Bangalore District Court
M/S Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd vs Sri.Ravi on 18 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE & 24th ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore
(SCCH-20)
Dated this the 18th day of April, 2015
Present: Smt.K.BHAGYA,
B.Com., LL.B.
V Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXIV
A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
C.C.No.26615/2011
Judgment U/s 355 of Cr.P.C
Complainant : M/s Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd.,
No.5, Sri Ganesh, 80 Feet Road,
Mical Palya,
Indiranagar,
Bangalore -560 038.
Represented by its Executive,
Sri.N.Venkatesh Murthy.
(By Pleader Sri.M.Shivaraja)
-Vs-
(SCH-20) 2 CC 26615/11
Accused : Sri.Ravi,
S/o Purraswamaiah,
Farmer of Ravi Poultry Farm,
R/at Billedoddi Village,
Ramanagara Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
(By Pleader Sri.M.M)
The offence complained
of or proved : U/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Plea of accused &
his examination : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acting U/sec 255(1) of
Cr.P.C. accused is
acquitted
Date of such order : 18-04-2015
* * * * *
JUDGMENT
The complainant by name M/s Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd., has filed this complaint against the accused by name Sri.Ravi, for the offence punishable U/Sec.138-A of N.I. Act.
(SCH-20) 3 CC 26615/11
02. It is the case of the complainant that:-
The complainant company doing poultry business by providing day old broiler chicks to farmer for growing them into broiler and same will be lifted by the company itself by give growing charges. The accused have been the contract farmer under the name and style Ravi Poultry Farm, which is situated at SF No.77/2, Gopalahalli, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk. In view of the agreement entered into between the complainant and accused on 11-11-2009, by agreeing all terms and conditions and known to each other since from 2009, the accused have taken 7038 chicks on 15-03-2010 for growing them into a full grown broiler birds and giving back to the company. As recorded by the accused and the company person record daily, upto on 24-04-2010 total mortality of birds is 1099 numbers. After mortality record the balance birds should be 5939 numbers in accused poultry shed. As the complainant lifted the total 3406 birds on 20-04-2010 and 24-04-2010, after this the balance 2533 birds should have been there in the accused poultry shed, (SCH-20) 4 CC 26615/11 but no birds were left in the shed. At that time the accused have confirmed the company that he do not know about missing of birds. The complainant has told the accused that they will lodge a complaint against the accused. For that, the accused has convinced the company not to lodge the complaint, instead, accused undertake to pay the total value of the birds, feed and medicine. Then the accused issued a cheque bearing No.002326 dated 06-05-2010 for Rs.2,23,679-00 in favour of complainant, drawn on HDFC Bank. On 06-05-2010 the complainant has presented the cheque for encashment, but, the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement as "Account Closed" on 07-05-2010. Later the same was intimated to the accused on 17-05-2010, but the accused has not paid the said cheque amount. Hence, on 22-05-2010, the complainant got issued legal notice through RPAD and UCP calling upon him to comply with the demand made in the legal notice and the same has been received by the accused. Inspite of service of the legal notice within stipulated time, the accused did not repay the amount, but he has (SCH-20) 5 CC 26615/11 given reply to the said notice on 08-06-2010. So, the complainant is before this Court with this complaint against the accused.
03. After registration of complaint, summons and NBW have been issued to the accused. Accused has appeared before the Court through his counsel and enlarged on bail. Thereafterwards, this Court has recorded the plea of the accused. As the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the case was posted for complainant's evidence.
04. The Executive-Legal of the complainant company by name Mr.N.Venkatesh Murthy got examined as P.W.1 and 14 documents got marked on behalf of the complainant and he has thoroughly cross-examined by the advocate for accused. Then this Court has recorded the accused statement U/sec 313 of Cr.PC. As the accused submitted that, he would adduce his defence evidence, the case was posted for defence evidence. Then the accused himself got examined as D.W.1 and no documents got marked on his behalf. The accused has thoroughly cross-examined by the advocate for complainant. The (SCH-20) 6 CC 26615/11 written arguments filed by the counsels for both the parties are taken into consideration. Then the case was posted for pronouncement of Judgment.
05. As already observed above, it is the case of the complainant that, on the basis of the agreement entered into between the complainant and the accused dt:11-11-2009, the accused has taken 7038 chicks on 15-03-2010 for growing them into a full grown broiler birds and to give back to the complainant. The complainant company persons recorded the mortality of birds on 24-04-2010 as 1099 numbers. But after the mortality record, in the poultry shed of the accused, the balance of birds should be 5939 numbers. The complainant company lifted total 3406 birds on 20-04-2010 and 24-04-2010 and after that, the balance birds should be 2533 in the accused poultry farm. But the said birds i.e., 2533 birds were not in the poultry farm. The accused confirmed to the company that, he do not know about the missing of those birds. Then complainant said that, he will lodge criminal complaint against the accused and at that time, accused agreed (SCH-20) 7 CC 26615/11 to pay the total value of the birds, feed and medicine and issued the Cheque in question for a sum of Rs.2,23,679-00 in favour of the complainant and when it was presented by the complainant company, it was dishonoured with an endorsement as "Account Closed".
06. Here, the Executive-Legal of the complainant company by name Mr.N.Venkatesh Murthy got examined as P.W.1 on behalf of the complainant company. The complainant company issued an authorized letter in favour of this Mr.N.Venkatesh Murthy to prosecute the present case. He has filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint itself and he got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 on behalf of the complainant company (As mentioned in the earlier paragraph).
07. Here, it is the specific defence of the accused that, the complainant company has not supplied 7038 broiler chicks, but supplied only 6000. At the time of entering into the agreement, the complainant company obtained the signatures of the accused on (SCH-20) 8 CC 26615/11 some printed papers without explaining the contents of the said papers. Moreover, before supplying the broiler chicks, the complainant company also obtained two signed blank cheques from the accused. Out of 6,000 broiler chicks supplied by the complainant company, 1987 chicks were dead, as they were not good quality. The accused has intimated the same to the complainant. The representative of the complainant company came to the poultry farm of the accused and noted the fact regarding the death of broiler chicks and its counts. After that, the said person assured the accused that, the necessary documents will be furnished to him regarding the death of broiler chicks. But they have not furnished any such document. Moreover, after the birds were weighing different weight, the complainant company lifted 4013 broiler chicks in the absence of accused. When the accused approached for the payment of those lifted chicks which was agreed between themselves, at that time, the complainant assured to furnish the weight of those birds and also for payment of money. But later the complainant company (SCH-20) 9 CC 26615/11 refused to do so. At that time serious talks were exchanged in between them and the accused told that, he would lodge a complaint against the complainant company for the fraud played by it. So, the complainant company assured to make payment by furnishing necessary documents. But later, the complainant company issued a frivolous notice. The accused is not due to the complainant company. But the complainant company itself is due for a sum of Rs.3,00,975-00 at the approximate rate of Rs.5-00 per kg of birds. This would be the defence taken by the accused while giving reply to the notice issued by the advocate of the complainant.
08. Here, the accused also got examined as D.W.1. In the chief examination he has deposed that, at the time of agreement, the complainant company has received two cheques. Moreover, the complainant has not made payment towards the grown up chicks. Moreover, the complainant company has lifted the grown up chicks in his absence for two times. When he asked for payment of those grown up chicks, the complainant company told that, the accused himself (SCH-20) 10 CC 26615/11 is due to the complainant company. The accused also deposed that, he has obtained Rs.15,00,000-00 loan from the Indian Overseas Bank in order to construct poultry farm. But he has not paid the said loan amount. This would be the chief examination of the accused. Ofcourse, this accused has been thoroughly cross-examined by the advocate for complainant. In the cross-examination, this accused has deposed very clearly as, "¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÀAvÀºÀ PÉÆý ªÀÄjUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è PÀrªÉÄ EzÀÄz Ý j ÀÝ AzÀ, D ¨Á§ÄÛ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉýzÀÝjAzÀ, PÀrªÉÄAiÀiÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄjUÀ¼À §Á§ÄÛ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÉÝ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévÀB £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ £ÀªÀÄä £ÀqÀÄªÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ DzÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è JgÀqÀÄ SÁ° ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼£À ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÉÝ J£ÀÄßvÁÛg.É ¢B15.03.2010gÀAzÀÄ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÀÝ £À£ÀUÉ MlÄÖ 7 ¸Á«gÀzÀ 38 ªÀÄjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. PÀ¼À¥É ªÀÄjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ, G½zÀAvÉ MlÄÖ 5,939 ªÀÄjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸À®ºÉUÉ ¸ÁQë, £Á£ÀÄ E®èzÉà EzÁÝUÀ CªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀÄA©PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝgÉ, JµÀÄÖ ªÀÄjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀÄA©PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¢B20.04.2010gÀAzÀÄ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ 3,406 ªÀÄjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸À®ºÉUÉ ¸ÁQë, £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®èzÉà vÀÄA©PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ (SCH-20) 11 CC 26615/11 J£ÀÄvÁÛg.É £À£Àß PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀgÀÄ EzÁÝU¯ À Éà vÀÄA©PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è." Thus, this accused has been saying that, the complainant company has lifted the grown up chicks in his absence. But later the complainant company has failed to make payment towards the said grown up chicks.
09. In this regard this Court has gone through the documents produced by the complainant as well as this accused. Ex.P.9 is the Agreement entered into between the complainant company and the accused. Ofcourse, this agreement is admitted by the accused. This agreement is signed by this accused in Kannada along with a guarantor by name Chandrakumar. Except on this agreement, there is no signature of this accused on other documents. Here, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination on 03-05-2014 at page No.8 has deposed as, "Farm book JAzÀÄ D eÁUÀzÀ°è MAzÀÄ jf¸ÀÖgï£ÀÄß EqÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ. CzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ jf¸ÀÖgï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ®Æè EgÀÄvÀz Û É. CzÀ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹®è. ¨ÉÃQzÀÝ°è ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À§¯É.è 7038 ªÀÄjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆæUÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¥À¢ðUÉ PÉÆmÁÖUÀ DvÀ¤AzÀ endorsement £ÀÄß ¥sÁªÀiïð §ÄPï£À°è ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ. £ÀªÀÄä jf¸ÀÖgï£À°è ¸À» ¥ÀqÉÀ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. (SCH-20) 12 CC 26615/11 1099 PÉÆýªÀÄjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÛ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä°è ªÀgÀ¢ EzÉ. D ªÀg¢ À UÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢zÉÝêÉ. JµÀÄÖ ªÉÄêÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JµÀÄÖ OµÀ¢ü ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁrzÉÃÝ ªÉ J£ÀÄߪÀ ¨UÉÎ ¥sÁªÀiïð §ÄPï£À°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ". Later the said Farm Record also produced by the P.W.1, which is got marked as Ex.P.10. This Court has gone through the contents of this farm record. (At this juncture it is necessary to mention here that, the P.W.1 or the advocate of complainant have not explained the contents of this farm record, which is in 'rough' form at the time stage of argument, even requested by this Court). This Court has gone through the contents of this farm record which reveal about the feed received entry, feed transfer in, feed transfer out, vaccine, medicine, medication, sales details, executive comment's and summary etc.,. The P.W.1 has admitted in his cross- examination that, there is no signature of this accused on this Ex.P.10 i.e., Farm Record. Actually this record do not reveal the correct figure and facts. There are so many overwriting. But the P.W.1 and advocate for complainant were not ready to explain about the contents of this Farm Record to (SCH-20) 13 CC 26615/11 this Court. So, when this Court has gone through the contents of this Ex.P.10 Farm Record, it clearly reveal that, there is no theft or shortage of birds as alleged in the complaint. Ex.P.11 is the eight 'Stock Transfer Notes'. Even on these stock transfer notes, there is a mention as "Receiver signature", but there is no signature of this accused on these stock transfer notes. This thing is also admitted by the P.W.1 in his cross-examination. In the same way the Ex.P.12 is the six Out passes given by the complainant company. Even these out passes do not reveal the signatures of this accused. Ex.P.13 is the seven Feed Transfer Advices. Though these feed transfer advises reveal "receiving farmer with seal", they do not bear the signature of this accused, but bear the seal as "FO32547 Ravi P/Form, Billedoddi". But this seal also provided by the complainant company as per the say of P.W.1. In the same way, there are four DC Challans which are marked as Ex.P.14. These challans also have 'farmer signature', though there is a signature, definitely this signature is not that of this accused. Because this accused put (SCH-20) 14 CC 26615/11 his signature in Kannada and English. Both signatures of the accused are before this Court. At the time of recording the plea of the accused, he has put his signature as, "RAVI". While recording the statement of the accused U/sec 313 of Cr.PC, he had put his signature in Kannada as, " gÀ« ". He has also put his signature in the reply dt:08-06-2010 which is marked as Ex.P.8 as " gÀ« ". He also put his signature on the deposition in Kannada as, " gÀ« ". But on all these DC challans, the signature found at "farmer signature"
definitely not that of this accused. This Court has comes to that conclusion by comparing these signatures with the signatures found on plea, accused statement, reply notice and the deposition. Moreover, it is the definite defence of the accused that, these Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.14 are the created documents by the complainant for the purpose of this case. By going through the contents of these Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.14, this Court also comes to the conclusion that, they have been created for the purpose of this case only.(SCH-20) 15 CC 26615/11
10. As already observed above, it is the case of the accused that, at the time of entering into the agreement, the complainant received two signed blank cheques. The said cheque has been misused in this way. His defence is that, in his absence, the complainant company have lifted the grown up chicks for two times and when accused asked for the payment of those grown up chicks, they were not ready to pay the amount and misused the cheque given by the accused at the time of entering into the contract in this way. When this Court has gone through the original cheque-Ex.P.2, it clearly reveal that, the signature found on this cheque is that of this accused only. But the remaining writing on this Ex.P.2 is not that of this accused. In the same way, regarding the agreement, the P.W.1 has deposed in his cross-examination as, " CzÉà PÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ Cfð JgÀqÀ£ÀÄß MAzÉà ¢£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVzÉ. Cfð £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ ºÉýzÀAvÉ £ÀªÀÄä ±ÁSÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÀÄA©¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É CzÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ vÀÄA©¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄUÉ ºÉüÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÀªÀÄä gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ±ÁSÁ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è FUÀ Cfð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVzÉ". Thus, it reveal that, (SCH-20) 16 CC 26615/11 even the application form and the agreement had been filled up by the persons of the complainant company and this accused had put his signature only on these application form and agreement. It is the definite defence of the accused that, without read over the contents of the application and the agreement, the complainant company took the signature of him on this application and agreement.
11. Moreover, in all the documents, the growing charges has not been mentioned, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the accused. In this regard, the P.W.1 has deposed in his cross- examination as, "D PÀgÁj£À°è EµÀÄÖ PÉÆýªÀÄjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁQzÀÝPÉÌ EAwµÀÄÖ ºÀt ¸ÀAzÁAiÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévÀB £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛg.É KPÉAzÀgÉ Growing charges PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ §zÀ¯ÁUÀÄvÀÛz.É DzÀÝjAzÀ CzÀgÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹®è. DgÉÆæUÉ PÉÆýªÀÄjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆmÁÖUÀ JµÀÄÖ Growing charges UÉ M¥Àà¯ÁVvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀVÃUÀ UÉÆwÛ®è.
M¨ÉÆâ§â farmer UÀÄÁ ¸ÀºÀ MAzÉÆAzÀÄ CPËAl£ÀÄß EqÀÄvÉÛêÉ
J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. CzÀg°
À è CPËAmï PÉÆèÃ¸ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ Growing
charges£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸ÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ¥ÁægÀA¨Àsz°
À è CPËAmï£À°è Growing
charge £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévÀB £ÀÄrAiÀÄivÁÛg.É £ÀªÀÄä
(SCH-20) 17 CC 26615/11
±ÁSÁ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¨ÉÆÃqïð£À°è CzÀ£ÀÄß r¸ï¥Éèà ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ". But, in the document produced by the complainant, they do not reveal the agreed growing charges. They do not reveal the payment made by the complainant company. In this regard the defence of the accused is that, the complainant company agreed to pay Rs.5-00 per kg as growing charges, but they have not paid. So, the accused refused to grow the birds and hence, the complainant filed the present case to harass the accused. In this regard, the P.W.1 has deposed in his cross-examination as, "Growing charges JAzÀÄ 1 PÉ.f.UÉ LzÀÄ gÀÆ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉݪÀÅ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. 2 ®PÀë 23 ¸Á«gÀzÀ 679 gÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ 2,533 PÉÆýUÀ¼À ¨É¯ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É CªÀÅUÀ¼À PÉ.f.AiÀÄ vÀÆPÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¢B20- 04-2010gÀAzÀÄ MAzÀÄ PÉÆýAiÀÄ ¨É¯É JµÀÁÖVvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. EAwµÀÄÖ PÉÆýUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁuÉAiÀiÁVªÉ J£ÀÄߪÀ §UÉÎ £ÉÆÃnøÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖ®è. 2 ®PÀë 23 ¸Á«gÀzÀ 679 gÀÆ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÁUÀ DgÉƦ¬ÄAzÀ »A§gÀºÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢®è. ¨ÉÃgÉ gÉÊvÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ®Æ EzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ PÉøÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁQzÉÝÃªÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £ÁUÉÃ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀAUÁzÀsgï ªÉÄÃ®Æ PÉÆý PÀ¼ÉzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVªÉ JAzÀÄ ZÉPï ¨Ë£ïì PÉøÀÄ ºÁQzÉÝÃªÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ (SCH-20) 18 CC 26615/11 ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. DgÉÆæ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀt £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÝUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.× £ÁªÉà DgÉÆæUÉ ºÀt PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¨ÁQ EvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. DvÀ ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨É¼z É ÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ F PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ºÁQzÉÝÃªÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è". Thus, the complainant has not produced anything regarding the payments made to the accused. Moreover, it is the further defence of the accused that, as the complainant failed to make payment, the accused refused to grow the birds and hence, the complainant presented the cheque for encashment to threat the accused. Regarding this aspect, the D.W.1 has deposed in his cross- examination as, " ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄ Growing charges £ÀÄß PÀÉiÁnÖgÀiªÀÅ¢®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. JgÀqÀ£ÃÉ ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨É¼ÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ MnÖUÉ JgÀqÀÄ ¨É¼ÉUÀ¼À Growing charges PÉÆqÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ JAzÀÄ ±ÁSÁ¢üPÁj ºÉýzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. JgÀqÀ£ÃÉ ¨É¼AÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ, DgÉÆæ Growing charges PÉýzÁUÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ §¤ß PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨É¼AÉ iÀÄ®Ä vÀAzÁUÀ DgÉÆæ Growing charges PÉÆqÀzÉà ¨É¼AÉ iÀÄĪÀÅ¢®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. D ªÀÄjUÀ¼£À ÄÀ ß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. DgÉÆæUÉ ¨ÀsAiÀÄ ºÀÄnÖ¸ÀĪÀ (SCH-20) 19 CC 26615/11 ¸À®ÄªÁV F ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ ºÁQzÉݪÀÅ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è". Thus, from the materials available on record as well as the defence taken by the accused, it can be held that, the accused has not at all issued the present cheque in question towards the discharge of legally enforceable debt. The complainant has failed to prove that, this accused has issued the present cheque in question towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Definitely, this complaint does not attract Sec.138(a) of N.I. Act. Under the above said facts and circumstances and also for the discussions made in the above paragraphs, it can be held without any hesitation that, the complainant has failed to prove that, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, in the result, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.(SCH-20) 20 CC 26615/11
The accused is acquitted U/Sec 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec 138 of N.I. Act.
The bail bonds of accused hereby stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, then corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of April, 2015) (K.BHAGYA) V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
Annexure Witnesses examined for Complainant:
P.W.1 N.Venkatesh Murthy
Documents marked for complainant:
Ex.P.1 Authorized letter
Ex.P.2 original Cheque dt:06-05-2010 for a sum of
Rs.2,23,679-00
Ex.P.3 Bank memo dt:07-05-2010
(SCH-20) 21 CC 26615/11
Ex.P.4 Office copy of Legal notice dt:22-05-2010
Ex.P.5 Postal receipt
Ex.P.6 UCP receipt
Ex.P.7 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.8 Reply notice dt:08-06-2010
Ex.P.9 Chick Growing Agreement dt:11-11-2009
Ex.P.10 Farm Record of the accused
Ex.P.11 8 Stock Transfer Notes
Ex.P.12 6 Medical Out passes
Ex.P.13 7 Feed Transfer Advices
Ex.P.14 4 DC Challans
Witnesses examined for defence:
D.W.1 Ravi
Documents marked for defence:
-Nil-
(K.BHAGYA)
V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.