Bangalore District Court
M/S. Sree Gokulam Chits And vs Lokesha on 23 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL., CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.
Present: Sri.N.Muniraja. B.A., L.L.M.,
Dated: This the 23rd Day of September, 2019.
C.C.No.16108/2017
Complainant M/s. Sree Gokulam Chits and
Finance Company Pvt.Ltd.,
Having its Corporate office At
No.66, Arcot Road, Kodambakam,
Chennai-600024.
And having one of its branch, AT
No.119, "Raj Dhruva", above
HDFC Bank Ltd., 1st Floor, 1St
Main Road, 1st Block, Dr.Rajkumar
Road, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-
560010. Represented by its
present Legal Clerk
Sri.K.M.Dharshan, S/o. Manjappa,
Aged about 22 years.
(Rep by M/s. B. Ashok Kumar, Adv.)
V/s.
Accused Lokesha, No.53, 1st Main, 6th 'B' Cross,
Kempegowdanagar, Near Police Quarters,
Bangalore-560091.
(Rep by Sri. Kiran Kumar .H.S., Adv.,)
Offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Final Order Acquitted
Judgment Date 23/09/2019
2 C.C. No. 16108/2017
JUDGMENT
The complainant chits and finance company filed this complaint against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Brief facts of the complainant case are as follows:
The complainant company is carrying on chits business. The accused joined the chit group No.G2J/1428/18 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. After bidding the said chit the accused became defaulter. On requests of the complainant for repayment ofnchit due amount the accused had issued cheque bearing No.000134 dated 20/03/2017 for sum of Rs.7,88,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagara Branch, Bangalore in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for realization through Axis Bank Ltd, Rajajinagar Branch, Bangalore and the said cheque dishonored vide memo dated 22/03/2017 on the ground of "funds insufficient". Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 12/04/2017 calling upon him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days and the said notice 3 C.C. No. 16108/2017 returned with a shara "No such person in the address". The address to which notice was sent to the accused was furnished by him to the complainant at the time of joining the chit group. The accused has not paid the cheque amount. Hence this complainant.
3. The accused appeared through his advocate and he enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation read over to the accused and he pleads as false.
4. On behalf of the complainant company it is GPA holder examined as PW.1 and got marked 10 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 18 and closed its side evidence. On closure of the complainant side evidence statement of the accused recorded U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has led defense evidence as DW.1. In the course of cross-examination of PW.1 got marked Ex.D.1 document and in the course of evidence of DW1 got marked Ex.D. 2 document. 4 C.C. No. 16108/2017
5. Heard the learned counsels for the complainant and accused and perused the records.
6. The points that would arise for my consideration are as follows:
(i) Whether the complainant proves that the accused issued Ex.P.5 cheque towards discharge of legally enforcible debt or liability and the said cheque dishonoured?
(ii) Whether the complainant proves that after dishonour of cheque, served notice to the accused in compliance of Sec.138(b) of N.I Act?
(iii) What order?
7. My answer to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Affirmative Point No.3: As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
8. Point No.1 : The case of the complainant company is that, it is carrying on chits business and the accused joined Chit Group No.G2J/1428/18 for sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and after bidding the said chit the accused 5 C.C. No. 16108/2017 became defaulter and he had issued the cheque in question towards payment of the outstanding due amount and the said cheque dishonored and inspite of demand notice by the complainant the accused has not paid the cheque amount. PW.1 who is the legal clerk and GPA holder of the complainant company in his chief examination affidavit has reiterated the contents of the complaint averments.
9. As borne out from the cross-examination of PW.1 and defense evidence, the contention of the accused is that the complainant company conducted the chit business illegally without obtaining license. The accused was due of Rs.4,82,145/- and after issuance of Ex.D1 notice he paid some amount to the complainant and he is only due of Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant. The complainant obtained the cheque at the time of bidding of the chit for security purpose and misused the same. The accused is not liable to pay the amount claimed under the cheque in question and no notice was served on the accused. 6 C.C. No. 16108/2017
10. The accused in the course of cross-examination admits that, Ex.P.5 cheque and signature thereon belongs to him. Though the accused contended that the complainant obtained the blank cheque for security purpose, but issuance of cheque in question to the complainant is not in much dispute. Since the accused not denied his signature on Ex.P.5 cheque and issuance of the same to the complainant is not in much dispute, presumption U/s.139 of the NI Act raises in favour of the complainant that, the accused has issued the cheque to the complainant towards discharge of any debt or liability. The burden shifts on the accused to rebut said presumption by raising probable defense. With this background let me appreciate the evidence on record whether the accused is able to rebut the presumption U/s.139 of the NI Act raises in favour of the complainant.
11. The complainant produced Ex.P.1 certified copy of Certificate of incorporation. The said document goes to show that, the complainant Chits and Financial company is incorporated under the Companies Act. The accused neither 7 C.C. No. 16108/2017 in the cross-examination of PW.1 nor in his defense evidence disputes the existence of the complainant company. The complainant produced Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the Board of Directors of the complainant company held on 07/09/2016 and Ex.P.3 Certified copy of GPA to show that, PW.1 is Authorized to represent the complainant company. As could be seen from Ex.P.2 document that, in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the complainant company held on 07/09/2016 resolved to authorize the present PW.1 to represent the complainant company before the court of law. Further, as could be seen from Ex.P.3 document that, the Managing Director of the complainant company executed GPA in favour of PW.1 to represent the complainant company. In the course of cross-examination of PW.1 or in the defense evidence the accused not disputes the said Ex.P.2 and 3 documents, Authority and competency of PW.1 to represent the complainant company.
8 C.C. No. 16108/2017
12. On behalf of the complainant produced Ex.P.11 Chit Registration application submitted by the accused, Ex.P12 document relates to the details of the accused and endorsement for having receipt of Chit agreement number by the accused, Ex.P17 Chit Agreement, Ex.P18 Subscribers List, Ex.P4 Payment voucher and Ex.P.9 and 10 Statements of Accounts to show that, the accused subscribed to chit No. G2J/1428/KDM18 and receipt of prize money and outstanding dues by the accused. No doubt, in the course of cross-examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused disputes the above said documents. But the accused in the course of cross-examination admits that, he subscribed to chit group G2J/1428/18 for chit value of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant company on 24/07/2013 and duration of the said chit was 20 installments and the payment of each installment is of Rs.50,000/-. He further admits that, after bidding the said chit on 24/01/2014 the complainant issued cheque for Rs.7,60,000/- and he received the said cheque as mentioned in Ex.P.4. From the above said evidence of the accused it is crystal clear that, the accused was the 9 C.C. No. 16108/2017 subscriber of Chit group G2J/1428/18 for chit value of Rs.10,00,000/- payable at Rs.50,000/- p.m. for a period of 20 months conducted by the complainant company and he auctioned the said chit and received prize money of Rs.7,60,000/- from the complainant. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to subscription of chit by the accused and receipt of the prize money from the complainant company.
13. The contention of the accused is that he is only due of Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant. Of course PW1 has specifically denied the suggestions made on behalf of the accused in this regard. Admittedly duration of the chit subscribed by the accused is 20 installments. The complainant produced Chit Ledger Extracts as per Ex.P9 &
10. As could be seen from Ex.P9 & 10 that the accused has paid only 10 months of the chit subscription that too he has not paid the said 10 months amount regularly. The accused in the course of cross-examination has stated that he has paid Rs.7,17,855/- to the complainant by way of cash. It is 10 C.C. No. 16108/2017 pertinent to note that in the course of cross-examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused not specifically made suggestion to the effect that the accused has paid Rs.7,17,855/- to the complainant and chief-examination of the accused is also silent in this regard. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused tried to contend that the collection agent by name Swamy on 12/12/2015 received an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and on 16/12/2015 received Rs.80,000/- from the accused. Though PW1 in the course of cross-examination admits that Swamy was the collection agent of the complainant company and he was collecting Chit amount from the accused, but he has specifically denied the collection of Rs.1,20,000/- on 12/12/2015 and Rs.80,000/- on 16/12/2015 from the accused by the said Swamy.
14. The accused in the course of his defense evidence has stated that the complainant used to issue receipts for having amount paid by him. In the course of cross- examination the accused tried to contend that he has paid 11 C.C. No. 16108/2017 more than Rs.4,68,190/- to the complainant company and the complainant not issued receipts for payments made by him. The accused in the course of cross-examination has stated that he has not asked the complainant company in writing for not issuing the receipts in respect of the amount paid by him and there was no difficulty for him to ask the complainant in writing to issue receipts. As noticed above, the accused in his chief-examination stated that the complainant was issuing receipts in respect of the payments made by him. In such circumstances, the statement of the accused in the course of cross-examination that the complainant was not issuing receipts in respect of the payments made by him cannot be accepted. The accused has not placed any materials to show that he has paid an amount of Rs.7,17,855/-. In such circumstances the contention of the accused that he is due of Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant company cannot be accepted.
15. The contention of the accused is that he has issued blank cheque to the complainant at the time of bidding of the 12 C.C. No. 16108/2017 chit. Of course on behalf of the complainant denied the said version of the accused. The accused in the course of cross- examination has stated that he studied Diploma in Textile Technology. He further admits that he knows reading and writing of Kannada and English languages and he is not in the habit of signing on the blank papers and after reading the contents only he used to put signature on the documents and he is doing Tax consultant job since six years. From the above said evidence it is crystal clear that the accused is not a prudent man and he is well educated person. Further the accused is not in the habit of signing on the blank papers and he used to sign the documents only after reading the contents of the documents. Since the accused is Tax consultant by profession he knows the consequences of issuance of blank cheques. Under these circumstances, the contention of the accused that he had issued blank cheque to the complainant at the time of bidding of the chit cannot be accepted.
13 C.C. No. 16108/2017
16. The accused in the course of cross-examination of PW1 contended that the complainant illegally run the chit without obtaining the permission. The learned counsel for the accused referring to the provisions of Sec.4 & 6 of the Chit Funds Act has argued that before commencement of any chit prior permission is required to obtain from the Registrar of Chits and the chit company has to maintain the records pertaining to the chit transactions and the chit company has to enter Chit Agreement with each the subscriber and copy of such agreement shall be sent to the Registrar of Chits. But, here is a case the complainant has not produced the permission obtained prior to commencement of chit and also Chit agreement pertaining to this accused and therefore the complainant has run the chit illegally and the alleged due amount claimed by the complainant cannot be said to be legally enforceable debt. The learned counsel for the accused has relied the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2004) 12 SCC 83 (G. Pankajakshi Amma and Others V/s Mathai Mathew (D) 14 C.C. No. 16108/2017 Thr. L.Rs. And Another) where in held that no court come to the aid of the party in an illegal transaction.
17. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused in the course of cross-examination admits that he subscribed chit and received prize money from the complainant company and the complainant has produced Chit prior sanction order, Chit Agreement and Certificate regarding deposit of security amount and Chit commencement certificate.
18. It is true that the accused in the course of cross- examination admits that he subscribed Chit Group No.G2J/1428/18 for chit value of Rs.10,00,000/- payable at Rs.50,000/- for a period of 20 months and he bid the chit and received bid amount of Rs.7,60,000/- from the complainant on 20/04/2014. PW1 in the course of cross- examination admits that before commencement of chit they have to obtain permission from the concerned department and they have not produced the permission obtained to run Chit Group No.G2J/1428/18 and there is no impediment to 15 C.C. No. 16108/2017 produce the said permission. He further admits that they will issue Membership receipt for each subscribers and not produced such membership receipt issued to the accused and there is no difficulty to produce the said membership receipt. He further admits about the entering of Chit Agreement with each subscriber of the chit and no impediment to produce the chit agreement entered with the accused. PW1 further admits that they have to sent the copies of chit agreements of the each subscribers to the Registrar of Chits. Though, the complainant at the first instance not produced the documents relates to the subject Chit, subsequently produced Ex.P.11 Chit Registration Application submitted by the accused, Ex.P12 document relates to details of accused , Ex.P13 Endorsement of Registration, Ex.P14 Certificate of commencement of Chit, Ex.P15 Chit prior sanction order which is in Tamil Language and Ex.P15(a) English translated copy of Ex.P15, Ex.P16 Certificate of Sufficiency of security, Ex.P17 Chit Agreement and Ex.P18 Subscribers List. During the course of cross- examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused disputes the 16 C.C. No. 16108/2017 genuineness of the above said documents and contended that the said documents are not relates to the Chit in question and elicited that the seal found on the said documents is not readable and Ex.P10 to 16 documents are not relates to the Karnataka State and name of the accused is not found in Ex.P17 Chit Agreement and except the accused other subscribers shown in Ex.P18 are belongs to some other states.
19. The learned counsel for the accused has argued even accepts the documents produced by the complainant, the said Ex.P11 to 18 documents are issued by the Registrar of Chits, Chennai but the Chit in question conducted in Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru. As per Sec.4(1) of the Chit Funds Act previous sanction of the State Government of the concerned State is required to be obtain to run the Chit business. The complainant has not produced the previous sanction obtained from the Karntaka State Government to run the Chit in question and therefore the 17 C.C. No. 16108/2017 complainant run the Chit illegally without obtaining the previous sanction from the Karnataka State Government.
20. There is some force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused. Because, as per Sec.4(1) of the Chit Funds Act no Chit shall be commenced or conducted without obtaining the previous sanction of the State Government within whose jurisdiction the chit is to be commenced or conducted. As noticed above, Ex.P11 to 18 documents produced by the complainant are issued by the Registrar of Chits Chennai. PW1 in the course of cross- examination admits that the Chit Group in question G2J/1428/KDM/18 conducted in Rajajinagar Branch at Bengaluru. He further admits that to run the said Chit in this State permission of the State Government required to be obtained and obtained the permission from the State Government to run the said Chit and there is no difficulty to produce the said permission. But, in the course of cross- examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused denied the permission obtained from the State Government to run the 18 C.C. No. 16108/2017 Chit. In view of Sec.4(1) of the Chit Funds Act previous sanction of the Karnataka State Government required to be obtained by the complainant to run the Chit in Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru. During the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the complainant has produced Notarized attested copy of Order vide No. NML/YMC/142/2011-12 dated: 26/11/2011 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Chits, Karnataka State, Bengaluru. Even though the said order is not got marked by the complainant, this court gone through the said order. The complainant company obtained the said order to commence its branch at Rajajinagar, Bengaluru to run the Chit business not for conducting of the subject Chit group. In spite of denial by the accused about the previous sanction obtained from the Karnataka State Government to run the subject Chit, the complainant has not produced any such previous sanction order obtained from the Government of Karnataka to run the chit in question at Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru. Since, the complainant has not produced the previous sanction obtained from the Karnataka State 19 C.C. No. 16108/2017 Government to run the subject Chit Group No. G2J/1428/KDM/18 it can be inferred that the complainant has not obtained any such permission and run the Chit without obtaining the previous sanction of the Karnataka State Government. Non-obtaining and production of previous sanction of the Karnataka State Government to run the Chit group in question is fatal to the case of the complainant. Therefore, it can be said that the complainant has conducted the Chit in question in violation the provision of Sec.4(1) of the Chit Funds Act.
21. According to the case of the complainant that accused is due of Rs.7,88,000/- and towards discharge of the said due amount issued Ex.P5 cheque. It is not in dispute with regard to duration of chit is 20 months. As per Ex.P9 & 10 Statements of Accounts produced by the complainant, the accused has paid 10 months. PW1 in the course of cross- examination admits the Ex.D1 notice issued by the complainant company to the accused. Under Ex.D1 notice dated: 21/05/2016 the complainant claimed balance amount 20 C.C. No. 16108/2017 of Rs.4,82,145/- from the accused. During the course of cross-examination of the accused on behalf of the complainant made suggestion to the effect that the accused is due of Rs.4,82,310/- towards the principle due and an amount of Rs.3,05,690/- towards interest on the said principle due amount from September - 2014 and as such the accused is due of Rs.7,88,000/- to the complainant company. From the above said suggestions made on behalf of the complainant it is crystal clear that the accused is due of Rs. 4,82,310/- towards the principle amount and interest at Rs.3,05,690/- on the said principle amount and in total he is due of Rs.7,88,000/- to the complainant. The complainant in the complaint has not specifically averred that the accused is due of Rs.4,82,145/- towards the principle due and of Rs.3,05,690/- towards the interest. The chief-examination of PW1 is also silent in this regard. The complainant has produced Ex.P9 and 10 Statements of Accounts maintained pertaining to the chit transaction of the accused. As per Ex.P9 Statement of Account the accused is due of Rs.4,82,145/- and as per Ex.P10 Statement of Account the 21 C.C. No. 16108/2017 accused is due of Rs.4,82,310/-. In Ex.P9 & 10 also there is a variation with respect the balance amount claimed by the complainant. Under Ex.P9 & 10 Statements of Accounts there is no mention about the interest amount payable by the accused on the outstanding due amount. No doubt, as per the terms of Ex.P18 Chit agreement the defaulted subscribers are liable to pay interest @ 24%. But in Ex.P9 & 10 Statements of Accounts the complainant has not calculated the interest amount of Rs.3,05,690/- alleged to be payable by the accused. Therefore there is no basis for the statement made by PW1 in the course of cross-examination about the liability of payment of interest amount of Rs.3,05,690/- by the accused . As noticed above, there is a variation in Ex.P9 and 10 Statements of Accounts pertaining to the outstanding dues. The complainant has not placed any materials to show that as on the date of issuance of Ex.P5 cheque, the accused was due of Rs.7,88,000/- claimed under Ex.P5 cheque. Under these circumstances no presumption could be drawn infavour of the complainant 22 C.C. No. 16108/2017 that the accused issued the cheque towards discharge of outstanding dues of Rs.7,88,000/-.
22. Though, the accused in the course of cross- examination admits the fact that he subscribed to Chit Group No.G2J/1428/18 for chit value of Rs.10,00.000/- for a period of 20 months and has received prize money of Rs.7,60,000/- from the complainant, but the complainant fails to establish that the said Chit Group No.G2J/1428/18 run legally by obtaining previous sanction from the Government of Karnataka as required under Sec.4(1) of the Chit Funds Act. Further, the complainant fails to establish that as on the date of issuance of Ex.P.5 cheque the accused was due of Rs.7,88,000/- claimed under Ex.P5 cheque and hence, no presumption could be drawn infavour of the complainant that the accused issued the cheque towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability. In view of my above discussion, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative. 23 C.C. No. 16108/2017
23. Point No.2 :- It is the case of the Complainant that, after dishonour of the cheque issued notice to the accused on 12/04/2017 through RPAD and the said notice returned with a shara "No such person in the address". On behalf of the complainant to prove the factum of issuance of notice to the accused through RPAD after dishonour of the cheque and return of the said notice produced Ex.P7 Office copy of notice dated: 12/04/2017, Ex.P7(a) Postal receipt, Ex.P8 Returned postal cover. As could be seen from Ex.P8 Postal cover that the notice sent to the accused returned as No such person in the address. The complainant in the complaint asserted that the address to which notice was sent to the accused furnished by him at the time of joining the Chit. In the course of cross-examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused contended that the accused is not residing in the address shown in the cause title of the complaint. During the course of cross-examination the accused stated that he is not residing in the address to which the complainant sent notice. The accused has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad reported in (1991) 24 C.C. No. 16108/2017 Cri.LJ.3010 (Rajiv Kumar V/s State of U.P) and Another decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa reported in 2010 Cri.Lj.983 (Makaradhwaj Behera V/s Satyanath Mahanata and Another) in support of the contention of the non-service of notice. Ex.P7 Notice sent to the accused to the address shown in cause title of the complaint. The accused has produced Ex.D2 Voter ID Card. No doubt, the address of the accused mentioned Ex.D2 Voter ID Card and the address of the accused shown in the cause title of the complaint are different. As noticed above, the complainant in the complaint clearly asserted that notice sent to the accused to the address furnished by him at the time of joining the Chit Group. The said version of the complainant is supported by Ex.P11 Chit Registration application submitted by the accused. Because the address of the accused shown in the cause title of the complaint, Ex.P7 notice and Ex.P11 application are one and the same. It is not the defense of the accused that he has informed to the complainant about change of his address. It is pertinent to note that the accused himself confronted Ex.D1 Notice to PW1 issued by the 25 C.C. No. 16108/2017 complainant company. The address mentioned in Ex.D1 Notice and Ex.P7 Notice are one and the same. When Ex.D1 Notice served to the accused for the same address why not Ex.P7 Notice not served to the accused for the same address. Therefore it can be said that the accused evaded Ex.P7 Notice. The complainant sent Ex.P7 Notice to the address furnished by the accused and the accused has not placed any materials to show that he informed to the complainant about change of his address. Since Ex.D1 Notice sent by the complainant served on the accused to the same address, it can be said that the complainant sent notice to the correct address of the accused furnished by him. As the complainant sent notice to the correct address of the accused it can be said that Ex.P7 Notice deemed to have been served on the accused and thereby the complainant has complied the mandatory requirement of Sec.138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The facts and circumstances of the decisions above relied upon by the accused are footing different to the case on hand and therefore the said decision 26 C.C. No. 16108/2017 will not come to the aid of the accused. Hence, I answer Point No.2 in the Affirmative
24. Point No.3 :- In view of my findings on Point No.1 & 2 though the complainant is able to establish that he has complied mandatory requirement of Sec.138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act by issuing demand notice to the accused after dishonor of the cheque, but fails to establish that the complainant company run the chit legally by obtaining previous sanction from the Karnataka State Government in view of Sec.4(1) of the Chit Funds Act and also fails to establish the existence of debt of Rs.7,88,000/- on the part of the accused as on the date of issuance of Ex.P5 cheque. Therefore the accused is not liable for punishment for the offence punishable U/sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant company against the accused is dismissed. 27 C.C. No. 16108/2017
Consequently, acting U/s.255(1) of Cr.PC, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the N.I. Act and his bail bond and surety bonds are cancelled and he set at liberty.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced in open court by me on this the 23rd day of September, 2019) (N.Muniraja) XXVII A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW1 : K.M. Dharshan Documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : C/c of incorporation certificate Ex.P2 : C/c of extract of minutes of proceedings of Board of Directors of the complainant company held on 07/09/2016 Ex.P.3 : C/c of GPA Ex.P.4 : Payment voucher Ex.P.5 : Cheque Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P.6 : Bank endorsement Ex.P.7 : Office copy of Legal Notice dt:
12/04/2017
Ex.P.7(a) : Postal Receipt
28 C.C. No. 16108/2017
Ex.P.8 : Returned Postal cover
Ex.P.8(a) : Copy of notice contained in
Ex.P8 Postal cover
Ex.P9 : Chit ledger extract.
Ex.P10 : Statement of Account
Ex.P11 : Chit Registration application submitted
by the accused
Ex.P12 : Document relates to the details of the
accused and endorsement for having
receipt of chit agreement number by the
accused.
Ex.P13 : Endorsement of Registration. Sri. KKHS
advocate for the accused raised
objection to mark the said document as
`seal is not visible in the said document. Hence the said documents is marked subject to objections of the advocate for the accused.
Ex.P14 : Certificate of commencement of Chit.
Sri. KKHS advocate for the accused raised objection to mark the said document as seal is not visible in the said document. Hence the said documents is marked subject to objections of the advocate for the accused.
Ex.P15 : Chit prior sanction order which is in Tamil Language Ex.P15(a) : English translated document of Ex.P15 Ex.P16 : Certificate of sufficiency of security Ex.P17 : Chit Agreement 29 C.C. No. 16108/2017 Ex.P18 : Subscribers list.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
DW1 : LOKESH Documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D1 : Notice dated: 21/05/2016
Ex.D2 : Voter ID Card
XXVII A.C.M.M Bangalore.
30 C.C. No. 16108/2017
23/09/2019
Comp: BAK
Acc:KKHS
For Judgment
(Order typed vide separate sheet)
ORDER
The complaint filed by the
complainant company against the
accused is dismissed.
Consequently, acting U/s.255(1)
of Cr.PC, the accused is acquitted for
1 C.C. No. 16108/2017
the offence punishable U/s.138 of the
N.I. Act and his bail bond and surety
bonds are cancelled and he set at
liberty.
(N.Muniraja)
XXVII A.C.M.M., Bangalore