Bangalore District Court
Sri.D.K.Rajashekar vs No.3 Aged About 50 Years on 18 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63), BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016
P R E S E N T:-
Sri.Parameshwara Prasanna.B
B.A., LL.B,
LXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1073 /2015
APPELLANT/ Sri.D.K.Rajashekar,
ACCUSED No.3 Aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.488/1,
Begur road, Bommanahalli,
Bangalore-560 068.
(By Sri.Abdul Rehaz Khan,
Advocate)
.Vs.
RESPONDENT No.1 Sri.N.Ramkumar,
COMPLAINANT S/o late Narasaraju,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at No.14, 37th Cross,
11th main, 4th 'T' Block,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru-11.
(By Sri. Gopal Advocate)
RESPONDENT No.2 Sri.Ravi,
ACCUSED NO.1 S/o Doreswamy,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at No.490, 13th Cross,
2 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015
Sastrynagar, Near Garadi Apartments,
K.R.Road, BSK II Stage, II Block,
Bangalore-560 050.
RESPONDENT No.3 Sri.Prakash.K,
ACCUSED NO.2 S.o Keshavalu Naidu,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at No.91, 7th main,
BSK 1st stage, 2nd block,
Bangalore-560 050.
(By Sri. Chandrashekar, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C by appellant/accused No.3 against the Judgment dated 25.07.2015 passed in C.C.No.26648/2010 by the learned XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, wherein the said trial Court convicted the appellant/accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.7,60,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I for one year and out of fine amount a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- has been ordered to be paid complainant as compensation and balance amount of Rs.5,000/- ordered to be defrayed to the State for expenses incurred in the prosecution. 3 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their litigative status/rank before the trial Court. The appellant is the accused No.3, 1st respondent is the complainant and 2nd and 3rd respondents are accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively before the trial Court.
3. The 1st respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the accused Nos.1 to 3 before the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Based on the said complaint, cognizance was taken, sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and the case was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.26648/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Upon service of summons, accused Nos.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and plea of accused Nos.1 to 3 were recorded. Accused Nos.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty.
4. During the course of trial, in order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant got examined himself as Pw.1 and examined one more witness Sri.Shashidhar as Pw.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.23. Accused Nos.1 to 3 when examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C 4 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 denied all incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have not led any evidence, whereas accused No.3 examined himself as Dw.1 & got marked Ex.D.1.
5. After hearing both the parties, the court below convicted the accused No.3/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence of the trial court, the appellant/accused No.3 has filed this criminal appeal by challenging the Judgment of the trial Court on the following grounds:
1) The trial Court has totally erred to appreciate the admission made by the complainant during his cross-
examination that, there was no transaction between the complainant and accused No.3 and the trial Court wrongly drawn the presumption in favour of the complainant.
2) The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that Exs.P.1 and P.3 was never issued to the complainant by the accused No.3 and there is no legal liability as against accused No.3 and accused No.3 never agreed to discharge the alleged debt of accused Nos.1 and 2.
5 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015
3) The trial Court failed to appreciate Exs.P.22 and P.23 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that Cheques in question were issued in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 along with Cheque number which fact has not at all been considered or discussed in the Judgment and without any basis trial Court has come to wrong conclusion.
4) The admission made by the complainant during cross-
examination that he has not entered into any kind of transaction with accused No.3 has not at all considered by the trial Court. Even though, no documents produced to show that the complainant entered into a agreement for sale with accused Nos.1 and 2.
5) The trial Court wrongly come to conclusion that, there was agreement for sale between plaintiff and accused Nos.1 and 2.
6) The trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that, the dispute in respect of the land has been resolved by accused No.3 himself with Mr.Lingegowda and his children by paying the Cheque amount to Lingegowda and his children and A.3 got Ex.D.1 which is a registered document, with a prior intimation to accused Nos.1 and 2, which fact has not at all been denied by accused Nos.1 and 2, which fact has not been considered by the trial Court. 6 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015
7) The trial Court failed to considered that hand writing on Exs.P.1 and P.3 and ink used therein differs from the name written and the amount and the date mentioned at Exs.P.1 and Ex.P.3 which fact has been admitted by Pw.1 during cross-examination.
8) Even though there is legal liability by accused No.3 and even though at no pint of time accused No.3 agreed to discharge alleged debt. The trial Court blindly and wrongly drawn the presumption and convicted accused No.3.
9) The trial Court has passed the impugned Judgment of conviction only the main ground that accused No.3 has issued Exs.P.1 and Ex.P.3 Cheques, but the trial Court failed to note that Cheque was issued by accused No.3 to accused Nos.1 and 2 and not to the complainant.
Inter-alia on these grounds, the appellant/accused No.3 has sought for allowing of this appeal by setting aside the impugned order of Judgment and conviction.
6. On service of notice, the respondents appeared before the court through their counsel. The lower court records secured from the trial court for reference. Heard arguments of both the side. Both the counsels in addition to oral arguments filed written arguments. 7 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 Perused the lower Court records and impugned judgment and written arguments.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on following citations:
1) 2012(2) AIR KAR R 256, in the case of S.A.Asabastian v/s G.Thipperangaiah.
2) Judgment dated 29.03.2012 of Madras High Court in Crl.R.C (MD) No.764/2010.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.1/compalinat has relied on following citations:
1) KER.L.J.1993 (2) Page No.253, High Court of Kerala, in the case of Alexander /vs/ Joseph Chacko
2) (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 426, in the case of ICDS Ltd., /vs/ Beena Shaveer and another,
3) 2002 Crl.L.J.4195, Kerala High Court, = 2002 (4) Crimes 32, in the case of Gopi /vs/ Sudarsanan
4) 2001 Crl.L.J 2392 ( Madras High Court) in the case of P.R.Shankar Rao /vs/ Joseph & Joseph Regis Kalingararyar
5) 1999 (3) Crime Page No.80- Karnataka High Court, in the case of G.N.Gurappa Reddy /vs/ M/s A.S.Finannce Investments
6) 2001 Crl.L.J.3120- Madras High Court, in the case of G.Rukkumani /vs/ K.Rajendran 8 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015
7) 2005 Crl.L.J.314, Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Jagadish Rai Agrawal and others /vs/ The State of A.P and others
8) 2000(1) Crimes 1 (Madras High Court),
9) AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1898, in the case of Rangappa /vs/ Mohan
10) 2001 (4) KANT.L.J. 122, in the case of S.R.Muralidhar /vs/ Ashok G.Y.
11) In the case of M/s Maheshwari Constructions (P) Ltd., /vs/ M/s Lords Place & Resorts Ltd., reported in (10) 2007 (2) K.C.C.R 1199
12) In another decision reported in the case of H.S.Srinivasa /vs/ Girijamma (11) ILR 2006 KAR 2054
13) In AIR 2015 Supreme Court 2579- (DB) in the case of Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Saikh /vs/ Vijay D.Salvi
9. Now the following points arise for my determination:
1) Whether the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned XX ACMM, Bengaluru dated 25.07.2016 in C.C.No.26648/2010 is erroneous and requires intervention by this Court?
2) Whether there is any necessity for interfering with the aforesaid impugned Judgment of the trial Court?
3) What Order?9 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015
10. Findings of this Court on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : In the Negative,
Point No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11. POINT NOs.1 and 2 :- As the points 1 and 2 are inter- related, they are taken together for discussions to avoid repetitions.
The case of the complainant in brief is that, accused Nos.1 and 2 were owners of the land bearing No.24/1, measuring 2 acres 29.08 guntas and Sy.No.18 measuring 2 acres 08 guntas situated at Harihara village, Sathanur Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District. The 1st and 2nd accused agreed to sell the aforesaid property to Pw.1 for total consideration of Rs.42 lakhs and the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.19,75,000/- by way of Cheque and cash to both 1st and 2nd accused. Subsequent to receipt of said amount of Rs.19,75,000/-, the 1st and 2nd accused executed a receipt on 19.12.2007 and 24.01.2008 by mentioning the sale consideration, details of the land and advance received by accused Nos.1 and 2 in 10 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 favour of the complainant. That inspite of repeated demands of the complainant, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have not executed the Sale Deed in his favour. Accused Nos.1 and 2 postponing the same on one pretext or the other. That subsequently the complainant learnt that, 1st and 2nd accused made an attempt to sell the land in question to accused No.3 during July 2008. Immediately the complainant contacted the accused and he had explained the 3rd accused D.K.Rajashekar about the agreement between the 1st and 2nd accused in respect of land in question and regarding advance amount paid by him. After negotiation and discussions between the complainant, Pw.2 - Shashidhar and all the accused persons it was agreed by all the accused persons that they should refund entire advance amount to the complainant and accordingly 1st and 2nd accused on several installments paid sum of Rs.13,00,000/- by cash and 1st and 2nd accused agreed to pay the balance of Rs.6,75,000/- to the complainant. Subsequent to the aforesaid arrangements 1st and 2nd defendant has executed the Sale Deed dated 21.7.2008 in favour of 3rd defendant. On the said date i.e., 21.7.2008 for the balance payable by 3rd accused- D.K.Rajashekar to the 1st and 2nd accused, an 11 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 agreement came to be entered for payment of balance amount and the Cheque bearing No.154032 for Rs.2,50,000/- and another Cheque bearing No.154033 for Rs.2,00,000/- dated 3.3.2009 have been issued to the complainant by the 3rd accused on behalf of 1st and 2nd accused towards clearing of their balance sale agreement amount. Accused Nos.1 to 3 assured the complainant that said Cheques would be honoured for presentation. That by believing on assurance of accused Nos.1 to 3, the complainant presented the said two Cheques through his Banker Indian Overseas Bank, Bilekahalli branch, Bangalore. But both the cheques were returned dishoured with endorsement "Account Dormant - Funds Insufficient". Immediately the complainant approached accused Nos.1 to 3 by informing about the dishonour of Cheques and they assured that they would arrange funds and they asked the complainant to represent the said Cheques during 1st Week of April 2009. Subsequently the complainant represented the said Cheques through his banker Indian Overseas Bank, but said Cheques again returned dishonoured with endorsements " insufficient funds" dated 2.7.2009. Thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice dated 28.7.2009 calling upon 12 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 accused Nos.1 to 3 to pay cheque amount. The notice sent to accused Nos.1 and 2 under certificate of posting was duly served, but the notice sent by RPAD was returned with endorsement 'Refused". However the notice sent to accused No.3 has been duly served and accused No.3 has issued false and untenable reply and as accused Nos.1 to 3 have not paid cheque amount, according to the complainant accused have committed the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. Hence he was constrained to file private complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
12. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.23 and he has also got examined one more witness Sri.Shashidhar.E.S as Pw.2.
13. That the accused Nos.1 and 2 have not led any evidence, but whereas accused No.3 has got himself examined as Dw.1 and got marked Ex.D.1. Accused No.3 in his evidence stated that, during 2008 he had purchased land in question consisting of two 13 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 survey numbers for Rs.38,50,000/- from accused Nos.1 and 2 and they have entered into agreement of sale and that he paid a sum of Rs.34 lakhs by way of cash and for remaining amount he has issued two post dated Cheques to accused Nos.1 and 2 for Rs.4,50,000/- without mentioning the date and name, one Cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- and another Cheque for Rs.2.5 lakhs in all for Rs.4,50,000/-. He further stated that when he went to put fence towards southern side of land in question, one Sri.Lingegowda has raised some dispute, so he brought the said dispute to the knowledge of accused Nos.1 and 2 and they agreed for surveying the land, but they did not got its surveyed the land, so accused No.3 got it surveyed and he came to know that land in question has fallen short of half an acre of land. That after registration, accused No.3 approached the accused Nos.1 and 2 on several occasions and requested and demanded them to settle the dispute between Mr.Lingegowda and his children and also to put up fencing on the southern side of the land in question, but accused Nos.1 and 2 went postponing the issue on one pretext or the other. Left with no other alternative the accused No.3 in presence of the Lingegowda and his children, got it surveyed the land in question 14 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 and the dispute with him was settled by the accused No.3 himself by paying a considerable amount to Lingegowda and his children and accused No.3 obtained a registered deed from Lingegowda and his children with prior notice to the accused Nos.1 and 2 and further accused No.3 approached accused Nos.1 and 2 and informed about the details of settlement and payment made to Linge gowda and his children and requested to reimburse the same for which accused Nos.1 and 2 informed accused No.3 to adjust the said amount out of the amount from the post dated Cheques that is Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3 and assured the accused No.3 that they will not present the aforesaid two cheques for realization. Believing the words of accused Nos.1 and 2 the accused No.3 adjusted the said amount from the balance amount that is the amount mentioned in Exs.P.1 and Ex.P.3, later on when the accused No.3 demanded accused Nos.1 and 2 to return Exs.P.1 and Ex.P.3, accused Nos.1 and 2 replied that the said cheques Exs.P.1 and Ex.P.3 were misplaced by them and as soon as it is traced, the same shall be handed over to accused No.3. But accused No.3 subsequently accused Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with 15 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 complainant misused Exs.P.1 and Ex.P.3 Cheques and filed false complaint.
14. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have denied sale transaction with the complainant and they have also denied repayment of Rs.13 lakhs, but they have not took any specific defence nor they entered into witness box to adduce their defence.
15. Accused No.3 has admitted the issuance of Cheque in question in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 towards payment of balance sale consideration. According to accused No.3, accused Nos.1 and 2 obtained post dated Cheque by agreeing to encash the said Cheques only after resolving dispute between complainant and Mr.Lingegowda. Since accused Nos.1 and 2 remained silent, accused No.3 alone approached Mr.Lingegowda and got registered Consent deed by paying Rs.4,50,000/- to Mr.Lingegowda. So according to accused No.3 he is not liable to pay amount of Cheque to accused Nos.1 and 2. In support of said defence, accused No.3 who examined himself as Dw.1 has produced Consent Deed registered on 4.9.2008 executed by one Mr.Lingegowda and his son Jayaram. 16 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 According to accused No.3 he has paid Rs.4,50,000/- to Mr.Lingegowda, but there is no whisper in Ex D1 as to alleged payment of Rs.4,50,000/- by accused No.3 to Mr.Lingegowda and his son. From perusal of Ex.D.1, it is clear that it is executed without any consideration. Moreover, accused No.3 in his cross-examination admitted that he has not produced any document to show that he has paid Cheque amount to Mr.Lingegowda and his children. Accused No.3 utterly failed to prove that, he paid Rs.4,50,000/- to Mr.Lingegowda. There is no material or evidence to show that accused No.3 paid balance sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- to Mr.Lingegowda instead of accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.3 has not examined said Mr.Lingegowda or his son Jayaram to show that he has paid Rs.4,50,000/- to said Mr.Lingegowda and his son. In Ex.P.15, accused No.3 has admitted the issuance of Cheque in question to accused Nos.1 and 2 towards repayment of balance sale consideration.
16. The material on record discloses that, the amount of Cheque was not paid by accused No.3 neither to one 17 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 Mr.Lingegowda nor to accused Nos.1 and 2. When such being the case, accused No.3 is still due to pay amount of Cheque to accused Nos.1 and 2 which is balance sale consideration and the said Cheques were given to complainant to discharge liability of accused Nos.1 and
2. In reply notice Ex.P.15 accused No.3 never stated that, he issued blank Cheques without writing the payee name etc., and same goes to show that accused No.3 issued Cheque in question to the complainant by agreeing to pay Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant on behalf of accused Nos.1 and 2.
17. According to complainant, accused No.3 issued Cheque in question to discharge liability of accused Nos.1 and 2 which they owes to complainant. The counsel for complainant/ respondent No.1 has argued that, even if the Cheque is issued to discharge liability of another person Section.138 of N.I.Act will be attracted. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on many decisions and among those decisions, some Important citations are quoted here below:
18 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015
1) KER.L.J.1993 (2) Page No.253- High Court of Kerala, in the case of Alexander /vs/ Joseph Chacko, it has been held that:
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138, Section 139- For the purpose of Section 138 of the N.I.Act, it is immaterial that the Cheque was issued for discharge of his own debt or liability as it can be issued for discharge of another man's debt or liability.
2) (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 426, in the case of KCS Ltd., /vs/ Beena Shaveer and another, it has been held that:
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138, Dishonour of Cheque - Complaint against guarantor- Maintainability - Guarantor issuing cheque towards payment of the dues outstanding against the principal debtor ( Hire-Purchase of of Car in this case- Cheque bouncing - In such circumstances, complaint U/s.139 against the guarantor, held maintainable- Arguments bases Ss.126 and 128, Contract Act, held, not relevant in this regard- Words and Phrases- "Any Cheque"
"Other liability" Scope - Contract Act, 1872, Ss.126 and 128- interpretation of statues - Basic rules of interpretation - Legislative intent - Taken in to consideration.
It is held that, The words "any cheque" and "other liabililty occurring in Section 138 are the two key 19 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 expressions which stand as clarifying the legislative intent so as to bring the factual context within the ambit of the provisions of the statue. These expressions leave no manner of doubt that for whatever reasons it may be, the liability under Section 138 cannot be avoided in the event the cheque stands retuned by the banker unpaid. Any contract- interpretation would defeat the intent of the legislature. The High Court got carried away by the issue of guarantee and guarantor's liability and thus over looked the true intent and purport of Section 138 of N.I.Act.
3) 2002 CRI.L.J.4195- (Kerala High Court), = 2002 (4) Crimes 32, in the case of Gopi /vs/ Sudarsanan, it has been held that:
Negotiable Instruments Act, (26 of 1881)- S.138- Cheque issued as security- Dishonour of Effect- Pleas that cheque was issued the cover legal liability of third person - Nothing brought on record to show that said 3rd person had repaid said amount as alleged- Dishonour of cheque for want of funds and failure to pay amount in spite of notice given the cause of action to complainant- accused held guilty of offence under Section 138.
4) 2001 Crl.L.J.2392, (Madras High Court) P.R.Shankar Rao /vs/ Joseph and Joseph Regis Kalingararyar, it has been held that:
Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138- "Debt or other liability"- Also includes 20 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 debt or liability due from person other than drawer.
It has been further held that, "The requirement for offence to be made out under this S.138 is that the cheque must be drawn " for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability". This Section does not say that the cheques should have drawn for the discharges of any debt or other liability of the drawer towards the payee. Even in S.139 of N.I.Act , by which a legal presumption is created, the Parliament has only fixed the presumption that the Cheque was issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability". This would mean that the debt or other liability includes the due from any other person. It is not necessary that the debt or liability should be due from the drawer himself. It can be issued for the discharge of any other man's debt or liability would have reference to the nature of the debt or liability and not the person against whom the debt or liability can enforced (at Para No.19)".
From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that even if the Cheque is issued in respect of liability of another person, Section 138 of N.I.Act will be attracted.21 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015
18. The material on record shows that, Exs.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.23 were issued to the complainant in order to clear off all the liability of accused Nos.1 and 2.
19. It is the case of the of the complainant that, he has paid Rs.19,75,000/- both by way of Cheque and cash to accused Nos.1 and 2. Ex.P.1 bank account extract of the complainant from 1.1.2007 to 31.7.2009 shows that accused No.1 enchased sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 9.12.2007 and accused No.2 has enchased sum of Rs.9,50,000/- through Cheque on 24.1.2007. Accused Nos.1 and 2 nor accused No.3 have not produced any evidence to disprove Ex.P.21.
20. Pw.2 has deposed that, Exs.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were issued by accused No.3 to the complainant to discharge the liability of accused Nos.1 and 2. Even though Pw.2 was cross-examined in length, nothing elicited so as to disbelieve his version. That since accused No.3 has admitted the issuance of Cheques, his signature in the Cheques and that Cheques belongs to his account, the trail Court has rightly drawn presumption U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act and has 22 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 rightly come to conclusion that the accused No.3 has not rebutted presumption and therefore held that accused No.3 has committed the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act.
21. There is a presumption U/s. 139 of N.I.Act in favour of holder of the Cheque, that the Cheque was drawn for discharge of debt or liability. In Rangappa /vs/ Mohan reported in 2010 Crl.L.J.2878, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"Once the execution of Negotiable Instrument is either proved or admitted, then the Court was drawn presumption available U/s.139 of N.I.Act to the effect that Negotiable Instrument Act has been drawn for valid consideration"
22. In this case the accused No.3 has failed to rebut presumption to the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act. The evidence of Pw.1 and 2 and Exhibit P.1 to P.23 coupled with presumption under law establishes that Cheque was issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt and the appellant has not rebutted the said presumption. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below has rightly drawn the 23 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 presumption U/s.139 and 118 of N.I.Act and come to conclusion that accused No.3 has not rebutted the presumption and therefore, held that accused has committed the offence. The complainant has complied with all statutory requirement U/s.138 of N.I.Act and therefore, on reconsidering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant /accused No.3 cannot be accepted. Therefore the impugned Judgment of the trial Court does not calls for any interference. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative.
23. POINT NO.2 :- For the aforesaid reasons the following:
ORDER The criminal appeal filed by the Appellant/Accused No.3- D.K.Rajashekar under Section 374 of Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.
The Judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned XX Addl.Chief Metropolitan 24 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015 Magistrate, Bengaluru dated 25.07.2015 in C.C.No.26648/2010 is hereby confirmed.
Send copy of the Judgment along with LCR to the concerned court forthwith.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribe and typed by her, and then corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 18th day of November, 2016) (Parameshwara Prasanna.B.) LXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru 25 Crl.A.No.1073 /2015