1 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA
PRESENT: Smt. A. ANITHA III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka.
Friday, this the 14th day of June, 2019
C.C.No.449/2012
Between:
Smt.Pappala Rama Naga Lakshmi, W/o Somunaidu, Hindu, aged 48 years, Residing at D.No.22-65-7/1, Vempala Nagar, R.H.Colony, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. ….Complainant
And
Sri Kannamala Devadanam, S/o Dayanandam, Hindu, aged, about 45 years, E.No.113825, Senior Charge- man, SMS (Works)/CCD (Mech) Department, Steel Plant and residing at Door No.36-91-43, Near Vuravasi Theater, Ravindranagar, Kancharapalem Post, Visakhapatnam.
...Accused
This case having come up on 07.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.J.Stalin and Sri A.V.Lenin, Advocates for the complainant and Smt.G.V.Raeswari, Advocate for the accused and having heard the arguments of complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The complainant filed the complaint against the accused under sections 199 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C., for brevity) to try and punish the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter referred as
N.I. Act for brevity).
2.The averments of the complaint in brief are that the accused to meet his domestic expenses, borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant on 06.10.2010 and having received the said amount, the accused executed a demand promissory note in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, either to the complainant or to her order on demand. On repeated demands made by the complainant for discharge of the said amount, on 29.03.2012 the accused issued the cheque 2 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK bearing No.041380 drawn on State Bank of India, Steel Project branch,
Visakhapatnam, for Rs.3,00,000/- towards part payment of the above said debt. On 07.04.2012, when the complainant presented the said cheque for collection before her banker, State Bank of India, Gajuwaka branch, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient” and “payment stopped by the drawer”, vide the cheque return memo dt.07.04.2012. On that the complainant got issued a legal notice dt.17.04.2012 to the accused and the same was received by the accused on 18.04.2012. Thereafter, the accused gave reply notice to the complainant on 04.05.2012 requesting to send the photocopy of the promissory note. The complainant after receiving the same on 09.05.2012, sent photocopy the promissory note to the accused, along with rejoinder notice dt.11.05.2012. But, the accused did not pay the dishonoured cheque amount. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file the complaint against the accused to try and punish the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act.
3.A perusal of the record, cognizance is taken on 16.05.2012 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the accused.
4.On appearance of the accused on 03.07.2015, copies are furnished to the accused under section 207 of the of Cr.P.C.
5.On 03.07.2015, the accused when examined under section 251 of
Cr.P.C., explaining the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.In the course of the complainant evidence, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are examined and the Exs.P.1 to P.11 are marked.
7.After closure of complainant evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence that has come on record through the complainant evidence, to which, the accused denied and reported he has defence evidence. On behalf of accused, D.W.1 to D.W.3 are examined and the Exs.D.1 to D.7 are marked on behalf of the accused.
3 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK
8.Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the accused and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record and the written arguments filed by both counsel.
9.Now, the point for determination is whether the complainant could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?
10.POINT:
The complainant to bring home the guilt of the accused examined herself as P.W.1, besides examining the scribe of the original of the Ex.P.11 as
P.W.2. P.W.1 reiterating the averments of the complaint in her chief affidavit filed in lieu of her examination-in-chief, testified that on 06.10.2010, D.W.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% per annum, executed the original of the Ex.P.11 in the presence of P.Maheswara Rao, B.Ravi Kumar and P.W.2, that on demand by
P.W.1, D.W.1 issued the Ex.P.1 cheque bearing No.041380 on 29.03.2012 in her favour drawn on State Bank of India, Steel Project branch, Visakhapatnam for Rs.3,00,000/- towards part payment of the amount due to P.W.1, that on 07.04.2012 on presentation of the Ex.P.1 cheque before her banker for collection, the same was dishonoured due to “funds insufficient” and “Payment Stopped by the drawer” vide the Ex.P.2 cheque return memo dt.07.04.2012, that on 17.04.2012 P.W.1 got issued the copy of the Ex.P.3 demanding D.W.1 to repay the amount covered under the Ex.P.1, that on 04.05.2012, D.W.1 issued reply notice to P.W.1 with false allegations and the same was received by P.W.1 on 09.05.2012 and that P.W.1 sent the copy of the
Ex.P.11 along with the Ex.P.8 dt.11.05.2012, but the accused did not pay any amount to the P.W.1.
11.With respect to the Ex.P.1 cheque in issue, there is no dispute that the same belongs to the bank account of D.W.1. So also, there is no denial in the claim of P.W.1 that the signature on the Ex.P.1 belongs to that of D.W.1 only. However, D.W.1 disputing the claim of P.W.1, advanced his defence that 4 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK he never issued the Ex.P1 to P.W.1 at any point of time and that the Ex.P.1 cheque was lost, along with other cheques. To substantiate the same, D.W.1 got suggested P.W.1 that she filed false case basing on the cheques that were lost by D.W.1, and that she committed theft of the cheque of D.W.1 and filed this case, she denied. Further, D.W.1 also deposed that in the month of April 2011, he lost his three cheques while he was proceeding to handover the said three cheques to the bank and that he gave report to the State Bank of India,
Project Office Branch, but did not give any police report. In the course of cross- examination, D.W.1 clarified that he did not obtain any acknowledgment from the bank officials to the effect of giving report as losing of the three cheques, and denied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence to escape from the liability. However, D.W.1 categorically admitted that the cheque which he lost was signed by him. The same is clinchingly proves that the signature on the
Ex.P.1 is that of D.W.1 only. Even other wise from the Ex.P.2, the cheque return memo disclosing the reason for dishonouring of the Ex.P.1 cheque as funds insufficient and payment stopped by the Drawer, it can be said that the signature on the Ex.P.1 is that of D.W.1.
12.Now coming back to the defence of D.W.1 that he lost his bag containing three cheques, including the Ex.P.1, examined the Deputy Manager of the State Bank of India, Steel Plant Branch as D.W.3. The Exs.D.4 to D.7 are marked through D.W.3, among which Ex.D.4 is stop payment letter issued by the accused dated 06.04.2011, while, the Ex.D5 is the statement of account of
D.W.1 from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and the Ex.D6 is the stopping of the payment of cheques particulars, as instructed by D.W.1 vide the Ex.D4. In the course of cross-examination, D.W.3 categorically admitted that if the account holder gives a letter to stop the payment in respect of the particular cheque number, the same shall be updated including the cheque number in his Ledger account and the missing cheque numbers, that in the Ex.D.4 total six cheque numbers are mentioned as missing since 08.02.2011, that as per the Ex.D.6 the bank has stopped four cheques transactions, that the Ex.D.6 is dated 5 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK 17.02.2018 and the print out of the same taken on 17.03.2018, the date on which he received the summons from the court and that the computer account ledger will receive the input whenever there is any transaction, including the correction and updates of the account. Further, D.W.3 when confronted with the suggestion that the four cheques particulars were incorporated into the system on 17.02.2018 and that the Ex.D.4 letter was not received as per the bank procedure and with a view to help the accused he is deposing false, he denied.
13.As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant, the Ex.D.6 discloses the date of its generation as 17.02.2018. Further, the number of the cheque with respect to which stop payment is made is mentioned as four and the numbers of the said four cheques as 41380, 41393, 41399 and 109276. Whereas, as per the Ex.D.4, which the accused contended to has presented in his bank on 06.04.2011 and substantiated by D.W.3, are six cheques in number, with number mentioned as 041399, 041400, 041393, 041394, 041380 and 041381. Thus, glaringly there is inconsistency in the number of cheques D.W.1 urges to had been lost and requested for stop payment vide the Ex.D4 and their numbers with that of the particulars as feeded by D.W.3 and exhibited vide the Ex.D6. Further, although D.W.1 contended that the Ex.P.1 cheque is one of the cheques he lost, which are three in number in the course of examination in chief of D.W.1, but six as per the Ex.D4 and four as per the Ex.D6, did not choose to advance the said contention at the time of the issue of Ex.P7 reply notice. Further more, admittedly D.W.1 did not choose to resort to consecutive legal action of lodging report in the police station about the losing of the cheques, though the number varies. Moreover, as against the contention of D.W.1 advanced in the course of his evidence that he lost his bag containing his three cheques, D.W.2 displayed over enviousness in the case of D.W.1 and went even to the extent of deposing that he was informed by D.W.1 that his cheques were committed theft and he along with D.W.1 went to the police station and D.W.1 gave report to the 6 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK police, the version which is totally uncorroborated by D.W.1 himself. Despite that, to believe the same, D.W.2 gave up in the course of his cross-examination pleading that he does not remember the date when they gave report in the police station or how many years ago and stated that he does not have copy of report.
14.Adding to all the above, the very contention of the D.W.1 that he lost the Ex.P.1 cheque, along with other cheques, duly signed by him, sounds, spurious. The reason is, no man of ordinary prudence would carry on his cheque/chequesduly signed, and the contents totally unfilled. More particularly, in the case on hand, D.W.1 admittedly being an employee in Steel
Plant, carrying his cheques duly signed without filling of his contents appears improbable. All the above aspects of inconsistency in the contentions of D.W.1 as to the number of cheques he contends to had been lost, the discrepancies in the Exs.D.4 and D.6 as to the number and particulars of the cheques D.W.1 urges to had been lost, besides the date of very transaction of the Ex.D.4 and its feeding in the computer ledger copy of D.W.1 on 17.02.2018, of which
D.W.3 stated that he does not know the reason why the Ex.D.6 is dt.17.02.2018, besides no whisper of the contention of D.W.1 at the very threshold of the proceedings, at the time issue of the Ex.D.7 reply notice, makes improbable the contention of the D.W.1 that the Ex.P.1 was lost by him.
In the set of facts and circumstances, in the light of proved facts that the Ex.P.1 belongs to the bank account of the D.W.1 only and the signature on Ex.P.1 is that of D.W.1 and in the absence of any circumstances making probable the contention of D.W.1 that the Ex.P.1 is was lost by him, the court finds it quite appropriate at this juncture to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India reported between T. Vasantha Kumar Vs. Vijaya Kumari reported in LAWS (SC) 2015 4 79. The said judgment is an outcome in criminal appeal wherein the Hon’ble Court held as follows at para 10, which is not out of place for extraction.
7 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK “Therefore, in the present case since the cheque as well as the signature has been accepted by the accused respondent, the presumption under section139 would operate. Thus, the burden was on the accused to disprove the cheque or the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability……..”
Applying the above ratio as laid down in the case cited supra to the present case, which is squarely applicable, the presumption under section 139 of the N.I. Act comes into operation favouring a rebuttal presumption that the issue of the Ex.P.1 cheque by D.W.1 is towards discharge of legally enforceable debt.
15.Now, the onus is upon D.W.1 to rebut the presumption drawn under section 139 of N.I. Act. In furtherance to it, the tri-defences sponsored by
D.W.1 are that he does not know P.W.1 and she is a stranger, that D.W.1 had no necessity to borrow amount from P.W.1 and that as D.W.1 stood as surety to
D.W.2 and one Anuradha, to whom P.W.1 lent amounts and as the same was not repaid, the present case is filed. Firstly, as the contention of D.W.1 that he does not P.W.1 and that as D.W.1 stood as surety to D.W.2 and one Anuradha, to whom P.W.1 lent amounts and as the same was not repaid, there is no suggestion put to P.W.1 that she is a stranger to D.W.1. To the contra, P.W.1 is suggested that P.W.1 lent amount to D.W.2 and one Anuradha, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively, and D.W.1 stood as witness, she denied the same. Further, D.W.1 got exhibited the Ex.D.2 as the visiting card of P.W.1’s alleged finance company and the Ex.D.3 as the copy of the security bond executed by one K. Anuradha in favour of P.W.1. With respect to the Ex.D.2, the same has been surfaced in the course of the evidence of D.W.1 and there is no suggestion put to P.W.1 either of running the alleged finance company nor that the Ex.D.2 belongs to her. The contention of D.W.1 is that the Ex.D.2 was given to him by the husband of P.W.1, much prior to the filing of this case. But, to believe the same, D.W.1 did not resort to any steps of confronting the same to P.W.1. When the Ex.D.2 is a mere visiting card, the print of which can be 8 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK taken easily by paying its price, be it in the name of oneself or any other person, that cannot be said as the one that can be taken print by P.W.1 alone for the only reason the Ex.D.2 stands in the name of P.W.1, it cannot be said that the Ex.D.2 belongs to P.W.1 only.
16.With respect to the Ex.D.3, which D.W.1 urges to had been executed between third party and debtor of P.W.1, one K. Anuradha in favour of P.W.1 and to which D.W.1 is a witness, the same is marked with endorsement subject to objection. In the course of cross-examination of D.W.1, he categorically admitted that the house of the said Anuradha is adjacent to his house, that the husband of the said Anuradha is an Advocate, that there is no mention about the rate of interest and the amount lent to the said Anuradha and that the said Anuradha is alive. Further, D.W.1 when suggested that
P.W.1’s husband did not give him the Ex.D.3 and that the said Anuradha and himself created the Ex.D.3 for the purpose of this case, he denied the same.
When admittedly the Ex.D.3 is a document in the name of a third party to this litigation and although stands in the name of P.W.1, as the same neither contains the signature of P.W.1 nor P.W.1’s husband and the Ex.D.3 is unfilled with respect to the alleged amount covered there under, in the absence of the examination of the said K. Anuradha, the Court do not find the contention of
D.W.1 as believable. More particularly, in the absence of any plausible explanation, the very contention of D.W.1 that it was P.W.1’s husband who gave the Ex.D.3 to him, sounds highly irrational.
17.Be that as it may for a while, D.W.1 examined D.W.2 as one of the debtor of P.W.1. D.W.2 deposed that he started his business in the year 2009 and at that time he asked D.W.1 to lend amount to him, that then D.W.1 gave him the Ex.D.2 and he obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs.5/- per Rs.100/- per month from P.W.1’s husband and accordingly he executed the document to which D.W.1 stood as surety and that at that time,
D.W.1 signed on the pronote. In the course of cross examination, D.W.2 stated that D.W.1 and himself are neighbours and they are in good relationship and 9 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK that he did not discharge the debt, but again deposed that he discharged the said debt. Except the oral testimony of D.W.2, no document has come on record. Had there been truth in the contention of D.W.2 that he discharged the alleged debt, there is every possibility of existence of a document, either in the form of a receipt or taking back the document he contents to had executed at the time of borrowing the alleged amount. So also, had there been truth in the version of D.W.2 that he did not discharge the said debt, there is every possibility of P.W.1 or her husband resorting to legal remedies for recovery of the alleged amount. But, it is neither. Hence, the testimony of D.W.2 fail to impress the Court as trustworthy. And, although D.W.1 contented that P.W.1 does finance business, lent amount to many others and filed several cases, which of course she denied, particulars of no single case is furnished by D.W.1.
In these set of facts, the Court finds the contention of D.W.1 that P.W.1 is a stranger to him, that the Exs.D.2 and D.3 were given to him by the husband of
P.W.1, that P.W.1 does finance business, that D.W.2 is one of the debtor of
P.W.1 and that the Exs.D.2 and D.3 pertain to P.W.1, as highly improbable.
18.On the other hand, there is no dispute in the testimony of P.W.1 that D.W.1 on 06.10.2010 executed the original of the Ex.P.11, which was scribed by P.W.2 and witnessed by one P.Maheswara Rao and B.Ravi Kumar. It is no where the contention of D.W.1 that he does not know or has animosity with any of the above. To corroborate the testimony of P.W.1, one of the witnesses to the original of the Ex.P.11 is examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 deposed that on 06.10.2010 D.W.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- at P.W.1’s house and after receiving the same in the presence of the witnesses
P.Maheswara Rao and B.Ravi Kumar, executed the original of the Ex.P.11, which was scribed by him. In the course of cross examination, nothing to shatter the credibility of P.W.2 is elicited and to the contra, P.W.2 is suggested that he is deposing false at the instance of P.W.1’s husband and he was not present at the time of money transaction, which of course P.W.2 denied.
Despite the denial, indeed the very suggestion ipso facto proves that there was 10 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK money transaction, but for the suggestion of P.W.2 at that time. Thus, the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 has been consistent and coherent on all material aspects, without any discrepancies, as to the execution of the original of the Ex.P.11 by D.W.1. Therefore, as the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 remained corroborative without any admissions in favour of D.W.1 and nothing contradicting their testimonies is elicited in the course of cross examination, the court finds no reasons to disbelieve the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2, and they inspire the confidence of the court. Hence, the court is of the finding that the evidence on record proves that D.W.1 executed the original of the Ex.P.11 in favour of P.W.1.
19.When once the execution of the original of the Ex.P.11 is proved, the Ex.P.11 being a negotiable instrument covered under the NI Act, section 118 (a) of the NI Act comes into operation giving raise to presumption that the execution of the original of the Ex.P.11 is for due consideration of amount mentioned therein. As such, once again the burden is shouldered upon D.W.1 to rebut the same. One of the prime contentions of the accused as stated in the preceeding paragraph, relevant at this point for discussion, is that D.W.1 has no necessity to borrow amount from P.W.1. Indeed necessity of money to a person depends upon exigencies and unforeseen contingencies, besides one’s thriftiness and standard of living to his guaranteed sources of income. Hence, for the only reason D.W.1 is an employee in Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, in cannot be taken out as a standardised rule that D.W.1 has no necessity to borrow the amounts. Even otherwise, as against the contention of D.W.1, it is elicited from D.W.3 that as per the Ex.D.5 statement of account of D.W.1 from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, the total number of cheques issued by the accused and dishonoured were 27 in number, the same reflects lack of financial promptness of D.W.1. Hence, the court finds no tenability in the contention of
D.W.1 that he has no necessity to borrow amount from P.W.1. Further more, it is no where the contention of D.W.1 that P.W.1 has no capacity to lend consideration amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. In addition, the testimonies of P.Ws.1 11 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK and 2 as to passage of consideration amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by P.W.1 to
D.W.1 vide the original of the Ex.P.11, remained incontrovertible.
20.And, P.W.1 to fortify her claim, got exhibited the Ex.P.10, the certified copy of judgment and decree in OS 279/2013 on the file of Additional Senior
Civil Judge court, Gajuwaka, filed for recovery of amount on the basis of the
original of the Ex.P.11. Although D.W.1 contended that he filed petition to set aside the decree in the above suit, no particulars of the said petition has come on record to believe the said contention of D.W.1. At this point, it is quit apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble High court of A.P. on which the learned counsel for the accused placed reliance upon to fortify the stand of the accused, in case between, Sammeta Srihari Vs. The State of Andhra
Pradesh represented by its Public Prosecutor and another reported in
Crl.Appeal No.312 of 2008. But, as the facts in the case cited supra are distinguishable with that of the facts in the case on hand, the ratio as laid down therein, has no application to the case on hand. Therefore, as all the aspects, one adding to the other buttress more the claim of P.W.1 as to passage of consideration amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to D.W.1 vide the original of the Ex.P.11, the only finding that can be arrived at is that D.W.1 failed to rebut the presumption drawn under Section 118 (a) of the NI Act that the execution of the original of the Ex.P.11 is for due consideration amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as mentioned therein. As a consequence, the court is of the finding that the evidence on record proves that the execution of the original of the Ex.P.11 is for consideration amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. In such an event, as it is not the contention of D.W.1 that the liability under the original of the Ex.P.11 is discharged, it is seeming from all perspectives that the issue of the Ex.P.1 by
D.W.1 to P.W.1 is towards discharge of the liability under the original of the
Ex.P.11, indeed which is legally enforceable debt. Hence, the court is of the finding that the presumption drawn under Section 139 of the NI Act that the issue of the Ex.P.1 cheque in favour of P.W.1 by D.W.1 is towards discharge of legally enforceable debt, is unrebutted.
12 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK
21.Now coming to the other ingredient of issue of statutory notice, P.W.1 to prove the same exhibited the Ex.P.3 as the copy of the legal notice issued to
D.W.1 vide the Ex.P.5. There is no dispute in service of the same and it is born by record that D.W.1 got issued the Ex.P.7 reply notice, to which P.W.1 also got issued rejoinder, within the stipulated period. Hence, the court is of the finding that P.W.1 complied the legal mandate of issue of notice demanding the payment of the amount covered under the Ex.P.1 cheque. Lastly, there is no dispute that D.W.1 despite of issue of the Ex.P.3 legal notice, did not pay the amount covered under the Ex.P.1 cheque. Thus, any of the contentions advanced by D.W.1 to distort the claim of P.W.1 collapse and all the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act are proved, bringing home the guilt of D.W.1. As a consequence, the Court is of the finding that the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is determined. Accordingly, the point is determined.
22.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act and is accordingly convicted under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C.
Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this, the 14th day of June, 2019.
Sd/-A.Anitha
III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka.
The accused when apprised of the quantum of sentence for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act, submitted that he has nothing to submit on the sentence of imprisonment, but for his inability to pay huge amount now.
The Court having regard to the nature of the transaction, the amount covered under the cheque in issue and although nothing is submitted by the accused, taking into consideration the age of the accused, finds it just and 13 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK reasonable to sentence the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to order payment of one tenth of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation.
23. In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay one tenth of the cheque amount i.e., Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation within sixty days from the date of Judgment. The accused is informed that he has got right of appeal against this judgment.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this, the 14th day of June, 2019.
Sd/- A.Anitha
III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka.
Appendix of Evidence
No. of Witnesses examined for
Complainant: Defence: None
P.W.1 … Smt. Pappala Rama Naga Lakshmi D.W.1 … Sri K.Devadanam P.W.2 … Sri Gangupamu Satyanarayana D.W.2 … G.Kannababu D.W.3 … K.Ramana Kumar
No. of Exhibits marked for:
Complainant:
Ex.P.1 … Cheque issued by the accused dt.29.03.2012 Ex.P.2 … Cheque return memo dt.07.04.2012 Ex.P.3 … Office copy of Lawyer’s notice dt.17.04.2012 Ex.P.4 … Postal receipt dt.17.04.2012 Ex.P.5 … Acknowledgment card of the accused dt.18.04.2012 Ex.P.6 … Unserved Registered cover of the accused Ex.P.7 … Reply Lawyer’s notice dt.04.05.2012 Ex.P.8 … Rejoinder notice issued by the complainant dt.11.05.2012 Ex.P.11 … Promissory notice executed by the accused dt.06.10.2010 Ex.P.10.. Certified copy of the decree and judgment in OS 279/2013 Ex.P.11.. Certified copy of the promissory note dt.06.10.2010.
Defence:
Ex.D.1 … Bank Pass book of the accused Ex.D.2 … Visiting card of the complainant’s company 14 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK
Ex.D.3 … Photocopy of security bond executed by K.Anuradha in favour of complainant, in which D.W.1 an attestor.(Marked with subject to objection and the original of Ex.D3 is with the complainant). Ex.D.4 … Letter addressed by the accused to the Bank dt.06.04.2011 Ex.D.5 … Statement of account of the accused issued by State Bank of India from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. Ex.D.6 … Payment stopped instructions dt. 17.02.2018 Ex.D.7 … Authorisation of State Bank of India to D.W.3.
Sd/-A.Anitha
III ACMM/GWK. //True copy//
III ACMM/GWK.
15 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK
CALENDER AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM
Judgment in : C.C.449/2012 Date of Offence : 29.03.2012 Report /complaint : 16.05.2012 Release on bail : On bail Commencement of trial : 01.03.2017 Close of trial : 23.03.2018 Sentence or Judgment : 14.06.2019
Explanation for delay and remarks : The delay is due to non production of the witnessed by complainant. No witness is detained beyond three days.
Name of the complainant :
Smt.Pappala Rama Naga Lakshmi, W/o Somunaidu, Hindu, aged 48 years, Residing at D.No.22-65-7/1, Vempala Nagar, R.H.Colony, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.
Name of the Accused :
Sri Kannamala Devadanam, S/o Dayanandam, Hindu, aged, about 45 years, E.No.113825, Senior Charge-man, SMS (Works)/CCD (Mech) Department, Steel Plant and residing at Door No.36-91-43, Near Vuravasi Theater, Ravindranagar, Kancharapalem Post, Visakhapatnam.
Offence: Under sec. 138 of N.I. Act
Finding: Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act
Result: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act and is accordingly convicted under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C.and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay one tenth of the cheque amount i.e., Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation within sixty days from the date of Judgment. The accused is informed that he has got right of appeal against this judgment.
Sd/-A.Anitha
III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka.
//True copy//
III ACMM/GWK.
16 C.C.449/12 III ACMMC, GWK