[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Bluebeery International, Mohammed … vs Om Shree Tex on 11 April, 2025
C.C.NO.18717/2024
0
KABC030327022024
Presented on : 14-06-2024
Registered on : 14-06-2024
Decided on : 11-04-2025
Duration : 0 years, 9 months, 27 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present:
Soubhagya.B.Bhusher,
B.A.,LL.B.,LL.M
XXVIII A.C.J.M, Bengaluru City.
DATED; THIS THE 11th DAY OF APRIL-2025
C.C.NO.18717/2024
Complainant: M/s Blueberry International,
R/by its Partners,
1. Mr.Mohammed Syeed UR Rehman,
S/o Mohammed Fazlulla, Age: 51 years.
2. Mrs. Asma.B W/o Mohammed Sikander,
Age: 33 years, O/at No.17,
Chamundi Nagar Main, Dinnur,
Bengaluru-560032.
(By Mr.Abdul Khader.,Adv.,)
V/s
Accused: M/s.Om Shree Tex,
R/by its Proprietor, Sri.Prathap Urs.N
S/o Nanjundaraje Urs.B.N.
Age: 46 years, R/at & Office No.830/5,
9th Main, RPC Layout, Vijayanagar 2nd
Stage, Hampinagar, Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru-560104.
And also at O/at No.225, 2nd Floor,
C.C.NO.18717/2024
1
1 Cross, Nagarbhavi 2nd Stage,
st
12th Block, Bengaluru-560072.
(By Sri.Lakshmeesha.,Adv.,)
:JUDGMENT:
This case arises out of the private complaint filed
by the complainant against the accused under section
200 of Cr.P.C., for an offence punishable under section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant’s in brief is as
under:
It is the case of the complainant is that the
accused having purchased ready made garments from
complainants, the complainants have supplied the
same to the accused time to time on his purchase order
since from 2022. Further stated that the accused has
placed the purchase order on the basis of the accused
purchase order the complainants have supplied the
pieces of garments and partly the accused has paid the
amount and the accused is due for the balance amount
of Rs.27,68,945/-. The accused had issued cheque
No.712671 dated: 15.03.2024 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn
on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. As per the
request of the accused the complainant has presented
the said cheque for encashment through its banker
Bank of Baroda, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru. But
the said cheque was dishonored on 25.03.2024 as
“Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter on 26.03.2024 the
complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused
C.C.NO.18717/2024
2
through their counsel calling upon him to pay the
cheque amount. The notice was received by the
accused on 02.04.2024. Inspite of service of the
demand notice, the accused neither reply to the notice
nor paid the cheque amount. As such, the accused
have committed an offence punishable under section
138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to
be filed before this court on 15.05.2024.
3. After the complaint was filed, the cognizance of
the offence cited therein was taken. Sworn statement of
the complainant was recorded. Since there were
sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, an
order was passed on 11.06.2024 to register the case in
Register No.III and it was registered as a criminal case.
4. Thereafter, summons was issued to the
accused and he has appeared before the court through
Advocate and secured bail. He was furnished its
necessary papers as complied under section 208 of
Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the plea of the accused was
recorded by the court. He has pleaded not guilty and
make a defence.
5. The complainant in support of its case, have
examined its one of the Partner as PW.1 and got
marked 09 documents at Ex.P.1 to 09 and closed its
side. PW.1 is partly cross examined by the counsel for
the accused. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the
C.C.NO.18717/2024
3
learned counsel for the accused not further cross
examined PW.1. Hence, the further cross of PW.1 is
taken as nil.
6. After closer of the evidence of the
complainant’s, the statement of the accused under
section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. He has denied
the incriminating evidence appearing against him.
Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the accused not
adduced defence evidence. Hence, the defence
evidence taken as nil.
7. Heard the argument on the complainant side
and perused the material placed on record.
8. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the learned
counsel for the accused did not appear before the court
and not addressed his argument. Hence, the argument
on the defence side taken as nil. Further inspite of
sufficient opportunity, the learned counsel for the
accused failed to file his written arguments.
9. Upon hearing the argument and on perusal of
the material placed on record, the following points arise
for my consideration:
1.Whether the complainant proves the existence
of legally enforceable debt/liability.?
2. Whether the complainant further proves that
the accused had issued the cheque-Ex.P.1,
towards the discharge of the said legally
enforceable debt/liability.?
C.C.NO.18717/2024
4
3.Whether the complainant further proves that
cheque-Ex.P.1 was dishonored for the reasons
“Funds Insufficient” and thereafter the accused
had failed to repay the same within the statutory
period, inspite of receipt of legal notice.?
4. Whether the accused have thus committed an
offence punishable under section 138 of
N.I.Act.?
5. What order?
10. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: In the Affirmative
Point No.3: In the Affirmative
Point No.4: In the Affirmative
Point No.5: As per final order, for the following:
:REASONS:
11. POINT NO.1 AND 2: These two points are
inter-related to each other and finding given on any one
point will bearing on the another. Hence, in order to
avoid repetition of facts and evidence, I have taken
these points together for common discussion. The case
of the complainant is that he was acquainted with the
accused. Further the accused having purchased ready
made garments from complainants, the complainants
have supplied the same to the accused time to time on
his purchase order. Further the accused has placed the
purchase order on the basis of the accused purchase
order the complainants have supplied the pieces of
garments and partly the accused has paid the amount
C.C.NO.18717/2024
5
and the accused is due for the balance amount of
Rs.27,68,945/-. The accused had issued cheque in
question. As per the request of the accused the
complainant has presented the said cheque for
encashment through its banker. But the said cheque
was dishonored as “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter the
complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused
through their counsel calling upon him to pay the
cheque amount. Inspite of service of the demand
notice, the accused neither reply to the notice nor paid
the cheque amount. As such, the accused have
committed an offence punishable under section 138 of
N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed
before this court.
12. In support of the case, the complainant’s have
examined its one of the Partner as P.W.1 and 09
documents were marked at Ex.P.1 to 09. In the chief
examination P.W.1 has repeated the contents taken by
the complainant in the complaint. Ex.P.1 is the cheque
issued by the accused in favour of the complainant
dated: 15.03.2024 for Rs.5,00,000/-. Ex.P.1(a) is the
signature of the accused. Ex.P.2 is the bank memo
dated: 25.03.2024 informing the dishonor of the cheque
as “funds insufficient”. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal
notice dated:26.03.2024. Ex.P.4 are the postal receipts.
Ex.P.5 is the postal acknowledgment. Ex.P.6 is the
returned postal cover. Ex.P.6(a) is the returned legal
C.C.NO.18717/2024
6
notice. Ex.P.7 & 8 are the tax invoices Ex.P.9 is the
complaint.
13. In order to attract the offence punishable
under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant is firstly
required to prove the existence of legally enforceable
debt or liability, for which the cheque came to be
issued. The learned counsel for the complainant has
argued that from the evidence placed on record it
reveals that the accused having purchased ready made
garments from complainants, the complainants have
supplied the same to the accused as per Ex.P.7 & 8
time to time on his purchase order since from 2022.
Further argued that the accused has partly paid the
amount and he is due of Rs.27,68,945/-. Further
argued that the accused issued totally three cheques in
favour of the complainant including the cheque in
question. As per the request of the accused the
complainant have presented the said cheque for
encashment through their banker. But the said cheque
was dishonored as “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter the
complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused
through their counsel calling upon him to pay the
cheque amount. Inspite of service of the demand
notice, the accused neither reply the notice nor paid the
cheque amount. It is further argued that the accused
has not denied Ex.P.1 being his cheque drawn on his
account. When the signature is not disputed, the
C.C.NO.18717/2024
7
presumption under section 139 N.I.Act is to be drawn in
favour of the complainant.
14. He further argued that inspite of sufficient
opportunity, the accused has not further cross
examined PW.1 and failed to elicit anything in the cross
examination of P.W.1 to disbelieve the said evidence.
The defence have failed to rebut the presumption under
section 139 N.I.Act. He further argued that the accused
has failed to produce any believable evidence that how
the cheque to reached the hands of the complainant.
Further he has failed to produce any believable
evidence before this court. Further why the accused
has not returned back the same is not clear. He further
argued that under section 139 of N.I.Act, there is a
presumption that the cheque has been issued for
discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability. In the
present case, the accused has not disputed Ex.P.1
being his cheque drawn on the account of the accused.
The said presumption is available to the complainant.
Moreover, under section 118 of N.I.Act, there is a
presumption that the Negotiable Instruments is drawn
on the date, for the amount and in favour of the person
as shown in it. It is for the accused to rebut the said
presumption. But, in the case on hand no such
evidence forthcoming. Further argued that the
complainant have produced all the necessary
documents before this court and the complainant have
C.C.NO.18717/2024
8
proved their case beyond reasonable doubts. Hence,
he prays to allow the complaint and convict the
accused.
15. In the case on hand the complainant and
having some transaction has not been seriously
disputed by the accused. Further the accused has not
seriously disputed he had purchased the pieces of
garments from the complainant on credit basis and he
has partly paid the amount and he is due of
Rs.27,68,945/-. It is not disputed that the complainant
is a partnership firm and the accused is a businessman
and having the knowledge of the business. In order to
attract the offence punishable under section 138 of
N.I.Act, the main ingredients of the existence of the
legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the cheque
drawn on the account of the accused was given for
discharge of the same, are to be proved. The
complainant’s in order to prove its case, have
examined its one of the partner as PW.1 and 09
documents were marked at Ex.P.1 to 09. In chief
examination, P.W.1 has repeated the averments made
by the complainant in the complaint. In the present
case, the accused has not disputed Ex.P.1 being his
cheque drawn on the account of the accused. The said
presumption is available to the complainant. The
accused in his defence has not disputed cheque in
C.C.NO.18717/2024
9
question have been issued by him. He also does not
dispute his signature appearing on the said cheque.
16. As per the section 139 of N.I.Act, there is a
presumption regarding the existence of legally
enforceable debt/liability. Such presumption is
rebuttable presumption and it is opinion to the accused
to raise defence discharging the existence of a legally
enforceable debt/liability. In the case on hand also the
accused has disputed the existence of legally
enforceable debt/liability, for which cheque-Ex.P.1 was
issued. In order to prove his defence, the accused has
failed to produce any documentary evidence before this
court.
17. Since, the presumption under section 139 of
N.I.Act is a rebuttable presumption the accused is firstly
required to produce some probable evidence to rebut
the same. Though in the criminal cases, the standard of
the proof required for the accused is not so strict as
required for the complainant to prove the case, further
he has to produced some probable evidence, which
creates doubt about the existence of legally
enforceable debt or liability. In order to prove his
defence, he has not produced any materials before this
court. If the accused had not issued any cheque to the
complainant for repayment of the amount, what
prevented the accused to file the complaint immediately
C.C.NO.18717/2024
10
after the alleged illegal act made by the complainant.
Further what prevented the accused to file the
complaint against the complainant for misusing of the
alleged cheque. Admittedly the accused is having
knowledge of the financial transaction, why he has
given cheque to the complainant without anticipating
the consequence is not explained by him. So also, he
has not stated anything as to what steps he took to
receive back the blank cheque. Moreover, immediately
after the alleged cheque misused by the complainant
he not lodge complaint before concerned police station.
No steps have been taken to receive back the cheque,
after he came to know about the same.
18. Once issuance of cheque and signature are
admitted, the statutory presumptions would arise under
sections 139 and 118 of the N.I.Act that cheque was
issued by the drawer for legally payable debt/liability
and for valid consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held in Rangappa V/S Mohan, reported in 2010
AIR SCW 296, the presumption that the cheque was
drawn in discharge of legally recoverable debt is a
presumption of law that ought to be raised in every
case, though, it is a rebuttable presumption. Ofcourse,
the presumption under section 118 and 139 of the
N.I.Act are rebuttal presumption. Further it is also held
that mere plausible explanation by the drawer is not
sufficient and proof of that explanation is necessary.
C.C.NO.18717/2024
11
The principle of law laid-down in the above decision is
applicable to the facts of this case. In the instant case,
since the complainant is in possession of the cheque-
Ex.P.1 the court has to drawn the initial presumption
that they are the payee of that cheque. Once the initial
burden is discharged by the complainant, the onus
shifts on the accused to rebut the complainant’s case.
19. In the case of K.S.Ranganatha V/s Vittal
Shetty, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1191, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once the cheque is
admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption
envisaged in section 118 of the Act can legally be
inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for
consideration on the date which the cheque bears.
Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the court to presume
that the holder of the cheque received it for the
discharge of any debt or liability. It is further held that
the position of law makes it crystal clear that when a
cheque is drawn out and is relied upon by drawee, it
will raise a presumption that it is drawn towards a
consideration which is a legally recoverable amount;
such presumption of course, is rebuttable by proving to
the contrary. The onus is on the accused to raise a
probable defence and the standard of proof for
rebutting the presumption is on preponderance of
probabilities.
C.C.NO.18717/2024
12
20. In the case of M/s Kalemani Tex V/s P.
Balansubramanian, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that even a blank
cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the
accused, which is towards some payment, would
attract presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable
instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence
to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of
a debt.
21. In the present case also, as the accused
never disputed his signature and did not deny issuing
cheque from the account of the accused. The accused
did not dispute cheque return memo also. The cheque
was returned for the reasons “funds insufficient”. Thus,
the act clearly lays down presumptions in favour of the
complainant with regard to the issuance of the cheque
by the accused towards the discharge of the liability in
favour of the complainant. Further under scheme of the
Act, the onus is upon the accused to rebut the
presumption in favour of the complainant by raising a
probable defence. Such being the legal position, it
would be pertinent to refer to the defences raised by
the accused to rebut the presumptions in favour of the
complainant in this case.
22. Applying the above said principles to the
present case and before considering the point whether
C.C.NO.18717/2024
13
the accused succeeded to rebut the presumptions and
to establish his defence to the extent of probabilities, it
is just and necessary to accumulate undisputed facts
in this case.
23. It is not in dispute that bounced cheque
belongs to the bank account of the accused. It is also
not in dispute that signature appearing on the bounced
cheque is the signature of the accused. It is also not in
dispute that the cheque presented by the complainant
came to be dishonored by the banker of the accused
for the reason stated in the dishonor memo. To
consider whether the accused succeeded to rebut the
presumption and established the defence to the extent
of probabilities, in this regard the accused has not
produced any documents. Even the accused has failed
to produce any believable evidence before this court.
24. In the defence there is no ill-will between the
complainant and the accused. Hence, misuse of
cheque and filing false case is not possible. The
accused admittedly having knowledge of business. It is
implies, he is conversant with financial transaction. If
the complainant misused the said cheque and had not
returned the same, inspite of collecting cheque leaves
from him, as a prudent man, the accused should have
inquired with the complainant and demanded to return
that cheque. No ordinary prudent man would keep quite
C.C.NO.18717/2024
14
in such circumstances, without taking any steps. The
conduct of the accused is very unusual, because he did
not take any legal action against the complainant, even
after filing of the complaint based on Ex.P.1. Further he
could have issued notice to his banker to stop payment
or legal notice to the complainant or he could have
given complaint to the police station immediately. No
such steps were taken by the accused.
25. Moreover, the complainant have got issued a
legal notice to the accused by registered post through
its counsel calling upon him to make repayment of the
said cheque amount to the complainant. Before a
person is held to be guilty of the offence punishable
under 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant have to prove the
compliance of the requirement under section 138 of
N.I.Act. It is not in dispute that Ex.P.1 being his cheque
drawn on account of the accused. In view of the above
discussions, it is also held to be proved that it was
drawn for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability.
From the evidence of PW.1 and also cheque return
memo-Ex.P.2 it is established that the cheque was
dishonored for the reasons “Funds Insufficient” in the
account of the accused. A legal notice being issued as
per Ex.P.3 within one month from the date of dishonour
is also not in dispute. In the case on hand the accused
has not disputed the issuance of the legal notice. But
the accused has failed to reply the notice, immediately
C.C.NO.18717/2024
15
after service of the demand notice. Thereby, he could
have asserted his defence at an earliest available
opportunity. In the case on hand the notice is sent to
the accused at his address. When the accused has not
disputed, the notice sent to the correct address is
sufficient compliance of section 138 of N.I.Act.
Therefore, there is sufficient proof of due service of the
legal notice.
26. It is not the contention of the accused that
thereafter he has repaid the cheque amount within
stipulated time of 15 days on service of the notice.
Therefore, in the case on hand on perusal of the
evidence placed on record, all the essential ingredients
of section 138 N.I.Act, have been complied with. As the
accused has not repaid the cheque amount within
stipulated period, the accused has committed an
offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. The present complaint is filed within
the period of one month after the accused failed to
repay the cheque amount. Even he did not whisper
anything about the defence while his plea was recorded
under section 251 of Cr.P.C. In the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association V/s Union of
India and others, (2010(5) SCC 590), it is clear that
while recording the plea under section 251 of Cr.P.C., it
becomes the duty of the accused to state whether he
has any defence to make or he pleads guilty. Thus,
C.C.NO.18717/2024
16
unlike section 240 of Cr.P.C., the accused has no
option under section 251 of Cr.P.C., just to deny the
allegations made against him. If he is not willing to
plead guilty, he must explain what are the defences he
wants to take. As such it has to be considered,
whatever defence raised by the accused during the trial
are all after thought, just to get ride of statutory burden
cast on him.
27. In addition to this in the case of T.P.Murugan
(Dead) through legal representatives V/s Bojan,
reported in 2018 (8) SCC 469, the Hon’ble Apex Court
held that once the cheque has been signed and issued
in favour of the holder of the cheque, there is statutory
presumption that the cheque is issued in respect of
legally enforceable debt or liability: rebuttal of such
presumption must be by adducing credible evidence.
Mere raising a doubt without cogent evidence with
respect to the circumstances, presumption under
section 139 of N.I.Act cannot be discharged. The
principle of law laid down in the above decisions are
applicable to the facts of this case.
28. The accused has nowhere denied transaction.
The accused himself has admitted that he is the holder
of alleged cheque. It is sufficient hold that the accused
has issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 and even after he has
not repaid the cheque amount the getting of receipt of
C.C.NO.18717/2024
17
notice. However, in any manner as the complainant
have complied all the terms of ingredients of the
provisions of 138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, PW.1 has
established the case of the complainant, the accused
had issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 in order to repay the
legally recoverable amount. Therefore, the accused
has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139
of N.I.Act. In the said circumstances, the complainant is
not at all required to produce any material as to the
financial transaction between the complainant and the
accused, since the initial presumption is still available,
when there is no rebuttal evidence.
29. PW.1 in his evidence has specifically deposed
that the accused having purchased readymade
garments from the complainant on his purchase order,
the complainant have supplied the same to the
accused time to time on his purchase order since from
2022. Further deposed that the complainant have
supplied the pieces of garments and partly the accused
has paid the amount and for the balance amount of
Rs.27,68,945/-, the accused has issued three cheques
in favour of the complainant. So also it is not in
disputed that the complainant and the accused are
known to each other, some point of period. The
accused has failed to probables his defense. The
accused has failed to rebut the presumption under
section 139 of N.I.Act. With these reasons, I answer
C.C.NO.18717/2024
18
point No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
30. POINT NO.3 AND 4: In order to avoid
repetition of facts, these two points are taken together
for common discussion. Before a person is held to have
committed an offence punishable under section 138 of
N.I.Act, the complainant have to prove all the
requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act. Ex.P.1 being his
cheque drawn on the account of the accused is not in
dispute. The said cheque having been dishonored,
when it was presented by the complainant before the
bank for encashment is also not seriously disputed by
the accused. Thereafter, the notice-Ex.P.3 being issued
by the complainant further admitted. The accused has
not taken up any contention that thereafter he had paid
the cheque amount within stipulated time of 15 days,
after service of the notice. As such, in the present case
from perusal of documents, the essential requirements
of section 138 of N.I.Act, have been complied with.
When the accused immediately after service of the
notice, he has not paid the cheque amount. In this case
why the accused has not replied to the notice and
initially why he has not produced any documents.
Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before
the court on 15.05.2024 within the period of one month
from the date cause action. While discussing the point
No.1 and 2, this court has already observed that the
complainant have proved that the cheque was issued
C.C.NO.18717/2024
19
for discharge of legally enforceable liability/debt and in
view of the mandatory requirements of section 138 of
N.I.Act, being complied with. The accused is found to
have committed an offence punishable under section
138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, I answer point No.3 and 4
in the Affirmative.
31.POINT NO.5: The accused is held to have
committed an offence punishable under section 138 of
N.I.Act. The complainant have proved its case. The
accused has failed to prove his rebuttal for the reasons
mentioned above and in view of the mandatory
requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act, being complied
with. The accused is found to have committed an
offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Since,
the said offence is an economic crime, the accused is
not entitled for the beneficial provisions of probation of
offenders Act. In view of the above discussions and the
findings on point No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the
following:
:ORDER:
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is convicted for an offence
punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond executed by the accused
hereby stands canceled.
The accused is sentence to pay fine of
Rs.5,25,000/- (Rupees five lakhs twenty five
C.C.NO.18717/2024
20
thousand only) to the complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the said
fine amount an amount of Rs.5,17,000/-
(Rupees five lakhs seventeen thousand only)
shall be paid to the complainant as
compensation as per Section 357(1)(b) of
Cr.P.C., and remaining amount of Rs.8,000/-
(Rupees eight thousand only) shall be
remitted to the State.
In default of the payment of fine
amount, the accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment of six months.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on
computer typed by her, corrected by me and
then judgment pronounced in the open court on
11th day of April 2025)(Soubhagya.B.Bhusher)
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
List of witness examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Mr.Mohammed Sayeed UR Rehman.
List of documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement.
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of legal notice.
C.C.NO.18717/2024
21
Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt.
Ex.P.5 : Postal acknowledgment.
Ex.P.6 : Returned postal cover.
Ex.P.6(a) : Returned legal notice.
Ex.P.7 & 8 : Tax invoices.
Ex.P.9 : Complaint.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.18717/2024
2211.04.2025 (Judgment pronounced in the Open
Court Vide Separate Sheet)
:ORDER:
Acting under section 255(2) of
Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for an
offence punishable under section 138 of
N.I.Act.
The bail bond executed by the
accused hereby stands canceled.
The accused is sentence to pay fine
of Rs.5,25,000/- (Rupees five lakhs
twenty five thousand only) to the
complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the
said fine amount an amount of
Rs.5,17,000/- (Rupees five lakhs
seventeen thousand only) shall be paid to
the complainant as compensation as per
Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and
remaining amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees
eight thousand only) shall be remitted to
the State.
In default of the payment of fine
amount, the accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment of six months.
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
[ad_2]
Source link