Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 223 of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha 2023 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The brief case of the complainant is as under:

That the complainant is involved in the business of wholesale trading of agricultural products and fresh produce supply and tied up with Non Banking Financial Institutions to enable the service of credit facility to borrowers as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. The accused is engaged in the business of wholesale trade of agricultural products and commission agency. The accused approached the complainant for loan through M/s Trillion Loans Fintech Private Limited in loan ID No.361313. After considering the same, the complainant extended credit facility of a sum of Rs.12,20,000/- on 10.07.2024. The accused during the process of loan transaction, issued signed NACH mandate bearing No. UMRN No.KKBK7012702245003037 on 27.02.2024 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, for a sum of Rs.12,19,999/- Initially, the accused assured to make regular payments and later the accused failed to make payment as per the agreement. The accused on repeated demands of the complainant, instructed C.C.No.39075/2024 to present the NACH mandate which is given for outstanding amount. As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant has processed E-NACH mandate through his banker IndusInd Bank, Koramangala for a outstanding sum of Rs.11,91,624/- and on processing said E NACH Mandate, it is returned dishonored with remarks "Balance Insufficient" in the account of the accused to honour the same on 17-09-2024. On receipt of said intimation, the complainant got issued legal notice on 18.09.2024 through registered post and demanded to pay the amount dishonoured under E-NACH Mandate. The notice issued to the accused returned unserved with an endorsement "no such person" on 20.09.2024. The notice is issued to the last known address of the accused provided by him. Therefore the issuance of notice to the last known address is deemed service of notice. Inspite of issuance of notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant with in the statutory time. Therefore, the accused has committed the offence punishable Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the complainant has filed the complaint.

6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and Arguments of learned counsel for the accused is taken as heard and perused the material on record.

7. On the basis of the material on record the following points arise for the consideration of this court :

1. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has issued NACH Mandate UMRN No. KKBK7012702245003037 on 27.02.2024 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, for a sum of Rs.12,19,999/- and it is dishonoured on processing for collection of balance amount of Rs.11,91,624/- for the reason Balance Insufficient and inspite of issuance of demand notice dated 18.09.2024 he has failed to repay the amount with in the statutory period and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ?

13. The PW 1 further deposed that during the process of loan transaction the accused issued signed NACH mandate bearing No. UMRN No.KKBK7012702245003037 on 27.02.2024 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, for a sum of Rs.12,19,999/- in favour of the complainant towards due discharge of debt/liability. The complainant has produced the E copy of the NACH Mandate as Ex.P 6. He has deposed that initially the accused made regular payments and later the accused failed to make payment as per the agreement. He has deposed that the accused on repeated demands of the complainant, instructed to present the NACH mandate which is given for outstanding amount. He has deposed that as per the instructions of the C.C.No.39075/2024 accused, the complainant has processed E-NACH mandate through their banker IndusInd Bank, Koramangala for a outstanding sum of Rs.11,91,624/-and on processing said E NACH Mandate, it is returned dishonored with remarks "Balance Insufficient" in the account of the accused to honour the same on 17-09-2024. The debit Transaction return memo is produced as Ex.P 7. As provided under Section 25(4) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act and also under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act law presumes that on production of banker slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque/ electronic fund transfer has been dishonored, presume the fact of dishonor of such said cheque, unless and until same is disproved. The accused has not cross examined PW 1 nor adduced evidence to rebut the presumption. The PW1 has deposed that they have got issued legal notice dated 18.09.2024 calling upon the accused to pay the due amount as per Ex.P8. The PW 1 has deposed that said notice returned unserved with an endorsement "No such person" on 20.09.2024. The notice is issued to the last known address of the accused provided in the loan documents. Hence, it is deemed to be served on the accused. The PW 1 has also produced the postal receipt and the envelope as Ex.P 9 and Ex.P

17. POINT NO. 2 : While answering the point no. 1 this court concluded that the complainant proved that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Amount covered under the NACH is Rs.11,91,624/-. The NACH mandate is processed for collection on 17-09-2024. The money involved in the case is used in commercial transactions. Therefore considering all these aspects the amount of fine calculated for a sum of Rs.13,03,870/-. The Ho'ble High Court of Karnataka in the reportable decision in CRL.RP No. 996 of 2016 dated 09-07- 2025 between M/s Banavathy and Company VS Mahaveer Electro Mech (P) Ltd at para 21 has held that -