Bangalore District Court
Sri.Amudala Ananda vs Sri.Asadi Venkatadri on 29 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE & 24th ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore
(SCCH-20)
Dated this the 29th day of April, 2015
Present: Smt.K.BHAGYA,
B.Com. LL.B.
V Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXIV
A.C.M.M., Bangalore
C.C.No.35643/2010
Judgment U/s 355 of Cr.P.C
Complainant : Sri.Amudala Ananda,
S/o Naganna,
Major in age,
R/at, Near Anjali Talkies,
Hosurbande, Bagalur Road,
Bangalore-49.
(By Pleader Sri.V.Devaraj)
:Vs:
(SCH-20) 2 CC 35643/10
Accused : Sri.Asadi Venkatadri,
S/o Yerraiah,
Major in age,
R/at, Nadimicheria Village and Post,
Kalakada Mandal,
Chittur District,
Andrapradesh.
(By Pleader Sri.G.Ramana)
The offence complained
of or proved : U/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Plea of accused &
his examination : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acting u/s 255 (2) of
Cr.P.C. accused is convicted
Date of such order : 29-04-2015
* * * * *
J U D G M E N T
The complainant by name Sri.Amudala Ananda has filed this complaint against the accused by name Sri.Asadi Venkaradri, for the offence punishable U/sec 138 of N.I. Act.
(SCH-20) 3 CC 35643/10
02. It is the case of the complainant that, the complainant and accused are good friends, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.62,000-00 as a hand loan from the complainant in the month of March 2009 for his critical financial problems and also election purposes as he has contested the MLA elections in Andrapradesh as independent and undertook to return the same on or before 1st week of September 2009 without fail. After completion of the period agreed, the complainant approached the accused in the 1st week of September 2009 to pay the said amount, on the same day the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.068745 dt:06-09-2009 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, HBR Layout, Bangalore-84, for a sum of Rs.62,000-00. Thereafter, as per the assurance made by the accused, the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker i.e., Andra Bank, Bagalur Branch, Bangalore North-49. But it was returned unpaid on 12-09-2009 with an endorsement as "Funds Insufficient". The same was intimated to the (SCH-20) 4 CC 35643/10 accused and approached for repayment of the cheque amount, but the accused has not given any proper reply. Thereafter, on 24-09-2009, the complainant got issued a demand notice to the accused through his counsel through RPAD and UCP, calling upon him to pay or remit the said amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and the same was received by the accused on 30-09-2009. Even after receipt of the notice, the accused has not repay the said amount nor replied to the said notice. Hence the complainant is before this Court with this complaint.
03. After registration of this complaint, summons have been issued to the accused. He has appeared before the Court through his counsel and enlarged on bail. Thereafterwards, this Court has recorded the plea of the accused. As the accused has not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried, the case was posted for complainant's evidence. The complainant in order to prove his case, got examined himself as P.W.1 and 8 documents got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 (Ex.P.7 & Ex.P.8 marked through D.W.1 on (SCH-20) 5 CC 35643/10 03-07-2012 and 19-07-2012) on his behalf on 01-06-2012 and again two documents got marked as Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 on 25-09-2014. Ofcourse, he has been thoroughly cross-examined by the advocate for the accused. Thereafterwards, the case was posted for recording of accused statement. This Court has recorded the accused statement. The accused has denied the incriminating part of the evidence deposed against him and submitted that he would lead his defence evidence. So, the case was posted for defence evidence. Then accused himself got examined as D.W.1 and got marked 23 documents on his behalf. (Ex.P.16 & Ex.P.17 marked through P.W.1). Then the case was posted for arguments.
04. The written arguments filed by advocate of both the parties are taken into consideration.
05. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant by name Sri.Amudala Anand got examined himself as P.W.1. He has filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the (SCH-20) 6 CC 35643/10 complaint itself. That means, the accused borrowed a hand loan of Rs.62,000-00 from him in the month of March 2009, as he has contested the MLA elections in Andrapradesh as independent candidate, agreed to repay the same on or before 1st week of September 2009. But he has not paid the same as promised by him, but issued a cheque bearing No.068745 dt:06-09-2009 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, HBR Layout, Bangalore, for a sum of Rs.62,000-00. When he presented the same, it was returned with an endorsement as "Funds Insufficient". Then he got issued a legal notice to the accused calling upon him to repay the amount, but he has not repaid the same. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint.
06. Here, the defence of the accused is that, he has not at all issued any cheque to the complainant. But he had lost his cheque book with leaves from 068741 to 068750 while traveling from his native village Nadimicharla to Kalakada in RTC Bus on 10-08-2009. Then he gave a complaint to the Kalakada Police Station, Andhra Pradesh for the (SCH-20) 7 CC 35643/10 search of the said cheque book. Later when he received the notice from the complainant, he came to know that, this complainant is in possession of the said cheque book and misused the said cheque by forging his signature and filed the present complaint. So, after receival of the notice from the complainant, he lodged a Police complaint against the complainant and the Bank Manager of the said bank to the Kalakada Police Station and they have registered a case against them. So, the accused in this case prayed to dismiss the complaint and to take action against the complainant himself. This would be the defence taken by the accused. He has produced nearly 23 documents, which have been got marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.23.
07. This Court has gone through the documents produced by both the parties i.e., Ex.P.1 is the original Cheque alleged to be issued by the accused in favour of this complainant for a sum of Rs.62,000-00 dt:06-09-2009. The signature of the accused identified by the complainant, is marked at Ex.P.1(a). The Bank memo dt:12-09-2009 marked at (SCH-20) 8 CC 35643/10 Ex.P.2, with an endorsement as "Funds Insufficient". Ex.P.3 is the Legal notice dt:24-09-2009 issued to the accused by the advocate of the complainant calling upon him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Ex.P.4 is the UCP receipt. Ex.P.5 is the RPAD receipt. Ex.P.6 is the Postal acknowledgment. Ex.P.6(a) Signature of the accused. Ex.P.7 is the copy of the Notice dt:31-08-2009 issued by the advocate of the accused to the complainant. Ex.P.7 is another document copy of the Judgment in O.S. No.97/2012 of Vayalpad Court. Ex.P.8 is the copy of the Certificate of Registration of the accused. Ex.P.8 is the another document Reply furnished under RTI Act for the application of complainant dt:18-07-2013 (copy obtained on 25-02-2014).
08. Ex.D.1 & Ex.D.1(a) are the copy of the Complaint and its translated copy. Ex.D.2 is the Endorsement given by Kalakada Police Station, Chittoor Dist, A.P. Ex.D.3 is the copy of the Letter written by the accused to The Bank Manager, State Bank of Mysore, HBR Layout, Bangalore. Ex.D.4 is (SCH-20) 9 CC 35643/10 the Speed Post receipt. Ex.P.5 is the Reply given by the advocate of the accused on 05-10-2009 to the advocate of the complainant. Ex.D.6 is the RPAD receipt, Ex.D.7 is the returned RPAD cover. Ex.D.8 to Ex.D.10 are the 2 SBI & SBM ATM cards and Pan Card. Ex.D.11 is the Ration Card. Ex.D.12 Notarized certificate furnished by the accused before the Election Commission, Ex.D.13 is the Certificate for receipt of oath issued by Election Commission, Ex.D.14 Andhra Bank S/B account passbook of the accused, Ex.D.14(a), Signature of the accused, Ex.D.15 State Bank of Mysore account passbook of the accused, Ex.D.15(a), Signature of the accused, Ex.D.16 is the copy of the FIR, Ex.D.17 is the copy of the Bail Order passed in Crl. M.P. No.139/2013. Ex.D.18 is the copy of the FIR regarding misplace of cheque book, Ex.D.19 is the copy of the Complaint filed by the accused before Vayalpad Court, Ex.D.20 is the copy of the Order passed in the said Complaint, Ex.D.21 is the copy of the Summons issued to the accused for the application filed by U/Sec 91 Cr.PC. Ex.D.22 is the copy of the FIR (SCH-20) 10 CC 35643/10 dt:22-12-2012, Ex.D.23 is the copy of the Complaint filed before the Magistrate of Thamballapalle Court.
09. The main defence of the accused is that, he has not at all issued any cheque to the complainant. The signature found on the cheque is not that of himself. The writing found on the cheque is not that of himself. His main argument is that, the complainant has forged his signature. So, he has produced many documents before this Court to compare his signature with the signature found on the original cheque Ex.P.1 which is the cheque in question. This Court has gone through the Plea recorded by this Court and also the Statement recorded U/s 313 of Cr.PC. The signature found on the plea as well as Statement U/s 313 of Cr.PC of the accused are similar. But when this Court has compared these signatures with the signature found on this Ex.P.1, they are entirely different. In the same way, the accused also produced many documents for comparison of his signatures with the signatures found on this Ex.P.1. Among them, (SCH-20) 11 CC 35643/10 Ex.D.12 is an affidavit sworn by this accused Asadi Venkatadri as a candidate for the election, which is Form 26 which bears the signature of this accused as "Signature of deponent". These two signatures and the signature found on the plea as well as Statement U/s 313 of Cr.PC are similar. But the signature found on the Ex.P.1-cheque do not tally with the signature of this accused found on this Ex.D.12. In the same way, he has produced the original passbook of him of Andhra Bank. This passbook reveal the photograph of this accused and his signature. This signature is also similar with the signatures found on the plea as well as Statement U/s 313 of Cr.PC of the accused recorded by this Court. But the signature found on the cheque-Ex.P.1 is entirely different from that of the signature found on this Ex.D.14. In the same way, the signature found on the passbook of State Bank of Mysore which is marked at Ex.D.15. He has also produced his two ATM Cards issued by the State Bank of Mysore and also the Pan Card issued by the Income Tax Department. They also reveal the (SCH-20) 12 CC 35643/10 signature of this accused. These three signatures found on this ATM and Pan Card exactly tallies with the signature found on the plea as well as Statement U/s 313 of Cr.PC. But the signature found on the cheque-Ex.P.1 do not tally with the signature found on these Ex.D8, Ex.D.9 and Ex.D.10 i.e., ATM Card and Pan Card. Thus, the accused has produced almost all the documents to prove before this Court that, the signature found on the Ex.P.1- cheque is not that of himself and it is forged by the complainant. But the Ex.P.6 is the Postal acknowledgment for having received the notice issued by the advocate for complainant. This postal acknowledgment bears the signature and the name of this accused. The signature found on this postal acknowledgment is like that of the signature found on the above documents produced by the accused. There is another signature of the accused which is similar to the signature found on Ex.P.1 the original cheque. Regarding this signature, the accused has deposed in his cross-examination as, "¤¦-2gÀ°è vÉÆÃj¹zÀ ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ (SCH-20) 13 CC 35643/10 ZÉPï £À£ÀßzÀÄ. ¤¦-6 CAZÉ ¹éÃPÀÈwAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ¸À» £À£ÀßzÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤¦-6J CAvÀ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¤¦-1J ¸À» £À£ÀßzÀ®è. ¤¦-1J ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦-6J ¸À»UÀ¼ÉgÀqÀÆ MAzÉà ¸À»AiÀiÁVªÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¤¦-1gÀ°è §gÉzÀ §gÀªÀtôUÉUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀߪÃÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è". Though the signature found on this Ex.P.1 and the signature found on this postal acknowledgment which is marked as Ex.P.6(a) are similar, this accused has denied the same. But the signature Ex.P.6(a) has been admitted by this accused as of him only. Which is similar to Ex.P.1(a). Thus, it can be said that, definitely the signature found on Ex.P.1 is that of this accused only. Regarding this aspect, the complainant has deposed in his cross-examination as, "DgÉÆæ ¥sÉÊ¯ï ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀPÁ®vï£À°ègÀĪÀ DvÀ£À ¸À»UÀÆ, ¤¦-1 ZÉQÌ£À°è EgÀĪÀ DgÉÆævÀ£À ¸À»UÀÆ ªÀåvÁå¸À EzÉ CAzÀgÉ, ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÀAvÀ¯Éà ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ CAvÀ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ". Further, the accused has deposed in his cross- examination on 19-07-2012 for the suggestion put by the advocate for complainant as, "£À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðPÀÌ£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ vÀgÀºz À À°è £À£Àß ¸À»UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ C¨sÁå¸À £À£U À É EzÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî". Thus, though (SCH-20) 14 CC 35643/10 the accused has produced many documents to prove that, the signature found on the Ex.P.1 original cheque is not that of him, the Ex.P.6 the postal acknowledgment has proved that, the signature found on the Ex.P.1 is that of this accused only.
10. Here, another defence of the accused is that, he had lost his cheque book while traveling from his native place. Thereafterwards, he has also lodged a complaint before the concerned Police Station. Regarding this aspect, the accused in his cross- examination has deposed that, on the day when he lost his cheque book itself, he lodged a complaint before the concerned Police Station. Ex.D.1 is the complaint given by the accused dt:10-08-2009 to the Kalakada Police Station regarding the lost of cheque book by the accused, which is in Telugu language. Ex.D.1(a) is the translated copy of the said complaint dt:10-08-2009. This complaint reveal that, when this accused was coming from Nadimicharla to Kalakada in RTC Bus and got down at Kalakada Bus Station, when he observed his bag, the cheque book was misplaced. In the said cheque (SCH-20) 15 CC 35643/10 book of State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore, the cheque numbers from 068741 to 068750 were there and they were lost.
11. It is the case of the complainant that, the accused obtained a hand loan of Rs.62,000-00 from him in the month of March 2009 by agreeing to repay the same on or before 1st week of September 2009. Ex.D.2 is the Certificate given by the concerned Kalakada Police Station stating that, this accused/complainant lodged a complaint in their Station stating that, he had lost his bank cheque book containing cheque numbers from 068741 to 068750 while he was traveling in the bus. Further, Ex.D.3 is also the copy of the complaint given by this accused to the Bank Manager of State Bank of Mysore, HBR Layout, Bangalore, stating that, he had lost the cheque leaves from 068741 to 068750 and requested not to honour the cheque if presented for encashment by any person. Here, the defence of the accused is that, after lodging complaint to the concerned Police Station as well as to the Bank, he has received the legal notice from the advocate of (SCH-20) 16 CC 35643/10 this complainant. Then only he came to know that, this complainant is in possession of his lost cheque and thus he has misused one of the said cheque by issuing the said legal notice. Hence, he took further action also. Ex.D.5 is the Reply dt:05-10-2009 given by the advocate of the accused to the advocate of the complainant stating that, the accused has not at all borrowed any hand loan of Rs.62,000-00 from the complainant and he has denied all the contents in the notice issued by the advocate of the complainant dt:24-09-2009 and also contended that, he had lost his cheque book on 10-08-2009 in a bus while traveling and hence he has already lodged a complaint before the concerned Police Station and also complaint to the Bank Manager of the concerned bank. Thus, the argument and defence of the accused is that, the said cheques were in possession of this complainant and one of the said cheque has been misused by the complainant in this way. Ex.D.19 is the private complaint lodged by this accused against this complainant as well as the Branch Manager of State (SCH-20) 17 CC 35643/10 Bank of Mysore, HBR Layout, Bangalore-84, stating that, this complainant/accused got the possession of the cheque of him which he had lost and misused the same by presenting for encashment and got it dishonoured with the help of the Bank Branch Manager of HBR Layout, Bangalore, and thus committed the offences punishable U/sec 464, 406, 420, 427 of IPC. On the basis of this complaint before the Court, the Kalakada Police registered the case against this complainant as well as Branch Manager of SBM, HBR Layout, Bangalore, in Cr. No.96/2013, the said FIR got marked as Ex.D.18. Thus, this private complaint lodged before the Court after the receival of the legal notice from the advocate for complainant. The order sheet of the said Court also produced and marked at Ex.D.20. But there is no whisper from the accused side regarding the finality of the said criminal case.
12. Ex.D.23 is the private complaint given by this accused against this complainant for misusing the pronote received by this complainant from the accused for the offence punishable U/sec 323, 420, (SCH-20) 18 CC 35643/10 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. Ex.D.22 is the FIR registered in respect of this case only. Regarding this complaint, the learned counsel for the accused argued before this Court that, regarding the present cheque in question, the complainant also obtained two promissory notes from this accused and for that, he had lodged private complaint as per Ex.D.23. But the argument of learned counsel for the complainant is that, the transaction with respect to the present cheque in question is entirely a different transaction from that of the promissory notes received by this complainant. Regarding the promissory notes received by the complainant, he had already filed original suit and obtained decree also. By arguing like this, the complainant drawn the attention of this Court towards Ex.P.7, which is the Judgment given in OS No.97/2012 on 11-03-2013. The said suit was filed by this complainant against this accused only, for the recovery of Rs.27,000-00 with interest from this accused on the basis of promissory note dt:16-05-2009. The said suit was with respect to a promissory note. There is no (SCH-20) 19 CC 35643/10 whisper regarding the present cheque in question in the said Judgment. Moreover, the promissory note in the said suit is dt:16-05-2009. But this present cheque in question is dt:06-09-2009. So, from these facts, it reveal that, there was many money transactions took place in between this complainant as well as this accused. This accused used to handover cheque or promissory note to the complainant while receiving the amount. Whenever the complainant asked for the return of those amount, this accused was in the habit of filing criminal cases against this complainant. These things reveal from the documents produced by the accused himself. Whenever this accused used to file criminal cases, this complainant used to obtain anticipatory bail from the concerned Courts. Thus, by filing all those complaint's, FIR's, Order sheets, Bail orders of the complainant, this accused cannot escape from the clutches of law. By producing all these documents, he cannot say that, he has not at all received any amount nor put his signature on the cheque in question.
(SCH-20) 20 CC 35643/10
13. The complaint reveal that, this accused contested for a MLA Election in Andhra Pradesh in the month of March 2009 and hence towards the said expenses he had borrowed a sum of Rs.62,000-00 from the complainant. This is admitted by the accused himself. That means, he had contested for the election as an independent candidate. Moreover, the complainant also deposed in his cross-examination for the suggestion put by the advocate for accused, at page No.8 as, "DgÉÆæAiÀÄ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¥ÀPÀëzÀªgÀ ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÄÁqÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV C£ÉÃPÀ PÉøÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÉÃÛ £É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß Hj¤AzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ HjUÉ 20 Q.«Äà zÀÆgÀªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀªÀÄä Hj£À gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ Hj£À gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ J®ègÀÆ MAzÉà DVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. gÁdA¥ÉÃmÁ Parliament Constituency UÉ £ÀªÀÄä HgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ HgÀÄ ¸ÉÃgÀÄvÀÛªÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj". Moreover, at page No.7 of his cross- examination deposed as, "£Á£ÀÄ DAzÀsæ¥ÀæzÉñÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉUÉ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæ C¨ÀsåyðAiÀiÁV ¸Àà¢üð¹zÉÝ. F jÃw ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉUÉ ¸Àà¢üð¹zÁÝUÀ ºÀt RZÁðUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸Á® (SCH-20) 21 CC 35643/10 ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj............ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ ºÀt EgÀ°®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ, £Á£ÀÄ ¦gÁå¢ §½ §AzÀÄ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß PÉýzÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è". Thus, it can be believable that, the accused has received a sum of Rs.62,000-00 towards the election expenses.
14. Another point is that, in the original cheque- Ex.P.1, the accused put his signature as " DR.......". So, he has signed on the Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.6 as, "Dr.Asadi Venkatadri" (in a short form). Regarding this 'Doctorship', this accused has deposed in his cross-examination at page No.7 as, " £Á£ÀÄ DgïJA¦ ªÉÊzÀå¤gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÁUÀ®Æj£À°è D¸ÀàvÉæ EnÖgÀ°®è". So, he had put his signature as "DR......". Thus, for all these reasons, this Court can held without any hesitation that, this accused issued the present cheque in question towards the legally enforceable debt only.
15. After receival of the Ex.P.1 cheque, the complainant presented the same for encashment through the State Bank of Mysore, HBR Layout, Bangalore, which was returned with an endorsement as, "Funds Insufficient" on 12-09-2009. Thereafterwards, he had issued the legal notice (SCH-20) 22 CC 35643/10 dt:24-09-2009 through his advocate calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount through the RPAD as well as UCP. Both were served on the accused. The Ex.P.6 is the Postal acknowledgment for having received the notice by the accused on 30-09-2009. Then, But for the said notice, the accused gave reply through his reply dt:05-10-2009 alleging that, he had lost his cheque book while traveling in a bus. Then above dates & documents reveal the compliance of Sec.138 of N.I. Act by the complainant.
16. As already observed above, the complaint as well as the documents produced by both the parties clearly reveal to the Court that, there was many money transactions took place in between the complainant and the accused. They reveal that accused used to take money from the complainant as loan. But whenever the complainant asked for the repayment of the said sum, this accused used to file criminal cases against the complainant by using his political influence (which, this Court has inferred). Thus, the accused had collected/created many (SCH-20) 23 CC 35643/10 documents and produced the same before this Court as well as other Courts in Andhra Pradesh. But this Court cannot believe the story of losing his cheque book in a bus while traveling. That story is created only for the purpose of this case. Such things have to be curtailed by the Courts of law.
17. Thus, here the complainant has proved by producing necessary documents and also by adducing oral evidence that, the accused had availed hand loan of Rs.62,000-00 from him and towards the repayment of the same, accused had issued Ex.P.1- cheque. When it was presented, it was returned with an endorsement as "Funds Insufficient". This complainant has complied the provisions of Sec.138 of N.I. Act. Thus, the complainant has proved that, this accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R Acting U/Sec 255(2) of Cr.P.C, accused is hereby convicted and sentenced to undergo simple (SCH-20) 24 CC 35643/10 imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable U/Sec 138 of N.I. Act.
Acting U/Sec 357(3) of Cr.PC, accused is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,34,000-00 to the complainant towards the loss suffered by him.
Out of the total compensation amount of Rs.1,34,000-00, a sum of Rs.10,000-00 shall be deposited to the State as fine amount.
In default of the aforesaid compensation/fine amount, accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Bail bond if any executed by the accused is stands cancelled.
Supply free copy of this Judgment to accused immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this day of 29th April 2015) (K.BHAGYA) V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.(SCH-20) 25 CC 35643/10
Annexures Witnesses examined for Complainant:
P.W.1 Amudala Anand
Documents marked for Complainant:
Ex.P.1 original Cheque for Rs.62,000-00
dt:06-09-2009.
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of the accused
Ex.P.2 Bank memo dt:12-09-2009
Ex.P.3 Legal notice dt:24-09-2009
Ex.P.4 UCP receipt
Ex.P.5 RPAD receipt
Ex.P.6 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of the accused
Ex.P.7 copy of the Notice dt:31-08-2009
Ex.P.7 another document copy of the Judgment
passed in O.S. No.97/2012 by Vayalpad Court Ex.P.8 copy of the Certificate of Registration of the accused Ex.P.8 another document Reply furnished under RTI Act for the application of complainant dt:18-07-2013 (copy obtained on 25-02-2014) Witnesses examined for defence:
D.W.1 Asadi Venkatadri
(SCH-20) 26 CC 35643/10
Documents marked for defence:
Ex.D.1 &
Ex.D.1(a) copy of the Complaint and its translated copy Ex.D.2 Endorsement given by Kalakada Police Station, Chittoor Dist, A.P. Ex.D.3 copy of the Letter written by the accused to the Bank Manager of State Bank of Mysore Ex.D.4 Speed Post receipt Ex.D.5 Reply given by the advocate of the accused Ex.D.6 RPAD receipt Ex.D.7 returned RPAD cover Ex.D.8 to Ex.D.10 2 SBI & SBM ATM cards and Pan Card Ex.D.11 Ration Card Ex.D.12 Notarized certificate furnished by the accused before the Election Commission Ex.D.13 Certificate for receipt of oath issued by Election Commission Ex.D.14 Andhra Bank S/B account passbook of the accused Ex.D.14(a) Signature of the accused Ex.D.15 State Bank of Mysore account passbook of the accused Ex.D.15(a) Signature of the accused Ex.D.16 copy of the FIR dt:22-11-2012 Ex.D.17 copy of the Bail Order passed in Crl. M.P. No.139/2013 Ex.D.18 copy of the FIR dt:26-09-2013 Ex.D.19 copy of the Complaint filed by the accused before Vayalpad Court Ex.D.20 copy of the Order passed in the said Complaint Ex.D.21 copy of the Summons issued to the accused (SCH-20) 27 CC 35643/10 Ex.D.22 copy of the FIR dt:22-12-2012 Ex.D.23 copy of the Complaint filed before the Magistrate of Thamballapalle Court (K.BHAGYA) V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.