Bangalore District Court
After Obtaining The Chit Prized Money vs Failed To Pay The Cheque on 14 January, 2020
1 CC.No. 13424/2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITON MAGISTRATE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU CITY
Present:- Sri. ABDUL RAHIM HUSSAIN SHAIKH
B.Sc, B.Ed, LLB(Spl)
XXVIII A.C.M.M
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2020
CC.No.13424/2018
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1. Sl.No. of the case : C.C.No.13424/2018
2. The date of commence of Evidence : 17.11.2018
3. The date of Institution : 10.04.2019
4. Name of the Complainant :M/s Shreyas Hind Chits
India Pvt Ltd
Infinity Pride, No.91,
3rd floor, 5th cross,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru-560 003.
Rep. by its Director
Smt. B.G Pushpalatha
W/o Sri. M Srinivas,
Aged about 57 years.
5. Name of the Accused : Sri. Syed Asif
S/o Sri. Syed Sardar
Age 33 years
2 CC.No. 13424/2018
R/at 31, Siddegowda road,
Mavalli, Jayanagar,
Karkataka-560004.
6. The offence complained : U/s.138 of N.I. Act
7. Plea of the accused on
his examination : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Order : Accused is Convicted
9. Date of such order : 10.01.2020
JUDGMENT
1. This case has been registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant u/s 200 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s 138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act.
2. The gist of the complainant's case is that :
The Complainant is a registered Chit Fund Company. The accused has subscribed chit conducted by the complainant for Rs.10,00,000/- bearing No.10LB with ticket No.20A which was launched on 10.01.203 and the said group was closed on 3 CC.No. 13424/2018 10.04.2016. The complainant further submits that the accused successfully bid the chit and has received the chit amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant by executing the chit documents in favour of the complainant. After obtaining the chit prized money the accused has failed to pay the monthly chit instalment and the account has become over due. It is the case of the complainant that on demand to repay the 30 monthly chit installments amounting to Rs.7,50,000/- for which the accused had issued cheque bearing No.850083 dated:29.01.2018 for Rs.7,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, City Market, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant company towards the liability and repayment of the chit installments amount. The said cheque on presentation for encashment through its banker State Bank of India, SMC Jayanagar, Bengaluru was dishonoured for the reasons 'Funds Insufficient" as per 4 CC.No. 13424/2018 the banker's memo dated 03.02.2018. It is the contention of the complainant that on 26.02.2018 got issued a legal notice to the accused through RPAD calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and inspite of receipt of the notice, accused has not repaid the amount. Hence, the complaint has filed against the accused for having committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
3. In pursuance of the summons, the accused has appeared through Counsel and got enlarged on bail by executing necessary documents. The copy of the complaint was furnished to the accused, as required under law. As there is sufficient material, plea was recorded against the accused on 05.10.2018 and explained to the accused in her vernacular, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. In order to prove the case, the Director of the 5 CC.No. 13424/2018 complainant Company Smt.B.G Pushpalatha examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 12. Then the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C came to be recorded on 13.02.2019, wherein the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was read over and explained. Accused denied the incriminating evidence readover to them. Accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 on his behalf.
5. The learned Counsel for complainant argued that. Further it is contended that the presumption was in favour of the complainant which was not rebutted by the accused hence he is entitle for conviction.
6. The learned counsel for accused contended that he was the member of the chit for Rs.10,00,000/- in the year of 2013 and after bidding the said chit had obtained an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. It is the case of the accused that he has repaid the entire amount i.e., Rs.13,00,000/- to the complainant company in the 6 CC.No. 13424/2018 year 2016. It is also case of the complainant that the complainant has not return the 3 security cheques which they had obtained at the time of payment of the chit amount and by misusing the same even after payment of the entire amount has filed a false case against him. Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the material placed on record.
8. On the basis of the above facts, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused towards discharge of legal recoverable debt issued cheque bearing No.850083 dated 29.01.2018, for Rs.7,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, City Market branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant, on presentation for encashment it was returned as 'Funds Insufficient" and inspite of receipt of legal notice, the 7 CC.No. 13424/2018 accused failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as under :
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1:- In order to prove the case, the Director of the complainant company Smt. B.G Pushpalatha filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in- chief, reiterated the allegations made in the complaint on oath and got marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On perusal of document Ex.P1 it is found that it is the c/c of incorporation certificate issued by the Registrar of companies certifying the registration of the complainant company and Ex.P2 discloses that the 8 CC.No. 13424/2018 chit Registrar had pass on order permitting the complainant company to continue its business at Jayanagara Bangalore branch for the purpose of recovery of the due amounts from the subscribers. In the cross-examination PW1 the accused counsel had taken the contention that, the complainant has not produced document to show that on 10.01.2013 they had obtained permission to stop the chit and as per Ex.P2 the chit business was conducted only at Jayanagar Branch. It is very pertinent to note that the accused/DW.1 has clearly deposed the evidence that he was chit member with the complainant company for chit value of Rs.10,00,000/- in the year 2013 and has received an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the said complainant company. In view of the admission of the accused that he was the chit member of the complainant company the question of change of office address i.e. Jayangar and Malleswaram Branch does 9 CC.No. 13424/2018 not affect the case of the complainant. The document chit agreement Ex.P4, the on demand promissory note Ex.P6, receipt Ex.P5 and chit auction minute Ex.P7 clearly discloses that accused being the member of chit at complainant firm at the branch office at Vijaynagar have received an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant company. From the documentary evidence Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 and oral admission of DW.1 it is crystal clear that there exists no dispute regarding the accused being the member of the chit group in the complainant firm and as obtained an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. Even in the cross-examination of DW.1 he clearly admitted that after bidding for 3,00,000/- for an chit value of Rs.10,00,000/- he had obtained an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant firm. The relevant portion of the cross examination is as follows:
"£Á£ÀÄ PÁå¨ï ZÁ®PÀ£ÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. ¦gÁå¢ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÀÄÛ. £Á£ÀÄ 10 CC.No. 13424/2018 ¦gÁå¢ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è 10 ®PÀë ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ aÃnUÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå£ÁVzÉÝ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj aÃnAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀÆ.3,00,000- ªÉÆvÀÛPÉÌ ©qï ªÀiÁr gÀÆ.7,00,000- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ZÉPï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¦gÁå¢ ¸ÀA¸ÉܬÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝ."
From this admission also it is crystal clear that accused being the chit member in the complainant firm had obtained an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant company.
11. In the evidence of PW.1 deposed that after obtaining the chit prized money the accused has failed to pay the monthly chit instalment and the account has become over due. It is the case of the complainant that on demand to repay the 30 monthly chit installments amounting to Rs.7,50,000/- for which the accused had issued cheque bearing No.850083 dated:29.01.2018 for Rs.7,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, City Market, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant company towards the liability and repayment of the chit installments amount. The said 11 CC.No. 13424/2018 cheque on presentation for encashment through its banker State Bank of India, SMC Jayanagar, Bengaluru was dishonoured for the reasons 'Funds Insufficient" as per the banker's memo dated 03.02.2018. It is the contention of the complainant that on 26.02.2018 got issued a legal notice to the accused through RPAD calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and inspite of receipt of the notice, accused has not repaid the amount. Per contra it is the contention of the accused that he has repaid the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- and is not in due of any amount to the complainant. In order to prove his defence accused has produced Ex.D1 passbook issued by the complainant and also produced the receipts Ex.D2 to Ex.D4. In the cross-examination examination of DW.1 it is suggested by the complainant counsel that the amount that has 12 CC.No. 13424/2018 mentioned in Ex.D1 to D4 is only Rs.2,71,500/- . It is pertinent to note that though the said suggestion is denied by accused/DW.1 but contended that he has got some more receipts to prove the payment of Rs.13,00,000/-. On careful perusal of the documents produced by the accused it is found that the amount shown in Ex.D1 to D4 does not amount to Rs.13,00,000/-. In the absence of relevant receipts by the accused as regard to payment of entire chit amount the contention of the accused that he has paid an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- and is not in due for the payment of any amount to the complainant cannot be taken into consideration. In the instant case accused has also produced Ex.D5 the c/c of PCR No.6448/2017 that has been registered against the complainant for having misappropriated the public fund. It is vehemently argued by the accused counsel that complainant have misappropriated the public 13 CC.No. 13424/2018 money including the money of the accused hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. This contention of the accused counsel cannot be taken into consideration unless finding his given by relevant court that the complainant have misappropriated the public money which included the chit transaction of this case.
12. In the cross-examination of DW.1 Ex.P8 cheque was confronted and a specific question was asked to the accused/DW.1 as to whether the signature Ex.P8(a) on the disputed cheque belongs to him for which accused/DW.1 clearly admitted that the cheque Ex.P8 and signature Ex.P8(a) belongs to him.
13. On this point I would like to rely on the dictum of law laid down in Delhi District Court (Sh.Prem Chand v/s Unknown on 19 October, 2016 Para-21 it is held that :
"Admission of signatures is sufficient to prove that the 14 CC.No. 13424/2018 cheque in question must have been issued in discharge of some legal liability/debt. In Jaipal Singh Rana v. Swaraj Pal 149 (2008) DLT 682, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that there is no alteration in a cheque if the amount and the date are filled by somebody else apart from the signatory of the cheque. It was further held that there is no law that requires the filling up of entire cheque by drawer himself".
When the accused had admitted the signature on the cheque in question the defence of the accused that the cheques were undated and is filled by the drawer cannot be taken into consideration. The admission of signature is sufficient to prove that cheque in question must have been issued in discharge of some legal liability unless the same is rebutted.
14. At this juncture I would also like to discuss the 15 CC.No. 13424/2018 ruling reported in 2019 SAR (Criminal) 309 Supreme Court, ( Bir Singh v/s Mukesh Kumar). (E) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
Secs.139,20,87- Dishonour of Cheques -Blank Cheque-Presumption- Onus to rebut- Even if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars- Drawer still liable unless rebuts the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. (Paras-37, 38 and 40) In the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-37 & 38 had laid down the dictum of law that:
A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issue for payment of a debt 16 CC.No. 13424/2018 or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheques is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.
If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence. It is also important to note that at para 40 the court has held that, even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would 17 CC.No. 13424/2018 attract presumption under sec.139 of the N.I.Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that, the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
On perusal of the said ruling the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made it very clear that if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill of the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The Onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence. It is further held that even blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. It is also held that the provisions of Sec.20, 87 18 CC.No. 13424/2018 and 139 makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a 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. This ruling is aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case, since the accused admitted his signature on the disputed cheque Ex.P8 but failed to rebut the presumption existing u/s 139 N.I Act in favour of the complainant.
15. In the instant case the accused had admitted and accepted his signature on the disputed cheque Ex.P8 then it was the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption under sec.139 of the N.I.Act that has been raised by the court in favour of the complainant. On this point I would like to refer the ruling of Hon'ble 19 CC.No. 13424/2018 Supreme Court reported in:
2010 (11) SCC 441 (Rangappa v/s Sri. Mohan) E. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss 138 and 139 - Dishonour Dishonour of cheque-
cheque- Conviction confirmed -
Appellant accused, drawer of cheque in question, neither raising a probable defence nor able to contest existence of liability-
a legally enforceable debt or liability- Since appellant admitted 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 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.
Further in the said ruling the Hon'ble Supreme Court 20 CC.No. 13424/2018 has laid down the dictum of law and has held in para-16 that :
" Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused that he accepts and admits the signature on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to in section 139 of the N.I Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption ....."
This ruling is aptly applicable to the present fact and circumstances of the case. In the said ruling it is clearly held that when accused had issued the cheques in favour of the complainant presumption arises in 21 CC.No. 13424/2018 favour of the complainant u/s 139 of the N.I Act and it is settled position that accused has to rebut the said mandatory presumption u/s 139 by cogent and relevant document. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case accused failed to rebut the presumption by producing probable evidence that he has not issued the cheque Ex.P8 with signature Ex.P8(a) for the discharge of legal debt or liability. In the instant case from the documentary and oral evidence accused has failed to rebut the presumption existing in favour of the complainant under sec.139 of the N.I.Act by producing probable evidence.
16. On the same I would also like to refer on the decision of the AIR 2018 Hon'ble Supreme Court 3601 (T.P Murugan (Dead) Thr.Lrs.V Bojan AND Posa Nandhi Rep.Thr, POA Holder, T.P Murugan v. Bojan) In this ruling at para-8 the Hon'ble Supreme Court 22 CC.No. 13424/2018 has laid down the dictum of law that u/s 139 of the N.I Act, once a cheque has been signed and issued in favour of the holder, there is statutory presumption that it is issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability by referring to K.N.Beena v/s Muniyappan and Another, (2001) 8 SCC 458, para-6 and Rangappa v/s Shrimohan (2010) 11 SCC 411, para 26. It is further held that the presumption is a rebuttable one, if the issuer of the cheque is able to discharge the burden that it was issued for some other purpose like security for a loan.
17. In the present case the accused has failed to produce any credible evidence to rebut the statutory presumption in the light of discussion made above. The complainant has proved the case by overwhelming evidence to establish that the cheque/Ex.P8 has been issued by the accused towards discharge of his legal 23 CC.No. 13424/2018 debt and liability.
18. As noted in the above citations, this is of course in the nature of rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. If the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the complainant can fail. On the aspects relating to preponderance of probability the accused can bring on record such circumstances which may lead the court to conclude either that the consideration did not exist or that its non existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration did not exist. It is pertinent to note that accused though contended that he had no transaction with the complainant as regard to the amount mentioned in the disputed cheque but 24 CC.No. 13424/2018 failed to prove the same by producing any cogent evidence and relevant document. In view of the same the dictum of law laid down in the above cited rulings are aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
19. In the instant case, PW1 has deposed that he has issued a legal notice/Ex.P10 through RPAD as per Ex.P10(a) postal receipt and the said notice has duly served to the accused through acknowledgment EX.P11. It is pertinent to note that it is not in dispute that in the chief examination and also in the cross- examination of DW.1 the accused contend that he has received the legal notice Ex.P10. On perusal of the postal receipt Ex.P10(a) discloses that the notice has been issued through RPAD to the address of the accused mentioned in the complaint. Further on perusal of Ex.P11 the postal acknowledgment is discloses that the notice has been duly acknowledged 25 CC.No. 13424/2018 by the accused on the address mentioned in the notice and complaint. The main contention of accused counsel in the cross-examination of PW.1 that the acknowledged does not bear the postal seal which is denied by the complainant/PW.1. On perusal of Ex.P11 it discloses it bears the postal seal for having delivered the legal notice through RPAD. At this juncture the entire burden on the accused to lead evidence regarding the fact that the date of issuing of the notice he was residing in the address is mentioned Ex.P10 and P11 in the absence of same the contention of the accused that he was not received the legal notice as per the postal acknowledgement Ex.P11 cannot be taken into consideration. The document Ex.P11 acknowledgment is crystal clear that the notice has been served to the proper address of the accused.
20. At this juncture on this point regarding service of notice I would like to reproduce the principle laid down 26 CC.No. 13424/2018 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in a decision reported in 2007 (3) Crimes 120 (SC) (C.C. Alavi Haji V/s Palapetty Muhammed & Anr), 2007 AIR SCW 3578 (C.C.Avavi Haji v/s Palapetty Muhammed & Anor).
On perusal the said ruling it is found that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para- 8 that :
Sec.138 of the act does not require that the notice should be given only by 'post', yet in a case where the sender as a dispatched the notice by post with correct address written on it, the principle incorporated in section 27 of the General Clause Act 1897 (for short GC Act) could profitably be imported in such a case. It was held that in this situation service of notice is deemed to have been affected on the sendee unless he proves that 27 CC.No. 13424/2018 it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non service. Further at para -10 it is held that : The requirement of clause (b) of the provisions of Sec.138 of the Act stands complied with and cause of action to file a complaint arises on the expiry of the period prescribed in clause (c) of the said proviso to Sec.138 for payment by the drawer of the cheque. Nevertheless it would be without prejudice to the right of the drawer to show that he had now knowledge that the notice are brought to his address.
This ruling is aptly applicable to the present case on the hand since the notice Ex.P10 has been duly served to the accused as per the postal acknowledgment Ex.P11. It is pertinent to note that if notice sent through RPAD by correctly addressing 28 CC.No. 13424/2018 drawer of the cheque, mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of (b) of proviso to u/s 138 of N.I. Act stands complied with. Therefore, sending legal notice to the correct address of the accused as per the dictum of law laid down in the above case is proved by the complainant which is sufficient to establish that the complainant has complied the mandatory provision u/s 138(b) of N.I. Act.
21. The word 'unless contrary is proved' is discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2011 Crl.L.J 4647 (SC). It is observed that "the accused is under the obligation to prove his case in trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability to the satisfaction of the Court". 'Unless contrary is proved' means the presumption has to be rebutted by proof and not by a bare explanation which is mere plausible. The said fact is 29 CC.No. 13424/2018 said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that the reasonable man could act on the supposition that it exist. Therefore, unless explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provisions cannot be said to be rebutted. On appreciation of material on record and in the light of the judgments discussed above it is clearly established that the accused has failed to discharge his obligation to rebut the presumption of enforceable debt -liability under section 139 of the N.I Act. Accordingly, I have no hesitation to arrive at the conclusion that accused has utterly failed to rebut the presumption.
22. On appreciation of entire evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the accused has miserably failed to prove the fact that he has not issued cheque for 30 CC.No. 13424/2018 discharge of legally enforceable debt. On the contrary, the complainant has proved that the accused has issued cheque/Ex.P8 for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and on presentation of the said cheques, they were dishonored for the reasons 'Funds Insufficient'. Further it is proved by the complainant that after service of legal notice, the accused has not repaid the cheque amount. In the considered view of this Court, the complainant has complied the provisions of Sec.142 and Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, I answer the above point No.1 in the affirmative.
23. Point No.2:- From the material from record it appears that accused is 32 years & doing business. Considering the age and avocation of the accused it is found that, if the accused is sent to jail it will cause hardship to the accused and the family members. 31 CC.No. 13424/2018 Having regard to the said facts and circumstance, prevailing rate of interest in the nationalized bank and litigation expenses I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
Acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.9,05,000/-, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.9,05,000/- a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant towards compensation u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State.
The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.32 CC.No. 13424/2018
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to Stenographer directly on the Computer, taken print out corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the open court this the 14th day of January, 2020) (ABDUL RAHIM HUSSAIN SHAIKH) XXVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:-
PW1 : Smt. B.G Pushpalatha LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:-
DW1 : Sri. Syed Asif LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:-
Ex.P1 : C/c of Incorporation certificate Ex.P2 : Chit commencement licence Ex.P3 : C/c of Authorization letter Ex.P4 : Chit agreement Ex.P5 : Receipt Ex.P6 : On Demand Promissory note Ex.P7 : Chit auction minute Ex.P8 : Cheque Ex.P8(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P9 : Bank Memo 33 CC.No. 13424/2018 Ex.P10 : Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P10(a) : Postal receipt Ex.P11 : Postal acknowledgment Ex.P12 : Complaint LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:-
Ex.D1 : Pass book XXVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.34 CC.No. 13424/2018
(Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order).
ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
Acting u/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.9,05,000/-, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.9,05,000/- a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant towards compensation u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State.
The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused.
XXVIII A.C.M.M, Bangaluru.35 CC.No. 13424/2018