Bangalore District Court
M/S.Subha Advertising vs Persons: Sri S.Venkatesh Kumar on 27 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE
Dated this 27th day of March , 2018.
Present: Smt Shirin Javeed Ansari, BA LL.B(Hon's)LL.M
XXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore.
C.C.No.18965/2013
Complainant: M/s.Subha Advertising,
No.55, Shop Street , Basavanagudi
Bangalore 4
Represented by its Proprietor
Sri M.S.Ramamurthy.
( By Sri R.Vijay Kumar - Advocate )
- Vs -
Accused persons: Sri S.Venkatesh Kumar
Proprietor,
Roopa Communications,
No.80, 9th main, 4th cross
3rd block, 1st stage, Nagarabhavi
Bangalore 72.
( By Sri H.Krishne Gowda-Advocate )
Offence complained of: U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
Plea of accused persons: Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order: Accused is Acquitted.
Date of order: 27.03.2018
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.PC
The complainant filed this complaint under Sec.200
Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable
2 C.C.No.18965/2013
under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act ( (herein after
called the act for reference)
2. The case of the prosecution is as under :
The complainant submits it is an advertising company
having its office at Bangalore. The accused is one of the
regular customers of the complainant . That during the
course of business the accused had placed orders for
advertising and as per the orders, the complainant
advertised the same and issued bills to the accused. The
complainant submits that after issuance of the bills ,the
accused towards discharge of liability issued cheque
bearing No. 678335 dt.4.2.2013 for Rs.4,35,000/- drawn
on Vijaya bank, K.H.road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore
assuring the complainant that the said cheque would be
honored on its presentation. The complainant believing
the assurance of the accused presented the said cheque for
realization through his banker Vijaya bank, Gandhibazar
branch, Bangalore. But to the utter surprise and shock of
the complainant , the said cheque came to be returned
dishonored with endorsement "Exceeds Arrangements"
dt.4.2.2013. Hence, the complainant got issued legal
notice dt 19.2.2013 through his Advocate by way of RPAD
calling upon the accused to discharge his liability. The
3 C.C.No.18965/2013
accused has duly acknowledged the receipt of the legal
notice. The accused after receipt of the legal notice has not
chosen to comply with the demand made by the
complainant in the said notice nor replied the same.
3. It is further averred by the complainant that the
accused is aware that issuance of cheque without deposit
of sufficient funds in the account is an offence punishable
u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument Act. The accused has
willfully and deliberately issued the cheque knowing fully
well that the accused does not have sufficient funds in his
account and thus committed an offence punishable
u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument Act .
4. The complainant further submits that in view of
the offence committed, the accused is liable to be convicted
and prayed to award compensation in favour of the
complainant u/s.357 of Cr.P.C in the interest of justice
Hence this complaint.
5. In pursuance of the process issued, the accused
person appeared before the court on 8.6.2015 and is on
bail.
6. Copy of the prosecution papers are furnished to
the accused person as required under law.
4 C.C.No.18965/2013
7. Plea under Sec.138 N.I.Act is framed , read over
and explained to the accused person in vernacular. The
accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
8. PW1- got examined and got marked the
documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 for the complainant .
9 . The incriminating circumstances found in the
case of prosecution against the accused is read over and
explained to them in vernacular. The accused persons
denied the same. The accused examined himself as
DW 1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3
10. Learned Counsel for the complainant has filed
written arguments along with citations. Counsel for the
accused, despite of giving liberty to file the written
arguments did not file any written arguments before this
court.
11. On the basis of the contents of the complaint
the following points arise for my consideration. :
1. Whether the complainant proves
beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused is/are guilty of alleged
offence?
2. What order ?
5 C.C.No.18965/2013
12. My findings to the above points
are as follows"
Point No.1 :In the Negative.
Point.No.2 :As per final order for
the following:
REASONS
13.Point No.1: It is the case of the complainant
that the accused being one of the customers of the
complainant in the advertising field. That during the
course of business, the accused placed orders for
advertising . Hence, as per the orders placed by the
accused, the complainant advertised the same and issued
bills to the accused for sum of Rs.4,35,000/- for
advertising charges. Towards discharge of his liability, the
accused issued cheque bearing No. 678335 of
Rs.4,35,000/- dt.4.2.2013 drawn on Vijaya bank, K.H.
road Shanthingar, Bangalore and promised to honor the
same. But when the same was presented by the
complainant through his banker for realisation, i.e Vijaya
Bank, Gandhi Bazar branch, Bangalore, the said cheque
return dishonored with shara "Exceeds Arrangements"
dt.4.2.13. When this aspect was intimated to the accused,
the accused did not bother about the same. Hence, the
6 C.C.No.18965/2013
complainant issued legal notice dt.19.2.2013 to the
accused and the same is duly served upon the accused
person . Despite of service of the notice, the accused
neither paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice.
Aggrieved by this conduct of the accused, the complainant
filed the present complaint.
14. On the other hand, it is the defence of the
accused that he has never issued any cheque pertaining to
any transaction to the complainant. But, the accused has
admitted his acquaintance with the complainant . The
accused also admitted the cheque and the signature
belonging to it. But, further specifically contended that
the cheque in question is pertaining to the year 2005. He
has closed said account of the said cheque in 2005 itself.
The statutory notice is not served upon him and the
complainant has misused his old cheques by filling the
blank spaces. A false case if filed against the accused
person . The accused has also produced the letter issued
by the bank and Ledger Extract issued by the bank as per
Ex.D.1 to D.3.
15. In the written arguments the complainant
counsel has submitted that the accused has issued the
cheque in question in discharge of liability . The accused
7 C.C.No.18965/2013
has duly acknowledged the receipt of the legal notice. The
accused even after receipt of the legal notice, has neither
paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice. The
accused is aware that issuance of the cheque without
deposing sufficient funds in his account is an offence
punishable u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument Act
16. The complainant counsel has further submitted
in the written arguments that the complainant is
examined as PW 1 and has deposed before the court that
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.5 invoices are marked to show
the purpose of the transaction . The complainant has also
produced the bank statement and the same is marked at
ExP.12 to ExP.15. The complainant has complied all the
provisions of sec 138 Negotiable Instrument Act and filed
the complaint in accordance with the provisions of
Negotiable Instrument Act. The accused has cross
examined PW1 in detail .
17. It is further submitted that the accused has been
examined as DW1 and also been cross examined by the
complainant. The accused admits issuance of the cheque
and also the signature on the cheque. The accused has
taken the contention that the complainant has filed a false
case against the accused and the complainant has
8 C.C.No.18965/2013
misused the old cheques given by the accused person.
According to the provisions of Sec.138 Negotiable
Instrument Act, the accused should rebut the same before
this court . But the accused has not done anything as such
and miserably failed to do so. The signatures on the cheque
are clearly admitted by the accused. If this court
appreciates Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, until
the contrary is proved there arises presumption in favour
of the complainant .
18. The learned counsel for the complainant has
also referred to Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act
which also creates the presumption in favour of the
complainant . Hence, the learned counsel submitted that
the complainant has discharged the preliminary burden
and this court has to draw legal presumption u/s.118 and
139 of the Act in favour of the complainant .
19. The learned counsel for the complainant has
further submitted that if the evidence and the documents
on record produced by the complainant is appreciated, it
is crystal clear that the accused failed to rebut the said
presumption. The accused to escape from said liability has
taken all possible contentions which will be taken in the
general course of trail. The learned counsel relied upon
9 C.C.No.18965/2013
the decision reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in between Rangappa v/s.
Mohan and submitted that presumption is always in
favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued
towards legally enforceable debt or other liability. Hence,
submitted that the accused has miserably failed to rebut
the same.
20. Learned counsel for the complainant further
submitted that the accused has not examined the bank
staff or the manager. There are contradictions in the
statement of the accused in the evidence and cross -
examination. The accused admits the suggestion that he
has not examined any bank officials. It shows that the
accused is fearing that if he examines any witness the
truth will come out.
21. The learned counsel for the complainant further
submitted that the accused is one of the regular
customers of the complainant and the complainant and
accused are having good acquaintance with each other.
The accused had placed orders for advertisements to
publish in the newspaper through complainant . The
complainant is authorized agency. The complainant
further submits that the accused has willfully and
10 C.C.No.18965/2013
deliberately issued the cheque without depositing sufficient
funds in his account, this shows the conduct of the
accused.
22. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
for the complainant that Ex.D.1 to Ex.D3 are no way
tallying with the Ex.P.1 and P.2. The document produced
at Ex.D.1 shows that it is dt.10.10.2014 . No proprietor's
name is mentioned in the said document. Only firms name
is mentioned and the proprietor's name is incomplete.
The proprietor's name is only mentioned as S.Venkat and
Ex.D.3 bears the date 20.6.2016 and in the said document
also only firm name is mentioned. In the said document
no cheque number is mentioned.
23. It is further submitted that the accused has
given many admissions in his cross examination
pertaining to the transaction entered into between himself
and the complainant . The accused has failed to examine
any of the witness of the bank of which he has produced
the documents. The documents produced by the accused
are not believable one.
24. The legal notice is duly served upon the accused
person through his wile Smt.Sudha and this aspect is
clearly admitted by the accused in his cross examination.
11 C.C.No.18965/2013
Hence, on all these grounds the learned counsel for the
complainant prayed to convict the accused person.
25. Further, the learned counsel relied upon the
decisions reported in :-
1. (Rangappa V/s.Mohan) AIR 2010 SC 1898
2. (Augustus Jeba Ananth v/s. A.N.S.S.
Rajashekar) Crl.A.No.285/2009.
3. (S.R.Muralidar V/s.Ashok G.Y) 2001 (4) Kar.L.J.22
4. (Satish Jayantilal Shah and Pankaj) 1996 Crl.L.J. 3099
Mashruwala).
5. Basher v/s.T.N.Radhakrishnan (2007) BC (Kerala)
6. Tekkam and Co.V/s. M.Anitha 2004 Crl.L.J.58 ( Kerala)
7. R.Sudha Maduri Devi V/s.K.Sudha Kagi (2004) B.L.274
(Andrapradesh)
8. B.V.Rangam V/s.B.Govind Reddy - 2004 Cr.L.J.3170
Andhra Pradesh 111 (2004) B.J.485.
9.P.N.Gopinathan V/s.Shivadaran Kunju 2007
Crl.L.J.2776 Kerala.
10. Jasper Singh Bedi V/s.Punjab Sate Govt. 111 (2005)
B.L.273 (Punjabi and Hariyana )
11. Thalamaraju Shesharaj V/s.Sri Kasunte Satyanarayana-11
(2005) B.C.Andhra Pradesh.
12. Ghani Singh V/s.Oswal Steers - Chandighar 2005
12 C.C.No.18965/2013
Crl.C.J.2396 (Punjabi and Hariyana)
13. ICICI Bank Ltd, V/s.Prapula Chandra 2007 (55)
IAC 284 - 286 (Delhi)
14. Vijaya Shivapada Aerodendle V/s.Ashwini Kavadi 2006
Crl.L.J.2036 (Bombay Goa Bench)
26. Hence on all these grounds learned counsel for
the complainant prayed for conviction of the accused
person and award of compensation in favour of the
complainant .
27. Despite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
counsel for the accused neither argued the matter orally
nor filed any written arguments .
28. In this back ground, I have carefully gone
through the documents produced by the complainant
before this court. Ex.P.1 is the cheque in question
dt.4.2.2013. bearing no.678335 of Rs,4,35,000/- . Ex.P.2
is the cheque return memo. Ex.P.3 is the demand notice
dt.19.2.2013. Ex.P3(a) is the postal acknowledgement.
Ex.P3(b) is the postal receipt. Ex.P.4 is the demands and
orders of the creditors dt.31.3.2014 to 31.3. 2016. Ex.P.5
is the statement of accounts of the complainant account
from 1.9.2011 to 30.9.2011. Ex.P.6 is the statement of
accounts of the complainant account from 1.11.2011 to
13 C.C.No.18965/2013
30.11.2011. Ex.P.7 is the statement of account of the
complainant account from 1.12.2011 to 31.12.2011.
Ex.P.8 is the statement of transactions of the complainant
company pertaining to ICICI Bank as on 30.4.2011.
Ex.P.9 is the statement of transactions of the complainant
company pertaining to ICICI Bank as on 31.5.2011.
Ex.P.10 is the statement of transactions of the
complainant company pertaining to ICICI Bank as on
30.9.2011. Ex.P.11 is the statement of transactions of the
complainant company pertaining to ICICI Bank as on
30.11.2011. Ex.P.12 is the statement of transactions of
the complainant company pertaining to ICICI Bank as on
31.12.2011. Ex.P.13 to P.15 are the bills. Ex.P.16 is
the summons issued to the Branch Manager, Vijaya bank ,
Shanthinagar , Bangalore. Ex.P.17 is the authorization
letter issued to the Branch, Manager, Vijaya Bank,
Shanthinagar, Bangalore to adduce evidence before this
court. Ex.P.18 is the statement of account from 1.2.2013
to 28.2.2013 of accused company Roopa Communications.
29. On the other hand, the accused has also
produced Ex.D.1 the letter issued by Vijaya Bank,
Shanthinagar branch, Bangalore stating that Roopa
Communication has been banking with Vijaya Bank since
14 C.C.No.18965/2013
2004 and it is confirmed by the bank in the said letter that
they have not issued any cheque book to the account
holder bearing the cheque no.678335 from their bank.
Ex.D.2 is the statement of account for the period
1.1.2013 to 28.2.2013 of M/S.Roopa Communications.
Ex.D.3 is the letter issued by the Manager, Vijaya Bank
dt.20.6.2016 certifying the Roopa Communications is
having CCM loan account with them since 1.7.2001 and
account closed on 18.6.2005 without any liability.
30. There is no dispute between the parties for being
acquainted with each other. The accused has not at all
denied the cheque in question and that the signature
upon it belongs to him. The only defence of the accused is
that the cheques are old cheques which are misused by the
complainant by filling the blank spaces. He has closed the
said account of the said cheque in question in the year
2005 itself. It is false complaint filed by the complainant
against the accused person .
31. In this back ground the evidence of the parties
have to be considered. No doubt the complainant has
examined PW 1 in support of the complaint and got
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. On careful perusal of the
contents of the complaint, it is found that the complainant
15 C.C.No.18965/2013
has not disclosed the date on which the accused has
placed the orders of advertising with the complainant . No
doubt the complainant has produced the bills
dt.29.10.2011 as marked at Ex.P.13 to P.15. But, on
careful perusal of the contents of the complaint and the
remaining documents , it is found that the cheque is
dt.4.2.2013 but the bills are dt.29.10.2011. But, to
connect these 2 aspects of the matter the complainant has
not stated the date of placing the order of advertisement by
the accused with the complainant. It is also not made
clear by the complainant as to how many advertisements
were placed by the accused and on what date. It appears
that the complainant has simply produced the bills
dt.29.10.2011 , But, the complainant does not have any
supportive pleadings in support of the documents
produced by him.
32. On careful perusal of the cheque in question
marked at Ex.P.1 it is found that the cheque is
dt.4.2.2013. But, the year 19 is printed on the said cheque.
Further , the cheque bears two account numbers. One in
the printed form and the other in the form of hand writing.
The complainant has not marked the alleged signature of
the accused found on the cheque.
16 C.C.No.18965/2013
33. Further Ex.P.2 , which is the cheque return
memo, on careful perusal of the same it is found that the
cheque return memo does not bear any date upon it.
Ex.P.3 is the legal notice dt.19.2.2013 . Ex.P.4 is the
sundry creditor schedule III, IV as on 31.3.2016 wherein in
the name of Roopa Communications Rs.4,35,000/-amount is
mentioned. This schedule is issued by one
Mr.M.K.Nanjegowda Auditor and Tax Consultant. The
complainant has not examined this Auditor and Tax
Consultant before this court.
34. According to the defence of the accused person
the accused has no any transaction with the complainant
and he has not issued any cheque in question in favour of
the complainant as alleged in the complaint. It is the stout
and strong defence of the accused that he has closed the
said account, pertaining to the cheque in question in the
year 2005 itself. To prove this aspect of the matter the
accused has produced Ex.D.1 DT.10.10.2014. This letter
discloses that Roopa Communications was banking with
Vijaya Bank , Shanthinagar, branch, Bangalore vide
account no.119306010324022 since 2004. While going
through, the records it is confirmed by the bank that they
have not issued any cheque book to the account holder
17 C.C.No.18965/2013
bearing no.678335 i.e the cheque in question from their
bank.
35. Further the accused has also produced Ex.D.3
issued by the Branch, Manger, Vijaya Bank, Shanthinagar
branch, Bangalore certifying that Roopa Communications
is having CCM loan account bearing No.119306110
321022 with them since 1.7.2001 and the account has
been closed on 18.6.2005 itself. There were no liability at
the time of closing the account. The bank manager is duly
summoned before this court for the purpose of verification
of the bank letters issued by them. During the course of
evidence PW 2 Arup Jyothi Varthakur the Manager ,
Vijaya Bank, Shanthinagar branch, Bangalore who is
examined as PW 2 has clearly deposed before the court
that sine 2014 , he has been working in the said branch.
Ex.P.2 the memo is issued by the Gandhibazar, branch
and not by Shanthinagar branch. He has clearly admitted
before the court the Ex.P.1, the cheque in question has not
been presented to Shanthinagar branch, but, it is
presented to Gandhibazar branch. The witness also
admitted that Ex.P.1 bears two account numbers. One in
the written form and another in the form of seal. But he
has not confirmed as to the account number in the form of
18 C.C.No.18965/2013
seal on Ex.P.1 pertain to their branch. Despite, of this
the cheque has not been returned but rather it was taken
by the bank upon presentation. Further Pw 2 has clearly
admitted that Ex.D1 and Ex.D.3 are issued by their
branch. The contents of Ex.D1 and D3 are true and
correct. This aspect of the matter clearly goes to show
that the Vijaya Bank have not issued any cheque book to
the account holder bearing cheque no.678335 and the
account standing in the name of Roopa Communications
bearing no.119306110321022 was with them since
1.7.2001 and the same was closed on 18.6.2005 without
any liability. This aspect of the matter further clearly go to
show that the account bearing no. 119306110321022 has
been closed on 18.6.2005 itself. Further Ex.P.2, the
cheque returm memo again creates doubt with regard to
the very case of the complainant since it does not bear any
date upon it. This aspect of the matter clearly go to show
that despite of closure of the account on 18.6.2005 itself,
without any liability, a cheque in this number came to be
presented . The case of the complainant is full of clouds of
suspicion. The writing of the year on the cheque as
2013, mentioning of the account number, one with the
handwrting and one in the printed form , non mentioning
19 C.C.No.18965/2013
of the date on Ex.P.2 , the cheque return memo, absolutely
create a doubt on the very case of the complainant . The
complainant has not provided either any explanation or
document to remove this doubt created in the mind of the
court with regard to the very case of the complainant .
However, PW 2 has clearly admitted in his cross
examination that the contents of Ex.D1 and D3 are true
and correct. The counsel for the complainant has not
subjected him for re-examination.
36. Further , the Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank,
Gandhi Bazaar, i..e Sri.P.Vidyadhar Shetty has also been
summoned before the court and accordingly subjected to
examination by the counsel for complainant . This
witness clearly states in his cross examination that since
2017 he has been working in Vijaya Bank , Gandhibazar,
branch, and Ex.P.1 cheque is not of their branch. The
concerned account pertaining to the said cheque is not in
their branch. It is an account payee cheque and
presented to their bank through the bank challan. This
witness has also admitted in cross examination that
Ex.P.1, the cheque bears two account numbers upon it.
Though Ex.P.1 bears 2 different account numbers and
absolutely no any signature have been made when the
20 C.C.No.18965/2013
date of the cheque is written with the hand writing.
Despite of that the said cheque is taken by the bank
authorities for clearance. Having these many defects in it,
the bank authority should have returned the said cheque
mentioning those defects upon it to be corrected, but,
they have not done so. The cheque also does not have any
seal and signature for having presented the same to the
branch office of the bank. These aspect of the matter
create heavy cloud on the very case of the complainant .
The case of the complainant is full of contradictions and
absolutely no explanation or supportive document provided
by the complainant to overcome these suspicions.
37. However, it is the bounded duty casted upon the
complainant to discharge its burden by proving its case
beyond reasonable doubt. Once the complainant proves
his case, it is for the accused to rebut the same by
producing further cogent and convincing material before
this court or by relying upon the documents produced by
the complainant himself. The accused by raising a defence
that the complainant has misused the old cheques
pertaining to the accused person has rebutted the
presumption available in favour of the complainant . The
accused has produced Ex.D.1 to D3 and the evidence of
21 C.C.No.18965/2013
PW 2 and PW 3 has corroborated with the documents
produced by the accused. The complainant has absolutely
not provided any satisfactory explanation before the court
as to why the cheque Ex.P.1 does not have any seal of the
concerned branch upon presentation . The complainant
has further not at all stated before the court as to why
Ex.P.2, the cheque return memo does not bear any date
upon it. These aspects of the matter create the doubt upon
the very case of the complainant . Therefore, the case of the
complainant is not believable one. The complainant has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the
other hand, the accused by raising probable defence has
rebutted the presumption available in favour of the
complainant .
38. No doubt there are presumption avail in favour
of the complainant as per sec.118 and 139 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act . But, once the accused takes up
probable defence, in order to disprove the case of the
complainant , the said presumption is not available to the
complainant . The accused need not prove his defence
beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if the accused
places before the court as to why the case of the
complainant is not believable one and why the
22 C.C.No.18965/2013
complainant is not entitled for presumption as envisaged
in the provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act . Then the
burden shifts upon the complainant to again disprove the
defence taken by the accused . Here in the present case
the accused by raising a defence that the cheque in
question have been misused by the complainant since the
said cheques are old cheques and the account pertaining
to the accused has been closed by the accused in the year
2005 itself, has raised a doubt in the mind of the court
about the very case of the complainant . Further by cross
examination of PW 2 and PW3, and production of Ex.D1
and D3, further probabalizes the defence taken up by the
accused. Therefore court is of the opinion that the
complainant has miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, in view of this the court is of the
opinion that the case of the complainant is not believable
one and the complainant has utterly failed to prove his
case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, in view of this Point
No.1 is answered in the Negative.
39. Point No.2: In view of the reasons stated and
discussed above, the complainant has miserably failed to
prove the guilt of the accused person for the offence
punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act
23 C.C.No.18965/2013
Hence, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
Exercising the powers conferred upon this court u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby Acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instrument Act. The bail bond of the accused and that of the surety if any stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her , corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of March , 2018).
(SHIRIN JAVEED ANSARI ) XXV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : M.S.Ramamurthy.
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Bank Memo
Ex.P2 : Cheque.
Ex.P3 : office copy of legal notice.
Ex.P3(a)(b) : Acknowledgement and postal
receipt.
Ex.P4 : Sundry Creditor.
Ex.P5-7 : Statement of account
Ex.P8-12 : Summary of accounts.
24 C.C.No.18965/2013
Ex.P13-15 : Credit Bills.
Ex.P16 : Witness summons
Ex.P17 : Authorization Letter of Vijaya Bank.
Ex.P18 : Statement of account.
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:- -
DW1 : Venkatesh Kumar.
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED Ex.D1&3 : Letters.
Ex.D2 : Ledger Extract.
( SHIRIN JAVEED ANSARI ) XXV A.C.M.M.,BANGALORE.25 C.C.No.18965/2013
27.3.2018 For judgment:
ORDER (Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate sheets) Exercising the powers conferred upon this court u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby Acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instrument Act. The bail bond of the accused and that of the surety if any stand cancelled.
XXV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.26 C.C.No.18965/2013