Bangalore District Court
Konappa Reddy K R vs Manjunath on 5 February, 2025
KABC0C0160282019
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU
-: PRESENT:-
Sri P.S. Santhosh Kumar, M.Com., LL.M.,
XXXIII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025
C.C.NO.54311/2019
COMPLAINANT : Sri. Konappa Reddy. K.R,
S/o Reddappa,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at Laksmipura,
Devasandra,
Bangalore-560036.
Also R/at
No.61, Kempireddigari Palli
Village,
Yarramaviripalli Post,
Srinivasapura Taluk,
Kolar District-563134.
Mob:9964689267.
Vs.
ACCUSED : Sri. Manjunath,
S/o Konappa Reddy. B.,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at R/at Poolaguntapalli
Village,
Marasanapalli Post,
Srinivasapura Taluk,
2
C.C.NO.54311/2019
Kolar District-563161.
Mob:7996839591,
9900692490.
J U D G M E N T
The complainant has filed this private complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:-
The family of the complainant and the accused known to each other for the past many years. In the month of August 2015, the accused wanted to start a Mineral Water Plant. Hence, the accused approached the complainant for financial help of Rs.6,80,000/- and the complainant paid it on various dates. The accused had assured to repay the said amount within six months. After the stipulated time, when the complainant approached the accused for repayment, he kept on giving one or the other reasons for repayment of the loan. After many requests and demands, the accused entered into an agreement of 3 C.C.NO.54311/2019 repayment of the loan amount on 13.11.2017 and during that time, the accused issued cheques bearing No.201401, 201402, 201403 and 201404 dated 20.01.2019, 21.01.2019, 22.01.2019, 22.01.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.80,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Gownipalli branch, Royalpad Hobli, Srinivaspura Taluk, in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker State Bank of India, Srinivaspura branch. But, it came to be dishonored for the reason "Funds Insufficient" vide memo dated 01.02.2019. The complainant again presented said cheques for encashment through his banker Federal Bank, Krishnarajapuram branch, Bangalore. But, it came to be dishonored for the reason "Funds Insufficient" vide memo dated 01.02.2019. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 21.02.2019 calling upon him to pay the cheques amount. Inspite of service of said notice, the accused did not pay the cheques 4 C.C.NO.54311/2019 amount. Hence, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit, the documents etc., the court took cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by following the guidelines of Apex Court issued in Indian Bank Association case and ordered to register a criminal case against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared through his counsel, he was enlarged on court bail, further, substance of plea was recorded, the accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried. In order to prove his case, the complainant was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P49. Upon closure of complainant's side evidence, the court examined the accused U/s 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused 5 C.C.NO.54311/2019 denied the incriminating materials appearing against him and the accused got examined himself as DW1 and got marked no documents and closed his side.
5. Heard both the sides. I have gone through the written arguments filed by the counsel for the complainant. I have gone through a following decisions relied upon by the counsel for the complainant.
1. AIR 2019 SC 1876, between Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujrat and Another of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
2. AIR 2020 SC 945, between APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Shakti International Fashion Linkers and Others of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
3. Crl.A.No.1191/2011 dated 03.11.2020, between Sri. K.A. Ananda Vs. Sri. N. Gangadhara of the Hon'ble High Court Karnataka.
4. AIR 2000 Karnataka 169, between Maregowda and etc. Vs. Thippamma and Others of the Hon'ble High Court Karnataka.
5. (2021) 5 SCC 283, between Kalamani Tex and Another Vs. P.Balasubramanian of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
6. AIR 2023 SC 5018, between Rajesh Jain Vs. V. Ajay Singh of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
6C.C.NO.54311/2019
7. 2022 (3) KCCR SN 235, between Narasimha Vs. State of Karnataka of the Hon'ble High Court Karnataka.
8. 2021 (2) KCCR SN 119 (DB), between Seetharama Gowda A Vs. Isubu Kunhammade of the Hon'ble High Court Karnataka.
9. 2021 (2) KCCR SN 136, between Muralidar Rao Vs. P. Nagesh Rao of the Hon'ble High Court Karnataka.
10. 2007 (5) Supreme (SC) 277, between C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Another of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
11. 2019 (1) KCCR 750, between Sri. Yogesh Poojari Vs. Sri. K. Shankara Bhat of the Hon'ble High Court Karnataka.
12. (2009) 2 SCC 513, between Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
I have gone through a following decisions relied upon by the counsel for the accused.
1. 2023 (4) AKR 627, between S.P. Rajkumar Vs. M. J. Prabhakar of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
2. 2024 (1) AKR 99, between Khaleel Khan P. Vs. Shankarppa of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
3. 2023 (4) AKR 638: AIR Online 2023 KAR 1500, between Charles Harry Vs. Prveen Jain of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
4. (2019) 5 SCC 418, between Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
7C.C.NO.54311/2019
5. AIR 1979 SC 1408, between Suraj Mal Vs. The State (Delhi Administration) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
6. (2014) 2 SCC 236, between Jhon K. Abraham Vs. Simon C. Abraham and Another of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
7. (2015) 1 SCC 99, between K. Subramani Vs. K. Damodara Naidu of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
8. 2009 Crl.L.J. 3777, between Sanjay Mishra Vs. Ms. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki and Another of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.
9. 2012 (2) DCR 741, between Baiku G. Nath, Laiju Nivas Vs. Girija Krishna Kumar of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Perused the materials available on record.
6. The following points would arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused has committed an o/p/u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as follows;
8C.C.NO.54311/2019 Point No1: In the Affirmative, Point No.2: As per final order, for the following, R E A S O N S
8. POINT No.1: I have gone through the materials available on record. The case of the complainant is that the accused had availed loan of Rs.6,80,000/- from the complainant on various dates assuring the complainant that he would return it within six months and the complainant when approached the accused for the repayment of it after lapse of the said period, the accused entered into an agreement dated 13.11.2017 towards repayment for the loan in favour of the complainant and issued the cheques in question and on their presentation, said cheques came to the dishonored for the reason "funds insufficient" and thereafter, though the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused intimating the said fact and calling upon him to pay the amount of the cheques in question, the accused did not pay the cheques amount 9 C.C.NO.54311/2019 and hence, the accused has committed the alleged punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
9. The complainant, who has been examined as PW.1, has reiterated the facts stated in his complaint in his chief examination also. In addition to it, he has produced 49 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to
49.
10. Ex.P1 to 4 are the cheques in question dated bearing No.201401 to 201404 dated 20.01.2019, 21.01.2019, 22.01.2019 and 22.01.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.80,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Gownipalli branch, Royalpad Hobli, Srinivaspura Taluk, respectively and Ex.P5 to 8 are bank endorsements dated 01.02.2019 which go to show that the cheques in question came to be returned with a shara "Funds Insufficient". Ex.P9 is the legal notice dated 21.02.2019 sad to have been issued by the complainant to the accused intimating the fact of 10 C.C.NO.54311/2019 dishonor of the cheques in question and calling upon him to pay the cheques amount. Ex.P10 is the postal receipt and Ex.P11 is the postal acknowledgment which goes to show that the legal notice sent to the accused has been duly served. Ex.P12 is the agreement dated 13.11.2017 said to have been executed by the accused in favour of the complainant wherein the accused agreed to have borrowed the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- and a gold ring worth Rs.30,000/- and that he is issuing the cheques in question in favour of the complainant towards repayment of the said amount. Ex.P13 to 43 are said to be the receipts issued by one TVS Tomato Mandi of Madanapalli Market Yard and the complainant has claimed to have sold the Tomato crop grown by him under the said receipts and as could be seen from the said receipts they were pertaining to the period between 2017 to 2020. Ex.P44 is the another receipt issued by SSR Suppliers of Bangalore, who are suppliers of Mango and Vegetables, for having sold 11 C.C.NO.54311/2019 the commodities mentioned in the said receipt. Ex.P45 is said to be the bank account pass book pertaining to the complainant which goes to show that he has maintained the said account with Federal Bank, Old Madras Road, K.R.Puram, Bangalore. Ex.P46 is the RTC Extract pertaining to Sy.No.12/P2 situated at Nakkalavaripalli Village standing in the name of Sri.Byanna, Sri.Gangulappa and Sri.K.M. Manjunatha Reddy for the year 2019-20. Ex.P47 is the RTC Extract pertaining to Sy.No.16 of Nakkalavaripalli Village standing in the name of Sri.Peddasiddappa, Sri.Byanna Gangulappa, Sri.Vekataswami for the year 2023-2024. Ex.P48 is the RTC Extract said to be pertaining to Sy.No.200 of Addagallu village standing in the name of Sri.Cog S/o Sri.Baiyyareddy Kempireddygaripalli for the year 2023-24. Ex.P49 is said to be the Genealogy certificate issued by the Deputy Talashidar, Royalpadi Hobli, Srinivaspura Taluk, Kolar District said to be pertaining to the family of the complainant.
12C.C.NO.54311/2019
11. It is relevant to mention here that the accused has disputed the service of notice. But, he has not adduced any cogent oral and documentary evidence to show that he was residing in some other address at the relevant point of time and further no contradiction has been elicited from the mouth of PW1 in that regard. Further Ex.P5 postal acknowledgment goes to show that the accused has received it having signed on it. As such, the defence of the accused that the legal notice is not served on the accused cannot be believed. Further the DW1 in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that the Ex.P1 to 4 pertain to his bank account and he also admitted the signatures of the payer appearing on Ex.P1 to 4 as belongs to him. Such being the case, when once the accused admits the issuance of the cheques and his signatures on it, the initial presumption as contemplated U/S 139 of the N.I Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant, however, the accused is entitled to rebut 13 C.C.NO.54311/2019 the said presumptions as held in the case of Sri Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898.
12. Once the presumption U/S 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by adducing cogent evidence in support of his defence. It is relevant to mention here that the specific defence of the accused against the claim made by the complainant is that as he was in need of funds to cultivate Tomato crop in the month of September- 2016, he borrowed handloan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant on interest @ 5% p.m. and he was paying interest regularly and he could not return the said money to the complainant since he had sustained heavy loss and when the complainant approached him for repayment of the said loan in the month of September-2017, he sought for two months time to return the said amount, but the complainant refused to give him breathing time and thereafter, on 14 C.C.NO.54311/2019 12.11.2017 the complainant came alongwith K.R. Puram Police and forcibly took him to the police station and in the police station, the complainant took his signatures forcibly on various blank documents and white sheets with the help of police and thereafter, in the month of March 2019, he has repaid a sum of Rs.40,000/- out of the above said Rs.1,00,000/- and requested for some time to return the balance amount, but the complainant was arrogant and again with the help of police forcibly took from him signed blank cheques. The accused had paid up to date interest till December 2018 and he has to pay only the balance amount of Rs.60,000/-, but the complainant has made false claim of Rs.6,80,000/-. The complainant has also filed a suit in O.S.No.498/2022 before the Hon'ble CCH-18 on the basis of the cheques involved in the present complaint. He has further taken a defence that the complainant through one Sri Manjunath N.L., who is his friend, has also filed one more complaint against 15 C.C.NO.54311/2019 him in C.C.No.57764/2019 for Rs.10,00,000/-. The accused has never borrowed the above said money from the complainant and as there were life threatening to him and his family, he was not in a position to take any legal steps against the complainant. The accused never agreed to pay any interest. It is relevant to mention here that at the first instance, the accused though has received legal notice from the complainant he has not replied to it for the best reasons known to him. Further the accused though stated that he was regularly paying the interest on the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- borrowed from the complainant in the year 2016 up to December 2018, he did not adduce any cogent oral and documentary evidence in support of his said defence and further he has also failed to elicit anything in support of it from the mouth of PW1 during his cross-examination. Further it is relevant to mention here that it could be seen from his chief- examination itself that the accused was said to be 16 C.C.NO.54311/2019 forced by the complainant with the help of police in November 2017 and thereby the complainant took his signatures to some blank papers and white papers and secondly during December 2018, once again the complainant is said to have forcibly taken signed blank cheques from him with the help of police. It is relevant to mention here that no prudent man could be forced twice and even if anybody is forced twice as stated by the accused, certainly he would have taken necessary legal action against the police and the person concerned on any one of such occasions. Further it is relevant to mention here that the accused being a prudent man would have taken necessary legal steps against the complainant for his illegal acts and use of any such force, but he has not done so for the best reasons known to him. Moreover, for the first time, the accused by way of defence has stated in his chief-examination that there was life threatening to him and his family by the complainant and by the police concerned and as such, he could not take any 17 C.C.NO.54311/2019 appropriate legal steps against the complainant. It is relevant to mention here that the accused though has stated so, he has not explained in detail in what manner there was such life threat to him by the complainant and the police for the best reasons known to him. Further the accused is not a layman to believe the said story since he himself has stated in his chief-examination that he was an agriculturist and had availed loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant when he had necessity to cultivate Tomato crop. The said fact itself is sufficient to say that the accused is a man having knowledge of worldly affairs and such being the case, the story stated by the accused in his defence cannot be believed. Further in support of any of his defence, the accused has failed to elicit anything from the mouth of PW1 during his cross-examination. Further the accused at least would have issued stop payment instructions to his banker immediately after issuance of said cheques in favour of the complainant forcibly, 18 C.C.NO.54311/2019 but he has also not done so for the best reason known to him. Further even the accused after appearing before this court and entirely cross- examining PW1, while recording his statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C has stated nothing in his defence except denying the incriminating evidence read over to him for the best reasons known to him. Further during the cross-examination of PW1, th accused has made a suggestion to the witness that he has received the cheques in question from the accused after lapse of 2 years 7 months from the advancement of the loan and nowhere in the said suggestion he has suggested they were forcibly collected from the accused. Further the complainant has categorically stated that the accused had issued the said cheques in the presence of Sri. Mallikarjuna at Gownapalli and the accused has written all the contents of the cheques given to the complainant and inspite of it the accused did not adduce any cogent evidence that he had forcibly issued it in blank and duly signed. Further the 19 C.C.NO.54311/2019 document at Ex.P12 which is said to be the agreement for money received dated 13.11.2017 goes to show that the accused has categorically agreed regarding availment of loan of Rs.6,50,000/- in cash and a gold ring worth Rs.30,000/- to start Mineral Water business and he also agreed to repay it within six months and also agreed therein that as he could not repay it, he was called before the K.R.Puram police on the complaint lodged by the complainant on 12.11.2017 and admitting receipt of the loan agreed to issue the cheques in question for Rs.6,80,000/-. The shara written on the backside of the said agreement at Ex.P12 further goes to show that the accused has issued the cheques in question in favour of the complainant on 10.01.2019 as per the said agreement. The said document at Ex.P12 clearly corroborates with the case of the complainant. Further his signatures on Ex.P12 were categorically admitted by the accused during his cross-examination as Ex.P12(a) to (c). Further merely because the 20 C.C.NO.54311/2019 complainant during his cross-examination has stated that he never stated in Ex.P12 that he borrowed the money from his friends contrary to the contents of Ex.P12 is not sufficient to disbelieve the said documents in its entirety, that too where the accused even has failed to issue reply to the legal notice at the earliest point of time by taking the said defence.
13. Further as regards the financial capacity of the complainant the accused taken a defence that the complainant had no financial capacity to lend the above said money. But, the contents of Ex.P12 is totally contrary to the said defence of the accused wherein the accused had categorically admitted to have received Rs.6,80,000/- in the manner stated therein. Further the PW1 has categorically stated that he was running a Juice Shop in a partnership in the year 2016 by name Vinayaka Juice Center with one Sri. Madhusudhana Reddy and he was drawing salary of Rs.30,000/- and he had run the said shop till 2019 and thereafter he closed it due to Covid-19 and PW1 21 C.C.NO.54311/2019 has further stated that he had an agricultural income from Mango and Tomato crop and that his parents were doing Sheep Vending business, out of which he had received Rs.6,80,000/- from his father and the said facts have not been disputed by the accused either by denying it or by adducing any cogent oral and documentary evidence contrary to it. No doubt, in his cross-examination PW1 has categorically stated that his father used to do agriculture and he has produced documents standing in his father's name and that except the Genealogy Certificate any of the documents at Ex.P13 to 48 does not bear his name. Merely because the said documents do not have the name of the complainant, it cannot be said that he had no financial capacity to lend the alleged money in view of the recitals of the agreement at Ex.P12 and in view of the defence of the accused himself that he approached and borrowed money of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant during September 2016. If at all the accused had no financial capacity, how the 22 C.C.NO.54311/2019 accused could have approached for money of Rs.1,00,000/-. As such, even if the document at Ex.P13 and 48 is not taken into consideration, the defence of the accused that the complainant had no financial capacity to lend the alleged money cannot be believed. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the ratio laid down in the abovesaid decisions are not aptly applicable to the present case on hand. Further considering the entire materials on record and keeping in mind the settled principles of law laid down in the abovesaid decisions relied upon by both the sides regarding drawing of presumption and standard of proof required for the accused to rebut the said presumptions, I am of the opinion that the accused has failed either to raise a probable defence or to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the complainant and on the other hand, the materials on record goes to show that the complainant has proved his case beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, the accused is liable to 23 C.C.NO.54311/2019 be convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
14. It is relevant to mention here that the accused having issued cheques at Ex.P1 to 4 in favour of the complainant has failed to pay the cheques amount and hence, the complainant is to be suitably compensated for the delay caused by the accused in its repayment. Further the punishment prescribed for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is imprisonment for a period which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, nature, year of the transaction, nature of the instrument involved, cost of litigation and the rate of interest proposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (1) SCC 260 (R.Vijayan Vs Baby), I am of the opinion that it is just and desirable to impose fine of Rs.10,80,000/- and out of the said amount, it seems to be proper to award a sum of Rs.10,75,000/- as compensation to the 24 C.C.NO.54311/2019 complainant as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C and the remaining sum of Rs.5,000/- shall go to the State towards expenses. With these observations, my findings on Point No.1 is in the Affirmative.
15. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1, I proceed to pass following;
O R D E R Acting u/s. 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,1881.
The accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,80,000/-. In default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.5,000/-
shall be paid to the State towards
expenses and remaining amount of
25
C.C.NO.54311/2019
Rs.10,75,000/- to the complainant as compensation as per the provisions of Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C..
Further, it is made clear that in view of proviso to Sec.421(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused would not be absolved from his liability to pay compensation amount of Rs.10,75,000/- awarded u/s. 357 of Cr.P.C. even if he undergoes the default sentence.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall stand hereby continued till the appeal period is over.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, directly over Computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 5th day of February 2025) (P.S. SANTHOSH KUMAR) XXXIII ACJM, BENGALURU.
26C.C.NO.54311/2019 A N N E X U R E
1.Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 : Sri. Konappa Reddy. K.R.
2.Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 to 4 : Original cheques Ex.P.1(a) : Signatures of the accused to 4(a) Ex.P.5 to 8 : Bank return memos Ex.P.9 : Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P.10 : Postal receipt Ex.P.11 : Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.13 to : Receipts (a crossed curved line appears 43 on every writings of said receipts) Ex.P.13(a) : Translated copies of Ex.P.13 to 43 to 43(a) Ex.P.44 : Cash Bill Ex.P.45 : Pass Book Ex.P.46 to : 3 RTC Extracts 48 Ex.P.49 : Genealogy Certificate
3.Witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
DW1 : Sri. Manjunath
27
C.C.NO.54311/2019
4.Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
NIL (P.S. SANTHOSH KUMAR) XXXIII ACJM, BENGALURU.