Bangalore District Court
Sri. R. Sathyanarayana Reddy vs Sri. S. Nagaraj on 15 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 15th day of May 2015
Present: Sri B. Narayanappa, M.A., LL.B.,
XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C. No.1081/2011
Complainant : Sri. R. Sathyanarayana Reddy,
S/o late Rama Reddy,
Aged - Major,
R/at No. 59, 'Vignesh',
IV Phase, J.P. Nagara,
Bangalore .
- VS -
Accused : Sri. S. Nagaraj
S/o Subbanna,
C/o Siddalingappa Memorial Hospital,
# 21/B, Kanakapura Main Road,
Konanakunte Cross,
Bangaluru 560 062.
Offence complained of U/s 138 of N.I. Act
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Accused is convicted
Date of order 15.05.2015
J U D G M E N T
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant u/s 200 of Cr.P.C., r/w 138 of N.I. Act praying to take cognizance of the offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act against the accused and accused be punished in 2 C.C.1081-2011 accordance with law and compensate the complainant u/s 357 of Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that the accused is having a Bar & Restaurant running under the name and style of Raj bar & Restaurant (S.N. Enterprises), situated at No.6, Amruthnagara Main Road, New Bank Colony, Konanakunte Village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore 62. The accused was badly in need of funds to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs to rectify his financial problems and other business problems, as such, the complainant mobilized the funds and paid an amount of Rs.7,75,000/- through RTGS process of the bank and Rs.52,25,000/- by way of cash to the accused. The accused pledged the original documents of his Bar & Restaurant and executed other documents in favour of the complainant on 3.6.2010. Thereafter, the complainant went to the Bar & Restaurant and on enquiry, he came to know that prior to borrowing the amount from the complainant the accused had already leased out the said Raj Bar & Restaurant to some other person, therefore, the complainant met the accused and demanded his amount. Therefore, the accused had issued cheque No.635963 dated 13.9.2010 for Rs.60 lakhs drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., M.G. Road branch, Bengaluru. The complainant presented the said cheque through his banker, ICICI Bank, Bengaluru for encashment, but the same was returned unpaid for the reasons "Opening balance insufficient". Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice through RPAD as well as UCP on 21.9.2010, the same were duly served upon the accused on 22.9.2010, inspite of it, the accused neither replied the notice nor paid the cheque amount and thereby accused has committed the offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, this complaint.
3 C.C.1081-2011
3. After registering this case, sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and a criminal case has been registered against the accused for the offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act and the summons was issued to the accused. The accused after service of summons upon him put his appearance before this court through his counsel and he was released on bail.
4. The prosecution papers were furnished to him. Thereafter plea of the accused was recorded, for which, he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried and then the case was posted for the evidence of the complainant.
5. The complainant in order to prove his case, got filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and the same was taken as PW-1and got marked Ex.P1 to P6 and closed his side. After closure of the evidence of the complainant side, the statement of the accused as required u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The accused denied the incriminating evidence read over to him and he submits that he would lead defence evidence on his behalf. Accordingly, he got examined himself as DW-1 and got examined one witness as DW-2 and got marked Ex D1 to D6 and closed his side.
6. After closure of defence evidence, I have heard the arguments of both sides. Both the advocates for complainant and accused filed their written arguments also.
7. On the basis of the materials placed on record, the points that arise for the consideration of the court are as follows:
4 C.C.1081-2011
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
8. My findings on the above said points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the affirmative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1: It is the specific case of the complainant that the accused is having a Bar & Restaurant under the name and style of Raj bar & Restaurant, situated at site No.6, Amruthnagara Main Road, New Bank Colony, Konanakunte Village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore and he was badly in need of funds to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs to rectify his financial and other business problems, as such, the complainant mobilized the funds and paid a sum of Rs.7,75,000/- through RTGS process of the bank and Rs.52,25,000/- by way of cash to the accused. The accused pledged the original documents of his Bar & Restaurant and executed other documents in favour of the complainant on 3.6.2010. Thereafter, the complainant went to the Bar & Restaurant and on enquiry, he came to know that prior to borrowing the amount from him the accused had already leased out the said Bar & Restaurant to some other person, therefore, he met the accused and demanded his amount. Therefore, the accused had issued cheque No.635963 dated 13.9.2010 for Rs.60 lakhs drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., M.G. Road branch, Bengaluru. The complainant presented the said cheque through his banker, ICICI Bank, but, the same was returned unpaid for the reasons "Opening balance insufficient". Therefore, on 5 C.C.1081-2011 21.9.2010, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused both by RPAD and UCP, the same were duly served upon the accused on 22.9.2010, inspite of it, the accused neither replied the notice nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant has constrained to file this complaint.
10. On the other hand, it is the defence of the accused that as he was in need of money, one Ravi Kumar introduced the complainant to him, the complainant told him that he would get the loan sanctioned in favour of him from K.S.F.C. He had obtained loan from S.B.I Bank and he was due to SBI in a sum of Rs.34 lakhs. He asked the complainant to clear the loan of SBI bank to an extent of Rs.34 lakhs and to get the loan sanctioned in favour of him through K.S.F.C, accordingly, the complainant cleared bank loan of Rs.34 lakhs. The bank had given him OTS scheme benefit and asked him to pay loan of Rs.28 lakhs, the complainant transferred Rs.28 lakhs to his account through RTGS and Rs.6 lakhs to the account of his wife, towards security he had handed over the documents pertaining to his hospital and Bar & Restaurant to the complainant and he had given his 10 blank cheques and 10 blank cheques of his wife and 100 blank On Demand Promissory Notes to the complainant, out of the said cheques, the complainant got filled one cheque for Rs.60 lakhs and filed this false complaint and out of the cheques of his wife the complainant got filled one cheque for Rs.30 lakhs and filed a complaint against his wife. The complainant had filed private complaint against him, in which the police have submitted 'B' report. The complainant had also by using his cheques got filed 2 cases against him through his friends.
6 C.C.1081-2011
11. The complainant in his affidavit evidence has stated that the accused was badly in need of Rs.60 lakhs to rectify his financial and other business problems, as such, he mobilized the funds and paid a sum of Rs.28,75,000/- through RTGS process and Rs.31,25,000/- by way of cash and the accused pledged the original documents of the Bar & Restaurant and executed documents in his favour on 3.6.2010 and reiterated and reaffirmed the rest of the things in accordance with the complaint averments and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. Ex.P-1 is the Original Cheque, Ex.P-2 is the Bank endorsement, Ex.P-3 is the Copy of Legal Notice, Ex.P-3(a) is the postal receipt, Ex.P4 is the UCP, Ex.P3(b) is the postal acknowledgment, Ex.P5 is the original complaint and Ex.P6 is the Agreement.
12. PW-1 in his cross-examination led by the defence counsel, he has stated that he was a hotelier and land developer. He knows the accused since 6 - 7 years, prior to this money transaction there was no money transaction in between him and the accused, accused was running Bar & Restaurant, he (PW-1) was also running Bar & Restaurant, as such, they became acquainted with each other. In the month of May 2010 accused asked money from him, but, he cannot say the exact date, he transferred Rs.28,75,000/- to the account of the accused through RTGS. He admits the suggestion that in his complaint he has stated that he had transferred Rs.7,75,000/- to the account of the accused through RTGS. He has not produced any documents to show that in the month of June 2010 he was in possession of Rs.60 lakhs. He denied the suggestion that on the said date, he was not in possession of such huge amount with him. He denied the suggestion that he had obtained documents from the accused and pledged the same with others and obtained money. He is 7 C.C.1081-2011 an income tax assessee, but, he had not shown the amount paid to the accused in his income tax returns. At the time of lending money to the accused by way of cash and through RTGS no witnesses were present. Accused had issued cheque of Rs.60 lakhs in his favour. He admits the suggestion that he had filed a cheque bounce case of Rs.30 lakhs against the wife of the accused in CC No.18495/2012. He denied the suggestion that he had obtained the cheque from the wife of the accused for collateral security. He had filed Civil Suit in O.S. 6634/2010 against the accused on the basis of documents executed by the accused. An agreement with respect to purchase of Bar and Restaurant and another agreement with respect to sale of house property were entered into in between him and the accused. He denied the suggestion that he had obtained original documents pertaining to the house property. He admits the suggestion that in the Civil Suit, he had stated that he had transferred Rs.28 lakhs to the account of the accused through RTGS. On 3.6.2010, he had transferred Rs.34 lakhs to the account of the accused through RTGS. He denied the suggestion that the legal notice sent to the accused has not been served upon him and he further denied the suggestion that with an intention to recover an amount of Rs.34 lakhs transferred by him to the account of the accused through RTGS along with interest of 10% he had filed present complaint against accused and another complaint against the wife of the accused and Civil Suit against the accused. He denied the suggestion that the accused had repaid Rs.34 lakhs to him, as such, the accused is not liable to pay any money to him.
13. DW-1/accused, in his evidence he has stated that as he was in need of money, one Ravi Kumar introduced the complainant to him, 8 C.C.1081-2011 the complainant told him that he would get the loan sanctioned in favour of him from K.S.F.C. He had obtained loan from S.B.I Bank and he was due to SBI in a sum of Rs.34 lakhs. He asked the complainant to clear the loan of SBI bank to an extent of Rs.34 lakhs and to get the loan sanctioned in favour of him through K.S.F.C, accordingly, the complainant cleared bank loan of Rs.34 lakhs. The bank had given him OTS scheme benefit and asked him to pay loan of Rs.28 lakhs, the complainant transferred Rs.28 lakhs to his account through RTGS and Rs.6 lakhs to the account of his wife, towards security he had handed over the documents pertaining to his hospital and Bar & Restaurant to the complainant and he had given his 10 blank cheques and 10 blank cheques of his wife and 100 blank On Demand Promissory Notes to the complainant, out of the said cheques, the complainant got filled one cheque for Rs.60 lakhs and filed this false complaint and out of the cheques of his wife the complainant got filled one cheque for Rs.30 lakhs and filed a complaint against his wife. The complainant had filed private complaint against him, in which the police have submitted 'B' report. The complainant had also by using his cheques got filed 2 cases against him through his friends and got marked Ex D1 to D6. Ex D1 is the PCR No.41425/10, Ex D2 is the OS No.6634/10, Ex D3 is the legal notice, Ex D4 is the OS 6634/10 order sheet, Ex D5 is the evidence and Ex D6 is the PCR order sheet.
14. DW-1 in his cross-examination led by the counsel for the complainant, he has stated that about 10 to 15 cheque bounce cases are pending against him. Ex.P1 cheque is belongs to his account and the signature found on the same is also of him. He had not replied the legal notice, since, he had not received legal notice. The complainant had filed private complaint against him, in which Kumaraswamy Layout 9 C.C.1081-2011 Police have filed 'B' report. He denied the suggestion that he met the complainant and told him that he is facing financial difficulties and asked him to lend money by taking his Bar & Restaurant licence and he further denied the suggestion that he had obtained loan from the complainant and to discharge the said loan himself and his wife have executed full and final settlement agreement in favour of the complainant as per Ex.P6. He admits the suggestion that he had not taken any action against the complainant to return his 10 blank cheques and 100 blank On demand Promissory note given by him to complainant. He had obtained loan from SBI bank and to discharge the said loan amount the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.29 lakhs to his account through RTGS. He denied the suggestion that on 2.6.2010 he had obtained hand loan from the complainant and to discharge the said loan he had issued disputed cheque Ex.P1 in favour of the complainant and he further denied the suggestion that in order to discharge the loan borrowed by him from the bank, the complainant had transferred Rs.28 lakhs through RTGS and remaining amount totally he had obtained loan of Rs.60 lakhs from the complainant and to discharge the said loan he had issued the disputed cheque.
15. DW-2/Gayathri Nagaraj, in her evidence she has stated that accused is her husband, she does not know the complainant. Her husband accused had obtained loan of Rs.40 lakhs from SBI bank, accused acquainted with the complainant and one Ravi Kumar who told the accused to get the loan sanctioned in favour of the accused from K.S.F.C and they agreed to clear the bank loan of accused to an extent of Rs.34 lakhs and to get the loan sanctioned in favour of the accused through K.S.F.C by obtaining documents from the accused. The bank 10 C.C.1081-2011 authorities told them that if an amount of Rs.28 lakhs is paid towards loan as one time settlement, their loan will be cleared. Therefore, the complainant and Ravi Kumar obtained documents pertaining to their hospital and Bar & Restaurant and 10 blank signed cheques of accused and 10 blank cheques of her and blank 100 On demand promissory note and told them to clear bank loan of Rs.28 lakhs, as such, they had executed an agreement in the presence of notary. Thereafter, accused told her that the complainant would clear bank loan of Rs.28 lakhs. The complainant by misusing the cheques given by them towards security had filed this false complaint and the complainant had also filed a cheque bounce case of Rs.30 lakhs against her and he filed Civil Suit in O.S. No. 6634/2011 against the accused.
16. DW-2 in her cross-examination led by the learned complainant counsel, she has stated that she knows the complainant, they had given the documents pertaining to their hospital and Bar & Restaurant to the complainant towards collateral security. She denied the suggestion that they had obtained loan from the complainant and to discharge the said loan they had issued Ex.P1 the disputed cheque in favour of the complainant. She admits the suggestion that the complainant had deposited some amount into their bank account. She denied the suggestion that there is no connection in between Ex D1 and the present case. She denied the suggestion that accused has to pay the disputed cheque amount to the complainant. They have not taken any steps for having issued 10 blank cheques and 100 blank On demand promissory notes to the complainant. She had issued 10 blank cheques and accused had issued 10 blank cheques to the complainant towards security. Out of her 10 blank cheques and 10 blank cheques of accused, the complainant has misused her two cheques and one 11 C.C.1081-2011 cheque of accused and got filed complaint through Uttam and Sudharshan against her and accused.
17. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, it reads thus:
"Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for (a term which may be extended to two year), or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both;
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, (within thirty days) of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
At the same time, it is relevant to mention Section 139 of N.I. Act, it reads thus:
12 C.C.1081-2011 "It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."
In the decisions reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court page 3897 it is held that:
"The presumption under Section 139 of the Act is a presumption of law, it is not a presumption of fact. This presumption has to be raised by the Court in all the cases once the factum of dishonour is established. The onus of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused. The standard of such rebuttal evidence depends on the facts and circumstances of each of case. Such evidence must be sufficient, cogent and should prove beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, a mere explanation is not enough to repel this presumption of law".
In cases of u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden of proving the ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I. Act is heavily lies upon the complainant. If he is able to prove the ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I. Act he will succeed the case otherwise no.
18. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has stated in his complaint that accused was badly in need of funds to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs and he mobilized the funds and paid a sum of Rs.7,75,000/- through RTGS and Rs.52,25,000/- by way of cash to the accused and to discharge Rs.60 lakhs accused had issued disputed cheque. Whereas, the same facts has also been stated by the complainant in his Sworn Statement filed by way of Affidavit, but, the complainant in his affidavit evidence has stated that the accused was badly in need of funds to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs to rectify his financial and business problems, as such, he mobilized funds and paid a 13 C.C.1081-2011 sum of Rs.28,75,000/- through RTGS and Rs.31,25,000/- by way of cash. So, there is a variance in between the pleadings of complaint and affidavit evidence regarding payment of Rs.60 lakhs to the accused by the complainant and the complainant has no where stated either in his complaint or in his affidavit evidence that on which date, month and year he had advanced a loan of Rs.60 lakhs to the accused, but, any way the accused has admitted in his defence evidence that the complainant had transferred Rs.28 lakhs to his account through RTGS and Rs.6 lakhs to the account of his wife and he further clearly admits that the complainant had transferred totally an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to his account through RTGS. In view of admission of accused, it is crystal clear that the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to the account of the accused by way of RTGS. So, undoubtedly there is no dispute with regard to transfer of money of Rs.34 lakhs by the complainant to the account of accused through RTGS. The complainant got marked Ex.P6 full and final settlement of sale with Bar & Restaurant licence and vacant possession delivered through this agreement executed by accused in favour of the complainant, which clearly discloses that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.30 lakhs to the accused under Ex.P6 and as I have already stated above the accused has admitted that the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to his account through RTGS. So, there is no dispute with regard to transferring of Rs.34 lakhs by the complainant to the account of the accused through RTGS, but, the complainant has contended that he had advanced a loan of Rs.60 lakhs to the accused, out of which an amount of Rs.7,75,000/- was transferred to the account of the accused through RTGS and paid Rs.52,25,000/- by way of cash. Whereas, I have already stated 14 C.C.1081-2011 above, the complainant in his affidavit evidence has stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.28,75,000/- to the accused through RTGS and Rs.31,25,000/- by way of cash. In this regard I have already stated above that there is a variance in between the pleadings of complainant and affidavit evidence of complainant. So, from this variance in between the pleadings and affidavit evidence of complainant, it is crystal clear that the complainant himself is not firm as to how much he had transferred money to the account of the accused through RTGS. Whether he had transferred an amount of Rs.7,75,000/- to the account of the accused through RTGS or an amount of Rs.28,75,000/- to the account of the accused through RTGS. Anyway, the accused had admitted that the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to his account through RTGS. So, there is no dispute with regard to transferring of money of Rs.34 lakhs by the complainant to the account of accused. But, with regard to balance amount of Rs.26 lakhs said to have been advanced by the complainant to accused by way of cash, no material evidence is placed on record by the complainant to show that he had advanced an amount of Rs.26 lakhs by way of cash, apart from transferring of an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to the account of the accused by way of RTGS, totally a sum of Rs.60 lakhs and the complainant has not at all produced any documents to show that he was in possession of remaining amount Rs.26 lakhs in cash and he paid the said amount, apart from transferring of Rs.34 lakhs to the account of the accused through RTGS, totally to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs to the accused. PW-1/complainant in his cross- examination has stated that he is an income tax assessee and he further stated that he has not shown the amount advanced to the accused in his I.T. returns and no documents are produced in this 15 C.C.1081-2011 regard. As per the allegations of the complainant, he had advanced a sum of Rs.60 lakhs to the accused. Admittedly, the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to the account of the accused, there is no dispute in this regard, but, so far as remaining amount of Rs.26 lakhs it is also a very huge amount said to have been advanced by the complainant to accused, the complainant had not at all produced any documents as stated above and regarding possession of said huge amount of Rs.26 lakhs with him, the complainant has not produced any documents. So, prima facie the complainant has failed to prove his capacity to pay a sum of Rs.26 lakhs by way of cash to the accused except transferring of amount of Rs.34 lakhs to the bank account of the accused. It is the allegation of the complainant that he has advanced an amount of Rs.60 lakhs to the accused and for repayment of the said loan the accused had issued disputed cheque Ex.P1 for Rs.60 lakhs. The accused has also admitted that Ex.P1 disputed cheque is belongs to his account and the signature found on the same is of him. But, the question arises about the genuineness of the disputed cheque, since, an amount of Rs.34 lakhs which amount admittedly has been transferred by the complainant to the account of the accused through RTGS, but as I have already stated above regarding balance amount of Rs.26 lakhs said to have been paid by the complainant to the accused by way of cash, absolutely there is no material placed on record by the complainant. So, doubt creates about the remaining amount of Rs.26 lakhs said to have been advanced by the complainant to the accused by way of cash except transferring of Rs.34 lakhs by the complainant to the account of the accused through RTGS. Therefore, as I have already stated above doubt creates about the genuineness of the Ex.P1, the disputed cheque, with 16 C.C.1081-2011 respect to remaining amount of Rs.26 lakhs said to have been paid by the complainant by way of cash to the accused. As admitted by the complainant he is an income tax assessee, but he has not shown the amount advanced to the accused in his I T returns. If at all the allegations of the complainant that he had paid balance amount of Rs.26 lakhs by way of cash to the accused, apart from transferring of Rs.34 lakhs to the account of the accused by way of RTGS were to be correct, the complainant could have produced I.T. Returns showing that he had paid a sum of Rs.26 lakhs by way of cash to the accused, but he has not produced the same and as I have already stated above that absolutely no documents are produced by the complainant to show that he was in possession of huge amount of Rs.26 lakhs by way of cash and he paid the said amount to the accused, apart from transferring of Rs.34 lakhs to the account of the accused through RTGS, totally to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs said to have been paid to the accused by the complainant. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the complainant has partly proved that he had advanced an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to the accused by way of transferring the same to the account of the accused through RTGS, but, he has failed to prove that he had paid remaining amount of Rs.26 lakhs to the accused by way of cash. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the complainant has partly proved that he had advanced an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to the accused by way of transferring the same to the account of the accused through RTGS,
19. On going through the complaint averments, affidavit of PW- 1 and his cross-examination and Ex.P1 to P6 and the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 and their cross-examination, it is crystal clear that the complainant before filing this complaint has fulfilled the necessary 17 C.C.1081-2011 ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. The onus of proof to rebut the presumption available to complainant u/s 139 of N.I. Act is lies upon the accused. The standard of such rebuttal evidence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Such evidence must be sufficient, cogent and should be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption available to complainant u/s 139 of N.I. Act. The cheque Ex.P1 partly presumed to be issued for the legally enforceable debt. On the other hand, the complainant has proved his case that accused has committed offence punishable u/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by adducing cogent, convincing and believable evidence and by producing documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P6. Therefore, I answer the point no.1 in the affirmative.
19. Point no.2: In view of my findings on point no.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.40,10,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs ten thousand only). In default he shall under go simple imprisonment for 2 (two) years.
Out of the fine amount, of Rs.40,10,000/- a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. The balance amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) shall be appropriated to State Exchequer.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
18 C.C.1081-2011 Issue free copy of Judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and printout taken by him, and then verified, and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15th day of May 2015).
(B.NARAYANAPPA), XVI Addl.,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 R.Sathyanarayana Reddy List of documents exhibited on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P-1 Original Cheque Ex.P-1(a) Signature of accused Ex.P-2 Bank Endorsement Ex.P-3 Copy of Legal Notice Ex.P-3(a) Postal receipt Ex.P-4 UCP Ex.P-3(b) Postal acknowledgment Ex.P-5 Original complaint Ex.P-6 Agreement
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
DW.1 S Nagaraj DW.2 Gayathri nagaraj
List of documents exhibited on behalf of the accused:
Ex D1 PCR No.41425/10
Ex D2 OS No.6634/10
Ex D3 Legal notice
19 C.C.1081-2011
Ex D4 OS No.6634/10 order sheet
Ex D5 Evidence
Ex D6 PCR order sheet
XVI ACMM., Bengaluru.