Bangalore District Court
U/S 200 Of Cr.P.C For The Offense vs To Pay The Cheque Amount Within 15 Days on 17 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU CITY
Present:- Sri. PRUTHVIRAJ VERNEKAR
B.Com, LLB
XXVIII A.C.M.M
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 17th day of April, 2021
CC.No.13493/2018
JUDGMENT
1. Sl.No. of the case : C.C.No.13493/2018
2. The date of commence of Evidence: 28.02.2019
3. The date of Institution : 11.04.2018
4. Name of the Complainant :M/s Shreyas Hind Chits India Pvt Ltd, Infinity Pride, No.91, 3rd Floor, 5th cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003.
Rep by its Director, Smt. B.G Pushpalatha W/o Sri. M. Srinivas, Aged about 57 years.
v/s
5. Name of the Accused : Sri. J. Mohan Aged about 36 years, S/o Sri. D. Jayaram, R/at No.76, CC.No.13493/2018 2 New No.12/3, Old Madras Road, New Binnamangala, Indira Nagar, Bangalore-560 038.
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 : 17.04.2021 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 offense punishable u/s 138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act.
2. The gist of the complainant's case is that :
Complainant submits that the complainant is a registered chit company and the accused has subscribed chit conducted by the complainant for Rs.10,00,000/- bearing No.10LE with ticket No.29 which was launched on 29.03.2013, the said chit CC.No.13493/2018 3 group was closed on 29.06.2016. It is further submitted that the accused has 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 installments and the account has become over due. Hence, the complainant has demanded the accused to pay 18 monthly chit installments amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- the accused has issued cheque bearing No.533788 dated 28.01.2018 for Rs.4,50,000/- drawn on Andra Bank, Ramamurthynagar branch, Bangalore-16 towards the liability and repayment of the said chit installments amount. When the complainant was present the said cheque for encashment, through its bankers State Bank of India, SMC Jayanagar, Bangalore for realisation on 28.01.2018 the said cheque was dishonored and returned back with a memo 'Account CC.No.13493/2018 4 Blocked, situation covered in 2125' on 05.02.2018.
Thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice on 26.02.2018 to the accused by RPAD calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The notice sent through RPAD is served to the accused on 27.02.2018 and inspite of service of notice accused has not paid the cheque amount. Accordingly, the complainant filed the complaint against the accused for having committed an offense punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act on 11.04.2018.
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 was sufficient material, plea was recorded against the accused on 01.02.2019 and explained to the accused in his vernacular, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
CC.No.13493/2018 5
4. In order to prove the case, the director of the complainant Company Smt. Pushpalatha. B.G examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 12. Then the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 06.06.2019, wherein the incriminating evidence appeared against the accused was read over and explained which was denied by the accused. Accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D15 on his behalf.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant filed written argument. In the written argument he has reiterated all the facts narrated in the complaint and further contended that the accused had taken a defence that he does not know the complainant company and he has subscribed a chit with one Mr. Shiva Shankar and as received Rs.5,00,000/- cash from him. But unfortunately the accused has not made any effort to produce the said Mr. Shiva Shankar as witness before this Hon'ble Court. Hence, the CC.No.13493/2018 6 contention of the accused is unbelievable and it is concocted story of the accused. The complainant company is nothing to do with the said Mr. Shiva Shankar and the entire story is concocted by the accused. The accused has produce certain documents which are marked at Ex.D1 to Ex.D15, the said documents are not at all related to this case and the accused himself has admitted in the cross examination. The complainant has complied with all the provisions of the N.I Act and the complaint is within the limitation period as prescribed under law. The complainant has discharged his initial burden and the accused has failed to rebut the evidence of complainant. For all these reasons pray for convict the accused in accordance with law.
6. The learned counsel for the accused has also filed written argument. In the written argument he has specifically contended that the accused subscribed a ticket No.29 in groupNo.10LE of chit value of CC.No.13493/2018 7 Rs.10,00,000/- which is payable at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month for a period of 40 months duration which was promoted by the aforesaid complainant company after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority . The accused had joined the said chit on 29.03.2013 and paid the 1 st installment of Rs.25,000/- and also paid on amount of Rs.200/- as enrollment fee. On that day both parties are entered the chit agreement, the said chit agreement is registered before concerned authority. Hence both parties were agreed the terms and conditions mentioned in the said chit agreement. The said chit close on 29.06.2016, the accused herein is working as proprietor of Mahalakmi Transport No.76, Old Madras raod, Bangalore. In the year March 2013 friend of accused Mr. Ravi introduced one Sri. Shiva Shankar to accused and he requested to join one chit for chit value of Rs.10,00,000/-. As per his undertaking accused joined the said chit run by Sri. Shiva Kumar. At that time he CC.No.13493/2018 8 obtained some signature in blank paper as well as collected the blank cheques for the purpose of security. Facts being stated above he bid the said chit in the month of March 2014 and he paid the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and he said remaining amount was adjusted to remaining installment. Believe his words he received the chit amount, the said Shiva Shankar mis used the said cheque and filed the complaint through complainant herein. The documents produced by the complainant company i.e., Ex.P3 is created one for the purpose of filing this complaint. No chit shall be commenced or conducted without obtaining the previous sanction of the State Govt within whose jurisdiction the chit is to be commenced or conducted or such officer as may be empowered by that Government in this behalf. No Foreman shall commence any auction or the draw of any chit or appropriate any chit amount unless a certificate of commencement refereed to in section (2) is obtained by CC.No.13493/2018 9 him. The complainant did not produce the chit agreement it shows that complainant company illegally operating the above referred chit. For all these reasons pray for dismiss the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant in interest of justice. The learned counsel for the accused submitted zerox copy of decisions as under:-
1. State Bank of Travancore v/s M/s Kingston Computers (I) P Ltd Civil Appeal No.2014/2011 dt:22.02.2011
2.M/s Nibro Limited v/s National Insurance Co. Ltd, 06.03.1990
3. ILR 2009, Kar 1331, B. Indramma v/s Sri Eshwar.
7. Heard 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.533788 dated:28.01.2018 for an amount of CC.No.13493/2018 10 Rs.4,50,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Ramamurthynagar branch, Bangalore in favour of complainant, on presentation for encashment it was returned as 'Account Blocked' and in spite of receipt of legal notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period and thereby the accused has committed an offense 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 of the complainant, the Director of the complainant Company Smt. B.G Pushpalatha filed affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has reiterated all the allegations made in the complaint on oath. In the evidence PW1 has produced the documents which are CC.No.13493/2018 11 marked Ex.P1 to P12.
11. On perusal of the same Ex.P1 to 3 which are incorporation certificate, chit permission issued by the Registrar of Society and Controller of the chit, authorization letter issued by the complainant company in favour of complainant clearly goes to show that the complainant company has obtained valid permission from the competent authority to run the chit business and complainant has authorise to file this complaint.
12. The complainant also got marked the documents chit agreement, On demand promissory note, receipt, chit auction minute which are marked at Ex.P4 to 7.
On perusal of the same also clearly goes to show that the accused has issued chit agreement, and also On Demand Promissory note and also executed receipt for Rs.7,00,000/- on 09.03.2014 and also chit auction minute.
13. The complainant has also produce Ex.P8 and 9 CC.No.13493/2018 12 which are cheque and bank memo. On perusal of the same also clearly goes to show that cheque No.533788 dt:28.01.2018 for Rs.4,50,000/- is issued in favor of complainant company and on presentation of the said cheque by the complainant company same has been returned on 05.02.2018 with endorsement 'account blocked situation covered in 2125' Further the complainant has produce Ex.P10, Ex.P10(a) Ex.P11 which are copy of legal notice, postal receipt and acknowledgment. On perusal of the same also clearly goes to show that the complainant has issued legal notice to the accused and the same has been served to the accused.
14. On perusal of the entire evidence placed on record by the PW1 which corroborate with the averments made in the complaint and also documents produced on behalf of complainant company i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 also corroborate with the averments made in the complaint. In the present case the CC.No.13493/2018 13 accused has taken specific defence that he take the membership of the chit made by the Shiva Shankar, at that time he has given two blank signed cheques and also his friends Prakash Achar and S. Muniraju stood as guarantor and signed on the empty Form. He paid Rs.18,750/- per month for the period of three months there after he asked money to the Shiva Shankar, he has not given any money, then he deposited the chit amount for the period of one year. In the month of March 2014 Shiva Shankar has paid Rs.5,00,000/- to him and remaining amount has adjusted to the balance of the chit installment and also he has told there is no need to make any further payment. Only after receipt of summons issued by the court he came to know Shiva Shankar colluding with complainant company deceived to him. There is no any due of chit amount from him to the complainant company. There is a CC No.29366/2018 before the IV ACMM Court before the complainant company, in this regard he CC.No.13493/2018 14 filed the documents copy of complaint, copy of order sheet, copy of FIR, copy of compliant, copy of charge sheet, copy of order sheet, copy of FIR in Spl CC No.64/2016, copy of complaint, copy of charge sheet, copy of FIR in Spl CC No.96/2016, copy of compliant, copy of charge sheet, copy of FIR in CC No.97/2016, copy of compliant and charge sheet, all these documents are marked at Ex.D1 to D15. This DW1 during his cross examination admitted the signature made on the Ex.P4 to 7 and also admitted the address shown in Ex.P10 legal notice is his address and also Ex.P8 cheque is his cheque and signature on Ex.P8(a) is also his signature. Further he has also admitted Rs.5,00,000/- given by the Shiva Shankar with regard to the chit and he has paid every month Rs.18,500/- . On perusal of the defence taken by the accused in the present case as I have discussed above the complainant has given corroborative evidence and also produced material documents in order to discharge CC.No.13493/2018 15 initial burden. On the other hand though the accused has taken specific defence as I have discussed above in order to prove the same counsel for the accused has cross examined to the PW1 in length. Inspite of cross examination nothing has been elicited in order to show that the said Shiva shankar colluded with the complainant for filing this false case and also there is no any recoverable debt from the accused to the complainant. The accused in his cross examination has admitted Ex.P8 cheque is belonging to him and also Ex.P8(a) signature is his signature. Whereas the defence of the accused that he has given two blank signed cheques to the Shiva Shankar. In order to prove the same, absolutely nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW1 and apart from this when this is the specific defence of the accused even the accused has not chosen to examine the said Shiva Shankar by issuing summons, if at all the said Shiva Shankar is examined by the complainant the accused can prove CC.No.13493/2018 16 the said Shiva Shankar is colluding with complainant manage to file his compliant. The complainant much relied on the Criminal case filed against the complainant company and its director. On perusal of the document which clearly goes to show that on the basis of private complaint refer for investigation and police have filed charge sheet, the said cases are pending for inquiry. Under such circumstances only on the basis of documents filed by the accused it is not proper to come to the conclusion that there is no recoverable debt from the accused to the complainant company. Though the accused has examined as DW1 the accused as not produce any receipt to show that he has made payment of chit installment to the complainant company. In the instant case, the complainant has produce Ex.P8 cheque that has been issued by the accused for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- with signature Ex.P8(a) on the said cheque and contended that the cheque has been issued by the CC.No.13493/2018 17 accused in discharge of legal debt and liability which on presentation for collection was dishonoured for the reason 'account blocked, situation covered in 2021' as per Ex.P9/memo. It is pertinent to note that nowhere in the cross examination the counsel for the accused have denied the execution of the cheque Ex.P8 with signature Ex.P8(a) of the cheque was dishonoured. Apart from this it is pertinent to note that as per sec.139 of N.I Act there is a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque. Though the said presumption is not conclusive the burden lies on the accused disprove the same by way of rebuttal. Here in the present case as I have discussed above the accused has failed to prove there is no recoverable debt from him from the complainant company and cheque has been issued for security purpose. The entire burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption under sec.139 of N.I Act as per the dictum of law laid down in the following case of CC.No.13493/2018 18 Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in:
2019 SAR 2446 (Criminal) 309 Supreme Court, ( Bir Singh v/s Mukesh Kumar).
(E) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S, 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption as to legally enforceable debt - Rebuttal - Onus to rebut presumption that cheque issued in discharge of debt or liability is on accused. (Para 36) (G)Negotiable Instruments Act, (26 of 1881), Ss.138, 139 - Presumption as to legally enforceable debt - Rebuttal - 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 - Onus would still be on accused to prove that cheque was not issued for discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence.
(Para-38).
(H) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss, 138- Dishonour of cheque - Complainant can fill up CC.No.13493/2018 19 amount or particulars in blank cheque. (Para 38).
(J)Negotiable Instrument Act 26 of 1881), Ss. 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Absence of finding that cheque was not signed by accused or not voluntarily made over to payee- No evidence regarding circumstances in which blank signed cheque given to complainant - Cheque presumed to be filled in by complainant being payee in presence of accused, at his request or with his acquiescence- No change in amount, its date or name of payee- Subsequent filing in of an unfilled signed cheque is not alteration- Accused liable to be convicted. This ruling is applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case since in para-36, 37, 38 & 40 the Hon'ble Supreme court has clearly laid down the dictum of law that the onus to rebut the presumption u/s 139 that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused and the fact that the cheque may be post dated does not CC.No.13493/2018 20 absolve the drawer of the cheque of a penal consequences of sec.138 of the N.I Act.
15. 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 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 CC.No.13493/2018 21 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. Further in para-36 the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of N.I Act that the cheque/Ex.P8 with signature Ex.P8(a) in the instant case issued by the accused was not in discharge of legal debt and liability but in the instant case there is clear admission by the accused that the disputed cheque Ex.P8 and the signature Ex.P8(a) on the said cheque belongs to him and he had issued as per the condition No.6 mentioned in the declaration for the discharge of his legal debt and liability. In view of the dictum of law laid down in the above referred judgment and on appreciating the evidence of the accused and complainant it is crystal clear that the accused failed to rebut the presumption existing u/s 139 N.I Act in CC.No.13493/2018 22 favour of the complainant.
16. At this juncture I would also like to refer the ruling reported in:
AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 1876 Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v/s State of Gujarat and another (A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss.
138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Rule of Presumption of innocence of accused - Cannot be applied with same rigour to offence u/s 138, particularly where presumption is drawn that holder received the cheque for discharge, the debt or liability.
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss.118, 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption in favour of holder - All basic ingredients of Ss.138, 118 and 139 are apparent on fact of record - Therefore, it is required to be presumed that cheques in question were drawn for consideration and CC.No.13493/2018 23 complainant received it is discharge of an existing debt.
(D) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss. 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Principles of presumption - Once presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt drawn in favour of complainant, onus is shifted on accused - unless onus is discharged by accused that preponderance of probabilities are tilting in his favour, doubt on case of complainant cannot be raised for want of evidence regarding source of funds for advancing loan to accused.
On perusal of the ruling it is found that the ruling is applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. It is clearly held that an all basic ingredients of Sec.138, 118 and 139 are apparent on actual record then it is required to be presumed that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheque i.e a complainant had received the same in CC.No.13493/2018 24 discharge of an existing debt. The onus shifts on the accused who has to establish by probable defence so as to rebut such a presumption but in this case the accused has utterly failed to produce probable defence that the cheques were not issued in discharge of legal debt and liability. It is clearly held in the said judgment that unless the onus is discharged by accused that preponderance of probabilities are tilting in his favour, doubt on case of complainant cannot be raised.
17. At this juncture I would also like to discuss the citation reported in 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 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 CC.No.13493/2018 25 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. The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case since the accused has utterly failed to rebut the presumption u/sec.139 of N.I Act existing in favour of the complainant that the cheque Ex.P8 issued by him is not for any discharge of any legal debt or liability. Per contra, the complainant has proved the case by overwhelming evidence to establish that the accused has issued the cheque for discharge of his legal debt and liability.
CC.No.13493/2018 26
18. 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 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 is exist. Therefore, unless explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provisions cannot be said to be rebutted. In the instant case accused has utterly failed to rebut the presumption by producing cogent evidence and relevant document that the complaint filed against the accused is not maintainable.
CC.No.13493/2018 27
19. In this case, the court on perusal of the materials placed before the court is satisfied that the mandatory requirements of Sec.138 and 142 of N.I. Act has been duly complied. It is evident that the cheque/Ex.P8 presented for encashment within the validity time, notice Ex.P10 demanding the cheque amount and filing of complaint/Ex.P12 before the court after service of notice are within the period of specified by law.
20. The learned counsel for the accused at the time of argument submitted zerox copy of decisions:-
1. State Bank of Travancore v/s M/s Kingston Computers (I) P Ltd Civil Appeal No.2014/2011 dt:22.02.2011
2.M/s Nibro Limited v/s National Insurance Co. Ltd, 06.03.1990
3. ILR 2009, Kar 1331, B. Indramma v/s Sri Eshwar.
On perusal of the said decisions facts of the present case and facts of the decisions submitted by the learned counsel for the accused are entirely different, CC.No.13493/2018 28 therefore I am of the opinion the said decisions are not helpful to the case of the accused.
21. On appreciation of entire evidence, this court is of the opinion that the accused miserably failed to challenge the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant. Accused has utterly fails to prove the fact that he has not issued cheques for discharge of legally enforceable debt. On the contrary, the complainant has proved through overwhelming evidence that the accused has issued Ex.P8/cheque for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and on presentation of the cheques, the same was dishonored for the reasons 'account blocked, situation covered in 2125' and even after service of legal notice, the accused has not paid the cheques amount. Hence, in the considered view of this court, the complainant has proved that the accused has committed an offense punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, I answer the CC.No.13493/2018 29 above point No.1 in the affirmative.
22. Point No.2:- From the material on record, it appears that the accused is aged about 44 years driver by profession. Considering the age, avocation of accused and quantum of the cheque, if the accused is sent to jail, it would cause problem to the accused as well as to his family members. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, 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 offense 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.4,60,000/-, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.4,60,000/- a sum of CC.No.13493/2018 30 Rs.4,55,000/- 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 canceled.
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 17th day of April, 2021) (PRUTHVIRAJ VERNEKAR) XXVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant:-
PW1 : Smt. B.G Pushpalatha Witnesses examined for the accused:-
DW1 : Sri. J. Mohan Documents exhibited by the Complainant:-
Ex.P1 : C/c of incorporation certificate CC.No.13493/2018 31 Ex.P2 : Chit License Ex.P3 : Authorisation Ex.P4 : Chit agreement Ex.P5 : On Demand Promissory note Ex.P6 : Receipt Ex.P7 : Chit action minute Ex.P8 : Cheque Ex.P8(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P9 : Bank memo Ex.P10 : Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P10(a) : Postal receipt Ex.P11 : Postal acknowledgement Ex.P12 : Compliant Documents exhibited by the Accused:-
Ex.D1 : C/c of 29366 of 2018 complaint
Ex.D2 : C/c of order sheet in
CC No.29366/2018
Ex.D3 : C/c of FIR
Ex.D4 : C/c of complaint in Special
CC.No.540/2016
Ex.D5 : C/c of charge sheet
Ex.D6 : C/c of order sheet
Ex.D7 : C/c of FIR
in Special CC.No.64/2016
Ex.D8 : C/c of complaint
Ex.D9 : C/c of charge sheet
Ex.D10 : C/c of FIR in Spl CC.96/2016
Ex.D11 : C/c of complaint
Ex.D12 : C/c of charge sheet
Ex.D13 : C/c of FIR in Spl CC.No.97/2016
Ex.D14 : C/c of complaint
Ex.D15 : C/c of charge sheet
XXVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
CC.No.13493/2018
32
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.4,60,000/-, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
CC.No.13493/2018 33 Out of fine amount of Rs.4,60,000/- a sum of Rs.4,55,000/- 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 canceled.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused.
XXVIII A.C.M.M, Bangaluru.