Bangalore District Court
Santhosha M S vs Manjunath R on 6 May, 2025
KABC0C0196662021
IN THE COURT OF XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (ACJM-34)
PRESENT: Smt.PARVEEN A BANKAPUR,B.Com.LLB.
XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
Dated : This the 6th day of May, 2025.
C.C.No.56109/2021
COMPLAINANT : Mr. Santhosha M S
Aged about 42 years
S/o. Shivalingaiah T.
R/at No.10/2, 1st Floor, Ramesh
Layout, Raju Colony, Nanjappa
Complex, Yamaluru, Bengaluru
South,
Bengaluru - 560 037.
(By Mr.K.B. Satish - Advocate)
V/s
ACCUSED : Mr. Manjunath R
S/o. B. Ramappa,
R/at Sri Parameshwari Krupa,
No.1020, 3rd Cross, 7th Main, 3rd
Cross, 7th Main Srinivasa Nagar,
Banashankari 1 Stage, Ward
No.163, Kattariguppe,
Bengaluru - 50.
And also working at:
Grade D-8, Dept & PB
No.1329/72574-43, Droop Tank,
Aircraft Division, HAL (BC)
Vimanapura Post,
Bengaluru - 17.
(By Mr.A.N. Krishna - Advocate)
1 Date of Commencement 16.07.2021
of offence
2 Date of report of offence 28.10.2022
3 Presence of accused
3a. Before the Court 14.02.2023
3b. Released on bail 14.02.2023
4 Name of the Complainant Mr. Santhosh M.S.
2
C.C.No.56109/2022
5 Date of recording of 22.10.2021
evidence
6 Date of closure of evidence 24.09.2024
7 Offences alleged U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act
8 Opinion of Judge Accused is found guilty
JUDGEMENT
The Private Complaint filed by the Complainant under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused alleging that he has
committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submits that, he and the Accused are
colleagues, working in HAL, Bengaluru and well known to each
other from past several years. During the 3 rd week of November
2016 the Accused had obtained the handloan of Rs.4 lakhs from
him to meet his urgent family legal needs and also to clear this
financial problem, with an assurance to repay the same within the
period of 3 years. After completion of 3 years when he started
demanding the Accused for repayment of the said handloan, at
that time the Accused had postponed the same due to Covid-19
pandemic and lockdown and thereafter the Accused had drag on
the same by explaining his financial problems, Finally, in the last
3
C.C.No.56109/2022week of June, 2021 when he demanded the Accused repayment of
the said handloan, by that time, towards discharge of his liability,
the Accused has issued a Cheque bearing No.218405
dtd.16.7.2021 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Air
Craft Factory, HAL Complex, Vimanapura Post, Bengaluru and
assured that the same would be honoured on its presentation.
It is further submitted that as per the instruction of the
Accused, he presented the Cheque for encashment through his
banker i.e., State Bank of India, Aircraft Factory, HAL Complex
PO, Vimanapura branch, Bengaluru and the said Cheque was
returned dishonoured with reason “funds insufficient” on
16.7.2021. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued demand notice
on 27.7.2021, through his counsel to both the addresses of the
Accused. The said notice was duly served to the Accused. Instead
of paying the Cheque amount the Accused has sent his untenable
reply to the Complainant on 9.8.2021. Hence, the Complainant
has filed the present complaint against the Accused for the offence
punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit,
and documents etc., took cognizance of an offence punishable
4
C.C.No.56109/2022
Under Section 138 of N.I. Act by following the guidelines of Apex
Court issued in Indian Bank Association case and ordered to be
registered a criminal case against the accused for the offence
punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
4. After issuance of summons, accused appeared before the
court and enlarged himself on bail. Plea was recorded, read over
and explained to the accused, who pleads not guilty and claims to
be tried. Hence, the case is posted for complainant’s evidence.
5. The Complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and got
marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.
6. Accused was examined U/S 313 of Cr.P.C.
Incriminating evidence appearing in the complainant’s evidence
was read over and explained to the accused who denies the same.
The Accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to
4 documents were marked from his end and closed his side.
7. Heard both counsels at length in great detail. In
addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for
Complainant has filed the written arguments.
5
C.C.No.56109/2022
The learned Counsel for Accused has placed the following
citations;
1. 2022 ACD 79 (KAR)
2021 (4) KAR 701
2. 2024 (4) AKR 541
3. 2022 ACD 84 (KAR)
2022 (1) AKR 678
4. 2022 (3) AKR 655
5. 2021 ACD 567
6. 2023 ACD 542
7. (2019) 5 SCC 418
8 Cri.Apl.No.1584/2019
9. Cri.Ap.No.814/2018
10.2024 (1) AKR 649
11 Cri.Apl.No.7618/2023
8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the
materials placed on record, the following points arise for my
consideration.
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all
reasonable doubts that accused in discharge of
legally recoverable debt, has issued a Cheque
No.218405 dtd.16.7.2021 for Rs.4,00,000/-
drawn on State Bank of India, Air Craft Factory,
HAL Complex, Vimanapura Post, Bengaluru in
favour of the complainant which came to be
dishonoured with an endorsement “funds
insufficient” and in spite of receipt of notice
accused has not paid the Cheque amount and
6
C.C.No.56109/2022
thereby committed an offence under Section 138
of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
9. My findings on the above points is:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
Point No.1:-
10. Existence of legally recoverable debt is a sine qua non for
prosecuting the case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act. For convenient purpose the essential ingredients to constitute
offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is summarized as below:
(i) That there must be a legally enforceable debt.
(ii) That the cheque was drawn from the account of bank
for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other
liability which presupposes the legally enforceable
debt.
(iii)That the cheque so issued had been returned due to
“insufficient funds”.
11. It is the core contention of the complainant that, he
and the Accused are colleagues, working in HAL, Bengaluru and
well known to each other from past several years. During the 3 rd
week of November 2016 the Accused had obtained the handloan of
Rs.4 lakhs from him to meet his urgent family legal needs and also
7
C.C.No.56109/2022
to clear this financial problem, with an assurance to repay the
same within the period of 3 years. After completion of 3 years
when he started demanding the Accused for repayment of the said
handloan, at that time the Accused had postponed the same due
to Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown and thereafter the Accused
had drag on the same by explaining his financial problems,
Finally, in the last week of June, 2021 when he demanded the
Accused repayment of the said handloan, by that time, towards
discharge of his liability, the Accused has issued a Cheque bearing
No.218405 dtd.16.7.2021 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on State Bank
of India, Air Craft Factory, HAL Complex, Vimanapura Post,
Bengaluru and assured that the same would be honoured on its
presentation, which was returned dishonoured with reason “funds
insufficient” on 16.7.2021. Thereafter, the Complainant got
issued demand notice on 27.7.2021, through his counsel to both
the addresses of the Accused. The said notice was duly served to
the Accused. Instead of paying the Cheque amount, the Accused
has sent his untenable reply to the Complainant on 9.8.2021.
Hence, the Complainant has filed the present complaint against
the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
8
C.C.No.56109/2022
12. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,
complainant has examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the
contents of complaint in his examination-in-chief. He has also
placed the original Cheque bearing No.218405 dtd.16.7.2021 at
Ex.P.1, bank endorsement at Ex.P2, Ex.P3 is the Bank chalan,
Ex.P4 is the office copy of legal notice issued by the Complainant
to the Accused dtd.27.7.2021, Ex.P5 and 6 are the postal receipts,
Ex.P7 and 8 are the postal acknowledgements and Ex.P9 is the
reply notice.
13. The documents produced by the complainant of course
established that complainant meets out the procedural
requirements of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but it is
to be considered whether all these documents establish the offence
committed by the accused.
14. The Negotiable Instruments Act raises two
presumptions. One contained in Section 118 and the other in Sec.
139 thereof. For the sake of convenience Sec 118(1) of the N.I. Act
is extracted here below:
118. Presumptions as to negotiable Instruments–
Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions
shall be made ;–
9
C.C.No.56109/2022
(a) of consideration that every negotiable
instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and
that every such instrument, when it has been accepted,
indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted,
indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
1. To (g) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Provided that where the instrument has been
obtained from its lawful owner, or from an person in
lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence of fraud, or
has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by
means of an offence of fraud, or for unlawful
consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a
holder in due course lies upon him”.
15. Further Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
reads as under:
“139, Presumption in favour of holder. It shall be
presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of
a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in
section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any
debt or other liability.”
Scope and ambit and function of the presumption
U/s 118(a) and Sec 139 of NI Act came to be considered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court of Indian in Krishna
Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde (2008 AIAR
(Criminal 151) The Supreme Court has laid down the law
in the following phraseology.
10
C.C.No.56109/2022
“D Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Secs 139, 138
–Presumption under-same arises in regard to second
aspect of the matter provided under Sec 138–Existence of
legally enforceable debt is not a matter of presumption
under Sec 139- It merely raises presumption in favour of
a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for
discharge of any debt or other liability – Merely an
application of presumption contemplated under Section
139 of N.I.Act should not lead to injustice or mistaken
conviction.”
16. Further, said decision was followed by Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Kempanarasimhaiah Vs P.Rangaraju &
Others (2008 (5) KCCR 3371). Relevant paragraph of the said
judgment reads as under: –
“12. As to the provisions of Sections 138 of N.I.Act, the
following principles emerge from the above observations of
Hon’ble Supreme Court at para Nos 21, 23, 25, 26 and 34
of its Judgment in the above said case of Krishna
Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde, AIR 2008 SC
1325.
(i) Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption that
the cheque was issued towards discharge in whole or in
part in any debt or other liability, which presupposed
legally enforceable debt. Existence of legally recoverable
debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of
the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a
holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for
discharge of any debt or other liability.” (para 21)
11
C.C.No.56109/2022
(ii) The question as to whether the presumption stood
rebutted or not, must be determined keeping in view the
other evidences on record. Where the chances of false
implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and
the conduct of the parties together with their legal
requirements are required to be taken into consideration.
(para 26)
(iii) An accused, for discharging the burden of proof placed
upon him under a statute, need not examine himself. He
may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials
already brought on records (para 23)
(iv) Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of
the prosecution in a criminal case is different. Further
more where as prosecution must prove the guilt of an
accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of
proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is
“preponderance of probabilities'” ( para 23 & 25)
(v) Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn
not only from the materials brought on records by the
parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon
which he relies ( para 25)
(vi) Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely
presumption of innocence as human rights and the
doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139
should be deliberately balanced (para 34)
17. Thus from the observations extracted above, it is clear
that presumption Under Section 139 of the N.I,.Act is only to the
extent that the cheque was drawn for discharge in full or in part of
any debt or other liability and the said presumption do not relate
to the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore,
before drawing the presumption under section 139 of the N.I.Act, it
is the duty of the Court to see whether or not the complainant has
12
C.C.No.56109/2022
discharged his initial burden as to existence of legally enforceable
debt. No doubt, as per Section 118(a) of the Act, there is a
rebuttable presumption that every negotiable instrument, is
accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted,
endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.”
18. Factual matrix of the case is required to be tested on the
anvil of principles emerging from the above-referred decisions.
19. The defence taken by the Accused is that, he never
borrowed any amount from the Complainant as alleged in the
complaint and taking advantage of old cheque, which was secured
by the Complainant for the purpose of showing the same to the
financier to avail personal loan, has misused and presented the
alleged time barred cheque and filed false complaint against him.
20. In order to substantiate his claim, the Complainant
examined himself as PW1 and he deposed that, during the third
week of November 2016 Accused obtained handloan of Rs.4 lakhs
from him for the purpose of his urgent family legal needs and also
to clear his financial problem with assurance that, he will repay
the same within 3 years. It is further submitted that, after
completion of 3 years, when the Complainant demanding
13
C.C.No.56109/2022
repayment of the said loan amount, the Accused had postponed
the same by showing his financial problems and also due to Covid
-19 pandemic and lockdown. It is further deposed that, finally in
the last week of June, 2021 the Accused has issued Ex.P1 cheque
towards discharge of his liability with assurance that, the cheque
will be honoured on its presentation. It is further deposed that, the
said cheque was dishonoured with reason “funds insufficient” as
per Ex.P2. It is further deposed that, thereafter, the Complainant
got issued legal notice to the Accused, calling him to pay the
cheque amount as per Ex.P4, which was duly served upon the
Accused on both addresses as per Ex.P7 and 8. It is further
deposed that, the Accused denying the contents of the notice and
issued reply notice as per Ex.P9. It is further deposed that, after
receipt of notice, Accused has not paid the cheque amount.
21. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed
by the Complainant, prima facie presumed that, Ex.P1 cheque was
issued by the Accused towards legally enforceable debt and
liability. To rebut the presumption the learned counsel for Accused
cross-examined the PW1 in full length. In the cross-examination it
is admitted that he is HAL employee and at the time of joining the
HAL, his salary was Rs.6,500/- and now his salary is
14
C.C.No.56109/2022
Rs.95,000/-. It is further deposed that, apart from salary income,
he had other source of income. He further stated that he got
Rs.40,000/- rent amount. It is admitted by the PW1 that, Accused
and himself are working in the same division. In the cross-
examination PW1 stated that on 24.11.2016 Accused approached
him for loan of Rs.4 lakhs and on 28.11.2016 he paid Rs.4 lakhs
to the Accused. He further stated that he lent the amount in his
house at Rameshnagar in the evening time. He further stated that
on the day of lending the loan, no documents were executed. He
further stated that in the year 2016 he constructed house from
availing the loan from the bank. He denied that in the year 2016
he not have financial capacity to lend Rs.4 lakhs amount to the
Accused. He further denied that for availing the loan, for the
purpose of house construction he obtained one cheque from the
Accused. Further he denied that, the said cheque was taken from
the Accused in the year 2016. In the cross-examination he stated
that he received the cheque from the Accused on 16.7.2021. He
denied that, the cheque issued by the Accused in the year 2016
was misused by him.
22. To rebut the presumption, the Accused examined
himself as DW1. He deposed that, the Complainant and Accused
15
C.C.No.56109/2022
are known to each other personally since from 2010 ad both are
working at HAL. He further deposed that he never made any
monetary transaction with the Complainant and never borrowed
Rs.4 lakhs from the Complainant in the year 2016. He further
deposed that he never issued Ex.P1 cheque towards discharge of
any legal debt or liability. It is further deposed that, Ex.P1 cheque
is very old cheque which is secured by the Complainant during the
course of friendship for the purpose of showing the same to the
financier to avail personal loan in the year 2016 of the
construction of his house. It is further deposed that, the
Complainant had no financial capacity to lend Rs.4 lakhs amount
to the Accused. It is further deposed that, except the salary income
the Complainant has no other source of income. It is further
deposed that, the Complainant intentionally not disclosed the
date of lending the amount of Rs.4 lakhs either in the legal notice
nor in the complaint and sworn statement. It is further deposed
that, in the 3rd week of November 2016 he had no any financial
commitment as alleged in the complaint. It is further deposed that,
there is a bar under income tax act to lend an amount of Rs.4
lakhs as a handloan by way of cash. It is further deposed that, the
Complainant has not taken permission from higher officer to lend
16
C.C.No.56109/2022
the loan. It is further deposed that, he never issued Ex.P1 cheque
to the Complainant towards discharge of legal debt or liability and
the said cheque was time barred cheque. It is further deposed
that, the Complainant was misused his goodness and presented
the old cheque issued by him in the year 2016 and filed false
complaint against him.
23. In the cross-examination he admits that, the
Complainant known to him since from 2010. He admits that Ex.P1
cheque belongs to him. He also admits his signature on Ex.P1
cheque. He stated that Ex.P1 cheque was issued to the
Complainant at the time of construction of house for the purpose
of availing the loan by the Complainant and for the the security
purpose he issued the cheque to the Complainant. He further
stated that, he has not took any documents from Complainant to
show that Ex.P1 cheque was issued by him for the security
purpose. He denied that, he availed loan of Rs.4 lakhs from the
Complainant. He further denied on 16.7.2021 he issued the
cheques to the Complainant. He admits that all the mobile
numbers of the customer are linked with account number. He
further stated that, notice issued by the Complainant was received
by him. He further stated that, he answered the notice by giving
17
C.C.No.56109/2022
reply notice to him. He further denied that towards discharge of
loan amount, he issued cheque to the Complainant.
24. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed
by both parties, it clear that, Ex.P1 cheque was issued by the
Accused and also Accused admitted his signature on the cheque.
Further it is clear that the Complainant and Accused were known
to each other and they are working in HAL in the same division.
The defence taken by the Accused is that, the Complainant not
having financial capacity to lend huge amount of Rs.4 lakhs and
further defence taken that the cheque amount is time barred debt
and also taken defence that the cheque was issued to the
Complainant in the year 2016 for the purpose of security to avail
the loan for construction of building of the Complainant.
25. With respect of financial capacity it is admitted that,
both are employees of HAL. It is pertaining to note that the
Complainant stated in his cross-examination that he getting
monthly salary of Rs.95,000/- as on the date. Further as per the
complaint loan was availed in the year 2016. Further it is stated
by the Complainant that in the year 2016 he availed loan from the
bank for construction of his house. Out of loan amount he lent
Rs.4 lakhs to the Accused for his urgent needs. The defence taken
18
C.C.No.56109/2022
by the Accused that he was issued cheque for the purpose of
availing the loan by the Complainant from the financier.
Admittedly, loan was availed by the Complainant from HDFC
Bank. Admittedly, the Accused is not surety tot he said loan
amount. Then why the Complainant took the cheque of Accused
for the security purpose. Therefore, the contention taken by the
Accused that, the Complainant has no financial capacity and
cheque was issued for the purpose of availing the loan is not
sustainable.
26. The learned counsel for Accused relied on 2022 ACD 29
(KAR) in the case of Nagappa Ponnappa Lamani V/s. Durgappa where
the Hon’ble High Court held that;
“Complainant working as a school teacher advanced
loan to Accused. He availed loan from the bank on interest.
However, advanced handloan to Accused for one and half
year without any interest. Complainant did not obtained any
permission from higher authorities to advance loan to third
person. No document produced to disclose his income for
advancing loan without interest. It thus, creating doubt
regarding his conduct. Complainant neither prove his
financial capacity to advance loan nor establish that, cheque
was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt.”
19
C.C.No.56109/2022
Further, relied on 2022 ACD 84 (KAR) in the case of Sameer
Rafiq Mulla V/s. Asif Abdul Hameed wherein the Hon’ble High Court
held that
“The Cheque issued by the Accused for repayment of
alleged loan got dishonoured – In complaint nowhere it is
asserted when loan is advanced and what is the loan
amount, no date of advancement of loan mentioned – At time
the examination-in-chief, the Complainant for the first time,
asserted amount of loan – Financial capacity of
Complainant to advance loan, itself doubtful – Accused
rebutted presumption by cross-examination Complainant
exposing financial status of Complainant to advance huge
loan – Considering oral and documentary evidence on record,
it is established that cheque not issued towards legally
enforceable debt.”
27. It is pertaining to note that in the present case Complainant
and Accused are employees of HAL and already it is above discussed
that, from the availing loan, the Complainant has lent amount to the
Accused and also he got Rs.95,000/- per month salary. Therefore, the
Complainant have financial capacity at the time of lending the amount.
Hence, above decisions are not applicable to this case.
28. Further, the Accused taken contention that, Cheque is issued
in the year 2016 and the cheque amount is time barred debt and it is
not legally enforceable debt. It is pertaining note that admittedly the
loan was given by the Complainant in the year 2016 and Accused
20
C.C.No.56109/2022
assured that, the said loan will be repaid by him within 3 years. It is
further submits hat after 3 years there is a Covid 19 pandemic and
lockdown. Therefore, the Accused postponed for repayment of loan by
explaining his financial problems and issued cheque in the year 2021.
Since about 2 years there is a Covid pandemic and as per the Suo-motto
Writ Petition of Hon’ble Apex Court the limitation is extended. Therefore
the time barred debt is not applicable to the present case. Hence, the
contention of the time barred debt also not applicable to this case.
29. Considering the oral and documentary evidence of both sides
and argument canvassed by both sides, the further defence taken by the
Accused that, the cheque was issued for the purpose of security in the
year 2016 to the Complainant. Admittedly, the Accused has not denied
issuance of cheque and also not denied his signature. Therefore, it is
useful to refer the ratio laid down in 2014 (9) SCC 129 in the case
of Dashrath Rathod V/s. State of Maharashtra and also 2019
(4) SCC 197 in the case of Bir Singh V/s. Mukesh Kumar, it is
held that;
“A blank undated Cheque i.e., voluntarily issued by
the Accused, would not invalidate the Cheque but, would
be subject to evidence adduced by the Accused. In the
present case, the defence would also not be available to
the Accused as the Accused as per its own submission
during the course of cross-examination he stated that,
21
C.C.No.56109/2022the Cheque was handed over to the Complainant
company by him towards security purpose.”
Further, in 2021 SCC Online SC 1002 in the case of
Sripathi Singh V/s. State of Jharkhand, it is held that;
“Merely issuing of Cheque towards security
purpose would not absolve the Accused of the liability
as the same would render the Cheque as nothing more
than an on demand promissory Note. Thus the position
of law on aspect of Cheques issued towards security is
un-ambigious and the said defence also fails to
safeguard the malafide intention of the Accused.”
30. Therefore, considering the entire oral and documentary
evidence placed by both parties the Accused has failed to rebut the
presumption. Therefore, the Ex.P1 cheque was issued by the
Accused towards legally enforceable debt in favour of
Complainant.
31. As discussed above, it has to be presumed that the
cheque in question was issued by the accused to discharge the
legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused can place rebuttal
evidence so as to show that the cheque was not issued for
consideration. As appreciated supra, accused has failed to put
acceptable and satisfactory evidence to probabilise the defence.
22
C.C.No.56109/2022
Therefore, there is no question of saying that the cheque was not
issued for liability.
32. So, far as sentence and compensation is concern, an
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, is a civil wrong
and compensatory in nature, punitive is secondary, considering,
the above settled principle of law with facts and circumstances of
the case, which clearly reveals that, the Accused is liable to pay
loan amount to the Complainant and towards repayment of said
loan amount, the cheque in question was issued by the accused to
the complainant. Therefore, considering the nature of transaction,
duration of pendency, litigation expenses, I am opinion that, if
sentence of fine of Rs.4,84,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and
Eighty-four Thousand only) is imposed that would meet the ends
of justice, accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.4,84,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Eighty-four
Thousand only), out of that, the complainant is entitled for sum of
Rs.4,79,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Seventy-nine Thousand
only) as a compensation as per Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C., remaining
amount of Rs.5,000/-, is to be appropriated to the State, in case
of default the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
23
C.C.No.56109/2022
period of 3 months. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered in
Affirmative.
33. POINT No.2: In view of discussion held in Point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is
convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 138
of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.4,84,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Eighty-four
Thousand only) i in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for 3 months. Further, it is made clear
that out of fine amount, Rs.4,79,000/- (Rupees Four
Lakhs and Seventy-nine Thousand only) is to be paid
to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/- is
ordered to be remitted to the State.
Bail bond stands cancelled.
Supply the free copy of this judgement to the
Accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and
then pronounced in the open court on this 6th May, 2025)(PARVEEN A BANKAPUR)
XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 Mr. Santhosh M.S. 24 C.C.No.56109/2022
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque Ex.P.2 Bank endorsement Ex.P.3 Bank challan Ex.P.4 Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.5 & 6 Postal receipts Ex.P.7 & 8 Postal acknowledgements Ex.P.9 Reply notice
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 Mr. Manjunath R.
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused: NIL
Ex.D.1 Copy of reply notice
Ex.D.2 Postal receipt
Ex.D.3 Postal acknowledgement
Ex.D.4 Notice sent by Complainant(PARVEEN A BANKAPUR)
XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.
[ad_1]
Source link