Bangalore District Court
M/S Kaizen Digital Cable vs M/S. Siti Cable Network Limited on 9 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59), BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 9th day of December 2021
PRESENT
Sri.G.L.Lakshminarayana, B.Com., LL.B.,
LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-59),
Bengaluru.
: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.821/2020:
APPELLANTS : 1. M/s Kaizen Digital Cable
Services Private Limited,
A Registered Company under
The Indian Companies Act,
Represented by its
Managing Director
Mr.Shashikanth.
2. Mr.Shashikan.N,
Managing Director,
M/s. Kaizen Digital Cable
Services Private Limited,
Both at No.169/10,
Gurukrupa, 12th Cross,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 086.
-V/S-
RESPONDENT : M/s. SITI Cable Network Limited,
Corporate Office at FC-9,
Sector-16A, Film City,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh
2 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020
And
Office at B-10, Lawrence Road,
Industrial Area,
Delhi - 110 035,
Represented by its present
Assistant General Manager,
(Sales) Ms.Mana Ireland.
JUDGMENT :
The appellant/accused has preferred an appeal under section 374(3) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.9282/2017 dated 28.10.2020 on the file of the learned XXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, by allowing the appeal and to acquit the appellant/accused.
2. The parties to the appeal are hereinafter referred to their ranks assigned to them before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The facts scenario of the case as per complainant is as under:
3 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020
The complainant has filed a private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act alleging that the complainant company is incorporated under the companies Act and it is pioneers in the business of establishment of Cable Networks, Retransmission of various communication signals and supply of software to various Distribution companies/local cable operators through its networks established in various parts of India. The accused approached the complainant holding that they have established business in Digital cable TV operations having about 1,20,000 active subscriber base in entire Bengaluru, beside having sufficient infrastructure and expressed their desire for joint operations in entire DAS areas of Bengaluru and assured good profits. Being induced by the words and assurances by the accused, the complainant agreed for their proposal. After negotiations, both the complainant and accused entered into Memorandum of Understanding 4 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 dated:21/03/2014 and Supplementary Memorandum of Understanding dated: 25/04/2014 outlining their terms and conditions.
4. As per the terms of understandings the accused had to finalize Due diligence report of their company and to complete other formalities for signing the remaining agreements with the complainant for running digital cable TV business operations jointly in Bengaluru and its surrounding areas. The complainant had released a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in the name of the accused company vide cheque No. 640352 dated: 25/04/2014 drawn on IDBI Bank, Ground Floor, Ocean Complex, P6, Sector - 18, Noida, Uttar Pradesh towards part consideration for joint digital Cable TV operations in Bengaluru and its surrounding areas. The complainant found various concealed and non- disclosed facts, information, documents and papers with regard to Digital Cable TV operations besides various deals/understandings arrived 5 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 with various third parties including competing MSO's in Bengaluru for carrying joint digital cable TV Operations in Bengaluru by the accused. The accused failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement and failed in finalization of Due diligence report and also indulged in certain activities against the complainant company. After knowing the same when the complainant sought for clarification, the accused company utterly failed to reply queries raised by the complainant company. The accused had also admitted various omissions and commissions in the understandings arrived with the complainant company, besides to compensate all the business losses incurred by the complainant company for Bengaluru operations due their acts. Based on the request of the accused, the complainant company had terminated the validity of the understandings and the accused had promised to refund the entire amount accepted from the complainant. The accused admitted in various meetings and discussions 6 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 held with the regional office and Senior Executive of the complainant company for refund of the entire unpaid amount including the earlier cheque bounced amount and requested for some more time. But the accused completely neglected to release the entire unpaid refundable amount besides the cheque bounced amount.
5. Towards discharge of the debt and liability issued cheque bearing No. 849486 dated: 23/06/2014 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant and while issuing the said cheque promised to honour the same as they have ensured sufficient funds. The complainant believing the words and promises of the accused, presented the cheque through their bankers IDBI Bank situated at Regional Processing Centre, E-4, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi Press, and the said cheque came to be dishonoured vide banker's memo dated 25.06.2014 for the reasons 7 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 "PAYMENT STOPPED BY THE DRAWER". The complainant contacted the accused and informed about the dishonour of the cheque and the accused made reply vide e-mail dated: 29.05.2014 admitting to return the entire unpaid amount, but failed to make payment. The complainant issued statutory notice dated: 09.07.2014 through Courier demanding the accused for payment of the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and the said notice served on the accused. On receipt of notice the accused requested the complainant for some time to make payment and pleaded not to initiate any legal proceedings. But the accused failed to adhere with their promise. Hence, the complainant has filed a complaint.
6. The trial court took cognizance of the offence, sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and registered a case and issued summons to the accused person.
8 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020
7. In response to the court summons accused No.2 appeared before the trial court and he was released on bail. Accusation framed by the trial court, read over and explained to the accused. The accused No.2 has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. In order to prove the case, the representative of the complainant company examined as P.W-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 documents. After closing the evidence of the complainant, the statement of accused No.2 under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused No.2 examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 documents.
9. After hearing the arguments of both side and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned XXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, by impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 28.10.2020, convicted the accused No.2 for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable 9 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.11,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.10,90,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be remitted as fine to the State.
10. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellant/accused has preferred an appeal on the following grounds:
The impugned judgment and sentence passed by the trial court is illegal. The impugned order suffers from serious legal infirmities and as such the appellants have to be acquitted for the alleged offences against them. The court below has taken cognizance without proper jurisdiction and has wrongly convicted the accused contrary to the principles of law in force. The respondent has misused the cheque in question which was issued to 10 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 the respondent for supply of STBs and hence, therefore it has no locus standi to claim the cheque amount and the appellant has no liability to pay the amount of the said cheques to the respondent. The court below failed to notice that the ingredients of section 138 and section142 of N.I.Act are lacking and especially there are no enforceable legal debt to be recovered by the appellants in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent despite of not producing the relevant MOUs being extensively referred to in their complaint before the trial court but they desperately produced the documents authored by the appellant. The court below has failed to note the fatal discrepancies inconsistencies in the very case of the respondent. The court below has completely ignored the averments/relevant evidence and particularly by linking the cheque in question to the MOU dated 21.03.2014 entered between the parties to. The court below has completely ignored the defence of the accused. But the court has considered the version of 11 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 the complainant. The court below has ignored by not appreciating the evidence of DW-1, who successfully rebutted the presumption placed in favour of PW-1. The trial court has completely ignored the reverse onus clause of presumption under N.I.Act which ought to have been given effect to the moment. The trial court has failed to appreciate that the accused preponderance of probabilities has proved that there was no legal debt/liability due form him to the respondent. Amongst other grounds, the appellant/accused has sought to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court.
11. After service of appeal notice, the respondent appeared through his counsel.
12. Trial Court record is received.
13. Heard arguments from both side and perused the materials placed on record.
12 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020
14. The following points arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and it requires interference by this court.
2. What order?
15. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
POINT NO.1 - Negative;
POINT NO.2 - As per final order for the following:-
: REASONS:
16. POINT NO.1: The contention of the complainant is that the complainant company is incorporated under the companies Act and it is pioneers in the business of establishment of Cable Networks, 13 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 Retransmission of various communication signals and supply of software to various Distribution companies/ local cable operators through its networks established in various parts of India. The accused approached the complainant holding that they have established business in Digital cable TV operations having about 1,20,000 active subscriber base in entire Bengaluru, beside having sufficient infrastructure and expressed their desire for joint operations in entire DAS areas of Bengaluru and assured good profits. Being induced by the words and assurances by the accused, the complainant agreed for their proposal. After negotiations, both the complainant and accused entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated:21.03.2014 and Supplementary Memorandum of Understanding dated: 25.04.2014 outlining their terms and conditions.
17. As per the terms of understandings the accused had to finalize Due diligence report of their 14 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 company and to complete other formalities for signing the remaining agreements with the complainant for running digital cable TV business operations jointly in Bengaluru and its surrounding areas. The complainant had released a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in the name of the accused company vide cheque No. 640352 dated: 25/04/2014 drawn on IDBI Bank, Ground Floor, Ocean Complex, P-6, Sector -18, Noida, Uttar Pradesh towards part consideration for joint digital Cable TV operations in Bengaluru and its surrounding areas. The complainant found various concealed and non-disclosed facts, information, documents and papers with regard to Digital Cable TV operations besides various deals/understandings arrived with various third parties including competing MSO's in Bengaluru for carrying joint digital cable TV Operations in Bengaluru by the accused. The accused failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement and failed in finalization of Due diligence report and also indulged in certain 15 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 activities against the complainant company. After knowing the same when the complainant sought for clarification, the accused company utterly failed to reply queries raised by the complainant company. The accused had also admitted various omissions and commissions in the understandings arrived with the complainant company, besides to compensate all the business losses incurred by the complainant company for Bengaluru operations due their acts. Based on the request of the accused, the complainant company had terminated the validity of the understandings and the accused had promised to refund the entire amount accepted from the complainant. The accused admitted in various meetings and discussions held with the regional office and Senior Executive of the complainant company for refund of the entire unpaid amount including the earlier cheque bounced amount and requested for some more time. But the accused completely neglected to release the entire 16 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 unpaid refundable amount besides the cheque bounced amount.
18. Towards discharge of the debt and liability issued cheque bearing No. 849486 dated: 23.06.2014 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant and while issuing the said cheque promised to honour the same as they have ensured sufficient funds. The complainant believing the words and promises of the accused, presented the cheque through their bankers IDBI Bank situated at Regional Processing Centre, E-4, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi Press, and the said cheque came to be dishonoured vide banker's memo dated 25.06.2014 for the reasons "PAYMENT STOPPED BY THE DRAWER". The complainant contacted the accused and informed about the dishonour of the cheque and the accused made reply vide e-mail dated: 29.05.2014 admitting to return the 17 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 entire unpaid amount, but failed to make payment. The complainant issued statutory notice dated: 09.07.2014 through Courier demanding the accused for payment of the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and the said notice served on the accused. On receipt of notice the accused requested the complainant for some time to make payment and pleaded not to initiate any legal proceedings. But the accused failed to adhere with their promise.
19. P.W.1 in his chief examination reiterated the facts as alleged in the complaint. In his cross- examination denied the suggestion that he was not personally aware of the transactions with the complainant. He has not a party to the negotiation and he was not a party to the agreement taken place between the complainant company and the accused. He handling the entire financial matters of Karnataka as well as Kerala State pertaining to the complainant company. It 18 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 shows that the complainant is having acknowledgement with regard to the transactions between the complainant company and accused. Further admitted that the complainant company is the first entity in India to establish cable net work business by Corporate company. Further P.W.1 in his cross-examination denied the suggestions that the said amount of Rs.50,00,000/- paid to the accused in part compliance of goodwill and further admitted that the complainant company cannot be mislead by the accused company early. The accused entered into agreement with DEN Networks. He has not placed the said agreement entered with DEN Network. Further stated that he is not specifically aware of non performance of condition by the accused. But the accused has failed to perform certain conditions put forth in the agreement. This shows that the accused company has committed mistake as per the terms and conditions imposed in the agreement. Further the P.W.1stated that an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- paid to the accused 19 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 company and out of which he got Rs.30,00,000/- and account is due Rs.20,00,000/- and it is loss caused to the complainant company from the accused side.
20. The learned counsel for the accused in his cross-examination elicited this portion, it clearly goes to show that the accused caused loss to the complainant company. Further denied the suggestion that he has not sent some other extension in connection with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and not sent notice to the accused. Further denied the suggestion that Ex.P.2 cheque is not connected with the memorandum of understanding and supplementary memorandum of understanding referred in the complaint. Further admitted that MOU referred in the complaint terminated he do not remember the date of termination of MOU. Further denied the suggestion that the accused has issued cheque in question for supply of STB and as the complainant company fails to return STB to the accused.
20 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020
21. Ex.P.1 is certified copy of the Board Resolution, Ex.P.2-cheque, it reveals that the appellant/accused has issued cheque in favour of the complainant. Ex.P.3-bank memo, it reveals that the complainant has presented the said cheque before the bank and the banker has given the endorsement as "Insufficient funds". Ex.P.4-legal notice, it reveals that the complainant has issued legal notice to the accused calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 are postal receipts, it reveals that the complainant has sent legal notice to the accused. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 are postal track consignments. Ex.P.9 is the certificate under section 65- B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.10 is copy of E-mail dated 29.05.2014. Ex.P.11 is certified copy of statement of objections along with verifying affidavit filed in case T.P.No.30/2017.
22. DW-1 in his chief examination stated that he is doing cable network business for the last 25 years many 21 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 other companies wanted to buy his business. In the year 2014 the complainant company approached him to buy their business or to do joint operation business. Before going to do joint operation and they wanted to do diligence report about his company. At the cost of the complainant he has jointly appointed KMPG Charted Accountant firm for processing of the value of his company. The said KPMG firm valued his company at Rs.32 Crores an adhoc basis he complainant company has released amount of Rs.50,00,000/- towards conciliation and other expenses for joint operation. He was ready for joint operation but the complainant company has not come forward because he could not deal with the said operation and he has sustained loss of Rs.32 crores. The complainant company has not given any reasons to complete the joint operation.
23. The cheque in question issued to the complainant company for supply of set up boxes. But the 22 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 complainant company has not supplied materials. Due to the said reasons he has given stop payment instruction to the bank. Hence, the accused is not liable to pay the amount to the complainant company. The complainant filed this false case to harass him. In his cross-examination stted that he is doing multi system operating system and also doing the said business sine more than 25 years. Therefore, it reveals that there was transaction between the complainant company and the accused. Further DW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that after negotiation MOU dated 21.03.2014 entered in between the complainant company and his company. Further admitted that he has received the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- through cheque No.640352 dated 25.04.2014 drawn on IDBI bank. The witness voluntarily says that he has received the said amount for joint operation business. There was an agreement between the complainant company and his company for entering into joint operation. It shows that there was 23 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 transaction in between the complainant company and accused company and the accused has also issued cheque in favour of the complainant company. Further DW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that the complainant company initiated proceedings against him before National Company Law Tribunal at Bengaluru.
24. P.W.1 in his cross-examination denied the entering of memorandum of understanding dated 21.03.2014 and supplementary memorandum of understanding dated 25.04.2014. DW-1 in his cross- examination clearly admits that on 21.03.2014 he entered into memorandum of understanding with the complainant company for joint operation business for entire DAS area at Bengaluru. Further stated that he do not know why supplementary agreement dated 25.04.2014 entered by him with the complainant company.
24 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020
25. DW-1 during the course of cross-examination admits that the complainant company initiated proceedings against him before the National Company Law Tribunal at Bengaluru in Petition T.P.No.30/2017. Further DW-1 in his cross-examination stated that he do not know whether statement of objections filed by him in the said proceedings and in the course of cross- examination of P.W.1 on behalf of the accused tried to deny the filing of statement of objections by the accused and also tried to deny the knowledge of the accused about contents of statement of objections filed in the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal. The complainant produced the certified copy of statement of objections along with verifying affidavit filed by the accused in the proceedings before the NCLT. The accused even though filed statement of objections before the NCLT proceedings he tried to conceal the same before the court for the reasons best known to him. 25 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020
26. In Ex.P.11 Statement of objections filed by the accused before the NCLT in Petition also the accused clearly admits about the payment of Rs.50,00,000/- by the complainant towards part consideration for joint operation and cable network business. So, it is clear that the complainant company and accused negotiated to carry out the joint operation of cable network business and entered into memorandum of understanding dated 21.03.2014 and supplementary memorandum of understanding dated 25.04.2014 and the complainant company released an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the accused towards part consideration for joint operation of cable net works business.
27. The contention of the accused is that he has issued Ex.P.2 to the complainant for supply of Set Top Boxes and the complainant has not supplied the said Set Top Boxes and the accused not issued Ex.P.2 cheque in respect of the Memorandum of Understanding and the 26 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 Supplementary Memorandum of understanding referred in the complaint. On behalf of the accused except self interested oral testimony of DW-1 and suggestions in the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 nothing is placed on record to show that the accused issued Ex.P.2 Cheque to the complainant for supply of Top Boxes. It is not the specific defense of the accused that there was a contract between the complainant company and accused for supply of Set Top Boxes and the accused not produced any such agreement taken place between the complainant company and accused. Further the accused has not placed any materials for having taken action against the complainant for not supply of Set Top Boxes. Except self interested oral testimony of DW-1 on behalf of the accused not placed any materials to show that the accused issued Ex.P.2 cheque for supply of Set Top Boxes. Therefore, the accused failed to prove their contention that Ex.P.2 Cheque issued to the complainant company for supply of Set Top Boxes.
27 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020
28. In terms of the Memorandum of Understanding and Supplementary Memorandum of Understanding entered by the complainant company and accused, the complainant released an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of the accused towards part consideration Operations of Cable Networks business. P.W.1 in his cross-examination stated that out of the said amount of Rs.50,00,000/- the accused has paid Rs.30,00,000/- to the complainant company and the accused is due of Rs.20,00,000/-. Ex.P.11 Statement of Objections filed by the accused before the NCLT, the accused admits that the balance amount of Rs.Rs.20,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant company. DW-1 in his cross- examination admits that Ex.P.10 E-mail sent by him to the complainant company and also admits that in Ex.P.10 agreed for repayment of the amount received from the complainant and sought time. So, it is not the case of the accused that he has repaid the entire amount of Rs.50,00,000/- received from the complainant 28 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 company. The accused admits that balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant company. Further, the accused has not placed any materials to show that he has issued Ex.P.2 Cheque to the complainant company for supply of Set Top Boxes. Under such circumstance, it can be said that the accused issued Ex.P.2 Cheque in favour of the complainant company towards discharge of the amount paid in terms of Memorandum of Understandings.
29. DW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that in Ex.D1 & Ex.D.2 E-mails name of the Complainant company is not appearing and they are between himself and KPMG and its groups. Ex.D.3 is due diligence report, the said report is draft and not a final report. Ex.D.4 is the certified copy of the proceedings before the Assistant Director of Income Tax Bengaluru and the said document is not concerned to this case. Therefore, the said documents cannot be taken into consideration. 29 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020
30. Perused the oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant, it reveals that the complainant company is incorporated under the companies Act and it is pioneers in the business of establishment of Cable Networks, Retransmission of various communication signals and supply of software to various Distribution companies/local cable operators through its networks established in various parts of India. The accused approached the complainant holding that they have established business in Digital cable TV operations having about 1,20,000 active subscriber base in entire Bengaluru, beside having sufficient infrastructure and expressed their desire for joint operations in entire DAS areas of Bengaluru and assured good profits. Being induced by the words and assurances by the accused, the complainant agreed for their proposal. After negotiations, both the complainant and accused entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated:21/03/2014 and Supplementary Memorandum of 30 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 Understanding dated: 25/04/2014 outlining their terms and conditions.
31. As per the terms of understandings the accused had to finalize Due diligence report of their company and to complete other formalities for signing the remaining agreements with the complainant for running digital cable TV business operations jointly in Bengaluru and its surrounding areas. The complainant had released a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in the name of the accused company vide cheque No. 640352 dated: 25/04/2014 drawn on IDBI Bank, Ground Floor, Ocean Complex, P6, Sector -18, Noida, Uttar Pradesh towards part consideration for joint digital Cable TV operations in Bengaluru and its surrounding areas. The complainant found various concealed and non- disclosed facts, information, documents and papers with regard to Digital Cable TV operations besides various deals/understandings arrived with various third parties 31 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 including competing MSO's in Bengaluru for carrying joint digital cable TV Operations in Bengaluru by the accused. The accused failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement and failed in finalization of Due diligence report and also indulged in certain activities against the complainant company. After knowing the same when the complainant sought for clarification, the accused company utterly failed to reply queries raised by the complainant company. The accused had also admitted various omissions and commissions in the understandings arrived with the complainant company, besides to compensate all the business losses incurred by the complainant company for Bengaluru operations due their acts. Based on the request of the accused, the complainant company had terminated the validity of the understandings and the accused had promised to refund the entire amount accepted from the complainant. The accused admitted in various meetings and discussions held with the regional office and Senior 32 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 Executive of the complainant company for refund of the entire unpaid amount including the earlier cheque bounced amount and requested for some more time. But the accused completely neglected to release the entire unpaid refundable amount besides the cheque bounced amount.
32. Towards discharge of the debt and liability issued cheque bearing No. 849486 dated: 23/06/2014 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant and while issuing the said cheque promised to honour the same as they have ensured sufficient funds. The complainant believing the words and promises of the accused, presented the cheque through their bankers IDBI Bank situated at Regional Processing Centre, E-4, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi Press, and the said cheque came to be dishonoured vide banker's memo dated 25.06.2014 for the reasons 33 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 "PAYMENT STOPPED BY THE DRAWER". The complainant contacted the accused and informed about the dishonour of the cheque and the accused made reply vide e-mail dated: 29.05.2014 admitting to return the entire unpaid amount, but failed to make payment. The complainant issued statutory notice dated: 09.07.2014 through Courier demanding the accused for payment of the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and the said notice served on the accused. On receipt of notice the accused requested the complainant for some time to make payment and pleaded not to initiate any legal proceedings. But the accused failed to adhere with their promise. Therefore, the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. The complainant has fulfilled the ingredients as contemplated under section 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. I do not find any valid reasons to interfere into the 34 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 judgment passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
33. POINT NO.2: In view of my finding on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
: ORDER :
The appeal filed by the appellant under section 374(3) of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C.No.9282/2017 dated 28.10.2020 is hereby confirmed.
Send TCR to the concerned court along with copy of this judgment forthwith. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of December 2021).
(G.L.Lakshminarayana) LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59) Bengaluru City.
35 Crl.Apl.No.821/2020 Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separate order) ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant under section 374(3) of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C.No.9282/2017 dated 28.10.2020 is hereby confirmed.
Send TCR to the concerned court along with copy of this judgment forthwith.
(G.L.Lakshminarayana) LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59) Bengaluru City.