Bangalore District Court
M/S. Jain Structural Roofing vs M/S Manjushree Enterprises on 1 March, 2025
KABC0C0042562021
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU
-: PRESENT:-
P.S. Santhosh Kumar, M.Com., LL.M.,
XXXIII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025.
C.C.NO.51287/2021
COMPLAINANT : M/s Jain Structural Roofing,
No:21, N.R. Road,
Bengaluru-56002,
Represented by its proprietor/
Authorized signatory
Sri. Dilip Kumar K.
Vs.
ACCUSED : M/s Manjushree Enterprises,
BLM Krishna Building,
No.2/3,
Mezzanine and Ground Floor,
Bull Temple Road,
Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru-560016.
Represented by its proprietor,
Smt. Manjula Anand Kumar.
2
C.C.No.51287/2021
J U D G M E N T
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 the Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:-
The complainant is a Proprietorship Firm represented by its sole proprietor Sri.Dilip Kumar K. and complainant is a manufacturer and dealer of Roofing Sheet, MS Flates and M.S. Bars, Tarpaulin, ACP Cladding, PUF Panel, Colour Coated Roofing Sheet, PVC Flooring, Metal Roofing Sheet and Steel Products. The accused is one of the customers of the complainant and during the course of their business, the accused represented by its proprietrix Smt. Manjula Anand Kumar had purchased the MS Flates and MS Bars worth Rs.2,51,094/- under the invoice bearing No.1382 on 08.09.2020 and the details of the materials purchased by the accused as under;3
C.C.No.51287/2021 Sl. Invoice Date Description of Goods Amount Rs. No. No.
1. 1382 08.09.2020 1. MS Flates 25x5 1,723.40 Kgs 71,521.10/-
@ 41.50 per Kg
2. M.S. Bars 12MM Rod 1,40,070.80/-
3. Loading Charges 1,200/-
CGST @ 9% 19,151.27/-
SCGST @ 9 % 19,151.27/-
Total 2,51,094.00
The accused being a regular customer to the
complainant, the complainant used to supply material to accused regularly from past several months and accused used to buy materials from complainant by way of RTGS transfer at the time of delivery of the goods/materials, as such, the complainant had supplied the above said goods as per request of the accused and the said goods were received by Smt.Manjula Anand Kumar, the proprietrix of the accused firm. At the time of delivery of the said material, proprietrix of the firm expressed difficulty to pay cash and insisted to take cheque towards the payment of the said invoice amount, the complainant believing the accused and in good faith agreed to take cheque as per their request wherein the accused had 4 C.C.No.51287/2021 issued post dated cheque bearing No.966980 dated 15.09.2020 for a sum of Rs.1,72,067/- drawn on Indian Bank, Basavanagudi branch, Bengaluru. After one week, on 14.09.2020 the complainant approached the accused for the balance amount of Rs.79,027/-
wherein the accused had issued another post dated cheque bearing No.966986 on 28.10.2020 drawn on Indian Bank, Basavanagudi branch, Bengaluru, towards the further part payment and agreed to pay balance amount of Rs.7,000/- as soon as possible and instructed to present the earlier cheque. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker State Bank of India, Basavanagudi branch, Bangalore, but the said cheque came to be dishonored for the reason "Funds Insufficient" on 16.09.2020. Thereafter, the complainant had presented the another cheque (966986) for encashment through his banker Canara Bank, Frazer Town branch, Bangalore, but the said cheque came to be dishonored for the reason "Payment stopped by drawer" on 04.11.2020. Thereafter, the complainant got issued 5 C.C.No.51287/2021 legal notice to the accused on 01.12.2020 demanding payment of the cheque amount. The said notice duly served on the accused on 04.12.2020. But, inspite of service of it, the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount. Hence, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Based on the complaint, sworn statement affidavit, documents etc., the court took cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act by following the guidelines of Apex Court issued in Indian Bank Association case and ordered to register a criminal case against the accused for the o/p/u/s. 138 of N.I. Act.
4. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared through her counsel, she was enlarged on court bail, further, substance of plea was recorded, the accused pleaded not guilty and she claimed to be tried. The complainant in order to prove his case, got examined 6 C.C.No.51287/2021 himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. Upon closure of complainant's side evidence, the case was set down for recording the statement of the accused U/s 313 of Cr.P.C, but, the accused did not turn up despite of sufficient opportunity given for giving her explanation on the incriminating materials on record, as such, in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka between Kulkarni Vs. Dakshina Murthy the examination of accused U/S 313 of Cr.P.C., dispensed as the accused purposefully avoided and also accused not chosen to lead defence evidence.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the learned counsel for the accused did not address his arguments. Perused the materials on record.
6. The following points would arise for my consideration:-
7C.C.No.51287/2021
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused has committed an o/p/u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?"
2. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1: In the Affirmative, Point No.2: As per final order, for the following, R E A S O N S
8. POINT No.1:- I have gone through the materials available on record. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused had issued the cheque in question towards repayment of the amount due in respect of the goods purchase under the Invoice bearing No.1382 dated 08.09.2020 and it came to be dishonored on its presentation and even after issuing Ex.P2 and issuance of Ex.P4 legal notice to the accused intimating the fact of dishonor, the 8 C.C.No.51287/2021 accused has failed to pay the cheque amount and hence, she is liable to be convicted of the alleged offence U/Sec.138 of N.I Act.
9. The complainant, who has been examined as PW.1, has reiterated the facts stated in his complaint in his chief examination also. In addition to it, he has produced 6 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to
6.
10. Ex.P1 is the GST registration certificate. Ex.P2 is the original cheque bearing No.966986 said to have been issued by the accused in favour of the complainant and it is dated 28.10.2020 for Rs.72,168/-. Ex.P3 is the bank endorsement which goes to show that the said cheque came to be dishonored for the reason "Payment stopped by the drawer" on 04.11.2020. Ex.P5 is the postal receipt for having sent legal notice as per Ex.P4 to the accused and Ex.P6 is the postal acknowledgment. It is relevant to mention here that the accused has not disputed the issuance of cheque in question and the signature of 9 C.C.No.51287/2021 the accused appearing on it. Such being the case, the initial presumption as contemplated U/S 139 of the N.I Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant as per the decision reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 in the case of Sri Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
11. Once the presumption U/S 139 and 118 of the N.I Act is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by adducing cogent evidence in support of her defence, if any. It is relevant to mention here that the accused in the present case has not lead any defence evidence and even she has not cross-examined the PW1. Even the accused remained diligently absent and did not turn up for her examination u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. Further the accused has not issued any reply notice. As such, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the complainant has categorically established beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused had issued Ex.P2 towards a legally enforceable debt and inspite of issuance of notice at 10 C.C.No.51287/2021 Ex.P4 intimating the fact of dishonour of cheque in question at Ex.P2, has failed to discharge the same and as such, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
12. It is relevant to mention here that the accused having issued cheque at Ex.P2 in favour of the complainant has failed to pay the cheque amount and hence, the complainant is to be suitably compensated for the delay caused by the accused in its repayment. Further the punishment prescribed for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is imprisonment for a period which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, nature, year of the transaction, nature of the instrument involved, cost of litigation and the rate of interest proposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (1) SCC 260 (R.Vijayan Vs Baby), I am of the opinion that it is just and 11 C.C.No.51287/2021 desirable to impose fine of Rs.1,15,000/- and out of the said amount, it seems to be proper to award a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation to the complainant as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C and the remaining sum of Rs.5,000/- shall go to the State towards expenses. With these observations, my findings on Point No.1 is in the Affirmative.
13. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1, I proceed to pass following;
O R D E R
Acting u/s. 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the
accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,1881.
The accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,15,000/-. In default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
12C.C.No.51287/2021 Out of the fine amount, Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the State towards expenses and remaining amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant as compensation as per the provisions of u/Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C.
Further, it is made clear that in view of proviso to Sec.421(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused would not be absolved from her liability to pay compensation amount of Rs.1,10,000/- awarded u/s. 357 of Cr.P.C. even if she undergoes the default sentence.
The bail bond and cash security are ordered to be continued till expiry of the appeal period.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Typed to my dictation directly over computer by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 1st day of March 2025) (P.S. Santhosh Kumar), XXXIII ACJM, BENGALURU.
13C.C.No.51287/2021 A N N E X U R E
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 : Sri. Dilip Kumar
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 : GST registration certificate Ex.P.2 : Original cheque Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P.3 : Bank return memo Ex.P.4 : Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P.5 : Postal receipt Ex.P.6 : Postal acknowledgment
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
NIL (P.S. Santhosh Kumar), XXXIII ACJM, BENGALURU.