Bangalore District Court
M/S. Siddvi Rack Systems vs M/S. S.K.B Systems on 27 February, 2024
KABC030449512023
IN THE COURT OF XXXVIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
~:PRESENT:~
SRI. VEERESH KUMAR C.K. B.A.L, LL.M, CC [Cyber Laws]
XXXVIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU
C.C. No.25415/2023
Date Of Judgment: 27th day of February, 2024
M/s. Siddvi Rack Systems
No.11/23, 10th Cross
Dodamma Industrial Estate,
Near Peenya 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560 091
Rep. By its Purchase Manager
Sri.Dharshan Kumar ....Complainant
(Sri. P.V.Manjunatha, Advocate)
----//VERSUS//----
M/s.S.K.B.System
No.4, 3rd Floor, 2nd Main
Herohalli behind Andra Bank
Bengaluru
Rep. By its Proprietor Smt.Manjula
also at
Smt.Manjula
W/o.Siddalingaiah
R/o.Jadeya village at Post,
Mayasandra Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk
Tumkur District.
(Sri.Y.B.Kuntoji, Advocate) ....Accused
KABC030449512023 Judgment CC No.25415/2023
-: 2:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
T his case emanates from a private complaint filed by the complainant alleging that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by issuing cheque for the amount of Rs. 3,99,112/-, and the same was dishonored.
2. THE BRIEF FACTS;
It is the case of the complainant that it is into the business of design and manufacturing of precision sheet metal produced in the address mentioned in the cause title. In September 2022 the accused obtained different kinds of racks from the complainant which are prepared and supplied by the complainant under different invoices worth of Rs.10,00,000/-. The accused in the said outstanding bill paid Rs.6,00,888/- to the complainant on different dates. The due payment of remaining amount was Rs.3,99,112/- for which the accused issued a cheque bearing No.009239 dated 24/5/2023 of KABC030449512023 Judgment CC No.25415/2023
-: 3:-
Union Bank, Bharathnagar branch, Bengaluru. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant, same was returned as "Funds Insufficient" on 17/6/2023. For which complainant issued demand notice to accused on 11/7/2023 by RPAD and same was duly served on the accused on her firm. Inspite of the same, the accused has not come forward to make the payment towards the cheque amount and thereby committed an offence punishable u/S.138 of the N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint.
3. On presentation of the complaint, this Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/sec. 138 of N.I. Act. The summons was issued to the accused. In pursuance to the service of summons, the accused has put her appearance through her Counsel and was enlarged on bail.
4. The complaint copies were furnished to the accused as per Sec. 207 of Cr. P. C. The plea was recorded under Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. The accusation was read over to the accused KABC030449512023 Judgment CC No.25415/2023
-: 4:-
and to which she has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate the case, the complainant has examined its Purchase Manager as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to 17. He has not been cross examined by the accused. The statement of the accused U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. She has not chosen to lead any defence evidence.
6. Heard the respective learned counsels for the complainant and the accused. Meticulously perused the available materials on record.
7. Based on the above materials the points that would arise for consideration are as follows:
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.009239 dated: 24/05/2023 in favour of complainant for sum of Rs.3,99,112/- in discharge of legally enforceable debt and same is KABC030449512023 Judgment CC No.25415/2023
-: 5:-
dishonored due to "Funds Insufficient"
and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act ?
2. What order ?
8. The above points are answered as below:
Point No.1: In the AFFIRMATIVE Point No.2: As per final order for the following:-
::REASONS::
9. On Point No.1: The further narration of the entire averments of the complaint is desisted in order to avoid the repetition, as already narrated at the inception.
10. It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions that in order to prove the commission of offence under section 138 of NI Act, drawer of a cheque is deemed to have committed the offence if the following ingredients are fulfilled.
i) A cheque drawn for the payment of any amount of money to another person.
ii) The cheque is drawn for the discharge of the 'whole or part' of any debt or other liability. 'Debt KABC030449512023 Judgment CC No.25415/2023
-: 6:-
or other liability' means legally enforceable debt or other liability; and
iii) The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid because of insufficient funds.
However, unless the stipulations in the proviso are fulfilled the offence is not deemed to be committed. The conditions in the proviso are a follows:
i) The cheque must be presented in the bank within six months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity.
ii) The holder of the cheque must make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days from the receipt of the notice from the bank that the cheque was returned dishonored; and
iii) The holder of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice.
11. On perusal of the records it is found that the complainant has proved the essential procedural ingredients KABC030449512023 Judgment CC No.25415/2023
-: 7:-
to attract the offence, as stated above. The cheque Ex.P.1 is presented within the period of limitation for a sum of Rs.3,99,112/- and same is returned. On perusal of the complaint the same is filed before the court on 18/08/2023, thereby the present complaint is within the limitation. These aspects are sufficient to raise presumption in favour of the complainant that the cheque in question was issued for legally recoverable debt. In order to rebut the presumption, the accused has not conducted the cross examination of PW.1. However, has filed a Joint Memo accepting the liability of Rs.3,50,000/- and also requested to pay the due by 06/07/2024 in 5 installments to complainant. The same is accepted by the Complainant.
12. The said admission is sufficient to come to conclusion that complainant has proved the present case. During the course of arguments the accused submitted that she would pay the entire due cheque amount to the complainant. Due to financial crisis and Covid 19, she was a KABC030449512023 Judgment CC No.25415/2023
-: 8:-
defaulter and was unable to make a good payment to the complainant. All these aspects are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of his financial difficulty the accused requires to be given an opportunity to pay compensation to Complainant on or before 06/07/2024 of amount of Rs.3.50.000/-, as mutually agreed in the memo. As a result the above point is answered accordingly.
13. On point No. 2 : In view of the above findings and discussion, proceed to pass the following:
:: ORDER ::
• In exercise of Sec. 255 (2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,50,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. KABC030449512023 Judgment CC No.25415/2023
-: 9:-
• The entire fine amount of Rs.3,50,000/- shall be disbursed as compensation in favour of the complainant.
• Accused shall pay the compensation amount in 5 installments to complainant and final installment shall be on or before 06/07/2024, as per joint memo. • The bail bond and surety bond of accused shall continue till 06/07/2024.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, same was corrected by me then pronounced in the Open Court, on this the 27th day of February, 2024.) (VEERESH KUMAR C.K.) XXXVIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU KABC030449512023 Judgment CC No.25415/2023
-: 10:-
ANNEXURE
1. List of Witnesses examined for Complainant: PW.1: Sri.Dharshan Kumar.
2. List of Witnesses examined for Defence:
-Nil-
3. List of Documents marked for Complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque. Ex.P.2 : Bank Endorsement. Ex.P.3 : Copy of Legal notice. Ex.P.4 : Returned Postal cover Ex.P.5 : Bank Statement. Ex.P.6 to P.10 : Five Invoices Ex.P.11 to P.15 : E-way bill Ex.P.16 : Partnership deed. Ex.P.17 : Authorization letter.
4. List of Documents marked for Defence:
- Nil -
(VEERESH KUMAR C.K.) XXXVIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU