Bangalore District Court
Sri K.S.L.N.Murthy vs Gurudatta Puranic on 31 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2016,
PRESENT: SRI. NAGARAJEGOWDA.D, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.
C.C.No.5090/2014
Complainant : Sri K.S.L.N.Murthy,
Son of K.V.Sheshagiri Rao,
Aged 63 years,
R/o No.W-75, A Cross, Pipe Line,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 003.
(By Sri. Harisha M.T.Adv.)
V/s.
Accused : Gurudatta Puranic
Son of Vasudev Puranic,
Aged 35 years,
R/o No. 861, 9th Main,
17th Cross, ISRO Layout,
Bangalore.
Office Address:
Employee Code: 121491,
IBM Daksha,
Business Process Services Ltd.,
Manyatha Tech Park,
Bangalore .
(By Sri B.S.Nagamani,.Adv.)
Date of Institution 23-11-2013
2 C.C.No.5090/2014
Offence complained of U/s 138 of N.I.Act.
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Accused is CONVICTED.
Date of Order : 31.03.2016.
The complainant filed the private complaint u/s 200 of
Cr.P.C alleging that, the accused person has committed an offence
punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act.
REASONS
The brief facts of the complainant case is as follows:-
2. The accused approached the complainant on several
occasions to lend a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/-to meet his family
financial commitments that were contracted by the accused.
Appreciating his predicament and on repeated demand by the
accused, the complainant paid the accused a total sum of Rs.20
Lakhs in cash and at the time of borrowing the said sum from the
complainant, the accused promised the complainant that the
accused would be returning the said sum within September,
2013. As the accused did not keep up his promise the
complainant approached accused and demanded for return of the
said amount. Accused instead of paying the said amount in
3 C.C.No.5090/2014
cash , the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.063678 dated
09-10-2013 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., I.T.Park, White Field
Road branch, Bangalore in favour of the complainant for a sum
of Rs.20,00,000/- and had promised the complainant that when
the said cheque is presented for payment it would be honoured.
Believing the words of the accused to be true, the complainant
accepted the said cheque and presented the same for payment
through his bankers viz Sir M.Visveswaraya Co-Operative Bank
Ltd., K.P.West Branch, Bangalore for payment. But the said
cheque came to be returned with the shara "Funds insufficient"
vide bank endorsement dated 07-01-2008. Immediately thereafter
the complainant brought the fact of dishonour of the said cheque
to the notice of the accused and demanded immediate payment of
the said sum of Rs.20 lakhs covered under the cheque . But the
accused is evading making payment to the complainant.
Thereafter having no other go, the complainant got issued legal
notice on 31-10-2013 to the address of office and residential
address of accused, calling upon the accused to pay the cheque
amount . The notice sent by RPAD was served to the residential
address of accused on 01-11-2013 but the notice sent to the
office address has been returned as incomplete address. Inspite of
receipt of legal notice, he did not replied or complied the notice
4 C.C.No.5090/2014
and thus accused committed the offence punishable u/s. 138 of
NI Act and u/s. 420 of IPC and punish the accused in accordance
with law and impose maximum fine to the accused and to order
for payment of double the cheque amount to the complainant, in
the interest of justice and equity.
3. The accused appeared before this court and contest this
case by denying the entire case of complainant at the time of
recording of Plea of Accusation . In order to prove the case of
complainant, he adduced his oral evidence as PW-1 by way of
affidavit and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and this PW-1 has been
fully cross examined by the accused counsel and thus
complainant closed his side evidence.
4. There afterwards, the accused examined u/s.313 of
Cr.P.C. in which, he totally denied the entire case of complainant .
He in support of his denial, lead his oral evidence as DW-1 on
Oath and this DW-1 has been fully cross-examined by the
complainant counsel and thus closed his side defence evidence.
5. In support of the case of complainant, the Ln.counsel for
complainant submitted written arguments by narrating the facts
and circumstances of the case and submits that the accused has
5 C.C.No.5090/2014
committed the offence punishable u/s. 138 of NI Act. and punish
the accused in accordance with law.
6. In support of the case of accused, the accused counsel
did not appear before this court and failed to address their side
arguments inspite of sufficient opportunity has been given and
hence, this court taken accused side arguments as nil.
7. In order to prove the case of complainant, the
complainant adduced his oral evidence as PW-1 filed by way of
affidavit. In which, he reiterated complaint contention and got
marked Ex.P1 cheque alleged to be issued by the accused and
identified the signature of the accused as per Ex.P1(a). This
issuance of cheque in favour of complainant for discharge of legal
liability has been disputed by the accused. Further got marked
Ex.P2 is an endorsement issued by the bankers stating that Ex.P1
cheque was dishonoured due to "Funds insufficient". Ex.P3 is
the copy of legal notice . This notice does not contain the
signature of the complainant except his counsel . Ex.P4 and
Ex.P5 are the Postal Receipts. Ex.P6 is the postal cover addressed
to the office address of the accused is returned unserved with the
shara "incomplete address" etc.. As per the say of the
complainant, legal notice sent to the residential address of the
6 C.C.No.5090/2014
accused was duly served for that, he has not produced any postal
acknowledgement to show that legal notice was duly served .
Ex.P7 is the statement of account of Visweshwaraiah Co-op.Bank
ltd., stands in the name of Lakshmi Narasimha murthy i.e. the
complainant in this case . As per the statement of account ,
during the year, 2012 the complainant had Rs.1,13,000/- in his
bank account. Ex.P8 is the ICICI Bank statement of account
stands in the name of complainant and also with his Wife
Leelavathy . As per the statement of account during the year,
complainant had an amount of Rs. Five lakhs . Ex.P9 is another
statement of account of ICICI Bank stand in the name of
Vijayakumar i.e. the Son of complainant who is residing in USA .
As per the statement of account of Son of complainant , he had
$ 26,650-00 . Ex.P10 is another statement of account stands in
the name of Veena. As per the statement of account she had got
Rs.62,000/- and odd during the year, 2013. As per the aforesaid
oral and documentary evidence of complainant in the complaint
or in the chief examination , on which date the complainant had
paid huge amount of Rs.20 lakhs is not mentioned. Because the
accused denied the receipt of the said amount of Rs.20 lakhs.
8. In support of the case of complainant, the learned
counsel for the complainant submitted written arguments by
7 C.C.No.5090/2014
narrating the facts and circumstances of the case and submits
that the complainant had fulfilled all the ingredients of offence
punishable u/s. 138 of NI Act and hence, accused may be
convicted in accordance with law.
9. As per the denial of the case of accused, the accused
himself examined as DW-1 on oath and in which, he has stated
that he knows the complainant through his father and during the
life time of his father , his father obtained Rs.Three lakhs loan
from the complainant and also he told that he repaid the said
amount. During the year, 2005 when his father was not well, the
complainant brother Raghavendra comes to their house and
seeking repayment of the loan of Rs.Three lakhs with his father at
that time, he was not in talking terms hence, he asked this
accused to issue blank cheque . Hence, he issued two signed
blank cheques. Out of said cheques Ex.P1 cheque is in this case
and another cheque has been misused by the said Raghavendra
and filed cheque bounce case against him and he has not received
any legal notice from the complainant . Hence, he prays for
acquittal from the case.
10. As per the chief examination of DW-1, in support of his
contention though he did not given any corroborative evidence but
8 C.C.No.5090/2014
it is the duty of the complainant to prove his case beyond all
reasonable doubt. The complainant counsel cross-examined the
DW-1 . In the cross-examination , he admitted that this
complainant is well acquainted with the complainant and both of
them used to go to their houses and also attended several
functions of each others and he is a B.Com Graduate . He know
the bank transaction and he had knowledge about the Ex.P1
cheque was presented to the bank for collection . At that time, he
has not asked the complainant for what reasons he presented the
said cheque and also he has not given any instruction to the
bankers to stop payment of the cheque and he is working at IBM
for past seven years and he is residing in the address stated in
the complaint and he admitted that as per Ex.P6 , the address
stated in the postal cover is belongs to him. But he denied that he
intentionally avoided to take the said notice but he admitted that
his two sons are working at Abroad and after presenting this
complaint , he personally met the complainant and asked him not
to proceed in this case and he is going to settle this case etc.. But
he has admitted that the signature found on Ex.P1 cheque and
the signature belongs to this accused . But he has stated that the
said cheque was given to the brother of complainant which was
given in blank and for misusing of the said cheque, he has not
9 C.C.No.5090/2014
taken any action against the brother of the complainant and he
admitted that another cheque bounce case filed against one
Siddappa was issued for different transaction and he had
knowledge about if any cheque has been issued to some other
person what is the consequences is to be faced. In order to show
he issued a cheque in question during the year, 2005, he has not
produced any documentary evidence . But he admitted that one
Siddappa filed cheque bounce case against his wife and he denied
that during the year, 2015 he obtained loan of Rs.20,00,000/-
from the complainant and for repayment of the said amount,
accused issued Ex.P1 cheque , the same was dishonoured due to
"Funds insufficient" etc..
11.Though accused counsel did not address the arguments
on merit, but it is the duty of the complainant to prove his case
beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to show he paid Rs.20
lakhs and he has not specifically stated on which date , he paid
the said amount because accused has denied the entire case of
complainant. As per the statement of account produced by the
complainant, in his Bank Account he had got only Rs.1,13,000/-
and in the joint account of this complainant with his wife during
the year, 2013 kept only Rs.29,000/- and odd etc.. But during the
year, 2015 they have kept Rs.5,00,000/- and odd etc.. As per the
10 C.C.No.5090/2014
bank statement of account of his Son, the complainant's Son had
kept $ 26,650/- . But whether his Son had paid the said amount
of Rs.Twenty Lakhs to this complainant, he has not given any
corroborative evidence.
12. The accused counsel cross-examined the PW-1. In the
cross-examination, he tried to elicited as per the chief
examination of DW-1 , same has been denied by him and in order
to show that out of his Service Retirement Benefit, he had
Rs.Seven lakhs with him for that, he has not produced any
documentary evidence . But his two sons are working at USA and
Newzeland used to sent amount to the complainant. . In support
of his contention, he has not examined the Sons of the
complainant to establish his case. He denied that in his bank
account, he had kept only Rs.Five lakhs and odd.
13. On the basis of the cross-examination of PW-1, and also
the defence taken by the accused it is clear that in order to show
the accused obtained loan of Rs.Twenty lakhs from the
complainant, for that the complainant failed to given corroborative
evidence. Under these circumstances, the case of complainant
create doubtful but the accused admitted that he is due to the
complainant a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- only but the same has been
11 C.C.No.5090/2014
paid by him. For that, he has not given any corroborative
evidence. Under such circumstances, the complainant is entitled
to compensation only to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- with simple
interest @ 6% P.A. Under these circumstances, the complainant
had prove the alleged guilt of the accused. But the accused had
given rebuttal evidence to the case of complainant. But as per the
clear admission of accused, the complainant is entitled to
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with simple interest @ 6% P.A.
Hence, accused is liable for conviction. Accordingly, I pass the
following:
ORDER
Acting under Sec.265 of Cr.P.C. accused is Convicted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act and accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- ( Rs..Two thousand only) . In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of Two months.
The complainant was awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000,/- (Rs. Three Lakhs only) with simple interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of cheque , till realization of the entire amount and the same shall be paid to the complainant by the accused within 30 days from the date of this order .
12 C.C.No.5090/2014In default of payment of compensation amount, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One year.
Office is directed to supply free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of March, 2016) (NAGARAJEGOWDA.D) XXII ACMM, Bangalore city.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 : KSLN. Murthy Witness examined for the accused:
DW-1 : Gurudatta Puranic List of Documents marked for the Complainant:
Ex.P1 : Cheque Ex.P1a : Signature of the accused Ex.P2 : Endorsement Ex.P3 : Legal notice Ex.P4 & 5 : Postal receipts Ex.P6 : Returned Postal cover with notice Ex.P6a : Postal shara Ex.P7 to 10 Statements of account
List of Documents marked for the accused:
nil :
XXII ACMM, Bangalore.
13 C.C.No.5090/2014