Bangalore District Court
Bindiya B.N vs Sri. S.M. Basavaraju on 22 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BENGALURU
: PRESENT :
M.Vijay, BA (Law), LLB.
XXXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021.
C.C.No.53189/2018
COMPLAINANT : Bindiya B.N
D/o. B. Narayanamurthy,
R/at No. 699, 18th Cross, 1st
Block, 3rd Stage, Manjunath
Nagar,West of Chord Road,
Bengaluru - 560 010.
.Vs.
ACCUSED : Sri. S.M. Basavaraju
Aged about 64 years,
R/at No.408, 4th main, 2nd Block,
H.R.B.R Layout, Kalyan nagar,
Near Murali Gas Agency,
Bangalore - 560 043.
JUDGMENT .
The complainant has filed this private complaint
U/s.200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the
offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act.
2
C.C.No.53189/2018
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
It is averred that, accused on 23.08.2017 has
approached her for to make documentary videos, to
hold constituency Survey and Social media
Management in order to promote the accused as
M.L.A candidate of Pulakeshi Nagar constituency
from J.D.S Party, accordingly, she accepted to
complete the entrusted work, in this regard accused
provided the office space to her for the said work at
Sahakara Nagar, Bangalore, further she raised
invoice for the above work on 24.10.2017 to the
accused for sum of Rs. 1,85,000/. Towards, part
payment, accused allegedly issued Cheque bearing
No. 178583 dated 25.10.2017 for a sum of
Rs.90,000/ drawn on Axis Bank, Kalyan Nagar,
Bangalore, and requested her to present it on
27.10.2017. Accordingly, she presented it for
collection in her banker Kotak Mahindra Bank, New
Thippsandra Branch, Bangalore. But it was bounced
for want of sufficient funds on 31.10.2017. Later on
the accused requested her once again to present it
accordingly she presented it for the second time for
3
C.C.No.53189/2018
encash 30.11.2017. But, second time also return
with remarks that "Insufficient Funds". Immediately
she constrained to issue legal notice on 21.12.2017,
same was served on 29.12.2017. But, neither repaid
nor replied to her notice within fifteen days
accordingly, she constrained to file this private
complaint as the accused failed to pay the cheque
amount with in 15days after receipt of legal notice, on
these grounds complainant alleged that the accused
has committed an o/p/ U/S 138 of N.I. Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement
affidavit, the documents, the court took cognizance
of an offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act and
ordered to register a criminal case against the
accused for the offense punishable under Sec.138 of
N.I.Act.
4. In pursuance of summons, the accused
appeared through his counsel and he was on court
bail. Plea has been recorded accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
4
C.C.No.53189/2018
5. To prove the case, the complainant got examined
herself as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1
to P.12.
6. On closure of complainant side evidence, the
accused was examined under Sec.313 (1) (b) of
Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating materials on
record and adduced his defence evidence by
examining himself as D.W.1 and got marked ExD.1
to D.4, the complainant has not chosen to cross
examine the accused.
7. Heard, both the sides perused the materials on
record, the following point arise for my determination.
"Whether the complainant proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that, the accused
had issued cheque bearing No.178583
dtd:25.10.2017 for Rs.90,000/ in her
favour towards discharge of legally
recoverable liability and same was
bounced for "Funds Insufficient" and
despite of demand notice, the accused
failed to pay the legally recoverable debt
or liability, thereby the accused has
committed the offense punishable under
Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?"
5
C.C.No.53189/2018
8. On that basis my finding on the above point is in
the "Affirmative" for the following;
REASONS
9. The accused was intend to contest for member of
legislative assembly from the constituency of
Pulikeshi Nagar Bangalore, for that, the accused
wanted to promote himself as a MLA candidate,
accordingly, on 23.08.2017 he approached the
complainant to make documentary videos,
constituency survey, social media management, as
the complainant was in the field of creations, she
accepted to carryout the entrusted work, for that, the
accused had provided her an office space at Sahakara
Nagar Bangalore, she completed the above entrusted
work and raised invoice for Rs.1,85,000/ on
24.10.2017, the accused towards payment of part
amount of the liability, accused allegedly issued a
cheque bearing No.178583 date25.10.2017 for
Rs.90,000/ drawn on Axis Bank, Kalyan Nagar,
Bangalore, on its presentation it was bounced on
6
C.C.No.53189/2018
31.10.2017, despite service of legal notice accused
failed to pay the cheque amount accordingly, the
complainant claims that the accused has committed
an o/p/u/s 138 of N.I Act.
10. Per contra, the accused admitted the alleged
entrustment of work to the complainant to make
documentary videos, to survey constituency, social
media management, problems of public,opinion of the
public about accused, meeting with political
strategies in order to promote him as MLA candidate
for Rs.1,85,000/, further, he also admitted the
issuance of cheque ExP.1 to the complainant, ExP.1
cheque and signature on the cheque are admittedly
belongs to him, however, he specifically contended
that, the ExP.1 cheque was issued to the
complainant subject to handover the C.D or the
Pen drive containing the entrusted work, but the
complainant doesn't completed the entrusted work
and not handed over the C.D contain the entrusting
work, accordingly, he did not keep amount in
account to honour the cheque, in this regard, he
caused a legal notice to the complainant on
7
C.C.No.53189/2018
15.12.2017 by asking the complainant to return his
cheque and also an advance amount of Rs. 10,000/
paid at the time of entrusting the work, on the above
grounds he claims to be innocent and not liable to
pay the claimed amount.
11. Considering the rival contentions, it is clear that,
there is no dispute about entrustment of work by the
accused to the complainant to make documentary
videos, to conduct constituency survey, to manage
the social media in order to promote the accused as a
MLA candidate to the Pulikeshi Nagar constituency,
and issuance of cheque ExP.1 to the complainant by
the accused, signature on the ExP.1 cheque is of the
accused for the compliance of Sec.138 (a)to (c) of N.I
Act, however, the only dispute is the accused alleges
that the complainant has not completed the
entrusted work and not handed over the C.D or the
documents to show that she has completed the
enstrusted work, therefore, he did not keep the
amount in his account to honour his cheque.
Accordingly, he is not liable to pay the cheque
amount.
8
C.C.No.53189/2018
12. So, considering the admitted facts it is clear
that, the accused specifically disputed the legally
enforceable liability, therefore, it is burden on the
complainant to prove the existence of legally
enforceable liability.
13. The complainant in order to prove her case got
examined herself as Pw1 and placed reliance on the
cheque, return memo, copy of legal notice, postal
receipts, certificate u/s 65 (b) of Evidence Act with
C.D's, acknowledgment/MOU dtd 22.10.2017,
printouts of Whats App, Facebook. She reiterated
the complainant averments in her examination chief
affidavit and specifically stated she completed the
entrusted work and handed over the C.D containing
the work carried out by her i.e., video documentary,
management of social media, constituency survey,
towards part payment the accused has issued ExP.1
cheque for Rs.90,000/ but same was bounced. The
accused vehemently cross examined and brought out
on record that, the complainant has not issued the
tax invoice, she didn't have any impediment to
9
C.C.No.53189/2018
handover the invoice of Rs.1,85,000/ to the accused,
the address of the complainant as shown in ExD.4 is
correct address of the complainant, and made several
suggestions that, the complainant has not completed
the entrusted work, and not furnished the contents of
ExP.9 to 11 and suggested that the ExP.9 to 11are
created electronic documents for the purpose of this
claim, however, the PW.1 has categorically denied the
suggestions of the accused and specifically stated,
she has carried out video survey, documentary video,
management of social media, attending the meetings
of political people with the accused, meeting of
political strategies, and further she categorically
denied the suggestion of the accused that on
22.10.2017 she went to the house of accused with
two other persons and forced the accused to pay the
amount, due to fear and tension, the accused
allegedly issued the ExP.1 cheque.
14. So, considering the entire testimony of Pw.1 as
held supra, the issuance of Ex.P.1 cheque for
Rs.90,000/ by the accused containing a signature
not at all in dispute, so, the complainant has
10
C.C.No.53189/2018
undoubtedly proved the cheque ExP.1 and ExP.1(a)
signature are that of the accused. So, once it is
proved it is mandatory on the part of the Court to
draw presumption in favour of the complainant that,
the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally
enforceable liability as per Sec.139 and 118 (a) of N.I
Act. Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa Vs. Mohan
wherein the lordship has held that,
"Once the cheque relates to the account of the
accused and he accept and admit the
signature on the said cheque, then initial
presumption as contemplated under Sec.139
of N.I. Act has to be raised by the court in
favour of the complainant. The presumption
referred to in Sec.139 of N.I.Act is a
mandatory presumption and not a general
presumption, but the accused is entitled to
rebut the said presumption."
15. So, the onus is on the accused to rebut the
presumption that, the legally enforceable liability
doesn't exist, and cheque has not been issued for
11
C.C.No.53189/2018
legally enforceable liability, the accused in order to
rebut the presumption, has mainly relied upon the
admissions brought out on record during the course
of cross examination of Pw1 and his evidence with
ExD.1 to 4.
16. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently
argued that, the complainant has admitted that, she
didn't raise the invoice with respect to completion of
work as claimed by her, even the Pw.1 admitted that
she don't have any document to show that she had
handed over the C.D to the accused, further the
claim of the complainant is doubt in nature as the
amount for completion of work was agreed for Rs.
1,85,000/ but claim of the complainant is only
Rs.90,000/ which itself is proof that the
complainant has not completed the entrusted work,
as per ExD.1 MOU subject to hand overing the C.D
or pen drive containing the entrusted work, the
ExP.1 Cheque was issued, therefore it is
"contingent cheque" only after completion of
entrusted work liability would arises, the ExP.7 to 9
are marked subject it's objection which are created
12
C.C.No.53189/2018
subsequent to filing of this complaint, the accused
has caused legal notice to the complainant
demanding for return of his cheque in view of non
completion of entrusted work by handing over the
C.D or other electronic devices containing the data of
entrusted work, further, the complainant not chosen
to cross examine the accused therefore, the evidence
of the accused on oath is deems to be accepted by
the complainant, therefore. On these grounds, the
accused claims to have rebutted the presumption lies
in favour of complainant.
17. On the contrary, the counsel for the complainant
vehemently argued that, the ExP.6 to 9 are
electronic documents containing the work carried
out by the complainant, therefore, the accused had
issued the ExP.1 cheque towards part payment of
liability i.e., Rs.90,000/ now in order to escape from
the liability caused legal notice as per ExD.2,
subsequent to dishonour of the cheque, without
raising the objection about alleged incomplete of
work at the time of issuance of cheque, on these
grounds the complainant claims that, the
13
C.C.No.53189/2018
presumption has not been rebutted by the accused
as the ExP.6 to 9 have clearly discloses completion
of entrusted work, accordingly, prays to convict the
accused.
18. Having considering the rival arguments with
materials on record the crucial point arises to the
court that,
"whether the accused as rebutted
the presumption or the materials on
record is sufficient or suffice to rebut
the presumption U/S 139 of N.I.Act".
On this aspect, I have carefully perused the
material on record, it transpires that, though the
complainant deposed that there was oral agreement
held in between her and accused with respect to
carryout of entrusted work but, the complainant as
well as the accused both have relied upon the MOU,
the complainant marked the copy of MOU as
ExP.11 on the other hand, the accused also relied
upon the very same document as ExD.1, on careful
perusal of ExP.11 which discloses that, the said
14
C.C.No.53189/2018
document came to be existence on 22.10.2017, but,
the contents of document discloses that on
23.08.2017 the complainant has agreed to carryout
the preparation of documentary videos by screeping,
shooting both indoor and outdoor editing, voice over,
music layouting with high resounding and
uploading in social media, maintaining facebok, web
page and storing in hard disc or pen drive to
preserve the document in complete manner, which
includes transporting, copy rights, taxes applicable
and royalty/patents applicable from 24.08.2017 to
23.09.2017, on the said day the document further
discloses Rs.10,000/ advance was paid to the
complainant and remaining balance has been shown
as Rs.90,000/. Further, in same document, the list
of the the works carried out by the complainant has
been mentioned as follows.
1. Political entry of S.M Basavaraju
documentary uploaded in "Youtube".
2. Ganesha Festival wishes.
3. Functions of J.D.S Office.
4. Interview of Marimuttu and Rajeshwari
15
C.C.No.53189/2018
along with Basavaraju.
5. About rain " Maleya Avanthara"
documentary.
6. J.D.S protesting at Town hall.
In addition to that, the Ex.D.1 further reads that
the above documentary has yet to prerevival and
finalize the copy and will share in hard disc or pen
drive and to deliver the same to the party by the
company. So, the above document clearly discloses
on 22.10.2017 the complainant has undertaken to
furnish the hard disc or pen drive containing the
works carried out by her to the party. By affixing the
signature on MOU, her signature has been marked
as ExD.1(A) same is not disputed by the
complainant. However, the said ExD.1 does not
further discloses that, the time for delivering the
hard disc or pen drive containing the data about
work carried out by the complainant, that apart, the
very same document relied by both the parties
clearly discloses the above mentioned works has
been carried out by the complainant, but, the
accused specifically claiming that C.D's or pen drive
16
C.C.No.53189/2018
has not furnished to him as agreed under MOU, But
incontrary though the complainant initially not
produced the C.D's but, after completion of defence
evidence the complainant produced the C.D.'s,
printouts of Whats App, email's, Youtube images
and specifically claimed she furnished the C.D's to
the accused, but, the accused denies the same and
claims the C.D's EXP.6 to 9 have been created
subsequent to filing of this complaint. However,
though he cross examined the Pw1, on these
electronic records he didn't question, the
authenticity, admissibility of electronic documents
i.e., with respect to his alleged creation of this C.D's
subsequent to filing of this case, because he has
every opportunity to brought out on record the date
of creation of electronic records, date of recording,
it's copying, contents or data driving in to C.D, and
certificate U/S 65 (b) Evidence Act i.e., about
custody, conversion from the gadgets to the
computer, who was having control over computer
which are not at all questioned by the accused, but,
simply he alleges the C.D's are created which cannot
be accepted without questioning by playing the C.D's
17
C.C.No.53189/2018
in the court about works carried out by the
complainant and date of creation of documents, in
absence of that, mere denial, which does not ipso
facto ground to reject the electronic documents
because the ExP.11 and D.1 clearly discloses the
work done by the complainant, despite noting the
works carried out by the complainant in ExD.1. the
accused claiming that the complainant has not
completed the works entrusted to her.
19. Further, it is not the case of the accused that
whatever the works noted in ExD.1 has not been
done by the complainant, when such being the case
is mere contention without questioning the
authenticity of C.D's, when the data stored in the
C.D's have been prepared, to whom the complainant
met and collected opinion, how many videos of
functions recorded in the constituency which are all
not been questioned, therefore, on careful perusal of
the ExD.1 and C.D's (Viewed the in C.D's Ex.P.8 in
Court Laptop) which clearly proves that, the
complainant has completed the entrusted work,
however, the accused specifically contended that no
18
C.C.No.53189/2018
such C.D or pen drive furnished to him by the
complainant. But the Pw.1 categorical stated the
contents of ExP.9 to 11 has been furnished to the
accused, further it is not case of the accused that,
the contents of ExP.9 to 11 is not pertaining to him
as entrusted by him to the complainant, so, even
though the complainant has admitted that no
document has been produced before Court to show
that she has furnished the C.D containing the data
of ExP.9 to 11, but, she specifically stated cheque
was issued on completion of the work, accordingly,
she presented it for collection, further, she stated on
22 or 23 of October 2017 she furnished the C.D to
the accused on the same day the accused issued
ExP.1 cheque for Rs.90,000/. It clearly
corroborates the ExD.1 that it is not in dispute as
per ExD.1 on 22.10.2017 accused has issued
ExP.1 cheque to the complainant, further, in second
part of ExD.1 the signature of the complainant does
not found place to believe the contents of second
part of ExD.1, so, it can be easily inferred that the
cheque was issued only after completion of work.
19
C.C.No.53189/2018
20. Further, in the legal notice ExD.2 the accused
specifically claimed that on 22.10.2017 the
complainant and two other persons gone over to the
house of the accused, that too, in the night
demanded the balance amount, accordingly, he
issued post dated cheque, subject to hand over of
videos and films of accused on or before of
24.10.2017, that apart, in the chief examination the
accused stated on 22.10.2017 in the night at about
11.00 p.m, the complainant gone to his house with
two others have insisted him to make payment
without completing the assigned work. Due to
tension, he claims to have issued cheque for
Rs.90,000/ subject to handover the document on or
before 25.10.2017. However, in contrary to above
contention the accused during the course of cross
examination of Pw.1 made specific suggestion that,
the ExP.1 cheque was issued to the complainant as
a security advance so, in one breath the accused
claimed the ExP.1 cheque was issued as security
advance, however, in other breath incontrary he
claims to have issued the cheque on 22.10.2017 due
to fear or tension, but, to believe his contention that
20
C.C.No.53189/2018
he had issued the ExP.1 cheque under the tension
or forcible action of complainant and two others in
the night at his house, he has not produced any
document to show about the forcible actions of
complainant alleged to have occurred in the house of
accused on 22.10.2017. So, the inconsistence
defence of the accused cannot be acceptable, as the
person cannot blow hot and cold at the same time,
further, the ExD.1 clearly discloses cheque was
issued on 22.10.2017 but not issued as an advance
security.
21. Further, the accused is not a laymen, he having
knowledge about consequences of issuances of
cheque, even after issuance of cheque he could have
instruct his banker to stop payment, but, no such
instruction admittedly given, however, he issued
legal notice ExD.2 subsequent to dishonour of
cheque for insufficient fund and claims that
nonfurnishing of C.D or Pen drive to show
completion of work, he didn't keep the money in his
account to honour the cheque, but, as per his own
contention the C.D or Pen drive should have been
21
C.C.No.53189/2018
furnished on or before 25.10.2017 but, the accused
even after completion of 25.10.2017 till presentation
of the cheque he did not raise any objection for
non furnishing of C.D's so, he kept mum soon after
issuance of cheque till he got message from his
banker about dishonour which clearly shows that,
the ExD.2 nothing but an after thought story in
order to avoid the payment, therefore, even though
the complainant has not cross examined the Dw.1
and the testimony of Dw.1 even if presumed to be
true, subsequent to closure of defence evidence the
complainant has placed reliance on ExP.6 to 9 the
C.D's to over come the defence that, she has
completed the entrusted work, therefore, I do not
found any force in the argument of learned counsel
for the accused for nonissuance of invoice is fatal to
the claim of the complainant cannot be acceptable
as it is not the case of the accused that he issued
blank cheque to the complainant, but, it is his
definite case that he issued ExP.1 completed cheque
for Rs.90,000/ if so the accused could have raise
the objection for nonfurnishing the tax invoice.
22
C.C.No.53189/2018
22. Further, so for as contingent cheque is concern,
the accused has not disputed the issuance of the
ExP.1 cheque subject to handovering of C.D or
Pendrive containing the data as agreed, on the other
hand complainant claims she handed over the C.D's
only after receipt of the same accused issued the
ExP.1 cheque, during the course of cross
examination the accused specifically posed question
to that effect but, the complainant categorically
stated only after furnishing all the documents to the
accused, the accused has issued cheque to her
further, it is not the case of the accused that he
issued ExP.1 cheque while entrusting the work on
24.08.2017 as a contingent cheque for Rs.90,000/
with condition that only after completion of work the
complainant must present the cheque for collection,
the learned counsel by relying upon the secondary
part of ExD.1 claiming that ExP.1 is a contingent
cheque but, it does not contain the signature of the
complainant to believe his contention that, only by
completing works the cheque must be presented for
collection, therefore, it cannot be acceptable.
23
C.C.No.53189/2018
23. So, considering the entire materials on record
Admittedly issuance of cheque on 22.10.2017 to the
compliant for Rs. 90,000/, it was bounced for
insufficient funds accordingly, initial presumption
has been drawn in favour of the complainant, so
once it is proved the onus is on the accused to
brought out the materials from the mouth of
complainant or produce materials to disprove the
case of the complainant that, at the time of issuance
of cheque the liability does not exist, at this stage it
is worth to note the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court
between Sumethi Vij Vs. M/s. Paramount Tech. Fab.
Industries, held that
" to disprove the presumption, the
accused should bring on record such
facts and circumstances, upon
consideration of which, the court may
either believe that the consideration
and debt didn't exist or their non
existence was so probable that a
prudent man would under the
circumstances of the case, act upon the
plea that they didn't exist".
24
C.C.No.53189/2018
So, on this backdrop of settle principle I have
carefully perused the available material on record are
suffice to rebut the presumption lies in favour of the
complainant, but, the material on record clearly
discloses as per the accused the complainant did not
complete her entrusted work and not handover the
C.D containing the data pertaining to the accused,
however, the complainant has produced the C.D's as
per ExP.6 to 9 to substantiate her works carried out
and stored in C.D's pertaining to the accused, though
the accused specifically cross examined the Pw.1 on
these electronic documents, does not disputes the
contents of the C.D's not pertaining to him as
entrusted to the complainant. Further, he has not all
posed any questions with regard to authenticity and
admissibility of C.D's, date of video recording, it's
storage, to whom the complainant met during survey,
where she surveyed, management of social media,
highlighting the problems of public and also
certificate filed U/S 65 (b) of Indian Evidence Act,
therefore, the complainant has over come the defence
of accused that she has not furnished C.D's to the
accused as such the argument of the accused about
25
C.C.No.53189/2018
contingent cheque cannot be acceptable in view of his
inconsistence stands and admission about issuance
of cheque on 22.10.2017 i.e., much after the
entrustment of work in the month of august 2017.
Therefore, considering entire material on record, the
defence of the accused and the material brought out
from the evidence of Pw.1 is not acceptable evidence
to rebut the presumption because it is admittedly the
cheque was dishonour due to insufficient funds, as
per the accused the complainant supposed to
handover the C.D or pen drive containing the data
entrusted to the complainant, but, even after lapse of
two months i.e., after issuance of cheque till
dishonour of the cheque the accused not tried to keep
the amount in his account nor requested the
complainant to return his cheque for alleged non
hand overing the C.D therefore, as per Ex.P.6 to 9 the
complainant has proved her claim about completion
of entrusted work i.e., making videos, surveying the
constituency meeting the people, attending the party
functions etc., as entrusted by the accused hence,
the defence of the accused cannot be acceptable
accordingly, the material on record brought out and
26
C.C.No.53189/2018
produced are not sufficient that the cheque was not
issued for legally enforceable liability, hence, accused
failed to rebut the presumption lies in favour of the
complainant. As such the complainant has proved
the issuance of cheque for legally enforceable liability
which was agreed as per Ex.P.11 and D.1 and same
was bounced for insufficient funds, despite service of
legal notice the accused failed to pay cheque amount
and issued legal notice to return cheque and non
completion of alleged entrusted work cannot be
acceptable, hence the complainant as proved the
ingredients of S.138 (a) to (c) of N.I Act. Accordingly,
the accused found guilty of an o/p/u/s 138 of N.I
Act.
24. So, far as sentence and compensation is
concerned, the material on record clearly revealed
that as per Ex.D.1 for completion of entrusted work
the accused has issued cheque in the year 2017 and
avoided the payment, therefore, considering the
nature of the transaction and duration of pendency,
if fine of Rs.1,20,000/is imposed on the accused
that would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the
27
C.C.No.53189/2018
accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/
out of the fine amount received the complainant is
entitled for Rs.1,15,000/ as a compensation under
Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. and remaining amount of
Rs.5,000/ is to be appropriated to the State. In
case of default, the accused shall under go simple
imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Accordingly
I answer the above point in "Affirmative". In the
result, following;
ORDER
Acting under section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/ (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand) in default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
28C.C.No.53189/2018 Out of the fine amount received, Rs.5,000/ is to be appropriated to the State and by way of compensation as per the provision U/s 357(1) of Cr.P.C. the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,15,000/.
The bail bonds and surety bond of the accused shall stand cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish a free copy of the judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22nd day of March, 2021) (M.Vijay), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 : Bindiya B.N 29 C.C.No.53189/2018
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Original cheque Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P.2 : Bank return memo Ex.P.3 : O/c of the legal notice Ex.P.4 : Postal receipts Ex.P.5 : Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P.6 : Returned postal cover Ex.P.6(a) : Returned postal cover opened in the
open court and notice therein marked.
Ex.P.7 : Certificate under section 65 B of the Evidence Act Ex.P.8 : The C.D
Ex.P.9 to 12 : 3 Compact discs and printout of Whats App messages, Whats App images, Screen shots of Face book.
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 : Sri. S.M. Basavaraju.
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 : Acknowledgment/memo Ex.D.2 : O/c of the notice Ex.D.3 : Postal receipt Ex.D.4 : Postal acknowledgment (M.Vijay), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.