Bangalore District Court
Kishore Sureshlal vs Ideal Distributor on 28 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2018.
Present: Smt Shirin Javeed Ansari, BA LL.B(Hon's)LL.M
XXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore.
C.C.No.28745 /2014
Complainant: Kishore Sureshlal
S/o.Sureshlal Hiralal
aged 40 years
No.17, Subramanya Swamy Temple
StreetV.V.Puram
Bangalore. 4
(By Sri Vijay Kumar - Advocate )
- Vs -
Accused: 1. Ideal Distributor
No.30 BDA Complex
HSR layout
Bangalore 560 102.
Represented by its partner.
2.Syed Imtiyaz Ahmed
Partner /Authorized signatory
Ideal Distributor
No. 30 BDA Complex
HSR layout
Bangalore 560 102.
R/at.No.70, 17th C main, 11th cross
4th Sector, HSR Layout,
Bangalore 102.
( By B.Jayalakshmi - Advocate )
Offence complained of: U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order: Accused No.1 and 2 are convicted.
Date of order: 28.03.2018
2 C.C.No.28745/2014
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.PC
The complainant filed this complaint under
Sec.200 Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence
punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act
(For short N.I.Act).
2. The case of the prosecution is as under :
The accused No.1 is the partnership firm and
the accused no.2 is partner of accused no.1 firm. The
complainant further submits that accused no.2
representing accused no.1 and being well known to
the complainant approached the complainant in the
month of August 2013 and sought for hand loan of
Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant for short term
basis for urgent business purpose. The complainant
accordingly paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of
cash to accused No.1 and No.2 on various dates as
follows on 2.9.2013 Rs.2,00,000/- , on 10.9.2013
Rs.2,00,000/-, on 16.9.2013 Rs.2,00,000/- , on
23.9.2013 Rs.2,00,000/- and on 30.9.2013
Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant submits that the
3 C.C.No.28745/2014
accused no.1 and 2 accordingly executed 5(five) on
demand promissory notes and consideration receipts
respectively in favour of the complainant i.e.on
2.9.2013 for Rs.2,00,000/- , on 10.9.2013 for
Rs.2,00,000/-, on 16.9.2013 for Rs.2,00,000/-, on
23.9.2013 for Rs.2,00,000/- and on 30.9.2013 for
Rs.2,00,000/-, on respective dates of borrowing the
aforesaid amount from the complainant and
acknowledged to have received the aforesaid sums
from the complainant and undertook to repay the
same with interest.
3. The complainant submits that on repeated
demand and request made by the complainant to the
accused no.2, to repay the aforesaid borrowed
amount, the accused no.2 representing accused no.1
issued a cheque bearing No. 837670 dt.7.3.2014 for
Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National bank, BDA
complex HSR layout, Bangalore in favour of the
complainant towards balance of principal amount
due by accused no.1 and 2. The complainant
presented the said cheque bearing No.837670
4 C.C.No.28745/2014
dt.7.3.2014 for 10,00,000/- through, Textile Co-
operative bank ltd., J.M.road, Bangalore on 7.3.2014.
The afore said cheque returned dishonored with
remarks "payment stopped by the drawer" as per
memo dt.10.3.2014. This suffices to say that the
assurance and representations made by accused no.1
and 2 at the time of issuance said cheque and
thereafter is false and dishonest to their knowledge
and deliberately made with view to deceive the
complainant.
4. The complainant further submits that accused
no.1 and 2 have executed on demand promissory
notes and consideration receipts and the accused
no.2 representing the accused no.1 has signed and
issued aforesaid cheque in favour of the complainant
towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and have
failed to honor the cheque on presentation. Thus, by
their action accused no. 1 and 2 committed an offence
punishable u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument Act and
accused no. 1 and 2 are liable to be prosecuted for
the offence as stated above. Therefore, the
5 C.C.No.28745/2014
complainant issued legal notice to the accused
dt.15.3.2014 and they have been duly served on
17.3.2014. Despite, of that , the accused no.1 and 2
have not bothered to either reply to the said notice or
pay the cheque amount even after expiry of 15 days
from the date of issuance of notice. Therefore, the
complainant is entitled for compensation towards face
value of afore said cheque with interest at 18% pa
and other legal and incidental charges as provided
under Sec.357 Cr.P.C . Hence, this complaint.
5. In pursuance of the process issued, the
accused appeared before the court on 16.2.2015 and
is on bail.
6. Copy of the prosecution papers are furnished
to the accused as required under law.
7. Plea under Sec.138 N.I.Act is framed , read
over and explained to the accused in vernacular. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
8. PW1-got examined and got marked the
documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 for the complainant .
6 C.C.No.28745/2014
9. The incriminating circumstances found in the
case of prosecution against the accused is read over
and explained to the accused in vernacular. The
accused denied the same. Accused examined himself
as DW 1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D 3.
10. Heard arguments and perused the material
on record.
11. On the basis of the contents of the
complaint the following points arise for my
consideration. :
1. Whether the complainant proves
beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused is/are guilty of
alleged offence?
2. What order ?
12. My findings to the above points
are as follows"
Point No.1 :In the Affirmative.
Point.No.2 :As per final order for
the following:
REASONS
13.Point No.1: The complainant has filed the
complaint alleging that the accused has committed
7 C.C.No.28745/2014
an offence punishable u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument
Act. It is the case of complainant that the
complainant is a businessmen dealing in the
business of silk. The accused no.2 being the partner
of accused no.1 is known to the complainant since
many years. The accused no.2 approached the
complainant for want of hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/-
to overcome his business difficulties on short term
basis. Accordingly, the complainant gave hand loan of
Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused no.2 on various dates
i.e on 2.9.2013 Rs.2,00,000/- , on 10.9.2013
Rs.2,00,000/-, on 16.9.2013 Rs.2,00,000/- , on
23.9.2013 Rs.2,00,000/- and on 30.9.2013
Rs.2,00,000/-. Further the accused no.2 also executed
on demand promissory notes on various dates i.e on
2.9.2013 Rs.2,00,000/- , on 10.9.2013 Rs.2,00,000/-,
on 16.9.2013 Rs.2,00,000/- , on 23.9.2013
Rs.2,00,000/- and on 30.9.2013 Rs.2,00,000/-..
Further the accused no.2 failed to repay the said loan
amount, hence, the complainant started making
repeated demand and personally approached the
8 C.C.No.28745/2014
accused no.2 for which accused no.2 issued cheque
bearing No. 837670 dt.7.3.14 for Rs.10,00,000/-
drawn on Punjab National Bank, The said cheque was
presented by the complainant through his banker on
7.3.14. But, the same dishonored with remark
"payment stopped by the drawer" . Despite repeated
demands and requests made by the complainant , the
accused neither paid the cheque amount nor headed
to the request of the complainant . Hence, the
complainant got issued legal notice dt.15.3.2014 to the
accused no.1 and 2 which are duly served upon the
accused no.1 and 2 on 17.3.2014. Despite service of
legal notice, the accused neither paid the cheque
amount nor replied to the said notice . Hence , the
complainant has filed the present complaint .
14. On the other hand, it is the defence of the
accused person that the accused No.2 knows the
complainant personally since he had seen him once in
his shop. The accused is not aware of Rishab
Enterprises and he is also further not aware of
9 C.C.No.28745/2014
representatives of M/s. Maharashtra Silk Center, i.e.
Sureshlal Hiralal .
15. It is further contended by the accused that
the complaint filed against him are prima-facie not
maintainable either in the eyes of law or on the basis
of facts. The complainant has representated before
this court that he is the karta , but, he has failed to
establish that he is the karta of family. The accused
has not taken any money from the complainant by
way of cash. Any transaction above Rs.20,000/- has
to be made in compliance to Income Tax Act. The
complainant is falsely accusing the accused of
taking a consolidated amount of Rs.27,00,000/- from
all the cases within period of 1 month. The
complainant in all the cases never had the capacity to
pay consolidated sum of Rs.27,00,000/- within one
month
16. It is further defence of the accused that the
complainant has not mentioned either in his
complaint or in his sworn statement as well as
affidavit evidence as to when and how the subject
10 C.C.No.28745/2014
matter money was handed over to the accused. The
accused has further stated that the complainant is
known to the accused since the complainant himself
was interested in the mattress business of the accused
and wanted to understand the business of the
accused. Accordingly the complainant i.e Kishore
Sureshlal used to frequently visit the office of the
accused situated at BDA complex HSR layout,
Bangalore.
17. The accused further states that the accused
is in the habit of signing the blank cheques and letter
heads in order to facilitate smooth functioning of his
business. The accused used to leave the signed
cheques and letter heads in his office. The accused
frequently travels in order to purchase raw materials
for manufacture of mattress and he did not want the
business to get hampered during his travel. Therefore,
the cheques and letter heads and other documents
were readily made available at his office. The subject
mater of 3 cheque bearing Nos.837670, 837671,
837672 were few among the undated blank cheques
11 C.C.No.28745/2014
which the accused signed and reserved them for
business purpose.
18. It is further stated by the accused that he
was traveling extensively in year 2013 and early 2014.
Upon his return, the accused noticed that few of
cheques, important papers, pronotes, and vital
documents kept in file were missing. The accused
was able to trace cheque numbers and immediately
communicated with bank to stop payment . The
subject matter cheque are part of said missing
cheques for which the accused instructed his banker
to stop payment. The seal found on Promissory notes
are fabricated .
19. It is further submitted by the accused that
he has not issued any cheque to the complainant
towards the discharge of any legally enforceable debt
or liability. The complainant has not lent any money
to the accused personally or through M/s.Ideal
Distributors. The accused was never in need of such
huge sum as loan . The accused had never at any
point of time taken any sum as loan or debt from the
12 C.C.No.28745/2014
complainant . There is no existing legal liability
between the complainant and the accused . The
accused never approached the complainant seeking
any financial help. The complainant could not have
such huge sum in cash in possession and at their
disposal. The complainant has taken undue
advantage of the stolen cheques by presenting the
same for encashment. The complaint is made with
malafide intention and to wreck vengeance against the
accused for the reason best known to the complainant.
The complainant fabricated documents to support
his case. The complainant failed to establish the
real/ sufficient reason for not entering the witness box
and thereby contesting the case through special power
of attorney holder. Therefore, the accused prays to
dismiss the complaint.
20. During the course of arguments, learned
counsel or the complainant vehemently argued before
the court that the complainant has produced the
documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 which clearly
support the case of the complainant. The complainant
13 C.C.No.28745/2014
produced the cash book and ledger extract to
discharge the burden. The ledger is maintained by
the complainant in due course of business, and the
same has to be considered by this court. During the
arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant
again referred the documents produced by the
complainant .
21. In order to prove his case, the complainant
is examined as PW 1. The complainant has reiterated
the complaint averments in the sworn statement
affidavit and in his chief-examination . The
complainant further relied on the documents at
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 are the On
demand promissory notes and consideration receipts.
The signatures of the accused are at Ex.P.1 (a) (b) and
Ex.P.5 (a) (b). Ex.P.6 is the cheque in question .
Ex.P.6(a) is the signature of accused. Ex.P.7 is the
bank memo. Ex.P.8 is the office copy of the legal
notice. Ex.P9 to P.11 are the postal receipts. Ex.P.12
to Ex.P.14 are the postal acknowledgement. Ex.P.15
and P.16 are the Ledger Extracts. Ex.P.17 is the
14 C.C.No.28745/2014
complaint. Ex.P.18 is the Ledger Book. Ex.P.19 is the
cash book. The translation of cash book is marked at
Ex.P.19 (b). Ex.P.20 is the Income Tax return along
with the certificate u/s.65(b) of Evidence Act.
22. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
accused vehemently argued before the court that the
documents produced by the complainant are not at
all in accordance with the pleadings of the
complainant himself. The complainant has not
discharged his burden . The documents produced by
the complainant especially Ex.P.15 and P 16 , the
Ledger Extracts maintained by the complainant
himself during the course of business, the cash book
and the ledger folio does not match with each other.
23. It is further argued by learned counsel for
the accused that only 1 % of the interest is alleged to
have been charged in the pronote,. But interest of 1 %
has neither been mentioned in Ex.P15 and P.16 nor
reflected in the cash book of the complainant. The
circumstances are highly improbable that the
complainant had money to lend .
15 C.C.No.28745/2014
24. It is also argued by the learned counsel for
the accused that the Income Tax return form
produced by the complainant is marked subject to
objections before the court. Nowhere it is reflected
that the accused has taken Rs.10,00,000/- from the
complainant as hand loan. It can only be found if the
balance sheet of the complainant is produced. The
complainant has vehemently stated in his cross
examination that one Mr Mahesh Chandra Accountant
of the complainant looks after all the account
matters, but, but said Mahesh Chandra has not been
examined by the complainant . .
25. Though the complainant states in his
evidence that his wife and father witnessed the
transaction, but, neither the wife of the complainant
nor his father have been examined before court.
26. Absolutely the complainant has not
mentioned as to when the accused issued the alleged
cheques to the complainant. The complainant neither
explained this aspect of the matter in his notice,
complaint , nor in the evidence . Admittedly, the
16 C.C.No.28745/2014
complainant had no any transaction with the accused
person before August 2014. The complainant had no
idea about the yearly turn over of the accused person .
He does not know the financial status and the
condition of the person to whom he is lending the
money. The arguments canvassed by the learned
counsel for the complainant in this regard cannot be
accepted.
27. It is further argued by the learned counsel
for the accused that over and above in 1 month the
complainant has lent amount of Rs.27,00,000/- to
the accused on various dates in the month of
September. But, the complainant has not at all shown
the source of income to prove his financial capacity
to lend Rs.27,00,000/- in one particular month out of
his income. The complainant has not at all
produced any documents to that effect. Though
Income Tax return is produced, but they are marked
subject to objections. The cheques and the pronote
belonging to the accused person have been misplaced
from the custody of his office . Therefore, the accused
17 C.C.No.28745/2014
has given stop payment instructions to his banker.
The accused has reacted as early as possible to this
situation. It is further argued by the learned counsel
for the accused that the complainant has violated the
provisions of Income Tax Act also. Therefore,
considering this aspect of the matter the learned
counsel for the accused submitted that there are
material discrepancies in the evidence of the
complainant. The case of the complainant is full of
material suspicion. Hence, prayed for acquittal of the
accused.
28. In support of his defence, the accused has
produced his pass port marked at Ex.D.1 . Ex.D.2 -
confirmation letter issued by the bank authority in
respect to the stop payment letter issued by the
accused. Ex.D3 is the inward cheques enquiry of the
account of the accused person dt.12.3.2014.
29. Of course, there is no dispute that the
complainant and the accused are acquainted with
each other because of their respective business. The
accused does not dispute the fact that the cheque in
18 C.C.No.28745/2014
question relate to the account held by him with
Punjab National Bank. The accused also does not
dispute the signature found on the cheque - ExP.6 .
According to the accused the said cheque Ex.P.6 and
the Promissory notes marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P5
have been misplaced when it was kept in his office
when the accused was traveling abroad for his
business purpose.
30. As noticed supra, according to the case of
complainant the accused approached the complainant
for hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and Accordingly the
complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused by
way of cash on different dates i.e the complainant
paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 2.9.13. , Rs.2,00,000/- on
10.9.13, Rs.2,00,000/- on 16.9.13, Rs.2,00,000/- on
23.9.13 and also Rs.2,00,000/- on 30.9.13. There is
no dispute that when the cheque was presented for
encashment, the same returned with banker
endorsement "payment stopped by the drawer".
Ex.P.8 is the copy of the legal notice purported to have
been issued on behalf of the complainant on
19 C.C.No.28745/2014
15.3.2014 calling upon the accused to pay the amount
covered under the cheque. The complaint came to be
presented on 7.4.2014. It is the specific defence of
the accused that there was no monetary transaction
between the complainant and himself and at no
point of time borrowed much less Rs.10,00,000/-
from the complainant nor the cheque in question
issued for discharge of any liability due by him to the
complainant .
31. The accused in his cross examination
clearly admits that the signatures on the promissory
notes and the cheque in question . It is further
admitted by the accused the he knows the
complainant since 4 years. This aspect of the matter
clearly shows that the parties are well acquainted with
each other.
32. It is further suggested to DW1, the accused
that the present transaction has not been entered in
his Income Tax returns for which the accused has
clearly denied. But to show this aspect of the matter
the accused has not produced any of the Income Tax
20 C.C.No.28745/2014
returns. It is the strong and stout defence of the
accused that the cheques and some other important
letter heads signed by him which were kept in his
office have been misplaced and the cheque in
question is part of the said cheques. It is also stated
by the accused the he was frequently travelling in
order to purchase the raw materials for manufacture
of mattresses and he did not want the business to get
hampered during the travel. Therefore, the cheques
and the letter heads and other documents were
readily made available at his office. The subject
matter of the cheques i.e 837670 is one among the
blank cheques which the accused signed and reserved
for business purpose. Since he was traveling
extensively in 2013 and early 2014, upon his return
the accused noticed that few of his important paper,
promissory notes, and cheques and vital documents
kept in the file were missing. The accused was able to
trace the cheque numbers and immediately
communicated with his banker to stop payment . The
subject matter cheque is part of the said missing
21 C.C.No.28745/2014
cheques for which the accused had instructed his
banker to stop payment.
33. Even if it is presumed for moment that
since the accused was travelling extensively in the
year 2013 and early 2014 to various countries for
purpose of his business, any ordinary prudent man to
make any payment in the business, a person may
keep a cheque signed and ready. But it is quite
difficult to believe that a person keeps the promissory
note signed and keeps them ready in his office to make
the same available for the business. To prove this
aspect of the matter the accused has not produced any
cogent and convincing material evidence before this
court. The accused has not come forward to lead
the evidence of any of his employee or staff to prove
that the cheque in question was misplaced. The non
production of the letter issued to the bank authorities
further creates doubt on the very defence of the
accused. It appears that the accused has taken up
the present defence only for the purpose of avoiding
the liability. Except the self serving statement of the
22 C.C.No.28745/2014
accused, there is nothing on record to prove his
defence
34. The accused has challenged the financial
capacity of the complainant and the counsel for the
accused vehemently argued before the court that the
complainant within the span of 1 month cannot pay
such huge amount of money to the accused. To
disprove this aspect of the matter the complainant
has produced Ex.P.20 - the income tax return of the
year 2014 -15 wherein the total income of the
complainant is reflected as Rs.55,45,189/- . This
aspect of the matter clearly shows that the
complainant is an income tax payee who had duly
filed the returns before the appropriate authority and
had sufficient income to lend money to the accused
person.
35. The accused has further contended that the
legal notice has not been served upon him. During
the cross examination, the accused / DW1 has clearly
admitted that the address shown in Ex.P.15 is his
residential address and he is the partner of accused
23 C.C.No.28745/2014
no.1 . It is further admitted by DW 1 that seal on the
postal acknowledgement looks similar to the seal of
accused no.1 and 2. The entire purpose of issuing
notice is to give opportunity to the drawer to pay the
cheque amount within 15 days of service of notice and
thereby free himself from the penal consequence of
Sec.138. It is to be borne in mind that the requirement
of giving notice is clear departure from Rule of
Criminal Law where there is no stipulation of giving of
notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who
claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post ,
can within 15 days of receipt of summons from the
court in respect of the complaint u/s.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act ,make payment of the cheque amount
and submit to the court that he had made payment
with 15 days from receipt of summons ( by receiving
the copy of the complaint with the summons) and
therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A
person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of
the summons from the court along with the copy of
the complaint u/s.138 of the Act, cannot obviously
24 C.C.No.28745/2014
contend that there was no proper service of notice as
required u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument Act by
ignoring statutory provisions to the contrary u/s.27
of the General Clause Act and Sec.114 of the evidence
Act. Therefore, since the accused has appeared before
the court upon the service of summons, it was open
for the accused to have made the payment and to have
absolved himself of criminal liability if the only
contention that is to be addressed was , whether
there was valid service of notice. Hence, the question
of validity of service of notice will not assist the
accused in his defence in this case. The portion of the
cross examination in this regard clearly shows that
the notice is duly served upon the accused at his
office as well as to his residential address. Therefore,
the arguments, canvassed by the learned counsel for
the accused does not survive for consideration.
36. Hence, in view of this the court is of the
opinion that the complainant has successfully
discharged his initial burden casted upon him and
successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that
25 C.C.No.28745/2014
the accused issued the cheque in question in
discharge of debt and liability and the said cheque ,
upon presentation came to be dishonored for the
reason "payment stopped by the drawer" for which the
complainant issued legal notice to the accused and
despite service of notice, the accused neither replied to
the notice , nor took any action against the
complainant and he has not made the payment also.
37. Therefore, the accused though has taken a
defence that the cheques kept in is office have been
misplaced, but, has failed to prove this aspect of the
matter by producing satisfactory material evidence
before the court. Mere taking up defence is not
sufficient . The accused has to prove the same by
producing cogent and convincing material before this
court. The accused has failed to take up probable
defence in order to disprove the case of the
complainant . Hence, in view of this I answer Point
No.1 in the Affirmative.
38. Point No.2: In view of the reasons stated
and discussed above, the complainant has proved the
26 C.C.No.28745/2014
guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under
Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act .
Hence, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
Acting u/s.255(2) Cr.P.C accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act and accused No.2 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,60,000/-.(Rs.Ten Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) In default, he shall under go SI for a period of one year .
Acting under Section 357 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C, out of the fine amount the complainant is entitled for Rs.10,50,000/-.(Rs.Ten Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) towards compensation amount.
Acting under Section 357 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C, the remaining fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) is confiscated to the State .
Furnish free copy of judgment and order to convicted-accused. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her , corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of March , 2018).
(SHIRIN JAVEED ANSARI ) XXV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
27 C.C.No.28745/2014ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : Kishore Sureshlal .
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1-5 : On demand promissory notes/ and consideration receipts.
Ex.P.6 : Cheque. Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of the accused. Ex.P.7 : Bank memo. Ex.P.8 : Office copy of legal notice. Ex.P.9-11 : Postal receipts. Ex.P.12 to 14 : Postal acknowledgements. Ex.P.15 &16 : Ledger Extracts. Ex.P.17 : Complaint. Ex.P.18 : Ledger Book. Ex.P.19 : Cash Book. Ex.P.20 : IT Return.
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:- -
DW1 : Syed Intiaz Ahmed.
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 : Pass Port.
Ex.D2 : Confirmation Letter.
Ex.D3 : Inward cheque enquiry.
( SHIRIN JAVEED ANSARI )
XXV A.C.M.M.,BANGALORE.28 C.C.No.28745/2014
Dt:28.3.2018 For judgment:
ORDER (Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate sheets) Acting u/s.255(2) Cr.P.C accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act and accused No.2 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,60,000/- .(Rs.Ten Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) In default, he shall under go SI for a period of one year .
Acting under Section 357 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C, out of the fine amount the complainant is entitled for Rs.10,50,000/-.(Rs.Ten Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) towards compensation amount.
Acting under Section 357 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C, the remaining fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) is confiscated to the State .
Furnish free copy of judgment and order to convicted-accused.
XXV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
29 C.C.No.28745/2014