Bangalore District Court
L Suresh vs Muniraju on 23 January, 2025
KABC0C0166072021
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 23rd day of January, 2025
C.C.No.55076/2021
COMPLAINANT : Mrs. L Suresh
S/o. Siddaiah,
Aged about 33 years
R/at Flat No. SB2, Venkatadri Lake
View Apartment, 3rd Main, 5th
Cross, K R Puram New Extension,
Near Government School,
Bengaluru - 560 036.
(By Mr.Bandagar Shivaji- Advocate)
V/s
ACCUSED : Mr.Muniraju
S/o. Late Dodda Yellappa
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No.96, Near Yellamma Temple,
Marasuru Village & Post,
Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru District.
(By Mr.M. Parameshwara &
Adinarayana - Advocates)
1 Date of Commencement 09.04.2021&
of offence
2 Date of report of offence 28.05.2021
3 Presence of accused
3a. Before the Court 21.10.2022
3b. Released on bail 21.10.2022
4 Name of the Complainant Mr. L. Suresh
5 Date of recording of 14.09.2021
evidence
6 Date of closure of evidence 27.08.2024
7 Offences alleged U/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
8 Opinion of Judge Accused is found guilty.
2 C.C.No.55076/2021
JUDGEMENT
The Private Complaint filed by the Complainant under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that he 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 Accused had
approached him to get the site No.55/1A3 of Sy.No.3/3
measuring 1 Acre 32 guntas and Sy.No.3/4 measuring 1 Acre 9
guntas, situated at Hagaduru village, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Whitefield, Bengaluru East Taluk. Believing the words of the
Accused, he had approached for a site in the layout formed by
the Accused and in turn the Accused approached him to give a
sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards the advance of the said site
property by way of Cheque bearing No.487710 dtd.2.4.2019 for
Rs.10 lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, Maruthi Seva Nagar,
Bengaluru, the same was encashed by the Accused on
4.4.2019.
It is further submitted that after encashing the amount,
there was no response by the Accused after taking amount of
Rs.10 lakhs, when the Complainant approached the Accused
3 C.C.No.55076/2021
for getting the site property in his favour in turn the Accused
told that the said amount of Rs.10 lakhs would be repaid within
a short period.
It is further submitted by the Complainant that on
repeated requests and demands, he requested to repay the
said amount of Rs.10 lakhs to that effect left with no other
choice, finally the Accused issued a cheque bearing No.801119
dtd.9.4.2021 for Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank
Ltd., Chandapura branch, Bengaluru in favour of Complainant
to discharge his legal debt and liability and the Accused has
assured that that the same would be honoured on its
presentation for encashment.
It is further submitted that, as per the instruction of the
Accused, the Complainant presented the said cheque for
encashment through his banker State Bank of India, Maruthi
Seva Nagar branch, Bengaluru. But the said was returned with
endorsement “funds insufficient” on 19.4.2021. Despite the
said fact was intimated to the Accused, the Accused did not pay
the Cheque amount. Finally, the Complainant got issued legal
notice issued to the Accused by RPAD and also by ordinary post
on 23.4.2021, for demanding payment to the value of Cheque
4 C.C.No.55076/2021
within 15 days from the receipt of notice. But the same was
returned with a postal shara ‘Addressee left returned to sender’
on 5.5.2021. After receipt of the legal notice, the Accused has
neither paid the Cheque amount nor replied the notice. Hence,
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 himself on bail. Plea was recorded, read
over and explained to the accused, who pleads not guilty and
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 5 and closed his side. Ex.P6
5 C.C.No.55076/2021
document came to be marked through confrontation during the
course of cross-examination of DW1.
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 himself as DW1 and got
marked documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D4 from his end. He also got
examined one more witness from his end as DW2 and closed
his side.
7. Heard both sides. In addition to the oral arguments,
both the learned counsels appearing for parties have filed their
respective written arguments.
The learned Counsel for Accused has placed the following
citations;
1. AIR 2010 SC 1898
2. 2009 Cri.L.J. 4460 Karnataka High Court
3. 2014 AIR SCW 2158
4. (2010) 11 SCC 441
5. (2019) S SCC 418
6. Cri.Apl.No.1497/2022
6 C.C.No.55076/2021
7.Cril.Apl.No.1978/2013 along with
Cri.Apl.No.1190/2013 and Civil Apl.No.1501/2013
8. (2016) 1 SCC 99
9. ILR 2008 KAR 46229
10. Cri.Apl.No.3257/2024 SC
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 legally recoverable debt has issued a
Cheque No.801119 dtd.9.4.2021 for
Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank
Ltd., Chandapura branch, Bengaluru in
favour in favour of the complainant which
came to be dishonoured with an
endorsement “Alteration require drawer’s
authentication” 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. Existence of legally recoverable debt is a sine qua non
for prosecuting the case under Section 138 of Negotiable
7 C.C.No.55076/2021
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”.
11. It is the core contention of the complainant that,
the Accused had approached him to get the site No.55/1A3 of
Sy.No.3/3 measuring 1 Acre 32 guntas and Sy.No.3/4
measuring 1 Acre 9 guntas. Believing the words of the Accused,
he had approached for a site in the layout formed by the
Accused and in turn the Accused approached him to give a sum
of Rs.10 lakhs towards the advance of the said site property by
way of Cheque which was encashed by the Accused on
4.4.2019. After encashing the amount, there was no response
by the Accused after taking amount of Rs.10 lakhs, when the
Complainant approached the Accused for getting the site
property in his favour in turn the Accused told that the said
amount of Rs.10 lakhs would be repaid within a short period.
8 C.C.No.55076/2021
On repeated requests and demands, he issued a cheque
bearing No.801119 dtd.9.4.2021 for Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on
Karnataka Bank Ltd., Chandapura branch, Bengaluru in
favour of Complainant to discharge his legal debt and liability
and the Accused has assured that that the same would be
honoured on its presentation for encashment, which was
returned with endorsement “funds insufficient” on 19.4.2021.
Despite the said fact was intimated to the Accused, the Accused
did not pay the Cheque amount. Finally, the Complainant got
issued legal notice issued to the Accused by RPAD and also by
ordinary post on 23.4.2021, for demanding payment to the
value of Cheque within 15 days from the receipt of notice. But
the same was returned with a postal shara ‘Addressee left
returned to sender’ on 5.5.2021. After receipt of the legal notice,
the Accused has neither paid the Cheque amount nor replied
the notice. Hence, the Complainant has filed present complaint
against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of
N.I. Act.
12. 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
9 C.C.No.55076/2021
placed original Cheque bearing No.801119 dtd.9.4.2021, bank
endorsements at Ex.P2, office copy of legal notice issued by the
Complainant to the Accused on 23.4.2021 at Ex.P3, postal
receipt at Ex.P4, Ex.P5 is the returned postal cover and Ex.P6
is the copy of release deed.
13. 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.
14. 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
10 C.C.No.55076/2021accepted, 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
consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is
a holder in due course lies upon him”.
15. 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–
11 C.C.No.55076/2021
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.”
16. 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
12 C.C.No.55076/2021the 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
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)
17. 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
13 C.C.No.55076/2021
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.”
18. Factual matrix of the case is required to be tested on
the anvil of principles emerging from the above-referred
decisions.
19. The defence taken by the Accused is that, he misused
the cheque which issued for the security purpose. He further
submits that Complainant and Mr.Srinivas Gowda colluding
with each other filed false complaint against him.
20. To substantiate his claim the Complainant examined
himself as PW1. In the evidence he deposed that, the Accused
is friend of Complainant and he close to his family. It is further
deposed that, the Accused had approached him to get the site
in Sy.No.3/3 and Sy.No.3/4, believing the words of the
Accused, the Complainant had approached for a site in the said
layout formed by the Accused and advanced Rs.10 lakhs to the
14 C.C.No.55076/2021
Accused through cheque bearing No.487710 which was
encashed by the Accused on 4.4.2019. It is further deposed
that, after encashing the cheque the Accused not responsing for
getting the site property in favour of Complainant and finally
he told that, he will pay advance amount of Rs.10 lakhs within
short period. It is further deposed that, on repeated requests
and demands, the Accused has issued Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.10
lakhs in favour of Complainant, which was dishonoued with
reason “Alteration require drawer’s authentication” as per
Ex.P2. It is further deposed that, this fact is intimated to the
Accused and Accused again failed to pay the cheque amount. It
is further deposed that, finally, the Complainant got issued
legal notice to the Accused as per Ex.P3,which was returned
with endorsement ‘address left, returned to the sender’ as per
Ex.P5. It is further deposed that, even if notice received by the
Accused through ordinary post neither the Accused replied tot
he notice nor pay the cheque amount to the Complainant.
21. Considering the oral and documentary evidence of
the Complainant placed before the court, prima facie presumed
that, Ex.P1 was issued by the Accused towards discharge of
15 C.C.No.55076/2021
legally enforceable debt. To rebut the presumption, the learned
Counsel for Accused cross examined the PW1 in full length. In
cross examination PW1 stated that, he stated that he paid
Rs.10 lakhs to the Accused through cheque as advance amount
for purchase of site No.55/1, 3/1 and 3/4. It is further stated
that Accused has not executed agreement of sale. It is further
stated that Accused is GPA Holder to sell the sites from its
owner. It is further stated that the Accused formed the layout
at Hagadur. He further stated that entire sale consideration
amount for the site is Rs.90 lakhs. He unable to say that with
respect of said survey number Civil Suit is pending before civil
court. He admits the suggestion made by the learned counsel
for Accused that, after verifying the ownership documents, he
paid advance amount to the Accused. He denied the suggestion
that Rs.10 lakhs was paid by him for other reason. He further
denied that, Accused has issued Ex.P1 cheque in the year
2019. He stated that the cheque was issued by the Accused in
the year 2021. He further denied that the Accused was issued
Ex.P1 cheque in the year 2019 for the security purpose. It is
further denied by the PW1 that Complainant and Mr.Srinivas
Gowda were friends and doing real estate business together.
16 C.C.No.55076/2021
He admits that Mr.Srinivas Gowda and Accused were partners.
He unable to say that, Mr.Srinivas Gowda liable to pay Rs.45
lakhs to the Accused. He further denied that he Accused was
lodged police complaint against Mr. Srinivas Gowda. He further
stated that handwriting in Ex.P1 belongs to the Accused. He
denied that Ex.P1 cheque was obtained by him from
Mr.Srinivas Gowda and filed this complaint against the
Accused.
22. To rebut the presumption the Accused examined
himself as DW1. It is deposed that he and Mr. Srinivas were
friends and they purchased Sy.No.55/1A3 23 guntas jointly. It
is further deposed that the Complainant and Mr. Srinivas are
friends. It is further deposed that he is a GPA Holder to the
Sy.No.3/3, 3/4 and also the land owners were executed
agreement in his favour. It is further deposed that Complainant
and Mr.Srinivas were took cheque from him and received
amount from the farmers. It is further deposed that
Mr.Srinivas is entitled to pay Rs.50 lakhs to him and when he
asked for return of Rs.50 lakhs to Mr.Srinivas colluding with
Complainant both were filed present false complaint against
him. He further deposed that, he received Rs.10 lakhs amount
17 C.C.No.55076/2021
from with respect of Sy.No.3/3 and 3/4 from the Complainant.
It is further deposed that he returned advance amount to the
Complainant. It is further deposed that he was not formed
layout in the said land and with respect of said land OS
No.1718/2013 and 1719/2013 are pending before the Civil
Court and both khatha are standing in the name of
Mrs. Papamma. It is further deposed that both lands were
purchased by him and Mr.Srinivas jointly and on that time he
issued cheque to Srinivas and Srinivas liable to pay Rs.50 lakhs
to him. It is further deposed that Srinivas hand over the
cheque to the Complainant and through Complainant he filed
complaint against him.
23. In the cross-examination he admits that, he received
Rs.10 lakhs from the Complainant through cheque. He further
stated int ehc cross-examination Rs.10 lakhs was returned to
the Complainant through Srinivas. It is further stated that
Rs.10 lakhs amount was hand over to Srinivas. He further
admits that, the address mentioned in Ex.P6 release deed is his
residential address and she is residing in the said address. He
further stated in the cross-examination that, Ex.D1 to 4 land
18 C.C.No.55076/2021
owner is Mrs. Papamma and said Mrs. Papamma was executed
GPA in his favour.
24. in support of Accused, one witness by name
Mr.Ramamurthy is examined as DW2. It is deposed that
Complainant was intending to purchase his land and received
advance amount of Rs10 lakhs from the Complainant. It is
further deposed that Accused is his GPA Holder. It is further
deposed that Complainant was not purchased his land.
Therefore, he was returned advance amount to the
Complainant at Kadugodi in the presence of Accused and
Srinivas. In the cross-examination he admits that, Complainant
paid Rs.10 lakhs to the Accused through cheque and also
admits that, Accused was encashed the said cheque. It is
further stated that Accused not given Rs.10 lakhs amount to
him.
25. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, it
clear that, Complainant was paid Rs.10 lakhs to the Accused as
advance amount for the purpose of purchase of sites to the
Accused. It is further clear that the Accused is the GPA Holder
of land owners i.e., Mrs. Papamma and DW2. Therefore, it is
further clear that, the Accused is a competent person to sell the
19 C.C.No.55076/2021
lands Sy.No.3/3 and 3/4 as the Accused GPA Holder of the
land owners. The Accused taken contention that, he was
returned the advance amount to the Complainant and the
Complainant took cheque from Srinivas and filed false
complaint against him. It is pertaining to note that neither the
Accused nor DW2 have keep present Srinivas and lead his
evidence before the court. Even the Accused has not produced
any document to show that, he was issued cheque to Srinivas
and in between them any transaction or dealing with respect to
of the lands as stated by the Accused.
26. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for Accused submits that, it is allegation of the Complainant
that the Accused borrowed Rs.10 lakhs from the Complainant
and issued cheque for repayment of said loan. There is no
document to show that the Accused has borrowed money from
the Complainant. The learned counsel for Accused relied on
some decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India with respect
of existence of legally recoverable debt and liability and
presumption u/Sec. 139 of N.I. Act. It is pertaining to note that
the Accused himself admits that he received Rs.10 lakhs
amount from the Complainant as advance sale consideration
20 C.C.No.55076/2021
with respect of site through cheque and said cheque was
encashed by him. Therefore, the Accused clearly admits that,
he received Rs.10 lakhs amount from the Complainant but, his
contention is that, he was returned advance amount to the
Complainant. With this regard, the he has not placed any
cogent evidence before the court Further contention is that the
Complainant and Mr. Srinivas were misused the cheque which
cheque was issued to Mr. Srinivas as a security purpose. This
fact also not proved by the Accused with cogent evidence.
27. Further contention taken by the Accused that, notice
issued by the Complainant was not served upon him. Hence,
the Complainant has not complied statutory provisions. It is
pertaining to note that Ex.P6 release deed executed by the
Accused in favour of Srinivas and he was mentioned his
residential address along with Aadhaar number in Ex.P6. It is
pertaining to note that the address mentioned in Ex.P6 and
address mentioned in the complaint as well as notice as per
Ex.P3 are one and same. Therefore, the Complainant was
issued legal notice to the Accused on correct address of the
Accused. Therefore, the contention taken by the learned
counsel for Accused is not sustainable. Considering the entire
21 C.C.No.55076/2021
materials it is presumed that, Ex.P1 cheque was issued by the
Accused to the Complainant towards discharge of legally
enforceable debt.
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 his
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
22 C.C.No.55076/2021
circumstances of the case, which clearly reveals that, towards
discharge of advanced amount, 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 opinion that, if sentence of fine of
Rs.12,16,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Sixteen
Thousand only) is imposed that would meet the ends of
justice, accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.12,16,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Sixteen
Thousand only) out of that, the complainant is entitled for a
sum of Rs.12,11,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Eleven
Thousand 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. Accordingly, the Point
No.1 is answered in Affirmative.
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.
23 C.C.No.55076/2021
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.12,16,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and
Sixteen Thousand only) in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for 6 months. Further, it is
made clear that out of fine amount, Rs.12,11,000/-
(Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Eleven Thousand
only) is to be paid to the complainant as
compensation and Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be
remitted to the State.
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 23th January, 2025)
(PARVEEN A BANKAPUR)
XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 Mr. L. Suresh
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 Unserved postal cover Ex.P.6 Copy of Release Deed
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 Mr. Muniraju D.W.2 Mr. Ramamurthy
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of Roznama in OS No.1718/2013
24 C.C.No.55076/2021Ex.D.2 Certified copy of plaint OS NO.1718/2013
Ex.D.3 Certified copy of Roznama OS NO.1719/2013
Ex.D.4 Certified copy of plaint in O S No.1719/2013(PARVEEN A BANKAPUR)
XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.