Bangalore District Court
In The Month Of January 2015 And Availed ... vs As Required Under Law. As There Is ... on 26 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALURU CITY
Dated this the 26th day of April, 2018
PRESENT: A. V. Patil., B.Com, LLB (Spl)
XLII A.C.M.M.,
A.C.M.M.,
Bangaluru City.
CC.No.243
CC.No.2431/2017
2431/2017
JUDGMENT U/S
U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1. Sl.No. of the case : CC.No. 2431/2017
2. The date of commence of evidence : 08.01.2018
3. The date of Institution : 05.01.2017
4. Name of the Complainant : Sri. S. T Ranka,
Aged about 62 years,
S/o late B.S Ranka,
R/at No.22, Sheethal Villa,
IA Main, S.T Bed Layout,
4th Block, New Extension,
Proprietor of
M/s Omkar Investments
and Finance
No.9, 'Roopa Complex',
Shiva Ganga Mutt road,
3rd main road, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore- 560 018.
Rep. By its Special Power of
Attorney Holder
Sri. V. Radhakrishnan,
S/o late Venkataramaiah,
2 C C No. 2431/2017
Aged about 54 years,
R/at No.69,
Near Real House Apartments,
Anjanapura, Bengaluru.
5. Name of the Accused : (1) M/s Pruthvi Builders & Developers
No.29/2, Dr.Lakshmi Complex,
2nd floor, Hulimavi Gate,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru- 560 076.
(2) Mr. P. Shankar,
Aged about 46 years,
S/o late Pillappa,
R/at No.37, 2nd cross,
Jambu Savari Dinne,
SOS post, J.P Nagar 8th phase,
Bannerghatta road,
Bengaluru- 560 076.
Partner,
M/s Pruthvi Builders & Developers
No.29/2, Dr. Lakshmi complex,
2nd floor, Hulimavu Gate,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru- 560 076.
6. The offence complained
of or proved : U/s.138 of N.I. Act
7. Plea of the accused on
his examination : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Order : Accused is Convicted
9. Date of such order : 26.04.2018.
3 C C No. 2431/2017
JUDGMENT
1. This case has been registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The gist of the complainant's case is that:
The complainant is a Proprietor of a firm M/s Omkar Investment and Finance engaged in the business of financing. The accused No.1 is Partnership Firm and the accused No.2 is the Partner of the accused No.1 and engaged in the business of development of immovable properties. The accused No.2 for himself and on behalf of accused No.1 approached the complainant in the month of January 2015 and availed loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The complainant has disbursed the said loan amount through cheque. Accused has repaid three installments for the month of February 2015 to April 2015 and failed to make payment of subsequent monthly installments. But paid interest on the balance loan amount till 07.11.2015. The complainant approached the accused with a request to pay the remaining loan amount along with interest. Accused No.1 has issued the cheque bearing No.096421 dated 21.10.2016 for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs duly signed by the accused No.2 drawn on Vijaya Bank, 4 C C No. 2431/2017 Jayanagar branch, Bangalore in favour of the complainant towards part payment of out standing dues. On 21.10.2016 the complainant presented the said cheque for collection to his banker i.e., Canara Bank, Kalasipalyam branch, Bangalore. To the shock of the complainant the said cheque was dishonoured for the reasons 'Funds Insufficient' with a memo dated 24.10.2016. There after on 21.11.2016 complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused through RPAD calling upon him to make the payment of dues of cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and it was served upon the accused on 24.11.2016. Even after receipt of the legal notice accused failed to pay the cheque amount, however issued untenable reply. According to the complainant, the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
Accordingly the complainant filed the complaint on 05.01.2017.
3. In pursuance of the summons, the accused has appeared through Counsel and got enlarged on bail by executing necessary documents. The copy of the complaint was furnished to the accused, as required under law. As there is sufficient material, plea was recorded against the accused on 31.08.2017 and explained to the accused in his vernacular, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. In order to prove the case, the Accountant of the 5 C C No. 2431/2017 complainant firm examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7 and closed the side. Then the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C came to be recorded on 17.01.2018, wherein the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was read over and explained. Accused denied the incriminating evidence readover to him. Accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 and D2 on his behalf. In the cross examination of DW1, the Advocate for complainant got marked Ex.P8 to 11.
5. Heard arguments from both side and material placed on record.
6. On the basis of the above facts, the following points arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the complainant proves that the accused towards discharge legal recoverable debt issued cheque No.096421 dated 21.10.2016 for Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Jayanagar branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant, on presentation for encashment it was returned as 'Funds Insufficient' and in spite of receipt of legal notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act?
2) What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
6 C C No. 2431/2017
Point No.1: In the affirmative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:-
No.1 In order to prove the case, the Accountant of the complainant Company V. Radhakrishnan filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and has examined as PW1. He has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint on oath. He also got marked documents Ex.P1 to P11. Ex.P1 is the c/c of power of attorney, Ex.P2 is the c/c of mortgage deed, Ex.P3 is the cheque, Ex.P4 is the bank memo, Ex.P5 is the office copy of the legal notice, Ex.P5(a) to 5 (c) is the 3 postal receipts, Ex.P5(d) to (f) are the postal acknowledgments, Ex.P6 is the reply notice, Ex.P7 is the complaint, Ex.P8 and 10 are the receipts, Ex.P9 and 11 are cancelled consideration receipts. In the cross examination accused has put up the specific defence that S.T. Rank has not given any power of attorney in favour of complainant/PW1. In between
09.01.2015 to 23.08.2016 accused had paid amount of Rs.1,08,25,000/- to the complainant. Even after payment of so much of amount the complainant asked the accused to pay additional 18% excess interest. Accused resisted on the ground of exorbitant interest, at that time the cheque which was collected towards security have been misused and filed the false case 7 C C No. 2431/2017 against him. The accused is not due to pay any amount to the complainant.
9. In support of his defence accused examined himself as DW1 and has stated that he had borrowed loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- by executing mortgage deed on 07.01.2015 and agreed to repay the said loan amount in 10 installments commencing from 07.02.2015. At the time of availing the said loan the complainant obtained 10 blank signed cheques towards security. The complainant presented three security cheques and got encashed Rs.10 lakhs each. He has repaid loan amount on different dates to the tune of Rs.1,08,25,000/- between 09.01.2015 to 23.08.2016 and requested to return the security cheques. But the complainant demanded exorbitant interest. Subsequently the complainant presented Seven security cheques and filed the false case against the accused. In support of his contention he has placed true copy of account extracts at Ex.D1 and D2. In the cross examination Serial number 1, 4, 7 and 12 cheques were issued in the name of S.T. Rank and remaining cheques were issued in the name of Omkar Investments and Finance. The evidence given in para No.4 of examination in chief has not stated in reply notice. The accused admits that he had paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- each which are stated in Sl.No.4, 7 and 12. Out of 10 cheques stated in the 8 C C No. 2431/2017 examination in chief first three cheques were encashed and remaining seven cheques were dishonoured. He has knowledge that said seven cheques are in the possession of complainant, presentation of said cheques for encashment by the complainant. He is due to pay the amount mentioned in the said cheques to the complainant.
10. This is all oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the parties to the case in support of their respective contentions.
11. The learned Counsel for complainant argued that in the cross examination the accused has admitted about borrowing of loan and issuance of 10 cheques in favour of the complainant. Out of 10 cheques 3 cheques were encashed and remaining 7 cheques were dishonoured. In connection with said 7 cheques the complainant has filed in all 3 cheques bounce cases including this case. The material elicited in the cross examination of DW1 falsifies the entire defence taken by the accused in the trial. The cheques were issued by the accused for discharge of loan amount, the cheques were presented for encashment during the validity period. After dishonour of cheque complainant got issued legal notice and even after receipt of legal notice accused fails to pay the cheque amount. Since the accused admits the loan transaction, 9 C C No. 2431/2017 cheque pertains to his account and his signature on the disputed cheque. The presumption is in his favour. No rebuttal evidence produced by the accused. The defence taken by the accused about payment of amount has not been taken in the reply notice. The ingredients of Sec.138 and 142 are duly complied with. The evidence on record is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused.
12. Per contra, the learned Counsel for accused argued that PW1 has no proper authorization either to file the complaint or to give evidence. Since he has no proper authorisation, the complaint filed by such person is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not at all properly pleaded with regard to the loan given to the accused. There is no pleading with regard to the lending of a loan to the accused on the earlier occasions. The complainant has not made all the partners of accused No.1 as a party to the case. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. The complainant has not produced any accounts with regard to the alleged loan transactions. The accused has repaid the loan amount with interest approximately to the tune of Rs.1,08,00,000/-. Since the accused repaid the entire loan amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- with interest the question of issuing the cheques for discharge of same liability does not arise. 10 C C No. 2431/2017
13. The disputed cheque has not been issued for any legally dischargeable debt. The cheque which was collected towards security has been misused and filed the case. In order to show the dishonour of cheque except bankers memo nothing has been produced. The ingredients of Sec.138 are not duly complied with. Looking from any angle the complainant filed the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly he prayed to dismiss the complaint by acquitting the accused.
14. First of all accused claims that Sri.V. Radhakrishna who files the complaint has no proper authorization to file complaint. In the light of the said submission perused the records and noticed that the accused borrowed the loan from S T Ranka and disputed cheque is issued in the name of said S T Ranka. It is material to note that said S T Ranka executed special power of attorney in favour of the Sri. V. Radhakrishna. The said V. Radhakrishna has filed the complaint. Even though PW1 is subjected to cross examination nothing has been elicited from his mouth about not having proper authorization. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in the opinion of this Court in the light of execution of Ex.P1/power of attorney by S T Ranka in favour of Sri.V Radhakrishnan who filed the filed complaint and examined as PW1, the contention taken by the accused is can not be acceptable. 11 C C No. 2431/2017
15. Before considering the case on merits, it is necessary to note that in a ratio lay down by larger bench of Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the presumption reported in 2010(1) DCR 706 (Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan). In said citation the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed about the various citations including the above referred citation has held that;
"...............Since ......Since the accused did admit that the the signature on the cheque was his, the statutory presumption comes into play and the same has not been rebutted even with regard to the materials submitted by the complainant............"
In the light of principle laid down in the above case let me appreciate the present facts of the case.
16. The accused has not disputed Ex.P3/cheque belongs to the account of accused No.1 and his signature on it. In view of the principle lay down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the above referred decision the complainant discharged his initial burden. By virtue of section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in view of the ratio laid down in the above referred decision the presumption is in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e., complainant. Now the burden lies on accused to lead the rebuttal evidence to disprove the fact that he has not issued Ex.P3/cheque to the complainant for discharge of debt or liability. 12 C C No. 2431/2017
17. Now the question is whether the presumption is rebutted by the accused is to be seen. To substantiate the defence taken by the accused No.2 has examined himself as DW1 and has taken a specific defence that he borrowed the loan as claimed by the complainant, but he has repaid the entire loan amount with interest. Inspite of that the complainant has filed this false complaint by misusing the cheque collected towards security at the time of lending of loan.
18. At out set it is necessary to note that prior to filing of the complaint, the complainant got issued legal notice as per Ex.P5. Wherein, the complainant has narrated the fact of lending of loan to the accused and issuance of cheque by the accused in favour of complainant, dishonour of cheque on its presentation for encashment and ask the accused to pay the dishonour cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice. The said legal notice was duly served upon the accused on 24.11.2016. The accused No.2 got issued reply notice as per Ex.P6 wherein, denied the entire allegations made in the legal notice. In para No.9 of the Ex.P6/reply notice the only contention taken by the accused in the reply is that the blank signed cheque was given towards security and the complainant filled the blank cheque without intimation/knowledge of the accused and therefore 13 C C No. 2431/2017 accused is not liable to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque. In means accused has not admitted lending of loan by the complainant to the accused to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. In other words soon after receipt of legal notice, accused has not put forth the defence about borrowing of loan from complainant and repayment of said loan to the complainant. First time in the course of course of cross examination of PW1 suggestion has been made to the effect that between 09.01.2015 to 28.08.2016 in all accused had paid an amount of Rs.1,08,25,000/-. The said suggestion has been denied. It is settled principle of law that mere suggestion made in cross examination and denied is not evidence at all. In this regard it is useful to refer the decision of our High Court reported in AIR 1981 Kar 40 (Smt. Parameshwari Bai, Appellant V/s. Muthojirao Scindia, Respondent.).
19. In trail accused has admitted the borrowing of loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Accused No.2 has examined as DW1 and in para No.2 of his evidence has stated that he had borrowed loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the complainant on 07.01.2015. This evidence of DW1 is sufficient to believe the allegations of the complaint to the effect that complainant lends Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the accused on 07.01.2015.
14 C C No. 2431/2017
20. Further accused claims that he had repaid the entire loan amount with interest. A party who asserts affirmative of an issue, the burden of proof lies on that party to prove the said assertion. In the instant case, accused claims that he has repaid the entire loan amount with interest. Therefore, the entire burden is on him to prove the repayment of loan amount to the complainant. To substantiate the said fact except interested oral testimony of accused, absolutely nothing has been produced on record. Even though PW1 is subjected to cross examination nothing has been elicited to believe that accused has repaid the entire loan amount.
21. Accused has further stated that in all he had paid Rs.1,08,25,000/- to the complainant. The material elicited from the mouth of DW1 in the cross examination falsify the entire defence taken by the accused. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion of DW1 is extracted and reproduced here:
"......... ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ £Á®Ì£Éà PÀArPÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉüÀ¯ÁzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß j¥ÉèÊ £ÉÆÃn¸ï£À°è ºÉý®è. C£ÀÄPÀæªÀÄ £ÀA§gï 1 gÀzÀ°è ºÉüÀ¯ÁzÀ gÀÆ.8,25,000 ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ï.n gÁAPÁgÀªÀjUÉ §rØAiÀÄ ºÀtzÀ ¥ÁªÀwUÁV PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¸Á®PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ C£ÀÄPÀæªÀÄ £ÀA§gï 4, 7 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 12gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ gÀÆ.10,00,000 zÀAvÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ PÀAvÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥ÁªÀw¹zÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà PÀArPÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉüÀ¯ÁzÀ ºÀvÀÄÛ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À°è ªÉÆzÀ® ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼ÀÄ 15 C C No. 2431/2017 £ÀUÀ¢ÃPÀgÀtUÉÆArzÀÄÝ G½zÀ K¼ÀÄ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀiÁ£ÀåUÉÆArªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj K¼ÀÄ CªÀiÁ£ÀåUÉÆAqÀ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÉÃj MlÄÖ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ ¦gÁå¢ zÁR°¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ K¼ÀÄ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀiÁ£ÀåUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¦gÁ墬ÄAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ °ÃUÀ¯ï £ÉÆÃn¸ï §A¢®è. C£ÀÄPÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 4 jAzÀ 10 gÀ°è PÁtô¹zÀ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼ÀÄ ¦gÁå¢ §½ EzÀÝ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀzÀj ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¦gÁå¢ £ÀUÀ¢Ã¥ÀPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸À°è¹zÀ ¨UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀzÀj ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À°è PÁtô¹zÀ ºÀtzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¦gÁå¢UÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj ......"
It is evident from the above reproduced evidence DW1 has stated that the evidence given in para No.4 of examination in chief has not stated in the reply. He admits among 10 cheques issued in favour of complainant only three cheques were encashed and remaining seven cheques were bounced. It is within his knowledge that said seven cheques were in the custody of complainant. DW1/accused in categorical terms admits that he is due to pay the amount mentioned in the said seven cheques to the complainant.
22. The material elicited in the cross examination of DW1 which is reproduced above falsifies the entire defence taken by the accused in the course of cross examination of PW1 to the effect that accused had paid Rs.1,08,25,000/- to the complainant in connection with loan transaction alleged in the complaint. In the 16 C C No. 2431/2017 above reproduced evidence of DW1 in categorical terms he admitted about the dishonor of seven cheques and he is due to pay the amount covered under the said seven cheques and therefore it cannot be believed that accused has paid Rs.1,08,25,000/- to the complainant in connection with loan transaction alleged in the complaint. It is material to note that the complainant has filed three separate cases in respect of those seven cheques and the present case is one among said three cases.
23. At the same time it is necessary to note that if really the complainant collected the cheque from the accused towards security at the time of taking of the loan the complainant misused the alleged cheques, as a prudent man accused could have initiated the legal action against the complainant for the alleged illegal act. In the instant case accused has not initiated any legal action against the complainant. It is equally important to note that if really the accused given the cheque in question not towards the discharge of debt and towards security. As a prudent man accused is expected to intimate his banker for stop payment in case of presentation of the alleged cheques for encashment. But in the instant case of the accused has not intimated his banker and this conduct show the falsity of the case of the accused. 17 C C No. 2431/2017
24. Non initiating the legal action for alleged misutilization, non intimating to his banker are the strongest circumstances to draw inference against the accused. As noted supra it is settled that the presumption has to be rebutted by cogent proof and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. On appreciation of material on record in the considered opinion of this court, the evidence placed on record by the accused is not sufficient to rebut presumption. Hence, it cannot be said that the accused has rebutted the presumption.
25. The word 'unless contrary is proved' is discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2011 Crl.L.J 4647 (SC). It is observed that "the accused is under the obligation to prove his case in trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability to the satisfaction of the Court". 'Unless contrary is proved' means the presumption has to be rebutted by proof and not by a bare explanation which is mere plausible. The said fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that the reasonable man could act on the supposition that is exist. Therefore, unless explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provisions cannot be said to be rebutted. On appreciation of evidence on record the explanation 18 C C No. 2431/2017 of accused is not supported by proof. Hence, I have no hesitation to say that the accused fails to rebut presumption. Hence, it cannot be said that the accused has rebutted the presumption.
26. In the instant case accused not disputed the borrowing of loan and claims to be repaid the entire loan. Hence, on facts, the citation relied on by the learned Counsel for accused is not applicable to the facts on hand.
27. In this case, the Court has to peruse whether mandatory requirements of Sec.138 and 142 of N.I. Act are complied with or not to take cognizance of complaint for the commission of crime punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. It should be ascertained from the date of issuance of cheque, presentation of cheque, communication of Bank endorsement, issuance of legal notice for payment of cheque amount, service of notice and date of institution of complaint. Ex.P3/cheque is dated 21.10.2016, presented to the bank for encashment and received the intimation of dishonour of cheque for the reason 'Funds Insufficient' as per Ex.P4 dated 24.10.2016, complainant got issued notice as per Ex.P5 dated 21.11.2016. It was served upon the accused on24.11.2016. Complaint is filed on 05.01.2017. It is evident from the available material that the cheque presented for encashment within the validity time, notice demanding the cheque 19 C C No. 2431/2017 amount and filing of complaint before the Court after service of notice are within the period of specified by law.
28. On appreciation of entire evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the accused has miserably failed to prove the fact that he has not issued cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt. On the contrary, the complainant has proved that the accused has issued cheque/Ex.P3 for sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and on presentation of the cheque, it was dishonored for the reasons 'Funds Insufficient'. Even after service of legal notice, the accused has not paid the cheque amount. Hence, in the considered view of this Court, the complainant has proved that the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, I answer the above point No.1 in the affirmative.
29. No.2 Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Point No.2:-
Act if a person found guilty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or both. From the material on record, it appears that the accused is aged about 47 years and builder by profession. Considering the age, if the accused is sent to jail, it would cause problem to the accused as well as to his family members. Having regards to the quantum of cheque, age 20 C C No. 2431/2017 and occupation of the accused, the prevailing rate of interest, money value and litigation expenses, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The accused is found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
Acting u/s 264 of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.11,00,000/-, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.11,00,000/- a sum of Rs. 10,94,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant towards compensation u/s 357 of Cr.P.C. and the balance amount of Rs.6,000/- shall be remitted to the State.
The bail bond & surety bond executed by the accused and surety respectively stand cancelled.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused. (Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, taken print out corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the open Court this the 26th day of April, 2018) (A. A. V. Patil) Patil XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:-
COMPLAINANT 21 C C No. 2431/2017 PW1 : V. Radhakrishnan COMPLAINANT:-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT Ex.P1 : C/c of Power of attorney Ex.P2 : Mortgage deed Ex.P.3 : Cheque Ex.P3(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P4 : Bank memo Ex.P5 : Office copy of the notice Ex.P5(a) to 5 (c) : Postal receipts Ex.P5(d) to 5(f) : Postal acknowledgments Ex.P6 : Reply notice Ex.P7 : Complaint Ex.P8 to 11 : Receipts DEFENCE:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
DW.1 : Sri. P. Shankar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:-
DEFENCE Ex.D1 & 2 : Account extracts XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangaluru. 22 C C No. 2431/2017 Judgment pronounced in the open Court vide separate order.
ORDER The accused is found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
Acting u/s 264 of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.11,00,000/-, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.11,00,000/- a sum of Rs. 10,94,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant towards compensation u/s 357 of Cr.P.C. and the balance amount of Rs.6,000/- shall be remitted to the State.
The bail bond & surety bond executed by
the accused and surety respectively stand
cancelled.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the
accused.
XLII A.C.C.M, Bangaluru.