smt Shirin Javeed Ansari, BA LL.B(Hon's)LL.M
XXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore.
C.C.No.34885/2014
Complainant: M/s.Housing Development Finance
Corporation Ltd,
HDFC House, No.51
Kasturba Road
Bangalore 1.
Represented by its Senior Manager
(Recoveries) & Power of Attorney
Holder.
Mr.Manoj Shah.
(By Sri. D.P.S- Advocate )
- Vs -
Accused persons: Pranavasri H.V
No.220, 'Anjanadri'
Mahaveer Calyx
#45, 20th main
Nayanapalli Village
BTM 4th stage,
IIMB post,
Bangalore 76 .
( By Sri Harish H.V - Advocate )
Offence complained of: U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
C.C.No.34885/2014
Plea of accused persons: Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order: Accused is Acquitted.
Date of order: 27.6.2018.
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.PC
The complainant filed this complaint under Sec.200
Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable under
Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act (Herein after referred as
N.I.Act for short).
2. The case of the prosecution is as under :
The complainant is a financial institution carrying on
the business activities in financial transaction having Head
office at Mumbai and branches all over.
The accused availed loan facility of Rs.33,81,000/-
under loan Account.No.364622303 and assured that she
would repay the loan as per the terms and conditions of the
loan agreement. But the accused failed to comply with the
conditions and postponed repayment of loan amount
C.C.No.34885/2014
borrowed. Since the accused was irregular in repayments,
the said loan was recalled.
3. It is further averred by the complainant that the
accused has issued cheque bearing No.212989 dt.14.12.2012
drawn on HSBC Bank, MG road, Bangalore for
Rs.33,81,000/- in favour of the complainant towards
repayment of entire loan amount outstanding. The
complainant presented the said cheque for encashment
through its banker, but said cheque was dishonored for the
reason "Account Closed" vide memo dt.18.12.2012.
4. Further the complainant issued the legal notice
dt.7.1.2013 through RPAD demanding the accused to clear
said amount mentioned in the said cheque within 15 days
from the date of service of said notice. Said notice sent to the
above address and the acknowledgement card not received by
the complainant. Hence an application has been filed before
the Post Master, City Civil Court branch, Bangalore seeking
information regarding service of the notice to the accused.
C.C.No.34885/2014
The complainant waited for the accused to pay loan amount
within stipulated period. But till today, the accused has not
paid any amount due under the cheque to the complainant.
The accused has committed an offence punishable u/s.138
Negotiable Instrument Act, and she has failed to pay the
amount to the complainant. Hence, the complainant by way
of present complaint prayed before this court to convict the
accused person for the offence punishable u/s.138 Negotiable
Instrument Act and also prayed to award compensation in
favour of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
5. In pursuance of the process issued, the accused
person appeared before the court on 21.4.2016 and is on bail.
6. Copy of the prosecution papers are furnished to the
accused persons as required under law.
7. Plea under Sec.138 N.I.Act is framed , read over and
explained to the accused person in vernacular. The accused
person pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
C.C.No.34885/2014
8 . PW1- got examined and got marked the documents
at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 for the complainant .
9. The incriminating circumstances found in the case
of prosecution against the accused is read over and explained
to the accused in vernacular. The accused denied the same.
The accused got examined herself as DW1 and got marked
the documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
complainant and the accused.
11. On the basis of the contents of the complaint the
following points arise for my consideration.
1. Whether the complainant proves
beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused is/are guilty of alleged
offence?
2. What order ?
C.C.No.34885/2014
12. My findings to the above points are as
follows:
Point No.1 :In the Negative.
Point.No.2 :As per final order for
the following:
REASONS
13.Point No.1: The complainant is a financial
institution carrying on the business activities in financial
transaction having Head office at Mumbai and branches all
over.
The accused availed loan facility of Rs.33,81,000/-
under loan Account.No.364622303 and assured that he
would repay the loan as per the terms and conditions of the
loan agreement. But the accused failed to comply with the
conditions and postponed repayment of loan amount
borrowed. Since the accused was irregular in repayments,
the said loan was recalled.
14. It is further averred by the complainant that the
accused has issued cheque bearing No.212989 dt.14.12.2012
C.C.No.34885/2014
drawn on HSBC Bank, MG road, Bangalore for
Rs.33,81,000/- in favour of the complainant towards
repayment of entire loan amount outstanding. The
complainant presented the said cheque for encashment
through its banker, but said cheque was dishonored for the
reason "Account Closed" vide memo dt.18.12.2012.
15. Further the complainant issued the legal notice
dt.7.1.2013 through RPAD demanding the accused to clear
said amount mentioned in the said cheque within 15 days
from the date of service of said notice. Said notice sent to the
above address and the acknowledgement card not received by
the complainant . Hence an application has been filed before
the Post Master, City Civil Court branch, Bangalore seeking
information regarding service of the notice to the accused.
The complainant waited for the accused to pay loan amount
within stipulated period. But till today, the accused has not
paid any amount due under the cheque to the complainant.
The accused has committed an offence punishable u/s.138
C.C.No.34885/2014
Negotiable Instrument Act, and he has failed to pay the
amount to the complainant. Hence, the complainant by way
of present complaint prayed before this court to convict the
accused person for the offence punishable u/s.138
Negotiable Instrument Act and also prayed to award
compensation in favour of the complainant.
16. It is the defence of the accused person that the
accused does not owe any money to the complainant as
alleged in the complaint. The accused has never issued any
cheque to the complainant. The accused has no liability to
pay any amount to the complainant. The particulars in the
cheque are not in the handwriting of the accused. The
complainant has misused the cheque and filed false case
against the accused person. The cheque has been subjected
to material alteration since the accused has not filled any of
the columns in the said cheque. It is further contended by the
accused that the complainant has not served the statutory
notice upon the accused. Therefore, without prejudice and
C.C.No.34885/2014
without admission, the so called alleged "due" is not an
enforceable debt in the eyes of law.
17. It is further contended by the accused that the
Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal in SA No.249/2012 has
set aside the proceeding initiated by the complainant under
the Sarfaesi Act and has ordered for regularization of the
loan. Despite of such an order, the complainant has
proceeded to send the cheque for collection in total disregard
and disobedience to the said order by abusing the process of
law. The complainant has not produced its books of account,
ledger account, and the receipt book to substantiate the
allegations made in the complaint. The complainant must be
put to strict proof of the same. Hence, on all these grounds
the accused prayed to dismiss the complaint .
18. In order to prove his case the complainant has
produced Ex.P.1, the cheque in question dt.14.12.2012
bearing No.212989 of HSBC Bank Ltd. Ex.P2 is the cheque
return memo dt.18.12.2012. Ex.P.3 is the Certified copy of
C.C.No.34885/2014
the Power of Attorney. Ex.P.4 is the demand notice
dt.7.1.2013. Ex.P.4(a) is the postal cover. Ex.P.4(b)(c) are the
postal receipts. ExP.4(d) is the letter of postal authorities to
the complainant counsel confirming the information with
regard to the delivery of demand notice on 12.1.2013. Ex.P.5
is the statement of account for the period 1.4.2012 to
31.3.2013. Ex.P.6 is the order sheet in IR No.1206/12 before
the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal. Ex.P.7 is the notice
issued to the accused i.e the demand notice under Sub Sec.2
of Sec.13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement Of Security Interest Act,
2002. Ex.P.8 is individual loan application form. Ex.P.9 is the
Pro-Note. Ex.P.10 is the agreement.
19. The complainant has not canvassed their arguments
in the present case.
20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
accused has vehemently argued before this court that as
per agreement of loan produced by the complainant marked
C.C.No.34885/2014
at Ex.P.10, the accused availed home loan from the
complainant bank. Ex.P.10 also states that the term of
the loan commences from 2008 and ends on 2028.
According to the complainant, the accused has made
payment towards some of the EMIs and on the date of
presentation there was lapse of 4 years on the part of the
accused person towards the payment of EMIs. The value of
the cheque presented before the court is Rs.33,81,000/-.
But, the accused has partially disbursed the loan amount to
the complainant. Therefore, question arises as to whether
there was any legally enforceable debt on the date of the
cheque. The complainant has not produced any documents
to show that the accused owes anything as on the date of
presentation of the cheque.
21. The learned counsel for the accused highlighted
Ex.P.5 during his arguments and argued that the document
produced by the complainant at Ex.P.5 creates a doubt about
the very case of the complainant. . The learned counsel has
C.C.No.34885/2014
also argued before this court that they have initiated the
proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Sarfaesi
Act . When the matter was subjudice before the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, the complainant has presented the
cheque in question and deliberately suppressed this aspect
of the matter before this court. Absolutely there is no
liability on the part of the accused due to the complainant to
the extent of value of the cheque. The accused got the
account regularized by the order of Tribunal and
subsequently has paid the EMIs and also deposited
Rs.10,00,000/- before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Despite of
having knowledge of the said fact, the complainant
deliberately suppressed the same before this court. Therefore,
there exists no legally enforceable debt or other liability to the
extent of the value of the cheque as stated by the
complainant . The complainant has filed the present case
deliberately to harass the accused person . Hence, in view of
this the learned counsel for the accused prays to dismiss the
complaint.
C.C.No.34885/2014
22. In this back ground on careful and meticulous
perusal of the documents produced by the complainant as
well as the accused it is found that as per Ex.P.10, the
accused has availed home loan by entering into home loan
agreement. The period of loan commences from 28.2.2008
up to the year 2028. As per the complainant himself, the
accused has paid some of the installments to the complainant
The filing of the proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal
in LR No.2346/2012 has not been denied by the complainant
specifically to discharge the reverse burden onus. As per the
orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the accused
was ordered to regularize the loan account within 6 months
from the date of the order passed by the Debt Recovery
Tribunal and accordingly as per the orders passed by the
Debt Recovery Tribunal, the accused paid Rs.10,00,000/-
before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and got the loan account
regularized. After the payment of said amount of
Rs.10,00,000/-, the complainant bank himself has issued a
statement of account for the period 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013
C.C.No.34885/2014
marked at Ex.P.5 wherein the loan amount extended to the
accused person is Rs.33,81,000/- with ROI 12.90% current
EMI Rs.36,892/-. Accordingly the opening balance for the
said period was Rs.2,36,264/- . Receivable amount was
Rs.4,42,704/- . The amount received was Rs.36,892/- and
the closing balance was Rs.6,42,076/-. Admittedly, ExP.5 is
for the period from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013. The cheque is
dt.14.12.2012. If at all Ex.P.5 itself is for the period 1.4.2012
to 31.3.2013 ,when the balance itself is 6,42,076/- , then how
the cheque for the value of Rs.33,81,000/- came to be
presented by the complainant. This aspect of the matter
creates a doubt on the very case of the complaint and also
crates suspicion with regard to the conduct of the
complainant with regard to the presentation of the cheque.
23. On careful perusal of the documentary evidence
and the cross examination of Pw 1, it is crystal clear that till
today the account of the accused person is alive and the
accused has been paying EMIs . No doubt there was lapse of
C.C.No.34885/2014
4 years towards the payment of the EMIs but, the accused got
it regularized by filing proceedings before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal. Despite of the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal ,
the present complaint is filed on 26.2.2013. It appears that
the complainant was very well aware of the filing of the
proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and inspite of
that Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, has been invoked.
24. No doubt , the cheque Ex.P.1 contains the
signature of the accused i.e the account holder, But merely
because Ex.P.1, the cheque contained the signature of
account holder or the accused , it cannot be said that the
same is executed by the accused to the amount mentioned
in the cheque. Here in the present case it is relevant to note
that the accused has specifically denied execution of the
cheque to the extent of the amount mentioned in the
cheque. The case advanced by the accused is that Ex.P.1
the cheque was entrusted with the complainant for the
purpose of security and the cheque contained nothing more
C.C.No.34885/2014
than her signature. So, on the basis of the above admission,
it is submitted by the complainant that the complainant is
entitled to get the benefit of presumption envisaged by
Sec.118 (A) and Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
25. On the other hand, counsel for the accused
submitted that the presumption regarding consideration can
be drawn, u/s.118 (a) only when the execution is proved and
therefore, it is clear that passing of consideration and
existence of debt are not proved by the complainant . No
doubt, it is duty of the complainant to establish all the
ingredients of Sec.138 Negotiable Instrument Act in order to
canvass a conviction against the accused. Sec.138 contained
in chapter 17 of Negotiable Instrument Act, reads thus,:
Sec 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has been
enacted to lend credibility to the financial
transactions.
The main ingredients of the offence under sec.138
Negotiable Instrument Act are:
1) Drawing up of a cheque by the accused towards
the payment of the amount of money, for the
discharge , in whole or in part, or any debt or any
other liability.
2) Return of the cheque by the bank as unpaid;
C.C.No.34885/2014
3) The drawer of the cheque fails to make the
payment of the said amount of money within 15 days
of the receipt of the notice under the proviso (b) to
Sec.138.
The explanation appended to the Section provides
that the "debt or other liability" for the purpose of
this Section means a legally enforceable debt or other
liability.
26. By going through, Sec138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act, it can be seen that drawing of cheque by a person on
an account maintained by him with the banker for payment
of any amount of money to another person from out of that
account for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or
other liability are 2 different ingredients , specially in the back
ground of this case. Here in the present case, the accused has
not disputed the signature in Ex.P.1, the cheque but, her
specific case is that she has entrusted with the complainant
Ex.P.1, blank cheque which contained her signature. It is
brought out through evidence that the complainant does not
remember that when Ex.P.1 cheque was given by the
accused . According to him the amount and date shown in
the signature might have been written by accused herself.
C.C.No.34885/2014
The complainant is also not aware as in whose hand writing
the cheque was written. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the
complainant is not aware of execution of Ex.P.1 , the cheque.
When the execution of the cheque is denied by the accused ,
it is for the complainant to establish the same. In the
absence of any positive evidence regarding execution of the
cheque by the accused it is held that the accused issued
blank cheque and not executed by her. Simply because the
cheque contained the signature of the accused it cannot be
said the cheque drawn by the accused as contemplated under
sec.138 Negotiable Instrument Act. It is also relevant to
note that the complainant has failed to prove the passing of
any consideration and also any legally enforceable debt or
other liability.
27. It is pertinent to note that going by the provision
namely sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, it can be seen
that the legislature has employed certain words continuously
and not without any meaning. The word 'employed' in
C.C.No.34885/2014
Sec.138 viz, 'drawn' 'discharge of any debt or liability' are
conveying the message of the legislature, through which we
can understand the intention of the legislature. Therefore,
while interpreting the provisions or the words , the court has
to give effect to the intention of the legislature. At any
equivalent stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that
putting signature on the blank cheque is equivalent to the
word ' drawn' used in Sec.138 Negotiable Instrument Act.
Therefore, the word 'drawn' used in Sec.138 of the Act has to
be understood as "execution" of cheque.
28. It is also important to note here that the burden is
always upon the complainant/prosecution to prove the
offence against the accused and under Sec.138 Negotiable
Instrument Act also it is not exception to the general rule.
Execution and issuance of cheque has to be proved to draw
presumption u/s.139 and Sec.139 does not shift the burden
to prove execution and issuance of the cheque.
C.C.No.34885/2014
29. Further , admission of signature in the cheque
goes a long way to prove due execution. Possession of the
cheque by the complainant similarly goes a long way to prove
issuance of cheque. But, the burden rests on the complainant
to prove the execution and issuance. But u/s.114 of
Evidence Act, appropriate inference and presumption can be
drawn in each case on the question of execution and issue of
the cheque depending on the evidence available and
explanation offered. In the present case, on appreciation of
entire factual situation and the materials on record it cannot
be said that the complainant has discharged his burden in
proving the execution of Ex.P.1.
30. Another point to be considered is that the benefit of
presumption as envisaged by Sec.118 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, stressing on the admission at the site of the
defence regarding the signature on Ex.P.1 the cheque . The
complainant has submitted that he is entitled for
presumption as mentioned above But, it is indeed tried to
C.C.No.34885/2014
state that it is the duty of the complainant to establish the
fundamental facts of the case. It is only after fundamental
facts of the case have been established, that presumption
can be drawn against the accused person. Once the
presumption is drawn, the accused can rebut the
presumption by preponderance of probabilities. But, it is
not for the accused to rebut the case beyond reasonable
doubt. A bare perusal of the testimony of PW 1 clearly shows
that the complainant has not been able to tell the court
about the issuance of the cheque towards the discharge of
liability. The complainant has merely made a vague
allegation. Hence, he has not been able to establish that the
cheque in dispute was given to him in order to discharge a
debt or liability.
31. In order to warrant conviction u/s.138 of the Act,
the burden is on the complainant to prove that the cheque
Ex.P.1 is drawn by the accused in relation to discharge of the
legally enforceable debt or other liability. The accused in
C.C.No.34885/2014
this case has proved that she had issued on UDC at the time
of executing the loan agreement, and that the present cheque
in question is not for the transactions mentioned in the
complaint. Under such circumstances, this court does not
find any reason to consider the submission made by the
complainant and there is no reason to warrant conviction
against the accused person u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument
Act.
32. Further the learned counsel for the accused
highlighted during the arguments as well as the evidence that
the ink used on the Ex.P.1 , the cheque by the accused and
the ink used for the writings in it are different. In this
regard the court is of the view that the accused in this case
has rebutted the presumption contemplated u/s.138 of the
Act by eliciting answers in the cross examination and also
by preponderance of probabilities on the basis of following
material available on record, viz : (No.1) the signature in
the cheque Ex.P.1 is one ink and the contents of the said
C.C.No.34885/2014
cheque is in different ink which raises doubt and also
probabalises the defence theory that the complainant might
have received the blank cheque and subsequently filled up
the amount etc., (No.2) the defence theory of joining the
complainant as a customer in the loan transaction and while
issuing the loan, the complainant has received an UDC as
security and the same was misused by the complainant on
the grounds that the complainant has admitted the same in
Ex.P.8 the loan agreement. Therefore, as it is the clear
possession of law that if the cheque has been issued for
security or for any other purpose the same would not come
within the purview of Sec.138 of the Act. But at the same
juncture, it cannot be lost sight that Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act lays down certain presumption until the
contradictory is established. However, before these
presumptions can be drawn, execution of the instrument
must be admitted or proved. There is no presumption about
the execution of negotiable instrument, and in case of denial
C.C.No.34885/2014
by the accused, basing its claim on such instrument should
fully prove its execution.
33. It is to be borne in mind that Sec.20 of Negotiable
Instrument Act which speaks about inchoate stamped
instrument imposes serious liability on the individual who
allows an incomplete instrument to go out in the world and
therefore, must be strictly construed. Further , it is to be
pointed out that in the case of a signed blank cheque, the
drawer gives an authority to the drawee to fill up the agreed
liability. If the drawee were to dishonestly fill up any excess
liability and the extent of liability becomes bonafide matter of
civil dispute in such case. The drawer has no objections to
facilitate the encashment of cheque. The dishonor of cheque
under such circumstances does not attract prosecution
u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument Act.
34. In the present case, Ex.P.1 is dated 14.12.2012
and Ex.P8 speaks that UDC was given as security to the
complainant. It clearly points out that the accused had only
signed her name in the said cheque. However, the other
C.C.No.34885/2014
columns and the date in the aforesaid Ex.P.1 were
written/filled up in English by the complainant himself. In
this connection, the court significantly points out that the
accused as DW1 in her evidence had clearly deposed that she
has not made the writings in Ex.P.1 as she had issued an
UDC at the time of availing loan. She gave the cheque to the
complainant only after affixing her signature in it. No other
columns were written by her. Therefore, it is to be
remembered that while Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act
specifies a strong criminal remedy in regard to the dishonor of
the cheque, the rebuttal presumption u/s.139 of Negotiable
Instrument Act is a devise to prevent undue delay in the
matter of litigation . If the accused is able to raise proabable
defence which creates about the existence of a legally
recoverable debt or other liability , the prosecution can fail .
Further, the accused can place reliance of the matter
submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a
defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused
may need not tell in evidence of her own. Moreover, the
C.C.No.34885/2014
presumption u/s.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act extends
only to the issuance of the cheque towards the discharge of
legally recoverable debt or other liability and it has to be
raised only after the complainant establishes such debt or
liability in fact existed as on the date of the cheque in
question, and, that the cheque was given to him by the
accused. Therefore, in the present case the accused has
successfully rebutted the presumption and probabalised
her defence by relying upon Ex.P.8 produced by the
complainant himself. Therefore, from careful perusal of the
documents available on record, specially the documents
produced by the complainant himself, it becomes crystal
clear that the accused issued UDC at the time of availing the
loan and the said cheque has been misused by the
complainant in filing the present complaint. Therefore,
looking from any angle, the complainant has not proved his
case that the cheque is issued by the accused towards
discharge of her liability. In short the complainant has not
proved the existence of any legally enforceable debt or other
C.C.No.34885/2014
liability for issuance of cheque. Hence, in view of this I
answer Point No.1 in the negative.
35. Point No.2: In view of the reasons stated and
discussed above, the complainant has miserably failed to
prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable
u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence, I proceed to
pass the following :
ORDER
Exercising the powers conferred upon this court u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby Acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instrument Act.
The bail bond of the accused person and that of the surety if any stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her , corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of June, 2018).
(SHIRIN JAVEED ANSARI ) XXV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
C.C.No.34885/2014 ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : Manoj J Shah.
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque. . Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo.. Ex.P3 : CC of Power of Attorney. Ex.P4 : Demand notice. Ex.P4(a) : Postal Cover. Ex.P4(b) : Postal receipt. Ex.P4(c) : Postal receipt. Ex.P4(d) : Postal acknowledgement. Ex.P5 : Statement of account. Ex.P6 : Copy of DRT Order. Ex.P7 : Demand notice. Ex.P8 : Loan application. Ex.P9 : Pro-note. Ex.P10 : Agreement.
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:- -
DW1 : Pranavasri H.V.
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
Ex.D1 : DRT Proceedings . Ex.D1 : Statement of account( got marked as Ex.D.1 by oversight). Ex.D2 : Copy of the letter. Ex.D3 : Courier receipt.
( SHIRIN JAVEED ANSARI ) XXV A.C.M.M.,BANGALORE.
C.C.No.34885/2014 27.6.2018 For judgment:
ORDER (Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate sheets) Exercising the powers conferred upon this court u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby Acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instrument Act.
The bail bond of the accused person and that of the surety if any stand cancelled.
XXV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
C.C.No.34885/2014 C.C.No.34885/2014