Bangalore District Court
S. Leelavathi vs Payal Kishore Kumar on 19 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-60)
Dated this the 19th day of October 2019
PRESENT
Sri B. B.Jakati, B.A., LL.M.,
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
Crl. Appeal No.1224/2017
APPELLANT/S: S. Leelavathi,
Proprietrix : Karthik Roofings,
Major, 47 years,
No.76, Byraveshwara Industrial
Estate, Entrance,
Andrahalli Main road,
Peenya 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 91.
R/at No.147, Telecom Layout,
Opp. CII, Bharath Nagar 2nd Stage,
Byadarahalli, Magadi road,
Bengaluru - 91.
(By Sri M. Mahesh., Advocate)
-Vs-
RESPONDENT/S: Payal Kishore Kumar,
W/o Kishore Sureshlal,
Aged about 39 years,
No.17, Subramanya Swamy
Temple Street, V.V. Puram,
2 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017
Bengaluru - 04.
Represented by SPA Holder /
Kishore Sureshlal
S/o Sureshlal Hiralal,
Age 41 years.
(By Sri R.R., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the XX ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.26579/2015 dated 07.08.2017.
2. The essential facts required for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent/complainant made allegation against the appellant/accused that he had given hand loan of Rs.7,50,000/- on 19.04.2015 and Rs.7,50,000/- on 23.04.2015 to the accused for urgent business purpose by cash. The accused had executed two On Demand Promissory notes and consideration receipts in favour of the complainant on the 3 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 respective dates and undertook to repay the same with interest. The husband of accused by name Shivakumar stood as guarantor to the said loan. In order to repay the said loan the accused has issued two cheques bearing No.099028 dated 25.08.2015 and cheque No. 099029 dated 29.08.2015 for Rs.7,50,000/- each drawn on Karnataka bank, Mahalakshmipuram branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. The cheques were presented for encashment and both cheques were returned with endorsement "Payment stopped by Drawer". On 05.09.2015 legal notice was issued to the accused through RPAD, which has been served. The accused issued reply dated 22.09.2015, but not paid the cheque amount. On these allegations the complainant has stated that the accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
3. The accused appeared before the trial court and contested the matter. To prove the guilt of the accused, the 4 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 P.A.Holder of complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.22. The accused denied the incriminating evidence appearing against her in her statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In order to substantiate the defence, the accused examined herself as DW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to D.4. The trial court after considering the material on record has held that the accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced her to pay fine of Rs.20,10,000/- in default shall undergo S.I. for three months. Further the trial court has directed the accused to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation out of fine amount. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence the accused has preferred the appeal on various grounds.
4. The notice has been served on the complainant, he appeared through his counsel. The LCRs have been secured. 5 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017
5. The learned counsel for the appellant / accused has vehemently argued that learned Trial Judge passed the judgment under Section 265 of Cr.P.C. by trying the case as summons case by summary proceedings and the trial took place more than one year. The records of the Trial Court show that voluminous documents were tendered by both parties and the Cross-examination was lengthy, which show that the Trial Court conducted the case by following the procedure for trial of warrant cases. But the Trial Court without passing order under Section 259 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 143 of N.I.Act converting the summons case into warrant case decided the case as summons case by following the procedure as warrant case and such procedure adopted by the Trial Court vitiates the proceedings under Section 461(m) of Cr.P.C. On this ground the judgment of the Trial Court is not sustainable according to him. He has further argued that there are six cases between 6 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 the same parties and during the course of judgment the discussion is about Rs.90,00,000/-, which is involved in all the cases, which resulted into mis-carriage of justice. He has argued that the accused in support of her defence produced the documents and given statement and such evidence of the accused has not been discussed by the Trial Court. Such evidence is ignored by the Trial Court without giving any reasons and such approach of the court below is not sustainable. He has argued that the complainant has not produced any material to prove his source of income to advance the loan and even he has not disclosed the loan advanced to the accused in IT Returns. Therefore, there is no proof for existing legal liability under the disputed cheques, which has been not considered by the Trial Court. On these main grounds he prayed to dismiss the appeal by acquitting the accused. Even he has filed written-argument. In support of his argument he placed reliance on the decisions reported in (1) 7 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 (2015) 1 SCC 99 {K. Subramani V/s. K. Damodara Naidu} ; (2) MANU/SC/0503/2008 {Krishna Janardhan Bhat V/s. Dattatraya G. Hegde; (3) MANU/MH/1078/2009 {Sanjay Mishra V/s. Kamnishka Kapoor @ Nikki and Anr.} ; (4) ILR 2008 KAR 4629 {Shiva Murthy V/s. Amruthraj}; (5) MANU/SC/0288/2014 {Indus Airways Pvt.Ltd. And Ors. V/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt.Ltd.}. I have given careful consideration to written argument.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent / complainant has argued that the complainant has produced documentary evidence for the proof of his source of income and capacity. The complainant has produced On Demand Promissory Note along with the cheque to prove the advancement of loan. The cheque and promissory note are Negotiable Instruments and they have got presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. The complainant has established the advancement of loan to the accused and the Trial Court has 8 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 rightly raised the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. The accused has produced documents at Ex.D.1 to D.4 which will not rebut the presumption available to the cheque and Promissory Note. The accused has not proved that inspite of execution of Promissory Note and issuance of cheque she has not received loan from the complainant. The Trial Court has considered the evidence of both parties and given right finding. On these grounds he has justified the finding of the Trial Court. He has argued that only because the complainant has not shown the advancement of loan in the I.T.Returns, adverse inference cannot be drawn. In support of his argument he placed reliance on the decisions reported in (1) AIR 2018 SC 3601 {T.P.Murugan (Dead) Thr.Lrs. V/s. Bojan Posa Nandhi Rep. Thr. POA Holder} ; (2) Crl.Ap.Nos.230 to 231 of 2019 {Bir Singh V/s. Mukesh Kumar} ; (3) 2019 SAR (Criminal) 548 {Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel V/s. State of Gujarat and Anr.} ; {Sri Yogesh Poojary V/s. Sri K. Shankara Bhat} ; (4) 2019(1) 9 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 Kar.L.R. 185 (5) AIR 2014 SC 2528 {Indian Bank Association and Ors. V/s. Union of India and Ors.}.
7. Looking to the contentions taken by both parties, the following points arise for my determination:
1. Whether the trial court committed error in trying the case by way of summary procedure?
2. Whether the respondent / complainant proved that he advanced loan of Rs.15,00,000/- to the appellant / accused and the appellant / accused issued the disputed cheques for repayment of such loan?
3. Whether the Trial Court has committed error in holding that the accused has not rebutted the presumption available to cheque and Promissory Note?
8. My findings to the above points are as under:-
POINT No.1 :- In the Negative
POINT No.2 :- In the Affirmative
10 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017
POINT No.3 :- In the Negative
for the following:-
REASONS
9. POINT No.1 :- Both parties have admitted that complainant, his wife, mother, father, their establishments by name M/s. Rishabh Enterprises and Maharashtra Silk Centre filed the following complaints against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. In all these cases Kishore Suresh Lal, who is complainant in CC.26584/2015 deposed as P.A.Holder. In all the cases evidence is similar and are tried by same Court and convicted the accused. The accused challenged such judgment of conviction and order of sentence before this court by filing Criminal Appeals. The particulars of such cases are as under:
SL. CRIMINAL APPEAL CC.NUMBER AMOUNT
No. NUMBER in Rupees
01. 1223/2017 26584/2015 20,00,000/-
(Kishore Sureshlal)
02. 1224/2017 26579/2015 15,00,000/-
11 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017
(Payal Kishore Kumar)
03. 1225/2017 26581/2015 15,00,000/-
(Saw Shobhadevi
Sureshlal)
04. 1226/2017 26580/2015 10,00,000/-
(Rishabh Enterprises)
05. 1227/2017 26583/2015 15,00,000/-
(Maharashtra Silk Centre)
06. 1228/2017 26603/2015 15,00,000
(Sureshlal Hiralal)
10. The records of the Trial Court indicate that
complaint was filed on 03.10.2015 for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. The accused appeared on 10.02.2016 after service of summons and she was enlarged on bail. On the same day the plea of the accused was recorded and the matter was set down for evidence of complainant. The complainant filed his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit on 08.03.2016 and thereafter, the accused took time for Cross- examination. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after recording the evidence of complainant, the evidence of defence was also recorded. Finally the judgment 12 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 was passed on 07.08.2017. The learned Judge who issued the process to the accused has conducted entire trial and he himself has passed the judgment.
11 The learned Judge passed the judgment under Section 265 of Cr.P.C. which indicates that the case has been tried summarily as provided under Section 143 of N.I.Act by following the procedure prescribed under Section 262 to 265 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2014 SC 2528 has laid down various principles for the trial of cases for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and stressed for speedy trial. According to the principles laid down in the said decision the Trial Court has conducted the proceedings and tried the case as summons case. However, the Trial Court took more than six months for trial of the summons case. Even the Trial Court has recorded the Cross-examination of both parties on each and every point and allowed the parties to produce the documents which are relevant.
13 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017
12. In the background of these facts, whether the Trial Court was required to convert the summons case into warrant case is the matter for consideration. Section 143 of N.I.Act provides that the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act has to be tried by following the provisions of Section 262 to 265 of Cr.P.C. It further provides that if the Learned Magistrate at the commencement of or in the course of a summary trial, it appears to him that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is for any other reason undesirable to try the case summarily, he shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the Code. Section 259 of Cr.P.C. provides that in the course of the trial of a summons- case relating to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding six months, it appears to the Magistrate that in 14 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 the interest of justice, the offence should be tried in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases, such Magistrate may proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by the Code for the trial of warrant-cases and may recall any witness who may have been examined.
13. The plain reading of both provisions of law, it makes clear that the Magistrate is required to try the cases for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act summarily by following the provisions of Section 262 to 265 of Cr.P.C. The discretion is given to the Learned Magistrate for conversion of summons case into warrant case. In order to convert the case for summons case to warrant case, the Learned Magistrate has to satisfy himself and after hearing the parties, such conversion is to be made and trial has to be proceeded. In the present case the Learned Magistrate decided to try the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act summarily. Accordingly, he has followed the procedure under Section 262 to 265 of Cr.P.C. Only 15 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 because the Learned Magistrate has extended opportunity to the parties to produce voluminous documents and recorded the Cross-examination at length, it cannot be inferred that he has tried the case by following the procedure for warrant-cases. Section 143(3) of N.I.Act provides that the trial shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. In the present case the trial has not been concluded within six months. But the order sheet of the Trial Court shows that the trial Judge has made all endeavour to conclude the trial within six months and inspite of such endeavour he could not conclude the trial as the parties took more time to lead evidence. Only because the trial has not been concluded within six months, inference cannot be drawn that the Learned Magistrate has followed the procedure of trial for warrant cases. Therefore, considering the evidence on record and the procedure followed by the Learned Magistrate, I 16 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 do not find any irregularity in the trial of the case summarily. Thus, the argument of counsel for the appellant / accused cannot be accepted and accordingly, it is rejected by answering this point in the Negative.
14. POINT No.2 AND 3 :- The PW.1 in his evidence has stated that the complainant advanced loan of Rs.7,50,000/- on 19.04.2015 and Rs.7,50,000/- on 23.04.2015 to the accused by way of cash and for repayment of such loan the accused has issued cheques at Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5. He has also stated that at the time of advancement of loan, the accused has executed Promissory Notes and the receipts produced at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. He has also stated that the accused agreed to repay the loan along with interest. The accused in her examination-in-chief admitted the execution of Promissory Note and receipts produced at Ex.P.2 and P.3. She has further admitted categorically that the cheques at Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 were drawn by her and those cheques bear her signature 17 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 including the seal of Proprietary-ship concern. She has taken the defence that Kishore Suresh Lal, who is husband of complainant agreed to advance loan of Rs.50,00,000/- and before advancement of loan he took blank Promissory Notes, receipts and cheques and therefore, there is no legal liability on her to pay the amount shown in the cheques and also Promissory Notes. By this defence, the accused has admitted execution of Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5. Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5 are Negotiable Instruments. Therefore, whether presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is to be drawn or not is the question of law involved in the matter.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2018 SC 360 has held that once the accused admits his signature on the cheques and Pronote, the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act would operate against him. The same principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.Appeal Nos.230-231/2019 18 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 (SLP(CRL) Nos.9334/35 of 2018). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2019 SAR (Crl.) 548 has held that once ingredients of Section 138 of N.I.Act are proved, the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act has to be raised to the Negotiable Instruments.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2008) 4 SCC 54 has held that existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the decision reported in 2009 (4) MhLJ 155 has held that legal liability has to be proved and presumption cannot be raised. This principle is also based on the principle of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat case. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the decision reported in (2009) 2 Kar.L.J. 98.
17. The principles laid down in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat has been overruled by the larger bench of 19 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa V/s. Mohan. Therefore, the principles in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat in (2008) 4 SCC 54 and the decision in (2009) 4 MhLJ 155 and (2009) 2 Kar.LJ 98 cannot be pressed into service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred above relied upon by the complainant has held that presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act has to be raised to the effect that holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 of N.I.Act for discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Therefore, the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act has to be raised to Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5. Accordingly, the Trial Court has rightly raised the presumption and I do not find any reason to differ with such finding.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2015) 1 SCC 99 has held that complainant is required to prove source of income from which the alleged loan 20 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 was advanced to the accused in the cases filed under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Therefore, the complainant herein is required to prove his source of income for advancement of loan of Rs.15,00,000/-.
19. The complainant has produced I.T. Return at Ex.P.19 for the assessment year 2015-16 including computation of income at Ex.P.20. This return shows the income of complainant from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015. According to this statement the complainant has received income from rent of immovable property and from his own business. The total income of the complainant during the financial year was Rs.50,54,141/-.
20. The complainant has produced cash book of her business at Ex.P.22, and translation at Ex.P.22(a). These records show that the complainant is maintaining cashbook of his business in regular course. These entries show the sound financial capacity of the complainant. In cash book it has been 21 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 shown that on 20.04.2015 an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was paid to the accused and on 23.04.2015 another Rs.7,50,000/- was given to the accused. These records support the statement of complainant that he had financial capacity to advance the loan.
21. The PW.1 in his Cross-examination has stated that he is running Maharashtra Silk Centre and also Vrushabha Enterprises. The complainant paid Rs.7,50,000/- to the accused through business of complainant. In his Cross- examination the PW.1 has stated that he is looking after the business of joint family and all the members of the joint family. He has stated that his wife and mother are getting rent upto Rs.2,00,000/-. He has stated that Rs.15,00,000/- is taken from his wife and mother, which was given to the accused on 19.04.2015 and 23.04.2015. In the entire Cross-examination the PW.1 has stated that income of himself, his wife, mother, father, their establishments by name Rishabh Enterprises and 22 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 Maharasthra Silk Centre and put together used for advancement of loan to the accused. The complainant has produced cash book of her business, which has been referred above, which shows that complainant is running business. Therefore, the oral evidence is supported by the documents referred earlier. The business of the complainant and her family members is not disputed by the accused.
22. The accused herself in examination-in-chief has stated that Kishore Suresh Lal, who is the husband of complainant came forward to advance unsecured loan to her to the extent of Rs.50,00,000/-. This statement of accused shows that only because himself and his family members had financial capacity to advance loan of Rs.50,00,000/-, he approached the accused and therefore, even if the statement of accused is believed, then also such evidence shows that complainant had financial capacity to advance the loan. Therefore, I hold that the complainant has proved her financial 23 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 capacity to advance the loan to the accused and thereby the complainant has proved the source for income.
23. The complainant has not produced the IT Return subsequent to the date of advancement of loan. Therefore, the accused has taken defence that when the unaccounted money has been advanced, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the decision reported in (2009) 4 MhLJ 155 has held that if the advance is out of his unaccounted cash, the presumption cannot be raised under Section 139 of N.I. Act and accused cannot be held guilty. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the decision reported in 2019(1) Kar. L.Report 185 has held that only because the complainant has not declared the alleged loan transaction in his returns of I.T., the case of the complainant cannot be disbelieved and that is not a ground to deny to raise presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court is binding on this court. 24 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 Therefore, based on such principle, I hold that only because the complainant not shown the advancement of loan to the accused in subsequent year IT Returns, the adverse inference cannot be drawn and case of the complainant cannot be rejected.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2014) 12 SCC 539 has held that if the cheque is issued for advance payment for purchase of goods and subsequently if the goods are not sold, the cheque issued at the time of placing order cannot be enforced under law and the purchaser cannot be punished for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. In other words, there will be no liability under Section 138 of N.I.Act if the cheque is issued for failed transaction. In the present case, there is no failure of transaction between the complainant and the accused and hence, this principle cannot be pressed into service. 25 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017
25. Considering the case of the complainant in all the angles and the discussion made above, I hold that by producing Promissory Notes along with receipts and the cheques, the complainant has established that she has advanced loan of Rs.15,00,000/- to the accused. The legal presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is attached to Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5. The complainant has established that she had financial capacity to advance the loan to the accused. Therefore, now it is for the accused to rebut the presumption. The standard of evidence to rebut the presumption to the Negotiable Instrument is that of preponderance of probabilities. Under such touchstone, the evidence adduced by the accused is to be testified.
26. The accused has admitted the execution of Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5 including her handwriting i.e. signature on Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5. She has also admitted that such documents were given to the complainant in order to raise the loan and in fact 26 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 she has not received the loan. Therefore, under what circumstances she has not got returned Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5 from the complainant is to be explained. One of the explanations offered by the accused is that she demanded return of Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5, the complainant did not return it and therefore, she has given stop payment instruction to her banker. Ex.P.2 to P.5 were given on 19.04.2015 and 23.04.2015 and the accused issued intimation of stop payment on 27.08.2015. The complainant issued the demand notice on 05.09.2015 and filed the complaint on 03.10.2015. The accused not filed any first information before the Police or the complaint before the court by making allegation that the complainant without advancing the loan retained Ex.P.2 to P.5. If really without advancing the loan Ex.P.2 to P.5 were retained by the complainant, the accused would have filed the complaint. Her inaction shows that only in order to avoid the liability, she has taken false defence.
27 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017
27. The accused has produced the entire statement of her account standing in the name of Karthik Roofings at Ex.D.2. She has also produced the endorsement of Karnataka Bank at Ex.D.4. In the Cross-examination the accused in Para No.10 has admitted that the amount shown in the balance column is to be paid by her to the bank. Therefore, Ex.D.2 is account relating to loan obtained by the accused from the banker. Such statement shows that the accused is under the liability to repay huge loan to the bank. In the Cross- examination at Para No.12 the accused further admitted that she is required to pay loan of Rs.5,33,05,431/- as on 22.02.2017. Ex.D.4 ad the admission of the accused further show that the accused is under liability to repay the huge loan to the banker.
28. Ex.D.3 is the letter issued by Karnataka Bank on 28.08.2015 for extension of credit facility. This letter shows that bank has given credit facility to the accused on 28.08.2015. By 28 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 using this credit facility the accused has raised loan and she is under liability to repay the loan to Karnataka Bank Ltd., Therefore, records at Ex.D.2 to D.4 produced by the accused at the most show the availment of credit facility on 28.08.2015 from Karnataka Bank and her indebtedness to such Bank. Such evidence shows that the accused was in need of loan when the complainant advanced loan on 19.04.2015 and 23.04.2015. The documentary evidence and oral evidence of accused has been discussed and appreciated by the Trial Court in perspective manner. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that Trial Court has not appreciated the defence evidence holds no water. On re- appreciation of the defence evidence I hold that such evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available to Ex.P.2 to P.5. There is no probable defence taken by the accused. The evidence on record is not sufficient to show that the accused has not availed loan from the complainant. Thus, I hold that 29 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017 the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. Therefore, accused cannot be exempted from punishment under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, these two points are answered and I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Send the copy of the Judgment along with the records to the lower court.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of October, 2019).
(B.B. Jakati) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.30 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017
03.10.2019:
ORDER The Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Send the copy of the Judgment along with the records to the lower court.
(B.B. Jakati) LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.31 Crl.Ap.No.1224/2017