Bangalore District Court
Bhoosiri Chits Private Limited vs Ananda Kumar S on 13 December, 2024
1 CC.NO.34205/2021
KABC030895782021
Presented on : 04-12-2021
Registered on : 04-12-2021
Decided on : 13-12-2024
Duration : 3 years, 0 months, 9 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:
Soubhagya.B.Bhusher,
B.A.,LL.B.,LL.M,
XXVIII A.C.J.M, Bengaluru City.
DATED; THIS THE 13th DAY OF DECEMBER-2024
C.C.NO.34205/2021
Complainant: Bhoosiri Chits Private Limited,
A company registered under the
companies Act, Having registered
O/at No.11, 1st Floor, Dattatreya road,
near National Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Basavangudi, Bangalore-560004,
R/by its Director,
Raju.K S/o.Late Kalasayya, Age: 54.
As per the order dated: 04.12.2021
Complainant company R/by its Director,
Sri.B.Y.Thimmegowda.
(By Sri.R.Madhusudhana Reddy.,Adv.,)
V/s
Accused: Anand Kumar.S S/o Srinivas,
No.9, ETA Star, 1803, 'A' Block,
Magadi Road, Bangalore-560023
Proprietor of Donne Biriyani House.
(By Smt.Manjula.A.Halabhavi and Anr.,Advs.,)
2 CC.NO.34205/2021
JUDGMENT
This case arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant against the accused under section 200 of Cr.P.C., for an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant's in brief is as under:
It is the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a private limited company doing the business of chit funding. The accused is a proprietor of Donne Biryani House and he is one of the subscriber in chit reference No.BS/ST/17/10. The said chit started on 21.03.2017. The value of the said chit of Rs.60,00,000/-
and the monthly subscription amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and he has undertaken to pay the said subscription amount every month without fail. Further stated that the accused has paid the monthly subscription regularly till 04.12.2018 for total sum of Rs.13,65,000/- after deducting the dividends. The accused has participated in chit bidding held on 22.05.2017 and he bid the said chit for Rs.43,00,000/- and he had received a sum of Rs.43,00,000/- towards the successful bid. Further stated that the accused since from 04.12.2018 to till date failed to pay the remaining chit amount. The complainant has approached the accused to repay the amount, then he had issued the cheque No.708215 dated: 12.07.2019 for Rs.15,50,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, 3 CC.NO.34205/2021 Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore. As per the promise made by the accused the complainant had presented the said cheque for encashment on 15.07.2019 through its banker the Karur Vysya Bank, Basavangudi branch, Bangalore. But the said cheque was dishonored on 16.07.2019 as "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, on 30.07.2019 the complainant got issued a statutory notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The said notice was returned with an endorsement as addressee left. Inspite of issuance of the notice, the accused neither reply to the notice nor paid the cheque amount. As such, the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court on 16.09.2019.
3. After the complaint was filed, the cognizance of the offence cited therein was taken and it was registered as P.C.R No.15094/2019. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Since there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, an order was passed on 04.12.2021 to register the case in Register No.III.
4. Thereafter, summons was issued to the accused and he appeared before the court through advocate and secured bail. He was furnished its necessary papers as 4 CC.NO.34205/2021 complied under section 208 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the plea of the accused was recorded by the court. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The complainant in support of its case, have examined its Director as PW.1 and got marked 26 documents at Ex.P.1 to 26 and closed its side. PW.1 was fully cross examined by the counsel for the accused.
6. After closer of the evidence of the complainant, the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the accused not lead defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence taken as nil.
7. I have heard the argument on the complainant side and case is posted for judgment. In the meantime the learned counsel for the accused had advanced the case and filed the application seeking permit the accused to lead defence evidence. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted no objection. In view of no objection, the application was allowed and thereby the accused is permitted to lead defence evidence. Accordingly, the accused examined himself as DW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.
8. Heard the argument on the complainant side and perused the material placed on record.
5 CC.NO.34205/20219. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the learned counsel for the accused did not appear before the court and not address his argument. Hence, the argument on the defence side taken as nil. Further inspite of sufficient opportunity, the learned counsel for the accused failed to file his written argument.
10. On 03.12.2024 the learned counsel for the accused has advanced the case and filed written argument.
11. Upon hearing the argument and on perusal of the written argument and also perusal of material placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the complainant proves the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability.?
2.Whether the complainant further proves that the accused had issued the cheque-Ex.P.1, towards the discharge of the legally enforceable debt/liability.?
3.Whether the complainant further proves that the cheque-Ex.P.1 was dishonored for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" and thereafter the accused had failed to repay the same within the statutory period, inspite of receipt of legal notice.?
4.Whether the accused have thus committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.?
5.What order?
12. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative 6 CC.NO.34205/2021 Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: In the Affirmative Point No.4: In the Affirmative Point No.5: As per final order, for the following;
:REASONS:
13. POINT NO.1 AND 2: These two points are inter- related to each other and finding given on any one point will bearing on the another. Hence, in order to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken these two points together for common discussion. The case of the complainant is that he was acquainted with the accused. The accused is a proprietor of Donne Biryani House and he is one of the subscriber in the chit reference No.BS/ST/17/10. The value of the said chit is of Rs.60,00,000/- and the monthly subscription amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and he has undertaken to pay the said subscription amount every month without fail. Further the accused has paid the monthly subscription regularly till 04.12.2018 for total sum of Rs.13,65,000/- after deducting the dividends. The accused has participated in chit bidding and he bid the said chit for Rs.43,00,000/- and he has received the said amount towards the successful bid. Further the accused since from 04.12.2018 to till date has failed to pay the remaining chit amount. The complainant has approached the accused to repay the amount, then he had issued the cheque in question. As per the promise made by the accused the complainant had presented the said cheque for encashment through its banker. But the 7 CC.NO.34205/2021 said cheque was dishonored as "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant got issued a statutory notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Inspite of issuance of the notice, the accused neither reply to the notice nor paid the cheque amount. As such, the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court.
14. At this juncture, it is necessary to go through the provisions of N.I.Act before proceeding further. The provisions under Section 118(a) and 139 of the Act., 1881 are extracted and they reads thus;
"118.Presumptions as to negotiable instruments: Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:
(a). of consideration-that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
(b). as to date: that every Negotiable Instrument bearing date was made or drawn on such date;
"139.Presumption in favour of holder:8 CC.NO.34205/2021
It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."
15. On plain perusal of the provisions under Section 118(a) and 139 of the N.I.Act., as extracted hereinabove, it can be seen that initially the presumptions constituted under these two provisions in favour the complainant. However, it is open to an accused to raise a defence to rebut the statutory presumptions. An accused can raise a defence, wherein the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested.
16. It is also well established that an accused for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on record. An accused have constitutional rights to maintain silence. Standard of proof on part of the accused and that of the prosecution in a Criminal case is different. The prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubts, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is "Preponderance of probabilities".
17. Under the light of above extracted provisions of the Act, I have perused the oral and documentary 9 CC.NO.34205/2021 evidence on record. In support of the case, the complainant's have examined its Director as P.W.1 and 26 documents were marked at Ex.P.1 to 26. In the chief examination P.W.1 has repeated the contents taken by the complainant in the complaint. Ex.P.1 is the cheque issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.15,50,000/-. Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of the accused. Ex.P.2 is the bank memo dated: 16.07.2019 informing the dishonor of the cheque as "Funds Insufficient". Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice dated: 30.07.2019. Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt. Ex.P.5 is the returned postal cover. Ex.P.5(a) is the returned legal notice. Ex.P.6 and 7 are the vouchers. Ex.P.8 is the promissory note. Ex.P.9 is the agreement. Ex.P.10 is the guarantee agreement. Ex.P.11 is the enrollment application. Ex.P.12 is the chit agreement. Ex.P.13 and 14 are the resolutions dated:
30.08.2019 and 01.12.2021 respectively. Ex.P.15 is the complaint. Ex.P.16 is the certified copy of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of chits. Ex.P.17 is the certified copy of the chit commencement certificate.
Ex.P.18 is the certified copy of the incorporation certificate. Ex.P.19 is the prized subscriber details. Ex.P.20 is the ledger statement. Ex.P.21 is the statement. Ex.P.22 is the bank statement. Ex.P.23 is the account summary. Ex.P.24 to 26 are the cash vouchers.
18. I have perused the exhibits on which the 10 CC.NO.34205/2021 complainant have placed their reliance. On perusal of the exhibits, it is clear that the cheque in question was presented for encashment within its validity. The bank endorsement with a shara "funds insufficient". The complainant issued a legal notice within one month from the date of receipt of memo. The notice was returned as "intimation delivered unclaimed". The complaint was filed on 16.09.2019, which is within limitation. The transaction with the complainant is admitted. The issuance of the cheque and the signature on the cheque-Ex.P.1 is admitted. Therefore, the documents on record clearly shows that the complainant have complied the ingredients of section 138(a) to (c) of the N.I.Act. Therefore the presumptions under section 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act arise in favour of the complainant. The presumptions are rebuttable and the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumptions. The presumption is that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt/liability. However actual existence debt/liability can be contested. The accused can rebut the presumptions by raising probable defences and proving it relying on the evidence of the complainant or by leading his direct evidence.
19. The case was seriously contested by the accused and the service of notice was disputed. The notice was not served on the accused. It was returned with a shara 'intimation delivered unclaimed' as per 11 CC.NO.34205/2021 Ex.P.5. The accused also denied the service of notice. Further contended that the notice sent to the accused not served'; that the accused has no knowledge of the notice as it was not served on him; that the accused did not give reply notice as the notice was not served on him; that he did not produce any documents to show that the accused was not residing at the said address and that the accused did not issue reply notice as he was not residing at the said address. The counsel for the accused has submitted that no legal presumption can be raised as the notice was sent to the wrong address and the accused was not residing at the said address. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant argued that as on the date of execution of the documents the accused has given the said address, hence, the complainant was given the notice to the said address and same has been duly served, but the accused has not taken the same. In Ex.P.3-notice, the name of the accused is appearing, was confronted.
20. On perusal of Ex.P.3, it is clear that the name of the accused is appearing in the notice. The same notice was sent to the accused. The accused not given reply. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused was residing at some other address other than the address mentioned in the notice at Ex.P.3. The above discussion clearly shows that the address mentioned in 12 CC.NO.34205/2021 the notice is the correct address of the accused. As the notice was to the accused and the same notice was sent to the accused through RPAD, an inference can be drawn that the notice was also served on the accused. Further the address mentioned in the notice being the correct address of the accused, the presumption as per section 27 of General Clauses Act can be drawn. It states that the notice sent through post shall be deemed to be served, if it is properly addressed to a person to whom it is sent. Therefore, even though the notice sent to the accused through RPAD was returned with a postal shara 'intimation delivered unclaimed', it is to be considered as deemed service of notice. Even otherwise as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in C.C Alavi Haji V/s Palapetty Muhammed and another, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3578, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India para No.17 as under;
17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint U/s.138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be 13 CC.NO.34205/2021 rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint u/s.138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required u/s.138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary u/s.27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As observed in Bhaskaran's case (supra), if the 'giving of notice' in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the 'receipt of notice' a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of section 138 of the Act.
21. In a nutshell it can be said that the statutory notice is an opportunity given to the accused to make payment and avoid the consequences of 138 of N.I.Act. In the case on hand, the summons was duly served on the accused and he appeared through his counsel. The accused also admitted the service of summons. He appeared before the court and contested the case by taking all probable defences. Therefore, he cannot take the shelter of statutory requirement of service of notice to avoid the consequences of section 138 of N.I.Act. The complaint was filed on 16.09.2019, which is within limitation. The accused admitted the issuance of the cheque and signature in the cheque. It is his defence that there is no due to the complainant and he has not issued the cheque for repayment of the due. Further the defence 14 CC.NO.34205/2021 of the accused that he had issued the cheque for the purpose of security. Therefore, the documents on record clearly show that the complainant have complied the ingredients of section 138(a) to (c) of the N.I.Act. Therefore the presumptions under 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act arise in favour of the complainant. The presumptions are rebuttable and the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumptions. Once the issuance of cheque and signature are proved, the presumption arises in respect of the fact that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt/liability. The accused can rebut the presumption by raising probable defence and proving it relying on the evidence of the complainant or by leading his direct evidence.
22. In order to prove his defence, the accused examined himself as DW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. In his evidence he has deposed defence taken by him. Further deposed that he was acquainted with the complainant company through a person named Subramanya. Subramanya had induced him to subscribe to a chit in the complainant company. Accordingly, he has subscribed to a chit for the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- in the complainant company. He has paid Rs.19,50,000/- to the complainant company. The complainant company told him that they would bid and give the chit amount for development his business. At that 15 CC.NO.34205/2021 time, the complainant company had received two blank cheques signed by him. Similarly, they had obtained his signature on a blank agreement. Subsequently, he went to the office of the complainant company, at that time the complainant company was closed. The complainant company had returned Rs.20,00,000/- out of Rs.19,50,000/- that he had paid. Further deposed that he has gone to the office of the complainant several times to collect the documents and cheques given to the complainant company. When he went, the door of the office of the complainant company was closed. The complainant company has not given chits bid amount to him as they have stated. He has not received any amount from the complainant company as mentioned in Ex.P.24 to 26 and the signatures on them are not him. The complainant company has misused his cheque and filed a false case against him. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the case and acquit him.
23. In order to attract the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant is firstly required to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the cheque came to be issued. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that from the evidence placed on record, the fact that the accused is one of the subscriber and he has approached the complainant and participated in the chit No.BS/ST/17/10 for a chit value of 16 CC.NO.34205/2021 Rs.60,00,000/- payable at Rs.2,00,000/- per month. The accused has undertaken to pay the said subscription amount every month without fail. Further argued that the accused has paid the monthly subscription regularly till 04.12.2018 for total sum of Rs.13,65,000/- after deducting the dividends. Further argued that the accused has participated in the chit bidding and he bid the chit for Rs.43,00,000/- and he has received the said amount. Further argued that the accused has continued to pay the chit subscription amount of Rs.2,00,000/- till 04.12.2018. Thereafter, he has failed to repay the remaining chit amount. Further argued that the complainant approached the accused for repayment of the subscription amount. Inspite of repeated request the accused has failed to repay the same. Thereafter, the accused towards the discharge of the said amount had issued the cheque- Ex.P.1 in favour of the complainant. He further argued that the accused has not denied Ex.P.1 being his cheque drawn on his account. When the signature is not disputed, the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act is to be drawn in favour of the complainant. The accused has failed to elicit anything in the cross examination of P.W.1 to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The defence have failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act.
24. He further argued that the accused has failed to produce any believable evidence that he had issued the 17 CC.NO.34205/2021 blank cheques in favour of the complainant for the purpose of security and also why he has not returned back the same is not clear. He further argued that the accused has failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding he has already paid entire amount to the complainant and he had issued the blank cheques for the purpose of security. Further argued that to prove the section 139 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption that the cheque have been issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability. In the present case, the accused has not disputed Ex.P.1 being his cheque drawn on his account. The said presumption is available to the complainant. It is further argued that the accused had failed to prove the very fact that the blank cheques were given to the complainant for the purpose of security. Moreover, under section 118 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption that the Negotiable Instruments is drawn on the date, for the amount and in favour of the person as shown in it. It is for the accused to rebut the said presumption. But, in the case on hand no such evidence forthcoming. It was also argued by him that as per the defence by the accused that he had given two blank cheques for the purpose of security. As such, very defence of the accused is not believable. Upon careful perusal of the entire evidence of records both the oral as well as documentary evidence the complainant have proved their case. It was further argued that the accused 18 CC.NO.34205/2021 seriously disputed that the complainant company collected the blank cheques from the accused for the purpose of security and the complainant have misused same. However, the accused has miserable failed to prove the said fact. Hence, he prays to convict the accused.
25. The learned counsel for the accused has filed detail written arguments. In his written argument reiterated the brief facts of the case. Further submits that perused the entire records produced before this court by the complainant. The following points arise for consideration.
1). Whether the complainant has proved that the accused has issued the alleged cheque No. 708215 dated: 12.07.2019 for Rs.15,50,000/- in discharge of his legally enforceable debt?
2). Whether the complainant has proved that he has complied all the mandatory requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act.?
3). Whether the complainant has proved that the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act.?
26. Further submits that whereas the defence taken by the accused is that, he was acquainted with the complainant company through a person named Subramanya. Subramanya had induced him to subscribe to a chit in the complainant company. Accordingly, he has subscribed to a chit for the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- in 19 CC.NO.34205/2021 the complainant company. He has paid Rs.19,50,000/- to the complainant company. The complainant company told him that they would bid and give the chit amount for development his business. At that time, the complainant company had received two blank cheques signed by him. Similarly, they had obtained his signature on a blank agreement. Subsequently, he went to the office of the complainant company, at that time the complainant company was closed. The complainant company had returned Rs.20,00,000/- out of Rs.19,50,000/- that he had paid. He has gone to the office of the complainant several times to collect the documents and cheques given to the complainant company. When he went, the door of the office of the complainant company was closed. The complainant company has not given chits bid amount to him as they have stated. He has not received any amount from the complainant company as mentioned in Ex.P.24 to 26 and the signature on them are not him. The complainant company has misused his cheque and filed a false case against him. Further submits that on perusal of the evidence of the complainant. The important points for consideration: (A) Voucher dated: 23.05.2017 (Ex.P6) issued by the complainant company : The voucher dated:
23.05.2017 bears lot of defects mentioned i.e., the complainant company produced Ex.P.6 along with voucher dated: 23.05.2017 before this court to shown at that time the complainant company paid the amount of 20 CC.NO.34205/2021 Rs.42,00,000/- to the accused including service tax of Rs.31,500/-. Accordingly the voucher dated: 23.05.2017, the complainant company paid the amount of Rs.41,68,500/- to the accused i.e., dated: 22.05.2017 chq No.B.P.ADJ for Rs.8,00,000/-, dated: 23.05.2017 chq No.000236 for Rs.20,00,000/-, dated: 30.06.2017 chq No.000407 for Rs.3,00,000/- dated: 30.06.2017 chq No.000408 for Rs.3,00,000/-, dated: 30.06.2017 chq No.000409 for Rs.4,00,000/-, dated: 18.08.2017 chq No.B.P.ADJ for Rs.9,500/- and dated: 18.08.2017 chq No.B.P.ADJ for Rs.3,59,000/-.
27. Further submits that the complainant company has shown in the alleged voucher and Ex.P.6 that Rs.41,68,500/- was paid to the accused but the complainant stated in his evidence that the accused succeeded a chit bid amount for Rs.43,00,000/- and he was received the same. Hence, the complainant statement is not trustworthy. Thereby the above said transaction completely false and created for this case only, let us examine the transaction one by one for clarification as mentioned i.e., the first transaction was shown on 22.05.2017 for Rs.8,00,000/- the said amount adjusted for the bid payment by the complainant company was shown in the voucher. However, the complainant has failed to prove that which account the adjustment was made to and has failed also to provide the account 21 CC.NO.34205/2021 number, produced the sufficient documents to shown this transaction. Hence, question of transaction on 22.05.2017 for Rs.8,00,000/- does not arise. The second transaction was shown on 23.05.2017 for Rs.20,00,000/- through cheque No.000236. However, the complainant already clearly admitted in his complaint and affidavit that the accused has paid monthly subscription amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant company regularly till 04.12.2018. Also on 25.09.2024 the accused has admitted in his defence evidence also. When the accused requested to return the said subscription amount the complainant company paid the above said amount with interest to the accused through the cheque No.000236.
28. Further submits that the voucher is issued on 23.05.2017, but all the remaining transaction are shown on different dates i.e., 22.05.2017, 23.05.2017, 30.06.2017, 30.06.2017, 30.06.2017, 18.08.2017 and 18.08.2017. How is it possible for a chit company to issue cheques in advance and adjust bid payment in advance?. It is not possible to shown the transaction in advance, therefore, the complainant created the false voucher along with Ex.P.6 and produced before this court. The entire transaction shown on the voucher is not trustworthy. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove that the bid amount was paid to the accused vide cheque No.000236 for Rs.20,00,000/- on 23.05.2017. Further the third, fourth 22 CC.NO.34205/2021 and fifth transactions were shown on 30.06.2017 for Rs.3,00,000/- through cheque No.000407, Rs.3,00,000/- through cheque No.000408 and Rs.4,00,000/- through cheque No. 000409. However the said cheques No.000407 to 000409 are not issued to the accused and the cheques are not encashed by the accused. The said cheques transaction were not shown in their bank statement. The complainant already clearly admitted in his cross examination on 29.02.2024. Hence, the complainant statement and produced documents are not trustworthy. Hence, the accused deserved to be acquitted. The sixth and seventh transaction was shown on 18.08.2017 for Rs.9,500/- and Rs.3,59,000/- respectively. The said amount adjusted for the bid payment by the complainant company was shown in the voucher. However, the complainant has failed to prove that which account the adjustment was made to and has failed also to provide the account number, produced the sufficient documents to shown this transaction. Hence, the question of transaction on 18.08.2017 for Rs.9,500/- and Rs.3,59,000/- respectively does not arise. The transaction shown on the complainant's voucher dated: 23.05.2017 is completely false and unreliable. Hence, the accused deserve to be acquitted.
29. Further submits that Ex.P.6 and 24 to 26 issued the complainant company: the complainant produced the 23 CC.NO.34205/2021 four bogus and created payment vouchers i.e., Ex.P.6 and 24 to 26 with forged signatures of the accused. The complainant produced these documents with forgery signature of the accused. The accused filed an application under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to refer the documents i.e., Ex.P.6, 24 to 26 forensic laboratory for verification of signature of the accused along with vakalath and obtain the report. However this court not considering the argument of the accused, the said application rejected on 27.07.2024. The accused stated in his defence evidence that the signature on the voucher i.e., Ex.P.6, 24 to 26 were not his and also denied in his cross examination that the signatures were not his. Therefore, the complainant completely failed to prove that the accused received the bid amount and after default the accused issued the alleged cheque. Hence, the question of transaction regarding bid amount does not arise.
30. Further submits that statutory/Legal notice dated:
30.07.2019 issued by the complainant: on 30.07.2019 the complainant sent a statutory notice under section 138 of N.I.Act and demanded the accused to pay the amount due within 15 days from the date if receipt of notice. But the complainant statement the said statutory notice was returned with an endorsement as the "Addressee left". But the accused already admitted in his cross examination conducted on 21.10.2024. The accused clearly admitted 24 CC.NO.34205/2021 that he is resides at the address stated in the cause title of the complaint, but the statutory notice dated: 30.07.2019 sent by the complainant returned with an endorsement as "Addressee left". Hence, the complainant colluded with jurisdiction postman and endorsed from his as the accused has left the address on the said notice. Thereby, the complainant has not complied the statutory provision 138 of N.I.Act. Also his evidence and documents which was produced before this court not trustworthy. Hence, the legal notice dated: 30.07.2019 is defective notice and on this ground along the complaint failed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. As the notice is not in accordance with law, on the basis of the legal notice the complaint came to be filed by the complainant is totally baseless and hence, liable to be dismissed.
31. It is further submits that there was no single document to show that the complaint has paid a big amount of Rs.43,00,000/- to the accused as chit bid amount. Moreover the complainant company is financial institute and Income tax assesee and aware of all business transaction. If the amount is more than Rs.20,000/- it should be paid by way of cheque or demand draft. By knowing these facts the complainant has not produced any documents to show that the payment has been made by him to the accused. Therefore it clearly shows that there was no liability from the accused. If there 25 CC.NO.34205/2021 was no liability or legal enforceable debt the accused is liable to be acquitted. Further in his written argument he has reiterated the section 269SS of Income tax, Section 269ST of Income tax, Section 269T of Income Tax. Further submits that under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. However proceedings U/s. 138 of N.I.Act is a quasi-criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond all reasonable doubts is subject to presumption envisaged U/s. 118, 139 N.I.Act. No doubt the accused has admitted the cheque in question is belonging to his account and even the signature on said cheque is of the accused, but the burden is on the complainant to prove all the essential ingredients of Sec.138. One of the essential ingredient of Section 138 of N.I.Act is that the cheque in question must have been issued towards a legally dis chargeable debt or liability. If there is no legally discharge debt, then the same is not enforceable.
32. Further submits that rebuttable of presumption- preponderance of probabilities is the standard of proof, for rebuttal of presumption, under section 139 of the Act- the prosecution can fail when doubt is created about the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability, in the probable defence by the accused. Further the accused has established the improbabilities of the case of the 26 CC.NO.34205/2021 complainant and rebutted the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act, and also proved his defence by preponderance of probabilities. Further the complainant has also failed to prove that the accused has committed an offence under section 138 of N.I.Act, beyond reasonable doubt to dislodge the general presumption, which stands cast on the complainant on due rebuttable of presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act. The complainant has failed to prove that the accused has issued a cheque in discharge of his legally enforceable debt. According to the complainant the cheque when presented to the bank was dishonored on 16.07.2019, the said information was given to the complainant through bank endorsement. Thereafter, on 30.07.2019 the statutory notice came to be issued to the accused which was returned as "Addressee left". The complainant has filed the present complaint after expiry of 15 days which stipulated period to comply to the said demand notice. Since the notice was issued within one month from the date of intimation of dishonor, but the statutory notice was unserved on the accused and returned to the complainant has Addressee left even though the accused residing in the same address. The complainant all the mandatory requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act have not been complied with. However, in view of the finding on point No.1 the essential requirements of existence of legally enforceable debt for which the cheque was issued has not 27 CC.NO.34205/2021 been proved. Therefore, though the complainant has prove the dishonor of cheque which was drawn on the accused, all the mandatory requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act have not been prove. In view of finding on point no.1 and 2 the complainant has failed to prove that the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Further by considering the all facts and circumstances, it is clearly goes to show that there is no legally enforceable debt and the cheques were not issued towards the discharge of liability and through out of the case the complainant fails to prove his case. Each and every stages the complainant has made a false statement and filed as false complaint to harass the accused. In his written argument he has relied upon the judgment in Prabhkar.K.N S/o Kashiraya Mutthalagaddi V/s. Shivakumar S/o Veerbhadrappa Kobri, in Crl.A. No.200159/2017 dated: 20.07.2018. Hence, he prays to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused.
33. In the case on hand the complainant and the accused having some transaction has not been seriously disputed by the accused. Further the accused has not seriously disputed he had issued cheque in favour of the complainant. It is not disputed that the complainant is a private limited chit company and the accused is a businessman and chit subscriber. Whereas, the accused has contended that he had given two cheques to the 28 CC.NO.34205/2021 complainant for the purpose of security. When he had given the cheques, which were blank. The accused has specifically denied having debt/liability issued the cheque- Ex.P.1 on 12.07.2019 towards the discharge of any debt/liability. He contends that the blank cheques given by him to the complainant for the purpose of security one of the cheque as was misused by the complainant and false complaint was filed.
34. In order to attract the offence of the section 138 of N.I.Act, the main ingredients of the existence of the legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the cheque drawn on the account of the accused was given for discharge of the same, are to be proved. The complainant's in order to prove its case, have examined its Director as PW.1 and 26 documents were marked at Ex.P.1 to 26. In chief examination, P.W.1 has repeated the averments made by the complainant in the complaint. In the present case, the accused has not disputed Ex.P.1 being his cheque drawn on his account. The said presumption is available to the complainant.
35. As per the section 139 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption regarding the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability. Such presumption is a rebuttable presumption and it is opinion to the accused to raise defence discharging the existence of a legally enforceable debt/liability. In the case on hand also the accused has 29 CC.NO.34205/2021 disputed the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which cheque-Ex.P.1 was issued. In order to prove his defence, the accused has failed to produce any documentary evidence before this court. PW.1 during his cross-examination has specifically denied the suggestions made to him that Ex.P.1-cheque was issued in favour of the complainant for the purpose of security and same was blank at the time of issuing the same. Further he has denied that there is no due from the accused.
36. Since, the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act is a rebuttable presumption the accused is firstly required to produce some probable evidence to rebut the same. Though in the criminal cases, the standard of proof required for the accused is not so strict as required for the complainant to prove the case. Further he has to produce some probable evidence, which creates doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability. In the present case, as per the defence taken by the accused is that he had given the blank cheques and blank chit agreement to the complainant for the purpose of security. Except, the said defence, he has not produced any materials to prove such defence. If he had given the blank signed cheques to the complainant for the purpose of security, what prevented the accused to file the complaint immediately after the alleged illegal act made by the complainant. Further what prevented the accused to file 30 CC.NO.34205/2021 the complaint against the complainant for misusing of the alleged cheque. On which date the accused came to knew about the alleged illegal act of the complainant, he did not whisper about on what date he came to know the alleged cheque illegally misused by the complainant. Admittedly the accused is a businessman and having knowledge of the financial transaction, why he has given the blank cheques to the complainant without anticipating the consequence is not explained by him. So also, he has not stated anything as to what steps he took to receive back the blank cheques. Moreover, immediately after the alleged blank cheque misused by the complainant he has not lodge complaint before concerned police station. No steps have been taken to receive back the blank signed cheques, after he came to know about the same.
37. Once issuance of cheque and signature are admitted, the statutory presumptions would arise under sections 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act that the cheque was issued by the drawer for legally payable debt/liability and for valid consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Rangappa V/s Mohan, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 296, the presumption that the cheque was drawn in discharge of legally recoverable debt is a presumption of law that ought to be raised in every case, though, it is a rebuttable presumption. Of course, the presumption under section 139 and 118 of the N.I.Act are rebuttal 31 CC.NO.34205/2021 presumption. Further it is also held that mere plausible explanation by the drawer is not sufficient and proof of that explanation is necessary. The principle of law laid down in the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. In the instant case, since the complainant is in possession of the cheque-Ex.P.1 the court has to draw the initial presumption that he is the payee of that cheque. Once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant, the onus shifts on the accused to rebut the complainant case.
38. Further the accused has taken defence that the cheque was given as security. Further he has already paid entire amount to the complainant. Further as per the complaint averments the complainant have not paid the chit amount to the accused. Further defence of the accused is that the complainant have misused the one of the security cheque. Hence, an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act is not attracted. In this regard once issuance of cheque and signature are admitted, the statutory presumptions would arise under sections 138 of N.I.Act that the cheque was issued by the drawer for legally payable debt/liability and for valid consideration. In the case of Sripati Singh (Since deceased) through his son Gaurav Singh V/s State of Jarkhand and another, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1002, the Hon'ble Supreme court categorically held that; once the cheque is issued as security for the loan and if the loan is not paid 32 CC.NO.34205/2021 back then if the cheque is dishonored which attract 138 of N.I.Act. The principle of law laid-down in the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the contention of the accused cannot be acceptable that the cheque was given only for security purpose, but without producing any documents, then the accused has to pay the cheque amount when it is presented for encashment which is legally recoverable debt.
39. In the case of K.S.Ranganatha V/s Vittal Shetty, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1191, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability. It is further held that the position of law makes it crystal clear that when a cheque is drawn out and is relied upon by drawee, it will raise a presumption that it is drawn towards a consideration which is a legally recoverable amount; such presumption of course, is rebuttable by proving to the contrary. The onus is on the accused to raise a probable defence and the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is on preponderance of probabilities. ` 33 CC.NO.34205/2021
40. In the case of M/s Kalemani Tex V/s P.Balansubramanian, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
41. Applying the above said principles to the present case and before considering the point whether the accused succeeded to rebut the presumptions and to establish his defence to the extent of probabilities, it is just and necessary to accumulate undisputed facts in this case.
42. It is not in dispute that bounced cheque belongs to the bank account of the accused. It is also not in dispute that signature appearing on the bounced cheque is the signature of the accused. It is also not in dispute that the cheque presented by the complainant came to be dishonored by the banker of the accused for the reasons stated in the dishonor memo. To consider whether the accused succeeded to rebut the presumption and established the defence to the extent of probabilities, in this regard the accused has not produced any documents.
34 CC.NO.34205/202143. In the defence there is no ill-will between the complainant and the accused. Hence, question of misuse of the cheque and filing the false case is not possible. The accused admittedly having knowledge of business. It is implies, he is conversant with financial transaction. If the complainant misused the alleged cheque and had not returned the same, inspite of collecting cheque leaves from him, as a prudent man, the accused should have inquired with the complainant and demanded to return those cheques. No ordinary prudent man would keep quite in such circumstances, without taking any steps. The conduct of the accused is very unusual, because he did not take any legal action against the complainant, even after filing of the complaint based on Ex.P.1. Further he could have issued a notice to his banker to stop payment or legal notice to the complainant or he could have given complaint to the police station immediately. No such steps were taken by the accused. He simply makes a bald allegation of misuse of security cheque against the complainant. It appears, just to escape from his legal liability, he has taken such contentions without any valid basis.
44. Moreover, the complainant have got issued a legal notice to the accused by registered through its counsel calling upon him to make repayment of amount to the complainant. Before a person is held to be guilty of an 35 CC.NO.34205/2021 offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant have to prove the compliance of the requirement under section 138 of N.I.Act. It is not in dispute that Ex.P.1 being his cheque drawn on account of the accused. In view of the above discussions, it is also held to be proved that it was drawn for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability. From the evidence of P.W.1 and also cheque return memo at Ex.P.2 it is established that the cheque was dishonored as "Funds Insufficient''. A legal notice being issued as per Ex.P.3 within one month from the date of dishonor of the cheque is also not in dispute. In the case on hand the accused has not seriously disputed regarding notice send by the complainant on his address. But, he failed to reply to the notice, immediately after he received the demand notice. Thereby, he could have asserted his defence at an earliest available opportunity. In the case on hand the notice is sent to the accused at his address. When the accused has not seriously disputed, the notice sent to the correct address is sufficient compliance under section 138 of N.I.Act. Therefore, there is sufficient proof of due service of the legal notice.
45. It is not the contention of the accused that thereafter he has repaid the cheque amount within stipulated time of 15 days on receiving the notice. Therefore, in the case on hand on perusal of the evidence 36 CC.NO.34205/2021 placed on record, all the essential ingredients under section 138 N.I.Act, have been complied with. As the accused has not paid the cheque amount within stipulated period, as such the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The present complaint is filed before this court within one month after the accused failed to repay the cheque amount. Even the accused did not whisper anything about the defence while his plea was recorded under section 251 of Cr.P.C. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others, reported in 2010 (5) SCC 590, it is clear that while recording the plea under section 251 of Cr.P.C., it becomes the duty of the accused to state whether he has any defence to make or he pleads guilty. Thus, unlike under section 240 of Cr.P.C., the accused has no option under section 251 of Cr.P.C., just to deny the allegations made against him. If he is not willing to plead guilty, he must explain what are the defences he wants to take. As such it has to be considered, whatever defence raised by the accused during the trial are all after thought, just to get ride of statutory burden cast on him.
46. In addition to this in the case of T.P.Murugan (Dead) through legal representatives V/s Bojan, reported in 2018 (8) SCC 469, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that once the cheque has been signed and issued in favour of 37 CC.NO.34205/2021 the holder of the cheque, there is statutory presumption that the cheque is issued in respect of legally enforceable debt or liability: rebuttal of such presumption must be by adducing credible evidence. Mere raising a doubt without cogent evidence with respect to the circumstances, presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act cannot be discharged. The principle of law laid down in the above decisions are applicable to the facts of this case. Except some bald contentions, the accused has not been able to make out a probable case on his behalf.
47. The accused has taken the defence that except signature other writings on the cheque-Ex.P.1 is not in the handwriting of the accused, which was filled up by the complainant and it amounts to material alterations, so, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. When the accused admits his signature, he cannot take up a defence that other contents of cheque was filled up by the complainant and it amounts to material alteration. In this respect, ruling reported in 2019 SCC On-line (SC) 138), between Bir Singh V/s Mukesh Kumar, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"37. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a 38 CC.NO.34205/2021 debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer, if cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provision of Section 138 would be attracted.
38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still the on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.
40. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment. Would attract presumption Under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt."
48. The principles emerging from the above referred decision make it clear that it is not mandatory and no law prescribes that the contents of cheque should be written by the signatory to the cheque. A cheque can be written by anybody and if the account holder of the cheque signs it, the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act arises. The principle of law laid-down in above decision is aptly applicable to the facts of this case. In view of section 20 of N.I.Act, the cheque being an inchoate instrument, if the drawer signs and delivers to the drawee, thereby he gives 39 CC.NO.34205/2021 authority to the drawee thereof to make or complete the instrument.
49. As per the version of the accused is that the accused has nowhere denied transactions. The accused himself has admitted that he is the holder of alleged cheque. It is sufficient hold that the accused has issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 and even after he has not repaid the cheque amount the getting of receipt of notice. However, in any manner as the complainant have complied all the terms of ingredients of the provisions of 138 of N.I.Act. In case of dishonor of cheque, once the execution of cheque is admitted by the accused, then it for him to first rebut presumption arising out of section 139 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, PW.1 has established the case of the complainant, the accused has issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 in order to repay the legally recoverable amount. Hence, the accused is liable for dishonor of cheque. Therefore, the accused has failed to probables the defence taken by him that Ex.P.1 was the blank signed cheque given to the complainant for the purpose of security. Therefore, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act. In the said circumstances, the complainant is not at all required to produce any material as to the financial transaction between the complainant and the accused, since the initial presumption is still available, when there is no rebuttal evidence.
40 CC.NO.34205/202150. PW.1 in his evidence has specifically deposed that the accused in order to repayment of amount had issued the cheque-Ex.P.1. So also it is not in disputed that the complainant and the accused are known to each other, some point of period, this is not disputed by the accused. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act, non furnishing of details of financial transaction no consequences to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The accused has failed to probables his defence. With these reasons, I answer point No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
51. POINT NO.3 AND 4: In order to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken together for common discussion. Before a person is held to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant have to prove all the requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act. Ex.P.1 being his cheque drawn on the account of the accused is not in dispute. The said cheque having been dishonored for the reasons "funds insufficient", when it was presented by the complainant before the bank for encashment is also not seriously disputed by the accused. The accused has not taken up any contention that thereafter he had paid the cheque amount within stipulated time of 15 days, after issuance of the notice. As such in the present case from perusal of documents, the essential requirements of section 138 of 41 CC.NO.34205/2021 N.I.Act, have been complied with. In this case if the accused had issued the blank signed cheques in favour of the complainant for the purpose of security and why he has not produced any documents. After issuance of notice he neither reply to the notice nor paid the said cheque amount. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before the court on 16.09.2019. While discussing the point No.1 and 2, this court has already observed that the complainant's have proved that the cheque-Ex.P.1 was issued for discharge of legally enforceable liability/debt and in view of the mandatory requirements under section 138 of N.I.Act, being complied with. The accused is found to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. With these reasons, I answer point No.3 and 4 in the Affirmative.
52. POINT NO.5: The accused is held to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. The complainant's have proved its case. The accused has failed to prove his rebuttal for the reasons mentioned above and in view of the mandatory requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act, being complied with. The accused is found to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Since, the said offence is an economic crime, the accused is not entitled for the beneficial provisions of probation of offenders Act.
42 CC.NO.34205/2021In view of the above discussions and the findings on point No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following;
:ORDER:
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond executed by the accused hereby stands canceled.
The accused is sentence to pay fine of Rs.15,80,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs eighty thousand only) to the complainant company.
It is further ordered that out of the said fine amount an amount of Rs.15,70,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs seventy thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant company as compensation as per section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) shall be remitted to the State.
In default of the payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of 06 (six) months.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment pronounced in the open court on 13th day of December 2024) 43 CC.NO.34205/2021 (Soubhagya.B.Bhusher) XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Mr.B.Y.Thimmegowda.
List of documents marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement.
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of the legal notice.
Ex.P.4 : Postal receipts.
Ex.P.5 : Returned postal cover.
Ex.P.5(a) : Returned legal notice.
Ex.P.6 & 7 : are the vouchers.
Ex.P.8 : Promissory note.
Ex.P.9 : Agreement.
Ex.P.10 : Guarantee agreement.
Ex.P.11 : Enrollment application.
Ex.P.12 : Chit agreement.
Ex.P.13 & 14 : Resolutions.
Ex.P.15 : Complaint.
Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of the order.
Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of the chit commencement
certificate.
Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of the incorporation certificate.
Ex.P.19 : Prized subscriber details.
Ex.P.20 : Ledger statement.
Ex.P.21 : Statement.
Ex.P.22 is : Bank statement.
Ex.P.23 : Account summary.
Ex.P.24 to 26 : Cash vouchers.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
DW.1 : Mr.Anand Kumar.S List of documents marked on behalf of accused:
44 CC.NO.34205/2021-Nil-
(Soubhagya.B.Bhusher) XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.45 CC.NO.34205/2021
13.12.2024 (Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order sheet) ORDER Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond executed by the accused hereby stands canceled.
The accused is sentence to pay fine of Rs.15,80,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs eighty thousand only) to the complainant company.
It is further ordered that out of the said fine amount an amount of Rs.15,70,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs seventy thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant company as compensation as per section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) shall be remitted to the State.
In default of the payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of 06 (six) months.
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.