Bangalore District Court
Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt.Lts vs Chaitra on 19 December, 2024
KABC020373272022 Digitally signed
by
RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR
SHETTIGAR
Date:
2024.12.20
10:35:11 +0530
BEFORE THE COURT OF XIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE & ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTGRATE
(SCCH-10) AT BENGALURU
Dated This the 19th Day of December 2024
PRESENT:
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR,
B.A., LL.B.,
XIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE &
ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
C.C No.14184/2022
COMPLAINANT : M/s. Venkateshwara Hatcheries
Pvt. Ltd.,
A company registered under
the Companies Act, 1956
having its office at:
CBF Division, Site No.6,
Ganesha Chambers, 3rd Floor,
Dodda Banaswadi Main Road,
Near Ramamurthy Nagar Signal,
Banaswadi Post,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
Represented by its
Authorized Representative,
2 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
Tejeshwar. D.C.
(By Smt. M.G., Advocate)
// Versus //
ACCUSED : Smt. Chaitra,
W/o. Girish. K.S,
At Keraganahalli Village,
Kodagu, Somvarapet,
Kodlipete - 571231.
(By Sri. L.K.S, Advocate)
:: JUDGMENT :
:
This is the complaint instituted by the complainant
against the accused under section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the
commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act-1881.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as
follows:
The complainant company is a company registered under
the companies Act 1956 and is engaged in the business of
growing broiler chicken, developing, maintenance and
supervision of chicks into full meat broiler birds and selling of
3 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10grown birds. The accused has been engaged in transactions
with the complainant with respect to purchase of chicks and
grown birds. The accused was fully aware about the
transaction between the accused and the complainant and to
discharge her dues, she has issued a Cheque bearing
No.166187 dated 25-10-2022 for an amount of Rs.4,51,114/-
and the said cheque when presented, same was returned
dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” as per
the bankers memo dated 26-10-2022. Then, the complainant
got issued a legal notice to the accused dated 04-11-2022
demanding the payment of the cheque amount. Despite receipt
of notice, the accused has not paid the cheque amount. Thus,
the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, this complaint.
3. After filing of the complaint, the cognizance of the offence
was taken and registered criminal case against the accused
and the summons was issued to her. The accused has appeared
4 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
before the Court through her counsel and was enlarged on bail.
Subsequently, plea was recorded and the substance of the
accusation was read over and explained to her. She pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to substantiate its case, the complainant
company examined its Authorized representative as PW-1 and
the documents produced by complainant were marked as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13.
5. Further, the Statement of the Accused U/Sec.313 of
Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating
circumstances appeared against her in the evidence. The
accused examined herself as DW-1 and also examined one
witness as DW-2 and got marked a document as Ex.D.1.
6. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials available on
record.
7. Now the points that arise for my determination are as
follows:-
5 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
1) Whether the complainant proved that, the
accused in order to discharge her liability has
issued the cheque for a sum of Rs.4,51,114/-
and when the same was presented for
encashment, was returned dishonoured with
an endorsement ‘Funds Insufficient’ and
despite receipt of demand notice, the accused
has not repaid the amount and thereby she
has committed an offence punishable u/s 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2) What order?
8. On the basis of the materials available on record, my
finding to the above points are as follows:
POINT NO.1 : In the Affirmative.
POINT NO.2 : As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1:
According to the complainant, the accused was engaged in
transaction with the complainant with respect to purchase of
chicks and grown birds and during the said transaction, in
discharge of her dues, has issued the cheque for a sum of
Rs.4,51,114/- and when the same was presented for
6 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10encashment, was dishonoured and despite receipt of demand
notice, the accused has not paid the amount covered under the
cheque.
10. To substantiate its case, the Authorized representative of
the complainant company was examined as PW-1 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. PW-1 has reiterated the contents of
the complaint in his affidavit about the transaction with the
accused, issuance of cheque by the accused towards discharge
of her liability and its dishonour and issuance of the legal
notice to the accused calling upon her to pay the amount
covered under cheque and her failure to comply the same.
11. It is the specific case of the complainant that, during the
business transaction in order to discharge the dues, the
accused has issued the disputed cheque for a sum of
Rs.4,51,114/-. Said cheque is marked before this Court as per
Ex.P.4. Ex.P.4 has been issued in the name of the complainant
drawn for a sum of Rs.4,51,114/-. Said cheque is dated
7 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
25.10.2022. Ex.P.5 is the Bank endorsement wherein it reveals
that, the said cheque when presented to the bank was
dishonoured for the reasons ‘funds insufficient’. Ex.P.6 is the
Demand notice issued to the accused calling upon her to make
payment covered under the cheque. Ex.P.8 is the Postal
acknowledgment wherein it reveals that said notice issued to
the accused was duly served on her. Based on the aforesaid
documents, the complainant would submit that, they have
complied the mandatory provisions as contemplated U/Sec.138
of N.I. Act.
12. In order to establish the transaction between the
complainant and the accused, the complainant has produced
one Ledger Extract as per Ex.P.2. I have carefully gone
through Ex.P.2 wherein it reveals that, on different dates, the
accused has purchased chicks and was paying the amount to
the complainant by way of cash as well as through bank
account transaction. It also appears that, the accused used to
8 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
purchase the chicks and grown birds on credit basis. As per
Ex.P.2 it reveals that, as on 26.10.2022 a sum of Rs.4,51,114/-
was due amount payable by the accused.
13. The counsel for the complainant has also relied upon
Ex.P.3 which is the Confirmation of balance letter. On perusal
of Ex.P.3 it reveals that, as on 31.08.2022 a sum of
Rs.4,51,114/- was the balance amount and the accused has
confirmed the said balance amount by putting her signature to
the said document. The complainant has also produced the
statement of accounts as per Ex.P.10, original Inventory and
delivery challans as per Ex.P.11, original Inventory and
temporary receipts and cash receipts as per Ex.P.12. On
perusal of the aforesaid documents produced by the
complainant goes to show that, the complainant used to supply
the chicks and grown birds to the accused and the accused
during the said transaction was paying the amount by cash
9 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
and was also purchasing the same on credit basis and was due
an amount of Rs.4,51,114/-.
14. On careful perusal of the documents relied by the
complainant goes to show that, statutory requirements of
Section 138 of N.I. Act is complied with. Further, the
complainant has discharged their initial burden by relying oral
and documentary evidence.
15. As far as proof of existence of legally enforceable debt is
concerned, it is profitable to refer the decision of full bench of
the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Rangappa Vs. Sri.
Mohan reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898, wherein their
lordships pleased to observe that,
“In the light of these extracts, we are in
agreement with the respondent-claimant that
the presumption mandated by Section 139 of
the Act does indeed include the existence of the
legally enforceable debt or liability”.
10 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
The Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly laid down the ratio
that, when the ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act are
complied with, presumption shall be drawn in favour of the
complainant. The burden is upon the accused to rebut the
statutory presumptions.
16. Further in the case of Bir Sing Vs Mukesh
Kumar reported in 2019 (1) KHC 774 : (2019) 4 SCC
197 : 2019 (1) KLT 598, the Apex Court held that, when a
signed blank cheque is voluntarily given to a payee,
towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount
and other particulars, and that will not invalidate the
cheque. The onus to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of the
N.I. Act that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a
debt or liability is on the accused. Even if a blank cheque
leaf is voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused,
towards some payment it would attract the presumption u/s
139 of the N.I Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to
11 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
Paragraphs 37 of the judgment cited supra read as;
” 37. A meaningful reading of the
provision of the Negotiable Instruments Act
including, in particular, S.20, S.87 and
S.139, makes it amply clear that a person
who signs a cheque and makes it over to the
payee remains liable unless he adduces
evidence to rebut the presumption that the
cheque had been issued for payment of a
debt or in discharge of a liability. It is
immaterial that the cheque may have been
filled in by any person other than the
drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the
drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the
penal provisions of S.138 would be
attracted.”
As per the verdict of Hon’ble Apex Court, if a signed
blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some
payment the payee may fill up the amount and other
particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The
onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was
12 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
not issued in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing
evidence.
17. In order to rebut the statutory presumption, the learned
counsel for the accused has cross-examined PW-1 in length and
also examined the accused as DW-1 and one witness on behalf
of the accused as DW-2.
18. Before going through the cross-examination part of PW1,
I would like to appreciate the evidence of the defence. DW-1
who is the accused in the present case during her examination
in chief has denied the entire transaction between the
complainant and herself as she has stated that, she has not at
all done any transaction with the complainant. According to
her, as per the request of her husband, she has handed over
three cheques to one Mr. Umesh and said cheque was misused
by the complainant company.
19. DW-2 is none other than the husband of the accused.
Surprisingly, DW-2 in his examination in chief has deposed
13 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
that, he was doing chicks business with the complainant
company and he was regularly paying the amount and since
there is some difference in accounts and when the said fact
was questioned by the accused, the present case has been
instituted against his wife. During the cross-examination of
DW-2, he admitted that;
” ನಾನು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಕಂಪನಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು
ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿರವರಿಂದ ಕೋಳಿ ಖರೀದಿಸಿ
ವ್ಯಾ ಪಾರ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ. ನಾನೇ ಹೋಗಿ ಕೋಳಿಯನ್ನು ತುಂಬಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ.
……….. ನಾನು ಹೆಂಡತಿಯ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಕೋಳಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು
ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ…… ಈ ಕೇಸು ದಾಖಲಿಸಿದ ನಂತರ ನಾನು ಮುೂರು
ಬಾರಿ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಕಂಪನಿಗೆ ಹಣ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.”
From the above admission of DW-2, it clearly goes to
show that, he is doing the chick business with the complainant
company in the name of his wife (accused). The Ledger extract
produced by the complainant i.e. Ex.P.2 shows that, the
business transaction was taken place in the name of the
accused Smt. Chaitra. Further, the delivery challans and
receipts were also raised in the name of Smt. Chaitra who is
14 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
none other than the wife of DW-2. Therefore, it appears that,
husband of the accused was doing chicks business with the
complainant company in the name of his wife Chaitra.
20. It is the specific defence of the accused that, she has
cleared all the dues and there is no liability on behalf of the
accused. During the cross-examination of PW-1, Ex.D.1 is
marked by confronting the same to PW-1. By relying upon the
said Ex.D.1 (statement of accounts), the learned counsel for the
accused would submit that, as on 18.05.2022 total balance
amount was only Rs.2,02,503/-. Since the cheque was
presented for a sum of Rs.4,51,114/-, the learned counsel for
the accused has vehemently argued that, though there is no
such balance amount payable by the accused, the complainant
by misusing the cheque issued towards security has filled the
cheque and presented the same with a malafide intention for
wrongful gain.
15 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
21. Though PW-1 has admitted the said document in his
cross-examination, he stated that said document is an
incomplete document. I have carefully gone through Ex.D.1. As
per Ex.D.1 it appears that, on 09.05.2022 the chicks were
supplied and a bill was raised for a sum of Rs.96,330/- and
closing balance was Rs.5,09,003/-. After supply of chicks on
09.05.2022, there is no entry in respect of supply of chicks but
there were entries of payment of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/-
on 11.05.2022, Rs.62,500/-, Rs.18,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on
13.05.2022, Rs.71,000/- on 14.05.2022 and Rs.85,000/- on
18.05.2022. As per Ex.D.1, after deducting aforesaid amount,
the total closing balance amount was Rs.2,02,503/-. The
counsel for the accused has strongly relied upon balance
amount shown in Ex.D.1.
22. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant
has turned my attention towards Ex.P.2 Ledger extract
maintained by the complainant company. On perusal of the
16 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
said document, it reveals that on 12.05.2022 chicks to the tune
of Rs. 58,227/-, on 13.05.2022 to the tune of Rs.78,206/-, on
14.05.2022 to the tune of Rs.87,934/- and on 18.05.2022 to the
tune of Rs.64,244/- were supplied to the accused. But the said
entries were not forthcoming in Ex.D.1. By taking the said
advantage, the learned counsel for the accused is canvassing
that, there were no supply of chicks on 12.05.2022, 13.05.2022,
14.05.2022 and 18.05.2022.
23. The learned counsel for the complainant has also drawn
my attention towards original inventory and delivery challans
which were marked as Ex.P.11 in support of their contention
regarding supply of chicks on the aforesaid dates. On perusal
of the bills produced by the complainant and the delivery
challans clearly goes to show that, the complainant has
supplied the birds to the accused on 12.05.2022, 13.05.2022,
14.05.2022 and 18.05.2022. Even though, the said supply were
not reflected in Ex.D.1, on perusal of Ex.P.2, Ex.P.10 and
17 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
Ex.P.11 clearly establish the supply of birds on the aforesaid
dates to the accused. Hence, the accused cannot deny the said
fact of receipt of birds on the aforesaid dates from the
complainant.
24. On perusal of the statement of Accounts produced by the
complainant, it clearly establish that, after deducting all the
payments made by the accused, a sum of Rs.4,51,114/- was
due by the accused as on 31.08.2022.
25. It is also significant to note that, Ex.P.3 Balance
confirmation letter bears the signature of the accused. The
learned counsel for the accused neither in the cross-
examination of PW-1 nor in the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2
has denied the execution of the balance confirmation letter.
Hence, it appears that, the accused herself has admitted the
balance amount by signing the Balance confirmation letter as
per Ex.P.3. As per Balance confirmation letter, as on
31.08.2022, a sum of Rs.4,51,114/- was the due amount. Ex.P.4
18 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
cheque was issued on 25.10.2022 for a sum of Rs.4,51,114/-.
Hence, it appears that, the accused for discharge of her
liability has issued Ex.P.4 cheque and when the said cheque
was presented to the bank, the same was dishonoured. It is
also significant to note that, though the legal notice was duly
served on the accused, the accused at the initial stage has not
made any efforts to make reply to the said legal notice.
26. Though the learned counsel for the accused while cross-
examining PW-1, has disputed regarding the very existence of
the company and its business transactions, which are not the
material facts in the present case and hence, the said defence
is not taken for consideration.
27. On perusal of the aforesaid documents produced by the
complainant clearly establish that, the accused in discharge of
her liability has issued Ex.P.4 cheque. On perusal of the oral
and documentary evidence produced by the complainant, this
Court is of the opinion that, the complainant was able to
19 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
establish that, the cheque in question was issued by the
accused towards discharge of her liability and the accused has
failed to pay the amount and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/sec.138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, I answer Point
No.1 in the affirmative.
28. Point No.2:-
In view of the reasons stated and discussed above, the
complainant has proved that, the accused has committed an
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
29. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a decision reported
in (2015) 17 SCC 368, in a case of H.Pukhraj Vs.
D.Parasmal, observed that, having regard to the length of
trial and date of issuance of the cheque, it is necessary to
award reasonable interest on the cheque amount along with
cost of litigation. Therefore, keeping in mind the time when the
transaction has taken place and primary object of the
provision, this Court is of the opinion that, rather than
20 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
imposing punitive sentence, if sentence of fine is imposed with
a direction to compensate the complainant for his monitory
loss, by awarding compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C, would
meet the ends of justice. By keeping in mind Sec.143(1), Sec.80
and 117 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the compensation
has to be awarded.
30. As per the records, the transaction was taken place in the
year 2022 and the cheque was dated 25.10.2022 and amount
covered under said cheque is Rs.4,51,114/-. In the instant case,
during the cross-examination of PW-1, he has admitted that
the accused after dishonour of cheque, paid a sum of
Rs.25,000/- on 02.08.2023, Rs.25,000/- on 03.08.2023 and also
paid a sum of Rs.96,000/- and after filing of this case a sum of
Rs.40,000/- was paid by the accused. Since the accused has
paid a portion of amount, the said amount has to be deducted
while passing the judgment. The total amount which was paid
after dishonour of cheque is Rs.1,86,000/-. The cheque in
21 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
question in this case is for Rs.4,51,114/-. After deducting
Rs.1,86,000/- out of the cheque amount, the balance would be
Rs.2,65,164/-. Hence, by considering the part payment made by
the accused after the dishonour of cheque and the considerable
time and money spent by the complainant to prosecute the
case, this Court is of the opinion that, it is just and proper to
impose fine amount of Rs.2,80,000/-, which includes interest
and cost of litigation. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass
the following;
ORDER
Acting under Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the
accused is found guilty and she is convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and she is sentenced to pay a fine
of Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Eighty
Thousand only). In default to pay the fine, accused
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
six months.
Further, the entire fine amount on recovery
22 C.C.No.14184/2022
SCCH-10
shall be paid to the complainant as
compensation.
Supply free copy of this judgment to the
accused immediately.
The bail bond stands canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her and
corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on 19 th day of
December 2024)
(RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR)
XIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
JUDGE & ACJM, BENGALURU.
::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:-
P.W1 : Mr. Tejeshwar. D.C
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:-
Ex.P.1 : Authorization letter Ex.P.2 : Statement of accounts Ex.P.3 : Balance confirmation letter Ex.P.4 : Cheque Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P.5 : Bank endorsement 23 C.C.No.14184/2022 SCCH-10 Ex.P.6 : Office copy of Legal notice Ex.P.7 : Postal receipt Ex.P.8 : Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.9 : Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.10 Statement of accounts Ex.P.11 : Original inventory & chalans Ex.P.11(a)-(d) : Delivery chalans Ex.P.12 : Temporary receipts and cash receipts Ex.P.13 : Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
ACCUSED:-
D.W.1 : Smt. Chaitra D.W.2 : Mr. Girish
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
ACCUSED:-
Ex.D.1 : Statement of accounts
((RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR)
XIV ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& ACJM, BENGALURU.