Bangalore District Court
Smt.Radhamma vs Sri.S.M.Lokesh on 2 July, 2020
BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH-67)
DATED: This the 2 nd day of July, 2020
PRESENT
Smt. K.KATHYAYANI., B.Com, L.L.M .
LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Criminal Appeal No.2245/2018
C/w Criminal Revision Petition No.879/2018
In Crl.Appeal No.2245/2018
Appellant : Smt.Radhamma,
W/o Late M.Revanna,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at No.1528, Shivananda Stores,
13th Cross, Kalyananagara,
T.Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru 560 057.
(By Sri.Narayana Rao, Adv.)
/Vs/
Respondent : Sri.S.M.Lokesh,
S/o Muniyappa,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.850, 6th Cross,
MEI Layout, Bagalagunte,
Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru 560 073.
(By Sri.RAN,Adv.)
Crl.A.No.2245/2018
C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018
2
In Criminal Revision Petition No.879/2018
Revision Sri.S.M.Lokesh,
Petitioner : S/o Muniyappa,
Aged about 40 years,
No.850, 6th Cross,
MEI Layout, Bagalagunte,
Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru 560 073.
(By Sri.RAN,Adv.)
/Vs/
Respondent : Smt.Radhamma,
W/o M Late Revanna,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.1528, Shivananda Stores,
13th Cross, Kalyananagara,
T.Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru 560 057.
(By Sri.Narayana Rao, Adv.)
JUDGMENT
Appellant/accused has preferred this appeal against the respondent/complainant under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by Judgment of conviction passed in CC.No.20087/2016 dated 11.10.2018 by the learned XII ACMM, Bengaluru.
2. On the other hand, the complainant/revision petitioner has filed the above criminal revision petition against the accused/respondent under Section 397 of Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 3 Cr.P.C. seeking modification of the sentence by enhancing the compensation.
3. For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the parties are retained as they are before the learned Magistrate Court.
4. The brief facts of the case are that;
a) The complainant has come up with the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act on the ground that the accused had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from him in the month of March- 2016, assuring to repay the same within 1 month. But, even after the stipulated period, she failed to repay the same.
b) On demand made by the complainant for repayment of the loan, the accused had issued the cheque bearing No.271841 dated 31.03.2016 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, T.Dasarahalli Branch, Bengaluru.
c) When the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned with an endorsement dated Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 4 08.06.2016 with a shara that "Account Blocked Situation Covered 2125"".
d) In spite of issuance of legal notice dated 17.06.2016, the accused did not pay the cheque amount. Accordingly, the complaint was filed.
e) On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate was pleased to record the sworn statement of complainant and on satisfaction, has taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused.
f) In response to the due service of summons, the accused put his appearance through his counsel and was enlarged on bail.
g) In support of his case, the complainant himself has entered into the witness box as PW-1. Got examined the concerned Bank Manager as PW-2. Got exhibited 7 documents and closed his side.
h) The statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and accused denied all incriminating evidence against her and in support of her defence, the Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 5 accused herself stepped into the witness box as DW-1. Got exhibited 4 documents and closed her side.
i) The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments of both sides on merits of the case and on going through the evidence on record, has passed the impugned judgment convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced accordingly.
5. Being aggrieved by judgment of conviction, the accused/appellant has approached this Court with the following grounds;
a) The impugned Judgment passed by the Court below is illegal, contrary to law and evidence as well as probabilities of the case.
b) The complainant has suppressed the real fact that he and she both are close relatives i.e., the complainant is the son of sister of her husband and as such, she approached the complainant to obtain the bank loan against her property situated in Dasarahalli, Bengaluru and in that connection, the complainant had collected the disputed cheque.
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 6
c) The complainant has not approached the trial Court with clean hands and intentionally suppressed all the real facts and materials on hand and issued the legal notice.
d) The transaction time is March-2016 and filing of PCR and the sworn statement is during the same period. But, in the course of evidence, the complainant has produced Ex.P-6 i.e., hand loan agreement by filing the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in which the transaction period is mentioned as 2014 which is contradictory to his own averments. Hence, the transaction itself is doubtful and itself disproves the case of the complainant and the trial Court without looking into the material available on hand and without giving any reasoning passed the impugned judgment which is liable to be set aside.
e) The complainant has not produced any documents to show the source for lending such a huge amount. He has also not produced any document to show that he has received Rs.1,70,000/- in cash from her.
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 7
f) The trial Court has erred in law in accepting and acting upon the evidence of the complainant which is being inadmissible.
g) The trial Court has failed to observe the fact that the complainant has failed to prove enforceable debt or liability.
h) There are several weaknesses in the evidence of the complainant which are been overlooked and the evidence is sufficient to create suspicion.
i) Even though there is no debt or liability and the complainant has failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt, the trial Court has passed the judgment of conviction.
j) She has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant and the impugned judgment is erroneous. Hence, prayed to allow her appeal and to set aside the judgment of conviction and to acquit her in the interest of justice and equity.
6. On the other hand, the complainant has come up with the present revision petition on the ground that the Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 8 transaction is of the year 2014; the accused issued the cheque on 09.03.2016 and the judgment was passed on 11.10.2018; but, the trial court has not calculated the interest, the litigation expenses, mental suffer, time loss and has erroneously passed the judgment for Rs.2,50,000/-.
a) The maximum sentence to the accused can be enhanced to the double of the cheque amount as per the amended provisions of the NI Act and this court has power to enhance the compensation amount by modifying the inadequate sentence by exercising its revision power. Hence, prayed to modify the sentence with adequate compensation. Accordingly, prayed to allow the revision petition.
7. In response to the due service of notice by this Court in both the above criminal appeal and the criminal revision petition, the respective respondents i.e. the complainant in the criminal appeal and the accused in the criminal revision petition put their appearance through their respective counsels.
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 9
8. Secured the trial Court records.
9. The respective counsels for both the sides filed their written arguments.
a) I have carefully gone through the above noted written arguments filed on behalf of the respective parties and perused the record.
10. On the basis of the grounds made out by the respective parties, following points are arose for my determination.
1. Whether the accused/appellant proves the grounds urged by her in support of this appeal?
2. Whether the complainant/revision petitioner proves his grounds urged in support of this revision petition?
3. Whether the impugned judgment requires interference by this court?
4. What Order?
11. My findings to the above points are:
1) Point No.1 : Affirmative.
2) Point No.2 : Does not survive for consideration.
3) Point No.3 : Affirmative.
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 10
4) Point No.4 : As per final order for the following reasons.
REASONS
12. POINT No.1:- The main ground urged by the accused/appellant is as per the case of the complainant, the accused raised the loan during March-2016. But, in the course of evidence, he has produced Ex.P-6 i.e., the hand loan agreement wherein the transaction period is mentioned as 2014 which is contradictory to his own case which itself disproves the case of the complainant and he has also not produced any document to show that he has received Rs.1,70,000/- in cash from her and the Court below without looking into the material available on record and without giving any reasoning has passed the impugned judgment.
13. The trial Court record reveals that it is in the complaint that both the complainant and the accused are known to each other from past several years and there is good and cordial relationship between them. Because of which, during March-2016, the accused approached him Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 11 for hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and accordingly, he has paid Rs.3,00,000/- by cash and accused assured him to return the same within a month.
14. The above facts are only stated in the office copy of the legal notice at Ex.P-3, the sworn statement of the complainant and the affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of his chief evidence. There is nothing addition stated with regard to the facts in respect of loan transaction.
15. The trial Court record also shows that initially in support of his case, the complainant has produced only 5 documents i.e., the cheque in dispute, the bank endorsement/return memo, the office copy of the legal notice, the postal receipt and the postal acknowledgment respectively at Ex.P-1 to P-5.
16. But, by way of his further chief examination, the complainant has produced a document styled as "consent deed dated 09.03.2016" at Ex.P-6 and has deposed that;
a) the said deed was executed by the accused in his favour in respect of the loan amount of Rs.8,70,000/-;
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 12
b) out of the said amount, in this case the accused has issued cheque for Rs.3,00,000/-;
c) Ex.P-6 bears his signature, signature of accused; as witnesses signatures of the son and daughter of the accused by name Chethan and Chaitra as well as the other witnesses by name Rangaswamaiah and Narayana i.e. Ex.P-6(a) to (f).
d) In respect of Rs.4,00,000/- mentioned in Ex.P-6, the accused issued another cheque and he has produced the xerox copies of the said cheque and the endorsement.
17. With regard to Ex.P-6, in his cross examination, for the first time, the complainant has deposed that in November-2014, the accused approached him for financial assistance and in December-2014, he gave loan of Rs.8,70,000/- to the accused by cash.
18 He has also deposed in his cross examination that he raised a chit and received Rs.5,00,000/-, the chit amount and out of his savings, he paid totally Rs.8,70,000/- to the accused as loan by cash. There were 370 notes of Rs.1,000/- face value and 1,000 notes of Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 13 Rs.500/- face value. He kept the cash in the house. He had no impediment to pay the amount by cheque, but the accused demanded by cash and accordingly, he paid the amount by cash only.
19. But, with regard to the source/accumulation of the amount, it is also in his further cross examination that on 14.12.2014, he gave Rs.8,70,000/- to the accused by cash. He paid Rs.8,00,000/- as advance for purchase of a site. As the agreement was canceled, he received back the advance amount, which is very much contradictory to his own evidence noted above.
20. He has stated that as the agreement was canceled, it was torn and thus, he did not produce the same in this case. But, it is evident on record that he did not let in any other corroborative evidence either oral or documentary in respect of accumulation of the amount in either way as stated by him. He could have been get examined the chit people; the seller or the witnesses of the alleged sale agreement.
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 14
21. For that matter, interestingly, there is no pleading by the complainant with regard to the alleged loan transaction dated 14.12.2014 which are the material facts. On the other hand, as noted above, it is his simple case that during March-2016, the accused approached him for financial assistance of Rs.3,00,000/- and as there was good faith between them since several years, he paid the said amount i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused.
22. Moreover, the complainant has admitted the suggestion that he did not produce any document to establish the alleged payment of loan amount of Rs.8,70,000/- to the accused by cash on 14.12.2014.
23. It is also in his cross examination that out of Rs.8,70,000/-, the accused paid Rs.1,70,000/- and for payment of Rs.7,00,000/-, she issued two cheques one is for Rs.3,00,000/- and another one is for Rs.4,00,000/-. Since the cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- is time barred, he intended to file civil suit for recovery of the said amount.
24. As noted above, it is the simple case of the complaint that on the request of the accused for financial Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 15 assistance of Rs.3,00,000/- (only Rs.3,00,000/-) in the month of March-2016 (not in the month of November- 2014), he paid the said amount i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- by cash (not Rs.8,70,000/- in the month of December-2014). So, the above evidence of complainant is very much contradictory to his own case.
25. Of course, in his cross examination after admitting the suggestion that he has not stated about the consent deed at Ex.P-6 either in the notice, or in the complaint or in his chief affidavit evidence, the complainant has voluntarily deposed that, that is why he has engaged another counsel. Admitting the suggestion that before filing the present case, Ex.P-6 was in his possession, he has also voluntarily deposed that he gave the same to his counsel but his counsel did not consider it. Accordingly, he changed the counsel.
26. To substantiate the above noted his voluntary statements/the explanations, the complainant has not let in any evidence. Moreover, the complainant cannot cure such material omissions with regard to the facts of the loan Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 16 transactions which change the very nature of the loan transactions by making allegations against his counsel even for the sake of arguments it is accepted as a fact as it is settled proposition that being the complainant before the Court seeking justice, it is his responsibility to put forth the true facts/the material facts of the case before the Court.
27. It is also in his cross examination that the accused agreed to clear off Rs.8,70,000/- within a year and four months. He has admitted the suggestion that the same is not mentioned in Ex.P-6. However, as noted above, there is no pleading at all by the complainant in respect of Ex.P-6.
28. The document at Ex.P-6 is dated 09.03.2016 executed by the accused in favour of the complainant and the recitals therein demonstrate that;
a) the accused raised loan of Rs.8,70,000/- on 14.12.2014 and for the security purpose, she gave the original sale deed dated 11.12.2003 in her name pertains to the site No.4;
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 17
b) since she intends to sell the said property for which she needs the original sale deed, she repaid Rs.1,70,000/- out of Rs.8,70,000/- by cash on that day i.e. on 09.03.2016 and assured to pay Rs.3,00,000/- on or before 31.03.2016 and Rs.4,00,000/- on or before 30.04.2016 and for additional security in that regard, she issued cheque bearing Nos.271841 and 271843; and
c) if she fails to repay the amount as agreed, the complainant is at liberty to initiate legal proceedings against her based on the above cheques.
29. So, as per the recitals at Ex.P-6, the cheques referred therein including the cheque at Ex.P-1 were issued for the security purpose which finds no place in the pleadings of the complainant as it is his simple case that as per the assurance of the accused, he waited till the end of one month, but accused did not show any interest to contact him, as such he himself personally approached the accused, requested her to repay the loan amount, at this stage, obliging him, the accused issued the cheque in dispute i.e. Ex.P-1.
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 18
30. Thus, the recitals at Ex.P-6 that the cheques referred therein including the cheque at Ex.P-1 were issued for the security purpose is even contradictory to the improved version of the complainant taken during the evidence i.e. the accused has issued two cheques i.e., one for Rs.3,00,000/- and another one for Rs.4,00,000/- towards the payment of the balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rs.8,70,000/- minus Rs.1,70,0000/- alleged to be repaid by the accused by cash at the time of execution of Ex.P-6).
31. Moreover, admittedly, the complainant has not produced any documents either to establish the payment of Rs.8,70,0000/- by cash to the accused or receipt of Rs.1,70,000/- by cash from the accused.
32. Surprisingly, in his further cross examination, the complainant has again deposed that in the year-2016, when he has lent the loan to the accused, he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.70,000/-. His monthly family expenditure was Rs.10,000/- and he was getting rental income of Rs.20,000/- per month out of five houses he Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 19 had. So, it is clear that the complainant on his own gave contradictory evidence with regard to the time and quantum of loan.
33. The impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in the back ground of the simple case of the complainant as pleaded and the improved version he has taken in the course of evidence based on Ex.P-6. Hence, this ground of the accused in support of the present appeal is prima facie sustainable.
34. The next ground is that the complainant has suppressed the real fact that he and she both are close relatives i.e., the complainant is the son of sister of her husband and as such, she approached the complainant to obtain the bank loan against her property situated in Dasarahalli, Bengaluru and in that connection, the complainant had collected the disputed cheque.
35. As noted above, the trial court record reveals that there is no mention either in the notice, or in the complaint or in the sworn statement in respect of the relationship if Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 20 any between the complainant and the accused. On other hand, as noted above, it is the simple case of the complainant that they are known to each other from past several years and there was good and cordial relationship between them.
36. On the other hand, it is the case of the accused that complainant is the son of her sister-in-law i.e. sister of her husband. In his cross examination, the complainant has admitted the suggestion that the accused is his relative and he is the son of the sister-in-law of the accused.
37. It is elicited in the cross examination of the complainant that he knows that the accused has raised house loan of Rs.50,00,000/- in Women Co-operative Bank, Dasarahalli branch, on 28.01.2015.
38. It is suggested to the complainant that in the year 2014, the accused approached him that she has financial crisis. By that time, he obtained signed E stamp paper, 5 cheques, bond paper and the xerox copies of the house documents from the accused assuring to get the bank loan and Ex.P-1 is a cheque out of the above stated five cheques Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 21 and Ex.P-1 was filled up by him convenient to the present case. The said suggestions are denied by the complainant.
39. It is also suggested to the complainant that after the accused raising the loan of Rs.50,00,000/- on 28.01.2015 from Women Co-operative Bank, Dasarahalli, she demanded to return 5 signed blank cheques, E stamp papers, but he did not return the same and told that the same are with the bank agent and will be returned after getting the same. The said suggestions also denied by the complainant.
40. However, the complainant has deposed that he knows about the above house loan raised by the accused which is admittedly on 28.01.2015. As noted above, the loan transaction referred in Ex.P-6 is dated 14.12.2014 and it is stated in Ex.P-6 that the original sale deed dated 11.12.2003 in the name of the accused pertains to the site No.4 was given to the complainant for the security purpose and since the accused was in need of the same to sell the said site No.4, she paid Rs.1,70,000/- in cash and agreed to pay the balance amount within the time stated therein Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 22 and towards the security, she had also issued cheque undertaking to take action against her on those cheques on her default to make the payment as agreed.
41. Ex.P-6 is the document produced by the complainant himself. So, the contents therein and the admitted house loan raised by the accused that too Rs.50,00,000/- on 28.01.2015 give some strength to the defence of the accused that the complainant received signed blank cheques, signed blank e-stamp papers and the xerox copies of the property documents with an assurance to the accused to get the loan.
42. In support of her defence, the accused has filed her chief affidavit evidence wherein she has reiterated her defence and also stated that the complainant assured her to return the 5 blank signed cheque and the property papers as well as E stamp papers collected by her for obtaining the property loan, but did not return the same.
43. In her cross examination also she has deposed that she gave 5 blank signed cheques to the complainant out of which two are Canara Bank cheques and 3 are Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 23 Vijaya Bank's cheque, but she cannot say the bank accounts numbers and cheque numbers.
44. At this stage, it is also important to note that the trial Court record reveals that the one more defence raised by the accused in the cross examination of the complainant is that out of the five cheques, the accused got filed one more cheque bounce case against her through one Sagar which is pending before XX ACMM, Bengaluru.
45. The said defence is put forth to the complainant by way of suggestion which is in turn denied by him. However, to substantiate the above defence, the accused has produced the certified copies of memorandum of complaint, cheque, return memo, office copy of the legal notice, postal receipt, unserved postal cover i.e. Ex.P-1 to 5 exhibited in the said case, sworn statement and the deposition of the complainant therein i.e. Sagar which are together marked as Ex.D-3.
46. The documents at Ex.D-3 demonstrate that one Sagar S/o K.G. Narasimhamurthy filed the said cheque bounce case against the accused in CC.No.29190/2017 on Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 24 the allegation that in the year 2016, the accused had some legal urgent family necessity and approached him in the last week of February and March-2017 for financial help and accordingly, he has adjusted and lent Rs.3,00,000/-on the last week of March-2016 and towards the repayment of the same, the accused issued cheque bearing No.182797 dated 26.09.2017 which on presentation returned dishonored for the reason "funds insufficient" and hence, he issued legal notice which returned unserved as not claimed and accordingly, he had filed the said cheque bounce case.
47. So, as per Ex.D-3, the accused approached the said Sagar in the month of March-2016 and the loan amount, he had lent is Rs.3,00,000/-. In the present case on hand also, it is the case of the complaint that in the month of March-2016, the accused approached him for financial assistance of Rs.3,00,0000/- and he had paid the said amount. So, the time and quantum of loan in both the cases are one and the same.
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 25
48. The disputed cheque at Ex.D-3 which is exhibited in that case as Ex.P-1 reveals the Account number as No.105401011010740 of Vijaya Bank and Ex.P-1 herein i.e. in this case is also of the same bank account. But, the cheque date therein is 26.09.2017 and in this case is 31.03.2016 and the endorsement therein is dated 17.10.2017 and in this case, it is 07.06.2016.
49. At this stage, it is important to note that, as observed above, in her cross examination, the accused has clearly stated that she gave 2 cheques of her Canara Bank Account and 3 cheques of her Vijaya Bank Account. If the date of approach and lending the loan as well as the quantum of loan in both the cases are taken into consideration, it appears that there is some force in the defence raised by the accused.
50. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that cheque at Ex.P-1 in this case was presented earlier and it was dishonoured for the reason that "account blocked" and it is in the evidence of the concerned Bank Manger/PW-2 that in case the bank account remained in operative for 2 Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 26 years continuously, they issue endorsement as "account blocked".
51. But surprisingly, in the return memo at Ex.P-2 in Ex.D-3 series i.e. the endorsement issued in the above case filed by one Sagar, the reason stated for dishonour of cheque is "funds insufficient" and it is evident on record that the cheque in the said case was presented subsequent to the presentation of the cheque in this case.
52. So, a question arises in the mind of a prudent man that when the bank has issued the endorsement that "account is blocked" in the previous presentation, how can it issues endorsement that "funds insufficient" to the subsequent presentation and the evidence on record states that same remained unexplained.
53. The one more ground urged by the accused is that the complainant has not produced any documents to show the source for lending such a huge amount. As noted above, in his further cross examination, the complainant has deposed that in the year-2016, when he has lent the loan to the accused, he was drawing monthly salary of Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 27 Rs.70,000/-. His monthly family expenditure was Rs.10,000/- and he was getting rental income of Rs.20,000/- per month out of 5 houses he had.
54. To prove his income, the complainant has produced Ex.P-7, his salary certificate dated 08.03.2018 for the month of February-2018 which reveals the gross salary is Rs.1,10,000/- and net pay is Rs.1,00,355/-. But, he has not produced any document of the relevant point of time i.e. either for the month of December-2014 or for the month of March-2016 and also in respect of the alleged rental income.
55. The other grounds urged by the accused in support of this appeal are that;
a) the impugned Judgment passed by the trial Court is illegal, contrary to law and evidence as well as probabilities of the case.
b) the complainant has not approached the trial Court with clean hands and intentionally suppressed all the real facts and materials on hand and issued the legal notice.
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 28
c) the trial Court has erred in law in accepting and acting upon the evidence of the complainant which is being inadmissible.
d) the trial Court has failed to observe the fact that the complainant has failed to prove enforceable debt or liability.
e) there are several weaknesses in the evidence of the complainant which are been overlooked and the evidence is sufficient to create suspicion.
f) even though there is no debt or liability and the complainant has failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt, the trial Court has passed the judgment of conviction and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant.
56. In view of the admitted fact that Ex.P-1 is signed by the accused and it belongs to her bank account, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act are in support of the complainant, but admittedly the said presumption is rebuttal one.
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 29
57. But, in the back ground of the simple case of the complainant as pleaded initially in the legal notice, in the complaint, in the sworn statement and in his chief affidavit evidence;
a) the improved version taken by the complainant with regard to loan transaction and the quantum of loan amount based on Ex.P-6 which lacks the pleadings on record;
b) the recitals at Ex.P-6 that the cheques referred therein including the disputed cheque in the present case at Ex.P-1 were issued for the security purpose, the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of NI Act cannot be taken in favour of the complainant.
58. The observations made above in respect of the case of the complainant; his improved version based on Ex.P-6 which are contradictory to each other and the evidence on record observed above, support the above grounds urged by the accused in support of her present appeal. Hence, this point is answered in affirmative.
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 30
59. POINT No.2:- In view of my finding on point No.1, the impugned judgment needs intervention and required to be set aside. Thus, this point with regard to the grounds urged by the complainant/revision petitioner for modification of the impugned sentence enhancing the quantum of compensation, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, this point is answered.
60. POINT No.3:- In view of my findings on point No.1, the impugned judgment needs to be intervened. Accordingly, this point is answered in affirmative.
61. POINT No.4:- In view of my findings on points Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER The present Criminal Appeal filed by the accused/appellant under Section 374(3) Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
Consequently, the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by XII ACMM, Bengaluru in CC.No.20087/2016 dated 11.10.2018 is hereby set aside.
In the result, the accused/appellant is set at liberty. The bail bond and the surety bond if any executed on behalf of the accused/appellant shall stand canceled.
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 31 Consequently, the present Criminal Revision Petition filed by the complainant/revision petitioner under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Keep the original of this Judgment in Crl.A.No:2245/2018 and copy in Crl.R.P. 879/2018.
Send back TCR along with the copy of this order forthwith to the trial Court.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 2nd day of July, 2020).
(K. KATHYAYANI ), LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bangalore.
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 32 The respective counsels for both the parties are absent. No representation.
2. Perused the record.
3. The counsel for appellant has moved memo of retirement on 13.03.2020.
But, it is not supported by the intimation to the appellant. Hence, it is not accepted and kept by for judgment.
Again called at 3-10p.m.
The respective counsels for both the parties are absent. No representation The Order is pronounced in the open Court (vide separate Order).
ORDER The present Criminal Appeal filed by the accused/appellant under Section 374(3) Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
Consequently, the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by XII ACMM, Bengaluru in CC.No.20087/2016 dated 11.10.2018 is hereby set aside.
Crl.A.No.2245/2018 C/w Crl.R.P. 879/2018 33 In the result, the accused/appellant is set at liberty. The bail bond and the surety bond if any executed on behalf of the accused/appellant shall stand canceled.
Consequently, the present Criminal Revision Petition filed by the complainant/revision petitioner under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Send back TCR along with the copy of this order forthwith to the trial Court.
LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bangalore.