Bangalore District Court
Boralingegowda vs Ramesh on 16 April, 2024
1
C.C.No.7075/2019
KABC030215712019
Presented on : 22-03-2019
Registered on : 22-03-2019
Decided on : 16-04-2024
Duration : 5 years, 0 months, 25 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI.JAI SHANKAR.J,
B.A.L., LL.B
XXII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2024
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
C.C.NO. : 7075/2019
COMPLAINANT : Sri. H.S.Boralingegowda,
S/o. H.B. Shankaregowda,
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at No.148,
3rd cross, 4th Main,
1st Stage, KHB Colony EWS,
Basaveswarangar,
Bangalore - 560 079.
(By Sri.N. Suresh Kumar., Adv.,)
2
C.C.No.7075/2019
V/S.
ACCUSED : Sri. Ramesh.M,
S/o. Mudde Gowda,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at No.647,
3rd Block, 3rd Stage,
12th Main, Basaveswaranagar,
Bangalore - 560079.
Also working place address:
Sri. Ramesh.M,
Traffic Controller,
Token No.3944, PF No.A044268,
Office of Chief Security Vigilance
Office, Line Checking,
BMTC Central Office,
K.H.Road, Shantinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
(By Sri. Goudar Mallikarjun., Adv.,)
Offence complained : U/s.138 of N.I.Act
of
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is acquitted
Date of order : 16.04.2024
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3
C.C.No.7075/2019
2. The brief facts of the complainant's case is as under:
The complainant and the accused are well known to each other from past several years and also working in the same department. Due to the said friendship, the accused had approached the complainant for financial help to the tune of Rs.2 Lakhs for his domestic problems. In view of the friendship, the complainant had advanced Rs. 2 Lakhs to the accused ie., Rs.1 Lakh by way of cash on 09.12.2015, Rs.95,000/- by way of cash on 23.12.2015 and Rs.5,000/- by way of cash on 23.12.2015 and the accused has agreed to repay the same within 2 to 3 years and also executed an on Demand promissory note. When the complainant approached the accused to return back the hand loan amount, to discharge of said liability, the accused had issued post dated cheque bearing No.568278, dt:19.01.2019 for Rs. 2 Lakhs drawn on ICICI Bank, N.R.Road branch, Bangalore, assuring that, on presentation it would be 4 C.C.No.7075/2019 honoured. Believing the assurance made by the accused, when the complainant presented the cheque for encashment through his banker ie., Corporation Bank, Basaveswaranagar Branch, Bangalore, the same came to be dishonored for the reason Account Closed as per memo dt:25.01.2019. Immediately, the complainant got issued the legal notice dt:11.02.2019 through RPAD and courier demanding the repayment of the cheque amount which was served on the accused and inspite of which, the accused rather complying the demand notice has issued the untenable reply, which has given cause of action to file the present complaint.
3. After filing of the complaint, this court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Being satisfied that, there are prima-facie materials to proceed against accused, summons was issued. After appearance of the accused, he was enlarged on bail and plea was 5 C.C.No.7075/2019 recorded. The accused has not pleaded guilty, but submitted that, he would go for the trial.
4. From the basis of the pleadings, the following points that arise for my consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that, the accused issued cheque bearing No.568278 dt:19.01.2019 for Rs. 2 Lakhs drawn on ICICI Bank, NR Road branch, Bangalore towards discharge of his liability which was returned unpaid on presentation for the reason "Account Closed" despite of knowledge of the notice, he has not paid the said cheque amount and thereby, committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What order?
5. The sworn statement and the documents marked at Ex.P.1 to P.14 of the complainant is being treated as the complainant evidence as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2010 (5) SCC 590. The statement of accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded and he has denied the incriminating evidence 6 C.C.No.7075/2019 appeared against him and has submitted that, he has the evidence and accordingly, he is being examined as DW.1 and closed his side evidence. The Ex.D.1 to D.3 documents were got marked through the confrontation of the PW.1.
6. Heard the argument. Counsel for the complainant filed written argument. Perused the materials available on record.
7. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the following decisions:
1. 2014 (3) DCR 558 - Sripad Vs. Ramdas M. Shet-
wherein it is held that, taking the defence that, the accused is not liable to pay any amount is not sufficient to put back the burden on the complainant to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
2. AIR 2010 SC 1898 - Rangappa Vs. Mohan., wherein it is held that the existence of legally recoverable debt or liability is a matter of presumption U/s. 139 of N.I.Act.
3. AIR 1999 SC 3762- Bhaskaran (K) Vs. Shankaran Vaidyana Balan , (2018) 8 SCC 469 - T.P. Murugan 7 C.C.No.7075/2019 through his Lrs and another Vs. Bojan., which is dealt on the point of presumption, rebuttable presumption and the service of notice.
4. (2015) 8 SCC 378 - T. Vasantha Kumar Vs. Vijaya Kumari and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.1269/2015 dt: 03.09.2019 - Ravanappa Vs. Narasinga Naik which are all dealt on the provision U/s. 138 of N.I. Act.
The counsel for the accused has relied upon the following decisions :
1. Crl.Appeal No.302/2010 - K.N. Raju Vs. Manjunath.T.V dt: 16.03.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka., which is a judgment passed on the provision U/s. 138 of N.I.Act.
2. 1 (2014) BC 705 (Gau.) - Amulya Patowary Vs. Amarendra Choudhury., which is dealt on the point of the Limitation.
3. 2017 (1) DCR 305 Kerala High court - V. Muralidharan Vs. V. A. Kuvaran., which is dealt on the point of cognizance.8
C.C.No.7075/2019
8. My answer to the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 :- In the Negative Point No.2 :-As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- The complainant has filed this complaint alleging that, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. He pleads and asserts that, the accused in discharge of his liability has issued the cheque bearing No.568278, dt:19.01.2019 for Rs. 2 Lakhs drawn on ICICI Bank, NR Road branch, Bangalore, assuring that, on presentation it would be honoured. On such assurance, when he presented the said cheque, it returned unpaid with an endorsement Account closed. Thereby, he got issued the legal notice dt:
11.02.2019 which was served on the accused, but the accused rather complying the notice, has issued untenable reply, which has given a cause of action to file the complaint.9
C.C.No.7075/2019
10. In this scenario, if the documents placed by the complainant is scrutinized, the complainant in order to examine the compliance of statutory requirements as envisaged U/s.138 of NI Act, he got produced the Ex.P.1 cheque dt:19.01.2019. The said cheque is returned with an endorsement as Account closed as per Ex.P.3, the return advise dt: 25.01.2019. The Ex.P.8 is the office copy of the legal notice dt:11.02.2019, Ex. P9 to P.12 are the postal receipts and courier receipts dt: 11.02.2019, Ex.P.13 is the postal acknowledgement dt: 12.02.2019 and Ex.P.14 is the reply notice. The present complaint is filed on 18.03.2019. A careful scrutiny of the documents relied by the complainant goes to show that, a statutory requirement of Sec.138 of NI Act is being complied with and this complaint is filed well in time. The complainant has discharged his initial burden by examining him as PW.1 and by producing the documents as referred above. Thus, complainant is entitled to rely on the statutory presumptions enshrined U/s.118 R/w. Sec. 138 of N.I.Act.
10
C.C.No.7075/2019 Sec. 118 of the Act reads as thus, that every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that, every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
Further Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act provides for presumption infavour of PA holder. It reads like this, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that, the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec. 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or any other liability.
11. A combined reading of the referred sections raises a presumption infavour of the holder of the cheque that, he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. No doubt, the said presumptions of law are rebuttable in nature, the accused can take probable defense in the scale of preponderance of probabilities to rebut the presumption available to the 11 C.C.No.7075/2019 complainant. It is need less to say that, the evidence of the PW.1 can be rebutted even by effectively cross-examining the PW.1, rather entering the witness box.
12. So here, it is relevant to note that, whether the accused by cross examining the PW.1 and also examining him as DW.1 has really rebutted the presumption available under the law which requires due consideration. Here, it is not in dispute that, the complainant and accused are well known to each other and were the colleagues working at the BMTC department. It is also undisputed fact that, the complainant was working as a conductor in the BMTC and the accused was the checking inspector. It is also not in dispute that, the complainant has got retired from the service somewhere in the year 2018 and it is also not in dispute that, he was elected as a president of BMTC Credit Co-operative society Ltd., in the year 2014. It is also not in dispute that, the accused had availed loan from the society in the year 2015 which was sanctioned by the society to 12 C.C.No.7075/2019 which the complainant was the president. It is also not in dispute that, while sanctioning the loan, the society had secured two blank cheques as a security and after the repayment of the receipt amount, it would return the receipt documents. Here, the complainant claims that, the accused being his colleague had approached for the hand loan of Rs.2 Lakhs in the month of September 2015 and he considering his relationship, had availed a loan from the above said society and had advanced Rs.2 Lakhs to the accused. But, however the accused totally deny the claim of the complainant and claim that, he never raised any hand loan of Rs.2 Lakhs as claimed by the complainant in the year 2015 nor he had issued the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 nor the On demand promissory note at Ex.P.4, rather claims that, he had raised Rs.20,000/- from the complainant in the year 2003 and while availing the loan, he had handed over the Ex.P.1 & 4 towards the security purpose and inspite of repayment of the said amount, the complainant rather returning back the receipt documents 13 C.C.No.7075/2019 has prolonged the issue and had filed the present complaint only to harass him and to gain unlawfully and sought for his acquittal.
13. In this back ground, if the rival claims of the parties are taken into consideration, the initial burden is upon the complainant to establish the fact of the loan transaction and the accused issuing the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 towards the discharge of the legally enforceable debt. If the complainant establishes these burden which is casted upon him, then certainly the burden would shift on the accused to rebut it. Perhaps by taking a defence by the accused that, he never borrowed any hand loan of Rs. 2 Lakhs from the accused and that, he had handed over the Ex.P.1 the cheque & Ex.P.4 the On demand promissory note and consideration receipt at the time of availing a loan of Rs.20,000/- in the year 2003, the accused claims that he has rebutted the presumption. But, however here the disputed cheque pertains to the accused and the signature 14 C.C.No.7075/2019 appearing therein does belongs to the accused is not being disputed, but when the accused has specifically taken a stand that, he never issued the disputed cheque towards the discharge of the repayment of Rs.2 Lakhs as claimed by the complainant, certainly the initial burden would be upon the complainant to discharge his burden.
14. The complainant claims that, as the accused approached for the hand loan of Rs.2 Lakhs in the month of September 2015, he had availed a loan of Rs.1,94,250/- from his society on 03.12.2015 and had advanced Rs.2 Lakhs to the accused. To be in precise, he claims that, he had withdrawn Rs.1 Lakh from the account maintained at Corporation bank, Gandhinagar branch on 9.12.2015 and had paid the said amount to the accused on the very same day. Likewise, he had withdrawn Rs.95,000/- at the account maintained at State bank of Hyderabad, Basaveshwaranagar branch on 23.12.2015 and paid through cash on the very same day and lastly, he has 15 C.C.No.7075/2019 withdrawn Rs.5,000/- from the account maintained at Corporation bank, Gandhinagar Branch on 23.12.2015 and paid by way of cash on the very same day. So, here the complainant claims the mode of payment in cash only after he withdrawing the amount from the above refereed dates and he advancing to the accused on the very same dates. In this regard, the complainant got produced the bank statements at Ex.P.6 & P.7 so as to establish the fact of he raising the loan from the society, he withdrawing the amount and he advancing the loan amount of Rs.2 Lakhs to the accused which is being seriously disputed by the other side. Admittedly, on the perusal of the Ex.P.6 the bank statement maintained with the corporation bank would go to indicate an amount of Rs.1,94,250/- being sanctioned by the society to the complainant on 03.12.2015 and the complainant withdrawing an amount of Rs.1 Lakh on 09.12.2015. Likewise, the Ex.P.6(c) would also go to indicate that, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is being withdraw by the complainant. The Ex.P.7(a) the bank statement 16 C.C.No.7075/2019 maintained with State Bank of Hyderabad would also go to indicate an amount of Rs.95,000/- being reflected with TDR on dt: 23.12.2015 and also, their finds a reference as transfer to Mr. Borelingegowda.H.
15. Though, the accused do not dispute the complainant raising the loan of Rs.1,96,250/- from the society and so also, do not dispute the withdrawal of Rs.1 Lakh on dt: 9.12.2015 and Rs.5,000/- on 23.12.2015, but he takes the defence that, the said amount was not advanced to him and also, takes the defence that, the amount finds place at Ex.P.7(a) is the amount which is being deposited as a term deposit in the name of the complainant and the said amount is not the withdrawal amount, but the complainant taking the advantage of the entry of Rs.95,000/-, he alleges to claim that, it is a withdrawal amount which is the incorrect statement of the complainant. Here, admittedly, except the complainant claiming that, he had withdrawn the above referred 17 C.C.No.7075/2019 amount, he has not produced any document to show that, he had advanced the above referred amount to the accused on the particular dates. Perhaps, he claims that, the accused had executed the On demand promissory note and consideration receipt for Rs.2 Lakhs on 23.12.2015, but when the accused has seriously disputed the execution of the On demand promissory note and consideration receipt at Ex.P.4 & 5, merely relying upon these documents, it cannot be said that, the accused had raised the loan of Rs.2 Lakhs and had executed the promissory note and consideration receipt at Ex.P.4 & 5 in the year 2015. Because, no witnesses are being found in these documents. Though, the accused claims that, the transaction was being witnessed by his wife, but admittedly, she has not affixed to the document as a witness. Moreso, the complainant has also not made clear as to why he has not opted to get her signature to the document nor he has made any efforts to get examined his wife as a witness to the case. When, the accused has 18 C.C.No.7075/2019 seriously taken the contention that, the Ex.P.4 & P5 was being executed somewhere in the year 2003, it was incumbent upon the complainant to establish these documents by placing the probable evidence. No doubt, his wife has not affixed her signature to these documents, but again nothing had prevented him to get examine his wife to the case which is really a fatal to the case.
16. As said above, though the accused do not dispute the withdrawal of Rs.1 Lakh and so also, Rs.5,000/- by the complainant at a particular point of time, but when he also defense his case that, the referred amount of Rs.95,000/- was an deposited amount and not the withdrawal amount by the complainant, it was again incumbent upon the complainant to disprove the said contention. Admittedly, by gathering the admission of the complainant, it appears the defence raised by the accused holds some force. Because, the complainant has unequivocally admitted the amount referred at Rs.95,000/- on 23.12.2015 as TDR as 19 C.C.No.7075/2019 a term deposit receipt. The relevant admission would read like this page No. 7 "ದನನಕ 23.12.2015 ರಲಲ ಟರರ ಟಪಸಟ ರಸಪಪ ಎನನ ವದ ನನ ಡಪಸಟ ಮಡಕನಡದದ ನಮದ ಎನನ ವದ ಸರ . ನನ 95 ಸವರ ರ ಜಮ ಮಡದ ಹಣದಲಲ 95 ಸವರ ರಪನನನನ ಯನನ ಟರರ ಡಪಸಟ ಮಡದ ಎನನ ವದ ಸರ. ನನನ ಹಸರನಲಲ ಹಣ ಡಪಸಟ ಆಗರವ ಹಣದ ನಮದ ಅದರಲಲ ದ ಎನದರ ಸರ.
Again, ರ.95,000 ಗಳನನ ನನ ನನನ ಹಸರನಲಲ ಠವಣ ಇಟಪ ಕನಡದದ ದನ ಎನನ ವದ ಸರ. ಅದ ನಪ.7 ರಲಲ ನಮದಗದ ಎನನ ವದ ಸರ. By gathering these admissions, it suffices that, the amount of Rs.95,000/-
referred at Ex.P.7(a) is admittedly not the withdrawal amount, rather it indicates that, it is a deposited amount.
17. No doubt, it was urged that, it is being wrongly printed as TDR though it ought to have printed as withdrawal amount, but, admittedly the reference as TDR & transfered to Boralingegowda. H cannot be inferred that, it is a withdrawal amount and it is being wrongly printed, 20 C.C.No.7075/2019 rather an inference could be drawn that it is a deposited amount. Even for a moment, if it is construed that, the said amount of Rs.95,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant and it is being wrongly printed, but certainly nothing had prevented the complainant to establish the said fact by producing some other documents from the bank or could have been examined the concerned manager to set right the mistake. But, admittedly, the complainant has not chosen to make any efforts to set right the alleged mistake as claimed by him and in the absence of corroborative evidence, it cannot be construed that, the amount refereed at Ex.P.7(a) is the withdrawal amount. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence from the complainant side, it has to be construed that, the amount of Rs.95,000/- referred therein is a TDR amount. If that fact is appreciated, it suffices that, the said amount of Rs.95,000/- is not being withdrawn by the complainant on the particular date and if again this fact is accepted, it suffices that, the said amount of Rs.95,000/- is not 21 C.C.No.7075/2019 advanced to the accused on the particular date as claimed in the complainant. Therefore, it establishes that, an amount of Rs.95,000/- alleged to be withdrawn by the complainant on 23.12.2015 and paid to the accused on the very same date appears to hold no force.
18. As said above, the accused do not dispute the complainant withdrawing Rs.1 lakh on 09.12.2015 and Rs.5,000/- on 23.12.2015, but however he denies the receipt of these amounts. As said above, except the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 and the promissory note and consideration receipt at Ex.P.4 & 5, the complainant has not produced any other document to establish the fact of the accused acknowledging the said amount. It is an admitted fact that, the accused who was one of the colleague of the complainant working in the same department and who was owing a bank account, the complainant could have advanced the loan transaction through the mode of bank transaction. Infact, the accused 22 C.C.No.7075/2019 claims that, the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 is a Non CTS cheque which was handed over to the complainant in the year 2003 and the transaction of the said cheque being stopped by the bank and thereby, he is operating the CTS cheque since 2014. Admittedly, this defence also appears to hold some force. Because, it is not in dispute that, the accused being the member of BMTC Employees Credit Co- operative society Ltd., has raised loan in the year 2010, 2014 and 2018-19 and the Ex.D.2 & D3 would go to indicate that, the society has taken the CTS cheque towards the security purpose for the loan advanced in the year 2014 and this fact is very well within the knowledge of the complainant who was admittedly the president of the society. If, this fact is taken into consideration and if the complainant case is appreciated, certainly the complainant could have demanded for the CTS cheque rather taking the non CTS disputed cheque. When this fact is taken into consideration, it suffices that, the contention raised by the accused that, he had not issued the disputed cheque in the 23 C.C.No.7075/2019 year 2015 as claimed by the complainant and that, it was issued in the year 2003 towards the security purpose requires to be accepted. So, therefore again a serious doubt would create so far the complainant case is concerned.
19. The accused has also questioned the very maintainability of the complaint on the ground that, the complaint is not being filed well in time and also seeks a prayer for acquittal on this ground. The complaint averment would go to indicate that, he has advanced the loan amount of Rs.2 Lakhs in the month of December 2015 more precisely on 23.12.2015, but while gathering the date of filing the complaint ie., 18.03.2019 would again go to indicate that, the defence raised by the accused on the point of limitation holds some force. Because, the very date of the loan transaction with the date of filing the complaint would indicate that, the complaint is also not filed within a period of limitation from the date of the transaction. The decision relied by the accused reported in I(2014) BC 705 24 C.C.No.7075/2019 Gauhati, Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati Amulya Patowary Vs. Amarendra Choudhury., on the point of limitation comes to the rescue to the accused. Because, admittedly apart from the disputed cheque, there is no other document that was reduced in writing so as to compute the limitation. When, the very case of the complainant goes to indicate that, the loan transaction was taken in the month of December 2015 and the present complaint being filed in the month of March 2019, it again suffices that, the claim made by the complainant is not legally recoverable debt. Accordingly, the decision referred above is applied to the case in hand.
20. No doubt, the accused do not dispute the disputed cheque pertains to him and so also, the signature appearing therein pertains to him, but merely the accused admitting the disputed cheque and the signature appearing therein belongs to him does not permit the complainant to say that, he has established his case by placing reliance 25 C.C.No.7075/2019 on the presumption, more particularly when the accused has disputed the very case of the complainant that, he had raised the loan of Rs.20,000/- in the year 2003 and that, he had issued the disputed cheque and promissory note at Ex.P.1 & P4 in the year 2003. No doubt, the accused has not initiated any complaint against the complainant or has demanded for the return of the security documents in writing, but when the very endorsement issued by the bank at Ex.P.3 would indicate that, the account is being closed, the very endorsement itself suffices that, the defense raised by the accused appears to be acceptable and having the complainant not established his case by placing the probable evidence, merely producing the Ex.P.1 and P4 would not give any inference to hold the disputed cheque is being issued towards the repayment of the loan amount of Rs.2 Lakhs. Perhaps, the accused has taken a specific defence right from the receipt of the legal notice and its reply at Ex.P.14 which is really not rebutted by the complainant. Perhaps, the decision relied by the accused 26 C.C.No.7075/2019 reported in 2017 (1) DCR 305 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in V. Muralidharan Vs. V.A. Kumaran., wherein it is held that, when the account is closed by the bank without the consent of the account holder and cheque is being dishonored on the same cause of action, then no offence makes out U/s. 138 of N.I. Act also aptly applies to the case in hand. In this back ground, when the complainant has utterly failed to establish the fact of loan transaction and also, the issuance of the disputed cheque was toward the discharge of the loan liability of Rs.2 Lakh, with due respect, I am of the considered view that the decisions relied by the complainant with regard to the presumption and rebuttable presumption in no way helps the complainant case. Absolutely, there is no probable evidence forthcoming to appreciate the complainant case with regard to the loan transaction and so also, with regard to the legally enforceable debt. Thereby taking into consideration that, the complainant utterly failed to establish his case by placing the probable evidence, I do 27 C.C.No.7075/2019 not find any ground to hold that, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I.Act. Having, the accused rebutted the presumption available under law, point no.1 is answered in the Negative.
21. Point No.2:- For the reasons discussed in the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond furnished by the accused stands cancelled.
(Directly dictated to stenographer on computer, typed by her, revised by me and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of April 2023).
(JAI SHANKAR.J) XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:-
PW.1 : H.S.Boralingegowda
28
C.C.No.7075/2019
List of exhibits marked on behalf of complainant:-
Ex.P1 : Original cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P2 : Bank Challan
Ex.P.3 : Bank Memo
Ex.P4 & 5 : On demand promissory note and
consideration receipt
Ex.P.6 ; Accounts extract
Ex.P6(a) to (c) : Relevant entries dt: 3.12.2015, 9.12.2015 and 23.12.2015 Ex.P7 : Pass Book Ex.P7(a) : Relevant entry dt: 23.12.2018 Ex.P8 : Copy of Legal notice Ex.P9 & 10 : Postal receipts Ex.P11 & 12 ; Courier Receipts Ex.P13 : Postal acknowledgement Ex.P14 : Reply notice dt: 01.03.2019 List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused :-
DW.1 : Sri.Ramesh.M List of exhibits marked on behalf of the accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Salary Slip Ex.D.2 & D.3 : Copies of cheque Digitally signed by JAI JAI SHANKAR J SHANKAR J Date: 2024.04.19 18:00:02 +0530 (JAI SHANKAR.J) XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. 29 C.C.No.7075/2019 16.04.2024 Judgment pronounced in Open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under section 255(1) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond furnished by the accused stands cancelled.
XXII ACMM, BENGALURU.