Bangalore District Court
M/S. Syncro Industries vs M/S. Reeliable Mep Projects India Pvt ... on 18 January, 2025
KABC0B0101822023
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE & XXIVth ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bangalore (SCCH-20)
Present : Sri. P. Shivaraj,
B.Com. LL.B.
V Addl. Small Causes Judge,
& XXIV A.C.J.M.
Dated this the 18th day of January 2025
C.C. NO : 55114/2020
Complainant:- M/s Syncro Industries,
No.647, 3rd floor,Vijayashree Layout,
Arekere,Hulimavu,Bannerghatta
Road, Bangalore - 560076
Represented by its partner,
Sri.Husain Baxa,
(Sri.BKS, Advocate)
// VS //
Accused persons:- 1.M/s Reeliable MEP Projects India
Pvt Ltd.,
Having its Registered Office at
No.881, II Stage,
Dr.M.C.Modi Hospital,
West of chord Road,
Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore - 560086
2.Sri.Rohith Darrapneedi Pratap
Reddy,
Director,
3.Sri.MaheshThimmaiah
Bangalore,
Director,
4.Sri.Sanjay Kumar S/o Kumar
Director,
(A1-Company
A2 & 4 -Sri.MDL, Advocate
A3-split up)
2 CC-55114/2020
Offence : U/s/ 138 of N.I Act of 1881.
Plea of accused no.2,4 : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is 1,2, 4 are convicted
Date of judgment : 18.01.2025
(P. SHIVARAJ)
V Addl. Small Causes Judge,
& XXIV A.C.J.M.
-: J U D G E M E N T :-
The complainant is a partnership firm, one of its
partner Sri.Hussain Baxa S/o Nuruddin Baxa has filed
the private complaint U/s 200 of Cr.P.C. against the
accused persons alleging that, they have committed the
offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 (For short N.I.Act,1881).
2. Complainant case is as follows:
Complainant is the partnership firm and it is
engaged in the business of providing lab services.
Accused No.1 is the private limited company,
accused No.2 to 4 are the directors of the accused No.1
company and they are responsible for conducting the
business and day to day affairs of accused No.1 company.
Complainant has supplied and delivered the materials to
3 CC-55114/2020
the accused persons under various invoices of worth of
Rs.9,03,502.32/- from 3/4/2018 to 15/4/2019.
Complainant has maintained the running account of the
accused persons during the course of his business. As per
the accounts of the accused persons, they are due to pay
Rs.3,05,804.20/- to the complainant firm and they have
agreed to pay the interest @ 24% pa., on the said due
amount. Accused persons have failed to pay the said due
amount. In order to pay same they have issued the
cheque bearing No.412136 dated 21.01.2020 for
Rs.2,75,644/- in the name of the complainant firm which
is drawn on YES bank, Basaveshwara nagara Branch,
Bangalore.
3. As per the instructions of the accused persons,
complainant presented the aforesaid cheque for en
cashment through his banker. The aforesaid cheque was
returned dishonour with an endorsement "Funds
insufficient", to that effect complainant received the
cheque return memo from his banker on 24.01.2020.
Complainant has also send email intimating the said fact
to the accused persons and he has send legal notice to
them on 01.02.2020 and it was refused by them. Further,
accused persons have failed to repay the cheque amount.
Complainant alleged that, accused persons have
intentionally not maintained sufficient funds in their bank
account to honour the cheque. Inasmuch, accused
4 CC-55114/2020
persons have committed the offence punishable under
section 138 of N.I. Act. On the aforesaid allegations, the
complainant approached this court and prays this court
to punish the accused persons and to award the
compensation.
4. Originally the private complaint was filed before
the Hon'ble XXXIVth ACMM court mayo hall unit,
Bangalore. The learned preceding officer of that court
took the cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 138 of
N.I.Act and recorded the sown statement of the
complainant. On finding prima facie case process was
issued to the accused persons.
5.Later as per the special notification No.ADM/1/A/
8/23, case transferred to this court.
6. After service of the summons to the accused
persons, accused no.2 and 4 have appeared before the
this court through their counsel and they got released on
bail. In compliance with provisions of section 207 of
Cr.P.C papers of the prosecution was supplied to the
accused persons. Substance of the accusation is readout
to accused persons in the language known to them, they
pleaded not guilty and submitted that, they are having
defence to make.
7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the
complainant adopted the evidence led by him at pre-
summoning stage as his Examination-in-chief affidavit
5 CC-55114/2020
and produced and marked 11 documents which are at
Ex.P.1 to P.11, and is fully cross examined.
8. Accused no.2 and 4, statement is recorded as per
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the same and submit that
they are having evidence to lead.
Case against accused No.3 is split up and separate
case is registered in CC No.15181/2024 against him.
Accused persons have not chosen to lead their
evidence and their evidence is taken as nil as per prayed
for, as per the order dated 09.01.2025.
9. I have heard the arguments from the counsels
appearing for both the sides. I have perused the entire
record.
Counsel appearing for the complainant has relied on
the following authorities:
1. P.Psiya Vs Abdul Nazer and another - reported in
LAWS (SC) 2022 (8) 129
2. Tedhi Singh Vs Narayan Dass Mahant- reported
in (2022) 6 SCC 735.
3. K.Prakash Bhat Vs Balavanth Srepad Kulkarni-
reported in Lass (KAR) - 2020-12-185.
10. The following points that arise for my
determination.
-:P O I N T S:-
1. Whether the complainant firm proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that the
accused persons have committed the
6 CC-55114/2020
offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I.Act
as alleged in the compliant?
2. What Order?
11. After carefully going through the materials
available on record and taking into consideration of facts
and circumstances of the case, my finding to the above
points are as follows:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
12. Point No.1: PW-1 being the complainant he
reiterated the complaint averments in his sworn
statement, which is treated examination-in-chief
affidavit.
Complainant has relied on the original cheque as
per Ex.P.1, cheque return memo as per Ex.P.2 and 3 and
he has issued mandatory legal notice as per Ex.P4 within
30 days from the date of receipt of Ex.P.2 and 3,
complainant has send email as per Ex.P.10. Complainant
has filed complaint within stipulated period of time and
he has complied all the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
13. The accused persons have not disputed nor
denied the issuance of cheque as per Ex.P.1 and
signature thereon. The complainant has established the
fact of issuance of cheque by the accused persons to
discharge of their liability. Inasmuch the initial statutory
presumption attached to the cheque has to be raised in
7 CC-55114/2020
favour of the complainant as per section 118 and 139 of
N.I.Act.
14. It is true that the accused persons have not
given reply to the mandatory legal notice issued by the
complainant and it is one of the strongest ground to hold
and infer that the cheque in question belonged to the
accused persons.
15. In order to rebut the initial statutory
presumption attached to the cheque, accused persons
cross examined the PW.1. In the cross examination of
PW-1, he has clearly deposed that he is one of the
partner of the firm and he is having authority to
represent the firm and to depose on its behalf. He
deposed that all the three partners are working partners
in their firm. He deposed that he has supplied and
delivered the goods to the accused persons. He admitted
that he will tender the invoice, purchase orders and
ledger account of the accused persons. He denied the
suggestion that the accused persons have repaid the
entire invoice amount. He deposed that they they will not
secure any cheque for security purpose.
16. On careful perusal and analysis of the evidence
placed on record, it is evident that the accused persons
have not disputed nor denied the transaction as alleged
by the complainant. In the cross examination of PW-1,
nothing worth has been elicited to disprove the complaint
8 CC-55114/2020
allegations. If the contention of the accused persons is
really true they could have suggested the repayment
details to the PW-1, or they could secure the purchase
order, ledger account, copy of invoices from the
complainant, but they have not made any attempt for the
same. It is not the contention of the accused persons that
there is no purchase order, invoice or ledger account.
17. The learned counsel appearing for the
complainant argued that non production of the purchase
order, invoice, ledger account of the accused persons
would not be fatal to the case of the complainant, as the
accused persons have failed to rebut the initial statutory
presumption attached to the cheque. To substantiate his
argument counsel has relied on K.Prakash Bhat Vs
Balavanth Srepad Kulkarni- reported in Lass (KAR) -
2020-12-185. Wherein Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
held that no adverse inference can be drawn on the
complainant for non production of books of account,
income Tax returns, that to when accused has failed to
rebut the initial statuary presumption. Further it is held
that the onus will shift on the complainant to establish
his case beyond reasonable doubt only when accused
rebut the statuary presumptions. In the other authorities
relied on by the complaint, where the concept of raising
the initial statutory presumption and the manner of
rebutting the said presumption is discussed. The accused
9 CC-55114/2020
persons have not chosen to tender the authorities. With
great respect to the aforesaid authorities, the principles
state there in is considered and applied in the present
case.
18. In view of the aforesaid principle, court cannot
draw adverse inference on the complainant for non
production of purchase order, invoice, ledger account of
the accused persons, as accused persons have failed to
rebut the initial statuary presumptions.
19. If the suggestions of the accused persons are
really true they could have given reply notice to the
mandatory legal notice issued by the complainant or they
could have establish before this court that they are
having sufficient balance in their bank account as on the
date of cheque. Accused persons suggest the PW.1 in his
cross examination that, accused persons have repaid the
invoice amount. They have not placed the evidence or
place the probability for the said suggestion. The said
suggestion categorically establishes that the accused
persons have admitted the alleged transaction and their
vicarious liability towards the complainant firm.
20. If the version of the complainant is faraway from
the truth, the accused persons could have taken lawful
action against the complainant firm for illegal possession
of the cheque in question or they could have given stop
payment instructions to their banker in respect of the
10 CC-55114/2020
cheque in question. Apparently the accused persons have
not made any effort for the same. It is true that no
prudent man will issue the cheque with out any
justification or lawful cause. It is settled principle law
that the accused persons have to place probability or
situation to show that alleged debt is illegal or debt does
not exists and the presumed facts does not exists. Mere
suggestion of the accused persons is not sufficient to
revert or shift the onus on the complainant firm to
establish its case beyond the reasonable doubt.
Accordingly bare improbable suggestions of the accused
persons could not be accepted as probable. Considering
and looking in to the evidence placed on record, accused
persons have not placed the probable evidence to
improbabilise the version of the complainant. Accordingly
the initial statutory presumption attached to the cheque
cannot to said have been rebutted by the accused
persons. Added to it, accused persons have not led their
evidence to improbabilise the version of the complainant.
Apparently, accused persons have miserably failed to
rebut the initial statutory presumption attached to the
cheque. There is no material or evidence on record to
disbelieve version of the complainant, inasmuch,
considering the facts and attending circumstances of the
case and with aforesaid discussion, I am answering this
point in the affirmative.
11 CC-55114/2020
21.POINT NO.2:- For the foregoing reason and
discussion, on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Exercising the power conferred U/sec 255(2) of Cr.p.c. accused no.1,2 and 4 are convicted together for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,1881.
Accused no.2 and 4 being the directors of Accused no.1 company, they are together sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.3,30,260/- to the complainant firm with in two months form the date of this order, in default they have to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
Out of the said fine amount, an amount of Rs.3,25,260/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant firm as compensation. The remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be confiscated to the state towards litigation expenses.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused no.2 and 4 shall continue for next 6 months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.
Office is directed to supply the copy of this judgment at free of cost to the accused persons forthwith (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by me on computer and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of January -2025) (P. SHIVARAJ) V Addl. Small Causes Judge, & XXIV A.C.J.M. 12 CC-55114/2020 :ANNEXURES:
1) List of Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW.1 : Sri.Husain Baxa
2) List of exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque Ex.P.2&3 : Cheque return memo Ex.P.4 : Office copy of Legal notice Ex.P.5 : Postal receipt Ex.P.6to9 : Postal covers Ex.P.10 : Email copies Ex.P.11 : Certificate U/s 65 B of I.E.Act
3) List of Witnesses Examined on behalf of Accused:
NIL
4) List of exhibits marked on behalf of Accused :
NIL (P. SHIVARAJ) V Addl. Small Causes Judge, & XXIV A.C.J.M.