Bangalore District Court
K N Raghunatha Reddy vs Renuka V Kallur on 28 January, 2025
KABC0C0229092019
IN THE COURT OF XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (ACJM-34)
PRESENT: Smt. PARVEEN A BANKAPUR,B.Com.LLB.
XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
Dated : This the 28th day of January, 2025
C.C.No.56319/2019
COMPLAINANT : Mr.K.N. Raghunatha Reddy
S/o. Nanja Reddy,
Aged about 47 years,
No.221, 1st Cross, Krishna Reddy
Line, Annusandrapalya, Vimanpura,
Bengaluru - 17.
(By M/s. Barrot & Barrot -
Advocates)
V/s
ACCUSED : Ms. Renuka V. Kallur,
W/o. Rajesh Reddy,
Aged about 41 years,
C/o. Mr. M. Shivanna,
Postal Dept.,
Sidhalingeswara Krupa,
Nanjundeshwara Nilaya, 4th Cross
Near Vivekananda Park,Upperhalli,
Sapthagiri Extn., Gubbi Town,
Tumkur Dist.
Karnataka - 572 216.
And also:
Ms. Renuka V. Kallur
D/o. Verabhadrappa,
Aged about 41 years,
Kadaptti, Kundgol,
Dharward - 581 113.
(By M/s. G.R. Ravi Chandra Reddy &
Associates - Advocate)
1 Date of Commencement 21.06.2019
of offence
2 Date of report of offence 12.09.2019
3 Presence of accused
2 C.C.No.56319/2019
3a. Before the Court 29.12.2021
3b. Released on bail 29.12.2021
4 Name of the Complainant Mr.K.N. Raghunatha Reddy
5 Date of recording of 12.09.2019
evidence
6 Date of closure of evidence 01.08.2024
7 Offences alleged U/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
8 Opinion of Judge Accused is found guilty.
JUDGEMENT
The Private Complaint filed by the Complainant under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that she has
committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submits that, the complainant submits
that as he wanted to windup business and sell his used
machines, then on 1.3.2019 the Accused had shown interest in
purchasing the machines “Arecanut” and purchased the said
machine as second sale of used machine for total consideration
of Rs.5,52,000/-. So on 7.3.2019 the Accused taken the
delivery of the said machine and towards the purchase of
machine, the Accused issued a Cheque bearing No.014885
dtd.21.6.2019 for Rs.5,52,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank,
Gubbi branch, Tumkur.
3 C.C.No.56319/2019
It is further submitted that as per the request of the
Accused, the Complainant presented the said Cheque through
his banker State Bank of India, HAL branch, Bengaluru for
encashment, but the said cheque was returned unpaid for the
reason “payment stopped” with an endorsement
dtd.26.7.2019. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued demand
notice through RPAD on 7.8.2019 through his counsel. The
notice sent to the Accused was served upon her. Even after
receipt of legal notice, she has neither paid the Cheque amount
nor replied to the notice. Accordingly, the Complainant has
filed present complaint against the Accused for the offence
punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit,
and documents etc., took cognizance of an offence punishable
Under Section 138 of N.I. Act by following the guidelines of
Apex Court issued in Indian Bank Association case and ordered
to be registered a criminal case against the accused for the
offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
4. After issuance of summons, accused appeared before
the court and enlarged herself on bail. Plea was recorded, read
over and explained to the accused, who pleads not guilty and
4 C.C.No.56319/2019
claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for complainant’s
evidence.
5. The Complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and
got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.
6. Accused was examined U/S 313 of Cr.P.C.
Incriminating evidence appearing in the complainant’s evidence
was read over and explained to the accused who denies the
same. The Accused got examined herself as DW1 and got
marked documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.
7. Heard arguments of Complainant at full length.
The learned Counsel for Complainant has placed the
following citations;
1. Appeal No.767/2007
2. Cri.Rev.Petn. No.100136/2015
3. (2001) 8 SCC 458 in the case of K.N. Beena V/s.
Muniyappa
4. SLP 289-290/2000
8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the
materials placed on record, the following points arise for my
consideration.
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all
reasonable doubts that accused in discharge of
5 C.C.No.56319/2019legally recoverable debt has issued a Cheque
cheque No.014885 dtd.21.6.2019 for
Rs.5,52,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank,
Gubbi branch, Tumkur in favour in favour of
the complainant which came to be dishonoured
with an endorsement “payment stopped” ” and
in spite of service of notice accused has not
paid the Cheque amount and thereby committed
an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
9. My findings on the above points is:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
Point No.1:-
10. The present case was disposed by this court on
7.7.2022 by convicting the Accused. After passing the judgment
and order, aggrieved Accused preferred appeal before Hon’ble
Appellate Court in Cri.Apl.No.25194/2022. The Hon’ble
Appellate court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court
and case is remanded to the Trial Court with direction to re-
register the same by giving the same number and dispose of a
fresh by giving opportunity to the Accused to subject PW1 for
cross-examination and lead defence evidence on 15.3.2023.
6 C.C.No.56319/2019
11. After receipt of entire records from the Appellate Court
matter was revoked and opportunity given to the Accused to
cross-examine the PW1 and also leading defence evidence.
12. Existence of legally recoverable debt is a sine qua non
for prosecuting the case under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. For convenient purpose the essential
ingredients to constitute offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is
summarized as below:
(i) That there must be a legally enforceable debt.
(ii) That the cheque was drawn from the account of
bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt
or other liability which presupposes the legally
enforceable debt.
(iii)That the cheque so issued had been returned due to
“insufficient funds”.
13. It is the core contention of the complainant that,
the complainant submits that as he wanted to windup business
and sell his used machines, then on 1.3.2019 the Accused had
shown interest in purchasing the machines “Arecanut” and
purchased the said machine as second sale of used machine for
total consideration of Rs.5,52,000/-. So on 7.3.2019 the
Accused taken the delivery of the said machine and towards the
purchase of machine, the Accused issued a Cheque bearing
7 C.C.No.56319/2019
No.014885 dtd.21.6.2019 for Rs.5,52,000/- drawn on
Corporation Bank, Gubbi branch, Tumkur, which was returned
unpaid for the reason “payment stopped” with an
endorsement dtd.26.7.2019. Thereafter, the Complainant got
issued demand notice through RPAD on 7.8.2019 through his
counsel. The notice sent to the Accused was served upon her.
Even after receipt of legal notice, she has neither paid the
Cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Accordingly, the
Complainant has filed present complaint against the Accused
for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
14. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,
Complainant got examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the
contents of complaint in his examination-in-chief. He has also
placed the original Cheque bearing No.014885 dtd.21.6.2019 at
Ex.P1, bank endorsement at Ex.P2, office copy of legal notice
issued by the Complainant to the Accused on 7.8.2019 at
Ex.P3, postal receipt at Ex.P4, postal acknowledgement at
Ex.P5, Ex.P6 is the returned postal cover, Ex.P7 is the CD,
Ex.P8 is the Pen Drive and Ex.P9 is the Certificate u/Sec.65 (B)
of Indian Evidence Act
8 C.C.No.56319/2019
15. The documents produced by the complainant of
course established that complainant meets out the procedural
requirements of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but
it is to be considered whether all these documents establish the
offence committed by the accused.
16. The Negotiable Instruments Act raises two
presumptions. One contained in Section 118 and the other in
Sec. 139 thereof. For the sake of convenience Sec 118(1) of the
N.I. Act is extracted here below:
118. Presumptions as to negotiable Instruments–
Until the contrary is proved, the following
presumptions shall be made ;–
(a) of consideration that every negotiable
instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and
that every such instrument, when it has been
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for
consideration.
1. To (g) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Provided that where the instrument has been
obtained from its lawful owner, or from an person in
lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence of fraud,
or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor
thereof by means of an offence of fraud, or for unlawful
9 C.C.No.56319/2019
consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is
a holder in due course lies upon him”.
17. Further Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
reads as under:
“139, Presumption in favour of holder. It shall
be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the
holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature
referred to in section 138, for the discharge, in whole or
in part, of any debt or other liability.”
Scope and ambit and function of the presumption
U/s 118(a) and Sec 139 of NI Act came to be considered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court of Indian in Krishna
Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde (2008
AIAR (Criminal 151) The Supreme Court has laid
down the law in the following phraseology.
” D Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Secs 139,
138–Presumption under-same arises in regard to
second aspect of the matter provided under Sec 138–
Existence of legally enforceable debt is not a matter of
presumption under Sec 139- It merely raises
presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that
the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or
other liability – Merely an application of presumption
contemplated under Section 139 of N.I.Act should not
lead to injustice or mistaken conviction.”
10 C.C.No.56319/2019
18. Further, said decision was followed by Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Kempanarasimhaiah Vs P.Rangaraju
& Others (2008 (5) KCCR 3371). Relevant paragraph of the
said judgment reads as under: –
“12. As to the provisions of Sections 138 of N.I.Act, the
following principles emerge from the above
observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court at para Nos
21, 23, 25, 26 and 34 of its Judgment in the above
said case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs
Dattatraya G.Hegde, AIR 2008 SC 1325.
(i) Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption
that the cheque was issued towards discharge in whole
or in part in any debt or other liability, which
presupposed legally enforceable debt. Existence of
legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption
under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a
presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that
the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or
other liability.” (para 21)
(ii) The question as to whether the presumption stood
rebutted or not, must be determined keeping in view
the other evidences on record. Where the chances of
false implication cannot be ruled out, the background
fact and the conduct of the parties together with their
legal requirements are required to be taken into
consideration. (para 26)
(iii) An accused, for discharging the burden of proof placed
upon him under a statute, need not examine himself.
He may discharge his burden on the basis of the
materials already brought on records (para 23)
(iv) Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of
the prosecution in a criminal case is different. Further
11 C.C.No.56319/2019
more where as prosecution must prove the guilt of an
accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of
proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an
accused is ” preponderance of probabilities'” ( para 23
& 25)
(v) Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be
drawn not only from the materials brought on records
by the parties but also by reference to the
circumstances upon which he relies ( para 25)
(vi) Other important principles of legal jurisprudence,
namely presumption of innocence as human rights
and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by
Section 139 should be deliberately balanced (para 34)
19. Thus from the observations extracted above, it is
clear that presumption Under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is only
to the extent that the cheque was drawn for discharge in full or
in part of any debt or other liability and the said presumption
do not relate to the existence of legally enforceable debt or
liability. Therefore, before drawing the presumption under
Section 139 of the N.I.Act, it is the duty of the Court to see
whether or not the complainant has discharged his initial
burden as to existence of legally enforceable debt. No doubt, as
per Section 118(a) of the Act, there is a rebuttable presumption
that every negotiable instrument, is accepted, endorsed,
negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or
transferred for consideration.”
12 C.C.No.56319/2019
20. Factual matrix of the case is required to be tested on
the anvil of principles emerging from the above-referred
decisions.
21. The defence taken by the Accused is that, the
machinery was not delivered to the Accused and without
delivering the machinery to the Accused, the Complainant had
presented the cheque which issued by Accused in advance for
its encashment and initiate present proceedings without any
intimation to the Accused.
22. To substantiate the claim of Complainant, he
examined himself as PW1. In the evidence he deposed that, he
wanted to wind up his business and wanted to sell his used
machinery. On 1.3.2019 the Accused had shown his interest in
purchasing of machines “arecanut” which is used for
manufacturing of plates. It is further submitted that, after
negotiation, the Accused agreed to purchase the said machine
for Rs.5,52,000/-. It is further deposed that, Complainant
requested to pay the purchase amount in cash, but the
Complainant assured that, for auditing purpose reference of
cheque amount is best and he issued Ex.P1 cheque for
13 C.C.No.56319/2019
Rs.5,52,000/- in favour of Complainant. It is further deposed
that, the Accused agreed the towards the discharge of legal
liability and issued Ex.P1 cheque and assured that, it will
presented on 24.6.2019. It is further deposed that, as per the
request, the Complainant presented the cheque on 25.7.2019,
which was dishonoured with reason payment stopped on
26.7.2019 as per Ex.P2. It is further deposed that, thereafter he
got issued legal notice to the Accused calling upon him to pay
the cheque amount as per Ex.P3. It is further deposed that, the
notice was duly served upon the Accused as per Ex.P5 and after
receipt of the notice, neither he pay the cheque amount nor
reply the notice.
23, Considering the oral and documentary evidence,
prima facie it presumed that, Ex.P1 cheque was issued by the
Accused towards discharge of legal liability. To rebut the
presumption the learned counsel for Accused cross-examined
the PW1 in full length. In the cross-examination it is stated by
the Complainant that the machine was purchased by him for
Rs.7,80,000/- and he has not produced purchase receipt before
the court. He further stated that he has not produced any
document to show that from the said machine it was
14 C.C.No.56319/2019
manufacture of plates by areca leaves. It is further stated that,
he know the Accused as his customer. He further stated in the
cross-examination that, on 1.3.2019 Accused was purchased
the machine. He denied that, on 1.3.2019 the Accused issued
blank cheque to him. He further stated that, on 7.3.2019 the
Accused was issued cheque to him by stating that, he will
present the cheque on 21.6.2019. In the cross-examination he
admits that, he had told to the Accused that, on 7.3.2019 there
is a marriage in his house and after performing of marriage, the
machine will be delivered to him. He further admits that the
Accused issued cheque on 21.6.2019. It is denied by the PW1
that since he has not delivered the machine to him, therefore,
the Accused stop payment to the bank on 21.6.2019. During
the course of further examination the PW1 produced one Pen
Drive and C.D. as per Ex.P7 & 8. Pen Drive was played
through laptop wherein the Complainant, his wife, Accused and
his wife were talking each other. On perusal of said CD play,
the Accused seek one week time for payment of amount. In the
cross-examination PW1 stated that, Ex.P7 and 8 were recorded
in the year 2019 and his son was recorded the same. He further
stated that the said recording was in the house of Accused. It is
15 C.C.No.56319/2019
admitted the suggestion made by the learned counsel for
Accused that, Complainant and his son were talking each other
with respect of recording the talks in the house of Accused.
This suggestion itself proves that, the Accused has admitted
Ex.P7 and 8 recording. It is further admitted the suggestion
made by the learned counsel for Accused that in Ex.P7
Complainant stated to the Accused that, his grandson was
admitted in hospital and for expenses, he need of money. He
further admits that, in the said recording, the husband of the
Accused stated that, he will arrange the amount and he will
pay. In the cross-examination Complainant further stated that,
handing over the machinery also recorded in Ex.P7.
24. To rebut the presumption, the Accused got examined
herself as DW1. She deposed that, she is working as a
Computer Operator in the office of Sub-Registrar and her
husband was earlier working as Geologist in a private firm and
now he had quit the job. She further deposed that, after
quitting the job, he did not have any source of income. It is
further deposed that, one Mr. Manjunath who is friend of her
husband given an option to her husband to start small
business and at that point of time, her husband came to know
16 C.C.No.56319/2019
the Complainant through an advertisement wherein an used
machinery which is used for areca plates by using areca leaves.
It is further deposed that, her husband and herself approached
the Complainant and after negotiations, they agreed to
purchase the said machinery for Rs.5,52,000/-. It is further
deposed that, on the date of negotiation, the Complainant had
insisted that he would deliver the said machinery after the
marriage of her daughter and insisted issuance of cheque in
advance for Rs.5,52,000/- in his favour. It is further deposed
that, without any other option the Accused issued cheque for
Rs.5,52,000/- for purchase of machinery. It is further deposed
that, after few days of Complainant’s daughter’s marriage,
Accused and her husband approached the Complainant and
request to deliver the said machinery, but the Complainant had
postponed the same by giving one or other reason. It is further
deposed that, the Complainant did not deliver the said
machinery even after receipt of cheque, therefore, without any
option Accused has requested the banker to stop payment of
the cheque, which issued to the Complainant. It is further
deposed that, after the marriage of his daughter the
Complainant presented the cheque without delivering the
17 C.C.No.56319/2019
machinery to the Accused and her husband. It is further
deposed that, the Complainant had never informed the Accused
and her husband for presentation of cheque and Complainant
has played fraud by presenting the cheque for encashment
without delivering the machinery. It is further deposed that, by
suppressing the facts, had issued legal notice in wrong address.
It is further deposed that, the Complainant himself has failed to
deliver the machinery to her and her husband and without
delivering the machinery presented the cheque.
25. In the cross-examination DW1 admits that, Ex.P1
cheque belongs to her and also she admits her signature on
Ex.P1 which marked at Ex.P1(a). In the cross-examination she
admits that, Ex.P1 cheque was issued by her for purchase of
machinery. In the cross-examination she admits that, Ex.P1
cheque was dishonoured with reason “funds insufficient” on
presentation of the cheque on 25.6.2019. She further stated
that, on 26.7.2019 she intimated to the bank for stop payment
with reason that machinery were not delivered to her. She
further stated that, as per Ex.P7 cheque was dishonoured with
reason ‘payment stopped by drawer’ on 26.7.2019. In that
cross-examination DW1 unable to say that Ex.P7 and 8 video
18 C.C.No.56319/2019
recording and she also denied that in the said video herself, her
husband and Complainant and his wife were appeared. She
further denied that, in the CD her husband seek time for
payment after receipt of machinery.
26. Considering the oral and documentary evidence
placed by both parties, it is admitted that Ex.P1 cheque was
issued by the Accused for purchase of used machinery from the
Complainant. The defence of the Accused is that, Complainant
has not deliver the machinery to her and her husband and
without delivering the machinery, he presented the cheque. It
is pertaining to note that as per Ex.P2 bank endorsement
dtd.25.6.2019 the cheque was dishonoured with reason “funds
insufficient” and as per Ex.P7 bank engrossment
dtd.26.7.2019 the said cheque was dishonoured with the
reason ‘payment stopped by drawer’ on its presentation. The
Accused has not produced any document to show that on the
date of second presentation she was sufficient funds in her
account to encash the cheque. Therefore it appears that,
intentionally she made stop payment for the cheque. On
perusal of Ex.P7 and 8 video recording, it appears that,
machineries were delivered to the Accused and her husband
19 C.C.No.56319/2019
and for payment of machineries, they seek time from the
Complainant. Further the Accused has not taken any legal
action against the Complainant for presentation of the cheque
without delivering the machinery to her and her husband apart
from payment stopped. Further, the Accused has not lodged
any police complaint against the Accused for playing alleged
fraud against her. Therefore, it presumed that Ex.P1 cheque
was issued by the Accused for payment of purchase of
machinery. The defence of the Accused is that, without deliver
the machinery, the Complainant presented the cheque for
encashment. But, the Accused failed to prove her contention.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for Complainant
argued that, with malafide intention the Accused made stop
payment to the bank with respect of cheque. Earlier, on first
presentation cheque was dishonoured with reason “funds
insufficient”. Therefore, even on second presentation also the
Accused has not sufficient fund in her account for encashment
of cheque. Int his regard, the learned counsel for Complainant
relied on decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
Cri.Rev.Ptn.No.100136/2015 in the case of Nagendrasa
Vasusa Raibagi V/s. Mohansa Nagusa Chavan wherein the
20 C.C.No.56319/2019
Hon’ble High Court held that in that case also the Bank
Manager was not examined to show that, he had sufficient
funds in his account for payment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that, offence u/Sec.138 of N.I.Act of Karnataka would be
made out and in the paragraph 25 it is held as under;
25 – “In the instant case, the cheque issued by
the respondent has been stopped for payment on his
instructions and the cheque was returned to the
Appellant unpaid. In view of our discussion in the
foregoing paragraphs and on the consideration of
the facts and circumstances of the case and the law
on the subject, will hold that, the respondent shall
be deemed to have committed an offence. When the
matter was taken up for further hearing on
17.11.2003, the learned counsel for respondent
submitted that, this court may consider the case of
the respondent and the reason for his inability to
pay the amount and may consider imposing lesser
sentence by taking a lenient view. We are unable to
countenance the said submission for the various
reasons stated supra. We have no doubt that the
respondent has committed an offence publishable
under the provisions of Sec.138 of the Act and is
liable to be punished.”
21 C.C.No.56319/2019
27. Another contention taken by the Accused that the
notice was not served upon her and the Accused has issued the
notice on wrong address. She placed Ex.D1 Gas Agency Book
wherein her address shown as No.18/4, 16 th Cross, 4th Main,
Jayabharathanagar, Bengaluru – 33. In the complaint and in
the notice as per Ex.P3 her address was mentioned Gubbi Town
Tumkur District and also mentioned her Dharwad address. It
is pertaining note that Ex.P5 is the postal acknowledgement
which is duly served upon the Accused at Gubbi Town, Tumkur
District. In the cross-examination of Accused she stated that in
the year 2018 she residing at Gubbi Village and further court
summons of this case was duly served upon the Accused on the
address mentioned in the complaint as well as in the notice. It
is pertaining note that immediately after receipt of summons,
the Accused appeared through her counsel. Further it is
pertaining to note that in the bail bond she mentioned the
Gubbi Town, Tumkur District address and Accused herself
signed on the bail bond. Therefore, the Complainant had issued
the notice on correct address where the Accused was residing.
Therefore, the contention taken by the Accused is not
sustainable.
22 C.C.No.56319/2019
28. As discussed above, it has to be presumed that the
cheque in question was issued by the accused to discharge the
legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused can place
rebuttal evidence so as to show that the cheque was not issued
for consideration. As appreciated supra, accused has failed to
put acceptable and satisfactory evidence to probabilise the
defence. Therefore, there is no question of saying that the
cheque was not issued for liability. Therefore, complainant has
discharged his initial onus laid on him. When he has
discharged his initial onus, it raises presumption U/s 118(a)
and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused has failed to
rebut the presumption either in cross-examining PW-1 or in her
evidence.
29. So, far as sentence and compensation is concern, an
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, is a civil
wrong and compensatory in nature, punitive is secondary,
considering, the above settled principle of law with facts and
circumstances of the case, which clearly reveals that, towards
discharge of liability, the cheque in question of issued by the
accused to the complainant. Therefore, considering the nature
of transaction, duration of pendency, litigation expenses, I am
23 C.C.No.56319/2019
opinion that, if sentence of fine of Rs.7,27,536/- (Rupees
Seven Lakhs Twenty-seven Thousand Five Hundred and
Thirty-six only) is imposed that would meet the ends of
justice, accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.7,27,536/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty-seven
Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty-six only) out of that, the
complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.7,22,536/- (Rupees
Seven Lakhs Twenty-two Thousand Five Hundred and
Thirty-six only) as a compensation as per Sec.357(1) of
Cr.P.C., remaining amount of Rs.5,000/-, is to be appropriated
to the state, in case of default the accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. It is pertaining
note that, as per the order of Hon’ble Appellate Court, the
Accused deposited Rs.1,41,208/- before this court, which was
released in favour of Complainant as per the order of Hon’ble
Appellate Court. Therefore, after deducting of Rs.1,41,208/-,
the Accused is liable to pay Rs.5,86,328/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs Eighty-six Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty-
eight only). Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered in
Affirmative.
24 C.C.No.56319/2019
30. POINT No.2 : In view of discussion held in Point
No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is
convicted for the offence punishable Under Section
138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.7,27,536/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty-
seven Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty-six
only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
6 months. Further, it is made clear that out of fine
amount, Rs.7,22,536/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs
Twenty-two Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty-
six only) is to be paid to the complainant as
compensation and Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be
remitted to the State.
As per the order of Hon’ble Appellate Court,
the Accused deposited Rs.1,41,208/- before this
court, which was released in favour of
Complainant as per the order of Hon’ble Appellate
Court. Therefore, after deducting of Rs.1,41,208/-,
the Accused is liable to pay Rs.5,86,328/- (Rupees
Five Lakhs Eighty-six Thousand Three Hundred
and Twenty-eight only).
25 C.C.No.56319/2019
Bail bond stands cancelled.
Supply the free copy of this judgement to the
Accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me
and then pronounced in the open court on this 28th January, 2025)
(PARVEEN A BANKAPUR)
XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 Mr.K.N. Raghunatha Reddy
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque Ex.P.2 Bank endorsement Ex.P.3 Office copy of Legal Notice Ex.P.4 Postal receipt Ex.P.5 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P.6 Unserved postal cover Ex.P.7 CD Ex.P.8 Pen Drive Ex.P.9 Certificate u/Sec.65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
DW1 Mrs. Renuka V. Kallur
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 Notarized copy of book issued by Bharat Gas Agency
Ex.D.2 Notarized copy of Cylinder Receipt(PARVEEN A BANKAPUR)
XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.
[ad_1]
Source link