Bangalore District Court
Threerthachari vs Ganesh Upadhya. K on 16 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 16th day of March 2022
Present : Sri Siddaramappa Kalyan Rao, B.A., LL.B.,
XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
CC.No.12327 of 2017
COMPLAINANT/S: Threerthachari,
S/o.Late Sannayallallachari.N.D
Aged about 42 Years
R/at. No.9, ADAR 2nd Space
2nd Floor, Sidedahalli, Nagasandra
Post,
Bengaluru-560 073.
(Represented by Sri. M.R.Harish
Kumar., Advocate)
- Vs -
ACCUSED: Ganesh Upadhya. K,
S/o. K. Ramesh Upadya,
Aged about 29 Years,
R/at. No.2-61,
Karkada, Saligrama,
Udupi-576 225.
And also at :-
R/at. No.2-59, Tenka Hole
Karkada Post, Saligrama,
Udupi-25.
And also at :-
Elegant Coaching Academy,
Sri Damodar Commercial Complex,
2nd Floor, Dr.S.K.Road,
Saligrama,
2
CC.No.12327/2017
Udupi-576 225.
(Represented by Sri.L.Dayananda.,
Advocate)
Offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
******
JU DG ME N T
This complaint is filed under section 200 of Cr.P.C for
the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. 1881.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case is
that:
Accused is known to complainant through one Sri.
Praveen Kumar.N, Upudi since from two years and accused
developed friendship with complainant and accused
borrowed hand loan from complainant in the first week of
November 2015 for the purpose of accused family financial
commitments and for running accused Elegant Coaching
Academy business. The accused has received
3
CC.No.12327/2017
Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cash on 11/11/2015 by drawing
cash of Rs.3,95,000/- from Karnataka Bank, Hesaraghatta
Branch, Bengaluru and Rs.2,05,000/- same day out of
cash maintained in the house. The accused executed
Demand Promissory Note and consideration receipt and
accused undertook to repay the same by end of November
2016.
3. It is further contended that in the month of
November 2016 accused told to complainant that some one
is ill in accused family and told that accused will be
repaying the amount in March 2017 to complainant. It is
further contended that in the month of March 2017, when
complainant insisted for payment, accused issued two
cheques mentioned below.
Sl. Cheque Date Amount Bank
No. No.
1 122503 02/03/2017 Rs.3,00,000/- State Bank of
India,
Saligrama,
2 122504 02/03/2017 Rs.3,00,000/- Udupi
4
CC.No.12327/2017
4. It is further contended that as per the request
made by accused, complainant presented the said cheques
through his Banker Karnataka Bank Ltd, Hesaraghatta
Branch, Bengaluru, but they were dishonoured for the
reasons "Payment stopped by the drawer" dated
06/03/2017.
5. Thereafter, complainant issued legal notice to the
accused on 18/03/2017 through RPAD, but the postal
cover is returned back with an endorsement as "Addressee
absent, intimation served on accused". Hence, the present
complaint is filed on 20/04/2017.
6. After filing of the complaint, this court has
taken the cognizance of offence under section 138 of N.I
Act and registered a Private complaint. After recording the
sworn statement of the complainant, this court has
registered the criminal case against the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Summons issued to the accused. The
accused appeared through his counsel and enlarged on
5
CC.No.12327/2017
bail. There afterwards, plea of accusation was read over
and explained to accused in the language known to him
and he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
7. When the case was posted for recording of
statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the
accused has denied the entire incriminating evidence
appearing against him. The accused is examined as
D.W.1, but he has not produced any documents in support
of his defence.
8. In order to prove the case, the complainant is
examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents from
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13(b).
9. It is the specific defence of the accused that
accused was a member in the chit business run by one
Manjunath Nayak in the name of Durga Sannidhi Chits Pvt
Ltd and at the time of availing of the chit amount Ex.P.1
and Ex.P.2 cheques are given to Manjunath Nayak as a
security who was conducting chits in the name of Durga
6
CC.No.12327/2017
Sannidhi Chits Pvt Ltd and the said Manjunath Nayak has
handed over Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 cheques in favour of
complainant and the said complainant has filed a false
case against the accused and there is no any discharge of
debt or liability to be paid by the accused in favour of
complainant. It is the further defence of the accused that
after payment of the chit amount, when the accused
demanded for return of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 cheques to
Manjunath Nayak, but Manjunath Nayak replied that the
cheques are misplaced and they will be given after tracing
the same. It is the further defence of the accused that
complainant is not having financial capacity to pay a sum
of Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused. The other defence raised
by the accused is that the notice is not served on accused
and the accused has not borrowed any amount from the
complainant. Hence, the accused is not entitled to pay any
amount to the complainant. Hence, on the above said
grounds prays to dismiss the complaint.
10. Heard the arguments of complainant counsel.
The accused counsel remained absent. Hence, the
7
CC.No.12327/2017
arguments of accused counsel is taken as nil as per order
dated 09/03/2022. Perused the entire oral and
documentary evidence placed on record.
11. The following points arose for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that
there is existence of legally recoverable
debt as stated in the complaint?
2. If so, whether the complainant proves
that Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 cheques are
issued towards discharge of legally
recoverable debt by the accused?
3. Whether the complainant proves that
the accused has committed an offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act?
4. What order?
12. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative;
Point No 4 : As per final order,
for the following:
8
CC.No.12327/2017
REA S ON S
POINTS NO.1 AND 2:
13. These points are taken together for common
discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
14. It is the specific case of the complainant that
accused and complainant are known to each other
through one common friend by name Sri. Praveen
Kumar.N, Upudi. Out of the said relationship, accused
approached the complainant in the first week of November
2015 seeking hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- for the purpose
of his family financial commitments, to clear his dues and
also for running his Elegant Coaching Academy business.
Hence, in view of the above said request made by the
accused, complainant has lent a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- by
way of cash on 11/11/2015 to accused and he has
withdrawn the same from Bank of a sum of Rs.3,95,000/-
from Karnataka Bank, Hesaraghatta Branch, Bengaluru
and another sum of Rs.2,05,000/- was kept in his house
from his earnings. The above said amount of
Rs.3,95,000/- was obtained through sale of site. Hence,
9
CC.No.12327/2017
the above said amount of Rs.3,95,000/- and the amount of
Rs.2,05,000/- i.e., a total sum of Rs.6,00,000/- which was
kept with him was given in favour of accused and the
accused had assured to repay the same by end of
November 2016. In the month of November 2016, accused
told to complainant that one of his family member is ill
and told that he will be repaying the amount in March
2017 to complainant. Finally in the month of March 2017,
accused issued Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 cheques for a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- each in favour of complainant for discharge
of debt which has been obtained by him for running his
Elegant Coaching Academy and also to clear his other
commitments and assured to complainant that sufficient
amount will be maintained in the account, but the above
said Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 cheques came to be dishonoured
for the reasons "Payment stopped by the drawer" as per
Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.
15. To substantiate the above said contention, the
complainant is examined as PW-1 and has marked the
documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13(b).
10
CC.No.12327/2017
Ex.P.1 is the cheque of State Bank of India,
Saligrama, Udupi dated 02/03/2017 bearing No:122503
for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- issued to Threerthachari i.e.,
the complainant and it is issued by Ganesh Upadhya. K i.e,
the accused. Ex.P.2 is the another cheque of State Bank of
India, Saligrama, Udupi dated 02/03/2017 bearing
No:122504 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- issued to
Threerthachari i.e., the complainant and it is issued by
Ganesh Upadhya. K i.e, the accused. Ex.P.3 is the memo
of Karnataka Bank Ltd dated 06/03/2017 with respect to
cheque bearing No:122503 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and
the above said cheque is came to be dishonoured for the
reasons "Payment stopped by the drawer". Ex.P.4 is the
another memo of Karnataka Bank Ltd dated 06/03/2017
with respect to cheque bearing No:122504 for a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- and the above said cheque is came to be
dishonoured for the reasons "Payment stopped by the
drawer". Ex.P.5 is the office copy of legal notice issued to
accused dated 18/03/2017. Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8 are the
postal receipts. Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11 are the unserved postal
11
CC.No.12327/2017
covers wherein it is endorsed as "Addressee always absent
in delivery time, returned to sender". Ex.P.9(a) is the
notice in it. Ex.P.12 is the statement of account of
Karnataka Bank Ltd, Hesaraghatta Main Road Branch,
Bengaluru standing in the name of Threerthachari i.e., the
complainant from 09/08/2010 to 27/01/2016 wherein an
amount of Rs.3,95,000/- has been withdrawn by the
complainant on 11/11/2015. Ex.P.13 is the On-demand
Promissory Note and consideration receipt executed by the
accused in favour of complainant.
16. On the other hand, accused is examined as
D.W.1 and not got marked any documents.
17. To substantiate the above said contention,
complainant is examined as PW-1 and he has reiterated
the complaint averments in his affidavit evidence and he
during his cross-examination has deposed stating that he
is working as an agent in MSIL Chit fund from the last 7 to
8 years and also doing real estate business. He further
deposed that accused is came to know to complainant
12
CC.No.12327/2017
through one Praveen Kumar of Udupi and accused is the
permanent resident of Tenki Hole near Udupi. He further
deposed that accused is running Elegant Coaching
Academy and for the development of Elegant Coaching
Academy and also due to personal financial problems faced
by him, he has availed loan amount from him. He has
further deposed stating that accused has asked money to
complainant during the first week of November 2015 in the
shop of Praveen and when the accused has demanded
money to the complainant, at that time complainant,
accused and Praveen were present. On 11/11/2015
complainant has lent money to accused. Further, on
perusal of the complaint averments, it reveals that same
fact has been reiterated by the complainant stating that
accused has requested for money during the first week of
November 2015 and he has lent a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on
11/11/2015 and the same has been corroborated during
the course of cross-examination. He further deposed
stating that on 11/11/2015 through self cheque
complainant has withdrawn an amount of Rs.3,95,000/-.
Hence, to substantiate the above said contention, among
13
CC.No.12327/2017
all the documents produced by the complainant from
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13, on close scrutiny of Ex.P.12 which is the
statement of account of Karnataka Bank Ltd, Hesaraghatta
Branch, Bengaluru standing in the name of complainant
from 09/08/2010 to 27/01/2016, it reveals that an
amount of Rs.3,95,000/- has been withdrawn by the
complainant on 11/11/2015 and the same fact has been
reiterated in the complaint averments. Hence, the above
said complaint averments and the above said evidence of
the complainant during the course of cross-examination
has been corroborated at Ex.P.12 statement of account.
He has further deposed stating that from the earnings of
his employment and also from the sale of site and after
withdrawing the said amount from the Bank, complainant
has given the amount to accused. He has further deposed
that he does not know that one Manjunath Nayak running
chit business in the name of Durga Sannidhi Chits Pvt Ltd.
He has further denied to the suggestion that he is not
having financial capacity to pay an amount of
Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused. Further, to show that
complainant is having financial capacity to pay an amount
14
CC.No.12327/2017
of Rs.6,00,000/-, on close scrutiny of Ex.P.12 which is the
statement of account standing in the name of complainant,
it reveals that an amount of Rs.3,95,000/- has been
withdrawn by the complainant from his account and this
itself goes to show that the financial capacity of the
complainant is healthy. He further denied to the
suggestion that complainant has misused the cheques
given to Manjunath Nayak.
18. He has also denied to the suggestion that Ex.P.1
and Ex.P.2 cheques are not issued for discharge of debt by
the accused in favour of complainant. Hence, on perusal of
the above said cross-examination, it reveals that the
complainant has stood by the averments what has been
stated in the complaint and no where his evidence is
shaken. In the present case, the defence which has been
taken by the accused is that he was a member in the chit
business run by one Manjunath Nayak in the name of
Durga Sannidhi Chits Pvt Ltd and at the time of
withdrawing of the said chit, the accused has issued Ex.P.1
and Ex.P.2 cheques in favour of Manjunath Nayak as a
15
CC.No.12327/2017
security and after completion of the chit, when accused
has demanded for return of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 cheques
issued in favour of accused, the said Manjunath Nayak has
stated that they are misplaced and he will return them
when traced. Further, to substantiate the above said
contention that accused was a member in the chit
business run by Manjunath Nayak and he has withdrawn
the chit amount from Durga Sannidhi Chits Pvt Ltd run by
Manjunath Nayak and to substantiate the above said
contention that Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 cheques are issued to
Manjunath Nayak, he has not produced any documents
before the court showing that accused was a member in
the chit run by Manjunath Nayak in the name of Durga
Sannidhi Chits Pvt Ltd. He has also not produced any
documents such as issuance of notice to said Manjunath
Nayak for non-return of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 cheques in
favour of accused and he has also not produced any single
iota of documentary evidence before the court showing that
accused was a member in the chit business run by
Manjunath Nayak. Hence, the above said defence taken by
the accused is without any documentary evidence. Hence,
16
CC.No.12327/2017
the defence taken by the accused is not believable and
trustworthy. The another defence which has been taken by
the accused is that the notice is not served on accused.
Hence, Section 138(b) of N.I.Act has been not complied by
the complainant. However, on perusal of Ex.P.5 which is
the office copy of legal notice issued to the accused, on
close scrutiny of Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.12, it reveals that the legal
notice sent to the accused has been returned with an
endorsement as "Addressee absent on all delivery dates,
hence returned to sender". This itself goes to show that
the notice issued as per Ex.P.5 is duly served on the
accused. Hence, Section 138(b) of N.I.Act is also complied
by complainant.
19. Moreover, the accused who is examined as
D.W.1, he during his cross-examination admits that Ex.P.1
and Ex.P.2 cheques belongs to accused account and also
his signature is also appearing at Ex.P.1(a) and Ex.P.2(a).
This itself goes to show that accused has issued Ex.P.1 and
Ex.P.2 cheques in favour of complainant for discharge of
debt which has been obtained by the accused for running
17
CC.No.12327/2017
his Elegant Coaching Academy business and also for
discharge of his financial commitments. Though the
evidence of the complainant has been rebutted by cross-
examining PW-1 and also be leading defence evidence,but
the above said evidence is not convincing, trustworthy and
reliable. On the other hand, the evidence of the
complainant clubbed with the complaint averments and
documentary evidence, it reveals that accused has issued
Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 cheques in favour of complainant for
discharge of debt which has been obtained by him for
running his Elegant Coaching Academy business and also
for discharge of his financial commitments and the above
said debt which has been obtained by the accused is a
legally enforceable debt.
20. Further, I rely upon the decision reported in Crl.
Appeal No:230-31 of 2019, decided between Bir Singh V/s.
Mukesh Kumar dated 06/02/2019 wherein at Para No:40
it has been clearly held that :-
"Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed
and handed over by the accused, which is
18
CC.No.12327/2017
towards some payment, would attract
presumption under Section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of
any cogent evidence to show that the cheque
was not issued in discharge of a debt".
Hence, the complainant has proved that Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2
cheques have been issued by accused in favour of
complainant for discharge of debt for his financial
commitments and also for running of Elegant Coaching
Academy business and it is a legally enforceable debt.
Hence, in view of my above discussion, I answer Point No.1
and 2 in the "Affirmative".
POINT No.3:-
21. It is the specific contention of the complainant
that accused is known to complainant through one Sri.
Praveen Kumar.N, Upudi since from two years and out of
the said friendship, accused borrowed hand loan from
complainant in the first week of November 2015 for the
purpose of accused family financial commitments and for
accused Elegant Coaching Academy business and agreed
19
CC.No.12327/2017
to repay the same by end of November 2016. In discharge
of the said debt, accused has issued Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2
cheques bearing No:122503 dated 02/03/2017 for
Rs.3,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No:122504
dated 02/03/2017 for Rs.3,00,000/-, both drawn on State
Bank of India, Saligrama, Udupi respectively. When the
complainant presented the said cheques through his
Banker Karnataka Bank Ltd, Hesaraghatta Branch,
Bengaluru, both the cheques were dishonoured for the
reasons "Payment stopped by the drawer" dated
06/03/2017 as per Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. Thereafter,
complainant issued legal notice to the accused on
18/03/2017 as per Ex.P.5 and it was sent through RPAD
as per Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8, but the postal covers were
returned back with endorsement as "Addressee absent,
intimation served on accused". Hence, the present
complaint is filed on 20/04/2017.
22. In this regard, it is relevant to peruse Section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which reads as
under:-
20
CC.No.12327/2017
"Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency,
etc., of funds in the account.--Where any
cheque drawn by a person on an
account maintained by him with a banker for
payment of any amount of money to another
person from out of that account for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any
debt or other liability, is returned by the bank
unpaid, either because of the amount of
money standing to the credit of that
account is insufficient to honour the cheque or
that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid
from that account by an agreement made with
that bank, such person shall be deemed
to have committed an offence and shall,
without prejudice to any other provision of
this Act, be punished with imprisonment
for [a term which may be extended to two
years], or with fine which may extend to twice
the amount of the cheque, or with both:
23. Provided that nothing contained in this section
shall apply unless--
a) the cheque has been presented to the
bank within a period of six months
from the date on which it is drawn or
within the period of its validity,
whichever is earlier;
b) the payee or the holder in due course of
the cheque, as the case may be, makes
a demand for the payment of the said
amount of money by giving a notice; in
writing, to the drawer of the cheque,
[within thirty days] of the receipt of
information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque as
unpaid; and
21
CC.No.12327/2017
c) the drawer of such cheque fails to
make the payment of the said amount
of money to the payee or, as the case
may be, to the holder in due course of
the cheque, within fifteen days of the
receipt of the said notice.
24. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,
"debt of other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or
other liability.
25. On going through the said provision of law, it is
clear that in order to establish and to prove the fact that
the accused has committed an offence under section 138
of N.I.Act, the essential requirements i.e., legally
recoverable debt, issuance of the cheque, presentation of
the said cheque within the stipulated period for
encashment, the dishonour of the said cheque and the
issuance of the legal notice within the stipulated period
calling upon the accused in making the payment of
the said cheque amount is within the stipulated
period are to be proved by the complainant.
22
CC.No.12327/2017
26. On going through the facts and circumstances
of the case, it is clear that the accused has issued 2
cheques i.e., Ex.P.1 cheque bearing No:122503 dated
02/03/2017 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and Ex.P.2 cheque
bearing No:122504 dated 02/03/2017 for a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/-each. Both the said cheques are
dishonoured for the reasons "Payment stopped by the
drawer" vide Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 memo dated 06/03/2017.
Thereafter, the complainant has issued legal notice
through his advocate as per Ex.P.5 on 18/03/2017 and
the said notice is sent to the accused as per Ex.P.6 to
Ex.P.8 postal receipts. The evidence placed on record
shows the failure of the accused to pay the above said
cheque amount within stipulated period as per section
138(c) of the Act. The present complaint has been filed on
20/04/2017 which is well within the period of limitation.
In view of this, the complainant has satisfied the entire
requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act.
27. On going through the entire oral and
documentary evidence and as observed supra, the
23
CC.No.12327/2017
complainant has proved the existence of legally recoverable
debt and issuance of cheque towards discharge of the said
debt and also issuance of the legal notice within stipulated
period and the failure of the accused to make payment of
the said cheque amount within stipulated period. Under
such circumstances, I hold that the complainant has
clearly proved the existence of legally recoverable debt and
also the issuance of cheque towards the discharge of said
debt.
28. When the complainant proved that accused has
issued Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 cheques towards discharge of his
liability and is liable to pay the money as provided
U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. The accused can be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may be extended upto 2
years or with fine which may be extended to twice the
amount of the cheque or with both. The accused is liable to
pay the cheque amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in discharge of
his liability in favour of complainant. Hence in view of my
above discussion, I answer Point No.3 in "Affirmative".
24
CC.No.12327/2017
POINT No.4:-
29. In the result I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The same shall be paid by the accused within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of the said fine amount, a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Ninety Thousand Only) has been awarded to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (Six) months.
25CC.No.12327/2017 The rest of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) is ordered to be adjusted to the State as fine.
The cash surety amount of
Rs.6,000/- already deposited by the
accused on 12/07/2017 is forfeited to the State.
Office is directed to supply copy of Judgment to the accused free of cost forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on computer, print out taken by her is verified, corrected and then Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 16th day of March 2022).
(Siddaramappa Kalyan Rao) XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
AN NE XU RE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Threerthachari.
List of documents exhibited on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 : Two cheques.
Ex.P.1(a) and Ex.P.2(a): Signatures of the accused. Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 : Two Bank endorsements.
Ex.P.5 : Legal notice.
Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8 : Postal receipts.
Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11 : Unserved postal covers.
Ex.P.9(a) : Notice in it.
26
CC.No.12327/2017
Ex.P.12 : Statement of account.
Ex.P.13 : On-demand Promissory Note
and consideration receipt.
Ex.P.13(a) and 13(b) : Signatures of the accused.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused :
DW.1 : Ganesh Upadhya.K List of documents exhibited on behalf of the accused :
- Nil -
XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.27
CC.No.12327/2017 Date: 16/03/2022 Complainant - KMS Accused - GRS Judgment Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The same shall be paid by the accused within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of the said fine amount, a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Ninety Thousand Only) has been awarded to the 28 CC.No.12327/2017 complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (Six) months.
The rest of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) is ordered to be adjusted to the State as fine.
The cash surety amount of Rs.6,000/- already deposited by the
accused on 12/07/2017 is forfeited to the State.
Office is directed to supply copy of Judgment to the accused free of cost forthwith.
XII A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.