Bangalore District Court
Manjunatha R vs Manjunath V on 15 January, 2025
KABC0C0104132019
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU
-: PRESENT:-
P.S. Santhosh Kumar, M.Com., LL.M.,
XXXIII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025.
C.C.NO.52909/2019
COMPLAINANT : Sri. Manjunatha R.,
S/o Ramanjinappa,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.119,
1st Cross, 3rd Main,
Medahalli,
Near Rama Temple,
Bangalore-560049.
Ph:9845003535.
Vs.
ACCUSED : Sri. Manjunath V.
S/o M. Veerabhadrappa,
Aged about 45 years,
No.94/77,
1st Main,
Garudhachar Palya,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore-560048.
Ph: 8618181920.
2
C.C.No.52909/2019
J U D G E M E N T
The complainant has filed this private complaint
U/s.200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence
punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:-
The accused had agreed to sell land bearing
Survey No.42 of Kodigehalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East, measuring 1 acre 33 guntas belongs to
his mother and sisters and accordingly, received a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cash from the
complainant on 20.03.2013. Since there were
litigations pending in respect of the said property
were not settled till date, the accused decided to close
the issue by repaying the above said amount along
with interest to the complainant. As such, towards
repayment of the said amount and towards proper and
valid consideration, the accused issued 2 cheques
bearing No.202382 and 202330 dated 25.05.2018 for
Rs.5,00,000/- each and they were drawn on ICICI
Bank, ITPL branch, Bangalore. The complainant
3C.C.No.52909/2019
presented the said cheques for encashment on
17.07.2018 for encashment through his banker Andhra
Bank, Medahalli branch, Bangalore-49, and it came to
be dishonored for the reason “Funds Insufficient” on
19.07.2017. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal
notice dated 14.08.2018 to the accused calling upon
the accused to pay the cheques amount. But, inspite
of service of said notice the accused failed to pay the
cheques amount. Hence, the accused has committed
the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement
affidavit, the documents etc., the court took
cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec.138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act by following the
guidelines of Apex Court issued in Indian Bank
Association case and ordered to register a criminal
case against the accused for the offence punishable
U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
4
C.C.No.52909/2019
4. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared
through his counsel, he was enlarged on court bail,
further, substance of plea was recorded, the accused
pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried. In
order to prove his case, the complainant got examined
himself as PW1 and one witness as PW2 and got
marked Ex.P1 to P10. Upon closure of complainant’s
side evidence, the court examined the accused U/s
313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating
materials appearing against him and the accused got
examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.D1 to 3.
5. The complainant and accused have filed their
written arguments. The counsel for the accused has
relied upon the following decisions the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts:-
1. AIR 1975 Madras 333, between N. Ethirajulu
Naidu Vs. K.R. Chinnikrishnan Chettiar of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
2. 1997 2 Crimes (HC) 658, between Giridhari Lal
Rathi Vs. P.T.V. Ranianujachari & another of the
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
5
C.C.No.52909/2019
3. 2001 Cr.L.J.24, between Sasseriyil Joseph Vs.
Devassia of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.
4. (2002) 2 SCC 642, between A.V.Murthy Vs.
B.S.Nagabasavanna of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India.
5. 2004 Crl.L.J. 4019, between M/s Krishnam Raju
Finance, Hyderabad Vs. Abida Sultana and
another of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh.
6. 2006 Cr.L.J. 3111, between Narendra V. Kanekar
Vs. The Bardez- Taluka Co-op. Housing
Mortgage Society Ltd., and Another of the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
7. (2008) 4 SCC 54, between Krishna Janardhan Bhat
Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India.
8. 2009 SCC Online Del 3368, Prajan Kumar Jain Vs.
Ravi Malhotra of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
9. 2009[0] Supreme (Del) 501, between Vijay
Polymers Pvt. Ltd., vs. Vinnay Aggarwal of
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
10. (2010) 11 SCC 441, between Rangappa Vs. Sri.
Mohan of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
11. 2014 AIR SCW 2158, between Jhon K. Abraham
Vs. Simon C. Abraham and Another of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
12. 2015 AIR SCW 64, between K.Subramani Vs. K.
Damodara Naidu of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India.
6
C.C.No.52909/2019
13. 2014 AIR SCW 2158, between Jhon K. Abraham
Vs. Simon C. Abraham and Another of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. (11)
14. Crl.A.No.200057/2016, dated 17.12.2020 between
The Bidar Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs.
Mr. Girish of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka. {[2019] 5 SCC 418}
15. 2008 SCC Online Bom 1590, between Chander
Mohan Mehta vs. William Rosario Fern Andes &
Anr of Hon’ble High Court Bombay
16. Crl.A.No.473/2019[A], dated 10.02.2021 between
The Bidar Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs.
Mr. Girish of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka
17. ILR 2008 KAR 4629, between Shiv Murthy Vs.
Amruthraj of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka.
I have gone through the written arguments and other
materials available on record.
6. The following points would arise for my
consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond
all reasonable doubts that the accused
has committed an o/p/u/s 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act?
7
C.C.No.52909/2019
2. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1: In the Affirmative,
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following,
R E A S O N S
8. POINT No.1: I have gone through the materials
available on record. The learned counsel for the
complainant has argued reiterating complaint
allegations in his written arguments. The counsel for
the complainant has argued that the accused had
agreed to sell the land bearing Sy.No.42 of
Kodigehalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East
Taluk, measuring 1 acre 33 guntas belong to his
mother and sisters and accordingly, he received a sum
of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cash on 20.03.2013 vide
cash receipt dated 20.03.2013 and since there were
litigations pending in respect of the above mentioned
property, the same were not settled till date and
8
C.C.No.52909/2019
accused decided to close the issue by repaying the
aforesaid amount along with interest to the
complainant and hence, the accused issued the
cheques in question in favour of complainant and it
came to be dishonored for the “Funds Insufficient” and
inspite of intimating the said fact through legal notice
dated 14.08.2018, he did not pay the cheques amount
and hence, the accused is liable to be convicted for
the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
9. Ex.P1 and 2 are the cheques bearing No.202328
and 202330 dated 25.05.2018 drawn on ICICI Bank,
ITPL Branch, Bangalore, for Rs.5,00,000/- each. Ex.P3
and 4 are the return memos dated 17.07.2018 said to
have been issued by the complainant’s banker which
goes to show that the cheques in question were
dishonored for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. Ex.P5
is the copy of the legal notice dated 14.08.2019 said
to have been sent by the complainant to the accused
intimating the fact of dishonour of the cheque to the
9
C.C.No.52909/2019
accused and demanding payment of cheques amount.
Ex.P6 is the postal receipt and Ex.P7 is the postal
acknowledgment which goes to show that the
statutory notice sent to the accused was duly served.
Ex.P8 is the cash receipt dated 20.03.2013 said to
have been executed by the accused for having
received Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant and one
Jayanth Enterprises on behalf of Mrs Jayamma,
Mrs.Nagamma, Mrs. Gudamma, Mrs Gowramma as an
advance amount for the property bearing Sy.No.42 of
Kodigehalli measuring 1 acre 33 guntas. Ex.P9 is the
statement said to have been given by the accused to
the police in connection with the complaint filed by
the complainant as per Ex.P10 police
acknowledgment.
10. It is relevant to mention here that the accused has
taken a defence that he has not been served with
legal notice. During the course of his cross-
examination, he has categorically denied the
suggestion that he has falsely deposed that legal
10
C.C.No.52909/2019
notice has not been served on him though it is served
on him. It is relevant to mention here that Ex.P7
postal acknowledgment clearly goes to show that the
recipient has signed and received the said notice sent
to the accused. The accused though denied the
service, he has not produced any documents contrary
to Ex.P7. Mere denial is not sufficient to believe the
version of the accused that the legal notice has not
been served on him unless it is explained by him who
had signed and received the notice as per Ex.P7 when
he is not disputing the address mentioned therein.
Further he has categorically stated in his chief
examination that he came to know taking of the
cheques in question by the complainant from his car
only after receiving summons from this court. Further
when the summons sent to the very same address of
the accused at Ex.P7 has been served, there is no
reason to believe the version of the accused that he
has not been served with the legal notice sent to the
very same address. Further the accused in his cross-
examination has categorically admitted that his family
11
C.C.No.52909/2019
members have received the legal notice. The accused
has not disputed the that the cheques pertain to his
trust and the signatures appearing on it pertain to
him. Further during his cross-examination, he has
categorically admitted that the handwritings on
cheque in question at Ex.P2 pertains to him. Such
being the case, it is relevant to mention here that
when the accused has admitted that the cheques
pertain to him and signatures on it pertain to him,
the initial presumption as contemplated U/S 139 of
the N.I Act has to be raised by the court in favour of
the complainant, however the accused is entitled to
rebut the said presumptions as held in the case of Sri
Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898.
11. Once the presumption U/S 139 and 118 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act is raised, it is for the
accused to rebut the said presumption by adducing
cogent evidence in support of his defence. It is
relevant to mention here that the accused has taken a
12
C.C.No.52909/2019
specific defence that he is running a Trust by name
Samartha Ashoka Sarvajana Seva Trust and that he
has no financial transaction with the complainant, but
he knows him as he had visited his office along with
their common friend Sri Shivashankar and he used to
keep his documents, cheques pertain to his
organization in his car and he came to know that
complainant might have taken his cheques from my
car without his knowledge only after receipt of
summons from this court and he has not issued the
cheques in question to the complainant at any point
of time for the amount claimed. The complainant has
not disputed the fact that the accused is running the
said Trust and the cheques in question said to have
been issued by the accused pertain to the said Trust.
It is relevant to mention here that till today even
after the accused coming to know about stealing the
cheques in question from his car, the accused has not
taken any legal action against the complainant either
by lodging police complaint or any other legal steps
for the best reasons known to him. Further the
13
C.C.No.52909/2019
accused though received legal notice, has not issued
reply notice to the complainant at the first instance
denying the allegations made in the legal notice and
narrating his specific defence. For the first time the
accused has taken the above defence before this court.
Further as could be seen from the cross-examination
of the PW1, there are some contradictions to his
complaint averments. Further it is also true that the
complainant did not produce any documentary
evidence regarding the source of income for giving
said money and also his financial capacity, but it does
not mean that the defence of the accused can be
easily believed that too when he is a man who is
running a Trust and not a layman. No doubt, during
the cross-examination of the PW1, the accused has
raised a defence that the money as per cash receipt at
Ex.P8 has been received from Jayanth Enterprises and
the complainant and said Jayanth Enterprises has not
caused him any notice for repayment of the money
and the abovesaid Shivashankar was the Proprietor of
Jayanth Enterprises. The accused though made such
14
C.C.No.52909/2019
suggestions, he has not adduced any independent oral
and documentary evidence to show had he repaid the
said money to Jayanth Enterprise, if yes, then how
and when. Unfortunately, the accused though made
such suggestions, failed to furnish such details. Said
Sri.Shivashankar has been examined as PW2 and he
ahs categorically supported the case of the
complainant saying that the complainant had paid the
accused Rs.5,00,000/- in cash to the accused on
20.03.2013 in relation to purchase of the above stated
land in Sy.No.42. It is relevant to mention here that
during the cross-examination of PW2, the learned
counsel for the accused himself has made a suggestion
that he was not at all part of the transaction though
he has taken a defence that PW2 being the proprietor
of M/s Jayanth Enterprises had paid the accused the
money stated in Ex.P8. PW2 has categorically stated
during his cross-examination that he was present
when settlement talks were held between the
complainant and the accused and that the accused
had agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant
15
C.C.No.52909/2019
in the said settlement. Further it is relevant to
mention here that though the accused has taken a
specific defence that he came to know about stealing
the cheques by the complainant from his car, he even
did not make a single suggestion to that effect in the
cross-examination of PW1. On the other hand, he
makes a suggestion during cross-examination of PW1,
he has obtained signed blank cheques by misusing the
friendship with the accused and filed this false case
against him and the same has been categorically
denied by the PW1. If at all the complainant had
really stolen the cheques from his car, the accused
could have made clear and specific suggestion to the
PW1 saying that he had stolen the cheques from his
cars, but the said suggestion is totally contrary to his
own defence. Though the accused has denied that
there was no agreement between him and the
complainant in respect of sale of the property and not
received any amount from him at any point of time,
he has not explained as to how the name of the
complainant finds place in Ex.P8 cash receipt. I have
16
C.C.No.52909/2019
already stated that the accused is not a layman and
such being the case, what necessity the accused had
to sign the Ex.P8 containing the name of the
complainant if he had no such transactions with the
complainant is not forthcoming from the materials on
record. Unfortunately, the accused even failed to
make a single suggestion denying his signature at
Ex.P8a, that too when the complainant has
categorically identified as it belongs to the accused
and the accused even did not explain under what
circumstances, he affixed his signature on Ex.P8, if at
all he had no such property transaction with the
complainant.
12. Further it is relevant to mention here that during
the cross-examination DW1, a document which is said
to be the statement given by the accused before the
police was confronted by the counsel for the
complainant and the accused admitted his signature
appearing on it as belongs to him and hence, the said
document came to be marked as Ex.P9. Further DW1
17
C.C.No.52909/2019
has admitted that Ex.P9 was a clarification given by
him in respect of the complaint lodged by the
complainant and further he has also admitted the a
police acknowledgment confronted to him saying that
that it was an acknowledgment given in respect of the
complaint lodged by the complainant against him and
it also came to be marked as Ex.P10. Further DW1
has categorically admitted that in Ex.P9 he had
admitted to return Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant
on insisting him to pay Rs.30,00,000/- towards the
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- given by him, but he
volunteered that he had borrowed that amount from
one Shivshankar and he has no relation with the
complainant and he has no transaction with the
complainant. Further he has categorically admitted
that in Ex.P9 he has stated that he would give
Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 25.05.2018 as the
complainant had asked him to return the amount
within two months as there was a land dispute was to
be settled. I have gone through the Ex.P9 and 10
carefully. In Ex.P9, the DW1 has categorically
18
C.C.No.52909/2019
admitted the execution of Ex.P8 cash receipt as one
Shivashankar had approached him saying that he
would purchase the above said land bearing Sy.No.42
measuring 1 acre 33 guntas and at that time, the
complainant had also accompanied said Sri
Shivashankar and that the complainant personally
handed over the said money of Rs.5,00,000/- to him
in the name of Jayanth Enterprises. Said Sri
Shivashankar had assured him to purchase the land by
getting the dispute resolved by himself and in that
regard, he had also got him obtained stay order from
the court and he was in his contact for about 2 years
and at that time, he has paid Rs.90,000/- to said
Shivashankar and thereafter, he stopped contact with
the accused and till that day, he could not find him
and thereafter, the complainant asked the accused to
repay the money claiming that he has paid it and
hence, the complainant had lodged a complaint and
forced him to repay Rs.30,00,000/- in place of said
Rs.5,00,000/-, for which he had agreed to return
Rs.10,00,000/- before 25.05.2018 and hence, he is
19
C.C.No.52909/2019
agreeing to repay the said money within 25.05.2018.
It is relevant to mention here that the said Ex.P9 is
dated 29.03.2018 and cheques in question are dated
25.05.2018. It is relevant to mention here that
though earlier during the cross-examination of PW1,
the accused though denied any transaction between
him and the complainant, the recitals of Ex.P9 goes
to show the presence of the complainant and paying
money by him to the accused as claimed. Further the
recitals of Ex.P9 also corroborates with execution of
Ex.P8. If at all really the accused had the said
transaction with only said Shivashankar, what made
him to give clarification as per Ex.P9 agreeing to
repay the money of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant
is not forthcoming from the materials available on
record. If the complainant had forced him to pay the
money to him, the accused, being a prudent man, at
least would have taken appropriate legal action either
against the complainant or the police. Further the
accused though taken a defence that he had kept the
cheques in question along with other documents in his
20
C.C.No.52909/2019
car, he did not furnish documents even to show that
he had owned any car in his name at the relevant
point of time.
13. Further it is relevant to mention here that the
accused has taken another defence that there is no
legally recoverable debt as on the date of issuance of
the cheques in question as the alleged debt is a time
barred debt. It is relevant to mention here that no
doubt, the alleged amount is said to have been given
to the accused on 20.03.2013 and Ex.P8 cash receipt
is also executed on the same day. But, the date of
issuance of cheques in question is dated 25.05.2018.
No doubt, if we take into consideration the said
dates, certainly period between the date of payment
and the cheques in question exceeds 3 years as
contended by the accused. But, in between the said
dates, the accused has given Ex.P9 to the Station
House Officer, K.R.Puram P.S., Bangalore, in respect
of the complaint lodged by the complainant as per
Ex.P10 wherein he has admitted that he had assured
21
C.C.No.52909/2019
the complainant to return Rs.10,00,000/- even much
before the date of the execution of the said statement
i.e. 29.03.2018, but he has not stated the date on
which he gave him such assurance in his statement.
However, in view of categorical admission of the
accused regarding execution of Ex.P9 I would like to
rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka reported in ILR 2022 KAR 1071, between
K.R.Sudhir vs. K.S. Suresh Raju, wherein it is held as
follows;
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 (for
short, ‘N.I. Act‘) – SECTION 138 Subsequent
agreement in respect of a time barred debt
Issuance of cheque in respect of a time barred
debt after executing a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) acknowledging the past
transaction Dishonour of cheques issued under a
fresh Memorandum of Understanding Initiation
of proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
“Time barred debt” and “legally enforceable
debt” Discussed
HELD,
‘Time barred debt’ means a debt which cannot
be recovered by instituting a suit in a Court of
law due to expiry of the prescribed time for
22
C.C.No.52909/2019
filing a suit. That means legal remedy is not
available, but a person entitled to recover
money never loses his right. This is a well
established principle of law. Even to file a suit
to recover a sum of money, the transaction
giving rise to a liability must be legal, else the
suit, even if filed, can be dismissed.
FURTHER HELD,
(a) The question is whether time barred debt
can be brought within the realm of the
expression legally enforceable debt or liability
which finds a place in the explanation part of
Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is pertinent to refer
to Section 25 of the Contract Act and Section
29(1) of the Limitation Act. Section 25 of the
Contract Act states that a contract without
consideration is void, but there are three
exceptions found in Clauses 1 to 3 of the said
section. Section 25(3) is relevant for discussion.
Its requirement is that there must be a promise
made in writing and signed by the person to be
charged therewith (promissor) or his agent
generally or specifically authorized on his behalf
to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the
creditor might have enforced payment, but for
the law of limitation of suits. That means,
Section 25(3) applies to a situation where there
was a past valid contract and if the debt
payable under that contract cannot be recovered
on account of expiry of limitation period to file
a suit, if the debtor or his duly authorized ag
23
C.C.No.52909/2019
ent makes a promise in writing, it constitutes a
lawful contract which can be enforced.
(b) Section 29(1) of the Limitation Act clearly
states that nothing in this Act (Limitation Act)
shall affect Section 25 of the Indian Contract
Act. Thus by virtue of a new contract coming
into force under Section 25, it becomes
enforceable and it has nothing to do with the
past contract which has become unenforceable
due to lapse of time.
(c) The meaning that can be ascribed to the
expression legally enforceable debt or liability
found in explanation to Section 138 of N.I. Act
is a debt or liability arising out of legally
enforceable contract. Even if in respect of a
time barred debt, an agreement comes into
existence subsequently according to Section
25(3) of the Contract Act, it becomes a new
contract which is enforceable. Sections 18 and
19 of the Limitation Act only extend the period
of limitation if there is acknowledgment of debt
before the limitation period expires. Even if
there is no acknowledgment of debt or liability
in terms of Sections 18 or 19 of the Limitation
Act, if a new agreement comes into existence
according to Section 25(3), it is a valid contract
and thus a cheque issued in this connection, if
dishonoured, attracts penal action under Section
138 of N.I. Act.
24
C.C.No.52909/2019
(d) In the present case, the petitioner bought
the property from respondent and others under
a registered sale deed dated 15.12.2011. He
made advance payment of ₹ 40,00,000/- in the
initial stage, and for the balance he issued four
cheques which were not presented to the bank
by the respondent because of a request made by
the petitioner. On 20.12.2016, the petitioner
executed a MoU acknowledging the past
transaction of sale and issued two cheques for
the consideration he was due to pay. The MoU
dated 20.12.2016 is a new contract in writing
that came into existence according to Section
25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. It was in this
connection that the cheques in question were
issued and when they were dishonoured, the
respondent had to initiate action under Section
138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, the cheques were
issued in connection with legally enforceable
debt, and it was not a time barred debt.
In the present case also, the accused has subsequently
executed Ex.P9 acknowledging the past transaction of
payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by the complaint and to pay
Rs.10,00,000/- in place of it and as such, the ratio
laid down in the above said decision of the Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka is aptly applicable to the
present set of facts and circumstances of the case.
On the other hand, the abovesaid decisions relied
25
C.C.No.52909/2019
upon by the counsel for the accused does not help the
accused either to prove that the cheques in question
were issued by the accused towards a time barred
debt or to prove that the complainant had no
financial capacity as on the date of payment of the
alleged money to the accused. As such, considering
the entire materials on record, in my opinion, the
accused has failed to rebut the presumptions available
in favour of the complainant by adducing cogent oral
and documentary evidence and the complainant has
proved his case beyond all reasonable doubts that the
accused has committed offence punishable U/Sec.138
of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, I am of the
opinion that the accused has committed the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
14. It is relevant to mention here that the accused
having issued cheques at Ex.P1 and 2 in favour of the
complainant has failed to pay the cheques amount
and hence, the complainant is to be suitably
compensated for the delay caused by the accused in
26
C.C.No.52909/2019
its repayment. Further the punishment prescribed for
the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is
imprisonment for a period which may extend to two
years or with fine which may extend to twice the
amount of the cheque or with both. Considering the
facts and circumstances of this case, nature, year of
the transaction, nature of the instrument involved,
cost of litigation and the rate of interest proposed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2012 (1) SCC 260
(R.Vijayan Vs Baby), I am of the opinion that it is
just and desirable to impose fine of Rs.16,40,000/-
and out of the said amount, it seems to be proper to
award a sum of Rs.16,30,000/- as compensation to the
complainant as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C and the
remaining sum of Rs.10,000/- shall go to the State
towards expenses. With these observations, my
findings on Point No.1 is in the Affirmative.
15. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point
No.1, I proceed to pass following;
27 C.C.No.52909/2019 O R D E R Acting u/s. 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the
accused is hereby convicted for the offence
punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act,1881.
The accused is hereby sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs.16,40,000/-. In default, the
accused shall undergo simple imprisonment
for 6 months.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.10,000/-
shall be paid to the State towards expenses
and remaining amount of Rs.16,30,000/- to
the complainant as compensation as per
the provisions of Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C..
Further, it is made clear that in view of
proviso to Sec.421(1) of Cr.P.C, the
accused would not be absolved from his
liability to pay compensation amount of
Rs.16,30,000/- awarded u/s. 357 of
28
C.C.No.52909/2019
Cr.P.C. even if he undergoes the default
sentence.
The bail bond and surety bond of the
accused stand hereby continued till the
appeal period is over.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of
this judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, directly over Computer, corrected,
signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 15th day of January,
2025)
(P.S. Santhosh Kumar)
XXXIII ACJM, BENGALURU.
A N N E X U R E
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW.1 : Sri. Manjunatha R. PW.2 : Sri. Shivashankar
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 & 2 : Original cheques
Ex.P.1(a)& 2(a) : Signatures of the accused
Ex.P.3 & 4 : Bank return memos
Ex.P.5 : Office copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.6 : Postal receipt
29
C.C.No.52909/2019
Ex.P.7 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.8 : Cash receipt
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P9 : Police complaint
Ex.P10 : Police acknowledgment
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
DW1 : Sri. V. Manjunatha
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D1 : Certified copy of trust deed
Ex.D2 : Resolution copy
Ex.D3 : RTC Extracts
(P.S. Santhosh Kumar)
XXXIII ACJM, BENGALURU.