Bangalore District CourtSri.Anand Kumar.M vs Sri.Mohan Raju on 19 October, 2020IN THE COURT OF XX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN\n        MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY\n\n          Dated this the 19th day of October 2020\n\n              PRESENT: KALPANA.M.S.,\n                                            B.Sc., LL.M.,\n                          XX ADDL. C.M.M.\n                          Bengaluru.\n\n                      C.C.No.3158/2018\n\nComplainant       :    Sri.Anand Kumar.M,\n                       Aged about 41 years,\n                       S/o Late. M.G.Muniswamy,\n                       R/at No.8, 2nd Cross,\n                       Vinayaka Nagara, Adugodi Post,\n                       Bengaluru - 560 030.\n\n                                      Vs.\n\nAccused           :    Sri.Mohan Raju,\n                       Aged about 50 years,\n                       Door No.1, 1st Floor,\n                       Thyagaraju Building,\n                       1st Main, 7th Cross,\n                       Vinayaka Nagara,\n                       Adugodi Post,\n                       Bengaluru - 560 030.\n\n                       And also at:\n\n                       Sri.Mohan Raju,\n                       Aged about 50 years,\n                       C/o Obuli,\n                       Door No.167, 5th Cross, 2nd Main,\n                                  2                     C.C.3158/2018\n\n\n                          Near Om Shakthi Temple,\n                          Vinayaka Nagara, Adugodi Post,\n                          Bengaluru - 560 030.\n\n\nOffence complied of :     U/S. 138of N.I. Act.,\n\n\nPlea of accused     :     Pleaded not guilty\n\n\nFinal Order         :     Accused is Convicted\n\n\nDate of Order       :     19­10­2020\n\n\n\n                         JUDGMENTThe complainant has filed this complaint under\n\nsection 200 of code of criminal procedure read withsection\n\n138of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as\n\n"N.I. Act") against the accused alleging that, he has\n\ncommitted the offence.3                    C.C.3158/201802.         The sum and substance of the complaint, is as\n\nfollows;The complainant and accused are known to each\n\nother from past few years. On 19 th of March 2015,     the\n\naccused had availed hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/­ from the\n\ncomplainant for his urgent legal and family necessities and\n\nagreed to repay the same in the month of November 2017.\n\nOn the same day, accused has executed the loan agreement\n\nas well as the On Demand Promissory note and also issued\n\npost dated cheque bearing No.741593 dated 15.11.2017 for\n\nRs.3,00,000/­, drawn on State Bank of India, Wilson\n\nGarden branch, Bengaluru. Complainant presented the said\n\ncheque for encashment through his banker i.e., Karnataka\n\nBank, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru and the said cheque\n\nreturned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient", dated\n\n21.11.2017. Thereafter, complainant got issued legal notice\n\non 02.12.2017 to accused. The notice was duly served to\n\nthe accused. Accused has not complied the notice. Accused4                       C.C.3158/2018neither complied nor replied the notice. It is contended that,\n\naccused intentionally not maintained sufficient amount in\n\nhis bank account to honour the cheque issued in favour of\n\nthe complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable\n\ndebt. On these allegations, present complaint is filed.03.    After filing of complaint, this court perused the\n\ndocuments and taken cognizance for the offence undersection 138of Negotiable Instrument Act, sworn statement\n\nof complainant was recorded. Being satisfied that there are\n\nprima­facie materials to proceed against accused, summons\n\nwas issued. After appearance, accused enlarged on bail and\n\nplea was recorded as persection 251of Cr.P.C. Accused has\n\nnot stated the defence.04.   Learned Counsel for complainant prays to treat sworn\n\nstatement as examination­in­chief and to consider the\n\ndocuments marked as Ex.P.1 to 10. The statement under5                   C.C.3158/2018section 313 of code of criminal procedure is recorded, read\n\nover and explained to the accused. The defence of the\n\naccused is total denial. Further accused and his wife were\n\nexamined as DW.1 & DW.2, but not let in documentary\n\nevidence.05.   Heard the Learned Counsel for complainant. Perused\n\nthe written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant\n\nand materials on record. No arguments addressed on behalf\n\nof the of the accused.06.        The points that arise for my consideration are as\n\nfollows;POINTS1.      Whether the complainant proves\n              that, accused issued a cheque\n              bearing      No.741593       dated\n              15.11.2017    for   Rs.3,00,000/­,\n              towards discharge of his liability,\n              which was returned unpaid on\n              presentation      and also not\n              complied the notice issued by the6                    C.C.3158/2018complainant      and    thereby\n           committed an offence punishable\n           undersection 138of Negotiable\n           Instruments Act?2. What Order?07.   My answer to the above points is as follows;1. Point No.1: In the Affirmative2. Point No.2: As per final order\n                                for the following;REASONS08.   POINT No.1:      Complainant has filed this complaint\n\nalleging that accused has committed offence undersection\n\n138of N.I. Act. He pleads and asserts that, towards\n\ndischarge of his liability, accused has issued a cheque\n\nbearing No.741593 dated 15.11.2017 for Rs.3,00,000/­. The\n\nsaid cheque came to be dishonoured on presentation.\n\nComplainant has issued notice within time stipulated\n\ncalling upon the accused to pay the amount covered under\n\ncheque. Inspite of service of notice, accused has not paid\n\nthe amount within 15 days, which gave raise cause of action7                        C.C.3158/2018to file this complaint. He further relied on the documents\n\nfrom Ex.P.1 to 10. This witness was subjected to cross\n\nexamination.09.   In this scenario, let us scrutinize the documents relied\n\nby complainant in order to         examine the compliance of\n\nstatutory requirements envisaged undersection 138of N.I.\n\nAct. Ex.P.1 is cheque dated 15.11.2017, the said cheque\n\nreturned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Ex.P.2\n\nis bank endorsement dated 21.11.2017, Ex.P.3 is legal\n\nnotice dated 02.12.2017, which was duly served on the\n\naccused     and   postal   acknowledgment         returned     on\n\n08.12.2017, Ex.P.4 & 5 are the postal receipts, Ex.P.6 & 7\n\nare   the    courier   receipts,    Ex.P.8   is    the   Postal\n\nacknowledgement, Ex.P.9 is the hand loan agreement,\n\nEx.P.10 is the On Demand Promissory note and Ex.P.10(a)\n\n& (b) are the signatures of the accused. This complaint\n\ncame to be filed on 17.01.2018. A careful scrutiny of the8                      C.C.3158/2018documents relied by the complainant goes to show that,\n\nstatutory requirements ofsection 138of N.I. Act is complied\n\nwith and this complaint is filed within time. Thus,\n\ncomplainant relied on the statutory presumptions enshrined\n\nundersection 118read withsection 139of N.I. Act.10.   No doubt, the said presumptions of law are rebuttable\n\nin nature. The accused can take probable defence and rebut\n\nthe presumption available to the complainant. Let us\n\nexamine whether accused has successfully rebutted the\n\npresumptions of law. The accused denied the impugned\n\ntransaction. It is worth to note that, to prove his defence\n\nand to rebut the statutory presumptions, accused solely\n\nrelied on the information elicited in the cross ­examination\n\nof PW.1, as the evidence of accused and his witness is not\n\navailable for consideration due to the reason that, inspite of\n\nsufficient opportunities, they have not subjected themselves\n\nfor cross ­examination. The defence of the accused as culled\n\nout from the suggestions in the cross ­examination of PW.19                      C.C.3158/2018is that, wife of accused by name Kokila was subscriber to\n\nthe chit business conducted by the complainant. When the\n\nwife of accused taken the price amount, complainant\n\ndemanded and taken one cheque, on demand pronote and\n\nagreement from her as security to the chit amount.\n\nComplainant has misused the said security cheque and filed\n\nthis false complaint.11.   Complainant denied the suggestions posed on behalf\n\nof accused and reasserts the impugned loan transaction. As\n\nstated earlier, accused has not placed any cogent evidence\n\nto show the alleged chit transaction     by his wife with the\n\ncomplainant.   It goes without       saying that,   when the\n\ncomplainant has denied the chit transaction, the burden of\n\nproving the said fact within the specific knowledge of the\n\naccused lies on him. The provision undersection 106of\n\nIndian Evidence Act, place burden on the accused to prove\n\nthe fact which is in his specific knowledge. To discharge the10                    C.C.3158/2018said burden, accused has neither taken steps to produce\n\ndocuments pertaining to the alleged chit business not\n\nexamined any independent witness in­connection with the\n\nsaid chit business. So also, accused is not successful in\n\neliciting material admissions or information from the mouth\n\nof PW.1 in support of his defence. Thus, this court has no\n\nhesitation to hold that, the defence put forth by the accused\n\npertaining to the chit transaction is unsupported with any\n\ncogent and acceptable evidence.12.   Nevertheless, for the sake of arguments, if it is taken\n\nthat, wife of the accused has issued the disputed cheque as\n\nsecurity to the transaction, what prevented the accused or\n\nhis wife to take suitable steps to get back the security\n\ncheque after the alleged chit transaction, is not suitably\n\nexplained. Furthermore, it appears that, accused has\n\nneither issued legal notice calling upon the complainant to\n\nreturn the cheque allegedly issued in chit transaction nor\n\nfiled police complaint. That apart, accused has not placed11                      C.C.3158/2018proper description of the chit transaction, such as date or\n\nyear of commencement, completion of chit and place of chit\n\ntransaction etc. All these aspects create genuine doubt in\n\nthe mind of the court about the defence of the accused.13.   Further, accused has not disputed the service of legal\n\nnotice. Inspite of service of legal notice, the accused has not\n\ntaken steps to issue reply taking all these contentions. The\n\nact of the accused in not issuing reply at the earliest point\n\nof time immediately after service of the legal notice is one of\n\nthe strong circumstances in favour of the complainant. This\n\nproposition of the law laid down in the following decisions.14.   In decision reported in,    2007 CRI.L.J. (NOC) 520\n\n(KER); Sanjeev P.R. V/s. Thriveni Credit Corporation,\n\nThodupuzha & Another, wherein it is held that;"(B).Negotiable Instrument Act(26\n           of 1881),S.138­ Dishonour of\n           cheque­     Conviction­   Validity­12                    C.C.3158/2018Signature in cheque is admitted -Notice of demand though duly\n            received and acknowledged , did\n            not    evoke    any     reply......­\n            Concurrent      finding      that\n            complainant has succeeded in\n            proving all ingredients of the\n            offence punishable undersection\n            138- Conviction of accused\n            proper."Further, the decision reported in, 2006 CRI.L.J.1;\n\nGorantala     Venkateswara     Rao.   V/s.   Kolla   Veera\n\nRaghava Rao and another, it is held that;"(B) Negotiable Instrument Act\n            ( 26 of 1881),S.138- Dishonour of\n            cheque­ Legally enforceable debt­\n            Failure of accused in giving reply\n            to    legal   notice    issued   by\n            complainant­ Is one of the strong\n            circumstances      to    draw   an\n            inference that accused borrowed\n            amount from complainant and\n            cheque was issued towards part\n            payment of legally enforceable\n            debt."13                     C.C.3158/2018From the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions it\n\nis clear that, non issuance of reply by the accused is fatal to\n\nhis defence. As such, the defence taken by the accused is\n\nnot acceptable.15.     From the overall consideration of the evidence on\n\nrecord it is forthcoming that, accused has not taken\n\nprobable defence to rebut the statutory presumption. Mere\n\ndenial is not sufficient to discharge the onus shifted on\n\naccused.     To fortify this opinion, it is proper to refer the\n\ndecision reported in, 2001 CRI.L.J. 4647, in a case of\n\nHiten P.Dalal V/s. Bratindranath Banerjee, wherein it is\n\nheld that;"(B) Negotiable Instrument Act ( 26 of\n             1881), Ss.139, 138­ Dishonour of\n             cheque­ Presumption that cheque was\n             drawn for discharge of liability of\n             drawer­ Is presumption of law­ Ought\n             to be raised by Court in every case­\n             Rebuttal evidence­ Nature­ Mere\n             plausible     explanation   is     not14                   C.C.3158/2018sufficient­ Proof of explanation is\n           necessary.Evidence Act(1 of 1872), Ss .114,\n           101­ 104."Further in another decision reported in, 2017(2)\n\nA.K.R. 527, Arjun Vs.E.Shekar, it is held that,S. 138,139­ Presentation of lawful\n           consideration­ Rebuttal of - Burden\n           of proving that cheque has not been\n           issued for any debt or liability ­ is on\n           accused - mere plausible explanation\n           not     sufficient     to      disprove\n           complainant' s case.From the gist of the ratio laid down in the above\n\ndecisions, it is clear that,   burden shift on the accused to\n\nrebut the statutory presumption through cogent evidence,\n\nwhich is not discharged by the accused in the present case.16.    Under the facts and circumstances of this case, it is\n\nprofitable to refer the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme\n\nCourt of India reported in, AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT15                   C.C.3158/20183601, in a case of, T.P.Murugan (Dead) Thr.Lrs. V. Bojan,\n\nwherein it is held that;"Negotiable Instruments Act(26 of\n       1881), Ss.118,138,139­ Dishonour of\n       cheque­ Presumption as to enforceable\n       debt­ cheques allegedly issued by\n       accused towards repayment of debt­\n       Defence of accused that 10 cheques\n       issued towards repayment of loan back\n       in 1995­ Behavior of accused in\n       allegedly issuing 10 blank cheques\n       back in 1995 and never asking their\n       return for 7 years, unnatural­ Accused\n       admitting his signature on cheques and\n       pronote, presumption underS.139would     operate    against       him­\n       Complainant       proving existence of\n       legally enforceable debt and issuance\n       of cheques towards discharge of such\n       debt­ Conviction, proper".17.In another decision reported in, AIR 2018 Supreme\n\nCourt 3604;Krishna Rao Vs. Shankargouda, wherein it is\n\nheld that;"Negotiable Instruments Act(26 of 1881),\n       Ss.138,    139­Dishonour     of   cheque­\n       Presumption as to - Accused issuing\n       cheque of Rs. 2 lacs towards repayment of16                    C.C.3158/2018loan to complainant - Said cheque\n      dishonored on account of insufficiency\n      funds­ Complainant proving issuance of\n      cheque having signatures of accused­\n      Accused failing to rebut presumption\n      raised against him and no evidence led by\n      him in his support -Acquittal of accused by\n      High Court in revisional jurisdiction on\n      ground of doubt in mind of court with\n      regard to existence of loan, improper­\n      Accused, liable to be convicted".18. Moreover, in the latest judgment decided on 15 th March\n\n2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, AIR 2019\n\nSupreme Court 1876; Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel V/s\n\nState of Gujarat & Another, it is observed in para 12 that;" 12.    For determination of the point as\n     to whether the High Court was justified in\n     reversing the judgment and order of the\n     Trial Court and convicting the appellant\n     for the offence undersection 138of the NI\n     Act, the basic questions to be addressed to\n     are two - fold: as to whether the\n     complainant - respondent No.2 had\n     established the ingredients ofSections\n     118and139of the NI Act, so as to justify\n     drawing of the presumption envisaged\n     therein; and if so, as to whether the17               C.C.3158/2018accused -appellant had been able to\n     displace such presumption        and to\n     establish a probable defence whereby, the\n     onus    would     again   shift  to   the\n     complainant?........"It is further observed in 18.6 that;" 18.6.     The fact of the matter remains\n     that the appellant could not deny his\n     signatures on the said writing but\n     attempted to suggest that his signatures\n     were available on the blank stamp paper\n     with Shri Jagdishbhai. This suggestion is\n     too remote and too uncertain to be\n     accepted. No cogent reason is available for\n     the appellant signing a blank stamp\n     paper. It is also indisputable that the\n     cheques as mentioned therein with all the\n     relevant particulars like cheque numbers,\n     name of bank and account number are of\n     the same cheques which form the subject\n     matter of these complaint cases. The said\n     document bears the date 21.03.2007 and\n     he cheques were postdated, starting from\n     01.04.2008 and ending 01.12.2008. There\n     appears absolutely no reason to discard\n     this writing from consideration...."It is further observed in para No.19 that;" 19. Hereinabove, we have examined in\n     detail the findings of the Trial Court and\n     those of High Court and have no hesitation18                    C.C.3158/2018in concluding that the present one was\nclearly a case where the decision of the\nTrial Court suffered from perversity and\nfundamental error of approach; and the\nHigh Court was justified in reversing the\njudgment of the Trial Court. The\nobservations of the Trial Court that there\nwas no documentary evidence to show the\nsource of funds with the respondent to\nadvance the loan, or that the respondent\ndid not record the transaction in the form\nof receipt of even kachcha notes, or that\nthere    were    inconsistencies    in   the\nstatement of the complainant and his\nwitness, or that the witness of the\ncomplaint was more in know of facts etc.\nwould have been relevant if the matter\nwas to be examined with reference to the\nonus on the complaint to prove his case\nbeyond      reasonable      doubt.     These\nconsiderations and observations do not\nstand in conformity with the presumption\nexisting in favour of the complainant by\nvirtue ofSections 118and139of the NI\nAct. Needless to reiterate that the result of\nsuch presumption is that existence of a\nlegally enforceable debt is to be presumed\nin favour of the complainant. When such a\npresumption       is drawn, the factors\nrelating to the want of documentary\nevidence in the form of receipts or\naccounts or want of evidence as regards\nsource of funds were not of relevant19                   C.C.3158/2018consideration while examining if the\n      accused has been able to rebut the\n      presumption       or   not.   The    other\n      observations as regards any variance in\n      the statement of complainant          and\n      witness; or want of knowledge about dates\n      and other particulars of the cheques; or\n      washing away of the earlier cheques in\n      the rains though the office of the\n      complainant being on the 8th floor had\n      also been or irrelevant factors of\n      consideration of a probable defence of the\n      appellant....."Theratiolaid down inthe cited decisions are aptly\n\napplicable to the case on hand.19.     The accused has taken a vague defence and not\n\nplaced cogent evidence to prove the same. This aspect is\n\ndiscussed in detail in a decision reported in , 2014(4) AKR\n\n98;   Sripad   Vs.Ramadas     M.Shet,   Criminal   Appeal\n\nNo.2689 of 2009, wherein it is held that;"Negotiable Instrument Act(26 of\n           1881), Ss.138,139, 118­ Dishonour of20                    C.C.3158/2018cheque­Acquitted­Validity­Cheque\n           issued by repay loan amount to\n           complainant,      was     dishonoured­\n           Specific defence -However, accused\n           failed to rebut initial presumption\n           undersections 118and119­ Mere\n           distorted version or mere taking up\n           defence by It means that he is not\n           liable to pay any amount­ Are not\n           sufficient to put back the burden on\n           to the complainant­ Acquittal of\n           accused­ Not proper."Theratiolaid down inthe cited decision is squarely\n\napplicable to the facts on hand.20.   No doubt, accused has disputed the financial capacity\n\nof the complainant. However, it is relevant to note that, once\n\nthe accused admits the cheque and the signature present on\n\nthe cheque, the statutory presumptions available to the\n\ncomplainant that Negotiable Instruments was passed for\n\nvalid consideration. If the accused is successful in rebutting\n\nthe presumptions through probable defence, then only the\n\nonus shifts on the complainant          to prove the impugned21                      C.C.3158/2018transaction and other allied aspects. Thus, this contention of\n\nthe accused does not inspire the confidence of the court.21.   Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,\n\npleased to observe in the larger bench decision reported in,Rangappa Vs. Mohanreported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 =\n\n2010 AIR (SCW) 2946, It is relevant to reproduce said\n\nobservations;Once the cheque relates to the account of\n      the accused and he accepts and admits the\n      signatures on the said cheque, then initial\n      presumption as contemplated underSection\n      139of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to\n      be raised by the court in favour of the\n      complainant. The presumption referred to inSection 139of the NI Act is a mandatory\n      presumption and not a general presumption,\n      but the accused is entitled to rebut the said\n      presumption.What is required to be established by\n      the accused in order to rebut the\n      presumption    is different from each case\n      under the given circumstances. But the fact\n      remains that a mere plausible explanation is\n      not expected from the accused and it must\n      be more than a plausible explanation by way\n      of rebuttal evidence. In other words, the22                       C.C.3158/2018defence raised by way of rebuttal evidence\n        must be probable and capable of being\n        accepted by the court.Hence, the High Court concluded that the\n        alleged discrepancies on part of the\n        complainant which had been noted by the\n        trial court were not material since the\n        accused had failed to raise a probable\n        defence to rebut the presumption placed on\n        him bySection 139of the Act. Accordingly,\n        the Hon'ble High Court recorded a finding of\n        conviction.It is further observed in para 18 of the decision\nthat,\n        Ordinarily in cheque bouncing cases, what\n        the courts have to consider is whether the\n        ingredients of the offence enumerated inSection 138of the Act have been met and if\n        so, whether the accused was able to rebut\n        the statutory presumptions contemplated bySection 139of the Act." Chapter XVII containingSections 138to142was introduced in the Act by Act 66 of\n        1988 with the object of inculcating faith in\n        the efficacy of banking operations and giving\n        credibility to negotiable instruments in\n        business transactions. These provisions were\n        intended to discourage people from not\n        honouring their commitments by way of23                    C.C.3158/2018payment through cheques. The court should\n        lean in favour of an interpretation .........In view ofSection 139, it has to be\n        presumed that a cheque is issued in\n        discharge of any debt or other liability. The\n        presumption can be rebutted by adducing\n        evidence and the burden of proof is on the\n        person who wants to rebut the presumption.A contrary view would renderS.138a\n        dead letter and will provide a handle to\n        persons trying to avoid payment under legal\n        obligations undertaken by them through their\n        own acts which in other words can be said to\n        be taking advantage of one's own wrong. ..."The Hon'ble Apex court clearly laid down the ratio that,\n\nwhen the ingredients ofsection 138of NI Act is complied\n\nwith, presumption shall be drawn in favour of the\n\ncomplainant . The burden is upon the accused to rebut the\n\nstatutory presumptions.22.      That apart,   as far as proof of existence of legally\n\nenforceable debt is concerned, it is profitable to refer the\n\nobservations ofRangappa's case cited supra;"In the light of these extracts, we are\n             in agreement with the respondent­24                       C.C.3158/2018claimant    that  the   presumption\n            mandated bysection 139of the Act\n            does indeed include the existence of\n            the legally enforceable debt or\n            liability".In view of the law laid by three judges bench of Hon'ble\n\nApex Court, the presumption enshrined undersection 139of\n\nthe N.I. Act is extendable to the existence of legally\n\nenforceable debt. Accused has not placed cogent material to\n\nrebut the said presumption. As such, this contention of the\n\naccused disputing the financial capacity of the complainant,\n\nholds no water.23.     In this case plea of the accused was recorded as persection 251of Cr.P.C. Accused pleaded not guilty. As persection 251of Cr.P.C. accused has to state about his\n\ndefence. Here, except pleading not guilty accused has not\n\nstated his defence at the time of recording plea. As per the\n\ndecision reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528 (Indian Bank\n\nAssociation     V/s    Union    of     India),   Crl.   Petition25                     C.C.3158/2018No.8943/2010 M/s.Mess Transgare          Pvt V/s Dr .R.\n\nParvathareddy and in Rajesh Agarwals case, Wherein, it is\n\nheld that; " Accused cannot simply say " I am innocent "or " I pleaded not guilty ".    The proposition of law laid\n\ndown in the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the\n\nfacts and circumstances of this case. As such, it cannot be\n\ntaken that accused has rebutted the presumption of law\n\nenshrined undersection 139and118of N.I. Act, by mere\n\npleading not guilty.24.     From the discussion made supra, it is clear that,\n\naccused has neither taken probable defence nor taken steps\n\nto prove the same. To put it other way, accused has not\n\ntaken and proved probable defence to rebut the presumption\n\nof law available in favour of the complainant, envisaged\n\nundersection 118read withsection 139of N.I. Act.\n\nAccordingly, the case of the complainant is acceptable.\n\nComplainant has proved that, accused has intentionally not26                     C.C.3158/2018maintained sufficient amount in his account to honour the\n\ndisputed cheque. Hence, this point No.1 under consideration\n\nis answered in the affirmative.25.    POINT NO.2:     In view of the reasons stated and\n\ndiscussed above, the complainant has proved the guilt of\n\nthe accused punishable undersection 138of N.I. Act It is\n\nworth to note that, the offence is of the nature of civil\n\nwrong. Hence, it is proper to award sentence of fine,\n\ninstead of awarding sentence of imprisonment.         Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court of India in a decision reported in,   (2015) 17\n\nSCC 368, in a case ofH.Pukhraj Vs. D.Parasmal, observed\n\nthat, having regard to the length of trial and date of\n\nissuance of the cheque, it is necessary to award reasonable\n\ninterest on the cheque amount along with cost of litigation.\n\nConsidering all these aspects, this court proceed to pass\n\nthe following;27                       C.C.3158/2018ORDER\n\n         Acting undersection 255 (2)of\nCriminal Procedure Code, accused is\nhereby     convicted       for       the     offence\npunishable       undersection      138of\nNegotiable       Instrument            Act        and\nsentenced to pay fine of Rs.4,20,000/­\n(Four     Lakhs         Twenty           Thousand\nRupees     only).         In    default      thereof\naccused         shall      undergo           simple\nimprisonment for 3 (Three) months.Acting under section 357(1) (b) of\ncode of criminal procedure, it is ordered\nthat,    Rs.4,15,000/­              (Four     Lakhs\nFifteen      Thousand           Rupees        only),\nthere    from     shall    be       paid     to   the\ncomplainant        as      a        compensation,\nremaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/­\n( Five Thousand Rupees only) is\ndefrayed to the state for the expenses\nincurred in the prosecution.28                            C.C.3158/2018The bail bond of the accused stands\n             cancelled.Office to supply the copy of this\n             Judgment to the accused immediately on\n             free of cost.{Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then\nsigned by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of October\n2020}.(KALPANA.M.S.)\n                                               XX ACMM, Bengaluru.ANNEXURE\nList of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:P.W.1                              Anand Kumar.M\n\n\nList of documents produced on behalf of complainant:Ex.P.1                                 Cheque\n\n\nEx.P. 1(a)                             Signature of the accused\n\n\nEx.P. 2                                Bank endorsement29                       C.C.3158/2018Ex.P. 3                       Copy of the legal notice\n\n\nEx.P. 4 & 5                   Postal receipts\n\n\nEx.P. 6 & 7                   Courier receipts\n\n\nEx.P.8                        Postal acknowledgement\n\n\nEx.P.9                        Hand loan agreement\n\n\nEx.P.10                       On demand promissory note\n\n\nEx.P.10(a) & (b)              Signatures of accusedList of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:D.W.1                    Mohan Raj\n\n\nDW.2                     KokilaList of documents produced on behalf of accused:­Nil­\n\n\n\n                                       XX A.C.M.M.,\n                                       Bengaluru.