Bangalore District Court
Is A C & F Agent Of Overseas Health Care ... vs No.1 & 2 Are The Partners Of Accused No.3 ... on 24 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON MAGISTRATE,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 24th day of March,
March, 2018
2018
PRESENT: A. V. Patil., B.Com, LLB (Spl)
XLII A.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru City.
C C No.2318/2017
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1. Sl.No. of the case :CC.No.2318/2017
2. The date of commence of evidence: 19.12.2017
3. The date of Institution : 21.10.2016
4. Name of the Complainant : M/s Broson Pharma
C&F Agent of Overseas Health Care
Private Ltd., No.600D, Ground floor,
Vishwa, JP Road, Girinagar, 2nd Phase,
Bangalore- 560 085.
Rep by its Managing Partner and
authorized person
Mr. J. Jayaprakash Raju.
5. Name of the Accused : 1. Mr. Ramesh. S.
Managing Partner,
MED LINK, No.21/2, 1st floor,
7th cross, Agrahara Dasarahalli,
Magadi Main Road,
Bangalore- 560 079.
2. Mr. B.N. Prashanth,
2 C.C.No.2318/2017
Managing Partner,
MED LINK, No.21/2, 1st floor,
7th cross, Agrahara Dasarahalli,
Magadi Main Road,
Bangalore- 560 079.
3. MED LINK,
No.21/2, 1st floor,
7th cross, Agrahara Dasarahalli,
Magadi Main Road,
Bangalore- 560 079.
Represented by its
Managing Director.
6. The offence complained
of or proved : U/s.138 of N.I. Act
7. Plea of the accused on
his examination : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Order : Accused is acquitted
9. Date of such order : 24.03.2018
JUDGMENT
1. This case has been registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The gist of the complainant's case is that:
Complainant is a C & F Agent of Overseas Health Care Private Limited appoints for warehousing, storing and onward transmission of Pharmaceutical Products manufactured and marketed by the 3 C.C.No.2318/2017 Company to all over the State of Karnataka. The complainant has to supply over Overseas Health Care Products to the wholesale dealers/stockists by raising invoice in the name of Overseas Health Care Private Limited. The complainant and accused are the friends since from many years and both of them were known to each other. Accused No.1 & 2 are the partners of accused No.3 who is wholesale dealer/stockists. The accused have purchased the products of Overseas Health Care Pvt. Ltd. from complainant through two invoices for a sum of Rs.34,957/- and Rs.79,073/- both dated 31.10.2015. Accused have received the products and acknowledged for having received the products. Accused have issued cheque bearing No.003444 dated 16.07.2016 for Rs.1,13,047/- drawn on Bank of Maharastra, JP Nagar, Bangalore in favour of the complainant towards the purchase of products. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment on 16.07.2016 through its banker State Bank of Patiala, JP Nagar, Bangalore for encashment. However, it was dishonoured for the reasons, 'funds insufficient' with a memo dated 18.07.2016. As the intimation given to the accused about the dishnour of cheque, they have requested to re-present the cheque for encashment. Accordingly, on 08.08.2016 the complainant represented the cheque for encashment. However, this time also, it was returned with endorsement 'funds insufficient' with a memo 4 C.C.No.2318/2017 dated 10.08.2016. There after on 01.09.2016 complainant got issued legal notice to the accused through a registered post demanding the accused to pay the said bounced cheque amount within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice. It was served upon the accused on 06.09.2016. On 20.09.2016 the accused have got issued a reply by denying the allegations made in the legal notice. According to the complainant accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, the complainant filed the complaint on 21.10.2016.
3. In pursuance of the summons, the accused have appeared through Counsel and got enlarged on bail by executing necessary documents. The copy of the complaint was furnished to the accused, as required under law. As there is sufficient material, plea was recorded on 22.09.2017 and explained to accused in his vernacular, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
4. In order to prove the case, the Managing Partner of the complainant Company examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to11. In the cross examination of PW1, Advocate for accused got marked Ex.D1 to D9. Then the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C came to be recorded on 06.01.2018 wherein the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was read over and explained. Further PW1 recalled and got marked Ex.P12 to 13. Further statement u/ 313 Cr.P.C came to 5 C.C.No.2318/2017 be recorded on 16.03.2018. Accused No.1 & 2 got themselves examined himself as DW1 & 2 and got marked Ex.D10 & 11.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the material placed on record.
6. On the basis of the above facts, the following points arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the complainant proves that the accused towards discharge of legal recoverable debt issued cheque bearing No.003444 dated 16.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.1,13,049/-drawn on Bank of Maharastra, JP Nagar, Bangalore in favour of complainant, on presentation for encashment it was returned as 'Funds Insufficient' and in spite of receipt of legal notice, the accused failed to pay the cheques amount within the statutory period and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act?
2) What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
Point No.1 & 2 : In the negative Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1:
NO.1 In order to prove the case, the Managing Partner of the complainant Company Sri. J. Jayaprakash Raju filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint and oath. He also got marked 6 C.C.No.2318/2017 documents Ex.P1 to 11. Ex.P1 is the authorization, Ex.P2 is the agreement, Ex.P3 is the Stockist appointment format, Ex.P4 & 5 are invoices, Ex.P6 is the cheque, Ex.P7 & 8 are the bank memo's, Ex.P9 is the office copy of the legal notice, Ex.P9(a) & (b) are postal receipts, Ex.P9(c) & (d) are postal acknowledgments, Ex.P10 is the reply notice, Ex.P11 is the Complaint, Ex.P12 is the certificate u/s 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.P13 is the Statement of account. In the cross examination accused has put up specific defence that the cheque in question and another cheque were given by the accused to the complainant towards security through e-mail and by misusing one of the cheque complainant has filed this false complaint.
9. In order to prove the defence accused No.1 and 2 have got examined themselves on oath as DW1 and 2. In the evidence of DW1 got marked Ex.D1 to 11. Both the accused have deposed that the cheque in question was issued by them on behalf of accused No.3 in favour of the complainant for security. Even after clearance of entire dues complainant without returning the cheque which was collected towards security and by misusing the same has filed this false case. The cheque which was issued towards security on 31.05.2014 and the invoice was raised on 31.10.2016 and cheque is bounced on 16.07.2016. The blank cheque was collected by the complainant towards security has been misused and has filed this false complaint. 7 C.C.No.2318/2017 In the cross examination has admitted that the products as shown in Ex.P4 & 5 have been received by the accused and no documents produced for having paid the entire amount.
10. This is all the oral and documentary evidence placed on by the complainant and accused in support of their respective contentions.
11. The learned Counsel for complainant filed the written arguments and has submitted that the accused No.1 and 2 being the partners of the accused No.3 issued disputed cheque in favour of the complainant towards purchase of products through two invoices. The accused have not produced any statement or any documents to show that the payment made towards both the invoices to the complainant. The supply of products is not in dispute. Once the issuance of cheque and signature is admitted, the presumption is in favour of the complainant. The accused has not produced no due certificate for having paid the entire dues. On presentation when the cheque for collection, it was bounced, the complainant got issued legal notice, inspite of receipt of notice accused fails to pay the cheque amount. The ingredients of Sec 138 and 142 are duly complied with. Hence, prayed to convict the accused.
1. Crl. Appeal No.867 of 2016 (Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v/s Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited)
12. The learned Counsel for accused also filed written argument 8 C.C.No.2318/2017 and has submitted that the complainant filed the compliant by suppressing the true facts. The subject matter of the cheque was collected by the complainant towards the security and the said fact has not been disclosed by the complainant while filing the complaint or in examination in chief. However, during the course of cross examination the true facts are elicited from the mouth of PW1. The cheque collected by the complainant towards security by the accused has been misused by the complainant and has filed this false complaint. The accused had paid the entire amount to the complainant and not due to pay any amount to him. The accused have closed the Company in the year 2016. The cheque was collected in the year 2014 and by putting the date subsequent to the closure of the accused Company has filed this false case only to harass the accused and for wrongful gain. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint by acquitting the accused. In support of arguments has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CRL.A.No.255/2004 (M/s Matheson Bonsanquet v/s K.V. Manjunaha).
13. I have gone through the citations relied on by the learned Counsel for complainant and accused in support of their respective contentions and kept in mind the views taken in the said citations while appreciating the records and coming to the final conclusion. I 9 C.C.No.2318/2017 respectfully agree with the ratio views down in the said citations.
14. Before considering the case on merits, it is necessary to note that in a ratio lay down by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2010(1) DCR 706 (Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan). In said citation the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed about the various citations and has held that;
"..................Since .........Since the accused did admit that the signature on the cheque was his, the statutory presumption comes into play and the same has not been rebutted even with regard to the materials submitted by the complainant............"
15. In the light of principle laid down in the above case let me appreciate the present facts of the case.
16. In this case, accused No.1 and 2 have not disputed that they are the Partners of accused No.3, Ex.P6/cheque belongs to the account of accused No.3 firm and their signatures on it. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred decision the complainant discharged his initial burden by virtue of Sec.118 and 139 of N.I Act the complainant being the holder in due course of cheque has been issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for discharge of legally dischargeable debt. As per the principle laid down in the above citation the burden lies on the accused to lead the rebuttal evidence to disprove the fact that he has 10 C.C.No.2318/2017 not issued Ex.P6/cheque in favor of the complainant for discharge of debt or liability.
17. Now whether the said presumption is rebutted by the accused is to be seen. To substantiate his contention accused No.1 and 2 have examined themselves on oath as DW1 and 2 and have deposed that the disputed cheque was not issued for any legally dischargable debt as claimed by the complainant.
18. Accused has sought acquittal on the ground that complainant collected the blank signed cheques towards security while commencement of business and by misusing the same without any intimation presented for encashment.
19. Now the question is whether accused able to establish that complainant collected the blank signed cheques towards security and by misusing the same without any intimation to him presented for encashment. According to the complainant that the accused issued a disputed cheque towards discharge of debt, on presentation for collection it was dishonoured and even after receipt of legal notice accused has not paid the cheque amount.
20. Before appreciating the evidence on record, it is necessary to note the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court of India referred above in Rangappa V/s Mohan case as to how the drawer of the cheque rebut the presumption. For the sake of convenience the observation 11 C.C.No.2318/2017 made by the Hon'ble Court is reproduced "it is settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption u/s 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities'." Therefore, if the accused/drawer of the cheque is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of 'legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail."
21. Keeping in mind the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred decision let me see the facts of the case on hand. In the light of argument submitted by both complainant and accused side, perused the records.
22. As noted supra, it is the definite case of the accused that complainant collected cheques towards security and presented the said cheques for encashment without any intimation to him. In order to prove the said defence accused placed reliance on his oral evidence and Ex.D1 to D7.
23. Before appreciation of the point raised by the accused, it is necessary to note that prior to filing of the compliant, complainant got issued legal notice to the accused as per Ex.P9. In the said legal notice nowhere complainant claims that accused issued two signed blank cheques towards the security and permitted the complainant to fill up the amount outstanding and for discharge of liability amount handed over the undated cheques. The accused got issued reply as 12 C.C.No.2318/2017 Ex.P10 and put forth his defence soon after receipt of legal notice. Accused seriously disputed the cheque as claimed by the complainant. In para No. 4 of the reply accused has taken the specific defence as to how the cheque in question travels to the hands of complainant. The said paragraph is relevant to resolve the dispute in question. For the sake of convenience para No.4 of reply notice is extracted and reproduced here:
4. "It is represented to me by my client that, the allegations and averments contained in paragraph 3 of the notice is hereby specifically and emphatically denied as false, frivolous, imaginary and illusory illusory theory of your client and your client is put to strict proof of the same.
It is represented to me by my client that, at the time of commencement of the business and obtaining of the license with M/s Overseas Health Care Private Limited, the said M/s Overseas Care Private Limited has insisted my clients to furnish blank cheque/s for the purpose of security of the amounts and accordingly my clients have issued the blank cheque/s to the said M/s Overseas Health Care Private Limited, as per his instruction instruction and taking advantage of the blank cheque/s, the said Overseas Health Care Private Limited colluded with each other with an intention to cheat my client and colluding with each other, your client has created the imaginary and illusory theory and filled the the blank cheque/s and presented the cheque/s and obtained the endorsement and thereafter got issued the present notice by making false and reckless allegation for the reasons best known to him."
13 C.C.No.2318/2017It is evident from the above reproduced paragraph at the time of commencement of the business and obtaining of the license complainant insisted accused to furnish blank cheque/s for the purpose of security. Accordingly accused have issued the blank cheque/s and taking advantage of the blank cheque/s, with an intention to cheat accused filled the blank cheque/s and presented the cheque/s for collection. As noted supra it is material to note that the accused put forth his defence soon after receipt of legal notice and therefore it cannot be said defence as after thought.
24. At the same time it is important to note that the complainant filed the complaint after receipt of Ex.P10/reply, but has not whispered with regard to the defence taken by the accused in the said reply.
25. It is the definite case of the complainant that the accused No.1 and 2 being the partners of the accused No.3 have purchased products from the complainant under two different invoices for an amount of Rs.34,957 and Rs.79,073/-. Towards payment of the said invoices accused had issued the disputed cheque in favour of the complainant. Per contra, accused has seriously disputed the said allegations of the complainant. It is the definite case of the accused that complainant collected disputed cheque towards on 31.02.2014 security and at the time of handing over the cheque except the name 14 C.C.No.2318/2017 of the complainant and signature nothing was written on it. Complainant by misusing the security cheque has filed this compliant.
26. The complainant has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. It is worth to note that he has not whispered about collected blank singed cheque from the accused. The learned Counsel for accused cross examined the PW1 in this regard. It is necessary to extract the relevant portion of said cross examination. Hence, the same is extracted and reproduced here:-
"....... ¢B31.05.2014 gÀAzÀÄ E-ªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj MlÄÖ JgÀqÀÄ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÀszÀævÉUÁV vÀ®Ä¦¹zÀ §UÉÎ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ D §UÉÎ E-ªÉÄïï£À ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀ JgÀqÀÄ ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À eÉgÁPïì ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀqÀvÀPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. "
It is evident from the above reproduced evidence that when the e-mail and the xerox copies of the cheques were confronted to PW1 he has stated that after verification he has to say about the said document.
Further PW1 has stated as under:
" ¤¦-3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦-4gÀ JgÀqÀÄ E£ïªÁAiÀiïìUÀ¼À ¢B31.10.2015 EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥Àæ²ßvÀ ZÉPï£À £ÀA.003444 EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥Àæ²ßvÀ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä PÉÊUÉ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀj¹zÁUÀ CzÀgÀ°è ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀÆ.1,13,049 ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉý £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸ÁÖQ¸ïÖUÀ½UÉ ¥Àæw ¸À® ¸ÀgÀPÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÁUÀ CªÀjAzÀ SÁ° ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛêÉ. DgÉÆævÀjAzÀ ºÁUÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀ SÁ° ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ F ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. "15 C.C.No.2318/2017
It is evident from the above reproduced evidence that Ex.P3 and 4 invoices are dated 31.10.2015, when the cheque was handed over only the name of the complainant was mentioned. But, he has stated that after informing the accused he has mentioned the cheque and amount. The complainant used to collect the blank signed cheques as and when the material supplied.
27. To falsify the allegations made in the complaint accused No.1 and 2 examined themselves as DW1 and 2. Both have stated in their evidence that the cheque in question along with another cheque have sent to the complainant along with Ex.D11/e-mail on behalf of accused No.3 on 31.05.2014 for security purpose and even after clearing the amount complainant failed to return the cheque, invoices raised on 31.10.2015. Even though DW1 and 2 are subjected to cross examination complaint has not challenged the said evidence. Since the complainant fails to challenge the oral evidence of DW1 and 2 coupled with Ex.D11/e-mail and E.D11(a) zerox copies of the cheques, it has to be believed that the accused have sent the disputed cheque to the complainant on 31.05.2014 through e-mail towards security.
28. If we consider the evidence of PW1, DW1 and 2 as whole, coupled with allegations made in the complaint and documents produced by complainant and accused it is evident that the 16 C.C.No.2318/2017 complainant collected signed cheque without mentioning the date and amount towards the security at the time of commencement of business and subsequently he himself filled and presented for collection. It is worth to note that the complainant has not at all stated the said fact either in the complaint or in his examination in chief. At this juncture it is worth to note the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint. In para No.4 and 5 of the complainant, it is alleged that complainant supplied the material under two invoices and towards payment of purchase of products accused issued the disputed cheque dated 16.07.2016. In other words as per the complainant allegations the accused had issued the disputed cheque dated 16.07.2016 that too towards payment of purchase of products. However, in the above reproduced evidence PW1 has given evidence contrary to the allegations made in the complaint and in oral and documentary evidence produced by the accused falsify the allegations made in the complainant to the effect that accused had issued the disputed cheque dated 16.07.2016 towards payment of precuts purchased under two invoices.
29. The evidence placed on record by the accused falsify the entire case of the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that the blank signed cheque was collected from the accused and subsequently filled up the cheque and presented for encashment. 17 C.C.No.2318/2017 The evidence on record clearly discloses that the disputed cheque was collected by the complainant from the accused towards security and no prior intimation was given to the accused before presentation of the cheque. In the absence of admissible evidence material placed on record by the accused is sufficient to rebut the presumption and falsify the case of the complainant. The allegations made in the complainant in respect of issuance of cheque by the accused for discharge of debt remain intact without any proof.
30. In the citation relied on by the learned Counsel for complainant the Hon'ble Apex Court is of the view that the question whether a post dated cheque is for discharge of debt or a liability depends on the nature of transaction. If on the date of the cheque liability or debt exists or the amount has become legally recoverable, Section 138 of N I Act is attracted and no otherwise.
31. In the light of the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India relied on by the learned Counsel for complainant let me see the facts of the present case. In the instant case, as per the complainant allegations the cheque was issued in pursuance of the two invoices dated 31.10.2015. Whereas, the oral evidence of DW1, 2 and Ex.D10, Ex.D10(a) it is evident that the blank signed cheque was collected towards security and complainant himself got it filled and presented for collection. As per the evidence given by PW1 cheque 18 C.C.No.2318/2017 in question was collected from the accused on 31.05.2015. Nothing has been placed on record by the complainant to show that the accused was due to pay an amount of Rs.1,13,049/- when the disputed cheque was given to complainant i.e., on 31.05.2015. In the instant case evidence on record discloses that complainant not collected posted dated cheque and therefore on facts the view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be made applicable to the present facts of the case.
32. As noted supra the evidence brought on record by the accused is sufficient to rebut the presumption and to prove that the cheque in question was not received by the complainant for discharge of debt or liability as alleged in the complaint. The accused adduced probable defence which creates doubt about the handing over cheque by the accused to the complainant for existence of 'legally enforceable debt or liability' as claimed by the complainant. Therefore, the burden shifts on the complainant to prove that accused handed over the disputed cheque for discharge for legally enforceable debt. To substantiate the claim made by the complainant absolutely nothing has been produced on record. On appreciation of material on record in the considered opinion of this Court the allegations made in the complainant against the accused remain intact without any proof. No iota of evidence placed on record by 19 C.C.No.2318/2017 the complainant to establish the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant is unable to demonstrate the claim made under cheque in question falls within the purview of legally recoverable debt or liability.
33. Basically, insertion of the panel provision under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, is to maintain the healthy business transaction between the people based on faith, belief and understanding. That is why, the drawer of a cheque should not be allowed to abuse the accommodation given to him by creditor. At the same time, the payee or holder of a cheque cannot be permitted to use the penal provision under law as a weapon for unlawful gain or to harass the debtor. To initiate a penal action u/s 138 of N.I. Act against a drawer of a cheque, there should not be any kind of lapse or lacuna on the part of the holder of the cheque. Because, the proceedings u/s 138 of the Act is not for recovery of money but to punish a dishonest and incredible debtor, who intentionally tries to escape from his liability. That is why, it is the duty after complainant in a given case under the N.I. Act to place a stable and firm case on his behalf before the Court. When the case of the complainant itself is shaky, unstable, untrustworthy and doubtful one, then in the opinion of this Court, no presumption that is available under law will come to his help. Having regards to the material placed on record, 20 C.C.No.2318/2017 the considered opinion of this Court looking from any angle the complainant miserably fails to establish the case against the accused u/s 138 of the N I Act as required under law. Hence, it cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the negative.
34. Point No.2:-
No.2 In view of my finding on point No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/s 264 of Cr.P.C. the accused are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed u/s 437 (a) of Cr.P.C. (Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, taken print out corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the open court this the 24th day of March, 2018) (A. A. V. Patil) Patil XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangaluru.
ANNEXURE COMPLAINANT:-
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
PW1 : J.Jayaprakash Raju LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
DEFENCE:-
DW1 : Ramesh. S
DW2 : Prashanth. B.N
21 C.C.No.2318/2017
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
COMPLAINANT:-
Ex.P1 : Authorisation Ex.P2 : Agreement Ex.P3 : Stockiest appointment format Ex.P4 & 5 : 2 invoices Ex.P6 : Cheque Ex.P7 & 8 : Bank Memo's Ex.P9 : Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P9(a) & (b): Postal receipts Ex.P9(c) & (d): Postal acknowledgments Ex.P10 : Reply notice Ex.P11 : Complaint Ex.P12 : Certificate u/s 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P13 : Statement of account
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:
ACCUSED:-
Ex.D1 to 9 : Invoices Ex.D10 : Certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.D11 : E mail Ex.D11(a) : Zerox copies of cheques (A. A. V. Patil) Patil XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. 22 C.C.No.2318/2017 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order. ORDER Acting u/s 264 of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed u/s 437 (a) of Cr.P.C. XLII A.C.M.M, Bangaluru.