Bangalore District Court
Ramani Guna vs M/S Reddys Chits Pvt. Ltd on 2 December, 2024
1
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
KABC010057772024
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70)
Present: Smt. Shirin Javeed Ansari, B.A.,LL.B (Hon's) LL.M.,
LXIX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 2nd day of December , 2024
Crl.A.No.383/2024
Appellant : Smt. Ramani Guna
W/o Gunashekar K,
Aged about 50 years,
No.3/1, Chandra Bhavan,
Chikkaadugodi,
Bengaluru 560029.
(By Sri.Mohan S Reddy, Advocate)
-V/s-
Respondent : M/s Reddys Chits Private Ltd.,
Office at No.19, 2nd floor,
BKM Plaza,
5th B Main Road,
Tata Silk Farm,
KR Road, Bengaluru - 560070,
Rep By Its Manager,
Mr. V Rajeev Reddy,
S/o Late G. Venkararama Reddy,
46 Years.
(By Sri.C.N.Raghavendra., Advocate)
2
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the
appellant/accused, assailing the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 02/02/2024 passed by the
Hon’ble XXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”),
in C.C. No. 26909/2023. The trial court convicted the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter
referred to as “the NI Act“), sentencing her to pay a fine
of Rs.11,25,000/-,(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty Five
Thousand only) out of which Rs.11,20,000/-(Rupees
Eleven Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) was directed to
be paid to the complainant by way of compensation,
with a default sentence of six months simple
imprisonment.
2. The accused in CC No 26909/2023 before the trial
court having preferred the instant appeal against the
3
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
complainant as appellant and the respondent are
hereby assigned with their original ranks before the
trial court that is the appellant as accused and the
respondent as complainant in CC No. 26909/2023 in
the instant discussion for the purpose of brevity and
convenience to avoid con-foundation and perplexity.
3. The epitomized facts of the complainant`s case
in CC No. 26909/2023 before the trial court run thus;
3(a). The respondent/complainant, M/s Reddys Chits
Private Ltd., filed a complaint under Section 200 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) alleging that the
accused issued a cheque bearing No. 287217 dated
28/08/2023 for Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs
only) drawn on Federal Bank, Tavarekere Branch,
Bengaluru, towards discharge of a legally enforceable
liability. The said cheque was dishonored due to
“Insufficient Funds” as per the bank endorsement dated
29/08/2023. A statutory legal notice was issued to the
accused on 30/08/2023, calling upon her to pay the
4
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
cheque amount within 15 days. Despite service of
notice, the accused neither replied nor paid the cheque
amount. Hence, the complaint was filed.
3(b). The complainant contended that the accused
had entered into a compromise under a joint memo in
previous proceedings, agreeing to pay a total sum of
Rs.18,00,000/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only), out of
which the cheque in question was issued towards part
payment.
3(c). The trial court registered the case and, after
recording the sworn statement of the complainant and
verifying the documents, took cognizance of the offence.
The accused entered appearance, pleaded not guilty,
and claimed to be tried.
3(d). The cheque in question was issued as a security
cheque during the chit transaction and not towards
discharge of any legally enforceable liability. The
amount due under the joint memo had been fully paid,
5
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
and the complainant misused the cheque in question.
The complainant failed to report the alleged issuance of
the cheque to the court when executing the NBW and
FLW. The complainant failed to produce cogent
evidence to substantiate its case.
3(e). The trial court, upon appreciation of evidence
and the principles of law governing Section 138 of the
NI Act, held that the complainant successfully proved:
The accused issued the cheque towards discharge of a
legally enforceable liability. The cheque was dishonored
for want of sufficient funds. The statutory notice was
deemed served as per law.
3(f). The trial court further observed that the accused
failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and
139 of the NI Act. It rejected the defence of the accused
as improbable and unsupported by evidence. 8.
Consequently, the trial court convicted the accused and
passed the sentence mentioned above.
6
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment
passed by the trial court, the appellant being accused
before the trial court has preferred the instant appeal
against the respondent who was the complainant before
the trial court on the following:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
a) That the impugned order of judgment of
conviction & sentence passed by the Trial
Court is against the facts of the case and law.
b) That the respondent has not supported his
case and there is a clear admission by the
respondent/accused that still the earlier
complaints are alive he has not returned the
NBW & FLW issued by the court which was
taken by the complainant and the same is
evident in his cross examination at Para-01
“ನಾವು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಲಯದಿಂದ
NBW and FLW ಪಡೆದು ಜಾರಿ ಮಾಡಲು ಹೋದಾಗ
ಆರೋಪಿ ಸದರಿ ಚೆಕ್ನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎನ್ನು ತ್ತಾರೆ. ಈ ರೀತಿ
NBW and FLW ಪಡೆದು ಜಾರಿ ಮಾಡಲು ನಾನೇ
ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಜುಲೈ 2023 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ
ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ , ಆ ರೀತಿ ನಾನು ಯಾವುದೇ NBW and FLW ಜಾರಿ
7
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENTಮಾಡಲು ಹೋಗಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . ದಿ 19. 08. 2023
ರಂದು ಸಹ ಸದರಿ NBW and FLW ಜಾರಿ ಆಗಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶ ಪುಟದಲ್ಲಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ, ಆರೋಪಿ
ಜಂಟಿ ಮೆಮೋ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಹಣ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡದೇ ಡಿಪಾಲ್ಟ
ಆಗಿದ್ದ ರಿಂದ ನಾವು ಚೆಕ್ನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ನಾವು ಆ ರೀತಿ
ಆರೋಪಿ ಇಂದ ಚೆಕ್ ಪಡೆದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿ
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಿಂದ ಪಡೆದ NBW and FLW ಹಿಂತಿರುಗಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ”
the contradictions, omissions and
improvements clearly disprove the case of the
complainant at one stage he says when he
went to execute NBW & FLW the cheque in
question was issued. He doesn’t remember
the date on which day he went for execution,
Complainant admits that there is no recital in
the order sheet dated19-08-2023 in CC No.
17640/2021 case which is at Exhibit D-01.
still that case is alive. The respondent has
played fraud upon the appellant as well as
the Trial Court.
c) That the appellant had rebutted the
presumptions U/s. 118 & 139 NI Act not only
by examining herself but also through the
cross-examination of the complainant who is
the only complainant witness. To rebut the
legal presumption in question, the accused
8
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENTneed not require direct evidence to disprove
the existence of consideration.
d) Whether Trial Court has right to pass the
judgment and sentence one-sided by
brushing up the valuable and probable
defense of the accused? On page 22 of the
Judgment the learned Magistrate has given a
reasoning stating that “But as per the
complainant version when they went to
execute NBW and FLW, the accused issued a
said cheque in July 2023. As such, on
19/8/23 the same fact should have been
reported to the court. But non-reporting the
same would not render the case of the
complainant untenable, because the chances
of complainant intending to report the same
after realizing the said cheques cannot be
brushed away.”. The trial court had ordered
for re-issuance of NBW & FLW ON 19-08-
2023 and the next date was given as 30-09-
2023 which is evident in the order sheet.
complainant utterly failed to prove that he
either returned the NBW/FLW or reported to
the court he collected the cheque in question
in lieu of his settlement towards Joint Memo
9
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
dated 18-12-2021 on the file of CC No.
17633/2021, C/W 17636/2021 C/W
17637/2021 C/W 17640/2021 C/W
7643/2021. Still CC17640/2021 case is alive
and the complainant can’t conduct parallel
proceedings which is evident in Exhibit D-01.
e) Whether the complaint maintainable in the
present form? The complaint filed was by an
incompetent person without the requisite
averments in the complaint, despite which
the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance
and issued a summons.
f) A bare perusal of the complaint statutory
notice and examination-in-chief discloses V
Rajeev Reddy is the manager of M/s Reddy
Chits Pvt Ltd, but the seal affixed on the
statutory notice indicates he is the Managing
Director. In the sworn statement, he adduces
his evidence in the capacity of a proprietor.
further Exhibit P-01 the letter of
authorization dated 04-01-2020 issued in
terms of the resolution dated 15-05-2018 is
in terms of Claiming said V Rajeev Reddy as
the Managing Director of the complainant’s
10
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
firm. Exhibit P-02 dated 30-12-2019 the
extract of the minutes meeting is produced
and in the said minutes, it indicates the
authorisation is for an indefinite period is
much against the law. Usually, in company
cases, the person connected with the affairs
of the company in the normal run of things
may be either its manager, partner, managing
partner or director, or any other person
authorized by the company, who can
represent it during legal proceedings before
the court, not the Managing Director. It is
important to quote the Judgment reported
and the relevant portion of the judgment in
A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra &
another. (2014) 11 SCC 790 has held that
there is no mention in the complaint or
affidavit as to when and in what manner the
company had authorized its General Manager
(Accounting) to represent the company to file
the complaint. It is further held that there is
no averment in the complaint as to whether
the General Manager (Accounting) had
knowledge about the transaction or he was a
witness to the transaction. It was also held,
11
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
that neither any resolution of the Board of
Directors of the complainant company nor
any authorization of the company in favor of
the person representing it in the complaint
was filed for perusal perusal of the
Magistrate. Only an authorization letter
issued by the Managing Director of the
complainant company in favor of the General
Manager (Accounting) was produced and the
said authorization does not indicate whether
the Board of Directors had authorized the
Managing Director to subdelegate his powers
to General Manager (Accounting) to file the
complaint on behalf of the company.
g) It is humbly submitted that the accused is
not guilty, predominantly on the finding that
there was no averment in the complaint
regarding the proper status of the
complainant and that the Managing Director
was not competent to file and prosecute the
complaint because in the notice he claims
himself as a Manager, in the complaint he
claims as Manager but in his sworn
statement as Proprietor but his company seal
and the alleged letter of authorization
12
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
indicates him as Managing Director, hence
suppression of facts and misleading the court
with various positions is a sheer abuse of law.
Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed. It
is important to mention here that as per the
dictum in Narayanan A.C. (Supra), which was
followed in Shibu.L.P v. Neelakantan (2021),
it had been laid down that there ought to be a
specific assertion in the complaint that the
power of attorney holder has the knowledge of
the cheque, and that otherwise, the power of
attorney holder cannot be examined as a
witness. In the case in hand there is not a
single whisper that the complainant had the
personal knowledge, hence the aforesaid
judgment squarely applies to the case in
hand.
h) When seen in the statutory notice,
complaint, and sworn statement there is no
recital to show that the Manager had personal
knowledge of the alleged transaction or he is
deposing before the Hon’ble court or
whatsoever. Hence the complaint is liable to
be dismissed at the threshold.
i) Whether the learned magistrate is right in
13
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
passing the Judgment without recording 313
statements of the accused, in its true spirit
and perspectives? Plea and 313 statements
cannot be recorded simultaneously.
j) The Trial Court, therefore, ought to have
disbelieved the false story concocted story
created by the Respondent in respect of
collecting the cheque in question while
executing the NBW & FLW in CC No.
17640/2021 case which is at Exhibit D-01. In
reality, no such NBW & FLW were executed
by the court the trial court had not handed
over/issued such warrant either to the police
or to the complainant and even otherwise the
respondent has no locus standi to execute on
his own and also without having any respect
to the Hon’ble court has failed to return it
back and thereby committed disobedience to
the trial court. However, the trial court ought
not to have issued NBW & FLW to the
complainant as such provisions do not prevail
in Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, therefore,
ought to have believed, considered, and taken
into account the said piece of evidence in
favor of the Appellant. Furthermore, the case
14
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
of the appellant is that the cheque in question
was taken as security at the time of joining
the chit.
k) The complainant himself admits the accused
has paid a sum of Rs3,00,000/- towards the
joint memo at the time of the alleged
execution of FLW in CC No. 17640/19 and
the remaining amount stands due. As per the
case of the complainant, the entire amount
due as per the joint memo including interest
is Rs 19,90,500/- which is evident in Para10
of the Affidavit out of which he claims he has
collected a sum of Rs 10,00,000/- from the
accused and another sum of Rs 9,90,500/-
from accused daughter Kumari Harshitha
against her also a separate complaint is filed
in CC No.26906/2023. If that happens to be
true the appellant and her daughter did not
have to issue cheques for Rs 10,00,000/- and
09,90,500/- it is a clear case the complainant
has misused the cheques of the appellant and
daughter which was collected at the time of
the commencement of the chit. There is a
clear falsification of accounts on this score
alone complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is
15
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
needless to submit that when a part or whole
of the sum represented on the cheque is paid
by the drawer of the cheque, it must be
endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in
Section 56 of the Act. The cheque endorsed
with the payment made may be used to
negotiate the balance, if any. If the cheque
that is endorsed is dishonored when it is
sought to be encashed upon maturity, then
the offense under Section 138 will stand
attracted; in this regard, it is worth quoting
the decision on the aforesaid ratio
“Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel versus Hitesh
Mahendrabhai Patel and others Crl. Appeal.
No. 1497/2022″, Citation: 2022 Live Law (SC)
830.
l) The accused has proved she has not issued
the cheque in question and it was the old
cheque that was collected during the
commencement of the chit. The relevant
cross-examination is reproduced for the kind
perusal of this Hon’ble court ” ಎರಡು ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳ
ನಿಪಿ 5 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳು 2016 ಮತ್ತು 2018 ರ ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳು
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ, ಸದರಿ ಚೆಕ್ಗಳಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಸಹಿಗಳು
ಮತ್ತು ಇತರ ಬರವಣಿಗೆಗಳ ಹಸ್ತಾಕ್ಷರಗಳು ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಎಂದರೆ
16
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ .” It is a well-settled principle of law
that, “No Court shall come to the aid of a
party to an illegal transaction”. reliance has
been placed on the case of G.Pankajlakshmi
Amma & Ors. V. Mathai Mathew V (2005) SLT
599. Therefore, it is humbly prayed to allow
the appeal and acquit the accused.
m) The specific legal issue that is required
to be resolved in the present case is “Whether
the cheques in these cases can be said to
have been issued in discharge of a legally
enforceable liability?”, it is worth mentioning
that, the complainant has, and quite cleverly,
drafted the complaint the cheque in question
was issued at the time of execution of FLW
thereby denoting the financial transactions
the parties. The same are euphemisms, an
eye wash to create a fictitious cause of action.
n) The Learned Magistrate erred in law in
recording the finding of guilt against the
Appellant and further erred in law in
sentencing the Appellant for the alleged
offense. The Learned Magistrate ought to
have appreciated, seen, and held that the
Respondent had failed to establish the basic
17
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The Learned Magistrate,
therefore, could not have held the Appellant
guilty of an offense under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
o) The learned Magistrate ought to have
appreciated and seen that in support of his
contention of not furnishing any document in
writing to establish that the accused had
issued the cheque in question at the time of
the alleged execution of NBW & FLW as
contended by him, furthermore the
respondent/complainant has not produced
any record to substantiate the same. The
respondent has miserably failed to produce a
single document to substantiate the aforesaid
contention. Per contra, the respondent has
led his evidence and got marked the order
sheet in CC No. 17640/2021 case which is at
Exhibit D-01 which discloses no such
coercive steps were either issued or executed.
p) The Learned Magistrate has not complied
with the mandatory provisions of Section 313
of CR.P.C. in its true spirit and perspectives.
Since the Appellant was not afforded a just,
18
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
fair, and adequate opportunity to explain the
incriminating circumstances appearing in the
evidence of the Respondent, the Learned
Magistrate could not have utilized the said
pieces of evidence for recording the finding of
guilt against the Appellant.
q) The learned Magistrate has not assigned any
valid reasons or grounds for recording the
finding of guilt against the Appellant. The
learned Magistrate ought to have dismissed
the said complaint and acquitted the
Appellant for the alleged offense. The learned
Magistrate ought to have held that the
Respondent had failed to prove the case
against the Appellant beyond reasonable
doubt.
r) The entire approach adopted by the learned
Magistrate adduced by the in appreciating the
evidence complainant by adopting different
yardsticks is illegal, improper, and contrary to
the well-settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence. The entire evidence of the
accused is brushed away by the learned
Magistrate without appreciating the same in
its true spirit.
19
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
s) Undeniably, as per the settled legal position,
to rebut the statutory presumptions arising in
favor of the complainant under Section 118
read with Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, the accused is not expected
to prove his defense beyond reasonable doubt
as expected of the complainant in a criminal
trial, yet the accused has to raise a probable
defense and prove on record such facts and
circumstances that are sufficient to rebut the
presumptions having arisen in favor of the
complainant in terms of Section 118 read
with Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, the said Judgment and
order are passed which is opposed to law
based on facts and circumstances of the case.
As such the Judgment and order are bad in
law and the same is liable to be set aside. The
appellant submits that the judgment and
order are one-sided and consequently there is
a miscarriage of Justice. Therefore, the
Judgment and order need to be set aside.
t) The appellant submits that the impugned
order passed by the trial court is otherwise
opposed to the law, facts, probabilities, and
20
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
equities of the case.
u) The trial court has erred and committed an
error that has resulted in a grave failure of
justice. There are glaring defects in the
procedures and manifest errors on point of
law which has resulted in miscarriage of
justice.
Hence, the appellant prays to Call for records, to verify
the legality of the Judgment and to set aside the said
Judgment and order dated 02-02-2024 passed by the
learned magistrate of XXVII ACMM, Bengaluru.
5. After registering the case on issuing the notice to
the respondent, the respondent appeared through their
counsel The trial court records were secured. .
6. Heard both the sides both the sides. Perused the
court records, impugned judgment.
7. Out of the above said facts and circumstances of
the case the points that arises for due consideration
are;
1. Whether the judgment of conviction
21
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
and order of sentence passed by the
trial court is sustainable in law?
v) What order?
8. This court upon re-appreciation of available
materials in the file with reference to prevailing law of
land, My finding to the above points are as follows:-
POINT NO.1 :- In the Affirmative
POINT NO.2 :- As per final order,
on the following;
:REASONS:
9. POINT NO.1 :- The learned trial court has
meticulously analyzed the facts and legal issues in the
matter, supported by cogent reasoning and relevant
precedents. This court finds no error in the conclusions
drawn by the trial court.
10. The complainant has established compliance
with all procedural mandates of Section 138 of the Act.
The cheque in question was presented within the
validity period, dishonored due to insufficient funds,
22
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
and followed by a statutory notice served on the
accused. The complaint was filed within the limitation
period. The trial court rightly relied on the principle laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji
v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 6 SCC 555, holding
that once the statutory notice is sent to the correct
address of the drawer, the service is presumed under
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, even if the
notice is unclaimed.
11. Presumption Under Sections 118 and 139 of the
Act. The issuance of the cheque and the signature
thereon are undisputed. The statutory presumption
under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, therefore,
operates in favor of the complainant, as elucidated in
Rangappa v. Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, which held
that these presumptions include the existence of a
legally enforceable debt or liability. The appellant’s
defense, that the cheque was issued as security and
23
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
misused by the complainant, lacks evidentiary support.
The accused failed to produce contemporaneous
records, such as counterfoils of the cheque book or
evidence of alleged security cheques. Furthermore, the
absence of any protest or demand for the return of
purported security cheques weakens the appellant’s
claim.
12. The appellant’s challenge to the authorization of
the complainant’s representative is unsustainable. The
complainant produced sufficient evidence, including the
authorization letter and board resolution, to establish locus
standi. The trial court rightly applied the ratio in A.C.
Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 11 SCC 790,
wherein it was held that mere procedural irregularities do
not vitiate proceedings unless there is a gross miscarriage of
justice.
13. The appellant examined herself as DW1 but failed
to substantiate her defense. The contention that
Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) was paid in cash
24
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
is not supported by any credible evidence, such as receipts
or bank statements. As held by the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in B. Girish v. S. Ramaiah, 2010 (2) KCCR 284,
transactions involving substantial amounts require
corroborative evidence, which the appellant failed to
produce.
14. The trial court complied with the requirements of
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused was afforded an
opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances,
which she failed to rebut convincingly.
15. The trial court has rightly concluded, on the basis
of sound legal principles and factual evidence, that the
accused failed to rebut the presumption of legal liability
under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The reasoning
adopted by the trial court is consistent with the legal
framework and judicial precedents.
16. In view of the above discussions, this Court
finds that the learned Magistrate has rightly arrived at
the conclusion that the appellant has committed the
25
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The findings of
the trial court are based on sound appreciation of
evidence and in accordance with the settled principles
of law. There is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment
warranting interference by this Court. The judgment
and order of conviction passed by the learned XXVII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in
C.C. No. 26909/2023, is sustainable in law. In light of
the foregoing reasons, point No. 1 is answered in the
affirmative,
17. Point No. 2 : In View of the reasons assigned
above and findings arrived at on point No. 1, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal filed by the appellantu/s. 374(3) of Cr.P.C is hereby
dismissed.
The judgment of the trial court passed
in C.C.No.26909/2023 dated:
26
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
02/02/2024 is hereby confir med and
upheld.
The of fice is hereby directed to
forward a copy of this judgment to the
trial court for further needful action.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-1 directly on the computer,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this
the 2nd day of December, 2024)(Shirin Javeed Ansari)
LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
27
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENT
Judgment not ready due to rush of
work. Hence, for judgment by
29/11/2024
LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Judgment not ready due to rush of
work. Hence, for judgment by
02/12/2024
LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Judgment pronounced in the open court
(vide separate Judgment
ORDER
The appeal filed by the
appellant u/s. 374(3) of Cr.P.C is
hereby dismissed.
The judgment of the trial court
passed in C.C.No.26909/2023
dated: 02/02/2024 is hereby
confir med and upheld.
The of fice is hereby directed to
forward a copy of this judgment to
the trial court for further needful
action.
LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge,
28
Crl.Apl.No.383/2024 JUDGMENTBengaluru.
[ad_1]
Source link