Bangalore District Court
Company Entered Into Lease Deed With The ... vs Being Managing Director Of The 1St ... on 14 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE &
24th ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, Court of
Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore(SCCH20)
Present:Smt.Sharmila C.S. BA.L., LL.M
V Addl. Small Causes Judge,
& XXIV A.C.M.M.
Dated this the 14th day of November 2022
C.C.No.52746/2018
1. Sl.No. of the case C.C. No.52746/2018
2. The date of Institution 06.12.2016
3. The date of commencement
of the evidence 08.03.2018
4. Name of the Complainant : M/s Volvo India Pvt Ltd.,
A registered Company,
Having its office at
Yalachenahalli,
Tavarekere post,
Hosakote,
Bangalore - 562122
Represented by its Legal Head
and company secretary
Mr.Laxminarayana Hegde
(By Pleader Sri.G.S.Bhat)
5. Name of the Accused : 1.M/s Silver Cloud Estate Pvt Ltd.,
No.1/122A, Silver Cloud Estate,
Gudalur - 643211
The Niligiris District,
Tamil nadu State,
SCCH-20. 2 CC. No.52746/2018
2. Mr.E.J.Coelho
Managing Director
Silver Cloud Estate Pvt Ltd.,
No.1/122A, Silver Cloud Estate,
Gudalur - 643211
The Niligiris District,
Tamil nadu State,
Silver Cloud Estate Pvt Ltd.,
No.1/122A, Silver Cloud Estate,
Gudalur - 643211
The Niligiris District,
Tamil nadu State,
(By pleader Sri.Balaram.M.L)
6.The offence complained of or proved: Under Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
7.Plea of the accused on her examination: Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Order Accused No.1 & 2 are convicted
9.Date of such order 14.11.2022
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed under section 200 of Cr.P.C alleging the offence punishable Under section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act 1881.
2. Brief facts of the complainant case is that; The complainant is a registered company dealing in business SCCH-20. 3 CC. No.52746/2018 of manufacturing, assembling, marketing of trucks, trailers, buses etc., and services associated with said products. That the complainant company entered into lease deed with the accused on 13.03.2013 and paid a sum of Rs.22,50,000/ to the 2 nd accused being Managing Director of the 1st accused, which was a refundable, interest free amount to the complainant at the time of vacating the premises. That the accused for the aforesaid refundable security deposit issued 4 cheques bearing No.022958 dated 30.06.2016 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/, No.022959 dated 15.07.2016 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/, No.022960 dated 29.07.2016 amounting to Rs.1,75,000/, No.022961 dated 19.08.2016 amounting to Rs.1,75,000/, which are drawn on Central Bank of India, Kunoor Branch, Tamil Nadu, which when presented to their bank for encashment, was returned with an endorsement "Exceeds Arrangements" on 22.09.2016. That the accused did not respond and hence legal notice was issued demanding the amount of Rs.6,50,000/ and was served to the accused on 24.10.2016. But the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the amount. Hence the present complaint.
SCCH-20. 4 CC. No.52746/2018
3. The accused No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and Accused No.2 was enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation read over to the accused No.2 and statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C was also recorded, where the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant got examined himself as PW1 and got marked 15 documents on his behalf. The Accused did not lead any evidence on their behalf.
4. Heard from the counsel for the complainant and accused and perused the materials on record.
5. The following points arise for my determination:
1. Whether the complainant has made out sufficient grounds to punish the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2. 2. What order?
6. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: in the affirmative Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
SCCH-20. 5 CC. No.52746/2018
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1: It is the case of the complainant that complainant is a registered company dealing in business of manufacturing, assembling, marketing of trucks, trailers, buses etc., and services associated with said products. That the complainant company entered into lease deed with the accused on 13.03.2013 and paid a sum of Rs.22,50,000/ to the 2 nd accused, being managing director of the 1 st accused, which was a refundable interest free amount to the complainant, at the time of vacating the premises. That the accused for the aforesaid refundable security deposit issued 4 cheques bearing No.022958 dated 30.06.2016 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/, No.022959 dated 15.07.2016 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/, No.022960 dated 29.07.2016 amounting to Rs.1,75,000/, No.022961 dated 19.08.2016 amounting to Rs.1,75,000/, which are drawn on Central Bank of India, Kunoor Branch, Tamil Nadu, which when presented to their bank for encashment was returned with an endorsement "Exceeds Arrangements" on 22.09.2016. That the accused did not respond and hence legal notice was issued SCCH-20. 6 CC. No.52746/2018 demanding the amount of Rs.6,50,000/ and was served to the accused on 24.10.2016. But the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the amount. Hence the present complaint.
8. In order to substantiate the allegation, the complainant got examined himself as PW1 and has produced totally 15 documents on his behalf. The cheques issued by the accused were produced as Ex.P.1 to P.4 which are bearing No.022958 dated 30.06.2016 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/, No.022959 dated 15.07.2016 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/, No.022960 dated 29.07.2016 amounting to Rs.1,75,000/, No.022961 dated 19.08.2016 amounting to Rs.1,75,000/. The said cheques were returned as "Exceeds Arrangements" as per Ex.P5 to P.8. The Payee bank has issued endorsement that the said cheques bearing No.22958, 22961, 22959 and 22960 were dishonored as exceeds Arrangements, the copy produced as per Ex.P.9, A Notice of demand was issued as per Ex.P.10 to the accused No.1 and 2 calling upon the accused to pay the said amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The receipt SCCH-20. 7 CC. No.52746/2018 for sending the said notice is produced as Ex.P.11. The acknowledgment has been served to the accused as per Ex.P.12 and P.13 and also produced DTDC courier receipt as Ex.P.14 and P.15. All these documents show the transaction in between complainant and the accused and that the cheque was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, which came to be dishonored for Exceeds Arrangements. Thus the present complaint is filed within period of limitation. Therefore, the complainant has complied with the requirements as enumerated under section 138 of the NI Act.
9. There is a presumption under section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued for discharging of an antecedent liability. But this is a rebuttable presumption. Thus, it is to be seen now that whether the accused rebuts the said presumption or not by raising a probable defence.
10. It is the defence of the accused that after receipt of demand notice, the accused by force paid an amount of SCCH-20. 8 CC. No.52746/2018 Rs.2,00,000/on 11.11.2016 and an amount of Rs.4,50,000/ on 12.07.2018. That the complainant has concealed these facts in the complaint and also evidence and is thus liable for prosecution under section 340 of Cr.P.C. That the complainant himself ought to had paid amount to the accused, but in force has received amount from the accused and has filed this false case to harass the accused, who is aged more than 80 years.
11. Thus is this regard, PW1 was cross examined by counsel for accused, where PW1 submits that he might have received the said amount. But not sure in this regard. Further denies that they have failed to pay the rent from 17.06.2014 to 30.09.2014 ie., for a period of 3 and half months and denies that they failed to handover the property in proper condition.
Also denies that the complainant itself has to pay to the accused, a sum of Rs.6,98,944/.
12. It is pertinent to note here that before cross examination of the PW1 and before the case came up before this court, since was transferred from Hon'ble ACMM court, an SCCH-20. 9 CC. No.52746/2018 application seeking dismissal of the complaint was filed by the accused and submits that the entire amount was paid. For which, the complainant as of on 15.02.2021 admits that the entire amount was paid after 5 years and thus offence will not be cleared and sought for dismissal of the application.
13. By this memo, there is an admission by the complainant that the entire cheque amount has been paid. Thus after payment of cheque amount to the complainant, whether accused can be discharged of the alleged offence is to be seen.
14. The law is clear with regard to the demand notice. The purpose of the issuance of demand notice is to make know the accused the amount payable by him and the accused should make payment within 15 days from the receipt of the demand notice. Only this the complaint can be closed and for other incidental charges, the civil suit would be maintainable, which has been held up in many of the authorities of Hon'ble Supreme SCCH-20. 10 CC. No.52746/2018 court and one to quote would be "Suman Sethi Vs. Ajay k Churiwal, dt. 02.02.2000, where the intention of the legislature in enacting section 138 of the NI Act is clearly discussed as thus.
"in Section 138 , legislature clearly stated that for the dishonored cheque, the drawer shall be liable for conviction if the demand is not met within 15 days of the receipt of notice. But this is without prejudice to any other provision of the Act. If the cheque amount is paid within the above period or before the complaint is filed, the legal liability under section 138 will cease and for recovery of other demands as compensation, costs , interest etc., a civil proceeding will lie"
16. In the instant case, the accused has not made any effort to produce documents on his behalf to show the payment made if any before filing of the complaint, except the memo and the suggestion during the course of cross examination of the PW1. But as per the complainant, the amount was paid after several years. In this situation, going on the version of the SCCH-20. 11 CC. No.52746/2018 accused, the dates of payment, are considered, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/was paid on 11.11.2016 and Rs.4,50,000/ on 12.07.2018. Present complaint was filed on 06.12.2016 and demand notice was on 19.10.2016, which was served to the accused as per Ex.P.12 on 24.10.2016. Thus considering thus, there was part payment of Rs.2,00,000/ after 15 days of service of notice. When the law is very well settled that entire payment should be made within 15 days of service of demand notice of before filing of complaint, the accused making a part payment has admitted that he has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
17. Further as per the accused, before service of summons, the accused paid balance Rs.4,50,000/ i.e., on 12.07.2018. Summons was issued on 08.03.2018 and accused was to appear on 20.06.2018. But the counsel for the accused appeared on 23.10.2018 and offered for settlement by filing memo. But the accused appeared finally on 13.04.2022. Therefore, even if it is believed that the entire amount was paid SCCH-20. 12 CC. No.52746/2018 in 2018 and complaint filed in the year 2016, does not take away the liability of the accused to pay the amount or get convicted. Thus in order to close the case or acquit the accused, the accused has to make the full payment before filing of the complaint, which in turn means that if the payment is made after 15 days of receipt of demand notice or after filing of the complaint, does not wash away the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
18. During course of cross examination, the counsel for accused has much concentrated on the commission of perjury by the complainant, who has not stated the receipt of Rs.2,00,000/ before filing of the complainant. As stated above the complainant has admitted the receipt of Rs.6,40,000/. But the burden was on the accused to show that he has paid the entire amount of Rs.2,00,000/ as alleged by him, even before filing of the complaint in order to constitute the offence of perjury. The accused has neither stepped into the witness box, nor confronted any documents to the complainant so as to SCCH-20. 13 CC. No.52746/2018 enable this court to come to the conclusion that the complainant/PW1 is giving false evidence before this court. Application was filed by the accused seeking referral/ initiation of a complaint against the complainant for committing perjury, which was kept in abeyance and again an application was filed by submitting that this court has no jurisdiction to keep the said application in abeyance and prayed to lodge a complaint against the complainant. Also relies on judgment of Hon'ble Appellate court, reported in Praveen Vs Dr.Arpita, in 2021 SCC online KAR 15703, where there is a caution given to the trial courts regarding procedure to be conducted for giving false evidence and held that " the reason assigned by the court below, for holding petitioners subject application to be premature is unsustainable. Applications of that kind needs to be considered on merits at the earliest point of time, so that a loud message goes to the unscrupulous section of the litigant and public as to what would befall perjuring parties".
SCCH-20. 14 CC. No.52746/2018
19. This authority would be aptly applicable to the instant case, when proper materials are placed before this court. A note is also made in the said authority, of a finding of the same court in " Swaran Singh Vs state of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668 as "
Perjury has become a way of life in the law courts. A trial judge knows that the witness is telling a lie and is going back on his previous statement, yet he does not wish to punish him or even file a complaint against him".
20. Thus in order to constitute an offence of perjury, the trial judge first should know that the person is deposing falsely and , sufficient materials have to be placed before this court to show the false evidence lead by the other party. In the instant case the accused is placing his reliance on the fact that he has paid Rs.2,00,000/ after receipt of demand notice, where the complainant has failed to state the same either in the complaint or in the sworn statement. Further has even cross examined the PW1 in this regard, where PW1 submits that he is not aware SCCH-20. 15 CC. No.52746/2018 of the payment made if any and has to check. Thus the burden was upon the accused to show by leading proper evidence that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ was paid before filing of the complaint and consequently the complainant failed to note the same in the complaint, in which the accused has absolutely failed. Neither he tried to call for any bank statement of the complainant, nor produced any document to show his payment on particular day, nor he stepped into witness box to depose about the same, which would have enabled this court to come to conclusion that the complaint is falsely filed though part payment of Rs.2,00,000/ is made.
21. Important thing to be noted is that the complainant has admitted the payment of Rs.6,50,000/. But has not noted the dates. The accused where took such a contention, should have properly submitted before this court regarding payments made by him, in which he has failed. The accused thus failed to prove the burden shifted upon him in this regard.
SCCH-20. 16 CC. No.52746/2018
22. It is well known fact that many persons appearing before the court donot say the truth. Many a times, when the court comes to know that a person is lying before this court, the court proceeds against him. But rarest are those cases, where action for perjury is taken against the person who is lying before the court. In such a case courts would be burdened with much more cases and only under special circumstance, the procedure contemplated under section 340 Cr.P.C would be invoked.
23. Thus in the instant case, the fact of payment of Rs.2,00,000/ and later Rs.4,50,000/ is admitted by the complainant, who is not disputing the fact of payment. No document is furnished to show payment of Rs.2,00,000/ before filing of complaint. Therefore when the accused has clearly failed in this regard to show exact dates of payment and the complainant admitting the payment, admittedly does not amount to perjury and no enquiry is required in this regard.
SCCH-20. 17 CC. No.52746/2018
24. Admittedly entire cheque amount is paid when the said amount being paid, whether the accused can be acquitted of the alleged offence to be seen. Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act empowers the court to punish the accused for imprisonment, for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or with both.
25. Law as noted supra, is very clear that if the amount is paid within 15 days, would constitute no offence and for the other expenses civil suit may be filed . Therefore when the time of 15 days from the receipt of notice is clearly stated, which is also the period noted in demand notice, as contemplated under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, clearly means that if any payment made after 15 days would not wash away the offence as alleged under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, for which the accused if found guilty needs to be punished with.
26. Counsel for the accused has relied on a judgment of SCCH-20. 18 CC. No.52746/2018 the Hon'ble Supreme court in M/s Meters and Instrument Vs Kanchan Mehta' reported in AIR 2017 SC 4594, where the purpose of the Negotiable Instrument Act, is clearly discussed and elaborately explained as under at para18.1 to 18.5
18. From the above discussion following aspects emerge:
18.1) Offence under Section 138 of the Act is primarily a civil wrong. Burden of proof is on accused in view presumption under Section 139 but the standard of such proof is "preponderance of probabilities". The same has to be normally tried summarily as per provisions of summary trial under the Cr.P.C. but with such variation as may be appropriate to proceedings under Chapter XVII of the Act. Thus read, principle of Section 258 Cr.P.C. will apply and the Court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the punitive aspect.
18.2) The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the Court. 18.3) Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, SCCH-20. 19 CC. No.52746/2018 the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused. 18.4) Procedure for trial of cases under Chapter XVII of the Act has normally to be summary.
The discretion of the Magistrate under second proviso to Section 143, to hold that it was undesirable to try the case summarily as sentence of more than one year may have to be passed, is to be exercised after considering the further fact that apart from the sentence of imprisonment, the Court has jurisdiction under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to award suitable compensation with default sentence under Section 64 IPC and with further powers of recovery under Section 431 Cr.P.C. With this approach, prison sentence of more than one year may not be required in all cases.
18.5) Since evidence of the complaint can be given on affidavit, subject to the Court summoning the person giving affidavit and examining him and the bank's slip being prima facie evidence of the dishonor of cheque, it is unnecessary for the Magistrate to record any further preliminary evidence. Such affidavit evidence can be read as evidence at all stages of trial or other proceedings. The manner of examination of the person giving affidavit can be as per Section 264 Cr.P.C. The scheme is to follow summary procedure except where exercise of power under second proviso to Section 143 becomes necessary, where sentence of one year may have to be awarded and compensation under Section 357(3) is SCCH-20. 20 CC. No.52746/2018 considered inadequate, having regard to the amount of the cheque, the financial capacity and the conduct of the accused or any other circumstances.
27. On going through the same, it is very much clear that the parties are entitled to settle the matter by compounding the offence at any stage and burden of proof is on the accused in view of presumption under section 139. But standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities. Thus counsel for the accused argues that when the cheque amount has been paid the accused is liable to be discharged of the alleged offence.
28. But at para No.18.3 of the judgment, the discretionary power is provided to the court to close the proceedings and discharge the accused, if the court feels that the complainant has been duly compensated, when there is absence of such consent. The Hon'ble Supreme court has provided the discretionary power to close the case only on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated.
SCCH-20. 21 CC. No.52746/2018
29. It has also further enumerated the fact of
"compounding" as under
" Since the concept of compounding involves consent of the complainant, court held that merely by unilateral payment, compounding could not be permitted without the consent of both the parties".
When these principles as held are applied to the instant case on hand, obviously there is an unilateral payment by the accused without communicating to the complainant, which is one of the most leading company having several transactions. The balance is paid after 2 years of cheque bouncing i.e., in the year 2018. Therefore there is no consent of the complainant in this regard. Nor the same is known to the complainant till the cross examination, who appears to have verified after questioning the same. Further when PW1 was cross examined, clearly submits his intention to get the double the cheque amount, since accused had not paid amount earlier. Based on these ground of 'complainant having intention to harass the SCCH-20. 22 CC. No.52746/2018 accused or receive double the cheque amount, the complaint cannot be stopped or accused acquitted. As per the above said authority itself, the court can only discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount along with interest, assessed cost is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with punitive aspect.
30. In the instant case, the accused No.2 is allegedly more than 70 years. However he has paid cheque amount as of in 2018, which is as per their memo. But did not comply within 15 days for full payment. The relationship of landlord and tenant is not disputed. Though counsel for accused has taken up different contention that the premises was not handed over in proper condition and that the complainant himself is to pay more than Rs.6,00,000/, there is no document to show tenancy and that the accused paid amount to the complainant forcibly out of fear etc. No material is placed regarding the same. However, this is not a proper forum so as to discuss SCCH-20. 23 CC. No.52746/2018 these facts, where this court is to decide whether the accused has rebutted the presumption raised. Further before taking up any such defenses, the accused was to show how the cheques went to the hands of the complainant. Though suggestion is made that the cheques are issued for security purpose, no question is posed to that effect. Thus averments of the complaint has to be believed regarding issuance of cheque by the accused to the complainant. The said cheques are dishonored as exceeds arrangement. The notice is issued demanding payment within 15 days, but payment in entirety is made after 2 years. Thus presumption raised under section 139 of N.I.Act is to be relied on. Only defence available to the accused was payment made in 2016 and 2018 and much concentrated to take punitive action against complainant for not noting receipt of Rs.2,00,000/. This fact whether constitutes perjury or not is already discussed above. Thus not only the intention of the complainant to receive above cheque amount is to be seen, but the intention of accused to punish the complainant by paying only Rs.2,00,000/ in part is to be seen.
SCCH-20. 24 CC. No.52746/2018 The accused could have appeared at earlier stage and could have opted for compounding of offence or could have shown before this court regarding payment made. But only appeared once in 2022, by filing memo to close the case, without producing any materials to show payment done.
31. Keeping apart these factors, now it is to be seen whether the complainant is properly compensated by entire payment made in 2018, as provided in Kanchan Mehta (Noted supra). The complainant and accused are tenant and landlord. The cheques are issued for refundable security deposit in the month of June and July 2016, for Rs.6,50,000/, which got dishonored. The payment if as per version of accused is considered was Rs.2,00,000/ in 2016 and balance in 2018. From 2016 to 2018, where there is gap of 2 years, would have fetched nominal interest for Rs.4,50,000/ which if paid in time or the complainant would have used the same for his own purpose, Keeping money belonging to some other person, would benefit the said person, holding the amount and in this SCCH-20. 25 CC. No.52746/2018 case, it is the accused who appears to have fetched interest on said amount and enjoyed the same. The transaction is not loan transaction, which would have been for the benefit of both. Therefore for 2 years, the complainant has suffered much loss in filing the complaint, engaging advocate, moving to courts etc., Thus it is very clear that the very purpose of imposing double the cheque amount to the accused is not to harass any person who have lent loan, amount etc., to some other person and such other person would benefit from the amount/money of others, either by getting interest or by enjoying other benefits. Therefore in the instant case also, the accused failing to pay immediately the entire amount to the complainant, has absolutely caused loss to the complainant for which the complainant needs to be compensated with. The cheque is issued by the accused No.2 on behalf of the accused No.1 company. Therefore, the accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1 issuing the cheques, which were dishonored, has failed to rebut the presumption raised under section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act and complainant making out some offence SCCH-20. 26 CC. No.52746/2018 punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused No.1 and 2, the above point is answered in affirmative.
32. POINT NO.2: Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under powers conferred under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
The accused No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally sentenced to pay the fine of Rs.60,000/.
The accused No.1 and 2 shall pay Rs.55,000/ (fifty five thousand Rupees Only) out of the said fine amount to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
The accused No.2 in default of payment of fine amount shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.
SCCH-20. 27 CC. No.52746/2018 Office is directed to supply copy of judgment to the accused free of cost.
[Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14 th day of November 2022.] (SHARMILA C.S.) V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION :
PW.1: Laxminarayan Hegde
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
ACCUSED: NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT :
Ex.P.14 Cheques
Ex.P.58 return memo
Ex.P.9 endorsement issued by HBC bank
Ex.P.10 Demand notice
Ex.P.11 postal receipt
Ex.P.1213 Acknowledgments
Ex.P.1415 courier receipts
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
ACCUSED: NIL
(SHARMILA C.S.)
V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
SCCH-20. 28 CC. No.52746/2018
14.10.2022 ( Order pronounced in the open court
vide separate Judgment)
ORDER
Acting under powers conferred under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
The accused No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally sentenced to pay the fine of Rs.60,000/.
The accused No.1 and 2 shall pay Rs.55,000/ (fifty five thousand Rupees Only) out of the said fine amount to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
The accused No.2 in default of payment of fine amount shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.
Office is directed to supply copy of judgment to the accused free of cost.
V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM, SCCH-20. 29 CC. No.52746/2018