[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
M/S Sunvik Steels Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Babu Steels And Traders on 11 April, 2025
C.C.NO.10772/2023
0
KABC030185812023
Presented on : 05-05-2023
Registered on : 05-05-2023
Decided on : 11-04-2025
Duration : 1 years, 11 months, 6 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.10772/2023
Complainant: M/s.Sunvik Steels Private.,Ltd.,
Having its registered office at 23,
3rd Floor, MES Road, Bahubali
Nagar, Bangalore-560013.
R/by its authorized person,
Mr.Amith Vikram S/o Nagendra Pathak,
Age:36 years, Chief Operating Officer,
As per the order dated: 25.07.2024
Complainant company
R/by its Liasion Officer
Sri.C.H.Mallikarjuna.
(By Smt.Vaishnavi.G.K & Ors.,Advs.,)
V/s
Accused: M/s.Babu Steels & Traders,
Sy.No.196, Kaiwara Village,
Tq: Chintamani, Dist:Chikkaballapura,
R/by its Proprietor.
(By. Mr.S.Z.Bareed & Ors.,Advs.,)
C.C.NO.10772/2023
1
:JUDGMENT:
This case arises out of the private complaint filed
under section 200 of Cr.P.C., for an offence punishable
under section 138 of N.I.Act.
2. The case of the complainant’s in brief is as
under:
It is the case of the complainant is that the
complainant is engaged in the business of
manufacturing and supply of sponge Iron-Lumps, TMT
bars of various sizes and supply of Fly Ash
bricks/blocks. The accused is a proprietor. The accused
had business relationship with the complainant as a
part of which he was taking the TMT bars on credit
basis in between 2020-21 to 31.03.2023 and used to
pay the purchase amount partly or fully and he was due
some payments. The accused has purchased the
materials worth of Rs.26,39,991/- and made part
payment of Rs.22,63,800/-. As per the accused
instructions the complainant has supplied the said
materials and the complainant has raised the invoices
for supply for materials. As per the terms of the said
invoices the accused has to made payment within 30
days, however he has failed to make the payment as
per the said invoices. As per the invoices there is an
obligation on the accused to pay the 24% interest on
the delayed payment. Further the accused is in due of
Rs.3,76,191/- towards purchase of materials and
C.C.NO.10772/2023
2
interest as on 31.03.2023 for Rs.1,63,751/-. On several
request of the complainant in the month of December
2022, the accused has issued the cheque No.712065
dated: 08.12.2022 for Rs.3,76,191/- drawn on the
Syndicate Bank, Chintamani branch, Chikkaballapura.
As per the assurance of the accused the complainant
had presented the said cheque for encashment through
its banker HDFC Bank Ltd., Richmond Road Branch,
Bangalore. But the said cheque was dishonored on
20.01.2023 as “Bank Merged”. Thereafter, on
16.02.2023 the complainant got issued a legal notice to
the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay
the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of
service of the notice. The said notice was duly served
to the accused on 20.02.2023. After service of the legal
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 06.04.2023.
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 21.04.2023 to register the case in
Register No.III and it was registered as a criminal case.
C.C.NO.10772/2023
3
4. Thereafter, summons was issued to the
accused and he has appeared before the court through
counsel 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
claimed to be tried.
5. The complainant’s in support of its case, have
examined its Chief Operating Officer Mr.Amith Vikram
as PW.1 and got marked 11 documents at Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.11 closed its side.
6. During the pendency of the case, the learned
counsel for the complainant has filed an application for
the substitution of the representative of the company
contending that the complainant originally represented
by its Chief Operating Officer Mr.Amit Vikram, due to
change of circumstances she would like to substitute
one of its Liasion Officer Mr.Mallikarjuna.C.H during the
course of trial. Accordingly on 25.07.2024 the said
application was allowed and another Liasion Officer Mr.
Mallikarjuna.C.H has represented the complainant
company. The complainant’s have examined this
Liasion officer as PW.2 and got marked 09 documents
at Ex.P.12 to 23 and closed its side. Inspite of sufficient
opportunity the counsel for the accused not cross
examined PW.2. Hence, the cross of PW.2 taken as nil.
C.C.NO.10772/2023
4
7. After closer of the evidence of the complainant,
the statement 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.
8. Heard the argument on the complainant side
and perused the material placed on record.
9. 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 argument.
10. 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 legally enforceable
debt/liability.?
3.Whether the complainant further proves that
cheque-Ex.P.1 was dishonored for the reason
“Bank Merged” and thereafter the accused had
failed to repay the same within the statutory
period, inspite of receipt of legal notice.?
C.C.NO.10772/2023
5
4. Whether the accused have thus committed an
offence punishable under section 138 of
N.I.Act.?
5. What order?
11. 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:
12. POINT NO.1 AND 2: These 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
both points together for common discussion. The case
of the complainant is that he was acquainted with the
accused. Further the complainant is engaged in the
business of manufacturing and supply of sponge Iron-
Lumps, TMT bars of various sizes and supply of Fly
Ash bricks/blocks. The accused is a proprietor and he
had business relationship with the complainant as a
part of which he was taking the TMT bars on credit
basis and used to pay the purchase amount partly or
fully and he was due some payments. The accused has
purchased the materials worth of Rs.26,39,991/- made
part payment of Rs.22,63,800/-. Further as per the
accused instructions the complainant has supplied the
C.C.NO.10772/2023
6
said materials to the accused and the complainant has
raised the invoices. As per the terms of the said
invoices the accused has to made payment within 30
days, however he has failed to make the payment. As
per the invoices there is an obligation on the accused
to pay the 24% interest on the delayed payment.
Further the accused is in due of Rs.3,76,191/- towards
purchase of materials and interest for Rs.1,63,751/-.
Further on several request, the accused has issued
cheque in question. As per the assurance of the
accused the complainant had presented the said
cheque for encashment through its banker. But the said
cheque was dishonored as “Bank Merged”. Thereafter
the complainant got issued a legal notice to the
accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the
cheque amount. Inspite of service of the legal 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.
13. In support of the case, the complainant’s have
examined its Chief Operating Officer and Liasion
Officer as P.W.1 and 2 and 23 documents were marked
at Ex.P.1 to 23. In the chief examinations P.W.1 and 2
have repeated the contents taken by the complainant in
the complaint. Ex.P.1 is the cheque issued by the
C.C.NO.10772/2023
7
accused in favour of the complainant dated: 08.12.2022
for Rs.3,76,191/-. Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of the
accused. Ex.P.2 is the bank memo dated: 20.01.2023
informing the dishonor of the cheque as “Bank
Merged”. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice dated:
16.02.2023. Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt. Ex.P.5 is the
Postal acknowledgment. Ex.P.6 is the Board resolution.
Ex.P.7 is the GST registration certificate. Ex.P.8 is the
Ledger account. Ex.P.9 and 10 are the certificates
under section 65 of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.11 is the
complaint. Ex.P.12 is the certified copy of GST
registration certificate. Ex.P.13 to 15 are the Tax
Invoices, weighing slips, Goods consignment, E-way
bill & E-Invoices. Ex.P.16 to 20 are the certified copies
of ledger accounts. Ex.P.21 is the certified copy of GST
registration certificate. Ex.P.22 is the certified copy of
the PIM report. Ex.P.23 is the Amended complaint.
14. In this case the accused has not taken any
specific defence regarding issuance of cheque in
favour of the complainant. The accused in his defence
has not disputed cheque in question have been issued
by him. He also does not dispute his signature
appearing on the said cheque. Further he has not
contended that he has never admitted regarding
repayment of the amount as contended by the
complainant.
C.C.NO.10772/2023
8
15. 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/liability, for which the cheque came to be issued.
The learned counsel for the complainant has argued
that from the evidence placed on record reveals that
the accused is a proprietor and he had business
relationship with the complainant as a part of which the
accused was taking the TMT bars on credit basis and
used to pay the purchase amount partly or fully and the
accused was due some payments. The accused has
purchased the materials worth of Rs.26,39,991/- and
made part payment of Rs.22,63,800/-. Further as per
the accused instructions the complainant has supplied
the said materials to the accused and the complainant
has raised the invoices for supply for materials. As per
the terms of the said invoices the accused has to made
payment within 30 days, however he has failed to make
the payment. Further argued that the accused is in due
of Rs.3,76,191/- towards purchase of materials and
also interest for Rs.1,63,751/-. Further argued that the
complainant demanded the accused to repay the said
due. The accused towards payment of balance amount
had issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 in favour of the
complainant. The complainant has presented the said
cheque for encahsment. But the said cheque was
dishonored as “Bank Merged”. He further argued that
C.C.NO.10772/2023
9
the accused has not denied Ex.P.1 being his cheque
drawn on the account of the accused. When the
signature is not disputed, the presumption under
section 139 N.I.Act is to be drawn in favour of the
complainant.
16. He further argued that inspite of sufficient
opportunity, the learned counsel for the accused has
not cross examined PW.2 and failed to elicit anything in
the cross examination to disbelieve the said evidence.
The defence have failed to rebut the presumption under
section 139 N.I.Act. Further argued that the accused
has failed to produce any believable evidence that he
had not issued subject cheque in favour of the
complainant. Further how the cheque was got the
complainant and why he 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. Further argued that the accused has
failed to prove the very fact for issuance of the cheque-
Ex.P.1. 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
C.C.NO.10772/2023
10
presumption. But, in the case on hand no such
evidence forthcoming. Further argued that the
complainant have produced the documents before this
court and the complainant have proved its case beyond
reasonable doubts. Hence, he prays to convict the
accused.
17. In the case on hand the complainant and the
accused having some transaction has not been
seriously disputed by the accused. Further the accused
has not seriously disputed he had purchased the
materials from the complainant on credit basis. It is not
disputed that the complainant is a private limited
company and the accused is a proprietary concern and
the present accused is a proprietor and businessman.
In order to attract the offence 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 in order to prove its case, have examined
its Chief Operating Officer and Liasion Officer as PW.1
and 2 and 23 documents are marked at Ex.P.1 to 23. In
chief examinations, they have repeated the averments
made by the complainant in the complaint.
18. Under section 139 of N.I.Act, there is a
presumption regarding the existence of legally
C.C.NO.10772/2023
11
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 not disputed the existence of legally
enforceable debt/liability, for which cheque-Ex.P.1 was
issued. In order to prove his defense, the accused has
not produced any oral or documentary evidence on his
behalf.
19. 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
the accused has to produced some probable evidence,
which creates doubt about the existence of legally
enforceable debt/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, what prevented the accused to file the
complaint immediately 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 said cheque. Admittedly the
accused is having knowledge of the financial
transaction, why he has given the cheque to the
C.C.NO.10772/2023
12
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
cheque. Moreover, immediately after the alleged
cheque misused by the complainant he has 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.
20. Once issuance of the cheque and signature
are admitted, the statutory presumptions would arise
under sections 139 and 118 of the N.I.Act, that the
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. Of course, 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. 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 the court has to drawn the
initial presumption that he is the payee of that cheque.
C.C.NO.10772/2023
13
Once the initial burden is discharged by the
complainant, the onus shifts on the accused to rebut
the complainant’s case.
21. In the defence there is no ill-will between the
complainant and the accused. Hence, misuse of the
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 alleged 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 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.
22. Moreover, the complainant have got issued a
legal notice to the accused by registered post through
its counsel calling upon the accused to make payment
of the said cheque amount to the complainant. Before a
C.C.NO.10772/2023
14
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 the 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 2 and also
cheque return memo-Ex.P.2 it is established that the
cheque was dishonored for the reasons “Bank
Merged”. A legal notice being issued as per Ex.P.3
within one month from the date of dishonour of the
cheque is also not in dispute. In the case on hand the
accused has not disputed the service of the legal
notice. But he has failed to reply the notice,
immediately 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 his
address is sufficient compliance of section 138 of
N.I.Act. Therefore, there is sufficient proof of due
service of the legal notice.
23. It is not the contention of the accused that
thereafter he has repaid the cheque amount within
stipulated time of 15 days on receiving the notice.
Therefore, in the case on hand on perusal of the
C.C.NO.10772/2023
15
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 have 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,
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.
24. 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
C.C.NO.10772/2023
16
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.
25. 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
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 and 2
have established the case of the complainant, the
accused had issued the cheque in order to repay the
legally recoverable amount. Therefore, the accused
has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139
of N.I.Act. Hence, the accused is liable for dishonor of
the cheque. 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.
C.C.NO.10772/2023
17
26. PW.1 and 2 in their evidence have specifically
deposed that the accused towards repayment of
balance amount got issued the cheque in question 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 point No.1 and 2 in the
Affirmative.
27.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
C.C.NO.10772/2023
18
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
the accused why he has not replied the notice and
initially why he has not produced any documents.
Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before
the court on 06.04.2023 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
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.
28. 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
C.C.NO.10772/2023
19
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 the offence
punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond and surety bond hereby
stands canceled.
The accused is sentence to pay fine of
Rs.3,90,000/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety
thousand only) to the complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the said
fine amount an amount of Rs.3,80,000/-
(Rupees three lakhs eighty 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.10,000/-
(Rupees ten 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
C.C.NO.10772/2023
20
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
List of witness examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Mr.Amit Vikram. PW.2 : Mr.Mallikarjuna.C.H.
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. Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt. Ex.P.5 : Board resolution. Ex.P.7 : GST registration certificate. Ex.P.8 : Ledger account. Ex.P.9 & 10 : Certificates under section 65(b) I.E.Act. Ex.P.11 : Complaint. Ex.12 : GST registration certificate.
Ex.P.13 to 15 : Tax Invoices, Weighing slips, Goods
consignment, E-way bill & E-Invoices.
Ex.P.16 to 20 : Certified copy of ledger accounts.
Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of GST. Ex.P.22 : Certified copy of PIM report. Ex.P.23 : Amended 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.10772/2023
21
11.04.2025 (Judgment pronounced in the Open
Court Vide Separate Sheet):ORDER:
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is convicted for the offence
punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond and surety bond hereby
stands canceled.
The accused is sentence to pay fine of
Rs.3,90,000/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety
thousand only) to the complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the said
fine amount an amount of Rs.3,80,000/-
(Rupees three lakhs eighty 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.10,000/- (Rupees ten 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