Bangalore District Court
Ravi.V vs Kum.Ranjitha on 2 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 2nd day of December - 2020
PRESENT: SRI. SHRIDHARA.M, B.A., LL.M.,
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.24636/2017
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : Ravi.V,
S/o.Late.Venkataramaiahiah,
Aged about 36 years,
No.219, Vishwaneedam Post,
Tunganagara Herohalli,
Bengaluru-91.
(Rep. by Sri.Nagaraja Hegde, Adv.)
V/S
Accused : Kum.Ranjitha,
D/o.Siddalingappa,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at. No.7, 2nd Cross,
East Part Vishwaneedam Post,
Herohalli, Bengaluru-91.
(Rep.by Sri.M.S.Lokesh, Adv.)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Acquitted.
DATE OF ORDER : 02.12.2020.
(SHRIDHARA.M)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
Judgment 2 C.C.No.24636/2017
JUDGMENT
The complainant has presented the instant complaint against the accused on 27.09.2017 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for dishonour of cheque of Rs.4 lakhs.
2. The some of substance of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant was working in Muttoot Finance as a executive and also doing business. The accused and her mother Nagamani running chit fund business started in the month of October, 2015 with 20 members and the said chit closed on February, 2017. The complainant was one of the member of the chit fund paid the chit fund amount in 16 installments premium at Rs.10,000/- p.m. and in all he paid Rs.1,60,000/- to the accused. The complainant has not taken any amount from the said chit.
The complainant has pleaded that, in addition to the said chit transaction, the accused had taken hand loan amount of Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant by way of cash in the month of September, 2016 and undertakes to repay the same within 6 months. After the closure of the said chit, the accused told him that, she would pay Rs.2 lakhs towards chit amount and also Judgment 3 C.C.No.24636/2017 hand loan amount of Rs.2 lakhs, in all Rs.4 lakhs. The accused have been postponed the payment of one or other reasons.
The complainant has further contended that, on several persistent demands made by him, towards the discharge of legally enforceable debt, the chit amount and the accused liability, she had issued cheque bearing No.344638 dated:09.08.2017 drawn on Bank of India, Bharath Nagar Branch, Magadi Road, Bengaluru, for sum of Rs.4 lakhs and assured to honour the same on the date of cheque.
The complainant has further alleged that, believing the representation and assurance made by the accused, he presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker viz., Axis Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru on 09.08.2017. But on seeing the bank endorsement dated:11.08.2017, he got shock and surprise as the said cheque came to be dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, immediately, he intimated the said factum to the notice of accused, but she did not bother to pay the amount covered under the cheque. Hence, on 26.08.2017, he got issued legal notice to the accused through his counsel and the same came to be served on accused on 29.08.2017. Despite that, the accused neither replied nor paid the Judgment 4 C.C.No.24636/2017 money covered under the cheque. Thereby, she committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, filed the present complaint.
3. After receipt of the private complaint, my predecessor in office took the cognizance and got registered the PCR and recorded the sworn statement. Since made out prima-facie grounds to proceed against the accused for the alleged offence, got issued process.
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared through her counsel and obtained bail. As required, complaint copy was supplied to the accused. Thereafter, accusation was read over and explained to her, wherein, she denied the same and claimed to have the defence.
5. To prove the case of the complainant, he himself choosen to examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The PW.1 is also choosen to examine one witness to the said transaction by name M.Laxminarayana as PW.2. The PW.1 and PW.2 were subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the accused. In the cross-examination of PW.1, accused counsel got confronted one document and same is marked as Ex.D1.
Judgment 5 C.C.No.24636/2017 6. Thereafter, incriminating evidence made against the
accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied the same and answer given by her was recorded. In support of the defence, the accused herself was examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D2 to D11 and also subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the complainant.
7. Both side counsels have addressed their oral arguments.
8. On going through the rival contentions, based on the substantial evidence available on record, the following points have been arising for determination:
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond the reasonable doubt that, in connection to the chit joined by the complainant with the mother of accused, she liable to pay sum of Rs.2 lakhs against Rs.1,60,000/- and also she borrowed loan of Rs.2 lakhs from him during September, 2016 and in turn, for discharge of legal recoverable debt, the accused issued the Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.344638, dated:09.08.2017 for sum of Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, BEL Layout, East West College Road, Bharat Nagar, Bengaluru?
2) Whether the complainant proves the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
3) What Order?
9. On appreciation of materials available on record, my findings on the above points are as under:
Judgment 6 C.C.No.24636/2017 Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NOs.1 and 2: Since both the points are connected with each other, they have taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
The PW.1 to prove his case choosen to examined himself and filed affidavit by reiterating the complaint averments in toto, and produced the documents at Exs.P1 to P5, they are:
a) Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.344638 issued by the accused for sum of Rs.4 lakhs dated:09.08.2017, drawn on State Bank of India, BEL Layout, East West College Road, Bharat Nagar, Bengaluru.
b) Ex.P1(a) is the alleged signature of accused.
c) Ex.P2 is the Bank Memo dated:11.08.2017.
d) Ex.P3 is the Legal Notice dated:26.08.2017.
e) Ex.P4 is the Postal receipt.
f) Ex.P5 is the postal acknowledgment card.
The PW.1 was subjected to the cross-examination by the advocate for the accused. In support of his case the complainant Judgment 7 C.C.No.24636/2017 through his counsel has produced the citation and relied upon same, it is;
a) (2019) 4 SCC 197
11. Thereafter, to prove the case of complainant, though he not cited the witness name M.Laxminarayana through out his pleadings and evidence, he chosen to examined him as PW.2. The PW.2 has filed affidavit evidence in lieu of his chief- examination and on oath he examined as PW.2. The brief facts set out by the PW.2 in his affidavit evidence that:
The PW.2 was the retired Driver in BMTC residing in the address made mentioned in the affidavit at Near Gangamma Temple, Bengaluru. He also stated that, his daughter was residing along with her husband at Herohalli since 10 years, he frequently used to visit her house. During the course of his visit, he met Sri.Muniraju and the complainant herein. The PW.2 was expressed his thought with the brother of the complainant in order to invest some saved money. The brother of the complainant was saying about the investment in chit fund business which was run by the accused and her mother. He told him to invest some amount in the said chit fund, since they also invested. He also stated that, accordingly, he decided to invest the amount and Judgment 8 C.C.No.24636/2017 opened the account in the chit fund, it was run by the accused and her mother by name Nagamani and he started to pay amount Rs.10,000/- p.m. from May, 2016. Since, he informed by the Muniraju and his brother Ravi, the accused and her mother have closed their chit fund business in the month of February, 2017, thereafter, he stopped the payment of money and in all he paid Rs.1 lakh at the time of closure of chit. He also stated, on several persistent request made by the PW.2 with the accused and her mother, they have paid Rs.50,000/- in the month of August, 2017 by way of cash and the remaining amount has not been paid hereto. The accused and her mother have cheated so many peoples like PW.2. The PW.2 was also subjected for cross- examination by the advocate for accused.
12. After detailed cross-examination done by the advocate for accused to the PW.1 and PW.2, the complainant got closed his side. Thereafter, whatever the incriminating evidence made against the accused was read over and explained to her as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, she denied the same and gave his statement that:
"ನನನ, ಪರರದ ನನಡದದತ ರವದದ ಚದಟ ನನನ ತಯಯದದಗ ನಡಸನತತರಲಲಲ ಮತನತ ಪರರದಯದದ ಕಕ ಸಲ ಪಡದಲಲ. ಆದರ ನನನ Judgment 9 C.C.No.24636/2017 ತಯ ನಗಮಣ, ಪರರದ ಸಹಹದದರ ಮನನರಜನ ರವರದದ ನ ಸನಮರನ 2016 ರಲ ಸಲ ಪಡದನ, ನನನ ತಯ ರಹರ1,50,000/- ವನನ ನನನ ಸಹ ಮಡದ ಖಲ ಮಹರನ ಚಕನ ನ ಭದದತಗಗ ನದಡದದರನ. ನನನ ಕ ಗಳನನ ತಯ ತಲ ರಹರ75,000/- ದದತ 2 ಚಕನ ಕ ಗಳನನ ದ , ಮನನರಜನ ನ ನದಡದನ ಒದದನ ಚಕಕನನ ನ ನಗಧದಕರಸ, ಇನಹನದದನ ಚಕಕನನ ನ ಹಗ ಇಟನ ಟ ಕಹದಡದರ.
ನನನ ತಯ ಖತಯಲ ಹಣ ಇದದರಹ ರಹರ75,000/- ನಗಧದಕರಸದ, ಪರರದ ಮನಖದತರ ಹಚಚನ ಹಣ ವಸಹಲಗಗ ಸನಳನ ಳ ಕದಳನ ದಖಲಸದರ. ಚಕಕನ ಮತತ ನದಡಲನ ನನನ ಭದದಳಲಲ."
13. In order to prove the defence of the accused, the accused herself choosen to entered into witness box and orally examined as DW.1 on oath. The accused has deposed that, as alleged by the complainant, she denied either received any loan or any loan for her education and nor gave cheque at Ex.P1 for making any payment. But she put forth her defence that, her mother Nagamani from the elder brother of the complainant by name Sri.Muniraju took hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on 02.04.2017 on the security of 3 signed blank cheques of the accused herein. Accordingly, her mother got cleared the said loan with monthly interest at Rs.7,000/-. Her mother got cleared the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of paying 2 cheques for Rs.75,000/- each to the said Sri.Muniraju and got cleared the said loan on 02.08.2016. Out of the said 2 cheques given by her mother, the cheque for Judgment 10 C.C.No.24636/2017 Rs.75,000/- was encashed by the complainant and another cheque for same amount was not en-cashed, on technical ground therefore within 4 days of dishonour of the another cheque for Rs.75,000/-, her mother got paid the said money covered under the cheque in cash to Sri.Muniraju. The said Sri.Muniraju has not returned cheques to the accused. That apart, the said Sri.Muniraju were not returned her 3 signed blank cheques through her mother as a security for the said loan.
The accused also further deposed that, Sri.Muniraju got misused 3 signed blank cheques obtained from the accused in respect of loan borrowed by her mother, despite, its clearance, he choosen to filed cheque bounce case for Rs.6 lakhs in C.C.No.8691/2017 before learned CJM Court. That apart, he also misused another cheque and through complainant herein he got filed present case for Rs.4 lakhs and another cheque were kept with the said Sri.Muniraju. Her mother was not doing any chit business and in that regard, in response to the legal notice issued by the complainant, she got issued reply. In order to show, she got issued reply, she got produced copy of the notice, postal receipt and acknowledgment and same were got marked at Exs.D2 to D4. In respect of case filed by Sri.Muniraju against the accused, she choosen to produced certified copies of affidavit, Judgment 11 C.C.No.24636/2017 cheque, notice postal receipt and acknowledgment including reply given by accused at Exs.D5 to D11. She not did any kind of monetary transaction with the complainant, hence, she not liable to pay the amount covered under the Ex.P1-cheque. The complainant has filed the false case, because of that, it would cause trouble for her education. Hence, she prayed for her acquittal.
14. Apart from the accused also choosen to produced the documents at Exs.D1 to D11. They are:
a) Ex.D1 is the Bank passbook pertaining to Nagamani, who is the mother of accused herein issued by State Bank of India.
b) Ex.D1(a) is the relevant entry at Ex.D1.
c) Ex.D2 is the reply notice dated:11.10.2017 issued by accused herein through her counsel to the complainant counsel.
d) Ex.D3 is the postal receipt.
e) Ex.D4 is the postal acknowledgment card.
f) Ex.D5 is the certified copy of private complaint in C.C.No.8691/2017, complaint filed by one V.Muniraju against the accused herein.
g) Ex.D6 is the certified copy of affidavit evidence pertaining to V.Muniraju in C.C.No.8691/2017 on the file of learned CJM Court, Bengaluru.
h) Ex.D7 is the certified copy of cheque bearing No.344636 along with bank memo dated:02.08.2017.
Judgment 12 C.C.No.24636/2017
i) Ex.D8 is the copy of reply notice dated:11.10.2017 issued by accused herein through her counsel to the complainant counsel.
j) Ex.D9 is the certified copy of postal receipt.
k) Ex.D10 is the certified copy of postal
acknowledgment card.
l) Ex.D11 is the certified copy of legal notice dated:12.08.2017 issued by V.Muniraju through his counsel to Kum.Ranjitha, who is accused herein.
The DW.1 was subjected to the cross-examination by the advocate for the complainant. Apart from lead defence evidence, the DW.1 through her counsel has produced the citations and relied upon same. They are:
a) 2016(1) AKR 211
b) 2012(3) KCCR 2057
c) 2009 (2) KAR L.J. 98
d) 2016 Crl.L.J.1237
e) 2014 (4) KCCR 3661 (SC)
f) 2014 AIR SCW 2158
g) 2009 (1) KCCR 508
h) 2019(2) AKR 828
15. While appreciate the materials on records and evidence, this court has gone through the decisions stated supra apart from the other decisions.
Judgment 13 C.C.No.24636/2017
16. On going through the rival contentions of the parties, it made clear that, the accused in this case has seriously attack on the claim put forth by the complainant. On going through the materials it discloses, the complainant has brought the present case against the accused based on the questioned cheque at Ex.P1. Therefore, it needs to draw the presumption as per Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As per Section 118(g), it shall be presume that, unless the contrary is prove, the holder of the cheque, the complainant received the cheque for discharge of legal liability. This presumption is rebuttable. Accordingly, Sections 139 and 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it also requires to presume that, cheque was drawn for discharge of liability of drawer, it is presumption under law. Therefore, it made clear that, by virtue of the above said sections stated, it made clear that, it requires to draw statutory presumption in favour of complainant that, in respect of discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt, the accused got issued the Ex.P1-cheque unless and until contrary prove. Therefore, as per those sections, it made clear that, it is the initial onus on the accused to prove her case based on the principles of 'Preponderance of Probabilities'.
Judgment 14 C.C.No.24636/2017 It is require to cite the decision reported in AIR 2010 SCC 1898, in a case between Rangappa V/s Mohan. Wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court pleased to observe that, the obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumption of law or facts unless the accused adduce evidence showing the reasonable probability of non-existence or presumed fact. Wherein also it was pleased to observed that, the accused can prove the non-existence of consideration by raising probable defence. If accused is able to discharge the initial onus of proof of showing that, the existing of consideration was improbably or adverse or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant, who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact, and upon its failure to prove would dis-entitle his to grant the relief on the basis of Negotiable Instruments Act. The burden on the accused of proving the non-existence of consideration can either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by referring to the circumstances upon which, she relies could bare denial of passing consideration apparently does not appears to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the complainant. To disprove the presumption, the accused has to bring on record such facts and circumstances upon the Judgment 15 C.C.No.24636/2017 consideration of which the court may either believe that, consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that, a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon that, it did not exist. Therefore, it made clear that, the accused need to take the probable defence mere denial is not enough.
That apart, in a decision reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4672, in a case between J.Ramaraj V/s Hiyaz Khan. Wherein, it was pleased to observed that, mere denial of issuing cheque, whether is sufficient to discharge the initial burden is to be looked into. In that dictum, it was pleased to held that, mere denial of issuing cheques would not be sufficient as it is time and again noted that, once the cheque issued duly signed by the accused, the presumption goes against him as per Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
17. On going through the provisions referred supra, it made clear that, whereas the presumption must prove that, guilt of accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The standard or proof so as to prove a defence on the part of the accused is 'Preponderance of Probabilities'. Inference of 'Preponderance of Probabilities' can be drawn, not only from the materials brought Judgment 16 C.C.No.24636/2017 on record by parties, but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.
18. On going through the above authorities as well as dictums, it made clear that, it is the initial burden on the accused to prove her probable defence in order to rebut the statutory presumption as well as the case put forth by the complainant.
19. No doubt, in this case the accused has not accepted the claim put forth by the complainant and by way of caused reply as per Ex.D2, she had resisted the claim of complainant. No doubt, the complainant never discloses, as to reply caused by the accused on 11.10.2017 as against the legal notice issued by him as per Ex.P3 dated:26.08.2017. The reply notice came to be served on the advocate for complainant on 12.10.2017 i.e., prior after the presentation of the present case on 27.09.2017. Therefore, unless the receipt of the reply notice at Ex.D2 from the accused question of the complainant pleading the said fact does not arise. From the factum of issue reply notice as per Ex.D2 to D5, it made clear that, after institution of the present case the accused had caused reply. Therefore, it made clear that, before institution the accused has not caused any reply, therefore, the complainant ventured for filing the present case. However, the Judgment 17 C.C.No.24636/2017 reply discloses, the defence taken by the accused, wherein she not accepted the claim put forth by the complainant. The same defence has been continued after mark her appearance in the present case and on the same line she choosen to cross-examine the PW.1 and PW.2.
20. That apart, herself took the risk to enter into the witness box and deposed. On going through the defence taken by the accused it requires to appreciate on priory as it is the initial burden on her to rebut the case of complainant as well as statutory presumption. If she successfully rebutted her probable defence and created doubt as to the bonafidness and genuineness of transaction set out by the complainant, then reverse burden as enumerated under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, would be casted on the complainant. Therefore, it made clear that, it is initial burden on the accused to prove her defence.
21. No doubt, as condensed the oral evidence of the accused, the accused has denied the very transaction put forth by the complainant, but placed her defence altogether differently by contending under what compelling circumstances her questioned cheque came into the hands of complainant. It is significant fact Judgment 18 C.C.No.24636/2017 to note that, the accused had revealed the different transaction held between the brother of complainant by name Mr. stated that, on 02.04.2018 her mother borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the elder brother of the complainant on the security of 3 signed blank cheques of the accused. More categorically she stated that, the said loan of Rs.1,50,000/- were repaid by her by way of 2 cheques amounting to Rs.75,000/- each and one cheque got encashed and another cheque on technical ground dishonoured, therefore, then 4 days from its dishonour, she got repaid cash to him and also she paid the interest at Rs.7,000/- p.m. to the said Mr.V.Muniraju. Despite, clear the said loan by the mother of accused, the said Mr.V.Muniraju was not returned her 3 signed blank cheques and ventured for misuse the same by filing separate cases through complainant herein as well as Mr.V.Muniraju by himself in C.C.No.8691/2017. By deposing so, the accused has attack on the claim of complainant and strongly projected her defence that, in respect of the loan transaction held between brother of complainant and her mother, she got issued her 3 signed blank cheque as security, despite got cleared the said loan his brother not returned the security cheques and filed the false case through the complainant herein as well as Mr.V.Muniraju himself. The said factum was suggested to the Judgment 19 C.C.No.24636/2017 PW.1 during his cross-examination. The PW.1 has clearly admitted that, Mr.V.Muniraju was his elder brother. He also admitted that, Smt.Nagamani is the mother of accused.
22. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, the said defence was suggested to the PW.1, but he denied the same. He also denied the suggestion that, the monetary transaction only held between Mr. V.Muniraju and mother of accused. But when the accused was attack with specific particulars with documentary evidence on the PW.1 and when suggested about the monetary transaction held between brother of complainant and mother of accused by holding security signed blank cheques of the accused, then PW.1 has deposed that:
"ಆರಹದಪಯ ತಯ, ನನನ ಅಣಣನದದ ಪಡದ ರಹರ1,50,000/- ಗಳನನ ನ ತನನ ತಯಯ ಖತಯದದ ತಲ ರಹರ75,000/- ಹಣವನನ ನ ಚಕ ಮನಖದತರ ದನದಕರ02.08.2017 ರದದನ ಪವತ ಮಡದರದದರ ಸರಯಲಲ. ಸಕಗ ಬದದಕನ ಪಸಪಸತಕವನನ ನ ತಹದರಸ ಅದರಲ ನ ನಹದಡ ನನನ ಅಣಣ ಮನನರಜನ ಖತಗ ಹಹದಗದ ದಖಲತಯನನ ಎದಬನದಗ ಒಪಪಕಹದಡ ಮದರಗ ಬದದಕನ ಪಸ ಪಸತಕವನನ ನ ನಡ-1, ದನದಕರ02.08.2017 ರ ನಮಹದತಯನನ ನ ನಡ-1(ಎ) ಎದಬನದಗ ಗನರನತಸಲಯತನ. ಮತಹತದದನ ಚಕನ ದ , ಕ ಆರಹದಪಯ ತಯ ನದಡದನ ಅದನ ತದತದಕ ಕರಣ ನಗದಗಸದ ಕರಣ, ಆರಹದಪಯ ತಯ ಉಳದ ರಹರ75,000/- ನಗದಗ ಪವತ ಮಡದರ ಎದದರ, ಅವರಗ Judgment 20 C.C.No.24636/2017 ಮಡರಬಹನದನ ನನಗ ಗಹತತಲಲ ಎದದನ ನನಡಯನತತರ. ಆರಹದಪಯ ತಯ, ನನನ ಅಣಣನಗಹ ಕಹಡ ಚದಟಯ ಮತತವನನ ನ ಪವತಸಲಲ ಎದದನ ನನಡಯನತತರ. ನನನ ಅಣಣ ಆರಹದಪಯದದ ಪಡದದತಹ 3 ಚಕನ ನ , ಕ ಗಳನನ ಆಕಯ ತಯ ರಹರ1,50,000/- ಗಳನನ ನ ಸದಪಣರವಗ ಮರನಪವತಸದದರಹ ಕಹಡ ನನನ ಅಣಣ ಚಕನ ನ ಒದದಲಲ ಒದದನ ಕರಣಕಕ ಕ ಗಳನನ ಆರಹದಪಗ ಹದತರನಗಸರಲಲಲ ಎದದರ ಸರಯಲಲ. ನಪ-1 ಚಕನ ಕ ಖಲ ಸಹ ಕ ಗಳ ಪಕಕ ಪಡದದದ ಎದದರ ಸರಯಲಲ.
ನ ನನನ ಅಣಣ, ಆ 3 ಚಕನ ಮಡದ ಚಕಕನನ ಅಲಲದ ನನನ ಅಣಣ, ಆರಹದಪಯ ವರನದದ ಮತಹತದದನ ಚಕಕನನ ನ ರಹರ4 ಲಕ ವಸಹಲತಗಗ, ಚಕ ಬನನ ಪದಕರಣ ದಖಲ ಮಡದರ ಎದದರ ಇರಬಹನದನ. ಸಕ ಸಸತರ ಮನದದನವರದನ, ಆರಹದಪ ಮತನತ ಆಕಯ ನ ನನನ ಅಣಣನಗ ಕಹಡಬದಕಗದ ಎದದನ ಆ ತಯ ಚದಟಯ ಹಣವನನ ಪದಕರಣ ದಖಲನ ಮಡದರ ಎದದನ ಸಸತರ ನನಡಯನತತರ. ನನನ ಮತನತ ಆರಹದಪಯ ನಡನವ ದಹರನಲ ಕಣಸದ ರವದದ ಹಣಕಸನ ವದವಹರ ನಡದಲಲ ಎದದರ ಸರಯಲಲ. ನನನ ದಹರನಲ ಆರಹದಪಯ ತಯಗ ರಹರ1,50,000/- ಗಳನನ ನ ಹಗಹ ರಹರ2 ಲಕಗಳನನ ನ ನದಡದನ ಎದದನ ಕಣಸದನ ಎದದರ ಸರಯಲಲ. ಸಕ ಅವರಬಬರಗಹ ಸದರಸ ಕಹಟಟದನ ಎದದನ ಸಸತರ ನನಡಯನತತರ."
23. On going through the testimony of PW.1, it was specifically suggested to him by the advocate for accused that, the mother of the accused got cleared the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- borrowed from the brother of the complainant by way of issue separate 2 cheques and got cleared the loan on 02.08.2017, but the PW.1 has denied the same. When suggested so, he blindly denied, Judgment 21 C.C.No.24636/2017 thereafter, the bank passbook entries which reflected the name of elder brother of the complainant were shown to him, wherein mentioned the entry dated:02.08.2017, then the PW.1 has admitted that, money were remitted to the bank account of his brother. Then the said bank passbook got marked at Ex.D1 and necessary entries at Ex.D1(a) which discloses, the payment of Rs.75,000/- to his bank account on 02.08.2017 got marked . By deposing so, the PW.1 has clearly admitted that, the mother of the accused got paid Rs.75,000/- to the account of his brother. Thereafter, the suggestions were made to PW.1 that, remaining amount of Rs.75,000/- the mother of the accused were issued cheque to his brother, the same came to be not encashed, on account technical error, therefore, then she got paid cash of Rs.75,000/- in respect of the technical error cheque is not been denied by the PW.1, but he deposed, he does not know, as to the accused mother could have been paid money to Mr.V.Muniraju,. But he go on answering on stereo type that, the mother of accused has not paid chit amount to him as well as his brother. Thereby, the PW.1 has projected that, along with complainant, his brother Mr.V.Muniraju also joined chit with the mother of accused. Except he cited his brother name, he never cited any other particulars, who joined chit with the mother of accused, if she runs Judgment 22 C.C.No.24636/2017 is not been suggested. But the accused advocate were suggested to the PW.1 that, despite, accused mother got cleared her Rs.1,50,000/- to Mr.V.Muniraju, he did not returned 3 cheques of the accused for want of other reasons. There was suggestion made to PW.1 that, Ex.P1-cheque was obtained in signed blank cheque by the brother of complainant along with other 2 cheques. The PW.1 has denied the same. There was suggestion made to him as to filing of another case by Mr.V.Muniraju against the accused with regard to the cheque bounce of Rs.4 lakhs, but the PW.1 directly not admitted nor denied, but cleverly answered that, may by and volunteers that, the accused and her mother in connection to the chit needs to pay money to her, his brother also. Thereby, the PW.1 has go on reasserted that, accused and her mother needs to pay the chit amount to him as well as to his brother. But the accused has denied by way of suggestion that, as alleged in the complaint, there were no monetary transaction held between complainant and accused.
24. The PW.1 has deposed at the fag end that, as to the suggestion made to him that, in the complaint he alleged that, to the mother of the accused, he gave Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.2 lakhs, but the PW.1 has deposed that, including the accused and her mother gave money. The very evidence of PW.1 discloses the Judgment 23 C.C.No.24636/2017 contradictory statement. If at all, the complainant and his brother run chit with the mother of accused definitely, the same could have been stated in the pleading. But except gave explanation in the cross-examination contrary to his own pleading and evidence, nothing has satisfactorily explained. If at all, other than Mr.V.Muniraju any other members were joined to the chit alleged to be run by the mother of the accused, definitely, it was the duty of the complainant to disclose these particulars, but for the reasons better known to him not disclosed the same. The PW.1 has conceded the true affairs of monetary transaction held between Mr.V.Muniraju and mother of the accused. When he saw the documentary evidence at Ex.D1 he got admitted the remittance of Rs.75,000/- through the bank account and not denied the another payment of Rs.75,000/- by way of cash to Mr.V.Muniraju. When the admitted loan of Rs.1,50,000/- got proved by the accused as repaid to Mr.V.Muniraju. Then it is the complainant needs to explain, on which source his brother Mr.V.Muniraju got paid the said loan were he expected any security cheques as alleged by the accused from the mother of the accused or any other documentary evidence secured nothing has been whispered. Normally, without obtaining any security document or at least in the presence of witness, person would Judgment 24 C.C.No.24636/2017 take risk to pay the loan as the same would be security for at least recover the said loan. In that regard, the complainant has not explained anything. When accused go on attack on the claim of complainant that, the brother of the complainant got misused 3 signed blank cheques of the accused, which gave as security for the clear loan of Rs.1,50,000/-, for the reasons better known to complainant, he not drag his brother before the court of law to rebut the defence taken by the accused. Which would leads to draw the adverse inference. Accordingly, drawn adverse inference that, the PW.1 has admitted the said transaction as suggested by the accused advocate, hence, he not ventured to not specifically denied the monetary transaction held between his brother Mr.V.Muniraju and mother of the accused on the security of 3 signed blank cheques of the accused herein. Hence, it need to draw the inference that, since the transaction put forth by the accused were to be true, the said Mr.V.Muniraju avoided to enter into witness box to reveal the truth.
25. On going through the above testimony of PW.1, he also reasserted that, complainant and Mr.V.Muniraju joined chit with Smt.Nagamani. If their allegation is that, Smt.Nagamani was not paid chit money to both of these persons, how it possible to Mr.V.Muniraju lent loan of Rs.1,50,000/- and got received the Judgment 25 C.C.No.24636/2017 same money from the mother of accused as found in Ex.D1(a) and received the cash of Rs.75,000/- itself creates doubt. If at all, the mother of the accused were not paid the chit amount either to the complainant or to his brother, definitely, once again either complainant as alleged in the present complaint lent Rs.2 lakhs or his brother lent loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the mother of accused does not arise. When the chit transaction was not run properly and if the mother of accused were not repaid the chit money transaction of these 2 persons lent loan to the mother of the accused does not arise and no prudent man would come forward to pay to the other persons, when earlier loan got not cleared by them. Thereby, it creates strong doubtful circumstances from the evidence suggested to PW.1.
26. That apart, the accused in the witness box has reasserted her chief-examination and denied the alleged borrowing of loan of Rs.2 lakhs and liability of the accused and her mother in connection to the alleged chit premium paid by the complainant in between October, 2015 to February, 2017 for sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, against the same the accused and her mother undertakes to repay the same Rs.2 lakhs. If at all, as pleaded by the complainant, the accused and her mother run the chit business during the aforesaid period, definitely, it needs to Judgment 26 C.C.No.24636/2017 suggest to DW.1. On close perusal of the evidence of DW.1, it was suggested to her, as to the payment of Rs.1,60,000/- at Rs.10,000/- p.m. in between 2015 - 2017. If at all, the accused and her mother run the chit and 20 members were subscribed definitely, it is the complainant needs to suggest the DW.1 and require to examine any one of the witness to prove the same. The particulars of members is not disclosed by the complainant herein and not explained in the cross of PW.1 nor suggested to DW.1. Contrary to the same, the father-in-law of Mr.V.Muniraju, who is none other than close relative of the complainant herein, all of sudden brought into witness box and he filed affidavit evidence as PW.2.
27. The PW.2 deposed that, he was residing near Gangamma Temple, Bengaluru-90 and since 10 years he used to visit to his daughter's house. The evidence of PW.2 made clear that, he was very much interested witness as father-in-law of Mr.V.Muniraju and hence, much scope cannot be given for his evidence. If at all, he also paid chit premium of Rs.10,000/- during the month of May, 2016 onwards and got paid Rs.1 lakhs and the mother of accused got returned Rs.50,000/- and due still Rs.50,000/- definitely, it also require to suggest to DW.1. But no such suggestion were made to DW.1, as to subscription made by PW.2 either with the Judgment 27 C.C.No.24636/2017 accused or her mother. So also pertinent to note that, if at all, other than PW.2 any other members were joined, definitely, any independent witness in that regard could have been examine, but no such effort is been made. Since, the PW.2 was the close relative of Mr.V.Muniraju and complainant herein, though he tendered for cross-examination, he admitted that, the complainant is his friend. So no additional weight cannot be given to the evidence of PW.2. As he was very much interested to support the case of complainant and Mr.V.Muniraju.
28. That apart, during the course of cross of PW.2, when suggested to him that, were any telephonic conversion were made with Smt.Nagamani in connection to the chit transaction or messages passed, the PW.2 has deposed that, there was no need to collect the telephone number of her. Without any proof or contact particulars, how can one persons came forward to invest the huge amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m. in connection to the alleged chit creates doubt. The PW.2 does not fit the telephonic number of the accused or his mother, but stated that, he invested the chit money of Rs.1 lakh, therefore, it also one of the ground to suspect his bonafidness.
Judgment 28 C.C.No.24636/2017
29. During the course of cross of PW.1, the complainant has not suggested exactly when the accused and her mother started the chit business, how many members with their particulars were joined and who were bid the chit and where they used to gather in connection to the chit transaction, nothing has been suggested to DW.1. Simply taking the calculation commencing from October, 2015 till February, 2017 complainant gave chit amount of Rs.1,60,000/- to the accused and the said amount was not paid by the accused and her mother to the complainant. From which it made clear that, the complainant has projected that, whatever the alleged chit amount payable by the accused or her mother itself is not been paid to the complainant, then how he once again repose confidence on them, during the month of September, 2016 gave the loan of Rs.2 lakhs to the accused. Normally, who joined the chit, would not come forward to do other money transaction as they could have in the apprehension to recover the invested amount in chit. Contrary to the same, without taken back the chit amount and there is no allegation against the accused as to cause defraud to other members or any other, complainant alleging to pay the loan of Rs.2 lakhs is also not been specifically suggested.
Judgment 29 C.C.No.24636/2017
30. During the course of cross of PW.1, apart from failure to prove the alleged chit transaction held by the complainant either with the accused or with her mother, he also failed to prove the alleged lent of loan of Rs.2 lakhs. If at all, the complainant lent Rs.2 lakhs to the accused, it is him to explain, on which date, where, how he mobilized the fund and on which security despite, due of chit amount, he came forward to pay another Rs.2 lakhs itself creates doubt. Therefore, the specification with regard, transaction needs to be suggested to DW.1. the PW.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that, complainant was studied final year B.Com., as he deposed dated:09.05.2018. Contrary to the same, when deposed on 21.08.2019, it was suggested to DW.1 that, in the year 2016-17, for the MBA education purpose, the mother of the accused borrowed loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant, but she categorically denied the same and gave her explanation that, her father being an advocate was economically sound and no needs to borrow loan. The PW.1 deposed, accused was studied B.Com., final year and during the course of cross of DW.1, it was suggested for further education of MBA her mother took the loan, which contradicts each other. Therefore, the evidence of DW.1 which clearly manifest her defence and denied the suggestion of she and her mother run the chit and their liability Judgment 30 C.C.No.24636/2017 to pay Rs.2 lakhs against the chit premium of Rs.1,60,000/- also borrowed the alleged loan of Rs.2 lakhs.
31. Though, complainant has projected the present case on 2 fold, by alleging, the accused liable to pay chit amount of Rs.2 lakhs against Rs.1,60,000/- and alleged to be borrowed loan of Rs.2 lakhs, nothing has been suggested to DW.1. The DW.1 whatever the blind suggestion made by the complainant as strongly denied the same and withstood her contention and she able to demonstrate that, except the loan transaction between Mr.V.Muniraju and her mother for the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- on the security of her 3 signed blank cheques and despite cleared the said loan as found in Ex.D1 as well as un-denied evidence PW.1, Mr.V.Muniraju got projected the present case through the complainant. The PW.1 nothing has elicited from the mouth of DW.1 to prove the guilt as alleged by the complainant.
32. The factum of Mr.V.Muniraju and complainant choosen to filed separate cases before this court as well as learned C.J.M.Court is not in dispute. The accused has alleged that, Mr.V.Muniraju has filed cheque bounce case for Rs.6 lakhs, apart from the complainant has filed the present case. It clearly discloses that, one person can do the monetary transaction, if Judgment 31 C.C.No.24636/2017 regular repayment is made. In case, as alleged in the present case, if other part has not repaid the loan amount, either the complainant or his brother would not choosen to come forward to do again the monetary transaction with the defaulted person. The filing of separate cases by Mr.V.Muniraju and complainant herein against the accused it revealed that, security cheque given by the accused in connection to the loan transaction held between complainant and mother of accused, made the accused as scapegoat by misusing her Negotiable Instruments and very act of the complainant and his brother has to be depricated. Since, the probable defence set out by the accused appears to be true, the brother of the complainant had avoided to enter into witness box and depose with regard to the true transaction. Though the complainant has projected the present case has utterly failed to made out the sufficient circumstances, as to his financial capacity to pay the chit premium of Rs.1,60,000/- either to the accused or her mother, or lent the alleged loan of Rs.4 lakhs during the month of September, 2016. When he himself unable to possessed financial capacity question of lent the accused or or her mother as alleged does not arise. The complainant has failed to prove the reverse burden consequent to the accused as rebutted the statutory presumption as well as the case put forth by the Judgment 32 C.C.No.24636/2017 complainant. By virtue of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in view of the accused strongly disprove the case of complainant, it is reverse burden on the complainant to prove his case beyond the reasonable doubt.
It is well worthy to cite the decision reported in 2008 AIR SCC 7702 (P. Venugopal V/s.Madan P. Sarathi). Wherein, it was pleased to held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"The presumption raised does not extent to the expenditure that cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or liability. Which is required to be proved by the complainant. However, it is essentially a question of fact".
Added to that, in a decision of AIR 2008 SC 278 between John K John V/s. Tom Verghees, the Hon'ble Apex court it is held that:
"The presumption under Section 139 could be raised in respect of some consideration and burden is on the complainant to show that he had paid amount shown in the cheque. Whenever there is huge amount shown in the cheque, though the initial burden is on the accused, it is equally necessary to know how the complainant advanced such a huge amount".
Judgment 33 C.C.No.24636/2017
33. From the point of above dictums also, it was the reverse burden casted upon the complainant to establish the very case beyond the reasonable doubt in order to convict the accused.
34. As discussed earlier, in the pleading itself the complainant has failed to disclose and explained in his evidence as to, the accused and her mother had run the chit business, wherein, complainant and his brother or any other 20 persons have joined and he paid chit premium of Rs.10,000/- p.m. from October, 2015 to February, 2017. He also failed to discloses, the participant names and not choosen to brought any one of the independent subscriber other than the interested witness at PW.2. If at all, the mother of accused liable to pay the chit amount of Rs.1,60,000/-, how the complainant is expected to enhance that amount Rs.2 lakhs is also created doubt. The complainant has not discloses, exactly how he possessed the requisite fund of Rs.2 lakhs, enable him to pay loan to the accused. Even he not discloses, when chit amount was not cleared by the accused or her mother, how he ventured to pay loan of Rs.2 lakhs is not been explained. The complainant has utterly failed to demonstrate his case with proper particulars by way of examining necessary witnesses.
Judgment 34 C.C.No.24636/2017
35. As discussed above, the complainant has not furnished better particulars with regard to the chit transaction as well as the alleged lent of loan to the accused. If at all, the accused and her mother needs to pay the money to the brother of complainant, once again complainant no needs to pay loan of Rs.2 lakhs. He utterly failed to prove the alleged chit transaction done by the accused or her mother. The complainant also failed to prove that, accused got issued the questioned cheque at Ex.P1 for payment of Rs.4 lakhs. First of all, the complainant has utterly failed to demonstrate that, he had invested Rs.4 lakhs on the accused or his mother, as he alleged in connection to the chit as well as by way of loan. When he failed to prove that, he had that much financial capacity, question of handed over the said money to accused or her mother does nor arise. The complainant has utterly failed to prove that, the amount made mentioned in the cheque is the legally enforceable debt, payable by the accused. On the other hand, the accused has successfully demonstrated her defence that, despite, her mother got cleared the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at Rs.7,000/- p.m. to Mr.V.Muniraju, who is the brother of complainant herein, he without returned her 3 signed blank cheques, he ventured to filed the false case through the complainant herein as well as himself before the Judgment 35 C.C.No.24636/2017 learned C.J.M.Court. The very act of the complainant and his brother clearly demonstrated that, they are misused the Negotiable Instruments against the object of introduction of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the very act of the complainant and his brother has to be depricated. Therefore, his brother avoided to enter into witness box and disclose the true affairs of the transaction. The accused has successfully rebutted the statutory presumption as well as the facts and circumstances put forth by the complainant. Therefore, it is the consider opinion of this court, complainant has utterly failed to discharge the reverse burden to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for acquittal.
36. On overall appreciation of the material facts available on record, it discloses that, despite the accused harping on the very claim of the complainant, he fails to demonstrate his very case. While appreciate the materials available on record, this court has humbly gone through the decision relied by both parties apart from the following decisions.
In the decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2331 (B.Indramma V/s. Sri.Eshwar). Wherein, the Hon'ble Court held that:
Judgment 36 C.C.No.24636/2017 "Held, when the very factum of delivery of the cheque in question by the accused to the complainant and its receipt by complainant from the accused itself is seriously disputed by the accused, his admission in his evidence that, the cheque in question bares his signature would not be sufficient proof of the fact that, he delivered the said cheque to the complainant and the latter received if from the former".
37. The principle of law laid down in the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Merely because, the accused admits that, cheque bares her signature, that, does not mean that, the accused issued cheque in discharge of a legally payable debt.
At this stage, this court also relies upon another decision reported in AIR 2007 NOC 2612 A.P. (G.Veeresham V/s. Shivashankar and another). Wherein, the Hon'ble Court has held as under:
"Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881). S. 138 Dishonour of cheque - Presumptions available to complainant under S. 118 and S. 139 of Act - Rebuttal of cheque in question was allegedly issued by accused to discharge hand loan taken from complainant. However, no material placed on record by complainant to prove alleged lending of hand loan said fact is sufficient to infer that, accused is liable to Judgment 37 C.C.No.24636/2017 rebut presumptions available in favour of complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of Act, Order acquitting accused for offence under S. 138 proper".
38. The principle of law laid down in the above decisions is applicable to the facts of this case. In the case on hand also, as discussed above, the complainant has failed to prove with cogent evidence as to the lending of loan to the accused. Thus, that fact itself is sufficient to infer that, accused is able to rebut presumptions available in favour of complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
In a decision reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3366 (M.S.Narayana Menon Alian Mani V/s. State of Kerala and another). The Hon'ble Apex court held that:
"Once the accused discharges the initial burden placed on him the burden of proof would revert back to the prosecution".
39. In this case on hand also, on the lack of the complaint failed to prove the alleged loan transaction, it can gather the probability that, she is not liable to pay Ex.P1 cheque amount of Rs.4 lakhs and it is not legally recoverable debt. So, the burden is on the complainant to prove strictly with cogent and believable evidence Judgment 38 C.C.No.24636/2017 that, the accused has borrowed the cheque amount and she is legally liable to pay the same. Just because, there is a presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, that, will not create any special right to the complainant so as to initiate a proceeding against the drawer of the cheque, who is not at all liable to pay the cheque amount. The accused has taken her defence at the earliest point of time, while record accusation and statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by way of denial. The evidence placed on record clearly probablize that, complainant has failed to prove that, accused issued the cheque for discharge of liability of Rs.4 lakhs. Hence, complainant has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Apart from that, in a decision reported in, KCCR 12 (3) page 2057, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"Mere issuance of cheque is not sufficient unless it is shown that, the said cheque was issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt. When the financial capacity of complainant is questioned, the complainant has to establish his financial capacity".
Judgment 39 C.C.No.24636/2017
40. In the case on hand, accused has questioned the financial capacity of complainant. Complainant has not produced any document to show his financial capacity to lend the amount to accused. When complainant has failed to prove the transaction alleged in the complaint, then the question of issuing the cheque for discharge of Rs.4 lakhs does not arise. The evidence placed on record clearly probablize that, complainant has failed to prove that, accused issued the cheque for discharge of liability of Rs.4 lakhs. Hence, complainant has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
41. From the above elaborate discussions, it very much clear that, the complainant has failed to adduce cogent and corroborative evidence to show that, accused has issued cheque Ex.P1 in discharge of her legally payable debt for valid consideration. Hence, rebutted the legal presumptions under Section 139 and 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the accused.
42. The sum and substances of principles laid down in the rulings referred above are that, once it is proved that, cheque pertaining to the account of the accused is dishonoured and the Judgment 40 C.C.No.24636/2017 requirements envisaged under Section 138 of (a) to (c) of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied, then it has to be presumed that, cheque in question was issued in discharge of legally recoverable debt. The presumption envisaged under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is mandatory presumption and it has to be raised in every cheque bounce cases. Now, it is settled principles that, to rebut the presumption, accused has to set up a probable defence and she need not prove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
43. Thus, on appreciation of evidence on record, I hold that, the complainant has failed to prove the case by rebutting the presumption envisaged under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant has failed to discharge the initial burden to prove his contention as alleged in the complaint. Hence, the complainant has not produced needed evidence to prove that, amount of Rs.4 lakhs legally recoverable debt. Therefore, since the complainant has failed to discharge the reverse burden, question of appreciating other things and weakness of the accused is not a ground to accept the claim of the complainant in its entirety without the support of the substantial documentary evidence pertaining to the said transaction. The complainant fails to prove his case beyond all Judgment 41 C.C.No.24636/2017 reasonable doubt. As discussed above, the complainant has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answered the Point Nos.1 and 2 are Negative.
44. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of December
- 2020) (SHRIDHARA.M) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : Ravi PW.2 : M.Laxminarayana
List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P1 : Original Cheque Judgment 42 C.C.No.24636/2017 Ex.P1(a) : Signature of accused Ex.P2 : Bank endorsement Ex.P3 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P4 : Postal receipt Ex.P5 : Postal Acknowledgment card
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
DW.1 : Ranjitha.S List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
Ex.D1 : Bank passbook
Ex.D1(a) : Relevant entry at Ex.D2
Ex.D2 : Office copy of reply notice
Ex.D3 : Postal receipt
Ex.D4 : Postal acknowledgment card
Ex.D5 : CC of private complaint in C.C.No.8691/2017
Ex.D6 : CC of affidavit evidence in C.C.No.8691/2017
Ex.D7 : CC of cheque along with bank memo
Ex.D8 : CC of reply notice
Ex.D9 : CC of postal receipt
Ex.D10 : CC of postal acknowledgment card
Ex.D11 : CC of legal notice
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 43 C.C.No.24636/2017
02.12.2020.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment
Case called out.
Complainant and accused are
absent. No representation from both side
advocates, despite, web-host the case
proceedings and intimate the date of
pronouncement of judgment. Hence, as
per Section 353(6) of Cr.P.C. the following judgment is pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
***** ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.