Bangalore District Court
Sri. Malakondaiah vs Sri. V.Manjunath on 7 February, 2020
1 C.C.No.16628/2017 J
THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated:- This the 7th day of February, 2020
Present: Sri.S.B.HANDRAL, B.Sc., L.L.B(SPL).,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.16628/2017
Complainant : Sri. Malakondaiah,
S/o. Sri Narasimhalu,
Major,
R/at 10/1, 5th Main,
JP Nagar 7th Phase,
Bengaluru -560 078.
(Rep. by Sri. Y.Hariprasad and
Associates ., Adv.,)
- Vs -
Accused : Sri. V.Manjunath,
Also called as Manja,
S/o. Sannamari,
Major,
R/at 12/3,
Aswathnarayana Layout,
C/o. Bhagyamma Devaraju,
Near Kerosene Bunk,
Puttenahalli,
JP Nagar 7th Phase,
Bengaluru -560 078.
(By Sri. Balaji Law Solutions.,
Adv.,)
2 C.C.No.16628/2017 J
Case instituted : 16.6.2017
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 7.2.2020
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that, he is running grocery shop at Puttenahalli and Accused is running the restaurant in the road side of the Puttenahalli and the Accused is his customer and the Accused running the restaurant for the past 5 years and purchasing the groceries on credit basis and he supplied the groceries worth of Rs.3,50,000/= from time to time and towards the above said transaction ,the Accused is due in a sum of Rs.3,50,000/= to him and he is demanding the above said amount orally from the Accused , the Accused for the above said consideration amount of Rs.3,50,000/= on 1.1.2016, has executed a On 3 C.C.No.16628/2017 J Demand Promissory note along with consideration receipt in his favour. The complainant further contended that, on 10.4.2017, the Accused issued cheque bearing No. 161016 drawn on Canara Bank, JP Nagar, 7th Phase, Bengaluru -560 078 for Rs.4,55,000/= towards the above aid amount due including interest on Rs.3,50,000/= and when he presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker the same came to be returned dishonoured as "Funds Insufficient" vide bank endorsement dated: 12.4.2017, thereafter he got issued legal notice dated : 24.4.2017 to the Accused through RPAD calling upon him to pay the cheque amount to him within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said legal notice, and the Accused has received the said notice on 3.5.2017 and not paid the amount or replied to the said legal notice. Hence he has filed this present complainant against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Before issuing process against the accused, the Complainant has filed his affidavit-in-lieu of his sworn statement, in which, he has reiterated the 4 C.C.No.16628/2017 J averments of the complaint. In support of his oral evidence, P.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.C.1 to C.6 i.e, the Original Cheque dated: 10.4.2017 as per Ex.C.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused as per Ex.C.1(a), the Bank Memo as per Ex.C.2, the copy of Legal Notice as per Ex.C.3, the Postal Receipt as per Ex.C.4 and postal acknowledgement as per Ex.C.5, Pronote and consideration receipt dated:- 1.1.2016 as per Ex.C.6, signatures of the Accused on the said pronote as per Ex.C.6(a) and C.6(b) respectively and closed his side.
4. Prima-facie case has been made out against the accused and summons was issued against the accused in turn he has appeared before the court and got enlarged on bail and the substance of the accusation has been read over to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. As per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of the Indian Bank Association Vs., Union of India, reported in 2014 (5) SCC 590, after recording the plea of the Accused, 5 C.C.No.16628/2017 J as he intended to set out his defence, the case came to be posted for the Cross-examination of complainant.
6. Thereafter, the statement of the accused as required under Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and has chosen to lead his rebuttal evidence subsequently the Accused has examined one Sri.A.H.Vijayakumar Advocate as DW.1 on his behalf and marked the document i.e. office copy of the legal notice as per Ex.D.1 and the reply notice as per Ex.D.2 and closed his side.
7. Heard both sides and perused the written argument submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant and Accused and perused the materials on record and decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant i.e. 1) (2018) 8 SCC 165 in the case of Kishan Rao Vs. Shankargouda 2) (2018) 8 SCC 469 in the case of T.P. Murugan (Dead) Through Legal representatives. Vs.Bojan and Posa Nandhi, Rep. through power of attorney holder T.P.Murugan Vs. Bojan; 3) AIR 2019 SC 1876 in case of 6 C.C.No.16628/2017 J Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and another; ; 4) AIR 2019 SC 2446 in case of Birsingh Vs.Mukesh Kumar.
8. On the basis of complaint, evidence of complainant and documents the following points that are arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued cheque bearing No.161016 dated:
10.4.2017 for sum of Rs.4,55,000/= drawn on Canara Bank, JP Nagar 7th phase branch, Bengaluru, to discharge legally recoverable debt to the complainant and when the complainant has presented cheque for encashment through her banker but the said cheque has been dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" on 12.4.2017 and the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 28.4.2017 and inspite of it the accused has not paid the cheque amount within prescribed period there by the accused has committed an offence U/s.138 of the Negotiable instruments Act?
2. What Order?7 C.C.No.16628/2017 J
9. The above points are answered as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2:As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1 : Before appreciation of the facts and oral and documentary evidence of the present case, it is relevant to mention that under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to establish guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts however, a proceedings U/s.138 of N.I.Act is quasi criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond all reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions as envisaged U/s.118, 139 and 136 of N.I.Act. An essential ingredient of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act is that, whether a person issues cheque to be encashed and the cheque so issued is towards payment of debt or liability and if it is returned as unpaid for want of funds, then the person issuing such cheque shall be deemed to have been committed an offence. The offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act pre-supposes conditions for prosecution of an offence which are as under:
8 C.C.No.16628/2017 J1. Existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and issuance of cheque in discharge of said debt or liability;
2. Cheque shall be presented for payment within specified time i.e., from the date of issue before expiry of its validity.
3. The holder shall issue a notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer within one month from the date of receipt of information of the bounced cheque and
4. The drawer inspite of demand notice fails to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice.
If the above said conditions are satisfied by holder in due course gets cause action to launch prosecution against the drawer in respect of bounced cheque and as per Sec.142(b) of the N.I. Act, the complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arise to file complaint.
11. It is also one of the essential ingredient of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act that, a cheque in question must have been issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I.Act envisages 9 C.C.No.16628/2017 J certain presumptions i.e.,U/s.118 a presumption shall be raised regarding 'consideration' 'date' 'transfer' 'endorsement' and holder in course of Negotiable Instrument. Even Sec.139 of the Act are rebuttable presumptions shall be raised that, the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally recoverable or enforceable debt and these presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in cases of negotiable instrument, but the said presumptions are not conclusive and or rebuttable one, this proportion of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in catena of decisions.
12. In the present case the complainant got examined as PW.1 by filing his affidavit evidence wherein the complainant has reiterated the entire averments of the complaint, the complainant/PW.1 in his evidence testified that, he is running grocery shop at Puttenahalli and the Accused running a restaurant on the road side of the Puttenahalli since 5 years and is the customer of him and purchasing the groceries on credit basis, accordingly he supplied 10 C.C.No.16628/2017 J the groceries worth of Rs.3,50,000/= to the Accused from time to time and the Accused became due of Rs.3,50,000/= to him. The complainant/PW.1 further testified that, he has demanded the amount to the Accused at that time the Accused has executed a on demand promissory note on 1.1.2016 in respect of the said amount of Rs.3,50,000/= along with consideration receipt in his favour and thereafter on 10.4.2017 the Accused has issued a bearing cheque bearing No.161016 dated: 10.4.2017 for sum of Rs.4,55,000/= drawn on Canara Bank, JP Nagar 7th Phase branch, Bengaluru, towards the due amount including the interest on Rs.3,50000/= The complainant/PW.1 further testified that, he has presented the cheque issued by the Accused through his banker but the same was dishonoured for "Funds Insufficient" on 12.4.2017 thereafter he got issued legal notice to the accused on 24.4.2017 the Accused has received the notice on 3.5.2017 and not paid the amount not replied to the said legal notice.
13. In support of the oral evidence of the complainant, he produced and marked the 11 C.C.No.16628/2017 J documents as per Ex.C.1 to C.6 i.e., the Original Cheque dated: 10.4.2017 as per Ex.C.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused as per Ex.C.1(a), the Bank Memo as per Ex.C.2, the copy of Legal Notice as per Ex.C.3, the Postal Receipt as per Ex.C.4 and postal acknowledgement as per Ex.C.5, Pronote and consideration receipt dated:- 1.1.2016 as per Ex.C.6, signatures of the Accused on the said pronote as per Ex.C.6(a) and C.6(b) respectively.
14. In the present case, there is no dispute between the complainant and Accused with regard to their acquaintance. It is also not in dispute by the accused that, the cheque in question presented for encashment and dishonoured for the reason of "Funds Insufficient" since as matter on record, proved by return memo i.e. C.2 issued by the concerned bank dated: 12.4.2017, therefore it is a matter on record and has been proved that, the cheque in question was presented within its validity period and dishonoured as per the bank endorsement issued by the banker of accused. It is also not in dispute that, the cheque in question i.e. 12 C.C.No.16628/2017 J Ex.C.1 belongs to the account of the accused and has not denied his signature which is appearing at Ex.C.1(a). it is also not disputed by the Accused with regard to service of legal notice issued by the complainant as per Ex.C.3 and receipt of the said notice as per Ex.C.5 i.e. postal acknowledgement, and the Accused has not given any reply to the said notice, hence the complainant has proved that, the mandatory requirements U/s.138(a) to (c) of N.I.Act.
15. It is the specific defence of the Accused that, he has denied the claim made by the complainant and also issuance of the cheque towards discharge of the liability in question, it is the specific defence of the Accused that, he used to avail the groceries from the complainant on credit basis since 2012 and he used to remit the money to the complainant as soon as he gains the money by selling the food products and the Accused being illiterate and always mercy of the complainant and has not dare enough to question the complainant about the accounts and for his genuine dues and the complainant has not taken his signature in credit book or issued bill when the groceries were supplied 13 C.C.No.16628/2017 J to him on credit or gives any receipt for having received the collection. It is also the defence of the Accused that, as a security to the credit he had issued a blank signed cheque and blank promissory note to the Accused. The complainant has also forced to him to sell the plot situated at Avarehalli Village measuring 57 x 15 ft. in favour of his son in lieu of his dues accordingly the Accused executed sale deed dated: 19.5.2016 in the name of son of the complainant without receiving any sale consideration as the complainant assured him that, all his dues including interest has been adjusted with the sale consideration, instead of terminating the dues the complainant has filed this false complaint using those earlier documents i.e. blank cheque and promissory note. Hence on these back grounds the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant and Accused has to be examined as to whether the Accused has rebutted presumption available to the complainant.
16. The complainant in order to substantiate his claim i.e., he has supplied the groceries to the Accused worth of Rs.3,50,000/= from time to time 14 C.C.No.16628/2017 J and the Accused is due in sum of Rs.3,50,000/= and the Accused has executed a On demand promissory note along with consideration receipt in his favour towards the acknowledgement of due by him and also issued the cheque in question to him, has produced the cheque issued by the Accused i.e Ex.C.1 and on demand promissory note and consideration receipt executed by the Accused which is at Ex.C.6. On careful perusal of Ex.C.6 it appears that, on 1.1.2016 the Accused has executed on demand promissory note and consideration receipt in favour of the complainant for sum of Rs.3,50,000/= together interest thereon at the rate of 2% p.m. and the complainant has identified the signature of the Accused are at Ex.C.6(a) and C.6(b).
17. The Accused during the course of cross- examination has not denied his signatures appearing at Ex.C.6(a) and C.6(b) but has denied the execution of Ex.C.6 pronote in favour of the complainant but the complainant has denied the said suggestion made to him in that regard. Therefore it appears that the denial of the Ex.C.6 by the Accused appears to be general denial one. It is 15 C.C.No.16628/2017 J also relevant here to mention that, the Accused has examined one advocate by name Sri.A.H.Vijaya Kumar as DW.1 on his behalf as a witness. The DW.1 in his evidence stated that, the complainant in this case had contacted him on 6.8.2013 and requested him to issue legal notice to one V.Manjunatha i.e the Accused herein and the complainant had brought pronote documents along with him to issue legal notice for recovery of money and he was told that, the complainant had lent a sum of Rs.1,75,000/= to the Accused herein on 02.11.2011 and one document is signed promissory note and the Accused had signed as "Manju" in the said promissory note as borrower and he saw Ex.C.6 the said promissory note and confirm that, it is the same document that was handed over to him to cause legal notice, he prepared the legal notice dated: 8.8.2013 and showed to the complainant herein for confirmation of fact and thereafter he had sent the legal notice to the Accused herein on 20.8.2013 and to another person Sri.Veeranna who was the guarantor to the said loan lent by the complainant to the Accused and he has produced the copy of the legal notice dated: 8.8.2013 and also 16 C.C.No.16628/2017 J reply notice dated: 27.8.2013 received by him from one Sri.C.Venkatesh, advocate on behalf of the Sri. Veeranna, the guarantor and the said copy of the notice dated: 8.8.2013 and reply notice dated:
27.8.2013 are at Ex.D.1 and D.2 respectively.
18. It is also relevant here to refer that the DW.1 in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that at the time of preparing and issuing the Ex.D.1 notice the complainant was brought a promissory note and has issued the notice as per the said promissory note but the said promissory note and the promissory note which is at Ex.C.6 are not one and the same and the complainant was not brought the Ex.C.6 at the time of issuing Ex.D.1.
Hence, the above admissions of the DW.1 makes it clear that, he has admitted that, Ex.C.6 i.e On demand promissory note and consideration receipt and the promissory note which brought by the complainant at the time of issuing of Ex.D.1 legal notice are entirely different, in such circumstances the evidence of the DW.1 is not helpful for the complainant to prove the fact that, the DW.1 has saw the Ex.C.6 in the year 2013 allegedly brought by 17 C.C.No.16628/2017 J the complainant herein and the Accused herein had signed as Manju in the said promissory note as borrower and the evidence of the DW.1 to that effect has nullifies by admitting the fact that, the Ex.C.6 on demand promissory note and the promissory note which was brought by the complainant at the time of issuing notice i.e Ex.D.1 are entirely different. Therefore the defence of the Accused that, the complainant had collected his blank signed promissory note as a security in the year 2012 itself and has not executed promissory note i.e Ex.C.6 in favour of the complainant cannot be acceptable one.
19. It is also relevant here to mention that, the DW.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that, he has received any summons from the court to give evidence as a witness in this case and he is not having any postal receipt or postal acknowledgement for having sent the Ex.D.1 notice to the Accused through the registered post and has not produced registered cover to show that, he has received the reply i.e. Ex.D.2 through registered post as admitted by him and even has not asked the Accused in respect of postal receipt and postal 18 C.C.No.16628/2017 J acknowledgement and also admitted that, he has no documents to show that, he has sent the Ex.D.1 through registered post but he stated that, the said documents are with the complainant and has not obtained any endorsement to show that, the said documents are handed over to the complainant. The DW.1 has also admitted that, immediate after sending the notice to the client they used to kept the copy of the same in the office of the same and the signature of the party used to take on the notice copy and he has not obtained the signature of the complainant on Ex.D.1. It is also admitted that, the only one person should be the proprietor of the proprietorship concern and two persons cannot be a proprietors of one proprietorship concern and in Ex.D.2 he has shown the Accused and one Veeranna as a proprietors, but he said that, the said veeranna is surety to the loan and in Ex.D.1 he has not mentioned the said veeranna stood as a surety to the loan amount. Hence the admissions of the DW.1 makes it clear that, if really he has issued the legal notice to the Accused and one Veeranna as per Ex.D.1 by referring the promissory note brought by the complainant herein as stated by him, definitely 19 C.C.No.16628/2017 J he would have mentioned that, one Veeranna who is shown in the cause title of the notice as a second party as a guarantor to the loan borrowed by the Accused herein but no such averments are forthcoming in Ex.D.1 notice, in such circumstances, it cannot be held that, the DW.1 has issued the legal notice as per Ex.D.1 and in turn he has received the Ex.D.2 reply notice from the said Veeranna. The DW.1 has not produced any postal receipts or acknowledgement for having sent the Ex.D.1 through registered post to the Accused and Veeranna and he has received a reply notice through registered post as per Ex.D.2, in such circumstances only on the basis of Ex.D.1 and D.2 it cannot be held that, the DW.1 has issued legal notice to the Accused and one Veeranna as per Ex.D.1.It is also relevant here to mention that, if really the said Veeranna was stood guarantor to the loan borrowed by the Accused and the DW.1 has prepared the said legal notice as per the promissory note brought by the complainant and the said promissory note which was saw by the DW.1 is the promissory note which is produced in this as i.e Ex.C.6 , the contents of the promissory note i.e Ex.C.6 should have disclosed the 20 C.C.No.16628/2017 J name of the Veeranna as a guarantor of the said loan but no such contents are found in Ex.C.6, hence on this count also the defence taken by the Accused and evidence of the DW.1 cannot be acceptable one. It is also relevant here to mention that, if really the DW.1 issued legal notice as per Ex.D.1 to Veeranna by showing him as a guarantor of the loan borrowed by the Accused , in reply notice i.e Ex.D.2 issued by the said Veeranna has to denied the contents of the legal notice by contending that he was not stood as a surety or guarantor to the loan borrowed by the Accused on the contrary the said veeranna has denied the contents of the notice as if he was borrower of the loan amount from the complainant, on this count also the evidence of DW.1 cannot be relied upon and acceptable one for proving the defence of the Accused that, the Ex.C.6 on Demand promissory note produced by the complainant was shown to Dw.1 in the year 2013 at the time of preparing and issuing Ex.D.1 legal notice by DW.1, in such circumstances the evidence of the DW.1 will not supports to the defence of the Accused in any angle.
21 C.C.No.16628/2017 J20. It is also relevant here to mention that, the learned counsel for the defence has cross-examined the complainant in length but nothing has been elicited to discredit or discard his evidence, instead of eliciting anything materials from the complainant the Accused rather concentrated his defence that, the complainant has not maintained any accounts with regard to credit sales and repayment made by the Accused in respect of grocery supplied by him and has not collected any document i.e Agreement with the Accused while supplying the groceries on credit basis. It is true that, the complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that, he has not taken the signature of the Accused at the time of supplying the groceries to him and receipt of the amount from him and also not issued bills/receipts towards supply of the groceries. It is also true that, the complainant has admitted that, he has not collected any security documents from the Accused towards supply of groceries to him since last 5 to 6 years and has not maintained any accounts towards supply of the groceries to the Accused. But the complainant/PW.1 in his cross-examination has specifically stated that, he is doing business in the 22 C.C.No.16628/2017 J food commodities and in the name of Ganesh Rice and provision stores and is maintaining the account in Telugu and English and got the GST number and license from Municipality for doing business and he used to supply 2000 to 3000 commodities to the Accused on every day and said transaction was written in the slip and at that time the copy of the slip was also given to the Accused and Rs.4 to 5 Lakhs worth of commodities were supplied to the Accused. Hence, the suggestions made on behalf of the Accused that, 5 to 6 years when the complainant supplying commodities to the Accused has not taken any document itself suffice to shows that the complainant used to supply the commodities on credit basis to the Accused, as the Accused nowhere in the cross-examination either denied or taken the defence that, regarding transaction of credit purchase of commodities by the Accused, in such circumstances it can be held that, the Accused has admitted the supply of grocery by the complainant on credit basis.
21. It is also relevant here to mention that the learned counsel for the Accused at page No.6 of 23 C.C.No.16628/2017 J cross-examination of the complainant has specifically made suggestion that, the son of the complainant purchased one of the property of the Accused i.e., site property and the Accused has not received any sale consideration amount though it is shown as Rs.3,31,000/= and the sale consideration amount was adjusted towards his dues i.e., the amount in respect of supply of grocery on credit basis but the complainant /PW1 has specifically denied the said suggestion by stating that, there is no connection between the transaction between his son and the Accused and with this transaction in question. Hence, the said suggestion of the Accused itself clear that, the Accused has admitted the facat that ,there was a credit purchase of commodities i.e grocery from the complainant and also he was due to the complainant in respect of the purchase made on credit. The Accused has not produced the sale deed the executed by him in favour of the son of the complainant, if really the Accused has executed the sale deed in favour of the son of the complainant in respect of the amount due by him towards purchase of grocery on credit basis and at the time of execution of sale deed has not received any sale 24 C.C.No.16628/2017 J consideration amount and same has been settled, in such circumstances the Accused would have produced the said sale deed to prove his defence but failure on part of production of the sale deed may also leads to draw an adverse inference against the Accused that, the sale transaction and the transaction in question are not related to each other for that, reason only the Accused is withholding the sale deed, since if it is produced before the court that would clarifies the fact that, whether the sale consideration amount is adjusted towards the due by the Accused or not, on this count also the defence taken by the Accused cannot be acceptable one.
22. It is true that, the complainant has not produced the documents to show that, he has supplied the groceries to the Accused on credit basis though he has admitted that, at the time of supplying of groceries he used to written in the slip and copy of the slip was also given to the Accused and has maintained the accounts. It is also admitted by the complainant that, at the time of supplying of groceries to the Accused and has not obtained documents form the Accused though he has 25 C.C.No.16628/2017 J supplied the groceries since last 5 to 6 years and has not produced the documents to show details of accounts pertaining to the transaction in question. It is relevant here to mention that, the complainant has produced the cheque in question issued by the Accused towards discharge of the due by him in respect of supply of groceries on credit basis and also produced the on demand promissory note and consideration receipt executed by the Accused by admitting and acknowledging the due of Rs.3,50,000/= along with interest at he rate of 2% p.m. as per Ex.C.6, but has not produced receipt or ills or accounts to show the supply of groceries to the Accused on credit basis but only on that ground the entire claim made by the complainant cannot be rejected as the complainant has produced the Ex.C.1 cheque in question issued by the Accused towards discharge of the due and interest amount by him. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India, decided in Crl.Appeal No. 61-62/2011 dated: 21.8.2019 in the case of M/s. Sri. Dhaneshwari Traders Vs. Sanjay Jain and another., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that " It is for the Accused to 26 C.C.No.16628/2017 J adduce evidence to prove that cheques were not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability tobe discharged by him. The receipts - Ex.22/C (Colly) relied upon by the respondent Accused do not create doubt about the purchase made on credit and the existence of a legally enforceable debt for which the cheques were issued. It is also held that, the defence of the respondent that, though he made payment for the commodities /rice bags the blank cheques were not returned by appellant/complainant is quite unbelievable and unacceptable. It is also relevant here to refer another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court decided in Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Crl. Appeal Nos. 132/220 in the case of D.K.Chandel Vs. M/s. Wockhardt (L) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "production of the account books/cash book may be relevant in the civil court, may not be so in the criminal case filed under section 138 of NI Act while restoring the trial court judgment, the High Court observed that "the reason given by the lower appellate court that he did not bring the cash book or order book etc, could well 27 C.C.No.16628/2017 J be understood, if civil suit is tried" but may not be so in the criminal case filed under section 138 of NI Act. This is because of the presumption raised in favour of the holder of cheque.
Hence, in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the present case also the claim made by the complainant do not create doubt about the purchase made on credit and the existence of legally enforceable debt for which the cheqeu in question was issued by the Accused. Therefore the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one.
23. As it is already held in the above that, the complainant proved that the cheque in question belongs to the Accused i.e Ex.C.1 and signature found at Ex.C.1(a) is that of the signature of the Accused and also proved that, the cheque in question was presented within its validity period and it was dishonoured for the reason of "Funds Insufficient" as per Ex.C.2 and thereafter the legal notice caused by him through RPAD to the Accused was served on him, in such circumstances, it can be 28 C.C.No.16628/2017 J held that, the complainant has discharged his initial burden by complying the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of N.I. Act and initially the presumptions are available in favour of the complainant U/s.118a and 139 of the N.I. Act. Consequently it is for the Accused to rebut the said presumptions available in favour of the complainant to show that, the cheque in question was not issued either to the complainant or towards discharge of any legally recoverable debt by producing cogent and convincible evidence but not mere suggestions or even by plausible explanation. In such circumstances, when the presumptions U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act are available to the complainant, even a presumption can be drawn to the extent of existence of legally recoverable debt or liability against the Accused unless and until the said presumptions are rebutted by the Accused, even in the absence of documents produced by the complainant with regard to loan transaction in question. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decisions reported in 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 between 'M/s.Devi Tyres V/s.Navab Jan' and in 2011 ACD 1521 (KAR) between 'Smt. Usha 29 C.C.No.16628/2017 J Suresh V/s. Shashidharn', in 2010 SC 1898 between 'Rangappa Vs. Mohan' and 2011 ACD 1412 (KAR) between 'N.Hasainar Vs. M.Hasainar, S/o. Ibrahim'. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above decision i.e., 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 at para No.6 was pleased to hold that issuance of cheque itself was adequate proof of existence of debt or liability. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India i.e. Hon'ble Three Judges Bench Decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan ., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - S.139 -
Presumption under - scope of - Held, presumption mandated by S. 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally
enforceable debt or liability - However such presumption is rebuttable in nature - Criminal Trial - Proof - Presumptions - Generally. Further held that "Signature on the cheque was his, statutory presumption under S.139 comes into play and the same was not rebutted even with regard to the materials submitted by complainant Appellant not able to prove "lost 30 C.C.No.16628/2017 J cheque" theory - Apart from not raising a probable defence appellant was also not able to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability - hence, his conviction by High Court, held, proper. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, reported in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2018 DT 15-03-2018 between ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATEL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR held that "Negotiable Instruments Act facts like source of funds are not relevant if the Accused has not been able to rebut the presumption. It is further held that " When such a presumption is drawn, the facts relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the Accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not". In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "
Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption 31 C.C.No.16628/2017 J under - burden to prove - the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence U/s.s.138 of NI Act. It is also held that, " the accused has failed to lead any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, a finding returned by both the Trial Court and High Court. Both courts not only erred in law but also committed perversity when the due amount is said to be disputed only on the account of discrepancy in the cartons, packing materials or the rate to determine the total liability as if the appellant was proving his debt before the civil court. Therefore it is presumed that, the cheque in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques received the same in 32 C.C.No.16628/2017 J existing debt". It is also held that, " the Trial court and the High Court proceeded as if, the appellant is to prove a debt before civil Court wherein, the plaintiff is required to prove his claim on the basis of evidence to be laid in support of his claim for the recovery of the amount due. A dishonour of cheque carries statutory presumption of consideration. The holder of cheque in due course is required to prove that, the cheque was issued by the Accused and that when the same presented , it was not honoured Since there is a statutory presumption of consideration, the burden is on the Accused to rebut the presumption that, the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability ". It is also relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2019 KAR 493 in the case of Sri.Yogesh Poojary Vs. Sri.K.Shankara Bhat, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, the presumption mandated by Sec.139 of N.I Act includes the presumption that, there existed a legally enforceable debt or liability, however such presumption is rebuttable in nature". In 33 C.C.No.16628/2017 J another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Shri.V.R.Shresti Vs. Shri. Bhaskara.P. in Crl. Appeal No. 2109/2017 dated: 15.10.2019 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "the Accused has not given any reply to the notice and also in the cross- examination, he categorically admits that, the cheque has bounced on account of no sufficient fund in the bank account of the Accused. Mere non producing of the document before the court with regard to the source of income to advance a loan is not a ground to dismiss the complaint. The Accused ought to have rebutted the contention of the complainant by producing cogent evidence before the court and mere denial is not enough".
24. Therefore on careful reading of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and High Court of Karnataka in the above referred decisions makes it very clear that, once the holder in due course i.e. the complainant proved that, the cheque in question belongs to the drawer and signature appearing on the cheque is 34 C.C.No.16628/2017 J that of the drawer i.e., Accused and complied the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of N.I.Act, a presumptions U/s.118a and 139 of N.I.Act indeed does extend to the existence of legally recoverable debt and when such a presumption is drawn the facts relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence regarding source of funds were not of relevant unless the Accused rebutted the presumption available to the complainant as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court of Karnataka in the above decisions. In the present case also the complainant has complied the mandatory requirements and has proved that, the Accused has issued the cheque in question in his favour and the Accused has admitted the cheque belongs to him and signature appearing on the cheque is that of his signature and even the intimation is given by the postal authorities to the Accused regarding legal notice issued by the complainant to him but has not given any reply or complied the terms of the notice, in such circumstances, presumptions have to be drawn towards existence of legally enforceable debt as per Sec.139 of N.I.Act.
35 C.C.No.16628/2017 J25. Therefore, for the above said reasons the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the defence in the written arguments at para No. 5 to 9, ie., the complainant has not produced any documents to show that, he has supplied the groceries to the Accused on credit basis and has not maintained bills, receipts, accounts etc., and the Accused is due of Rs.3,50,000/= towards purchase of groceries on credit basis and has not collected any documents from the Accused to show that, he has supplied the groceries to the Accused cannot be acceptable one. In this case also the learned defence counsel argued that, the complainant has to prove his claim by producing his evidence as if it is required for proving his debt before the Civil Court, as held by the Hon'ble Apex court of India in the above referred decisions, therefore in view of the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions it is presumed that, cheque in question was drawn for consideration as the Accused has admitted the cheque in question belongs to him and signature found on the cheque in question is also that of his signature. It is also relevant here to mention that, on careful reading of the principles of 36 C.C.No.16628/2017 J law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court of India and Hon'ble High Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the Accused with due respect to the principles of law the same are not helpful for the Accused in this case to prove his defence, as the fact and circumstances of the present case and facts and circumstances of the decided case are not one and the same.
26. The learned counsel for the Accused in the written argument has contended that, Accused used to avail groceries from the complainant on credit basis in the 2012 and as soon as he gains money from selling food products and he used to remit the collection by evening and the complainant never took the signature of the Accused in credit book or issued bill when the groceries were given to him on credit or gives any receipt for having received the collection, as a security to the said credit the Accused issued blank signed cheque and blank promissory note in favour of the complainant and the Accused was having residential plot at Avarehalli village and the complainant forced the Accused to sell the plot in lieu of his dues without 37 C.C.No.16628/2017 J any alternative the Accused executed sale deed dated; 19.5.2016 in the name of his son without receiving any sale consideration and all the dues including interest has been adjusted with the sale consideration, hence instead of terminating the dues the complainant has filed this complaint using those earlier documents i.e blank signed cheque and promissory notes in order to make unlawful gain and has filed this false case against him. It is relevant here to mention that, except the bare denial in the cross-examination of the complainant the Accused has not produced any documents to substantiate his defence i.e to show that, he had given blank signed cheque or promissory note in favour of the complainant as a security towards purchase of groceries on credit basis, therefore without there being any documentary proof only on the basis of bare denial of the claim of the complaint it cannot b held that, the Accused has rebutted the presumption available in favour of the complainant. If really the complainant has misused his blank signed cheque and promissory note, definitely he Accused would have given reply to he notice caused by the complainant but inspite of receipt of the legal notice 38 C.C.No.16628/2017 J , the Accused has not made any efforts to give reply to the notice received by him. Even after coming to know the fact of alleged misuse of his signed blank cheque and promissory note by the Accused he has not made any efforts either to file complaint against the complaint or initiated any action against the complainant before the competent court of law or authority for alleged misuse of his cheques and promissory note. The Accused even has not made efforts to issue stop payment instructions to his bank authority by alleging that, he has issued blank signed cheque to the complainant but no such efforts have been made by the Accused , in such circumstances the said unnatural conduct of the Accused in respect of non claiming of return of his blank signed cheques and promissory note may leads to draw an adverse inference that, the Accused has issued the cheque in question toward discharge of the liability in question but not security as alleged by him. In this regard it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2018 SC 3601 in a case of T.P.Murugan(dead) Thr. Lrs.V. Bhojan Vs. Posa Nandi, rep. Thr. Lrs. PA holder, T.P. Murugan V. 39 C.C.No.16628/2017 J Bhojan, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that "Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) Ss.118, 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption as to enforceable debt- cheques allegedly issued by accused towards repayment of debt- Defence of accused that 10 cheques issued towards repayment of loan back in 1995 - behavior of accused in allegedly issuing 10 blank cheques back in 1995 and never asking their return for 7 years, unnatural - Accused admitting his signature on cheques and pronote, presumption under S.139 would operate against him - Complainant proving existence of legally enforceable debt and issuance of cheques towards discharge of such debt - Conviction, Proper". Hence, in view of the principles of law held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand since in the present case also the accused has not made any efforts to get return of cheque alleged to have been given to the complainant for securing loan to him from the bank, under such circumstances, the said unnatural conduct of the accused in non taking of action, an adverse inference can be drawn against 40 C.C.No.16628/2017 J the accused that, the cheque in question issued by the accused towards discharge of the liability and presumption U/s.139 of N.I.Act would operate against him, as he has admitted the signature and cheque in question is belongs to him. In another decision reported in 2015 (4) KCCR 2881 (SC) in the case of T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that, "
NEGOTIABLE ISNTRUCEMTNS Act, 1881- Section 138 and 139 - acquittal - If justified- Accused not disputing issuance of cheque and his signature on it - Plea that it was issued long back as security and that loan amount was repaid - Not supported by any evidence - Fact that date was printed, would not lend any evidence to case of accused- Acquittal not proper. It is true that, the above principles of law pertains to the case of different set of facts but the preposition of law held by the Hon'ble Apex Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand, since in this case also the complainant proved the Accused is due of Rs. 3,50,000/= towards purchase of groceries on credit basis from the complainant and the accused in turn issued cheque for discharge of the said 41 C.C.No.16628/2017 J amount with interest as per Ex.C.1 for Rs.4,55,000/=. The accused has also failed to produce cogent and convincible evidence to rebut the statutory presumption in support of his defense in such circumstances the defense taken by the accused cannot be acceptable one.
27. The Accused has also taken defence that, he has issued blank signed cheque and promissory note as a security in respect of the groceries purchased by him on credit basis from the complainant and though he has cleared the said dues by executing the registered sale deed of his property in favour of the son of the complainant and though the complainant assured him that, all the dues including interest has been adjusted with sale consideration but the complainant by misusing the blank signed cheque an promissory note has field this false case. But the complainant in his cross- examination has denied the suggestions made to him to that effect. Even for sake of discussion, if it is assumed that, the contents of the subject cheque are not filled in by the Accused even under such circumstances also, unless and until the Accused 42 C.C.No.16628/2017 J has proved his defence by producing cogent and convincible evidence, it cannot be held that, the contents of the cheque have been filled in by the complainant. In this regard, it is a relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2019 SC 2446 in the case of Birsingh Vs. Mukesh Kumar., wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that, "presumption U/s.139 is presumption of law, distinguished from presumption of facts and also held that, presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with presumption of innocence which requires prosecution to prove case against the Accused and also held that obligation on the prosecution may discharged with the help of presumptions of law and presumption of fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing reasonable plausibility of non existence of presumed fact." In the present case though the Accused has denied the contents of the cheque in question except his signature but he did not prove his defence or produced any documents or satisfactory evidence to rebut the presumptions as available U/s.139 of the N.I. Act, under such 43 C.C.No.16628/2017 J circumstances in view of the above principles of law, it can be presumed even on fact also that the complainant has proved his case by discharging his burden and complying the mandatory provisions. In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex court has also held that, "presumption as to legally enforceable debt is rebuttable, the signed blank cheque if voluntarily presented to payee towards payment payee may fill up amount and other particulars and it in itself would not invalidate cheque and onus would still be on the accused to prove that, cheque was not issued or discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence." In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "
Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption under - burden to prove - the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the 44 C.C.No.16628/2017 J drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence U/s.s.138 of NI Act. In such circumstances even if it is assumed that, the complainant admitted that, the contents of cheque in question were not filled in by the Accused in view of the principles of law laid down in the above decision that itself would not invalidates the cheque in question and it can be presumed that, the cheque was filled in by the complainant in presence of the Accused at his consent and the said cheque has been issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt.
28. It is also important to note here that, the Accused has not denied or disputed that the cheque in question as well as the signature therein do belong to him and though he has taken the specific defence that, the complainant had collected his blank signed cheque and promissory note towards supply of groceries on credit basis and though he 45 C.C.No.16628/2017 J has repaid the entire due to the complainant but he has misused the blank signed cheque and promissory note, but the Accused has not proved the said defence by producing cogent and convincible evidence , in such circumstances it can be held that, the Accused has failed to explain and prove how the cheque in question as come to the possession of the complainant, this would also give rise to an adverse inference against him. This preposition of law finds support from the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2010(1) KCCR 176 in the case of "Siddappa Vs. Manjappa" and in the decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.A.No.664 of 2012 dated: 19.9.2019 in the case of "M.Abbas Haji Vs. T.M.Chennakeshava"
held that, " the Accused has to explain how the cheque entered into the hands of complainant".
Therefore for the above said reasons the defense taken by the accused cannot be acceptable one and accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant by producing cogent and convincible evidence.
29. It is settled law that, the accused can rebut the presumption only on the basis of materials 46 C.C.No.16628/2017 J produced by the complainant even without entering into the witness box but in the present case the Accused has failed to substantiate his defence in order to rebut the presumption available to the complainant and to prove the defense of the accused, under such circumstance, it is for the accused to disprove the case of the complainant or rebut the presumption then only the onus will be shifted on the complainant to prove his case. Admittedly in this case, the accused did not entered in to the witness box, therefore an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused that he has failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant. Therefore it is clear that, except having denial of the case of the Complainant in the cross examination of complainant, the Accused has not taken any interest so as to prove his defence. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in "AIR 2018 SC 3173 in a case of Kishan Rao Vs. Shankargouda" wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that " Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss. 138, 139- Dishonour of cheque - Presumption as to - Accused issuing cheque of 47 C.C.No.16628/2017 J Rs.2 Lakhs towards repayment of loan to Complainant- said cheque dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds- Complainant proving issuance of cheque having signatures of Accused - Accused failing to rebut presumption raised against him and no evidence led by him in his support - Acquittal of Accused by High Court in revisional jurisdiction on ground of doubt in mind of Court with regard to existence of loan, improper- Accused, liable to be convicted. In another decision decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption under - burden to prove - the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is 48 C.C.No.16628/2017 J towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence U/s.s.138 of NI Act. It is also held that, the accused has failed to lead any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, a finding returned by both the Trial Court and High Court. Both courts not only erred in law but also committed perversity when the due amount is said to be disputed only on the account of discrepancy in the cartons, packing materials or the rate to determine the total liability as if the appellant was proving his debt before the civil court. Therefore it is presumed that, the cheque in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques received the same in existing debt. Therefore the principles of law laid down in the above decision are aptly applicable to the case on hand, since in this case also the complainant proved the fact that he has supplied the groceries on credit basis tot eh Accused and in turn the Accused was due of Rs.3,50,000/= and also agreed to repay the said due along with interest and has issued cheque in question for discharge of the 49 C.C.No.16628/2017 J said due along with interest as per Ex.C.1. The accused has also failed to enter into witness box to rebut the statutory presumption in support of his defense in such circumstances the defense taken by the accused counsel during the course of cross examination cannot be acceptable one.
30. Therefore for the above said reasons arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the Accused in the written argument cannot be acceptable and are not sustainable in view of the discussions made and findings given by the court while appreciating the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant and Accused and the Accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant as U/s.118a and 139 of N.I. Act.
31. Therefore considering all these aspects of the case and totality of the circumstances and on careful and meticulous appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant and accused the complainant has successfully established beyond all reasonable doubt that, he has supplied the groceries worth of Rs.3,50,000/= to the Accused and 50 C.C.No.16628/2017 J the Accused is due in sum of Rs.3,50,000/= to the complainant and when the complainant demanded for the said due at that time the Accused has executed the promissory note and consideration receipt by admitting the due and also agreed to pay the due along with interest at the rate of 2% p.m. and in order to discharge the said liability has issued the cheque in i.e. Ex.C.1 to the complainant, thereafter the complainant has presented the said cheque through his banker and same was returned dishonoured with an endorsement of "Funds Insufficient" and thereafter he got issued legal notice to the accused and the said notice was duly served on the Accused inspite of it, the Accused did not repaid loan amount borrowed by him, hence the complainant filed the present complaint against the accused. On the other hand, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption available infavour of the complainant with regard to the existence of legally recoverable debt under Ex.C.1 Cheque. Therefore accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act, accordingly for the above said reasons this point is answered in the Affirmative.
51 C.C.No.16628/2017 J32. Point No.2: Negotiable Instrument Act was enacted to bring credibility to the cheque and the very purpose of enactment is to promote the use of negotiable instrument, while to discourage the issuance of cheque without having sufficient funds in their accounts. Such being the case the intention of the legislature is that, complainant be suitable compensated while accused be punished for his act. Hence while awarding the compensation the said fact is to be kept in mind and suitable compensation is awarded to the complainant certainly it will not cause injustice to the accused, accordingly the complainant is entitled for the compensation as ordered by the court and for the said reasons, it is just and proper to pass the following :-
ORDER Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,65,000/= (Rupees Four Lakhs and Sixty Five Thousand only) within one month from the date of order, in default she shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of (3) 52 C.C.No.16628/2017 J three months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act. Further acting U/sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.4,60,000/= (Rupees Four Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on recovery a sum of Rs.5,000/= (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
His Bail bond stands cancelled.
. Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer online, printout taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of February 2020).
(SRI.S.B. HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant:-
P.W.1 : Sri.Malakondaiah;53 C.C.No.16628/2017 J
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.C-1 : Original Cheque; Ex.C-1(a) : Signature of the Accused; Ex.C-2 : Bank Memo; Ex.C-3 : Office copy of the Legal Notice; Ex.C-4 : Postal Receipt; Ex.C-5 : postal Acknowledgement Ex.C-6 : Pronote and consideration receipt Ex.C-6(a) & : signatures of the Accused on the said 6(b) pronote;
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused:-
DW.1 : Sri.A.H.Vijaya Kumar;
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Office copy of legal Notice;
Ex.D.2 ; Reply notice;
(SRI.S.B.HANDRAL),
XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
54 C.C.No.16628/2017 J
7.2.2020 Judgment pronounced in the open court
vide separate order.
ORDER
Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the
accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,65,000/= (Rupees Four Lakhs and Sixty Five Thousand only) within one month from the date of order, in default she shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of (3) three months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Further acting U/sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.4,60,000/= (Rupees Four Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on recovery a sum of Rs.5,000/= (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
His Bail bond stands cancelled.
. Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C.
XVI ACMM, B'luru.
55 C.C.No.16628/2017 J