Bangalore District Court
Deepak Melwani vs Brij Mohan Vasishta on 25 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 25th day of October - 2016
PRESENT: SRI. S.G.SALAGARE, B.Sc., LL.B.,(Spl)
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.14529/2013
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : Deepak Melwani,
S/o.Murali Melwani,
Aged about 50 years,
Resident of R46,
Golden Enclave,
Airport Road,
Bengaluru-17.
(Rep. by Diwakara & Associates,
Advocates)
V/S
Accused : Brij Mohan Vasishta,
S/o. D.N.Vasishta,
Aged about 66 years,
Managing Partner/
Authorized Signatory,
Trans-Asia Biotech,
Residing at No.506,
Silicon Towers, 209/1,
4th Cross, Byrasandra,
C.V.Raman Nagar Post,
Bengaluru-93.
(Rep. by Siji Malayil & Associates,
Advocates)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
Judgment 2 C.C.14529/2013
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Convicted.
DATE OF ORDER : 25.10.2016.
(S.G.SALAGARE)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The accused is knew to complainant and his father Murali Melwani. Accused used to meet complainant and his father at the Ashram of Bhagawan Shri Satya Sai Baba at Puttaparthi frequently. Accused got introduced himself as the Managing Partner of Trans Asias Biotech which deals with specialized molecules (medicines) manufactured on contract basis from very renowned pharma manufacturing facilities having world health organization approval and he intends to develop his business. Accused induced the complainant and his father to invest money in his company and assured them to pay good interest for Judgment 3 C.C.14529/2013 their investment. Believing the words of accused the complainant and his father invested a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in the business of accused between 28.06.2009 to 12.11.2010. Accused accepted the investment of complainant and his father, but accused has failed to keep up his promise and assurance. Complainant demanded for return of his investment money of Rs.25 lakhs with simple interest at 10% per annum, and in this regard accused entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 07.03.2013 with complainant. Accused acknowledged the liability and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25,90,000/- as full and final settlement in two installments. The accused in order to discharge his liability has issued two post dated cheques bearing No.069490, dated:30.04.2013 for Rs.13,75,000/- in favour of complainant and another cheque bearing No.069491, dated:30.06.2013 for Rs.12,15,000/- in favour of complainant's father by name Murali Melwani, both the cheques were drawn on HDFC Bank, Padmanabhanagar Branch, Bengaluru, and accused assured that the said cheques will be honoured on their presentation.Judgment 4 C.C.14529/2013
It is further case of complainant that, on 30.04.2013 he has presented the cheque bearing No.069490, dated:30.04.2013 through his banker viz., State Bank of India, NAL Branch, Bengaluru for collection, but the said cheque was returned unpaid for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" in the account maintained by the accused. Complainant brought this fact of dishonour of cheque to the knowledge of accused. Accused requested the complainant to present the cheque once again and same will be honoured. On 24.05.2013, complainant once again presented the said cheque through his banker viz., State Bank of India, NAL Branch, Bengaluru, but the said cheque once again returned unpaid on 25.05.2013 with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient' in the account maintained by the accused. On 28.05.2013, the complainant brought this fact to the knowledge of accused by issuing demand notice through RPAD and through courier and also sent mail to email ID of accused, and the said demand notice were duly served upon accused on 29.05.2013 and also the mail is delivered immediately. After receipt of notice accused has neither paid the cheque amount nor replied the legal notice. Hence, the Judgment 5 C.C.14529/2013 complainant has filed this complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and prayed to punish the accused with maximum sentence and to award compensation to the complainant.
3. My predecessor after perusing records, took cognizance of offence, and recorded sworn statement, ordered to register Criminal Case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused after service of summons put his appearance through his counsel and has been enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the court has recorded the plea of accused and the accused has pleaded not guilty of the offence and claims to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.
4. The complainant in order to prove his case, got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked twenty five documents at Exs.P1 to P25 and closed his side. After completion of the evidence of complainant, the substance of the evidence has been read over and explained to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied Judgment 6 C.C.14529/2013 all the incriminating evidence arisen against him. The accused has been given sufficient opportunities to lead his defence evidence, but the accused has not led any oral evidence. At the time of cross of PW.1 the accused counsel got marked four documents at Exs.D1 to D4 on behalf of accused.
5. I have heard the arguments of both side counsels, and perused the materials placed on record.
6. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, he and his father had invested Rs.25 lakhs in the business of accused and accused has failed to keep up his promise and accused agreed to return investment money with simple interest at 10% per annum, and in this regard Ex.P2-cheque bearing No.069490, dated:30.04.2013 for Rs.13,75,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Padmanabhanagar Branch, Bengaluru is issued in favour of complainant for discharge of the part payment, and on its presentation, cheque came to be dishonoured for the reasons 'Funds Insufficient' and even after service of notice, the accused has failed to repay the amount and thereby accused is guilty of the Judgment 7 C.C.14529/2013 offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1: It is alleged that, the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.25 lakhs from complainant and his father, and to discharge his partially liability has issued a post dated cheque bearing No.069490, dated:30.04.2013 for Rs.13,75,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Padmanabhanagar Branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant. When said cheque was presented for encashment, same was dishonoured for the reasons 'Funds Insufficient'. Even after issuance of demand notice, accused has not made any arrangement for return of cheque amount. The accused has denied the accusation made against him.
9. To prove his case, the complainant got examined himself as PW.1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of his Judgment 8 C.C.14529/2013 examination in chief evidence. In the affidavit, PW.1 has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and in support of his contention; PW.1 has got marked twenty five documents. Among them Certified copy of Memorandum of Understanding dated:07.03.2013 executed by accused in favour of complainant and his father is marked as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 is the certified copy of cheque bearing No.069490, dated:30.04.2013 for Rs.13,75,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Padmanabhanagar Branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant. The signature of accused is marked as Ex.P2(a), Ex.P3 is the Certified copy Bank Endorsement issued by the State Bank of India, the contents of Ex.P3 disclose that, the cheque bearing No.069490, for Rs.13,75,000/- is dishonoured for the reasons Funds Insufficient, Ex.P4 is the Demand Notice dated:28.05.2013, the recitals of Ex.P4 disclose that, the complainant has issued this notice to the address of accused through his counsel. By issuing this notice complainant called upon the accused to repay the cheque amount of Rs.13,75,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Ex.P5 is the postal receipt, Ex.P6 is the professional courier receipt, Ex.P7 is the postal acknowledgment card, Ex.P8 is the Judgment 9 C.C.14529/2013 gmail letter dtd:30.04.2013, Ex.P9 is the certified copy of request letter to withhold presentation of cheque, Ex.P10 to 14 are the certified copies of letters issued by accused under the letter head of Trans Asias Biotech, Ex.P15 to 18 are the certified copies of receipts, Ex.P19 is the gmail letter dtd:04.01.2013, Ex.P20 is the letter of Parshva Tours and Travels, Ex.P21 is the copy of spicejet booking information letter, Ex.P22 is the copy of customer communication letter, Ex.P23 is the gmail letter dtd:08.10.2013 sent through whatsup screen shots, Ex.P24 to P24(j) are the computer print photographs and Ex.P25 is the gmail letter dtd:03.10.2013.
10. In order to substantiate his contention accused has not entered the witness box. In the cross-examination of PW.1 accused has suggested that, "DgÉÆæ JgÀqÀÄ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀUÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, DgÉÆæ ¤ÃrzÀ 2 ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ºÁUÉ ¤¦-1£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ, ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦- 1£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ". These suggestions are denied by PW.1. From these suggestions it is crystal clear that, Ex.P2 cheque belongs to accused and signature marked at Ex.P2(a) is that of accused. When Judgment 10 C.C.14529/2013 accused has admitted the cheque and his signature then the initial presumptions arises in favour of complainant under Section 118(a) of N.I.Act that, complainant is holder in due course of cheque Ex.P2 for due consideration. Further, from the perusal of records, it reveals that complainant has complied the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the initial presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act arises in favour of complainant that accused has issued the cheque Ex.P2 for discharge of legally recoverable debt. The initial presumptions arisen in favour of complainant under Sections 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable presumptions, and accused can rebut the presumptions by cross-examining PW.1 or by adducing the defence evidence or by both.
11. To rebut the presumptions, accused has choosen to cross-examine PW.1. Accused has not entered the witness box to lead the defence evidence. Accused has submitted his written statement under Section 243(1) of Cr.P.C. By suggesting in the cross-examination of PW.1 that, Ex.P2 cheque is given in police station and same is signed by Judgment 11 C.C.14529/2013 accused in police station, accused has admitted the execution of cheque. From perusal of cross-examination of PW.1, it reveals that accused has taken contention that, his signatures on cheques and bond paper are obtained by the complainant with the help of police by giving threat to him. It is suggested to PW.1 that "DgÉÆæ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV®è JAzÀÄ ªÁ¢¹zÀgÀÄÁ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî PÉù£À°è M¼ÀUÉ ºÁPÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, DgÉÆævÀ£À£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ 4 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è EnÖzÀÝgÀÄ, £ÁªÀÅ M¥ÀàzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀ ¨ÉzÀjPɬÄAzÀ DgÉÆæ ¤¦-1PÉÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ½UÉ ¸À» ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ". But these suggestions are denied by PW.1. By suggesting the above facts to PW.1, accused tried to establish that his signatures on Ex.P1 MOU and Ex.P2 cheque under dispute are obtained by complainant by giving threat to him through police, and accused tried to establish that he has not executed the MOU Ex.P1 and cheque Ex.P2 voluntarily.
12. It is the case of complainant that, accused has got introduced himself as managing partner of Trans Asias Biotech which deals with specialized molecules (medicines) manufactured on contract basis from very renowned Judgment 12 C.C.14529/2013 pharma manufacturing facilities having world health organization approval and he intends to develop his business which he had started recently and expressed that he was in need of funds. Accused has approached the complainant and his father and induced them to invest money in his company and in-turn accused offered and assured them to pay good interest for their investment. Believing the words of accused, complainant and his father invested a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in total with the accused between 28.06.2009 to 12.11.2010. The investment amount of Rs.25 lakhs is received by accused and he acknowledged the investment and had also issued a letter in his own hand writing on the letter head of the company clearly mentioning for which purpose he intended to use the amount received from the complainant and his father. In support of his contention, complainant has produced the letters issued by accused written in his own hand writing marked at Ex.P10 to P14 and also complainant has produced the receipts issued by the accused for having received the amount of Rs.25 lakhs and same are marked as Ex.P15 to P18. In the cross-examination of PW.1 the defence counsel has merely suggested that Ex.P10 to P18 Judgment 13 C.C.14529/2013 are obtained by the complainant forcibly in the police station. But accused has not denied the signatures marked on Ex.P10 to P18. Though accused has taken defence that, Ex.P10 to P18 are obtained forcibly in the police station, but he has not adduced any evidence to establish that Ex.P10 to P18 are obtained forcibly. Accused has not stated on which date Ex.P10 to P18 are obtained from him in the police station forcibly. Accused has not entered the witness box to substantiate his defence. Hence, the mere suggestion of accused that, Ex.P10 to P18 are obtained forcibly cannot be accepted. The recitals of Ex.P10 to P14 disclose that accused has received Rs.25 lakhs from complainant and his father on different dates and to that effect Ex.P15 to P18 disclose that, accused has issued the receipts for having received the amount.
13. Accused has submitted the written statement under Section 243(1) of Cr.P.C. In the written statement accused has admitted that, complainant and his father had invested Rs.25 lakhs in his company M/s. Trans Asias Biotech and after investing the said amount of Rs.25 lakhs some misunderstanding arose between complainant and himself Judgment 14 C.C.14529/2013 and the complainant started filing false cases against him. Accused has further stated that, he has utilized all the amounts in the company. The company suffered huge loss because of bad / unfavourable market conditions and various other reasons and he was regularly updating the complainant on the developments in the company and as such they were fully aware of his investments and subsequent loss suffered by his company. Thus accused has admitted the receipt of Rs.25 lakhs from complainant and his father. It is further stated that complainant lodged complaint against him before the Airport Police Station and police summoned him to appear on 06.03.2013 at 5 pm, accordingly he appeared before the police station on same day, again on 07.03.2013 he went to Airport police station at about 10 am. The police inspector M.H.Naagthe, complainant Deepak Melwani and his advocate Madhukar.D.K were in police station and they forced the accused to prepare MOU as per the dictates of the complainant and his advocate, later they got typed the MOU and obtained his signature on Ex.P1 MOU forcibly. At the same time the police inspector has directed him to issue two cheques in favour of complainant. Police Judgment 15 C.C.14529/2013 threatened him to issue the cheques and therefore under the threat he issued post dated cheques in favour of complainant for Rs.13,75,000/- dated:30.04.2013 and another cheque in favour of complainant's father for Rs.12,15,000/- dated:30.06.2013 bearing cheque Nos.069490 and 069491 respectively, both drawn on HDFC Bank, Padmanabhanagar, Bengaluru. It is also stated that, the police inspector has directed the partner of accused by name Zulfaqar Ali to sign MOU as a witness and out of fear and coercion accused and his partner have signed the MOU without uttering a word. After obtaining the signatures on MOU and cheques, the police inspector handed over the cheques and MOU to complainant, and complainant has filed this instant case and another case bearing C.C.No.19516/2013 against him. Accused has also stated that, complainant has filed a case in O.S.No.5854/2013 before the Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Judge, on the same cause of action. Complainant was preferred Civil Revision Petition bearing No.100/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble High Court by its order dated. 03.04.2014 in Civil Revision Petition No.100/2014 directed the defendant (accused herein) to Judgment 16 C.C.14529/2013 deposit a sum of Rs.18,75,000/-. As per the directions of Hon'ble High Court he has deposited a sum of Rs.10 lakhs vide DD No.357857 dated:29.04.2014 and Rs.8,75,000/- vide DD No.628751 dated:02.07.2014 both drawn on Andhra Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru favoring Registrar, City Civil Court, Bengaluru. It is stated that accused has returned the total amount of Rs.25 lakhs invested by complainant in his company. It is stated that complainant has voluntarily invested a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in his company, out of the said Rs.25 lakhs he has repaid Rs.6,25,000/- to complainant and balance due amount of Rs.18,75,000/- is also repaid by depositing in O.S.No.5854/2013 as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court, and hence the entire amount is repaid to complainant and his father, and he is not in due to any amount to complainant and his father.
14. By filing written statement under Section 243(1) of Cr.P.C, accused has admitted that, complainant and his father had invested Rs.25 lakhs. It is the contention of accused that, complainant and his father have invested the amount of Rs.25 lakhs in Trans Asias Biotech Company. Judgment 17 C.C.14529/2013 But it is the contention of complainant that, they have invested money with accused and not in the company. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he stated that, "mÁæ£ïì §AiÉÆÃnPï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è §AqÀªÁ¼À ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. DzÀgÉ DgÉÆæ ºÀtPÁ¹£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉýPÉÆArzÀÝ. DgÉÆæUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀªÁV ¸Á® PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DgÉÆæ ¸Á® vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è mÁæ£ïì PÀA¥À¤UÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖ PÉ®ªÉÅÁAzÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ gÉ¥ÀÅåmÉõÀ£ï £ÉÆÃr PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è ºÀt §AqÀªÁ¼À ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è". From this oral evidence of PW.1 it is crystal clear that, complainant and his father have paid money to accused, and not invested in the company. If the money was invested in the company then accused would not have stated in Ex.P10 to P14 that complainant is entitled for interest. If the money was invested in company then complainant is entitled for dividend or debenture but not interest. It is nowhere stated that, complainant has received dividend or debenture. Accused has signed Ex.P10 to P15 in his individual capacity, though they are issued under the letter head of Trans Asias Biotech. Accused has not signed Ex.P10 to P18 as a Managing Judgment 18 C.C.14529/2013 Director of the company. Accused has also not suggested to PW.1 that, complainant and his father have became share members of the company and invested the money in the company. Ex.P1 the Certified copy of MOU and it is not entered between company and complainant and his father, but the same is entered between accused and complainant and his father. Thus the contention of accused that complainant invested the amount in company cannot be accepted. PW.1 has clearly stated that, they have invested the money with accused, and they have invested the money on the instigation of accused. However the investment of money of Rs.25 lakhs by complainant and his father is not denied by the accused.
15. In the cross-examination of PW.1 accused has suggested that, complainant colluding with police inspector of Airport Police Station has obtained his signatures on two cheques and one bond paper forcibly by giving threat and coercion. PW.1 has stated that, at the time of executing MOU accused has issued cheque Ex.P2. At that time accused, another partner Mohammed Julfalqar, complainant and his advocate G.Vishwanath were present. Judgment 19 C.C.14529/2013 It is the contention of accused that, his signature is obtained on MOU and cheques under the threat and coercion of police. Accused has admitted that, his partner was also accompanied him to the police station. In written statement, accused stated that, on 07.03.2013 police inspector M.H.Naagthe called him to his chamber and under force and coercion compelled him to sign MOU document on stamp paper prepared by complainant and his advocate and M.H.Naagthe asked him to prepare two post dated cheques in favour of complainant. Accused further stated that, M.H.Naagthe directed his partner Mr.Julfaqar Ali to sign the MOU as a witness. Out of fear and coercion, they were forced to the commends of police inspector M.H.Naagthe without uttering a word. This contention of accused that, he executed MOU and cheques under threat and coercion cannot be accepted, because accused has not entered the witness box and substantiated his contention. Accused has not examined his partner Julfaqar Ali in support of his contention. Accused has not taken any steps to call his partner Julfaqar Ali to come and give evidence in respect of the threat and coercion given by the police. Admittedly, MOU bears the signature of Judgment 20 C.C.14529/2013 Julfaqar Ali as an witness. The Julifaqar Ali who is also partner of accused company is the best witness to depose about the alleged incident taken place in the police station. Accused has not examined the best witness available in his favour. When accused admits that, Julfaqar Ali signed the MOU as a witness, then an inference has to be drawn that, accused has executed MOU as per Ex.P1.
16. Admittedly, accused is not an illiterate person. Accused is a Managing partner of a company and having worldly knowledge, and who is a businessman, under such circumstances it cannot be expected that, if police have given threat then accused would keep mum. If police have given threat and coercion then accused would have lodged complaint before the higher police officials or accused could have lodged the private complaint against the police inspector M.H.Naagthe. Accused has not taken any action against the police inspector M.H.Naagthe till today. Thus an inference can be safely drawn that, accused is telling lie before the court.
17. Ex.P4 is a notice issued by the complainant to accused on 28.05.2013. By issuing this notice Judgment 21 C.C.14529/2013 complainant informed about the dishonour of cheques and also called upon the accused to repay the amount. Complainant had issued notice through RPAD and Courier. Ex.P7 acknowledgment is returned back. Accused has not denied the receipt of notice. Accused has not denied the contents of Ex.P4. If really the police had given threat and coercion then the accused would have stated the same in the reply notice and denied the execution of Ex.P1 MOU and cheques immediately. Off course accused has made allegations in the written statement but the written statement is filed after closure of complainant side evidence. Accused had an opportunity of denying the case of complainant when he received the notice at the first instance. Accused has not utilized the opportunity of denying the case of complainant at the first instance. That apart the contents of written statement submitted by accused itself is sufficient to hold that accused has admitted his liability. The only contention of accused that, complainant invested the money in the company and not with him and therefore he is not liable for repayment of amount. But accused has failed to establish that complainant and his father have invested the money of Judgment 22 C.C.14529/2013 Rs.25 lakhs with the company. Ex.P2 cheque is issued by the accused in his individual capacity. MOU Ex.P1 is entered between the complainant and accused in their individual capacity. Thus accused has failed to establish that, Ex.P2 cheque was not issued for discharge of his legal liability. On the contrary the evidence placed on record clearly disclose that, complainant has proved that accused issued Ex.P2 cheque for discharge of partial liability towards the complainant, and thereby complainant proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, in view of the above said reasons, I hold point No.1 in the Affirmative.
18. Point No.2: In view of my findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay total fine amount of Rs.16,05,000/- (Rupees Judgment 23 C.C.14529/2013 Sixteen lakhs five thousand only). In default accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 1 (one) year.
Out of the total fine amount a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. The balance amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall be remitted as fine to the State.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of October - 2016) (S.G.SALAGARE) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : Deepak Melwani List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P1 : CC of MOU
Ex.P2 : Copy of cheque
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P3 : Copy of bank endorsement
Judgment 24 C.C.14529/2013
Ex.P4 : Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P5 : Postal receipt
Ex.P6 : Courier receipt
Ex.P7 : Postal acknowledgment card
Ex.P8 : Gmail letter dtd:30.04.2013
Ex.P9 : CC of request letter to withhold the
presentation of cheque
Ex.P10 to P14 : CC of letters
Ex.P15 to P18 : Receipts
Ex.P19 : Gamil computer print photo
Ex.P20 : Letter
Ex.P21 : Copy of spicejet booking reference
Ex.P22 : Customer communication letter
Ex.P23 : Gmail computer print letter
Ex.P24, P24(a) to : Computer print photos
P24(J)
Ex.P25 : Gmail
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
- None -
List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
Exs.D1 to D3 : Xerox copies of Complaints
Ex.D4 : CC of Order in CRP No.100/2014
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 25 C.C.14529/2013
25.10.2016.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment
Judgment pronounced in the open court
vide separate order.
*****
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(2) of
Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the Judgment 26 C.C.14529/2013 offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay total fine amount of Rs.16,05,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs five thousand only). In default accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 1 (one) year.
Out of the total fine amount a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. The balance amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall be remitted as fine to the State.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
The office is hereby directed to
supply the copy of this Judgment to the
accused on free of cost.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.