Bangalore District Court
Mr. Raghupathy vs M/S. Girish Mango Products & on 3 November, 2022
KABC0C0046362018
IN THE COURT OF XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (ACMM34)
PRESENT: Smt.PARVEEN A BANKAPUR,B.Com.LLB.
XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE,
Dated : This the 3rd day of November, 2022.
C.C.No.51266/2018
COMPLAINANT : Mr. Raghupathy
S/o.Ramachandra Naidu
Aged about 67 years,
R/at No. 76, Oil Mill Road,
St Thomas Town Post,
Kammanahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 084.
(by Mr.S. Shaker Shetty & Asnil
Kumar Shetty Advocates)
V/S
ACCUSED : 1. M/s. Girish Mango Products &
Exports Pvt Ltd.,
A Company Incorporated under the
Companies Act and having its Office
at SF No.199/2, 3, 4, 5 Padukombai
Village, Muthugapathi Post,
Namakkal District 651 405.
Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Directors
2. Mr. E. Prasanna
Director
M/s. Girish Mango Products &
Exports Pvt Ltd.,
SF No. 199/2, 3, 4, 5 Padukombai
Village, Muthugapathi Post,
Namakkal District 651 405.
Tamil Nadu
3. Mr. P. Rajesh Kumar
2 C.C.No.51266/2018
Director
M/S Girish Mango Products &
Exports Pvt Ltd
SF No.199/2,3,4,5
Padukombai Village
Muthugapathi Post
Namakkal District 651 405.
Tamil Nadu
(By Mr.K.V. Keshava Advocates)
1 Date of Commencement 23.08.2017
of offence
2 Date of report of offence 02.11.2017
3 Presence of accused
3a. Before the Court 28.08.2018
3b. Released on bail 28.08.2018
4 Name of the Complainant Mr.Raghupathy
5 Date of recording of 31.01.2018
evidence
6 Date of closure of evidence 25.12.2021
7 Offences alleged U/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
8 Opinion of Judge Accused are found guilty.
JUDGEMENT
The Private Complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that he have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submits that the Accused No.1 is a registered company and Accused No.2 and 3 are its Directors 3 C.C.No.51266/2018 and in charge of dayto day of the Accused No.1. The Accused No.1 towards Exports business and the Complainant appointed as forwarding agent of the Accused No.1 company by representing the territory of Karnataka in terms of the Agreement dtd.4.3.2010 and on mutual understanding, the same is renewed as per the agreement dtd.22.10.2013.
3. It is further submitted that by the Complainant the Accused No.1 closed the CNF office of which is located at Complainant's jurisdiction on company feasible purpose and requested the Complainant to forward the statement of Accounts and the pending dues and agreed to be settled as per the terms of the Agreement.
4. The Complainant further stated that the Accused No.1 through its authorized signatory Accused No.2 and 3 towards repayment of the dues to the Complainant, had issued two Cheques bearing No.000151 dtd.23.8.2017 for Rs.12,50,000/ drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Sai Baba Colony branch, Coimbatore. and another Cheque bearing No.518958 dtd.5.8.2017 for Rs.6,58,457/ drawn on Corporation Bank, Erode branch, Erode.
4 C.C.No.51266/2018
5. The Complainant further submits that as per the instruction of Accused, he presented the said Cheques through his banker State Bank of India, HRBR Layout branch, Bengaluru for encashment and on 14.9.2017 the first Cheque mentioned as above is returned due to "Debit stopped" and second Cheque is returned due to "funds insufficient"
respectively. Thereafter the Complainant has issued legal notice to the Accused on 6.10.2017 through RPAD, calling upon the Accused to make payment of Cheques' amount and the same was served on the Accused on 12.10.2017. Despite service of legal notice the Accused has neither paid the Cheques' amount nor replied to the notice. Later on 26.10.2017 the Complainant has sent another notice in continuation of earlier notice for correction in paragraph No.2 in the notice dtd.6.10.2017 the second Cheque is referred to drawn on Syndicate bank instead of Corporation Bank. It is further submitted that both Cheques were issued towards refund of deposit and unpaid sales commission on ceasing of contractual obligations from the Complainant and towards payment of the said liability. The Accused are only avoiding payment of legitimate dues ulterior 5 C.C.No.51266/2018 motives. Hence, the Accused have committed an offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
6. After issuance of summons, accused appeared before the court and enlarged themselves on bail. Plea was recorded, read over and explained to the accused persons, who pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for complainant's evidence.
7. The Complainant himself examined as PW1 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P.17.
8. Accused were examined U/S 313 of Cr.P.C. Incriminating evidence appearing in the complainant's evidence was read over and explained to the accused who denies the same. The Accused No.2 himself examined as DW.1 and got marked document Ex.D.1 and Ex.D4 and closed his side.
9. Heard arguments of learned counsels for appearing for Complainant and Accused.
10. The learned counsel for Accused relied on decisions as under;
1. ILR 2006 KAR 3579 6 C.C.No.51266/2018
2. ILR 2007 KAR 2709
3. 2008 AIR SCW 738
4. 2007 AIR SCW 2460
5. 2007 AIR SCW 2460
11. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the materials placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration.
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused in discharge of legally recoverable debt has issued 2 Cheques bearing Cheques bearing No.000151 dtd.23.8.2017 for Rs.12,50,000/ drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Sai Baba Colony branch, Coimbatore. and another Cheque bearing No.518958 dtd.5.8.2017 for Rs.6,58,457/ drawn on Corporation Bank, Erode branch, Erode in favour of the complainant which came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "Debit stopped" and "funds insufficient" respectively. on 14.9.2017 and in spite of service of notice accused has not paid the Cheques amount and thereby committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
12. My findings on the above points is:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative 7 C.C.No.51266/2018 Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS Point No.1:
13. Existence of legally recoverable debt is a sine qua non for prosecuting the case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. For convenient purpose the essential ingredients to constitute offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is summarized as below:
(i) That there must be a legally enforceable debt.
(ii) That the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes the legally enforceable debt.
(iii)That the cheque so issued had been returned due to " "funds insufficient".
14. It is the core contention of the complainant that, the Accused company is registered under Companies Act and Accused No.2 and 3 are Directors. The Accused No.1 is towards Exports business and the Complainant appointed as a forwarding agent of Accused No.1 by representing the territory of Karnataka as per the agreement dtd.4.3.2010 and on mutual understanding as per agreement dtd.22.10.2013. It is further 8 C.C.No.51266/2018 case of the Complainant that Accused No.1 closed the CNF office which located at Complainant's jurisdiction and requested the Complainant to forward the statement of accounts and pending dues and agreed to settle as per the terms of the agreement. It is further case of the Complainant that consequent to cancellation of the agreement between Complainant and Accused No.1 the Complainant submitted the statement of account pertaining to Bengaluru CNF. It is further submitted that Accused No.1 through its authorized signatory Accused No.2 and 3 towards repayment of dues to the Complainant, had issued two Cheques one is for Rs.12,50,000/ and another is Rs.6,58,457/. As per the instructions of the Accused, the Complainant had presented the both Cheques for encashment in which the first Cheque was dishonoured with endorse "Debit stopped' and second Cheque was dishonoured with reason "insufficient funds". Thereafter, the Complainant has issued legal notice on 6.10.2017 which was served to the Accused on 12.10.2017. Thereafter, the Complainant has issued another legal notice on 26.10.2017 in the continuation of earlier notice for correction in 9 C.C.No.51266/2018 para No.2 in the notice dtd.6.10.2017. Inspite of both notices, the Accused has failed to pay the Cheques' amount.
15. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, complainant examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the contents of complaint in his examinationinchief. He has also placed the original agreement dtd. 4.3.2010 at Ex.P.1, Ex.P2 is the original Agreement is made on 4.3.2010 is renewed on the day of 22.10.2013, Ex.P3 is the Cancellation of CNF Agreement letter, Ex.P4 is the cheque bearing No.000151 for Rs.12,50,000/, Ex.P4(a) is the signature of the authorized signatory, Ex.P5 is the banker endorsement, Ex.P6 is the another Cheque bearing No.518958 for Rs.6,58,457/, Ex.P6(a) is signature of the Director, Ex.P7 is the bank endorsement, Ex.P8 is the office copy of legal notice, Ex.P9 is 3 postal receipts, Ex.10 to Ex.P12 are postal acknowledgments, Ex.P.10(a) to Ex.P12(a) are the signatures, ExP13 is the office of legal notice dtd.6.10.2017, Ex.P14 is the 4 postal receipts, Ex.P15 to Ex.P17 are the postal acknowledgements and Ex.P15(a) to Ex.P17(a) are the signatures on the postal acknowledgements.
10 C.C.No.51266/2018
16. The documents produced by the complainant of course established that the complainant meets out the procedural requirements of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but it is to be considered whether all these documents establish the offence committed by the accused.
17. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant, it reveals that the present complaint is filed well within time in accordance with the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act. Moreover, there is no dispute with regard to taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
18. The Negotiable Instruments Act raises two presumptions. One contained in Section 118 and the other in Sec. 139 thereof. For the sake of convenience Sec 118(1) of the N.I. Act is extracted here below:
118. Presumptions as to negotiable Instruments Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made ;
(a) of consideration that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every 11 C.C.No.51266/2018 such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
1. To (g) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Provided that where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from an person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence of fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence of fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him".
Further Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under;
"139, Presumption in favour of holder. It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."
19. Scope and ambit and function of the presumption U/s 118(a) and Sec 139 of N.I. Act came to be considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court of Indian in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde (2008 NIAR (Criminal 151) The 12 C.C.No.51266/2018 Supreme Court has laid down the law in the following phraseology.
"D Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Secs. 139, 138
--Presumption undersame arises in regard to second aspect of the matter provided under Sec 138
--Existence of legally enforceable debt is not a matter of presumption under Sec 139 It merely raises presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability - Merely an application of presumption contemplated under Section 139 of N.I.Act should not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction."
20. Further, said decision was followed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Kempanarasimhaiah Vs P.Rangaraju & Others (2008 (5) KCCR 3371). Relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: "12. As to the provisions of Sections 138 of N.I.Act, the following principles emerge from the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court at para Nos. 21, 23, 25, 26 and 34 of its Judgment in the above said case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde, AIR 2008 SC 1325.
13 C.C.No.51266/2018
(i) Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption that the cheque was issued towards discharge in whole or in part in any debt or other liability, which presupposed legally enforceable debt. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability." (para 21)
(ii) The question as to whether the presumption stood rebutted or not, must be determined keeping in view the other evidences on record. Where the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration. (para 26)
(iii) An accused, for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute, need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on records (para 23)
(iv) Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different. Further more where as prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is "preponderance of probabilities'"
(para 23 & 25) 14 C.C.No.51266/2018
(v) Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies (para 25)
(vi) Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be deliberately balanced (para 34)
21. Thus from the observations extracted above, it is clear that presumption Under Section 139 of the N.I.Act is only to the extent that the cheque was drawn for discharge in full or in part of any debt or other liability and the said presumption do not relate to the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
Therefore, before drawing the presumption under section 139 of the N.I.Act, it is the duty of the Court to see whether or not the complainant has discharged his initial burden as to existence of legally enforceable debt. No doubt, as per Section 118(a) of the Act, there is a rebuttable presumption that every negotiable instrument, is accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."
15 C.C.No.51266/2018
22. Factual matrix of the case is required to be tested on the anvil of principles emerging from the abovereferred decisions.
23. The main defence of the Accused is that there are two legal notices issued by the Complainant i.e., Ex.P8 dtd.6.10.2017 is the first notice which is served on Accused on 12.10.2017 and Ex.P13 is the second notice dtd.26.10.2017 which is posted on 31.10.2017 and as per the postal acknowledgements Ex.P15 to Ex.P17 second notice is served on 6.11.2017. Therefore, there are two cause of actions, therefore the complaint is not maintainable on two cause of actions. Further, the learned Counsel for Accused vehemently argued that the complaint is filed on 2.11.2017 which on second cause of action.
24. Further, defence of the Accused is that it is condition that Rs.12,50,000/ shall deposit to the Complainant company. Accordingly, the Accused have deposited security Cheque to the Complainant company. Further, it is another defence that the Tax Authority have asked all the documents with respect of Accused company, but Mr. Prathap Singh was not supplied 16 C.C.No.51266/2018 the said document. Thereafter, Tax Department, Karnataka was issued notice to Mr. Prathap Singh and Complainant to produce the book of accounts and other documents, but the Complainant has not produced documents and book of accounts to the Tax Department, Karnataka.
25. In order to substantiate his claim complainant has examined himself as PW1. In the evidence he deposed that Complainant was appointed as Forwarding Agent of the Accused No.1 company by representing the territory of Karnataka in terms of agreement dtd.4.3.2010 and on mutual understanding the same is renewed as per agreement dtd.22.10.2013. PW1 has produced both agreements at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The Accused has not disputed relationship between them and also not disputed the terms of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
26. As per the complaint, Accused No.2 and 3 who are signatory of the Accused No.1 have issued both Cheques towards repayment of dues to the Complainant. It is further submission of the Complainant that the Accused No.1 closed the C & F office of which is located at Complainant's jurisdiction on company feasible purpose and requested the 17 C.C.No.51266/2018 Complainant to forward the statement of accounts and the pending dues and agreed to settled as per the terms of agreement at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. As per the say of Complainant, he has submitted that statement of the accounts pertaining to Bengaluru C & F to the Accused. The Complainant has produced copy of statement of account pertaining to Bengaluru C & F for settlement on 7.4.2016. The said copy of statements is not marked as it is xerox copy. On perusal of statement of accounts it is for the period 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2015. The Complainant has submitted said statement of account every financial year to the Accused, which discloses outstanding dues of the Accused.
27. In the crossexamination of DW1, he admitted that Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 agreements are in between Complainant and Accused and DW1 has been signed as a Director of the Accused No.1 company and also admits that he has got every information and knowledge about Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and also admits that Ex.P3 Cancellation of CNF Agreement letter was issued by him by stating that they have closing office the CNF office at location of the Complainant company and also 18 C.C.No.51266/2018 mentioned that the stocks thereafter from now will be directly billed to party against CST/VAT. The agreement dtd.22.10.2013 between Grisy Mango Products and Exports, Tamil Nadu Pvt. Ltd, and Mr. K. Raghupathy is now cancelled. It is further mentioned that requesting to send statement of accounts and the pending dues whatsoever will be settled as per the agreement terms in the agreements. Accordingly, the Complainant have send the statement of accounts to the Accused which discloses copy of the ledger account i.e., statement of accounts for the year 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2015.
28. The contention of the Accused is that both Cheques were issued for the security purpose as per the agreements. In the evidence of DW1 he deposed that in the year 2013 he has issued Ex.P4 Cheque with mentioning amount and his signature. He further deposed that Ex.P6 Cheque also issued 2014 August for the purpose of security by signing the blank Cheque. It is admitted by the Accused that they have issued both Cheques and also admitted the signatures on the both Cheques. In the crossexamination DW1 admits that Ex.P4 and Ex.P6 Cheques are issued by him and also signatures on Ex.P4 19 C.C.No.51266/2018 and Ex.P6 belongs to him. In the crossexamination of DW1 clearly admits that in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 there is no any condition for issuing security Cheques. The said admission of the DW1 is reads thus;
"ನ ಪ 1 ಮತತತ 2 ರಲಲ ನಮಮದತ ಮಮಡರತವ ಫರರರರಬ ಎಎದರರ ರಘತಪತ ಎಎದತ ನತಡಯತತಮತರರ. ರಘತಪತಯವರತ ಭದದತರಗಮಗ ಡಪಮಸಟರರ ಮಮಡಬರಬಕಮಗತತತ ಹರಮರತಮಗ ನಮನತ ಮಮಡತವ ಬಮಧಧಸಸಕರ ಇರಲಲಲ ಎಎದರರ ಸರ. ಆ ಕಮರಣ ನಮನತ ಭದದತರಗಮಗ ಚರಕಕನತನ ಕರಮಡತವ ಸಎದಭರ ಬಎದರಲಲಲ ಎಎದರರ ಸತಳತಳ. ನ ಪ 1 ಮತತತ 2 ರ ಷರತತನಲಲ ಭದದತರಗಮಗ ಚರಕಕನತನ ಕರಮಡಬರಬಕರಎದತ ನಮಮದತ ಮಮಡರತವವದಲಲ ಎಎದರರ ಸರ."
29. On the admission of the DW1 it is clear that there is no any condition in the terms and conditions of the PW1 and PW2 to issuance of security by the Accused to the Complainant. Therefore, both Cheques are not issued for the purpose of security. Moreover, the Accused has admitted the issuance of Cheques and amount and signatures on both the Cheques.
30. The main contention is that Accused has issued questioned cheques for the purpose of security at the time of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and complainant has misused the said cheques. Further, no legal action has been taken against the 20 C.C.No.51266/2018 complainant for alleged misuse of cheques or non return of cheques to accused. It is main defence of the accused is that questioned cheques were issued by him for the purpose of security and complainant was misused the said cheques. In this regard it is useful to refer decision reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 3760, in case of Smt.Umaswamy Vs K.N.Ramaiah:
wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has observed at para No.4 of its judgment that;
"The cheque whether issued for payment of debt or as a security makes no distinction in law. The cheque is a Negotiable Instrument, it may be that sometimes cheque is issued with a request on the part of the drawer to defer the presentation of the cheque for some time to enable the drawer to make payment by cash and take back the cheque or allow time to arrange funds for encashment of cheque. When the amount is not paid as per oral understanding the payee is well justified to present the cheque for encashement. The cheque even if it is issued as a security for payment, it is negotiable instrument and encashable security of the hands of payee. Therefore, merely because the drawer contends that it is issued as security is not a 21 C.C.No.51266/2018 ground to exonerate the penal liability under Section 138 of N.I. Act."
31. As observed in the above decision, it has to be presumed that the cheques in question were issued by the accused to discharge the legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused can place rebuttal evidence so as to show that the cheques were not issued for consideration. As appreciated supra, accused has failed to put acceptable and satisfactory evidence to probabilise the defence. Therefore, there is no question of saying that the cheques were not issued for liability.
32. The accused himself admits that he has issued question cheques for the purpose of security and himself also admitted that he has issued signed on the cheques as per Ex.P4 and Ex.P6. Therefore, complainant has discharged his initial onus laid on him. When he has discharged his initial onus, it raises presumption U/s 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused has failed to rebut the presumption either in crossexamining PW1 or in his evidence. 22 C.C.No.51266/2018
33. Further, it is also not disputed that cheques at Ex.P.4 and Ex.P6 bears signatures of the DW1 and it pertains to his company account maintained in Karur Vysya Bank. The only defence of the accused is that he had issued the said cheques to the complainant as a security purpose for loan amount. He further stated that at the time of closing of C & F the Complainant has not send the statement of accounts for settling the dues. It is pertaining to note that the Complainant has produced the copy of statement of accounts which sent by the Complainant to the Accused after cancellation of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 by the Accused.
34. Further, the learned counsel for Accused has relied above citation by stating that the Cheques liability of the Accused would not attract prosecution u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act and other citations produced by the learned counsel for the Accused were not applicable to this case.
35. It is further submission of the Complainant that Complainant have issued a legal notice on 6.10.2017 thereby calling upon the Accused to pay the amount covered in the Ex.P4 and Ex.P6 which is duly served upon the Accused and 23 C.C.No.51266/2018 later on 26.10.2017 the Complainant have issued another notice in continuation of earlier notice for correction in para No.2 of the notice dtd. 6.10.2017, the second Cheque is referred to drawn on Syndicate Bank instead of mentioning Corporation Bank. Therefore, the both Ex.P4 and Ex.P6 Cheques were issued towards the refund of deposit and unpaid sales commission on ceasing of contractual obligation from the Complainant and towards payment of the said liability.
36. From the above discussion, it has to be presumed that the cheques in question were issued by the accused to discharge the legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused did not place satisfactory rebuttal evidence so as to show that the cheques were issued for the purpose of security, as appreciated supra, accused has failed to put acceptable and satisfactory evidence to probabilise the defence. Therefore, there is no question of saying that the cheques were issued for the purpose of security.
37. Therefore, complainant has discharged his initial onus laid on him. When he has discharged his initial onus, it raises presumption U/s 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable 24 C.C.No.51266/2018 Instruments Act. Accused has failed to rebut the presumption either in crossexamining PW1 or by his evidence.
38. Further, it is also not disputed that cheques Ex.P.4 and Ex.P6 bears his signatures and it pertains to his Account maintained at Karur Vysya Bank. The complainant has complied all the requirements of the Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On the other hand, the defence taken by the accused is not at all sufficient to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant under S.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, considering the fact and circumstances of the case and oral and documentary evidence place by both parties, Complainant has discharged his initial onus laid on him. When he has discharged his initial onus, it raises presumption U/s118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Accused have failed to rebut the presumption either by crossexamination of PW1 or by their evidence. Since Accused/DW1 has admitted his signatures on the Cheques and said Cheques were dishonoured. Hence, he is committed offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. 25 C.C.No.51266/2018
39. There is no material on record to show that there was contractual rate of interest for repayment of amount. Therefore, I am of the view that it is just and necessary to direct the Accused to pay 6% interest on cheques amount from the date of cheques till payment. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled for the 6% of interest on cheques amount from the date of cheques till payment. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered in Affirmative.
40. POINT No.2 : In view of discussion held in Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused are convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Accused are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.24,80,994/ (Rupees Twentyfour Lakhs Eighty Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninetyfour only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Further, it is made clear that out of fine amount, Rs.24,75,994/ (Rupees Twentyfour Lakhs Seventyfive Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninetyfour only) is to be paid to the complainant 26 C.C.No.51266/2018 as compensation and Rs.5,000/ is ordered to be remitted to the State.
Bail bond stands cancelled.
Supply the free copy of this judgement to the Accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 3rd November, 2022) (PARVEEN A BANKAPUR) XXXIV ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 Mr.Raghupathy
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Agreement
Ex.P.2 Renewed Agreement
Ex.P.3 Cancellation of CNF Agreement
Ex.P.4 & Cheques
Ex.P.6
Ex.P.4(a) & Signature of the Accused
Ex.P.6(a)
Ex.P.5 &
Ex.P.7 Bank endorsements
Ex.P.8 Office copy of Legal notice
Ex.P.9 3 Postal receipts
27 C.C.No.51266/2018
Ex.P.10 to
Ex.P.12 Postal acknowledgements
Ex.P.10 (a) to
Ex.P12(a) Signature of the Accused
Ex.P13 Notice
Ex.P14 3 Postal receipts
Ex.P15 to
Ex.P17 Postal acknowledgements
Ex.P15(a) to
Ex.P17(a) Signatures of the Accused
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused :
D.W.1 Mr. Prasanna
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 Notice issued by the Department Commercial Taxes Ex.D.2 Resignation letter Ex.D.3 & Labels Ex.D.4 (PARVEEN A BANKAPUR) XXXIV ACMM, BENGALURU.