[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
B Mohan Kumar vs Sms International Beverages Pvt Ltd on 19 July, 2025
SCCH-2 1 C.C.No.3665/2020
KABC020177062020
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-2).
C.C.No.3665/2020
:: PRESENT ::
Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
6th Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM, Bengaluru.
Dated: On this the 19th day of July, 2025.
Complainant : B. Mohan Kumar,
S/o K.V. Balakrishnan,
Aged about 51 years,
Proprietor of M/s Zeus India Enterprise,
No.17, 4th Cross,
Lakeshore Garden,
Thindlu, Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bangalore-560097.
(By Sri. R. Ranganatha, Advocate)
- Vs. -
Accused 1. SMS International Beverages Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.49,
Industrial Area Lodhi Majra,
SCCH-2 2 C.C.No.3665/2020
Baddi, Solan,
Himachal Pradesh,
Pin Code-174102.
Represented by Managing Director.
2. Mr. Hari Om Goyal,
Aged about 55 years,
Managing Director of
SMS International Beverages Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.49,
Industrial Area Lodhi Majra,
Baddi, Solan,
Himachal Pradesh,
Pin Code-174102.
(By Sri. G. Raghunandan, Advocate)
3. Mr. Sudheer Gupta,
Aged about 55 years,
Managing Director of
SMS International Beverages Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.49,
Industrial Area Lodhi Majra,
Baddi, Solan,
Himachal Pradesh,
Pin Code-174102.
(Accused No.3 added as per Order dated
18.07.2022)
(By Sri. T.S. Venkatesh, Advocate)
:: J U D G M E N T :
:
The complainant has filed the present complaint U/Sec.200
of Cr.P.C., alleging that the accused has committed the offence
SCCH-2 3 C.C.No.3665/2020punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after
referred as N.I.Act).
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:-
The complainant is a Proprietorship trading firm by name
M/s Zeus India Enterprise, engaged in supply of all types of
processed fruit pulp and concentrates packed in cans and drums
to various fruit drink manufactures and whole sellers in India.
The accused No.1 is the Private Limited Company and accused
No.2 is the Managing Director of accused No.1. Since 2014, the
accused No.1 and 2 are the customers to complainant, as such
the accused No.2 approached the complainant by placing order to
supply of goods. In pursuance of the same, the complainant had
supplied Totapuri Mango Pulp (Natural) and Alphonso Mango
Pulp(Natural) etc., from 2018 to the accused company on credit
basis as per purchase order issued by the accused company. The
accused have assured to pay amount within thirty to forty-five
days from the date of each purchase and also agreed to pay
interest at appropriate rate on the delayed payment after the due
date of each purchase.
Further, after delivery of materials as per order placed by the
accused, the invoices issued by the complainant has been
acknowledgment by the accused No.1 and 2 after due verification.
In this connection, several e-mail and Whatsapp messages sent
by the complainant to the accused No.2. Thereafter, the accused
have failed to pay the due amount within stipulated period and
SCCH-2 4 C.C.No.3665/2020they are liable to pay balance amount of Rs.31,54,573/- to the
complainant only towards purchase of items on different dates.
Further, the accused No.2 is well known that, the complainant
has obtained the loan by pledging his house property in bank and
used the said amount to provide credit to his customers including
accused. The complainant is unable to pay the loan amount for
past several months and the banker given caution to take
appropriate action to recover the loan by discharging the house
property, which was pledged to the bank.
After several requests, accused No.2 representing the accused
No.1 issued cheque bearing No.788637, dated:21.08.2019, for
Rs.5,52,636/- and another cheque bearing No.788638,
dated:28.08.2019 for Rs.5,52,636/-. In total Rs.11,05,272/-.
As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant has
presented the cheque for encashment through his banker Bank of
India, Sahakaranagara branch, Bengaluru. However, the said
cheques got bounced with the reason as “Funds Insufficient” on
14.10.2019. Thereafter, the complainant has issued the legal
notice to the accused on 07.11.2019 which was duly served to the
accused on 14.11.2019. The complainant also sent the notice the
accused through e-mail as well as Whatsapp which were duly
received by the accused on 17.11.2019. In-spite of service of
notice also, the accused has neither paid the amount nor sent
any reply. Hence, cause of action arose to file the complaint.
SCCH-2 5 C.C.No.3665/2020
3. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. After filing of the complaint, the sworn
statement of the complainant was recorded and it prima-facie
found that the accused No.1 and 2 has committed the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, criminal case was
registered and the summons was issued to the accused No.1 and
2.
4. In response to the summons, the accused No.2 appeared
through their counsel and thereafter plea was recorded. The
accused No.2 was denied the accusation leveled against him.
Further, the statement of the accused No.2 as contemplated
U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused No.2 has denied
the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence
of complainant and submitted that he has defence evidence. It is
relevant to note that, accused No.3 was subsequently impleaded.
After impleading, this Court has issued summons. The accused
No.3 appeared before the Court and his plea was recorded.
Further, as per the submission of counsel for accused No.3, on
27.06.2024, this court has dispensed the recording of 313
statement with respect to accused No.3 by relying on the
judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in Indian Bank
Association and Others vs Union Bank of India and Another
reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528, held that “Sworn Statement of
SCCH-2 6 C.C.No.3665/2020
the complainant has to be treated as examination in chief”.
In the instant case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1
and marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31 and Ex.P.5(a)
and Ex.P.5(b). P.W.1 was subject to the process of cross-
examination from the side of accused. No evidence adduced from
the side of accused.
6. Heard arguments from both side. Perused the materials
available on record.
7. Now the points that arise for consideration of this Court
are as hereunder:
1. Whether the complainant has
proved that the accused has
committed the offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What Order?
8. The findings of this Court to the above-referred points are
as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following:-
SCCH-2 7 C.C.No.3665/2020
REASONS
9. POINT No.1: In order to prove the case, the complainant
examined himself as P.W.1 by filing affidavit in support of his oral
examination-in-chief. In the affidavit P.W.1 has reiterated the
complaint averments in verbatim. Hence, this Court need not to
recapitulate the same once again at this juncture. In support of
his oral testimony, P.W.1 has marked documents at Ex.P.1 to
Ex.31 and Ex.P.5(a) and Ex.P5(b).
10. Now itself it is appropriate to see the documents marked
at Ex.P-Series.
Ex.P-Series
Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are the cheque in question. Ex.P.1(a) and
Ex.P.2(a) are the signature of accused No.2. Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are
bank endorsements. Ex.P.5 is the office copy of the legal notice
dated:07.11.2019. Ex.P.5(a) and Ex.P.5(b) are the RPAD receipts.
Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 are the postal track consignment. Ex.P.8 is the
certified copy of GST registration certificate. Ex.P.9 is the
Company Master Data. Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.17 are the Invoices.
Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.25 are E-way bills. Ex.P.26 is the certificate
U/Sec.65B of Evidence Act. Ex.P.27 is the extract of account
ledger. Ex.P.28 is the E-mail communication 4 in numbers.
Ex.P.29 is the notice sent through e-mail. Ex.P.30 is the
Whatsapp chats with accused No.3. Ex.P.31 is the Whatsapp
chats with accused No.2.
SCCH-2 8 C.C.No.3665/2020
11. Before going to discuss the main aspect, it is worth to
reproduce the provisions of Sec.138 and 139 of N.I.Act, the same
as hereunder:
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of
funds in the account: –
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an
account maintained by him with a banker for
payment of any amount of money to another
person from out of that account for the discharge,
in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability,
is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of
the amount of money standing to the credit of
that account is insufficient to honour the cheque
or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid
from that account by an agreement made with
that bank, such person shall be deemed to have
committed an offence and shall, without
prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be
punished with imprisonment for (a term which
may be extended to two years), or with fine which
may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or
with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section
shall apply unless-
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank
within a period of Six months from the date on
SCCH-2 9 C.C.No.3665/2020which it is drawn or within the period of its
validity, whichever is earlier; (The period of 6
months has been reduced to 3 months, vide R.B.I.
notification No.RBI/2011-12/251,DBOD.AMLBC
No.47/14.01.001/2011-12, dated:4th November
2011 (w.e.f. 01.04.2012))
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque, as the case may be, makes 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 of the receipt of
information by him from the bank regarding the
return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the
payment of the said amount of money to the
payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due
course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the
receipt of the said notice.
Explanation: – For the purposes of the section, “debt
or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or
other liability.
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
SCCH-2 10 C.C.No.3665/2020
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or
other liability.
12. The learned counsel for complainant has relied on
the following decisions:
1. Crl.R.P.770/2017, between Sri. Raghavendra
Vs. M/s National Steel Tubes.
2. (2012) 5 SCC 661, between Aneeta Hada Vs.
Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited.
3. Criminal Petition No.4600/2022, between
MPP Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Rupa
Banerji.
The learned counsel for acused has relied on the
following decisions:
1. 2024 SCC Online SC 3802, between Ravi
Dhingra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and
Another.
2. ILR 2001 KAR 101, between N.G.
Narayanaswamy Vs. M/s Vijayananda
Roadlines Limited.
3. MANU/KA/5695/2019, between H.M.
Paramila Vs. M. Babu Reddy.
SCCH-2 11 C.C.No.3665/2020
4. 2012 SCC Online Mad 5450, between Serling
Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd., and Another
Vs., Bharat Cargill Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,
No.308, Sofia’s Choice, No.7, St. Mark’s
Road, Bangalore.
5. 2006 (4) CTC 529, between B. Raman and
Others Vs. Shasun Chemicals and Drugs
Ltd., rep. by its Company Secretary, No.3,
Doraiswamy Road, T. Nagar, Chennai.
6. In Crl. P. 9909/2017, between Smt. G.K.
Akshata Vs. V. Raghavendra
7. Crl. Petition No.103859/2025, between
Perfect Lasercut and Fab (India) Pvt.
Ltd.,and others Vs. Vimala Inderchand Jain,
represented by SPA Holder, Vimalkumar.
I have carefully gone through the decisions relied by the
counsel for the complainant and accused and applied the
principles to the case on hand.
13. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898, between
Rangappa V/s Mohan wherein their lordships have observed at
para 26 as hereunder:
“No doubt that there is a initial presumption
which favours the complainant”.
SCCH-2 12 C.C.No.3665/2020
14. Now this court has to see whether the complainant has
complied the ingredients of Sec.138 (a) to (c) of N.I.Act or not? In
this connection, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5, Ex.P.5(a) and Ex.P.5(b), Ex.P.6,
Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.29 are relevant. Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing
No.788637, dated:21.08.2019 for Rs.5,52,636/- and Ex.P.2 is the
cheque bearing No.788638, dated:28.08.2019 for Rs.5,52,636.
Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are the bank endorsements dated:14.10.2019.
Ex.P.5 is the office copy of legal notice dated:07.11.2019.
Ex.P.5(a) and Ex.P.5(b) are the RPAD receipts. Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7
are the Postal Track Consignments. Ex.P.29 is the notice sent
through e-mail to the accused No.2 and 3.
15. A scrupulous perusal of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 coupled with
Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, it appears to this court that, the complainant
has presented the cheques in question for encashment within the
stipulated period. Further, the said cheques got bounced on
14.10.2019. Therefore, it is crystal clear that, the complainant
has presented the cheques in question for encashment within the
stipulated period.
16. Now, the next question before this court is whether the
complainant has issued the notice in accordance with law or not?
In order to answer this aspect, it is appropriate to take Ex.P.5,
Ex.P.5(a), Ex.P.5(b), Ex.P.6, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.29. Ex.P.5 is the
office copy of legal notice dated:07.11.2019. Ex.P.5(a) and
Ex.P.5(b) are the RPAD receipts. Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 are the Postal
SCCH-2 13 C.C.No.3665/2020
Track Consignments. Ex.P.29 is the notice sent through e-mail to
the accused No.2 and 3.
17. Learned counsel for the accused No.3 vehemently argued
that, before filing the complaint, the complainant has not issued
the legal notice to the accused No.3. Though accused No.3 is the
Managing Director of accused No.1, the complainant has not
issued the notice to accused No.3. The said flaw cannot be cured
and the complaint filed by the complainant without issuing notice
to accused No.3 is fatal and liable to be dismissed. He also
pointed out that, without issuing notice to Managing Director,
complaint cannot be filed.
18. Per-contra learned counsel for the complainant submits
that, accused No.1 is the Company. He has issued the legal
notice to the accused No.1. Further argued that, the complainant
bonafidely believed that, accused No.2 was the Managing Director
of accused No.1, hence at the first instance he has arrayed Hari
Om Goyal as accused No.2. He also argued that, the accused
No.3 affixed his signature on behalf of 1 st accused. After
searching the internet, the complainant came to know that,
accused No.3 is the Managing Director of accused No.1. Then
only he arrayed the Managing Director of accused No.1 as
accused No.3. He also pointed out that, the complainant has sent
the notice to the accused No.3 also through Whatsapp as well as
e-mail. The accused No.3 accepted his liability while chating with
the complainant. He also pointed out that, he has issued the
SCCH-2 14 C.C.No.3665/2020
legal notice to the accused No.1. The accused No.1 duly
represented by accused No.3 and received the legal notice.
Moreover, the order of impleading of accused No.3 has not been
challenged till this day. Therefore, the said order attains finality.
Now the accused No.3 cannot escape by assigning technical
default.
19. With these backdrop, this court has to analyze the case on
hand with respect to the issuance of notice. Admittedly, the
complainant has issued the legal notice on 07.11.2019 to accused
No.1 and accused No.2 as per Ex.P.5. It is interesting to note
that, the cause title of the notice reveals that, accused No.1 is the
Company, the same is represented by its Managing Director. It is
not the case of the accused No.3 is that, he is not the Managing
Director of accused No.1. However, the case of the accused No.3
is that, the complainant has not issued the notice to him.
20. Now the important question before this court is whether
the complainant has issued the legal notice to accused no.3 or
not? In this connection, it is ideal to take Ex.P.29 for discussion.
Ex.P.29 is the e-mail communication. In other words, it appears
to this court that, the complainant has issued the legal notice
also through e-mail. Further, the contents of the said document
reveals that, the legal notice sent through e-mail is not only to the
accused No.2 but also accused No.3. In other words, the
complainant has sent the notice to the accused No.3 by using
electronic mode ie., by way of e-mail. In the instant case it is not
SCCH-2 15 C.C.No.3665/2020
the defence of the accused No.3 is that, the e-mail address
mentioned in Ex.P29 is not pertaining to him and he is not the
Managing Director of accused No.1. Therefore, it is crystal clear
that, the complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused
No.3 by using electronic mode i.e., by way of e-mail. Hence, the
contention of accused No.3 regarding the complainant has not
issued the legal notice to him cannot be accepted and holds no
water. Apart from that, the notice issued by the complainant was
duly served on accused No.1 ie., the company. It is relevant to
note that accused No.3 is the managing director of accused No.1.
The said notice received by accused No.3 as a Managing Director
of accused No.1. As such the accused No.3 has the knowledge of
issuance of legal notice. With these discussions, this Court has
come to the conclusion that, the complainant has issued the legal
notice in accordance with law.
21. Now, the next question before this court is whether the
legal notice issued by the complainant was served on the accused
or not?. In this connection it is appropriate to take Ex.P.6 and
Ex.P.7, the postal track consignments and Ex.P.29 ie., E-mail
communication. On perusal of Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7, it appears to
this Court that, the notice has been duly served on the accused
No.1 on 14.11.2019. Further, notice sent to accused No.3
through e-mail was duly served on him. It is relevant to note
that, during the course of cross-examination of PW.1, Ex.P.29
was not challenged. In other words, Ex.P.29 is remained as
unchallenged. Further, there was no suggestion regarding the
SCCH-2 16 C.C.No.3665/2020
e-mail address mentioned in Ex.P.29 is not pertaining to the
accused No.3. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the complainant
has issued the legal notice not only to the accused No.1 but also
accused No.3 and the same has been duly served on the accused
Nos.1 and 3. Therefore with great respect the decisions relied by
the learned counsel for accused No.3 will not come to his aid and
the said decisions are rendered in a factually distinguishable
case.
22. Now, the next aspect is whether Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are
pertaining to the bank account of accused No.1 and Ex.P.1(a) and
Ex.P.2(a) are the signatures of accused No.3 or not?. It is relevant
to note that, after service of notice, the accused No.3 filed
vakalath on behalf of accused No.1 under the capacity of
Managing Director. Further, after impleading the accused No.3,
he has filed his vakalath. A careful comparison of the vakalath
filed by the accused No.3 in his individual capacity and also filed
vakalath under the capacity of Managing Director of accused
No.1, it appears to this Court that, both signatures are one and
the same. Let this court put it other way, accused No.3 has
affixed his signature in his individual capacity as well as
managing director of accused No.1. Therefore, it is manifestly
clear that, accused No.3 is the Managing Director of accused
No.1. Apart from that, it is not the case of the accused No.3 that,
Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are not pertaining to accused No.1 and the
signatures found in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are not his signatures.
SCCH-2 17 C.C.No.3665/2020
Therefore, it is crystal clear that, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are the
cheques pertaining to accused No.1 and the Ex.P.1(a) and
Ex.P.2(a) are the signatures of accused No.3. Apart from that, as
per Sec.118 and Sec.139, presumption favours the complainant.
With the help of discussions referred to above, the complainant
has complied the ingredients of Section 138(a) to (c) of NI Act.
23. Now, the next question before this court is whether the
accused has rebutted the presumption or not?. Before going to
discuss the said aspect, it is worth to refer the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court between Hiten P Dalal V/s Brathindranath
Manarji reported in 2001(6) SCC 16, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court observed that, “under Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, the complainant is not required to establish
either the legality or enforceability of the debt or liability
since he can avail the benefit of presumption U/Sec.118 and
Sec.139 of N.I. Act in his favour”.
24. It is also settled position of law that, the presumption
available U/Sec. 138 of N.I Act is a rebuttable presumption.
Further, to rebut the said presumption the accused need not to
enter into the witness box. However, the accused can establish
his probable defence by creating a doubt about the existence of
legally enforceable debt or liability.
25. Further, it is also settled position of law that, the standard
of proof of rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of
SCCH-2 18 C.C.No.3665/2020
probabilities. It is also settled position of law that, if the accused
succeeded in rebutting the presumption then the burden shifts
back to the complainant. At this juncture, again it is worth to
refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR
2010 S.C. 1898, between Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that, “the standard of proof
to rebut the presumption is that one of preponderance of
probabilities”.
26. It is also settled position of law that, “it is immaterial
that, the cheque may have been filled in by any person other
than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer.
If the cheque otherwise valid, within the provisions of
Sec.138 would be attracted”.
27. At this juncture, it is ideal to take the cross-examination
of P.W.1 for discussion. On going through the entire cross-
examination of P.W.1, learned counsel for the accused suggested
that, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were not issued by accused No.3, however
same were issued by accused No.2 namely Hari Om Goyal. The
said suggestion was denied by P.W.1. At this juncture it is
relevant to reproduce the said suggestion here itself for better
understanding: “ನಿಪಿ.1 ಮತ್ತು ನಿಪ.2 ಅನ್ನು ಸುದೀರ್ ಗುಪ್ತ ರವರು ನೀಡಿಲ್ಲ ಬದಲಾಗಿ ಹರಿ
ಓಂ ಗೋಯಲ್ರವರು ನೀಡಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ”.
28. For the sake arguments, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were not
issued by accused No.3 and issued by accused No.2, how the
SCCH-2 19 C.C.No.3665/2020
accused No.2 got the possession of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 is not
forthcoming from the side of accused No.3. In other words, the
accused No.3 has not properly and convincingly explained
regarding how accused No.2 possessed Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. That
apart, if there was no liability on the part of accused No.1 and
accused No.3, then what was the necessity for the accused No.3
to chat with the complainant. As per Ex.P.30, there was a
Whatsapp communication between the accused No.3 and
complainant. Moreover, the accused No.3 has not taken any
action against theaccused No.2. Therefore, it can be inferred
that, the accused No.3 has issued the cheques in question to the
complainant towards discharge of liability. In-spite of that, he
has taken a vague defence by contending that, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2
were not issued by him. The said contention is not only amounts
to vague, but also hard to believe. Therefore the contentions put
forth by the accused failed to inspire the confidence of this court.
As such, the defences raised by the accused are not probable, not
believable and amounts to vague defences. Hence, the accused
Nos.1 and 3 have not raised probable defences.
29. At the cost of repetition, the initial presumption favours the
complainant. However, the said presumption is rebuttable. If the
accused rebutted the presumption, then burden shifts back to the
complainant. Interestingly, in the instant case, the accused Nos.1
and 3 have not put forth plausible defence to rebut the
presumption and what are all the defences taken by the accused
SCCH-2 20 C.C.No.3665/2020
No.3 is amounting to vague defences. Based on the said vague
defences the accused No.3 cannot rebut the presumption.
30. Again at the cost of risk, the versions of the accused
failed to inspire the confidence of this Court. In the absence of
cogent evidence to show that the cheques were not issued in
discharge of a liability, the defences raised by the accused No.3
failed to inspire the confidence of this Court to believe his version
or to meet the standard of ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’.
Hence, with the help of presumption and also on the
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, this
Court has has come to the conclusion that, the accused No.1 &
3 has committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, this Court is answered
Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
31. POINT No.2:- In view of the discussions referred
to above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
:: O R D E R ::
Acting U/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C, the
accused No.1 and 3 are convicted for the
offence punishable U/Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
SCCH-2 21 C.C.No.3665/2020
The accused No.3 shall pay fine of
Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs
Only) to the complainant and in default
to payment of fine, the accused No.3
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 3 months.
However, it is clarified that, mere
serving of default sentence by the
accused No.3, does not absolve him from
the liability of payment of fine amount
as ordered by this court.
By exercising the powers conferred
U/Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C, the amount of
Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs
Only) is ordered to be paid to the
complainaznt as compensation.
Office is hereby directed to provide
free copy of judgment to the accused
No.3 forthwith.
Bail bond of the accused No.3 and
that of surety shall stands cancelled.
SCCH-2 22 C.C.No.3665/2020
Accused No.2 is acquitted.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and
corrected by me, and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 19 th
July, 2025)(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge and ACJM.,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
:ANNEXURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : Sri. B Mohan Kumar.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 & 2 : Original Cheques bearing No.788637 and 788638
dated 21.08.2019 and 28.08.2019 respectively.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signatures of the accused. & 2(a) Ex.P.3 & 4 : Bank endorsements. Ex.P.5 : Office copy of legal notice dated:07.11.2019. Ex.P.5(a) : 2 RPAD receipts. & 5(b) Ex.P.6 & 7 : 2 Postal Track Consignments. Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of GST registration certificate. Ex.P.9 : Company Master Data. SCCH-2 23 C.C.No.3665/2020 Ex.P.10 to : Invoices 8 in numbers. 17 Ex.P.18 to : E-way bills 8 in numbers. 25 Ex.P.26 : Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.27 : Account Ledger Extract. Ex.P.28 : E-mails (3 in nos) Ex.P.29 : Demand notice sent through E-mail Ex.P.30 : Whats app messages sent to accused No.3 Ex.P.31 : Whats app messages sent to accused No.2
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED:
– None –
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
– Nil –
Digitally signed by
HP H P MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR Date: 2025.07.31
14:45:41 +0530
(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge and ACJM.,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
[ad_2]
Source link