Bangalore District Court
Sri. Lagadapati Malyadri vs Aged About 39 Years on 25 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL
BENGALURU, (CCH73)
Present:
Sri.AbdulRahiman. A. Nandgadi,
B.Com, LL.B., (Spl.,)
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2021.
Crl. Appeal. No.25008/2020
Appellant/ Sri. Lagadapati Malyadri,
Accused: Aged about 39 years,
No.2, Indira Street,
Subbayanapalya,
Bangalore560 033.
[By Sri. R. Manjunath Advocate]
V/s
Respondents/ 1. Smt. S. Vidya,
Complainants: W/o Sri. M. Prince Paul Raj,
D/o Sakthidharan,
Aged about 33 years,
2. Sri. M. Prince Paul Raj,
S/o Maria Pitchai Muthu,
Aged about 34 years,
2 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020
Both are residing at No.52,'
3rd Cross, KSFC Layout,
St.Thomas, Town Post,
Lingarajapuram,
Bangalore560 084.
[By Sri. K. M. Prabhu Adv]
JUDGMENT
This Appeal is preferred by the Appellant U/Sec. 374(3) of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction passed by the XXXIII Addl. CMM, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore in CC.No.53283 of 2017, dtd.02.11.2019, convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of NI Act, thereby sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.5,000/. Indefault to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. Further directed the Accused/Appellant to pay an amount of Rs.7,56,000/, to the Complainant as compensation U/Sec. 357 of Cr.P.C. Indefault to pay compensation, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year.
3 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/20202. The Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are:
The present Respondent filed a Complaint U/Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. against the present Appellant, alleging that, they and the Appellants have entered into an Agreement of Sale on 10.12.2015 inrespect of the property bearing No.30, Katha No.1067, situate at Thanisandra Village, now known as Aswathnagar, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluka, now coming within the jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Authorities, for total sale consideration of Rs.92,40,000/. They have paid an amount of Rs.45,00,000/ on different dates, as advance sale consideration and have promised to pay remaining sale consideration, at the time of registration of the said document. They have approached REPCO Bank for availing the loan on the property and to have construction over the said property. The said Bank has refused to release the loan, by saying that the property was acquired by BDA, for formation of Arkavathy layout, by issuing final notification. Even Possession of the said land is 4 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 also taken by the BDA, thereby the present Appellants have no right, title and interest over the scheduled property under the sale. The present Appellants have concealed all the material facts with dishonest intention to cheat and defraud them. The Appellants have issued a legal notice calling upon them to pay the balance sale consideration amount, else the Agreement of Sale stands terminated due to nonperformance of their part of contract. They have issued reply to the said notice and finally due to the intervention of the wellwishers, mutually decided to settle the issue amicably, by entering into a Settlement Deed on 15.09.2016, wherein the Appellants have undertaken to repay the entire advance amount of Rs.45,00,000/ to the Respondents/Complainants. An amount of Rs.15,00,000/ is paid by way of cash by the Appellants to the Respondents and remaining amount of Rs.30,00,000/ is paid by way of six Cheques of Rs.5,00,000/ each, out of the said six Cheques five Cheques were given with the Settlement Deed and the last Cheque is to be given 5 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 by mentioning the date as 10.12.2016. Out of the said Cheques, the 5th Cheque bearing No.223260, for Rs.5,00,000/ is the subject matter of this Complaint. On receipt of the said Cheque, the same was presented for its encashment, but the same has returned unencashed with an endorsement "Insufficient Funds" on 04.01.2017. The same was informed by the Respondents to the Appellants, by issuing the notice dtd.17.01.2017 by RPAD. The said notice is duly received on 27.01.2017. The Appellants have failed to comply the said notice.
On completion of the stipulated period required under the statute, the Respondent was constrained to file the present Complaint against the Appellant/Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
3. On being satisfied, the Trial Court has issued summons U/Sec.204 of Cr.P.C., to the Accused persons on 26.04.2017. The Accused No.1 /Appellant No.1 appeared before the Trial Court on 03.01.2018 and Accused No.2/Appellant No.2 6 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 appeared before the Trial Court on 15.02.2018. They were enlarged on bail. Substance of Accusation/plea of the Appellants/Accused persons were recorded by the Trial Court on 15.02.2018, wherein the Appellants/ Accused persons plead not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. The Complainants inorder to prove their case got examined Complainant No.1 as P.W.1 and got marked 12documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. PW1 was cross examined on behalf of the Appellants/Accused persons on 05.12.2018.
Statement of the Accused persons/Appellants U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded by the Trial Court on 13.03.2019. Inspite of affording sufficient opportunity, to the Appellants/Accused persons, they have failed to lead defence evidence.
5. The Complainants have filed an application U/Sec. 257 of CrPC, praying to permit them to withdraw the Complaint against the Accused No.2 on 25.07.2019. The Appellants/Accused persons have filed their objections on 05.09.2019.
7 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020The Trial Court heard the said application alongwith the main Complaint, was pleased to allow the said application and permitted the Complainants to withdraw the Complaint against Accused No.2 on 02.11.2019. So also, the Trial Court has passed the Judgment convicting the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act on 02.11.2019. Hence, the Appellant is before this Court, being aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and order passed by the Trial Court U/Sec. 257 of CrPC.
6. On preferring this appeal, this Court has stayed the execution and operation of the Judgment passed by the Trial Court, initially for a period three months on 17.01.2020 and has issued notice of the Appeal memo and I.A.No.1 to the Respondent and TCR were called for. Respondent set his appearance through his Counsel on 12.02.2020. TCR were secured on 29.02.2020.
Heard the Learned Counsels for the Appellant and Respondent.
8 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/20207. The Appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds:
Grounds of Appeal:
a) The Trial Court has gravelly erred in convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, which is manifestly erroneous and opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case;
b) The Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record, in a proper and perspective manner;
c) The Trial Court has failed in allowing the application filed by the Complainants U/Sec. 257 of CrPC;
d) The Trial Court has failed to observe that the Complainants have suppressed the material facts in the Complaint as to who had issued the Cheque in question;
e) The Trial Court has failed to consider that, the Complaints had unnecessary impleaded the Accused No.2 in the Complaint and at the fag end by filing an application they have withdrawn the Complaint against the said Accused;
f) The Trial Court has failed to consider that, the Cheque inquestion is misused by the Respondent;9 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020
g) The Trial Court has convicted the Appellant on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, which are not sustainable under the law;
h) The Trial Court has wrongly arrived at a conclusion that, the Complainant has discharged his initial burden to avail the benefit of presumption, but the Accused has not rebutted the said presumption;
Hence, prayed to allow the said appeal.
8. Following points arise for my consideration;
1. Whether the Trial Court is right in holding that the Respondent/Complainant is initially entitle for the benefit of presumption, available U/Sec. 139 of N.I. Act?
2. Whether the Appellant/ Accused proves on the basis of preponderance of probability that, the Complainants have misused the Cheque and filed the present Complaint?
3. Whether the Appellant/ Accused proves that, the order passed by the Trial Court on an application of the Complainants 10 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 U/Sec. 257 of CrPC, is against the principles of Law?
4. Whether the Trial Court is right in holding that the Appellant/ Accused has failed to rebut the presumption available to the Complainant U/Sec.139 of N.I. Act?
5. Whether the Appellant/ Accused shows that the Order of Conviction and Sentence recorded by the Trial Court in C.C.No.53283/2017, dtd.02.11.2019, is perverse and deserves to be setaside, thereby calling for the interference of this Court?
6. What Order?
9. My finding on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.2 : In the Negative;
Point No.3 : In the Negative;
Point No.4 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.5 : In the Negative;
Point No.6 : As per final order for the following :11 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020
REASONS
10. Point No.1: The rank of the parties will be referred to, as they were before the Trial Court.
As per the averments takenup by the Complainants in the complaint, wherein it is contended that, on settling the dispute inbetween them and the Accused, the Accused and his wife have issued six Cheques towards repayment of Rs.30,00,000/. One among the said Cheque is the Cheque bearing No.223260 Ex.P.1. On presentation of the said Cheque, the same has been returned with an endorsement "Insufficient Funds" on 04.01.2017 as per Ex.P.2. On receipt of the said memo, a legal notice was issued to the Appellant on 17.01.2017 as per Ex.P.3, by RPAD, as per postal receiptsEx.P.4. The said notice was received as per the Postal acknowledgements as per Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6.
11. On the basis of the preliminary evidence, the Trial Court has issued summons to the Accused 12 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 on 26.04.2017. Perused the said orders. Do not find any error, in it.
12. Initially, the Complaint was filed against two persons arraying them as Accused. Accused No.1 has appeared before the Trial Court on 03.01.2018 and he was enlarged on bail. Accused No.2 has appeared before the Trial Court on 15.02.2018 and she was enlarged on bail. The Trial Court has recorded Plea/Substance of Accusation of the Accused persons on 15.02.2018. Carefully gone through it. Do not find any error, in it.
13. On careful perusal of the evidence led by the Complainant and the crossexamination of PW.1, it is the case of the Accused persons that, the Complainants had undertaken to purchase their property for Rs.92,40,000/ and had entered into an Agreement, by paying advance amount of Rs.45,00,000/. And further agreed to pay the remainder balance. As per the terms of the said Agreement, transaction was to be accomplished within three moths. After completion of the said 13 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 period, they have issued legal notice to the Complainants demanding to pay the balance sale consideration and inform them that, agreement of sale stands terminated due to nonpayment of agreed sum. Thereafter, the Complainants issued reply notice contending that, the title of the said property is not clear, as the BDA has acquired the said property for formation of Arkavathy Layout, by notifying the said area. With the intervention of the wellwishers, the said dispute was mutually settled, by entering into a Settlement Deed, wherein they had agreed to repay the advance amount of Rs.45,00,000/. Subsequently, they came to know that, the subsequent purchasers by names Dharmendra and Ramakrishna were the persons who were employed by them to purchase the said property, for lesser consideration amount than which they had agreed, under the Agreement of Sale. The Complainants have hatchedup such a plan to make wrongful gains and to defraud them.
14. As per the defence takenup by the Accused persons; the admitted facts withregard to 14 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020
a) payment of the advance amount of Rs.45,00,000/ by the Complainants to the Accused persons;
b) on intervention of wellwishers, execution of Settlement Deed, which is produced at Ex.P.12, wherein it contains recital that, the Cheque in question was one of the Cheques, issued towards repayment of the balance amount.
15. Thus, as per the documentary evidence produced by the Complainant, as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.12 and on the basis of the defence takenup by the Accused persons, it can be said that the Complainants have initially proved that, the Cheque Ex.P1 belongs to the Accused/Appellant and the signature found on it, is of the Accused/ Appellant. And on presenting the said Cheque, the same has returned unencashed, as per Ex.P2, for which they have issued legal notice as per Ex.P3, which is returned with an endorsement served as per postal acknowledgements as per Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6. Thus, the above documentary and oral 15 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 evidence will suffice the Complainant, to have benefit of presumption available U/Sec.138, 139 of N.I. Act.
Therefore, Complainants have shown that, they are initially entitle for the benefit of Presumption available U/Sec. 139 of N.I. Act. The Trial Court has considered the said aspect. No fault can be attributed on the Trial Court in this regard.
Hence, POINT NO.1 IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
16. POINT NOs.2 AND 4:
Both the points are taken for joint discussion, as they are interlinked with each other, inorder to avoid repeatation and confusion in the discussion.
As per the trite principle of law dealing with the presumption U/Sec.138 & 139 of N.I.Act and as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Subramani V/s K. Damodara Naidu, reported in 2014 (12) SCALE 677, as well as in the case of Rangappa V/s Mohan, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441, wherein it is held that, 16 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 "Presumption U/Sec.139 of N.I.Act accrues to the benefit of the Complainant, unless the Accused rebut that presumption".
Now it is for the Accused to rebut the said presumption available to the Complainant U/Sec.139 of N.I.Act.
17. As per the defence of the Accused/ Appellant, wherein the Accused/Appellant contends that, the Complainants have hatchedup a plan with the subsequent purchasers Dharmendra and Ramakrishna, to purchase their property for the lesser amount than the agreed amount, by them as per Agreement of Sale. In goodfaith the Cheque Ex.P.1 was issued to the Complainants towards repayment of the amount. But the fact was subsequently revealed that, they have been cheated by the Complainants in collusion with the subsequent purchasers Dharmendra and Ramakrishna.
18. Coming to the ocular evidence, on this point, more specifically, cross examination of PW.1, 17 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 at Page No.5, Line Nos.21 to 25, which reads as under: "... It is false to suggest that we know very well the persons namely Dharmendra, Ramakrishna, who has purchased the property. It is false to suggest that myself and my husband brought the said Dharmendra and Ramakrishna to purchase the property from the Accused."
As per this evidence, Complainant/PW.1 denies the suggestion made to her that, they know the subsequent purchasers Dharmendra and Ramakrishna and they had brought them to purchase the said property.
Further when the Accused/Appellant contends that, it is not the subsequent purchasers Dharmendra and Ramakrishna, who had purchased the property, but they were brought by the Complainants, then the Accused under such circumstances, ought to have produced the documents to show that, the transaction inbetween him and the said purchasers Dharmendra and Ramakrishna, was a benami transaction and subsequently the said purchasers have transferred 18 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 the property infavour of the Complainants. In the absence of any such evidence, it is hard to believe that, the Complainants had employed the subsequent purchasers, to purchase the property of the Accused persons.
19. The second defence takenup by the Accused/Appellant that, he has paid the entire Cheque amount in cash. This line of defence can be found in the crossexamination of PW.1, at Page No.5, Line Nos.20 and 21, which reads as under;
".... It is false to suggest that, the Accused has paid the Cheque amount in cash to us. ...."
19.01. The Complainants have produced the certified copy of the Settlement Deed at Ex.P.12. As per this document, it is seen that a Settlement has arrived inbetween the Accused, his wife and the Complainants, wherein it is shown that an amount of Rs.15,00,000/ is paid in cash and towards remainder amount of Rs.30,00,000/ they have issued six Cheques, out of the said six Cheques, the present Cheque is the fifth Cheque.
19 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/202019.02. Coming to the ocular evidence on this point, crossexamination of PW.1, at Page No.4, Para No.2, Line Nos.8 to 10, which reads as under;
".... It is false to suggest that, Ex.P.12 settlement deed is also not in accordance with law. ..."
As per this suggestion, the Accused/Appellant has never denied the existence and execution of the Ex.P.12Settlement Deed, but the Accused contends that, the said Settlement Deed is not in accordance with law. When the Accused contends so, then it is for him to prove the same as to on what basis the said document is not in accordance with law. In the absence of the same and in view of implied admissions from the side of the Appellant, it can be said that, the Settlement Deed remains admitted.
19.03. When the Accused contends that, he has paid the Cheque amount in cash, then it is for him to show on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that he has paid the said amount to the Complainant. No material is pl;aced by the Accused to prove the said defence. In the absence of any 20 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 materials to show payment of the Cheque amount by the Accused to the Complainants, it is very had to believe such defence.
20. Thus, as per the ocular evidence as well as the documentary, more specifically, Ex.P7 to Ex.P.12, it is seen that, the dispute inbetween the Accused and the Complainants as per the Settlement Deed as per Ex.P.12 and under the said document the Cheque Ex.P.1 was issued by the Accused persons to the Complainants.
21. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd., V/s Shakthi International Fashion Linkers & Others, reported in 2020 (1) Apex Court Judgments 500 (SC), wherein it is held that;
"Once the Accused admits issuance of Cheque, which bears his signature, as security, for obtaining the loan, as per his contentions, initially there is presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. Such presumption is rebuttable and the Accused is required to rebut such presumption on the basis of preponderance 21 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 of probabilities. And to make his defence probable has to lead the evidence that, entire amount due and payable to the Complainant was paid. Section 139 of the Act, is an example of reverse onus clause and therefore once issuance of Cheque has been admitted and even the signature has been admitted, there is always a presumption infavour of the Complainant that there exist a legally recoverable debt or liability and thereafter it is for the Accused to rebut such presumption by leading evidence."
22. As per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, held in General Auto Sales Vs Vijayalakshmi, reported in 2005(1) KLT 478 in Paragraph No 8 thereof, that:
"Even if a blank signed cheque has been given towards liability or even as security, then the liability subsists and quantified, if the cheque is filled up and presented to the Bank, the person who had drawn the cheque, cannot avoid the criminal liability under Section 138 of NI Act".
23. Considering all the contentions raised by the Appellant, it can be said that, the Accused has failed to rebut the presumption available to the 22 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 Complainant U/Secs. 118(a) and 139 of N.I. Act, and the Trial Court has considered all these aspects. Hence, I answer POINT NO.2 IN THE NEGATIVE AND POINT NO.4 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
24. POINT NO.3: The Learned Counsel for the Appellant would contend that, the order passed by the Trial Court on application filed by the Complainants U/Sec. 257 of CrPC permitting to withdraw the Complaint against the Accused No.2, is illegal and perverse.
24.01. Originally Complaint is filed by the Complainant against the present Appellant and his wife, arraying her as Accused No.2.
Further the Complainant has issued the notice Ex.P.3 to the present Appellant and his wife.
24.02. The Complainants have filed an application U/Sec. 257 of CrPC, on 25.07.2019 praying to permit them to withdraw the Complaint against the Accused No.2, contending that, the Cheque in question came to be issued by the 23 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 Accused No.1. Since the Accused Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount due to them, so they had arrayed the wife of the Accused No.1 as Accused No.2. Subsequently, on coming to know, they have filed this application.
24.03. The Accused persons have filed their objections to the said application on 05.09.2019 denying all the contentions takenup by the Complainants in their application. And further contended that, the Complainants have suppressed the material facts that the transaction is indicial transactions and the Negotiable Instrument is only signed by the Accused No.1. Willfully the Complainants have filed the above said case against both the Accused persons, with an intention to harass them by suppressing the entire facts. Application is not maintainable as the same is filed at a belated stage. Hence, prayed to reject the said application.
24.04. On hearing both the sides, the Trial Court has passed the orders allowing the said 24 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 application on 02.11.2019 on the premises that, the Accused No.1 and 2 are the husband and wife, they have entered into a sale transaction with the Complainants and also have executed Sale Agreement as well as Settlement Deed. Under such circumstances, it has to be inferred that Accused and his wife are actively involved in the transaction. As the matter is relating to the provisions of Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, the person who has issued the Cheque is only liable for the consequences of the dishonour of the Cheque. , So treating the presence of the Accused No.2, as improper, the Trial Court has allowed the said application.
24.05. Coming to the ocular evidence on this point, more specifically,
a) crossexamination of PW.1, at Page No.4, Para No.2, Line Nos.10 to Page No.5, Line Nos.6, which read as under;
".... On confronting the cheque and when it is questioned to the witness that, can you identified the signature of the Accused No.2 in the said cheque; the witness said that, she do not known how 25 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 who has signed the cheque. When it is questioned to the witness that the Accused No.2 has not signed the cheque; the witness said that, the Accused No.1 has signed the cheque. When it is questioned to the witness that, the Accused No.2 has not issued any cheque to her; the witness said that, the Accused no.1 may be issued the cheque and her husband collected the cheque from the Accused. ....."
b) crossexamination of PW.1, at Page No.5, Line Nos.12 to 14, which reads as under;
".... It is false to suggest that, Accused No.2 has not at all issued any cheque to me and also she is not necessary party to this case. ...."
As per this evidence, PW.1 contends that she do not know as to who has signed the Cheque. Even a suggestion is made to PW.1 that, Cheque is not signed by the Accused No.2. PW.1 contends that, Accused No.1 has signed the Cheque. Even a suggestion is made to PW.1 that Cheque is not issued by the Accused No.2.
When the Accused persons contend that, Accused No.2 has not issued the Cheque; and when the Complainants contend that, the Accused No.2 26 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020 has not signed the Cheque or issued the Cheque, then under such circumstances, offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, inrespect of Ex.P.1 Cheque will not get attracted towards Accused No.2. Infact, it was for the Accused No.2 to bring the said facts before the Trial Court at the initial stage, then definitely the Trial Court would have considered the said facts.
24.06. For having observed so, I do not any illegality or irregularity in the Orders passed by the Trial Court, allowing the application filed by the Complaints U/Sec. 257 of CrPC.
Hence, I ANSWER POINT NO.3 IN THE NEGATIVE.
25. POINT No.5:
In this case there was really presumption available infavour of the Complainant in terms of Section 138 & 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused and the accused has not discharged his burden to rebut that presumption.27 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020
26. The Trial Court has recorded the statement of the Accused U/Sec 313 of Cr.PC on 13.03.2019. I have gone through the said statement recorded by the Trial Court. The said statement contends all the incriminating substance crept against the Accused in evidence. I do not find any error in it.
27. The Trial Court has considered all the aspects, the grounds taken up by the Accused as defence. As well as the Order of the Trial Court in awarding compensation to the Complainant, is well reasoned. I do not find any irregularity or illegality, in the said order, granting compensation to the Complainant.
28. When no fault is committed by the Trial Court, in coming to the conclusion, convicting the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 138 of NI Act, interference, by this Court does not arise at all.
29. Thus, I am declined to interfere with the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
28 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/202030. Necessarily the prosecution succeeds. The conviction is therefore confirmed, as the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Accused is hereby directed to pay compensation to the Complainant as ordered by the Trial Court.
Hence, for the above reasons I ANSWER POINT NO.5 IN THE NEGATIVE.
31. POINT NO.6:
For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.386 of Cr.P.C., the Appeal preferred by the Appellant/Accused is hereby Dismissed.
In the consequences, the order passed by the Learned XXXIII ACMM., Bengaluru, in CC No.53283 of 2017, dated 02.11.2019, recording conviction of the Accused, is hereby confirmed.29 Crl.Appeal.No.25008/2020
The Trial Court shall execute its order, as per law.
No order as to costs.
In case, if the Accused has deposited the amount, as directed U/Sec. 148 of N.I. Act, the same may be dealt with, as per Law U/Sec. 143 of the said Act.
Remit the TCR to the Trial Court, on obtaining necessary acknowledgement, alongwith the copy of this Judgment.
(Dictated to the Judgmentwriter directly on the computer, corrected and pronounced in open court this the 25th day of March, 2021.) [AbdulRahiman. A. Nandgadi] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH73)