Karnataka High CourtB Ravindra S/O Gaanapathappa vs R S Chandrakantha S/O Subrahmanya ... on 19 November, 2020Author:H.P.SandeshBench:H.P.Sandesh1\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU\n\n\n  DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020\n\n                     BEFORE\n\n       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH\n\n         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.320/2011\n\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nB. RAVINDRA\nS/O GAANAPATHAPPA\nAGED ABOUT 55 YEARS\nOCCUPATION: BSUINESS\nR/O SORABA TOWN\nSHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.\n                                     ...APPELLANT\n\n(BY SRI UMESH MULIMANI, ADVOCATE\n    SRI S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)\n\nAND:\n\nR.S. CHANDRAKANTHA\nS/O SUBRAHMANYA REVANKAR\nAGED: MAJOR\nR/O HARALENNIKERI\nSHIKARIPURA TOWN\nSHIRALKOPPA TALUK\nSHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.\n                                   ...RESPONDENT\n\n(BY SRI N.R. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)\n                              2\n\n\n     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER\nSECTION 378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE\nORDER DATED 10.01.2011 PASSED BY THE SENIOR\nCIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORAB IN C.C.NO.56/2010\nACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE\nOFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.\nACT.\n\n     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR\nARGUMENTS    THIS  DAY,   THROUGH    VIDEO\nCONFERENCE    THE  COURT   DELIVERED   THE\nFOLLOWING:\n\n\n                     JUDGMENTThis appeal is filed challenging the judgment of\n\nacquittal passed in C.C.No.56/2010 dated 10.01.2011\n\non the file of the Senior Civil Judge, & JMFC, Soraba\n\n('Trial Court' for short).2.     For the sake of convenience, the parties\n\nare referred to as they are referred in the original suit\n\nbefore the Trial Court.3.     The factual matrix of the case is that, the\n\naccused being an owner of the bus was known to the\n\ncomplainant. On 01.12.2000, the accused borrowed a3sum of Rs.50,000/- by agreeing to repay the amount\n\nwith interest @ of 18% per annum. The accused did\n\nnot repay the amount as agreed and hence notice was\n\nissued on 26.11.2001 through registered post as well\n\nas certificate of posting calling upon him to repay the\n\nborrowed amount. Thereafter, on 30.11.2001 the\n\naccused met the complainant and after calculating the\n\noutstanding principal and interest issued a cheque for\n\na sum of Rs.59,000/- dated 06.12.2001.       When the\n\ncheque was presented, the same was dishonoured and\n\nagain notice was issued on 27.12.2001.      In spite of\n\nservice of notice, he has not given any reply and did\n\nnot comply with the demand made in the notice.\n\nHence, a complaint has been filed.4.      The Trial Court has taken the cognizance\n\nand thereafter accused denied accusation made in the\n\ncomplaint.   Hence, complainant examined himself as\n\nP.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P.1 to\n\nP10. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of4theCode of Criminal Procedurewas recorded and\n\nthereafter accused examined himself as D.W.1 and\n\ndocuments Exs.D.1 to 12 confronted to the witness\n\nP.W.1        and    got        marked.    The    Trial    Court    after\n\nconsidering         the    oral    and    documentary          evidence,\n\nacquitted the accused.             Hence, the present appeal is\n\nfiled before this Court.5.         The grounds urged in the appeal are that\n\nthe Trial Judge has not properly appreciated the\n\nmaterial available on record, particularly, when it is\n\nadmitted from the mouth of D.W.1 regarding the loan\n\ntransaction.         The Trial Judge has also carried away\n\nwith    regard       to    payment        made    to     the    tune   of\n\nRs.22,000/. The complaint is filed in respect of loan\n\ntransaction dated 01.12.2000 and the case has been\n\nregistered to that effect.                In fact, Ex.R.1 to R.12\n\nestablish      that       he    had   obtained     the    amount       of\n\nRs.50,000/- on 01.12.1999 and he had repaid a sum\n\nof Rs.22,000/-. But, in the cross-examination in para-52, he had categorically admitted that he had obtained\n\na loan of Rs.50,000/- on 01.12.2000.              It was also\n\nclarified that the amount of Rs.22,000/- paid by him\n\nand Ex.R.1 does not relates to loan obtained on\n\n01.12.2000.6.      The       learned       Trial   Judge   without\n\nconsidering the same has illegally held that the\n\nmaterials available on record would raise a doubt\n\nregarding the genuineness of the transaction. The said\n\ndoubt made by the learned trial Judge is without any\n\nbasis. It is also contended that the Trial Judge failed to\n\nnotice     that   the    respondent/accused       during   the\n\npendency of the proceedings had paid a sum of\n\nRs.5,000/- towards the cheque amount on 12.08.2004\n\nand the accused himself had produced the document\n\nbefore the Trial Court and in spite of the same the\n\nTrial Judge has not discussed anything regarding the\n\nadmission made by the accused. The Trial Judge also\n\nfailed to notice that there is presumption under6Section 139of the Negotiable Instruments Act and not\n\ndrawn any presumption.             Since the accused has not\n\ndisputed    the    issuance      of     the       said     cheque        but\n\ncontended that the same is issued in respect of earlier\n\nloan transaction and not in respect of this loan\n\ntransaction.7.       Learned     counsel          appearing         for        the\n\ncomplainant-appellant,           in     his         argument,        has\n\nvehemently      contended        that       the    Trial    Court    has\n\ncommitted an error in giving more importance to\n\nEx.P9-Register      and     doubted           the     case     of        the\n\ncomplainant       and    carried      away        that     there    is    a\n\ndiscrepancy in respect of Ex.P.9. The Trial Judge failed\n\nto consider the fact that the accused had admitted the\n\nsignature      available    in        the     cheque        and      also\n\ncategorically admitted that he had availed two loans\n\nand not disputed the same. The finding given by the\n\nTrial Court is erroneous and contrary to law.78.      The learned Counsel appearing for the\n\ncomplainant brought to the notice of this Court that\n\nthe accused DW.1 admitted in the cross-examination\n\nat page-5 regarding availing the loan on 01.12.2000.\n\nLearned counsel also brought to the notice of this\n\nCourt that before the Trial Court he himself paid\n\nRs.5,000/- towards this loan transaction cheque. In\n\nspite of this admission, the Trial Judge made the\n\nobservation     doubting      the    transaction   between\n\ncomplainant and accused.            Hence, it requires the\n\ninterference of this Court.9.      Per contra, learned counsel appearing for\n\nthe accused in his argument vehemently contended\n\nthat the Court cannot consider stray admission given\n\nby D.W.1 during the course of cross-examination.\n\nLearned counsel also submitted that there is a\n\ndiscrepancy with regard to the entries made in the\n\nrecord maintained by Ravi Finance Firm, which has\n\nbeen marked as Ex.P.9.            The learned counsel also8brought to the notice of this Court that in page Nos.\n\n57 and 58 of ledger-Ex.P.9 and would contend that\n\nthere cannot be a subsequent entry in respect of\n\nearlier loan transaction and the trial Judge comes to\n\nthe conclusion that there was no such loan transaction\n\nand also submitted that the accused availed a loan in\n\nthe year 1999 and no loan was availed in the year\n\n2000.   The   learned   Counsel   also    submitted   that\n\nnothing has been stated in the complaint with regard\n\nto   the   earlier   loan   transaction    between    the\n\ncomplainant and the accused and the complainant\n\nsuppressed the earlier loan transaction.      Hence, the\n\ntrial Judge has rightly pointed out that the transaction\n\nitself is doubtful and nothing has been stated in the\n\ncomplaint with regard to the earlier loan transaction.\n\nThe Complainant has suppressed the fact with regard\n\nto the earlier loan transaction and hence, the trial\n\nJudge has not committed any error in acquitting the\n\naccused.910.   The learned counsel in support of his\n\ncontention relied upon the Judgment reported in ILR\n\n2010     KAR      997   in   the    case    of    SRI.   A.S.\n\nPARAMESHWARAIAH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF\n\nKARNATAKA,         REP.,     BY    ITS     SECRETARY      TO\n\nGOVERNMENT,             DEPARTMENT           OF      URBAN\n\nDEVELOPMENT                   AND                MUNICIPAL\n\nADMINISTRATION & OTHERS, with regard to the\n\nsuppression of the facts before the Court . He has to\n\napproach the Court with clean hand and the same is\n\nnot done by the complainant.11.   Having heard the arguments addressed by\n\nthe learned counsel appearing for the complainant and\n\nso also learned counsel appearing for the accused and\n\nalso on perusal of the material placed on record in\n\nkeeping the contentions urged by the respective\n\ncounsel, the point that would arise for consideration of\n\nthis Court are:10"(1) Whether       the       Trial     Judge       has\n           committed an error in acquitting the\n           accused in coming to the conclusion\n           that the very transaction between the\n           accused    and        the      complainant        is\n           doubtful    and    whether        it   requires\n           interference of this Court?(2)   What Order?Re - Point No.1:12.   Having     heard      the   arguments        of        the\n\nrespective counsel and also the grounds urged in the\n\nappeal and on perusal of the material available on\n\nrecord, this Court has to re-appreciate the material\n\navailable on record. Firstly, this Court would like to\n\nrefer to the contention of the complainant and in the\n\ncomplaint it is stated that the accused was the owner\n\nof the bus, having acquaintance with the complainant\n\non 01.12.2000 had availed the loan of Rs.50,000/-\n\nagreeing to repay the same @ 18% interest per\n\nannum.1113.         It is the contention of the complainant\n\nthat, the accused did not repay the loan amount as\n\nagreed and hence he issued notice on 26.11.2001\n\nthrough registered post and certificate of posting.\n\nNotice sent through certificate of posting was served\n\non the accused and notice sent through registered\n\npost was refused.            After receipt of notice issued\n\nthrough certificate of posting, accused came and\n\nascertained the balance amount as Rs.59,000/- and\n\nthereafter gave a cheque dated 6.12.2001 for an\n\namount      of     Rs.59,000/-.      The    said   cheque   was\n\npresented        and   the   same     was    dishounoured    on\n\n12.12.2001.        Hence, notice was sent on 27.12.2001,\n\nthe same was served on the accused and accused did\n\nnot choose to give any reply or comply with the\n\ndemand. Hence complaint was filed.14.         The complainant in order to substantiate\n\nhis contention, he himself examined as P.W.1 and\n\nreiterated the contents of the complainant.                 The12complainant     also   reiterated   that   on    12.08.2004\n\naccused has made payment of Rs.5,000/- through his\n\ncounsel. To that effect, the complainant had issued a\n\nreceipt.15.     P.W.1 was subjected to cross-examination.\n\nIn the cross-examination, P.W.1 admits that he is\n\nrunning a Finance Firm from the year 1994 in the\n\nname and style of "M/s.Ravi Finance".            He has also\n\nsubmitted that he used to collect the loan amount\n\nevery day from the borrowers and also they used to\n\nissue pass book. He also admits that when the loan\n\namount was repaid he used to issue the receipt to that\n\neffect.    Ex.D.1 confronted to witness and admits the\n\nsame and he says the same is in respect of loan\n\ntransaction dated 01.12.1999 for having received a\n\nsum of Rs.50,000/-. He also admits that in respect of\n\nthe   said   loan amount,     he    paid   the   amount of\n\nRs.22,000/-. Exs.P2 to P5 confronted to witness and\n\nadmits the same. The witness also admits that they13used to collect the promissory note for advancing the\n\nloan by taking surety.      It is suggested that on\n\n01.12.2000, no loan was given to the accused, the\n\nsame was denied.     A specific suggestion was made\n\nthat accused not availed loan on 01.12.2000 and the\n\nsame was denied.    He also admitted that he has not\n\nproduced the daily book before the Court and also\n\nadmitted that the entries are in chronological order.\n\nEx.P9 subjected to auditing.    There is an entry in\n\nEx.P.9, having shown the accused availed the loan in\n\npage No.58 and in the previous page at page No.57 on\n\n04.01.2000, the amount was advanced and witness\n\nsays that the same is not properly visible.       It is\n\nsuggested that he is intentionally denying the same\n\nand the same was denied. He admits that in Ex.P.9,\n\nthere is no chronological order in mentioning the name\n\nof the borrower. It is suggested that Ex.P.9 is created\n\nfor their convenience, the same was denied. He also\n\nadmits that he has not produced any voucher and the\n\nsame is in his custody. He also admitted that he14cannot tell whether the surety signed the voucher or\n\nnot. The counsel has made a specific suggestion that\n\nthe cheque and promissory note were collected in\n\nrespect of loan transaction dated 01.12.1999, were\n\nmisused and the same was denied.16.     The accused in his evidence sworn to that\n\nhe had availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- on 01.12.1999\n\nand not availed any loan on 01.12.2000 from the\n\ncomplainant.        The accused in his evidence has\n\nnarrated with regard to earlier transaction for having\n\npaid the amount of Rs.5,000/- on 12.08.2004 through\n\nhis advocate and collected the receipt for the same.\n\nD.W.1 subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-\n\nexamination, he admits that for having received the\n\namount of Rs.22,000/- in the pass book there was an\n\nentry and he cannot tell that who made that entry. It\n\nis also admitted in the cross-examination that on\n\n01.12.2000     he     has   borrowed   loan   from   the\n\ncomplainant, for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is suggested15that while availing the loan he has signed the\n\npromissory note along with surety of one Prabhakar\n\nRaikar and the said suggestion was denied.     He has\n\nalso admitted that he has availed loan from two\n\nfinanciers. He admits that the notice given to him on\n\n07.11.2001 for demanding the amount that he had\n\nnot paid.   He had not given any reply to the notice.\n\nHe categorically admits that he went to enquire with\n\nthe financier. He also admits that he has not given any\n\nreply to the notice. It is suggested that he had given\n\nthe cheque dated 6.12.2001 and the said suggestion\n\nwas denied.   However, he admits that while availing\n\nloan on 01.12.1999, apart from promissory note he\n\nhad given blank cheque and admits the signature\n\navailable on the cheque-Ex.P.1 as Ex.P.1A.     He also\n\nadmits that the notice was given on 27.12.2001 and\n\nthe same was served on him.       It is suggested that\n\nthere is an entry in Ex.P.9 ledger at page 58 for\n\nhaving availed the loan of Rs.50,000/- and the said\n\nsuggestion was denied.    He also admitted that after16filing the complaint   in respect     of this cheque he is\n\nnot having any document to show that he made\n\nremaining payment. It is suggested that he had not\n\nrepaid the remaining loan amount and the said\n\nsuggestion was denied. He further admitted the\n\nreceipt of Ex.D.11, the same had given by the\n\ncomplainant.17.   Having      considered       the     oral      and\n\ndocumentary    evidence,    it   is   the     case   of   the\n\ncomplainant that the accused has borrowed a sum of\n\nRs.50,000/- on 01.12.2000 and accused did not repaid\n\nthe amount.    Hence, notice was issued.         It is to be\n\nnoted that the complainant in the cross-examination\n\nadmitted regarding the discrepancies found in Ex.P.9\n\nregarding the entry made in Ex.P.9 at page No.58.\n\nSpecific defense of the accused is that he had not\n\navailed loan on 01.12.2000 and he had availed loan\n\nonly on 01.12.1999 and the cheque for the said\n\namount was collected on 01.12.1999, which was17misused. No doubt in the cross-examination of P.W.1,\n\nit is elicited that they have collected the voucher at\n\nthe time of availing loan and the same has not been\n\nplaced before the Court and the same is in their\n\ncustody.    Even after the cross-examination also the\n\nsaid voucher is not produced before the Court.\n\nHowever, relying upon the cheque Ex.P.1 the accused\n\nadmits that his signature is available in Ex.P.1 and\n\nthere is no dispute regarding the signature available at\n\nEx.P.1. The complainant also relied upon the notice\n\nsent to accused dated 27.12.2001 in terms of Ex.P5\n\nand the accused in the cross-examination did not\n\ndispute the service of notice and also admits that he\n\nhas not given any reply to the said notice.          The\n\npromissory note is also marked as Ex.P.10.18.    On perusal of the evidence of D.W.1, in his\n\nevidence,    he   acknowledges     availing   loan   on\n\n01.12.1999 and not acknowledges the availment of\n\nloan on 01.12.2000, is total denial. In his evidence, he18has sworn that he has not availed loan on 01.12.2000.\n\nD.W.1 in the cross-examination at page 5 categorically\n\nadmits that notice was issued to him on 07.11.2001\n\nand he has not given any reply. It is also pertinent to\n\nnote that subsequent to dishonour of the cheque,\n\nnotice was given to him and the same was also served\n\non him and for the second time, the notice was given\n\nand he has not given any reply to the same. It is also\n\nimportant to note that D.W.1 relied upon Exs.D.1 to\n\nD.12 .     Ex.D.1 is pass book of payment from\n\n01.12.1999, Ex.D.2 is a notice given to the accused in\n\nrespect of availing loan dated 01.12.1999.It is also\n\nimportant to note that the accused got marked the\n\ndocument Ex.D3 notice dated 07.11.2001 demanding\n\nthe loan amount from the accused in respect of loan\n\ntransaction dated 01.12.2000.    In spite of service of\n\nnotice accused has not given any reply.    Ex.D.4 is a\n\nnotice subsequent to bouncing of the cheque and\n\nadmitted for the second notice in respect of Ex.D.4.\n\nThis Court would like to refer to the judgment of the19Apex Court in the case ofRangappa vs. Sri Mohanreported in 2010 (4) Supreme 169, the Apex Court\n\nhas categorically held that when the cheque was not\n\ndisputed and the notice was issued and the same was\n\nnot replied the Court should draw the presumption\n\nunderSection 139of the N.I. Act.       In the case on\n\nhand accused not denied the signature available in\n\nEx.P.1 cheque. The only contention is that the said\n\ncheque was given at the time of getting the loan on\n\n1.12.1999. If he has not borrowed loan on 1.12.2000\n\nwhat prevented him to give any reply when two\n\nnotices were issued to him with regard to payment of\n\nloan amount and subsequently on bouncing of cheque,\n\nwhich has not been explained by the accused to rebut\n\nthe evidence.   He denied the availment of loan on\n\n1.12.2000 and there is no answer with regard to the\n\nadmission made by him during the course of cross-\n\nexamination when a specific question was put to him.\n\nHe   had   admitted   that   he   had   availed   loan   of\n\nRs.50,000/- from the complainant.2019.    The learned counsel appearing for the\n\naccused would submit that the Court cannot take stray\n\nadmission and comes to the conclusion that there was\n\na loan transaction. The said contention also cannot be\n\naccepted for the reason that the said admission is not\n\nonly   made       before    the    Court     in    further       cross-\n\nexamination, he categorically admitted that after filing\n\nof this case in respect of the subject matter of the\n\ncheque       on    12.08.2004          he   made       payment       of\n\nRs.5,000/- in favour of the complainant.                  It is also\n\nimportant to note that the accused himself got marked\n\nthe said receipt as per Ex.D12. The accused also relied\n\nupon documents-Exs.D6 to D11 are the notices\n\ndemanding         payment    in    respect        of   earlier    loan\n\ntransaction dated 1.12.1999. The main contention of\n\nthe accused is that there was a discrepancy in making\n\nan entry in Ex.P.9 about the loan transaction.                      No\n\ndoubt, P.W.1 categorically admits with regard to\n\ndiscrepancy in entering availment of loan in Ex.P.9.21The Trial Court also considered the material placed by\n\nthe complainant as per Ex.P9 page 57 and 58 but trial\n\nCourt failed to consider the admission given by D.W.1\n\nin the cross examination and specific admission was\n\ngiven by the accused regarding availment of loan and\n\nalso admitted that he made payment of Rs.5,000/-\n\nduring the pendency of the present case before the\n\nTrial Court.   The Trial Court even not bothered to\n\ndiscuss anything about this admission. When there is\n\nan admission before the Court, there is no need to\n\nprove the same underSection 58of the Evidence Act\n\nand the complainant need not prove the same.       The\n\nTrial Court only carried away with the entries found in\n\nEx. P.9 ledger regarding discrepancy. No doubt, there\n\nare transactions, where there is specific admission\n\nmade in the cross examination by D.W.1 for having\n\navailed the loan and also repayment of loan amount of\n\nRs.5,000/- during the pendency of the case. The Trial\n\nJudge lost sight of the said admission given by D.W.1\n\nand proceeded erroneously without discussing the22admission given by D.W.1. When D.W.1 categorically\n\nadmits that he had availed the loan on 1.12.2000 and\n\nalso made the part payment during the pendency of\n\nthe case and also there was no any reply to Exs.D3\n\nand D4. The Trial Judge has not considered document\n\nEx.D3 and D4-notices given to the accused and both\n\ntwo notices have been served on the accused and the\n\naccused kept 'mum' with regard to the transactions.\n\nIf there is no such loan transactions between the\n\ncomplainant and the accused he ought to have given\n\nthe reply at the first instance itself instead of that\n\nduring the course of cross-examination only he took\n\ntotal denial of the loan transaction and the trial Court\n\nhas committed an error in coming to the conclusion\n\nthat the transaction between the complainant and\n\naccused is doubtful in spite of a categorical admission\n\ngiven by the accused during the course of cross-\n\nexamination, availing loan and as well as making part\n\npayment during the pendency of the case. Hence, it is\n\nclear that the findings recorded by the trial Court is23perverse and the said finding is         a mistake apparent\n\non the face of the record. Firstly, not discussing\n\nanything about admission of availment of loan and\n\npayment and given more importance to the entries\n\nmade   in Ex.P.9.        The Trial Court doubted the\n\ntransaction between the complainant and the accused\n\nand proceeded erroneously.            It is also important to\n\nnote that the Trial Court has observed that the\n\ncomplainant has not stated anything in the complaint\n\nwith regard to earlier loan transaction and the very\n\napproach of the trial court is erroneous. No doubt in\n\nthe cross examination of P.W.1.          It was elicited with\n\nregard to the earlier loan transaction that itself is not\n\na   ground   to   come    to    the    conclusion     that   the\n\ncomplainant has misused the document regarding the\n\nearlier transaction. The Trial Judge has observed that\n\nthe earlier loan transaction document is misused\n\ninspite of the admission given by D.W.1 and the said\n\nreasoning    is   also    erroneous       and    it    requires\n\ninterference of this Court to set aside the order of the24Trial   Court   as        the   Trial   Judge   has    not   drawn\n\npresumption underSection 139of the N.I. Act and\n\nalso failed to rebut the presumption underSection 139of N.I. Act. D.W.1 has given admission with regard to\n\nthe transaction and also admitted the payment in\n\nrespect of subject matter of cheque during the\n\npendency of the case before the Trial Court. Hence, I\n\nam of the opinion that the Trial Judge has committed\n\nan error in acquitting the accused.20.   The learned counsel appearing for the\n\naccused       has     vehemently         contended      that    the\n\ncomplainant         has    suppressed     the   fact    of   earlier\n\ntransaction and also in order to substantiate his\n\ncontention, he relied upon the judgment reported in\n\nILR 2010 KAR 997 in the case of SRI. A.S.\n\nPARAMESHWARAIAH & OTHERS,                        this Court had\n\nheld that a person should approach the Court with\n\nclean hand and non disclosure of earlier transaction in\n\nthe complaint is a suppression. In the case on hand25no suppression as contended and the same is in\n\nrespect of earlier transaction.     The complaint is in\n\nrespect of subsequent loan transaction and accused\n\nnot paid the amount, hence the contention of the\n\naccused cannot be accepted.21.    It comes to the knowledge of this Court\n\nthat during the pendency of the case, the accused has\n\nmade payment of Rs.5,000/- on 12.08.2004 in terms\n\nof D.12 and the same is not been denied.         Having\n\nnoticed the same this Court will take note of this while\n\npassing the final order while directing the accused to\n\npay the fine amount.In view of the above discussions, I pass the\n\nfollowing:-ORDER(i)    Appeal is Allowed.(ii)   The judgment and order of acquittal dated\n       10.1.2011 passed in C.C.No.56/2010 passed by\n       the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba is26hereby set aside and convicted the accused-respondent for the offence punishable underSection 138of the N.I. Act.(iii)   Accused is directed to pay an amount                    of\n        Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant\n        within a period of 8 weeks from today. If\n        accused    fails     to        pay    the     amount    of\n        Rs.1,00,000/-      within      8     weeks,   accused   is\n        sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for\n        a period of one year.(iv)    The Trial Court is directed to secure the accused\n        and subject him for sentence.(v)     The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial\n        Court Records forthwith.Sd/-JUDGE\n\n\n\n\nHR