Bangalore District Court
Sri Puttaraju vs Sri Kumar V.S on 6 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 6th day of February , 2017,
PRESENT: SRI. NAGARAJEGOWDA.D, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.
C.C.No.20744/2016
Complainant : SRI PUTTARAJU,
Son of Sonnaiah,
Aged about 48 years,
Occupation : Real Estate Agent,
R/at No.733, 2nd cross,
1st Main, Kamalanagara,
Bangalore - 560 079.
(By Sri.S.Murali.Adv.)
V/s.
Accused : SRI KUMAR V.S.,
Son of Srikantaiah,
Aged about 42 years,
No.316, 7th Main road,
3rd stage, 4th phase,
J.C.Nagar,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore - 560 079.
And also at:
SRI SAI BOUTIQUE
4th Main 2nd stage,
EWS , KHB colony,
Near Balamuri Ganapthi Temple,
Basaweshwaranagara,
Bangalore - 560 079.
2 C.C.No.20744/2016
(By Sri M.Sreerama Reddy,.Adv.)
Date of Institution 01-09-2016
Offence complained of U/s 138 of N.I.Act.
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Accused is convicted.
Date of Order : 06.2.2017.
The complainant filed the private complaint u/s 200 of
Cr.P.C alleging that, the accused person has committed an offence
punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act.
REASONS
The brief facts of the complainant case is as follows:-
2. The complainant submits that, he is real estate agent by
profession and that the accused has approached him stating that
he is buying a property at Kamalanagara, to assist and mediate
the above transaction and has agreed to pay the commission. The
complainant has mediated between the accused and the owner of
the property. Afterwards the property has been registered in the
name of the accused on 17-12-2015 before the Sub-Register,
Sriramapura, Bangalore . After completing the entire transaction
the accused did not choose to keep up his promise. In this regard
3 C.C.No.20744/2016
the complainant has requested to pay commission amount of
Rs.90,000/- , the accused has sought for a time and assured the
same. After lot of persuasion during the month of April, 2016,
the accused has issued a post dated cheque bearing No.113970
dated 11-4-2016 drawn on State Bank of India,
Basaveshwaranagara branch, Bangalore - 79 for a sum of
Rs.90,000/- in the name of complainant for the commission
amount . At the request of the accused, the complainant has
presented the said cheque at his bank, but the said cheque was
dishonoured due to paucity of funds in the account of accused
and the same was returned with an endorsement "Funds
insufficient". After receiving the endorsement from his bank, the
complainant has contacted , informed him about the
dishonouring of cheque and insisted for the cheque amount. The
accused requested the complainant to re-present the cheque
during the month of May 2016 to arrange the necessary amount
in his amount. On the assurance of the accused, the complainant
has re-presented the cheque on 12-5-2015 and same came to be
dishonoured with shara "Funds insufficient" on 13-05-2016. After
receiving the intimation, the complainant contacted the accused ,
the accused and his wife Smt. Lakshmi pleaded innocence and
assured the complainant to represent the cheque during the last
4 C.C.No.20744/2016
week of June, 2016 . They will be arranged the necessary amount
in his account. At the request of the accused and his wife, the
complainant re-presented the said cheque through his bankers
State Bank of Mysore, for encashment on 29-06-2016 but the
said cheque was dishonoured due to "Funds insufficient" and
returned on 30-6-2016. Thereafterwards, the complainant got
issued legal notice on 20-7-2016 to the accused, calling upon the
accused to pay the cheque amount . The notice sent by RPAD to
the accused residence address was served to the accused on 21-7-
2016 and the notice has been sent to the office address, the
acknowledgement yet not been returned hence the complainant
has lodged complaint before the postal authority. Inspite of
receipt of legal notice, accused did not replied or complied the
notice and thus accused committed the offence punishable u/s.
138 of NI Act and punish the accused in accordance with law and
to award suitable compensation, in the interest of justice and
equity.
3. The accused appeared before this court and contest this
case by denying the entire case of complainant at the time of
recording of Plea of Accusation . In order to prove the case of
complainant, he adduced his oral evidence as PW-1 by way of
affidavit and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and this PW-1 has been
5 C.C.No.20744/2016
fully cross examined by the accused counsel and thus
complainant closed his side evidence.
4. There afterwards, the accused examined u/s.313 of
Cr.P.C. in which, he totally denied the entire case of complainant .
He in support of his denial, lead his evidence by way of affidavit
as DW-1 and this DW-1 has been fully cross-examined by the
complainant counsel and thus closed his side defence evidence.
5. In support of the case of complainant, the Ln.counsel for
complainant submitted written arguments by narrating the facts
and circumstances of the case and stated that the complainant
had fulfilled all the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s. 138
of the NI Act and punish the accused in accordance with law.
6. I have heard the arguments of Ln.counsel for accused on
merit.
7. In order to prove the case of complainant, the
complainant adduced his oral evidence as PW-1 filed by way of
affidavit. In which, he reiterated complaint contention and got
marked Ex.P1 cheque alleged to be issued by the accused and
identified the signature of the accused as per Ex.P1(a). This
issuance of cheque in favour of complainant for discharge of legal
6 C.C.No.20744/2016
liability has been disputed by the accused. Further got marked
Ex.P2 is an endorsement issued by the bankers stating that
Ex.P1 cheque was dishonoured due to ""Funds insufficient".
Ex.P3 is the copy of legal notice . This notice does not contain the
signature of the complainant except his counsel. Ex.P4 & Ex.P5
are the RPAD postal receipts for having sent legal notice to the
accused as per Ex.P6 is the postal acknowledgement to show the
legal notice sent to the accused by RPAD was duly served . Inspite
of service of legal notice, the accused did not choose to reply or
comply the notice etc.. Further got marked Ex.P7 is the absolute
sale deed alleged to be executed by one Mahadevamma in favour
of this accused herein and also his wife Lakshmi. In which, the
accused and his wife purchased the land from the said
Mahadevamma for a consideration of Rs.18,30,000/- . Ex.P8 is
the receipt alleged to be executed by the accused in favour of the
complainant and identified the signature of the accused as
Ex.P8(a). On the basis of oral and documentary evidence of
complainant, prima facie complainant had proved the alleged guilt
of the accused.
8. The accused has denied the entire case of complainant .
In support of her denial, accused lead his evidence by way of
affidavit as DW-1 . In which he has stated that this complainant
7 C.C.No.20744/2016
was introduced by his close friend Rudresh about 15 years back
and he has not borrowed any amount from the complainant and
also the complainant is not doing any business of Estate Agency
in Bangalore .He had directly approached the vendor Smt.
Mahadevamma entered into agreement to sell. Accordingly, she
executed sale deed in his favour as per Ex.P7 is the sale deed and
the complainant had not acted as a commission agent in
purchasing of the site from his vendor . Hence, the question of
paying Rs.90,000/- to him does not arise for consideration and
also question of issuing disputed cheque to him for payment of
alleged commission of amount towards purchase of Site does not
arise for consideration. Further stated that Rudresh and himself
having some money transactions in that context he had given the
disputed blank signed cheque to his friend Rudresh. Some
dispute arise between himself and his friend Rudresh in respect of
financial transactions. After developing ill will between himself
and his friend Rudresh both the complainant and his friend
Rudresh planned and filled the blank signed cheque given to his
friend Rudresh and filed the case for wrongful gain . After
receiving the legal notice and filing this case , he had searched for
Rudresh but could not get his whereabouts and he had vacated
his residence , the same is well known by the complainant and he
8 C.C.No.20744/2016
has not promised to the complainant to pay a sum of
Rs.90,000/-. Hence, he has not committed any offence as alleged
by the complainant etc.. In the cross-examination of DW-1, he
has admitted that Ex.P1 cheque and the signature found on the
cheque is belongs to this accused but he denied that he has not
at all received Ex.P3 demand notice from the complainant . But as
per Ex.P6, postal acknowledgement the signature found on the
acknowledgement is belongs to this accused and he did not chose
to give any reply . Further he do not know he is having sufficient
amount his bank account . Ex.P1 cheque was deposited for
collection but he has stated that the signature found on Ex.P8 is
belongs to this accused but he admitted that the signature found
on white paper is belongs to him and he admitted that Ex.P1
cheque is the CTS cheque and also admitted that the said
signature on CTS cheques are came into existence about 3 to 4
years back but he has denied that his daughter and the
complainant daughter are studied in same school and also denied
that complainant residing at Kamalanagar Bangalore but he has
stated that at the time of purchasing the property stated in the
Ex.P7 no one were present . Further he admitted that there was
galata taken with his friend Rudresh during the year, 2015.
Further he admitted that he has not issued any intimation to the
9 C.C.No.20744/2016
Bankers to Stop Payment of Ex.P1 cheque and also he has not
taken any action against the complainant for misusing of the
cheque Ex.P1 by this complainant . Except denial contention of
complainant, the accused had failed to given rebuttal evidence to
the case of complainant.
9. As per the defence taken by the accused, accused
counsel cross-examined the PW-1. In the cross-examination , he
denied as per the contents of the chief examination of DW-1 and
also denied that Ex.P1 cheque was issued to the friend of
accused one Ruresh and there was an ill-will taken between the
accused and Ruresh and this complainant obtained the said
cheque from Rudresh and filled up and filed this case etc... and
the accused is no due towards the commission amount etc.
Except denial contention of complainant, the accused failed to
disprove the case of complainant.
10. In support of the case of complainant, the learned
counsel for the complainant submitted written arguments by
narrating the facts and circumstances of the case and submits
that the complainant had fulfilled all the ingredients of the offence
punishable u/s. 138 af NI Act and the accused had failed to
10 C.C.No.20744/2016
given rebuttal evidence to the case of complainant. As such he
prays for convicting the accused in accordance with law.
11. In support of the case of accused, the accused counsel
failed to disprove the contention of complainant except he has
stated that alleged cheque was not given to this complainant for
discharge of legal liability. As such, complainant had proved the
alleged guilt of the accused and hence, accused is liable for
conviction. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint u/s. 200 filed by the complainant is hereby allowed.
The accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s.138 of NI Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.95,000/-. Out of the said fine amount, the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.90,000/- i.e. the cheque amount as compensation and rest of the amount of Rs.5,000/- is forfeited to State Exchequer and the same shall be paid by the accused to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. Failing which, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months .
Supply free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by 11 C.C.No.20744/2016 her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of February, 2017) (NAGARAJEGOWDA.D) XXII ACMM, Bangalore city.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 : Puttaraju Witness examined for the accused:
DW-1 : V.S.Kumar.
List of Documents marked for the Complainant:
Ex.P1 : Cheque Ex.P1a : Signature of the accused Ex.P2 : Endorsement Ex.P3 : Legal notice Ex.P4 & 5 : Postal receipts Ex.P6 : Postal acknowledgement Ex.P7 : Copy of absolute sale deed. Ex.P8 Receipt on white paper Ex.P8a Signature.
List of Documents marked for the accused:
----- :
XXII ACMM, Bangalore.
12 C.C.No.20744/2016