Bangalore District Court
Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd vs M/S. Maa Bhagavathi Pharma on 2 January, 2024
KABC030784812022
IN THE COURT OF XXXVIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
~:PRESENT:~
SRI. VEERESH KUMAR C.K. B.A.L, LL.M, CC [Cyber Laws]
XXXVIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU
C.C. No.31749/2022
Date Of Judgment: 2nd day of January, 2024
Aristo Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
company incorporated under
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
Registered office at : Mercantile Chambers
3rd Floor, 12, J.N.Heredia Marg,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001
Branch office at: Plot No.277, 4th Main
4th Phase, Peenya Industrial Area
Bengaluru-560 058
Rep. By its Branch Manager
Sri.Anikkamadathil Prasad Nair ...Complainant
(By Shri. Narthana.G.U, Advocate)
----//VERSUS//----
1. M/s.MAA Bhagavati Pharma
No.60, 3rd Floor, 3rd Main Road
Chamrajpet, Bengaluru-560 018
Rep. By its Proprietor
Sri.Sanjay Kumar
2. Sanjay Kumar
S/o.Pukhraj C.Jain,
No.204/1, I Floor
A.S.Char Street,
Chickpet, Bengaluru-560 053 ...Accused
(Rep.By Sri.L.Ashok Kumar, Advocate )
KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:2:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
T his case emanates from a private complaint filed by the complainant alleging that the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by issuing cheques for the total amount of Rs.14,77,188/-, and the same was dishonored.
2 . THE ESSENTIAL FACTS:
The complainant company is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. In the present case the company is represented by its branch manager and he is duly authorized by board of directors to represent the company. It is a pharmaceutical company engaged in production and distribution of medicine. A.1 is the pharmaceutical distributor and A.2 is the proprietor of the accused No.1. They were purchasing the materials from the complainant since 16 years until November 2016. The accused was running the business in the name and style of South India Medicals and in the year 2016 the same is renamed in KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:3:-
the name and style as Maa Bhagavati Pharma. The accused and complainant were in regular business transaction since 16 years and upon the request of accused, the complainant use to supply materials on credit basis. In the month of July and August 2019 the complainant has supplied the material to accused on credit basis as follows:
a) Materials worth Rs.3,43,259/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty three thousand two hundred and fifty nine only) bearing Invoice No.2NG01040 dated 03/07/2019.
b) Materials worth Rs.4,43,713/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty three thousand seven hundred and thirteen only) bearing Invoice No.2NG01042 dated 03/07/2019.
c) Materials worth Rs.87,532/- (Rupees Eighty Seven thousand five hundred thirty two only) bearing Invoice No.2NG01481 dated 02/08/2019.
d) Materials worth Rs.2,61,367/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty one thousand three hundred and sixty seven only) bearing Invoice No.2NG01482 dated 02/08/2019.
e) Materials worth Rs.1,09,140/- (Rupees one Lakhs nine thousand one hundred and forty only) bearing Invoice No.2NG01484 dated 02/08/2019.
f) Materials worth Rs.3,38,199/- (Rupees three Lakhs thirty eight thousand one hundred and ninety nine only) bearing Invoice No.2NG01485 dated 02/08/2019.
KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:4:-
g) Materials worth Rs.1,17,936/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventeen thousand nine hundred and thirty six only) bearing Invoice No.2NB01266 dated 03/07/2019.
h) Materials worth Rs.1,04,093/- (Rupees One Lakh four thousand ninety three only) bearing Invoice No.2NB01268 dated 03/07/2019.
i) Materials worth Rs.85,431/- (Rupees eighty five thousand four thirty one only) bearing Invoice No.2NB01273 dated 03/07/2019.
j) Materials worth Rs.96,249/- (Rupees Ninety six thousand two hundred and forty nine only) bearing Invoice No.2NB01779 dated 02/08/2019.
k) Materials worth Rs.42,124/- (Rupees Forty two thousand one hundred and twenty four only) bearing Invoice No.2NB01780 dated 02/08/2019.
l) Materials worth Rs.68,796/- (Rupees Sixty eight thousand seven hundred and ninety six only) bearing Invoice No.2NB01863 dated 03/08/2019.
l) Materials worth Rs.68,796/- (Rupees Sixty eight thousand seven hundred and ninety six only) bearing Invoice No.2NB01863 dated 03/08/2019.
m) Materials worth Rs.6,805/- (Rupees Six thousand eight hundred and five only) bearing Invoice No.2NB01416 dated 09/07/2019.
n) Materials worth Rs.5,055/- (Rupees Five thousand fifty five only) bearing Invoice No.2NB01781 dated 02/08/2019.
KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:5:-
After lapse of due date, the complainant requested the accused to make payments and clear the dues. The accused No.2 being the proprietor expressed his financial difficulty and inability to make the payment has issued 7 cheques bearing Nos.277392, 125338, 277393, 277394, 277397, 125337 and 277396 drawn on Karnataka Bank in favour of the complainant and on presentation of above cheques they were dishonored for the reason 'funds insufficient'. For which the complainant issued notice calling upon the accused to make payments within 15 days, then the accused approached the complainant by acknowledging the debt and sought more time to clear the dues and issued 3 cheques bearing Nos.87285, 87286 and 87287. Even the said cheques came to be dishonored for the reason 'funds insufficient'. Same was intimated to accused, upon issuance of notice the accused again approached the complainant and sought time for payment on installment basis to an extent of Rs.1,30,000/- and another amount of Rs.2,97,498/- was recovered through KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:6:-
credit note and other adjustments. Again an amount of Rs.90,000/- was recovered by way of payments on various dates. After all that the outstanding balance amount was Rs.14,77,188/-. For which the accused issued two cheques drawn on Karnataka Bank dated 31/3/2022 bearing cheques Nos.995068 and 995069 for the amount of Rs.7,38,594/-
each. Even the said cheques were came to be dishonored, for which the notice was issued to the accused. In spite of said notice, the accused has not come forward to make payments of the due amount. Thereby the accused have committed an offence punishable u/S.138 of the N.I. Act. Hence, the present complaint.
3. On presentation of the complaint, this Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/sec. 138 of N.I. Act. The summons were issued to the accused persons. In pursuance to the service of summons, the accused No.2 has put his appearance through his Counsel and was enlarged on bail.
KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:7:-
4. The complaint copies were furnished to the accused persons as per Sec. 207 of Cr. P. C. The plea was recorded under Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. The accusation was read over to the accused No.2 to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate the case, the complainant has examined its manager as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to 32. After completion of complainant evidence, the statement of the accused U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. They have denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them. They have chosen to lead defence evidence. Accused No.2 got examined himself as DW.1 and has got marked 9 documents as Ex.D.1 to D.9.
6. Heard the respective learned counsels for the complainant and the accused. Both the parties have filed written arguments. Meticulously perused the available materials on record and citations filed by both the sides. KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:8:-
7. Based on the above materials the points that would arise for consideration are as follows:
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused have issued two cheques bearing Nos.995068 and 995069 dated:
31/03/2022 in favour of complainant for sum of Rs.7,38,594/- each respectively for total amount of Rs.14,77,188/- in discharge of legally enforceable debt and same are dishonored due to "Funds Insufficient" and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act ?
2. What order ?
8. The above points are answered as below:
Point No.1: In the AFFIRMATIVE Point No.2: As per final order for the following:-
::REASONS::
9. On Point No.1: The further narration of the entire averments of the complaint is desisted in order to avoid the repetition, as already narrated at the inception. KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:9:-
10. However, it is well settled that whenever complainant alleged that the accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act, obviously, the complainant has to establish that there was a legally enforceable debt and to discharge the said legally enforceable debt, the accused persons have issued the cheques and subsequently the said cheques have been dishonored in the account of the drawer/accused. Keeping in view of these main and important ingredients of section 138 of N.I. Act, this Court proceeds to discuss the evidence available on record.
11. As already been stated above, the complainant has examined its authorized signatory as PW.1. He has filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief U/Sec.145 of N.I. Act reiterating the entire averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.P.1 to 32.
12. The Ex.P.1, 2 are the company registration letter, Board Resolution, Ex.P.3 to P.14 are the 12 computerized invoices, Ex.P.15 to 21 are the 7 purchase order given by KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:10:-
accused company, Ex.P.22 is the letter written by accused company, Ex.P.23 is the cheque bearing No.995068 dt.31/3/2022 for Rs.7,38,594/-, Ex.P.24 is the cheque bearing No.995069 dt.31/3/2022 for Rs.7,38,594/-, Ex.P.25, 26 are the two Bank Endorsement as "Funds Insufficient", Ex.P.27 is the copy of Legal notice, Ex.P.28 are the two postal receipts, Ex.P.29 is the postal acknowledgment and Ex.P.30 is the RPAD cover, Ex.P.31 is the ledger extract of accused account and Ex.P.32 is the reply notice of accused. On perusal of Ex.P.23, 24 makes it clear that it supports the stand taken by the complainant herein, Ex.P.25, 26 endorsements, which discloses that the aforesaid cheques have been dishonored on 09/06/2022 for the reason of funds insufficient. As per clause (a) of proviso to Sec.138 of N.I. Act the cheque is to be presented for encashment within the period of its validity from the date on which the cheque has been issued. The Ex.P.23 and P.24 bears same dates and it were presented on 9/6/2022, which is within the prescribed period.
KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:11:-
13. As per clause (b) of proviso to Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant is required to issue notice, in writing, to the drawer/accused making a demand for repayment of the said cheque amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of information about the dishonor of the cheque. Ex.P.27 is the legal notice. Ex.P.28 are the two postal receipts, Ex.P.29 is the postal acknowledgment, Ex.P.30 is the RPAD cover, Ex.P.31 loan ledger account extract of accused and Ex.P.32 is the accused reply notice. Thereby, it is found that the complainant has issued legal notice within 30 days from the date of knowledge of dishonor of cheque. Thus, the provisions of clause (a) & (b) of proviso to Sec.138 of N.I. Act have been complied with.
14. As per clause (c) of the proviso to Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, the drawer/accused is entitled to have 15 days time to make the payment of the cheque amount. Even after elapse of 15 days time for making payment the accused has not made payment. Further the clause (b) of Sec. 142 of N.I. Act makes it KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:12:-
clear that the complaint has to be filed within 30 days from the date of cause of action arose. The endorsement made by this Court on the complaint reveals that the complainant presented the complaint on 29/07/2022 and as such, this complaint is well within the period of limitation. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant has complied all the necessary components which attracts section 138 of N.I. Act. Even the accused persons have not challenged any of the mandatory requirements to be complied by the complainant.
15. As per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme in case of APS FOREX SERVICES PRIVATE LTD., vs. SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS AND ORS., reported in [2020] ACR 457 wherein it is held that, once accused has admitted issuance of cheque which bears his signature, there is presumption that there exists legally enforceable debt or liability under Sec.139 of N.I. Act. In the present case the issuance of the cheque and the signature on the cheque is not disputed by KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:13:-
the accused persons. The said decision is aptly applicable for raising presumption in favour of complainant.
16. Therefore, when once it is proved that the cheque belongs to the accused persons coupled with proof that the cheque bears the signature of the accused. The presumption must be that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability. As this Court holds that the complainant has proved the execution of Ex.P.23 and P.24. More so, the accused have not challenged signature on the cheque. As a result, the presumption U/sec.139 of N.I. Act is drawn in favour of complainant. Now it is adverted below to the rebuttal of presumption by the accused.
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF REBUTTAL OF PRESUMPTION BY THE ACCUSED.
17. In order to rebut the presumption the accused has set up the following grounds as defence;
1. There is no proper authority to represent the present case in favour of its authorized representative.
KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:14:-
2. There is no legally recoverable debt,
3. The cheque in question was issued only for the purpose of security.
4. The accused is only due of payment of Rs.
4.,78,147/- and the representatives of the complainant have to pay the sum of Rs.
4,90,531/- to accused.
18. At the outset the accused has not denied the cheques nor signature on the cheques in his evidence nor in the cross examination of complainant.
19. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant and accused had long standing relationship with each. They both have admitted the said aspect. The accused had business transaction and was purchasing the pharmaceutical materials from complainant since 2011. The accused even the past had issued several cheques in favour of the complainant and they were dishonored and certain payments were adjusted.
20. Adverting to first defence, the complainant is represented by its Branch Manager and he is authorized by the complainant company by virtue of resolution dated KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:15:-
01.06.2022 bearing No. 0701062022 produced at Ex.P.2 and it is signed by its Executive director. The said resolution empowers the present complainant to prosecute the present case. The accused has questioned the authority of the executive director to empower PW.1 and resolution thereof. It is an undisputed fact that the accused and complainant are transacting with each other since more than 40 years and no where in the past the accused has questioned the authority of its manager. He is questioning the same in the present proceedings. It same amounts to approbate and reprobate. The same is not permissible. The complainant is duly registered company and the resolution is not merely a name sake resolution it has its series number. There are absolutely no grounds made out to doubt the genuineness Ex.P.2. Thereby the said defence is frivolous and does not call much of consideration and the same fails accordingly.
21. Adverting to second, third and fourth defences, the accused has set up defence that the alleged amount is not KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:16:-
legally recoverable debt based on ground that the cheque in question is not issued for liability but as security. The accused has also relied on Ex.D.1, letter confronted to PW.1, in his cross-examination. The same is admitted by PW.1. The ground of issuance of cheque for the purpose of security is no settled defence and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case has clarified the position of law on the same. The defence that the cheque issued as a security is not a probable defence. Once the repayment is due then the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation. The Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Sunil Todi and others vs State of Gujarat and others, reported in AIR 2022 SC 147, it is held that;
"Justice AS Bopanna, speaking for the two judge bench, adverted to the earlier decision in Indus Airways and the distinguishing features which were noticed in the decision in Sampelly. The Court held that where in the case of a loan transaction, the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified time frame and issues a cheque as a security to secure the repayment and the loan is not repaid, the KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:17:-
cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation. The Court observed:
"A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. 'Security' in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment. It is given, deposited or pledged to make certain the fulfillment of an obligation to which the parties to the transaction are bound. If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified time frame and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:18:-
dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I.Act would flow. Moreover, as the Court explained:
When a cheque is issued and is treated as 'security' towards repayment of an amount with a time period being stipulated for repayment, all that it ensures is that such cheque which is issued as 'security' cannot be presented prior to the loan or the instalment maturing for repayment towards which such cheque is issued as security. Further, the borrower would have the option of repaying the loan amount or such financial liability in any other form and in that manner if the amount of loan due and payable has been discharged within the agreed period, the cheque issued as security cannot thereafter be presented. Therefore, the prior discharge of the loan or there being an altered situation due to which there would be understanding between the parties is a sine qua non to not present the cheque which was issued as security. These are only KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:19:-
the defences that would be available to the drawer of the cheque in a proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, there cannot be a hard and fast rule that a cheque which is issued as security can never be presented by the drawee of the cheque. If such is the understanding a cheque would also be reduced to an 'on demand promissory note' and in all circumstances, it would only be a civil litigation to recover the amount, which is not the intention of the statute. When a cheque is issued even though as 'security' the consequence flowing therefrom is also known to the drawer of the cheque and in the circumstance stated above if the cheque is presented and dishonoured, the holder of the cheque/drawee would have the option of initiating the civil proceedings for recovery or the criminal proceedings for punishment in the fact situation, but in any event, it is not for the drawer of the cheque to dictate terms with regard to the nature of litigation."
KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:20:-
22. Now the aspect requires for consideration is that, whether the liability of the accused is matured and the complainant has right to execute the said liability against the accused. In other words it also involves the aspect of legally recoverable debt. The accused has admitted the partial liability of amount of Rs.4,78,147/-, against the cheque amount of Rs.14,77,188/-. The difference of amount is Rs. 9,99,000/-. The accused has not stated in his evidence how he has come to the calculation of the amount of Rs. 4,78,147/-. the same is not supported with cogent documents.
23. The accused has also stated in his chief examination that the representative of the complainant company owe him the amount of Rs. 4,90,531/-. However it is suggested in cross-examination of PW.1 that the representatives of the complainant company owe the accused the amount of Rs. 9,49,278/-. On addition of the said figures the total sum would come up to Rs. 14,27,425/-. Against the cheque amount of Rs.14,77,188/-.
KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:21:-
24. In the reply notice at Ex.P.32, the accused has stated as follows:
My clients submits that your representative working in your company as per annexure A has purchased goods on credit and have failed to pay the same.
Hence, my clients requests you to be kind enough to help them by recovering the said dues and the amount received from them may be credited to your balance actual payable by my clients.
25. It is also found from cross of PW.1, that a suggestion is also made that the representatives of complainant owe amount to accused. On overall examination of the defence of the accused, it is inferred that the accused was placing order for the representatives of the complainant or on their behalf. There was separate transaction between the representatives of the complainant company and the accused. The accused has placed orders on behalf representatives of complainant company for further selling it to other buyers. The complainant is unaware of the said transaction. In the cross examination of the accused/DW.1, it is admitted that he KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:22:-
has received the materials as per the invoices at Ex.P.3 to 14. However he volunteers that he had not placed the orders for the same. He even admits that he has not produced any document to show that the said materials are returned by him to the complainant company. The orders for the said materials was not placed at the instance of the complainant. Even the complainant has not authorized to place the orders through its representatives. In the email extract sent by accused sent to complainant at Ex.D.7, where the accused has stated that the representatives of the complainant company have taken stocks from the accused and they have not cleared his dues. He has asked the complainant company not to settle the dues of the representatives. The email is sent after filing of the present case. In the said context the accused has placed orders on behalf of representatives of complainant, who were not authorized for the same. The said persons have taken the stock from accused and for which they have not made payment of the accused. No fault could be found with the KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:23:-
complainant. More so the complainant cannot be made liable for the same. Placing orders with complainant on behalf of its representatives for sub-sale of the materials is against the cogent ethical principles. The accused has remedy for the same against the said representatives not against the complainant. The email extract at Ex.D.7, makes it further clear that the accused was duped. As a result taking the said ground the accused cannot hold the dues which are payable to the complainant.
26. In order to examine the aspect of legally recoverable debt/liability, the complainant has placed the invoices at Ex.P.3 to 14. The total sum of the said invoices is Rs. 18,02,239/-. The said sum was recovered through other modes and after that the liability stood at Rs.14,77,188/-. The accused has not denied the said invoices. He has even admitted the receipt of the stocks under the said invoices. Thereby the security has matured into the liability by virtue of the two cheques for the amount of Rs.7,38,594/- each. KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:24:-
27. On conjoint reading of the entire materials it is found that though PW.1 is cross-examined in detail however there is nothing material could be elicited so as to weaken the evidence/case of the complainant. the outstanding due of payment of amount by the accused is Rs.14.77.188/- and so as the liability of the accused and the same is legally recoverable debt of the complainant. All that is tried is to deny the case of the complainant and the liability. There is nothing that would support the defence of the accused in the portion of the cross-examination of PW.1. The defenses of the accused are too weak and the same cannot be accepted . As a result the accused has failed to rebut the presumption and so as the defences of the accused are dubious and inconceivable.
28. In the decision reported in 2006 (3) Crimes 117 (S.C.) between M.S.Narayana Memon @ Mani V/s. State of Kerala and Another. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"To rebut the presumption available under Section 118 and 139 KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:25:-
of N.I. Act is in favour of the complainant. What was needed was to raise a probable defence, standard of proof would be preponderance of probabilities could be drawn not only from material on records, but also reference to circumstances upon which he relied"
29. It is now fairly settled by catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act extends even to the existence of the liability and it is for the drawer of the said cheque to rebut the said presumption. Of course, it is also fairly well-settled that the accused is not required to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof regarding the defence plea is one of preponderance of probabilities. But in the present case the accused has even failed to establish preponderance of probability of defence in their favour nor to create a doubt about the case of the complainant.
30. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption, on the other KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:26:-
hand the tenor of cross-examination of PW.1 clearly indicates that he has proved the existence of the liability and also issuance of cheque for discharge of the said liability. Admittedly the complainant has complied with all requirements of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The statutory notice as required by law had been issued. The version of complainant is certain and stands proven than the defence of the accused. Hence, the above point is answered accordingly.
31. ON POINT NO. 2 : In view of the above findings the accused are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. Having regard to the fact that the accused in spite of issuance of cheque in favour of complainant has falsely raised the defence contrary to the actual facts. It is just and proper to sentence the accused to pay fine equivalent to the cheque amount along with appropriate penalty having regard to the untenable stand taken by them. Thereby, proceed to pass the following:
KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:27:-
:: ORDER ::
• In exercise of Sec. 255 (2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.15,25,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. • Out of fine amount of Rs.15,25,000/-, a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C and the remaining amount is defrayed to state as its expenses.
• Office is directed to supply this
Judgment to the accused No.2 free of
cost.
(Directly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court, on this the 2nd day of January, 2024.) (VEERESH KUMAR C.K.) XXXVIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
KABC030784812022 J UDGMENT CC N O .31749/2022
-:28:-
ANNEXURE
1. List of Witnesses examined for Complainant:
PW.1: Sri.Anikkamadathil Prasad Nair
2. List of Witnesses examined for Defence:
DW.1: Sanjay Kumar.
3. List of Documents marked for Complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Company Registration letter.
Ex.P.2 : Board Resolution.
Ex.P.3 to 14 : 12 Computerized invoices.
Ex.P.15 to 21 : 12 Computerized invoices.
Ex.P.22 : Letter written by accused company Ex.P.23,24 : Two original cheques Ex.P.25.26 : Two bank endorsement. Ex.P.27 : Copy of legal notice. Ex.P.28 : Two postal receipts. Ex.P.29 : Postal acknowledgment. Ex.P.30 : RPAD cover. Ex.P.31 : Ledger extract of accused account. Ex.P.32 : Reply notice to accused.
4. List of Documents marked for Defence:
Ex.D.1 : Letter. Ex.D.1(a) : Signature. Ex.D.2 : Statement of account.
Ex.D.3 to D.6 : Outstanding statement.
Ex.D.7 : E-mail extract. Ex.D.8 : NOC letter. Ex.D.9 : Sec.65(b) certificate. (VEERESH KUMAR C.K.) XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.