Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The present complaint is filed under section 2(d) read with section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish her for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act").

02. The factual matrix of the complaint is summarized as under;

It is alleged in the complaint that, the accused being known person to the complainant, she has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant in the second week of January 2018 for her family necessities and has agreed to repay the same. But, the accused has failed to repay the borrowed amount and in the 2 nd week of July 2018 towards discharge of her legal liability, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.584790 dated 16.07.2018 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Thally, Krishnagiri Branch, Tamilnadu in favour of the complainant. On 16.07.2018, the complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker M/s HDFC Bank Ltd, Richmond Road Branch, Bengaluru, but it returned unpaid with banker's endorsement dated 17.07.2018 as "Drawer Signature Differs". Therefore, on 09.08.2018, the demand notice has been issued to the accused by RPAD. The demand notice issued by RPAD has been duly served on the earlier address of the accused on 10.08.2018 are the Postal Track Consignment report. But the notice issued to the address of Tamilnadu returned on 21.08.2018 with a shara " not found several beats hence return to sender". Inspite of service of legal notice, the accused neither has paid the cheque amount nor has given any reply. On these grounds, it is sought to convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and grant compensation as per section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

09. To substantiate and establish this fact before the court beyond reasonable doubts as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others V/s Union of India and others , the sworn statement of the complainant has been treated as affidavit evidence. In his affidavit evidence, PW.1 has replicated the averments of the complainant. To corroborate the evidence of PW.1, the complainant has placed on record in all eleven documents as per Ex.P.1 to 11. Ex.P.1 is the disputed cheque dated 16.07.2013, Ex.P.1 (a) is the signature of accused, Ex.P.2 is the banker's memo dated 17.07.2018, which shows the reasons for the return of the cheque at Ex.P.1 for unpaid is as " Drawer Signature Differs" , Ex.P.3 is the legal notice dated 09.08.2018 demanding for payment of cheque amount by replicating the averments of complaint. The demand notice issued by RPAD has been duly served on the earlier address of the accused on 10.08.2018 are the Postal Track Consignment report. But the notice issued to the address of Tamilnadu returned on 21.08.2018 with a shara " not found several beats hence return to sender". Ex.P.4 & 5 are the the postal receipts about sending legal notice at Ex.P.3, Ex.P.6 is the postal tracking report, Ex.P.7 is the returned postal cover, Ex.P.8 is the bank account statement of the complainant, Ex.P.9 is the salary certificate, Ex.P.10 is the Employ Identity Card and Ex.P.11 is the statement of account marked on confrontation with DW.1. PW.1 has been substantially cross examined by the counsel of accused.

Ex.D.1 is the notarized copy of Adhar card standing in the name of accused, wherein her address is reflecting, Ex.D.2 to 7 are appears to be receipts for making payment of maintenance amount of the flat to Vijaya Enclave apartments owner issuing wherein the name of accused and flat number has been mentioned. Ex.D.8 is one of the postal cover wherein the name and address of the accused is found. Ex.D .9 and 10 are the IT returns form No.6 for the year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 and as per these two documents, the accused Gayathri appears to be assessee of Income Tax Department. Ex.D.11 is the bank account statement of Axis Bank for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, but the name of account holder is not reflecting in this statement. Ex.D.12 is the certified copy of order sheet of 22nd ACMM Court, Bengaluru in CC.No.15582/2019. Ex.D.13 is the certified copy of complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C. and as per these two documents one S.Srinivas has filed another complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused Gayathri Govinda Reddy for the dishonour of cheque bearing No.584791 for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. Ex.D.14 is the sworn statement of the complainant in that case, Ex.D.15 and 16 are the alleged cheque and banker's memo of the said case. Ex.D.17 is the demand notice, Ex.D.18 is the postal track consignment report in respect of the said case, Ex.D.19 and 20 are the certified copy of the RPAD endorsement and the bank deposit slip. Ex.D.21 is the certified copy of police complaint lodged jointly by present accused Gayathri along with her husband Govinda Reddy, Ex.D.22 is the reply notice issued by the accused Gayathri Govinda Reddy to the demand notice issued by the present complainant, Ex.D.23 is the speed post acknowledgment copy, Ex.D.24 is the certified copy of judgment passed in C.C.55627/2018 on the file of 34th ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru. Wherein, the said complaint was filed by Mr.S.Srinivas against one Mr.Govinda Reddy for the dishonour of 2 cheques of Rs. 45,00,000/- and Rs.35,00,000/- respectively and the said case was came to be dismissed and the accused was acquitted, Ex.D.25 to 29 are the photographs pertaining to the flats of Vijaya Enclave, Kumaradhara Block. Ex.D.30 is the CD copy of pertaining to the photographs at Ex.D.25 to 29.

By these two precedents of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Apex Court, now it is well settled law that, even if the cheque dishonoured for the reason of "Signature Differs" or "Signature mismatch" or " Part Signature" would attract the penal provision of section 138 of NI Act.

15. Before to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence relied by the respective parties and also to appreciate the oral arguments advanced by both the Learned counsels' I would like to give findings about maintainability of the present complaint as such, the Learned Senior Counsel for the accused seriously contended about the service of demand notice to the accused . In the complaint, there is a specific pleadings about the service of demand notice to the accused as per the postal track consignment report produced at Ex.P.6. The Learned defense counsel branded the document at Ex.P.6 is a created and concocted document. In Ex.P.6, the consignment number is shown as AKD 1899427IN. The complainant has produced the postal receipt, which is marked at Ex.P.5 and in this postal receipt the same consignment number is appearing as found in Ex.P.6. This postal receipt at Ex.P.6 is not at all either denied or disputed by the accused. Therefore, the contention of Learned counsel in respect of Ex.P.6 do not holds any water and his contention branding Ex.P.6 as a concocted document needs to be rejected. Ex.P.6 is a public document issued by the postal authority and it would attract the provisions of section 35 of Evidence Act. On the other hand, the accused not made any efforts to examine the concerned official of the post office to disprove Ex.P.6.