Bangalore District Court
Shivaji Rao vs Smt. Suvarnamma on 18 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITYF CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 18th day of March 2016
PRESENT:
Sri G.D.Mahavarkar, M.A., LL.B (Spl),
M.L. (Lab & Indstrl Rlns & Adm. Laws),
LL.M (Business Laws), M.Phil-in-Law
(Juridical Science)
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
Crl. Appeal No. 777/2014
Appellant : Shivaji Rao,
Original-Accused S/o. V. Nanjundachar,
Aged about 65 years,
Security Guard,
State Bank of Mysore,
SBM Road, Nelamangala Branch,
Nelamangala,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri H.G. Narasimha Murthy,
Advocate)
Vs.
Respondent : Smt. Suvarnamma,
Original-Complainant Aged about 56 years,
R/a. Mathalli,
Voderahalli Cross,
Dasanapura Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
(By Sri M. Gangadhara Shetty,
Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/original-accused against the respondent/original-complainant U/Sec.374 of Cr.P.C., 2 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 against the impugned conviction judgment passed by the XIII ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in it's CC No.16125/2005, dated 30.06.2014.
2. The original-accused before the trial court having preferred the instant appeal against the original-complainant, as the appellant and the respondent, respectively, are hereby assigned with their original ranks before the trial court i.e., the appellant as the accused and the respondent as the complainant in the instant discussion for the purpose of brevity and convenience to avoid the confoundation and perplexity.
3. This is a criminal case at CC No.16125/2005 arising-out of the PCR No.12066/2005 filed by the complainant against the accused before the trial court seeking for taking cognizance for the offence committed by the accused U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and punish him in accordance with law by imposing the maximum fine double the amount and order for payment of double the amount of cheque and etc.
4. The epitomized facts projected from the complaint before the trial court run thus:
The accused had borrowed the hand-loan of Rs.1,00,000/-
from the complainant 10.06.2004 assuring that, he would repay the same within the stipulated period of 6 months with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, thereon. But, despite of having 3 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 effluxed the said stipulated period, the accused having not repaid the same, he issued a cheque bearing No.255942, dated 12.01.2005, for Rs.1,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Nelamangala Branch, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural, on approaching the accused by the complainant and thereafter, on presenting the said cheque to the State Bank of Mysore, CBAB Complex Branch, Bengaluru, it came to be bounced and dishonored with a bank-endorsement as 'funds insufficient' on 27.01.2005; Consequent-upon which, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 10.02.2005 by RPAD and despite of having duly served on the accused, he has neither replied to the same nor repaid the said amount. The accused being fully-aware that, there is no sufficient amount in his account to honor the said cheque bearing No.255942 towards the legally enforceable debt, he has issued the same and thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
5. After lodging the complaint, the trial court has taken the cognizance in exercise of the powers conferred-upon it U/Sec.190(a) & (c) of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
6. After recording the sworn-statement of the complainant, the process U/Sec.204 of Cr.P.C. having been issued, the accused 4 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 has put-in his appearance before the trial court in response to the summons issued against him, through his learned counsel.
7. On moving for bail, the accused has been released on bail.
8. The trial court has framed the substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the same was read over and explained to the accused in the vernacular best known to him.
9. The accused has denied the same and pleaded not guilty and further claimed to be tried.
10. In order to prove the guilt against the accused, the complainant herself has got examined as P.W.1 and thereby, placed her reliance on the documentations marked at Exs.P.1 to P.7.
11. After the complainant's evidence was closed, since the incriminating circumstances were arising-out of the evidence of the complainant's side witnesses, the statements of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded.
12. Per contra, to rebut the case and the evidence of the complainant, the accused himself has got examined as DW.1 and also examined one independent-witness by name S. Palakshaiah as DW.2 and thereby, the accused/DW.1 has placed his reliance on the documentations marked at Exs.D.1 to D.5. 5 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014
13. The trial court having heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the complainant as-well-as the learned counsel for the accused, basing on the material available on record from the complainant, the trial court has framed the points for it's consideration as under:
(1) Whether the complainant proves that, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.255942, for Rs.1,00,000/-, dated 12.01.2005, towards the discharge of legally enforceable debt due to him and when the cheque was presented for encashment, it came to be returned as 'funds insufficient' and thereby, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
(2) What order?
14. The trial court has given the findings on the points for consideration raised by it, as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 .. As per the final order,
for the following:
-------- and thereby convicted the accused by sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.1,05,000/- and in default of payment of the same, simple-imprisonment for six-months and out of the said fine- amount, the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/-, the cheque- amount as compensation and the balance-amount of Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be defrayed to the State for the expenses incurred in the prosecution.
6 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014
15. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, the appellant/original-accused before the trial court, has preferred the instant appeal against the respondent/original- complainant before the trial court, on the following:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
(a) The judgment and order under the appeal is illegal, arbitrary and the same is passed without considering and appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case properly.
(b) The trial court has lost it's sight to take note-of the fact that, the alleged cheque involved in the case is issued as a blank-cheque for security purpose only, but not for any payment purpose.
(c) The trial court has failed to take note-of that, the said blank-cheque issued by the accused for security purpose only, has been filled by the complainant to gain illegally from the accused.
(d) The trial court has not considered the facts and circumstances along-with the exhibits marked on both the sides while passing the judgment.
(e) The trial court has lost it's sight to take note-of the fact that, the complainant was not capable to lend money as alleged.
(f) The trial court has failed to appreciate that, the complainant has failed in doing her initial burden for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the accused.7 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014
(g) The trial court has lost it's sight to consider the loan-
agreement as to how and under what circumstances, it has been entertained-to and etc. Hence, prayed for allowing the present appeal.
16. Per contra, the respondent-complainant has not filed any counter-objections to the present appeal-memo.
17. I have heard both the learned counsels for the appellant- accused as-well-as the respondent-complainant.
18. Basing on the material available on record and grounds of appeal, the points that arise for my consideration are:
(1) Whether the trial court has justified in affirming the Point No.1 raised for it's consideration holding that, the complainant has established that the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.255942 for Rs.1,00,000/-
dated 12.01.2005, towards the dischargence of legally enforceable debt due to her and on presenting the same for encashment before her bankers, it came to be dishonored with the bank-endorsement as 'funds insufficient' and thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
(2) Whether the impugned judgment of the trial court is arbitrary, baseless, capricious, devoid of merits, erroneous, frivolous and perverse without being on the sound principles of law 8 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 and warrants for the interference by the instant court?
(3) To what order?
19. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 .. In the Negative.
Point No.3 .. As per the final order, for
the following:
REASONS
20. The status and ranking assigned in the trial court to the complainant and accused are being adopted and adhered-to in the instant discussion for the purpose of brevity and convenience to avoid the confoundation and perplexity.
21. Point No's.1 & 2:- To avoid the reiteration of the material available in hand and to appreciate the evidence adduced before the trial court, in a better position, I hereby take-up these Point No's.1 & 2 together admixingly for discussion.
22. It is the specific contention of the complainant by way of his complaint that, the accused had borrowed the hand-loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant 10.06.2004 assuring that, he would repay the same within the stipulated period of 6 months with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, thereon. But, despite of having effluxed the said stipulated period, the accused having not repaid the same, he issued a cheque bearing No.255942, dated 9 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 12.01.2005, for Rs.1,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Nelamangala Branch, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural, on approaching the accused by the complainant and thereafter, on presenting the said cheque to the State Bank of Mysore, CBAB Complex Branch, Bengaluru, it came to be bounced and dishonored with a bank-endorsement as 'funds insufficient' on 27.01.2005; Consequent-upon which, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 10.02.2005 by RPAD and despite of having duly served on the accused, he has neither replied to the same nor repaid the said amount. The accused being fully-aware that, there is no sufficient amount in his account to honor the said cheque bearing No.255942 towards the legally enforceable debt, he has issued the same.
23. To substantiate his contentions, the complainant herself has got examined as P.W.1 and thereby, placed his reliance on the documentations marked at Exs.P.1 to P.7, in which Ex.P.1 is the cheque, Ex.P.2 is the bank-endorsement, Ex.P.3 is the debit- advice, Ex.P.4 is the copy of the legal notice issued against the accused on 10.02.2005, Ex.P.5 is the postal-acknowledgement due card, Ex.P.6 is the affidavit and Ex.P.7 is the complaint.
24. Denying the entire case of the complainant, it is the specific defence of the accused that, since the complainant use to visit the State Bank of Mysore, Nelamangala Branch, Bengaluru 10 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 Rural, where the accused was working as a Security Guard, both were acquainted since about 15 years back itself and the accused having introduced her for opening the savings bank account in her name, by virtue of their acquaintanship he had raised the hand- loan of Rs.15,000/- only from the complainant, but not the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and in respect of the dischargence of the said loan of Rs.15,000/-, he had issued a blank-cheque for the security purpose as per Ex.P.1, out of which, he has already paid Rs.10,000/- totally in two-occasions, as Rs.4,000/- at one- occasion and as Rs.6,000/- at another-occasion under the receipts and therefore, the accused is due for only Rs.5,000/- to the complainant but not for any other amount and also there is no any such alleged transaction of Rs.1,00,000/- with the complainant and therefore, he is not due for any alleged amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Hence, prayed for allowing the present appeal.
25. Per contra, to rebut the case and the evidence of the complainant, the accused himself has got examined as DW.1 and also examined one independent-witness by name S. Palakshaiah as DW.2 and thereby, the accused/DW.1 has placed his reliance on the documentations marked at Exs.D.1 & D.5, in which Ex.D.1 is the affidavit, Ex.D.2 is the original loan-agreement dated 01.09.2004, Exs.D.2(a) & D.2(b) are the endorsements made on the 11 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 white-sheets annexed to Ex.D.2, Exs.D.2(c) & D.2(d) are the signatures of the DW.2 found in Ex.D.2, Ex.D.3 is the affidavit, Ex.D.4 - number skipped and Ex.D.5 is the certified-copy of the sale deed dated 17.08.2009.
26. On marshalling the rival-contentions of both the sides, along-with their respective documentary-evidence, it is crystal clear that, the criminal case at CC No.16125/2005 is arising-out of the PCR No.12066/2005 was filed by the complainant against the accused before the trial court seeking for taking cognizance for the offence committed by the accused U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and punish him in accordance with law by imposing the maximum fine double the amount and order for payment of double the amount of cheque and etc.
27. At the very outset, it would be pertinent to note that there is no dispute in so-far-as the acquaintanship developed between the complainant and the accused since 15 years. It is also an undisputed fact that, the said disputed cheque bearing No.255942, dated 12.01.2005 belongs to the accused along-with his signature thereon. But the dispute according to the accused is that, the said cheque was issued blank only by signing thereon to the complainant only in connection with he having raised the hand-loan of Rs.15,000/- from her, out of which, he had already paid Rs.10,000/- at two-occasions as Rs.4,000/- and at another- 12 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 occasion as Rs.6,000/- and only he is due for Rs.5,000/- to the complainant, but misusing the said blank-cheque, she has filed the false-complaint to gain unlawfully, whereas, there is neither alleged money-transaction of Rs.1,00,000/- nor she has paid to him the said Rs.1,00,000/-, nor he is due to the complainant for Rs.1,00,000/-.
28. It is significant to note that, as per the well-settled principle of law, if once it is admitted that the cheque belongs to the accused along-with his signature thereon, there is a presumption that he had raised the loan-amount in respect of which he has issued a cheque in favour of the complainant. This particular presumption and inference certainly stands drawn against the instant accused also in pursuance with the said principles of law and the provisions of Sections 118 & 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, until the contrary is established and rebutted by the accused.
29. In view of that matter, though the accused has specifically endeavored to make-out his defence as stated herein before supra, and placed his reliance on Ex.D.2 which is the unregistered agreement of loan allegedly stated to have been entered-into by both the complainant and the accused, on perusal of the same, it is clear that it is dated 01.09.2004 only with respect to Rs.15,000/- and the said Ex.D.2 being on a bond-paper, it's 13 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 nature is original-document. But, on meticulous perception of the writings on the said Ex.D.2, merely there are two signatures appearing at Sl.No's.1 & 2 under the signatures of the witnesses and the signatures of the accused are appearing on the front-page and reverse-page. But, the complainant's signature is not at-all appearing in the place where it is mentioned by way of typing as the signature of lender. In respect of this particular aspect, the accused himself having got examined as DW.1 and also another independent-witness by name Palakshaiah S, have endeavored to state that the complainant did-not sign thereon stating that, already the cheque was issued in favour of her and therefore, the said original loan-agreement/Ex.D.2 was retained by the accused without the signature of the complainant thereon.
30. It is significant to note that, whenever any agreement is entered-into by the parties, the party which will be under obligation to repay or perform his part of agreement or contract, he is not the authority to have the custody of such document, but the person in favour of whom such undertaking or agreement is entered-into and agreed to perform by another party, such person or party who is to be benefited by such agreement is the proper custodian to hold the possession of such document. Apart from the same, if really there was to be any such alleged agreement as contended by the accused as the defence in respect of only raising 14 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 the loan of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant, then invariably it was binding on the accused to obtain the signature of the complainant thereon and hand-over the same to the complainant. In respect of this particular aspect, though the DW.2 has endeavored to depose in favour of the DW.1, the DW.2 has clearly disclosed his ignorance regarding whether the accused had borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant for the construction of his house in the year 2004 and issued a cheque in question to the complainant in dischargence of his liability. Therefore, when the DW.2 is not knowing anything regarding the alleged transaction between the complainant and the accused with respect to the borrowing of Rs.1,00,000/- by the accused from the complainant, he cannot be expected to have any knowledge with respect to any kind of transaction between the complainant and the accused. Even-otherwise, for the time-being without admitting, if it is considered that there was only a transaction between the complainant and the accused for Rs.15,000/-, then it is the absolute burden on the accused to establish Ex.D.2 since he is propounding the said document as per Ex.D.2 as a rebuttal material as against the case of the complainant. But, unfortunately, for the reasons stated herein before supra, the accused has failed to establish the said Ex.D.2 with respect to it's execution, legality and etc. 15 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014
31. It is no doubt, even the accused has taken the specific contention that, he has repaid Rs.10,000/- out of Rs.15,000/- loan-amount, in two-occasions as one-time Rs.4,000/- and at another point of time Rs.6,000/- to the complainant under the receipts, in respect of which, he has placed his reliance on Exs.D.2(a) & D.2(b) which are stated to be the alleged receipts issued by the complainant. In respect of the same, the learned counsel for the complainant having cross-examined the DW.1, he has stated to the effect that, the said Ex.D.2(b) has been written by the DW.2 and he does-not remember as to who has written Ex.D.2(a). It is pertinent to note that, when the DW.1/accused himself is placing his reliance on Ex.D.2(a), I fail to understand as to how he is unable to remember as to who has written the endorsement as per Ex.D.2(a). Apart from the same, when the DW.2 has went-on disclosing his ignorance regarding the transaction between the accused and the complainant in connection with the disputed cheque/Ex.P.1, I fail to understand as to how the said Ex.D.2(a) stands as a substantial document in favour of the defence of the accused to rely-upon it because, according to the very version of the DW.2, the said alleged cheque/Ex.P.1 itself is in connection with the loan of Rs.15,000/- but not in respect of Rs.1,00,000/-. But, for the reasons stated herein before supra, when the accused/DW.1 has utterly failed to 16 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 establish Ex.D.2 i.e., the alleged agreement of loan for Rs.15,000/-, the defence taken by the accused does-not hold good to rely and believe-upon. In another angle, the accused stands in the position of having failed to rebut the case of the complainant which is prevailing with the inference and presumption U/Secs.118 & 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
32. Apart from the same, it is also the major-point as a defence taken by the accused that the complainant was not capable of lending the huge-amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, since she had no source of income. In respect of the same, undoubtedly, the learned counsel for the accused has cross-examined the P.W.1 in detail wherein the P.W.1 has stated that, her income was to the extent of Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/- per month as a salary and there was neither PF nor any other benefits except her salary. It is also significant to note that, according to the very version of the P.W.1 in her cross-examination in a better-way that she had lent the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused, out of which, she had borrowed Rs.40,000/- from her daughter and the remaining Rs.60,000/- was kept in her house by making the savings from her earnings. If any savings are being made cash in hand and kept in the house, no any documentary-evidence can be expected to produce in connection with same. It is no doubt, the P.W.1 has admitted that her source of income was only to the extent of Rs.2,500/- to 17 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 Rs.3,000/- per month from her salary without any other benefits; But, unfortunately, the defence side has failed to put the question to her as to since how-long she is getting Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/- per month, to bring-out the reality as to whether she was genuinely making the savings since longtime or otherwise? Nothing has been put-in with the efforts by the defence side to bring-out this particular aspect through the mouth of the P.W.1, wherefore, the inference shall have to be drawn that since longtime the P.W.1 has made savings out of her salary received by her and kept in her house, as rightly pointed-out by the learned counsel for the complainant. Undoubtedly, much has been endeavored to make by the learned counsel for the accused that, the daughter of the complainant has not been examined; But, under the circumstances prevailing herein, when the accused himself has utterly failed to establish the contrary and rebut the very case of the complainant with respect to the transaction of the hand-loan of Rs.1,00,000/- having lent by the complainant to the accused. By virtue of the settled principles of law and the provisions of Sections 118 & 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, certainly the case of the complainant prevails with Exs.P.1 to P.7 in favour of her (the complainant), meaning-thereby, the accused having failed to rebut the case of the complainant, it is the presumption that the accused has raised the hand-loan of Rs.1,00,000/- as contended 18 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 by the complainant and in dischargence of the same, later-on the accused has issued the said cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- as per Ex.P.1.
33. It is no doubt, the accused has taken the defence that the said blank-cheque issued by him was filled by the complainant for her unlawful gain and misused the same. If really that was to be so, then there was no bar for the accused to take the proper steps for seeking for referring the said Ex.P.1 to the handwriting expert to ascertain the change of writings thereon and etc. But, unfortunately, he has not taken any steps as such. Under these circumstances, even the question of production of bank-passbook and the bank-statement by the complainant does-not arise at-all when she is not obtained any amount from her bank-account, whereas, she has made clear in her cross-examination that the said amount of Rs.60,000/- was kept in her house, out of her savings from her salary.
34. It is no doubt, the learned counsel for the accused has placed his reliance-on a well-settled principle of law, reported in 2012 (2) DCR 368 (Delhi High Court), in a case between Pawan Singhal Vs. Gauri Shankar Deora & Another, in which it has been held that, neither the petitioner had capacity to pay loan nor he could disclose any source of income by which he was in a position to advance loan to the accused, found no discrepancy in acquittal. 19 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 But, in the instant case in hand, the source of income as made clear by the P.W.1 in her cross-examination, has been established at the very outset and when that is so, with due respect to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the accused does-not deserve for invoking the aid of the said citation, whereas, it certainly comes to the aid of the complainant under the peculiar circumstances prevailing herein.
35. Further, the learned counsel for the accused has placed his reliance-on a well-settled principle of law, reported in 2012 (2) DCR 461 (Calcutta High Court), in a case between Smt. Shubra Mitra Vs. Sri Dipankar Saha & Another, in which it has been held that, if it is proved that the impugned cheque was issued as collateral security and not to repayment of loan as such provision of Section 138 do-not apply and therefore, acquittal is just and proper. But in the instant case in hand, when the accused has failed to establish that the said disputed cheque as per Ex.P.1 was issued as collateral security and not to the repayment of loan and also having failed to establish Ex.D.2 in connection with the same, with due respect of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, the accused does-not deserve for invoking the aid of the said citation, whereas, the complainant deserves the benefit of the same.
36. Further, the learned counsel for the accused has placed his reliance-on a well-settled principle of law, reported in 2012 (2) 20 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 DCR 504 (Bombay High Court - Nagpur Bench), in a case between Smt. Shobha Vs. Gajanan S/o. Wasudeorao Joshi, in which it has been held that, if some material is brought on record by accused consistent with innocence of accused which appears true and reasonable and accepted in rebuttal to the statutory presumption and material brought on record by the accused passes the test of preponderance of probability, then the case of the complainant may be rendered doubtful then on the basis of probability of defence, whereby the accused is entitle to acquittal. But, in the instant case in hand, though the accused has endeavored to place his reliance on Exs.D.1 to D.3 which are absolutely disputed by the complainant, the accused has utterly failed to establish the same and also failed to pass the test of preponderance of probability, wherefore, with due respect to the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench), the accused does-not deserve for invoking the aid of the said citation, whereas, the complainant deserves for the same.
37. Therefore, under all these circumstances, to put-into simple terms, the accused having failed to rebut the presumption and inference adhered-to the case of the complainant, more- specifically with Exs.P.1 to P.7 U/Secs.118 & 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is clear on the face of record that the complainant has established her case, whereby the accused had 21 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant as hand- loan, in respect of which thereafter, he has issued a cheque as per Ex.P.1 in dischargence of the said legally recoverable and enforceable debt due to the complainant by the accused and in respect of the mandatory procedure contemplated U/Se.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant has duly followed and fulfilled all the ingredients, in respect of which the trial court has discussed at much-length in it's judgment at Para No's.11 to 19 in the right perspective on the sound principles of law without there-being any kind of infirmities and errors, wherefore, the instant court being in agreement with the trial court's judgment, it does-not deserve for warranting the interference by the instant court.
38. With these observations, I am inclined to answer the Point No.1 in the 'Affirmative' and Point No.2 in the 'Negative'.
39. Point No.3:- For the reasons discussed at much-length herein before supra, while answering the Point No.1 in the Affirmative and Point No.2 in the Negative, I am inclined to proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant/original- accused against the respondent/original-complainant U/Sec.374 of Cr.P.C., against the impugned conviction judgment passed by the XIII ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in CC No.16125/2005, dated 22 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014 30.06.2014, is hereby dismissed by upholding and confirming the trial court judgment.
Send the entire LCRs to the trial court, along-with the copy of this judgment immediately, without causing any delay. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 18th day of March, 2016) (G.D.Mahavarkar) LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
23 Crl.Appeal No.777/2014(Judgment pronounced in the open court. Operative portion of the same is extracted as under) ORDER This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant/original-accused against the respondent/original-
complainant U/Sec.374 of Cr.P.C., against the impugned conviction judgment passed by the XIII ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in CC No.16125/2005, dated 30.06.2014, is hereby dismissed by upholding and confirming the trial court judgment. Send the entire LCRs to the trial court, along-with the copy of this judgment immediately, without causing any delay. LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.