Bangalore District Court
Gunaiah vs Murugan on 16 April, 2024
1
C.C.No.31331/2018
KABC030858482018
Presented on : 29-11-2018
Registered on : 29-11-2018
Decided on : 16-04-2024
Duration : 5 years, 4 months, 17 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
PRESENT : SRI.JAI SHANKAR.J,
B.A.L., LL.B
XXII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2024
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
C.C.NO. : 31331/2018
COMPLAINANT : Sri. V.Gunaiah,
S/o. Late Veeranna,
Aged about 48 Yrs,
C/o. Roopesh Nilaya,
No.133, 2nd Cross,
L.G. Ramanna Badavane,
Laggere,
Bangalore - 560 058.
(By Sri. Vijayakumara., Adv.,)
V/S.
2
C.C.No.31331/2018
ACCUSED : Sri. B.Murugan,
Father name not known,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at 13/16, 9th Main,
Near Rajeshwari Theater,
Rajeshwarinagar ( Peenya),
Laggere,
Bangalore - 560 058.
Also at ,
Proprietor,
Sri. Venkateshwara Transport,
No.55/246/1, 7th Cross,
APMC Yard,
Near Ganesha Temple,
Yashwanathapura,
Bangalore - 560 022.
(By Sri. GRV & Associates., Adv.,)
Offence complained : U/s.138 of N.I.Act
of
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 16.04.2024
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3
C.C.No.31331/2018
2. The brief facts of the complainant's case is as under:
The complainant was working as a Store Supervisor in the office of Berger paints from 2007 to 2016 and the accused being the proprietor of Sri.Venkateshwara Transport, he had attached the lorry to the company and in such instance, they came in acquittance and thereby, they are known to each other from past nine years. The accused by putting forth a financial assistance has approached the complainant in the first week of June 2018 for a hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to which the accused assured and had advanced Rs.1,16,000/- on 23.06.2018., wherein the accused has agreed to repay the said amount with interest of 2% within the end of August 2018. The accused has issued two cheques bearing No.561043 for Rs.66,000/- and cheque bearing No.561044 for Rs.50,000/- both dt:24.09.2018 drawn on Canara Bank, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore, assuring that, on 4 C.C.No.31331/2018 presentation it would be honoured. When he presented the cheques for encashment through his banker ie., State Bank of India, Peenya Branch, Bangalore on 24.09.2018, the same came to be dishonored for want of Funds Insufficient as per memo dt:25.09.2018. Immediately, he got issued the legal notice dt:03.10.2018 demanding the repayment of the cheque amount, which was served on the accused, but he has not chosen to comply the same which has given a cause of action to file the complaint.
3. After filing of the complaint, this court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Being satisfied that, there are prima-facie materials to proceed against accused, summons was issued. After appearance of the accused, he was enlarged on bail and plea was recorded. The accused has not pleaded guilty, but submitted that, he would go for the trial. 5
C.C.No.31331/2018
4. From the basis of the pleadings, the following points that arise for my consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that, the accused issued cheque bearing No.561043 for Rs.66,000/- and cheque bearing No. 561044 for Rs.50,000/- both dt:
24.09.2018 drawn on Canara Bank, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore, towards discharge of his liability which was returned unpaid on presentation for the reason "Funds Insufficient" despite of knowledge of the notice, he has not paid the said cheque amount and thereby, committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What order?
5. The sworn statement and the documents marked at Ex.P.1 to P.9 of the complainant is being treated as the complainant evidence as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2010 (5) SCC 590. The statement of accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded and he has denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him and has submitted that, he has the 6 C.C.No.31331/2018 evidence and accordingly, he is being examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 & D.2 documents and closed his side evidence. Ex.D.1 was got marked through the confrontation of the PW.1.
6. Heard the argument. The defence counsel filed his written argument. Perused the materials available on record.
The complainant has relied upon the following decisions :
1.Crl.Appeal No.849-50/2011 dt: 23.09.2021 -
Triyambak S. Hegde,
2. (2019) 18 SCC 106 - Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and another.,
3. (2019) 4 SCC 197 - Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar
4. Crl.Appeal No. 362/2022 - SLP . (CRL) No.1963/2019
-Tedhi Singh Vs. Narayan Dass Mahant
5. 2022(3) AKR 381 - M.S.Sathya Narayana Vs. Lingaraje Urs., which all deals on the point of presumption and rebuttable presumption.
7
C.C.No.31331/2018
7. My answer to the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 :- In the Affirmative Point No.2 :-As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The complainant has filed this complaint alleging that, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. He pleads and asserts that, the accused in discharge of his liability has issued the cheque bearing No.561043 for Rs.66,000/- and cheque bearing No.561044 for Rs.50,000/- both dt:
24.09.2018 drawn on Canara Bank, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore,, assuring that, on presentation it would be honoured. On such assurance, when he presented the said cheque, it returned unpaid with an endorsements Funds Insufficient. Thereby, he got issued the legal notice dt:03.10.2018 which was served on the accused, but he failed to comply the demand which has given a cause of action to file the complaint.8
C.C.No.31331/2018
9. To substantiate his case, the sworn statement is being treated as evidence. The complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint in his evidence about the accused approaching him and requesting for the hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- and the accused issuing the cheques at Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 towards the repayment of the loan amount of Rs.1,16,000/- which came to be dishonored as per Ex.P3 & P4 as Insufficient Funds, when it was presented for honouring. He also deposed about, he issuing the notice as per Ex.P.5 and the accused failing to oblige the same.
10. In this scenario, if the documents placed by the complainant is scrutinized, the complainant in order to examine the compliance of statutory requirements as envisaged U/s.138 of NI Act, he got produced the Ex.P.1 & 2 the cheques dt: 24.09.2018. The said cheques are returned with an endorsements as Funds Insufficient as per Ex.P.3 & P4, the return advise dt: 25.09.2018. The Ex.P.5 is the office copy of the legal notice dt:03.10.2018 9 C.C.No.31331/2018 Ex.P.6 & 7 are the postal receipts and Ex.P.8 is the acknowledgement having served on 04.10.2018 and Ex.P.9 is the unserved RPAD cover dt: 05.10.2018. The present complaint is filed on 13.11.2018. A careful scrutiny of the documents relied by the complainant goes to show that, a statutory requirement of Sec.138 of NI Act is being complied with and this complaint is filed well in time. The complainant has discharged his initial burden by examining him as PW.1 and by producing the documents as referred above. Thus, complainant is entitled to rely on the statutory presumptions enshrined U/s.118 R/w. Sec. 138 of N.I.Act.
Sec. 118 of the Act reads as thus, that every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that, every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
Further Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act provides for presumption infavour of PA holder. It reads like this, it 10 C.C.No.31331/2018 shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that, the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec. 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or any other liability.
11. A combined reading of the referred sections raises a presumption infavour of the holder of the cheque that, she has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. No doubt, the said presumptions of law are rebuttable in nature, the accused can take probable defense in the scale of preponderance of probabilities to rebut the presumption available to the complainant. It is need less to say that, the evidence of the PW.1 can be rebutted even by effectively cross-examining the PW.1, rather entering the witness box.
12. So here, it is relevant to note that, whether the accused by cross examining the PW.1 and also examining him as DW.1 has really rebutted the presumption available under the law which requires due consideration. Here, it is 11 C.C.No.31331/2018 not in dispute that, the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 & P2 belongs to the accused and it is also not in dispute that, it is being dishonored for want of sufficient funds as per Ex.P.3 & 4. It is also not in dispute that, on the disputed cheques being dishonoured, the complainant happens to have issued the legal notice as per Ex.P.5. Here, the complainant by deposing the fact of he advancing the loan amount of Rs.1,16,000/- and the accused happens to have issued the disputed cheques towards the discharge of the loan liability, which is being dishonored for want of sufficient funds claims that, he has established his case by producing the disputed cheques, the bank endorsement, the legal notice and the postal acknowledgement for having served on the accused and thereby, harping upon the oral and documentary evidence claims to draw presumption U/s. 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. However, though the accused admits his relationship with the complainant, but contends that, he never raised any loan from the complainant at any point of time nor has issued the disputed cheques towards 12 C.C.No.31331/2018 the discharge of any loan liability. Apart from denial, he contends that, he being the subscriber/participant of a chit business with one Ranganath in the year 2015 for an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs, he was subscribing the monthly installment amount of Rs.10,000/- and he being the highest bidder of the amount, he had received Rs.2,50,000/- from the said Ranganath. It is also his case that, while he received the chit amount of Rs.2,50,000/- he had handed over the disputed cheques towards the security purpose to the chit amount in the presence of the complainant and that, he had repaid the entire chit amount, but rather the said Ranganath returning back the disputed cheques has got colluded with the complainant and has filed the present complaint only to gain unlawful. Thereby, claiming that, he never borrowed the hand loan from the complainant and that, the complainant being colluded with the said Ranganath has filed the present false complaint, has prayed for acquittal. 13
C.C.No.31331/2018
13. In this back ground, if the rival claims of the parties are taken into consideration, it would not be wrong to say that, the foremost burden upon the complainant is to establish, the loan transaction, the issuance of the cheque, the financial capacity and so also, of complying the mandatory provision of issuing the demand notice to the accused. As said above, the disputed cheques pertains to the accused and the signature appearing therein belongs to the accused is not in dispute. Perhaps, the complainant working as a Store supervisor at Berger paints company and so also, the accused was transporting the Paints is not in dispute. This fact is also admitted by the accused. Infact, when the accused takes a defence that, the complainant had got introduced the above referred Ranganath and so also, the complainant was also one of the subscriber to the above referred chit transaction suffices a fact that, the complainant and accused are well known to each other which cannot be brushed aside. 14
C.C.No.31331/2018
14. Here, it is relevant to note that, no prudent man would issue a cheque unless there is a liability under it. Though, the accused claims that, he being one of the subscriber was participating the chit transaction owned by the above referred Ranganath and so also, the complainant was also one of the subscriber along with him, but to establish the said fact, except the oral and self testimony evidence of the accused, there is no other probable evidence so as to appreciate his defence. Here, heavy burden is also upon the accused to establish the existence of the so called Ranganath and so also, he participating the chit transaction as a subscriber. If the accused able to establish the existence of the so called Ranganath and also the alleged chit transaction, then it can be construed that, the accused has rebutted the presumption which is available under the law. Because, the complainant has totally denied the existence of the so called Ranganath and also denied the chit transaction as claimed by the accused. When, the complainant had seriously disputed the very 15 C.C.No.31331/2018 defence raised by the accused by producing the disputed cheques and the service of the legal notice, it was incumbent upon the accused to establish the said fact. Though, the accused claims the existence of the so called Ranganath, his residence at Yelahanka and so also, the said Ranganath has a brother called by name Gangadhar, but to appreciate the said defence, there is no probable evidence placed on record. Perhaps when the accused claims the existence of the said Ranganath and also he running with the chit business, he ought to have produced some document with regard to the chit transaction or could have examine the so called Ranganath and Gangadhar which admittedly not forthcoming.
15. Infact, when the accused claims that, he was depositing the monthly installment of Rs.10,000/- towards the chit amount and he being the highest bidder had received Rs.2,50,000/- by handing over the disputed cheques as a security, he ought to have placed some piece 16 C.C.No.31331/2018 of evidence, but admittedly no iota of evidence are placed on record to appreciate his defence. No doubt, for as moment if it is construed that, some times no document would be issued or maintained pertaining to the chit transaction, but again nothing had prevented the accused to disclose the fact of the number of participants in the chit transaction alleged to be took place in the year 2015 and so also, examining the said participant in support of his case. Absolutely there is no piece of evidence are placed on record to hold that, one so called Ranganath was running the chit business and he was one of the subscriber to the chit transaction.
16. Be that, as a case may be, even for a moment if it is construed that, the said so called Ranganath was running the chit business and the accused being the highest bidder had handed over the disputed cheques as a security toward the receipt amount, but again there was no impediment for the accused to demand for the return of the 17 C.C.No.31331/2018 disputed cheques from the so called Ranganath at a particular point of time. No doubt, the PW.1 was confronted with the cheque book of the accused more particularly the first page of the cheque book where it finds the particulars of the date and the cheque numbers which was admitted by the complainant that, the particulars ie., date and cheque number was reduced by him and by harping on the admission it was urged that, it was a complainant who stood as a witness while handing over the disputed cheques to Rangantha and the admission of PW.1 would suffice that it was not issued towards the any repayment of the loan amount, but though the complainant has admitted the particulars referred therein at Ex.D.1 ie., the date and the particulars of the cheques, but he has categorically denied that, he never reduced the name of Ranganath at Ex.D.1. Though, much was harped on Ex.D.1 and made an attempt to establish the fact that, the name Ranganath was returned by the complainant and he stood as a witness while handing over the cheques, but 18 C.C.No.31331/2018 again when the complainant has categorically denied the said fact, the accused ought to have established the fact of the name Ranganath was reduced by the complainant which again not forthcoming.
17. Many questions were posed with regard to the same pen used pertaining to the date, cheque numbers and the name used for writing Ranganath, but again except a formal suggestion posed by the defnece, he has not chosen to establish by placing the probable defence. Certainly, he could have taken the assistance of the expert opinion so as to contradict the complainant case and to make out the writing found therein belongs to the complainant. When the accused has not chosen to establish the fact of the Ex.D.1 with the name of the Ranganath being reduced by the complainant, it cannot be said that, the word Ranganath is being reduced by the complainant. When, the accused failed to establish the fact of the chit transaction and the Ex.D.1, the fact of disputed cheques being 19 C.C.No.31331/2018 dishonoured for want of sufficient funds also gives a serious doubt so as to appreciate the defense case. If really the accused had handed over the disputed cheques to Ranganath towards the security purpose in the presence of the complainant and that, the complainant failed to keep up his promise to get returned the disputed cheques from Ranganath, accused could have initiated some action against the said Ranganath and also against the complainant which admittedly not forthcoming. Muchless, he could have demanded the return of the cheques through writing or could have requested the bank to stop the payment by disclosing the real incident, rather the disputed cheques would indicate that, it is being dishonored for want of funds insufficient. No doubt, many questions were posed with regard to the pen used in the disputed cheques and so also, the complainant receiving two cheques for Rs.1,16,000/- instead of one cheque for the total amount of Rs.1,16,000/-, but when the complainant deposes the fact that, the accused had issued the two 20 C.C.No.31331/2018 cheques toward the repayment of Rs.1,16,000/-, merely issuing two cheques for Rs.1,16,000/- would not give any room to doubt the complainant case. Moreso, if really the complainant was to gain unlawful through the disputed cheques, he could have referred higher amount, rather he fixing the amount at Rs. 1,16,000/-. So, therefore I do not find any force in the argument of the accused that, there was no any possibility for the accused to issue two cheques of a single date of Rs.1,16,000/- when more particularity the complainant has deposed that, it was issued by the accused voluntarily. When the complainant was able to establish the fact of the loan transaction and also the issuance of the cheques was towards the discharge of the loan liability, a presumption could be drawn that, even if a blank cheque is issued with legal liability, the law permits the holder of the cheque to fill it so far the loan transaction is concerned.
21
C.C.No.31331/2018
18. Perhaps, though many questions were posed with regard to the financial capacity of the complainant and so also, the accused was financially well at a particular point of time by producing the Ex.D.2 the bank statement, but admittedly, the very admission of the accused that, the complainant was working as a store keeper at Berger paints and that, he was also one of the subscriber/participant to the chit fund suffices that, he is financially well and is able to advance the loan amount. Moreso, as per the complainant case the loan transaction is alleged to be took place in the first week of June 2018, but the Ex.D.2 the bank statement pertains to the month of April 2014 to March 2017 which is nothing to do with the present case and this fact is being admitted by the accused. Absolutely, there is no rebuttable evidence placed by the accused to hold that, so called Ranganth was running the chit business and he being one of the highest bidder had received Rs.2,50,000/- by handing over the disputed cheques towards the security purpose. When the oral and 22 C.C.No.31331/2018 documentary evidence available on record, suffices that, the accused failed to rebut the presumption raised, an inference could be drawn that, the defence raised by the accused is a false claim and it is raised only to avoid the liability under the cheques. As said above, no prudent man would issue the cheque unless there is liability under it. When the accused failed to establish his defence, certainly an presumption has to be raised that, he had raised the hand loan of Rs.1,16,000/- from the complainant and he has issued the disputed cheques towards the discharge of the loan liability.
19. The accused has taken a specific contention that, having the complainant not complied the mandatory provision of issuing the statutory notice, he seeks for the dismissal of the complaint. Here, it is not in dispute that, on the dishonor of the cheques at Ex.P.3 & 4, the complainant happens to have issued the demand notice as per Ex.P.5. It also cannot be denied that, as per Ex.P8 the 23 C.C.No.31331/2018 acknowledgement, it is delivered to the addressee and as per Ex.P.9 it is returned with shara as Not claimed and returned to the sender. Here, though the accused denies the receipt of notice, but nowhere he denies the address referred therein does not pertains to him. Perhaps, though he claims that, he is residing at Door No.19, Near Samudaya Bhavan, 17th Main Road, Saraswathipuram, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru and not at the cause title address, but the accused has not produced any document to establish that, he is residing in the said address. He could have produced Aadhar card or the election I.D.card so as to appreciate the defence. On contra, it indicates that, when the complainant has referred the address refereed in the legal notice to the cause title of the complaint and he being represented by the counsel, it suffices that, the complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused address and he has complied the mandatory provision by issuing the statutory notice as required under the law.
24
C.C.No.31331/2018
20. Though, the accused has taken a probable defence to disprove the complainant case, but that is not being established by placing the positive evidence. The very oral evidence available on record, totally contradictory to the documentary evidence. It is need less to say that, documentary evidence do prevail on the oral evidence. Absolutely, there is no evidence available on record, to hold that, the disputed cheques were given as a security to so called Ranaganath and not to the complainant. So, in this back ground when the provisions U/s.118 and 139 of N.I. Act is looked into, it raises the presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that, he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. It also permits the complainant to fill the cheque having established the Ex.P.1 & 2 being issued towards the discharge of loan liability.
21. In the decision reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283 - Kalamani Tex and Another., Vs. P.Balasubramanian, 25 C.C.No.31331/2018 (2010) 11 SCC 441- Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan., Wherein it is held that, when once the signature of an accused on the cheque is established, than the reverse onus clauses become operative, aptly applies to the case in hand. In the case in hand, the accused has admitted the disputed cheques pertains to him. When the complainant has established the accused having issued the cheques at Ex.P.1 & 2 towards the discharge of loan liability and their existed a legally enforceable debt, the onus to disprove it, shifts on the accused which is not been proved by placing positive evidence. In this background, having the accused not disputed the complainant case by placing positive evidence or by cross examining the PW.1 which favours his case, I am of the considered view that, the cheques issued by the accused at Ex.P.1 & 2 is for the legally enforceable debt and this fact is being established by the complainant by placing cogent and positive evidence which is not rebutted by the other side.
26
C.C.No.31331/2018
22. As said above, the accused has not disputed the cheques does pertains to him. It could be said that, the accused has not disputed the cheques in question and signature found therein. When the drawer has admitted the issuance of cheques as well as the signature present therein, the presumption envisaged U/s.118 R/w.139 of N.I.Act would operate infavour of the complainant. The said provisions lies on a special rule of evidence applicable to negotiable instruments. The presumption is one of law and thereunder the court shall presume that, the instrument was endorsed for consideration. So also, in the absence of contrary evidence on behalf of the accused, the presumption U/s.118 of N.I.Act goes in favour of the complainant. No doubt, as said statutory presumptions are rebuttable in nature, but when the complainant has relied upon the statutory presumptions enshrined U/s.118 R/w.Sec.139 of N.I.Act, it is for the accused to rebut the presumption with cogent and convincing evidence. To put it in other way, the burden lies upon the accused to prove 27 C.C.No.31331/2018 the cheques in question at Ex.P.1 & 2 were not issued for the discharge of debt or liability.
23. It is worth to note that, Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act postulates that, the burden is on the accused to establish the fact which is especially within its knowledge. This provision is exception to the general rule that, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In that view of matter, the burden is on the accused to prove that, the cheque in question was not issued for discharge of any liability. But, despite the accused has taken the defence that, the Ex.P.1 & 2 were not issued towards the legal liability, but the said fact and the version is not been established. The decision relied by the complainant aptly applies to the case in hand.
24. From the discussion made supra, it could be said that, the complainant has established his case by placing positive evidence. On the other hand, the accused failed to 28 C.C.No.31331/2018 to establish his defence by placing probable defence and also, failed to elicit the said fact from the mouth of the PW.1. To put it in other way, the accused though taken a probable defence, but it is not been established by placing the positive evidence. The presumption of law lies in favour of the complainant as envisaged U/s.118 R/w. Sec. 139 of N.I.Act. In this back ground, the case of the complainant requires to be accepted. The evidence placed on record establishes that, the complainant has proved that, for discharge of the liability, the accused has issued Ex.P.1 & 2 and it is being dishonored for the reason Funds Insufficient . Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in the "Affirmative'.
25. Point No.2:- For the reasons discussed in the point No.1, the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court also dealt in the decision reported in (2018) 1 SCC 560, M/s. Meters and Instrument Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 29 C.C.No.31331/2018 Kanchana Mehta., wherein It is held that "the object of provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged, but is not debarred at the later stage subject to appropriate compensation has may be found acceptable to the parties or the court". By considering the decision, it could be said that, the time when the transaction has taken place and the primary object of the provision being kept in mind, I am of the considered view that rather imposing punitive sentence, if sentence of fine is imposed with a direction to compensate the complainant for its monetary loss by awarding compensation U/s.357 of Cr.P.C., it would meet the ends of justice. By considering these aspects, I am of the considered view that, it would be just and proper to impose fine of Rs. 1,21,000/-. Out of the compensation of Rs.1,21,000/-, an amount of Rs.1,16,000/- shall be awarded to the complainant U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following :
30
C.C.No.31331/2018 ORDER Acting under section 255(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,21,000/- (Rupees One Lakh & Twenty one Thousand only).
In default thereof, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for the term of one year.
Acting U/s.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., it is ordered that, Rs.1,16,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Sixteen Thousand only) there from shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. The remaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in the prosecution.
The office is to furnish the free copy of this Judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Directly dictated to stenographer on computer, typed by her, revised by me and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of April 2024).
(JAI SHANKAR.J) XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
31
C.C.No.31331/2018 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri.V. Gunaiah List of exhibits marked on behalf of complainant:-
Ex.P1 & P2 Original cheques Ex.P1(a) & 2(a) : Signatures of the accused Ex.P3 & P4 : Bank Memos Ex.P5 : Legal notice Ex.P6 & 7 : Postal receipts Ex.P8 : Postal acknowledgement Ex.P9 : Unserved postal cover .
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused :-
DW.1 : Sri. Murugan List of exhibits marked on behalf of the accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Relevant entries in cheque book Ex.D.2 Bank Statements (JAI SHANKAR.J) XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.32
C.C.No.31331/2018 16.04.2024 Judgment pronounced in Open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under section 255(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,21,000/- (Rupees One Lakh & Twenty one Thousand only).
In default thereof, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for the term of one year.
Acting U/s.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., it is ordered that, Rs.1,16,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Sixteen Thousand only) there from shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. The remaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in the prosecution.
The office is to furnish the free copy of this Judgment to the accused forthwith.
XXII ACMM, BENGALURU.
33 C.C.No.31331/2018