Bangalore District Court
Manjunath N R vs C Murali on 1 April, 2026
KABC010254352024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 1st day of April, 2026
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. MALA N.D.,
BAL, LL.M
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
Crl. Appeal No.1593/2024
APPELLANT:- Sri. Manjunath.N.R
S/o Ramakrishna,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.L-4,
8th Cross, 3rd Main,
Lakshminarayanapura,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. MN., Advocate)
/Vs/
RESPONDENT:- Sri. C. Murali,
S/o Chandrashekar Setty.N,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.18, 15th Main,
RIECHS Layout,
J.C. Nagar, Mahalakshmipuram,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.BCR., Advocate.)
2
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
JUDGMENT
Appellant has filed this appeal U/s.374(3) of Code of
Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.25181/2021
dated 02/09/2024 on the file of 22nd ACMM, Bengaluru.
2. Rank of the parties is referred to as per their
ranks assigned before the trial court.
3. The facts of the case leading to this appeal
may be summarized as under;
The respondent is complainant before the trial
court, he filed a private complaint U/s.200 of Code of
Criminal Procedure alleging the offence committed by
the accused punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act (herein after referred as N.I.Act).
According to the complainant, accused is his known
person, in such acquaintance in the first week of May
3
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
2019, accused approached the complainant for hand
loan of Rs. 2 lakhs assuring to repay the said amount
with interest, believing the assurance of accused
complainant has advanced Rs.2 lakhs through cash on
29/05/2019, accused has also paid some interest by
assuring that he would repay the said amount within the
month of September 2020, however, accused failed to
keep up his promise, on repeated requests and
demands, accused issued a cheque bearing No.390815
dated 06/10/2020 for Rs. 2 lakhs drawn on SBI,
Rajajinagar II Block Branch, upon presentation through
his banker, said cheque came to be dishonored with a
shara dated 07/10/2020 as ‘funds insufficient’, as such
complainant immediately got issued a legal notice dated
17/10/2020 through RPAD, said notice was served on
accused on 19/10/2020, despite the same, accused has
not chosen to comply the demand. Thus by complying
4
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I.Act, a complaint
under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. is filed. The trial court took
cognizance and after going through the materials found
the prima facie case against accused for an offence
punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act,
registered criminal case and issued summons.
4. Before the trial court, accused appeared, got
enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation was
recorded, he claimed trial. The complainant got
examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked in all 06
documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.06 and closed his side.
The accused was examined U/s.313 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, he examined himself as Dw.1. Trial court
after hearing arguments on both sides and on
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, found
accused guilty for commission of an offence punishable
U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, convicted and
5
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
sentenced to pay a fine of ₹.2,36,000/- (Two Lakhs
Thirty six thousand rupees), in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment,
accused person is appeared before this court urging the
following grounds;
a) The learned magistrate has committed grave
error in law in taking cognizance of the offence and as
such conviction is bad in law.
b) The impugned judgment passed by the trial
court is against law and all probabilities of the case, as
such the same is liable to be dismissed.
c) The trial court had been misguided by the
complainant and came to wrong conclusion that accused
has committed an offences punishable under Section
138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
6
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
d) The trial court has not given sufficient
opportunity to the accused to establish his defense, as
such, impugned judgment is one sided.
e) The trial court has failed to appreciate the
contention taken by the accused that cheque in question
was handed over to his friend by name Ravikumar
towards security purpose and after completion of chit he
had demanded to return the cheque in question but said
Ravikumar had failed to return the same and handed
over the said cheque to respondent and without his
consent complainant has presented the same and got it
dishonored just to file false case against accused.
f) Impugned judgment of conviction is opposed to
law, facts and circumstances, as such the same is not at
all sustainable in the eye of law and is totally erroneous.
g) Though there are number of discrepancies and
contrary statements by the complainant, trial court
7
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
without giving proper reasons convicted the accused, as
such the same deserves dismissal.
h) The complainant has failed to prove that there
is any legally enforceable debt for which accused is
liable, as such provision of Section 138 of N.I. Act does
not attracts, the trial court has come to wrong conclusion
that cheque was issued to discharge the legally liable
debt and convicted the accused on assumptions and
presumptions, therefore impugned judgment is otherwise
illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law.
i) The trial court has erred in law in accepting and
acting upon the evidence of P.W. 1 which is being
inadmissible, failed to observe the fact that date and
figures mentioned in the cheque are of different ink and
said cheque was blank cheque, therefore, issuance of
cheque by the accused itself doubtful.
8
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
j) The trial court has failed to observe the non
compliance of Section 263 of SS of Income Tax Act,
which direct that any advance taken by way of any loan
of more than Rs.20,000/- should be made only by way of
any amount payee cheque, therefore, it is clear that,
accused has not at all borrowed any hand loan from the
complainant.
On these grounds, the accused prayed to set
aside the judgment dated 02/09/2024 in
C.C.No.25181/2021 passed by the 22nd ACMM,
Bengaluru.
6. After registration of the appeal, notice was
issued. The respondent appeared through counsel. The
trial court records have been secured.
9
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the
written arguments filed on their behalf and materials on
record.
8. The points do arise for my consideration are
as under;
1.Whether cheque at Ex.P.1 was
issued by the accused in favour of the
complainant towards discharge of
debt or liability as alleged in the
complaint?
2.Whether trial court is correct in
holding that, accused has committed
an offence punishable U/s.138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act?
3.Whether there is legal infirmity in
the impugned judgment, which
requires interference of this court ?
4.What Order?
9. On re-appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, in the light of the arguments canvassed by
learned counsel for respondent, my findings on the
aforesaid points as follows:-
10
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: In the AffirmativePoint No.3: In the Negative
Point No.4: As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
10. POINTS No.1 & 2:- These points are
interrelated, hence they are taken up together for
common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts
and evidence.
11. The learned counsel for accused/appellant in
his written arguments submitted that, trial court has not
appreciated the defense evidence of the accused in
proper perspective even though the complainant
respondent has failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt, neglected the admissions of the
complainant in respect of running chit business by his
friend Ravi Kumar where this accused was a chit
11
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
subscriber, though this accused has not issued the
disputed cheque in favour of this complainant,
proceedings under N.I. Act came to be initiated in order
to have wrongful gain, complainant has not submitted his
income tax returns as to show lending loan to the
accused, despite the same the trial court ignoring all
these aspect jumped to wrong conclusion which is
arbitrary, perverse and opposed to law, as such the
appellant by relying the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court
as well as High Court of Karnataka prays to set aside the
impugned judgment of conviction of trial court by
allowing the appeal.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
complainant canvassed that, the trial court has rightly
concluded that, the cheque in question issued towards
discharge of debt or liability. He draws the attention of
the court towards various admissions given during the
12
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
cross-examination of the accused that absolutely there
is no cogent and convincing evidence to support the
version of the accused to the effect that disputed cheque
was issued in favour of friend of complainant by name
Ravikumar as security towards his chit business and
there is no liability, however failed to prove his defence.
It was further canvassed that, as there are no sufficient
funds in the account of the accused, in order to save
himself from the clutches of the provisions of Section 138
of N.I.Act this appeal is filed. Therefore, he by relying
on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets reported in ILR 2009
KAR 1633 para 18 in respect of presumptions of law
under Section 118 and 113 of N.I. Act submits that, the
judgment of the trial court is proper both in eye of law
and on facts of the case and does not require any
13
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
interference by this court. Accordingly, the learned
counsel submits that, the appeal deserves dismissal.
13. In the back drop of rival submissions, this
court has meticulously considered the complaint
averments, documents placed by the complainant along
with the oral testimony and defence evidence placed by
both parties. Before proceedings further, it is relevant to
reassert preposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex court in connection with the cheque bounce cases.
In the latest decision reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 in
the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan, the Hon’ble court
pleased to held in para No.9 that;
“Ordinarily in cheque bounce cases,
what the courts have to consider is
whether the ingredients of the offence
enumerated in Sec.138 of the Act have
been met, if so, whether the accused
was able to rebut the statutory
presumption contemplated by Sec.139
of the Act”.
14
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
The Hon’ble Court observed that, the presumptions
U/s.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act is a presumption of
law, it is not a presumption of fact. This presumption has
to be raised by the court in all cases once the factum of
dishonour is established. The onus of proof to rebut this
presumption lies on the accused. The standard of rebuttal
evidence depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case. The mere explanation is not enough to rebut
this presumption of law, as reported in AIR 2001 SC
3897; Hiten P:. Dalal V/s. Bratinderanath Banerjee and
(2006) 6 SCC 39; M.S.Narayan Menon alias Mani
V/s.State of Kerala and another and ILR 2009 KAR 1633;
Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets.
14. As per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex court, in
a case of this nature, court shall consider the compliance
15
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
of ingredients of the offence punishable U/s.138 of
Complainant has produced following documents;
1. Ex.P.1 Cheque dated: 06/10/2020
2. Ex.P1(a) Signature of accused
3. Ex.P.2 Bank memo
4. Ex.P.3 Legal notice
5. Ex.P.4 Postal receipt
6. Ex.P.5 Courier receipt
7. Ex.P.6 Postal acknowledgment
Complaint filed on 25/11/2020.
Perusal of these documents show that,
complainant has presented the cheque within validity
period of 3 months. Cheque returned unpaid with
banker’s memo for the reason “funds insufficient”. Within
one month from the date of bank endorsements, legal
notice has been issued. After expiry of 15 days period to
comply the terms of notice, present complaint filed
within one month from the date of cause of action.
16
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
The accused has not disputed the signature
present on the disputed cheque and also admitted that,
cheque in question belonged to the bank account
maintained by him. Therefore, it is claimed by the
complainant that, legal presumptions enshrined U/s.139
and 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act could be raised in
his favour, which includes the existence of legally
enforceable debt or liability.
15. It is worth to note that, the accused has not
disputed nor denied the issuance of the subject cheque.
Hence, initial statutory presumption attached to the
cheque as per Section 118(a) and 139 of N.I.Act has to
be raised in favour of the complainant. Section 139 of
N.I.Act reads as under;
Sec.139. Presumption in favour of holder.
–It shall be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, that the holder of a
cheque received the cheque of the nature
referred to in section138 for the
17
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt
or other liability.
In so far as the payment of the amount by the
complainant in the context of the cheque having been
signed by the accused, the presumption for passing of
consideration would arise as provided U/s.118(a) of
N.I.Act, which reads as under;
Sec.118. Presumptions as to negotiable
instruments.–Until the contrary is
proved, the following presumptions shall
be made:–
(a) of consideration:–that every
negotiable instrument was made or
drawn for consideration, and that every
such instrument, when it has been
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or
transferred, was accepted, indorsed,
negotiated or transferred for
consideration;
The above noted provisions are explicit to the
effect that such presumptions would remain, until the
contrary is proved. In the case on hand, it is clear that,
18
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
signature on the cheque having been admitted, a
presumption shall be raised under Section 139 of the
N.I.Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt
or liability. The question to be looked into is as to
whether any probable defence was raised by the
accused.
16. The next point for consideration is whether the
accused has placed cogent material on record sufficient
to rebut the statutory presumption? In a case of this
nature, the defence of accused could be gathered from
the reply notice. Plea of defence, suggestions and
admissions in the cross-examination of Pw.1. The
contentions taken in the reply notice acquires more
credibility, as it is the first and foremost opportunity to the
accused to place his defence by explaining the
circumstances under which the disputed cheque reached
the custody of the complainant. Admittedly, the accused
19
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
has not issued reply notice. Thereby, the accused has
forgone this maiden opportunity to put forth the
defence/contentions, however, he has adduced defense
evidence in his favour.
17. In this case it is the specific defence of
the accused that he has not issued disputed cheque i.e.
Ex.P.1 in favour fo the complainant, (however, the fact
that said cheque and the signature therein belongs to the
accused is not in dispute) on the contrary, accused
contends that he was a subscriber in the chit business
run by one Ravikumar who was a friend of complainant,
while subscribing the said chit under said Ravi Kumar
he had issued a blank signed cheque in his favour
towards the security and he knew the complainant
through said Ravikumar, he has initiated this legal
proceedings against him through the complainant. To
believe the version of accused he ought to have shown
20
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
some supportive materials as to say whether he made
any attempt to secure his blank signed cheques from
said Ravi Kumar after completion of chit transaction with
him. No materials are placed before the trial court to
establish the fact that said Ravi Kumar was running a
chit business and accused was a subscriber in the chit
business. However, in the cross-examination of P.W.1 he
has denied the suggestion of the accused that said
cheque was given to his friend Ravi Kumar towards chit
business. As such mere denial is not sufficient to
consider the defense evidence of accused without
substantial supportive materials.
18. On the other hand, as could be seen from
the available material on record, the complainant has
established his financial capacity to lend loan by claiming
himself as an income tax assessee. In this scenario, this
Court has appreciated the evidence placed before the
21
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
trial court to analyze the grounds raised by the accused
person. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act casts
burden on the person who asserts the fact which is
within his special knowledge. The N.I.Act is special
statute entitle the accused to rebut the presumption.
Except taking bare contention, accused person has not
placed iota of evidence to show that the disputed
cheque was issued towards security in favour of one Mr.
Ravikumar. It is also not forthcoming from the evidence
of accused whether he has taken any legal action
against said Ravi Kumar for not returning his signed
blank cheque issued towards security of chit business.
To put it other way, except self serving statement, the
accused has not placed any cogent and material
evidence to establish his defense that, the cheque in
dispute was issued to one Ravikumar towards security
22
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
for chit business. Therefore, this court is hesitant to
believe this unsupported defence of the accused.
19. This proposition of law is laid down in the
Hon’ble Apex court relied on the decision reported in,
2001 CRI.L.J 4745 (Supreme Court), between
K.N.Beena Vs. Muniyappan, it is held that;
” Negotiable Instrument Act -S- 138, 139,
118- cheque dishonour complaint-
Burden of proving that cheque had not
been issued for any debt or liability – is
on the accused – Denial/averments in
reply by accused are not sufficient to shift
burden of proof on to the complainant-
Accused has to prove in trail by leading
cogent evidence that there was no debt
or liability – setting aside conviction on
basis of some formal evidence led by
accused – Not proper. ”
In this view of the matter, the formal evidence led
by the accused is not sufficient to prove his defence.
20. The accused has taken further defence that,
the security cheque issued in favour of one Ravikumar
23
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
who was the friend of complainant is misused to file this
false complaint through this complainant which was
denied out rightly by the complainant. No cogent
evidence is placed in support of this contention of the
accused that, disputed cheque is security cheque. Even
for the sake of arguments, if we consider the contention
of the accused that, the cheque was issued for the
security purpose is concerned, the Hon’ble courts have
laid down in the plethora of decisions that, the cheques
issued for security also attracts Section 138 of N.I.Act.
In the decision reported in 2015 (4) KCCR 2881 (SC) in
a case of T.Vasanthkumar V/s.Vijayakumari wherein the
Hon’ble Apex court pleased to observe that,
“NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT, 1881-
Section 138 and 139 – acquittal- If justified-
Accused not disputing issuance of cheque
and his signature on it- Plea that it was
issued long back as security and that loan
amount was repaid- Not supported by any
evidence- Fact that date was printed, would
24
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
not lend any evidence to case of accused –
Acquittal not proper.”
To fortify this opinion, I would like to rely on the
decision reported in, 2006 Cri.L.J.3760, Umaswamy Vs.
K.N.Ramanath, the Hon’ble Court pleased to observe
that;
“Negotiable Instrument Act (26 of
1881). S.138- Dishonour of cheque –
cheque even if issued as a security for
payment, it is negotiable instrument
and encashable security at the hands
of payee -Merely because it is issued
as security is no ground to exonerate
the penal liability u/s.138.”
In another decision reported in, IV (2013) BC 284
(P & H), Shalini Enterprises & Anr Vs. Indiabulls
Financial Service Ltd., wherein their lordships pleased to
observe that,
“(iii) Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881–
Section 138- Dishonour of cheque-
security cheque-Is integral part of
25
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
commercial process entered into
between petitioner and respondent
/complainant -Security cheque can
fasten liability on drawer under N.I.
Act.- Argument that security cheque is
not handed over or issued in
pursuance of any un-discharged
liability -To hold so would defeat
whole purpose of security cheque-
Security cheque is an
acknowledgment of liability on part of
drawer that cheque holder may use
security cheque as an alternate mode
of discharging his/its liability.”
The latest decision on this aspect is found in the case
of T.P.Murugan (Dead) through Lrs Vs Bojan, reported in
(2018) 8 SCC 469 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
reiterated the aspect of security and held that evidence is
required to rebut the presumption. Said observation is
reasserted the case of Shree Daneshwari Traders Vs
Sanjay Jain, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 83.
Similar to the cited decision, in the present case
also it is one of the defences of the accused that, the
26
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
cheque in dispute allegedly issued towards security to
one Ravikumar and complainant being the friend of said
Ravikumar has filed this false complaint by misusing the
said cheque. However, the accused has admitted the
issuance of cheque and his signature on the said cheque
and also taken defence that, the cheque was issued
towards security but no documents or proof given by the
accused to prove his defence. In such circumstances by
applying the principles of law laid down in the above
decisions, this defence of the accused does not holds
any water.
21. The accused has not issued reply to the
statutory notice. The non-issuance of reply is fatal to the
defence. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down
in the decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441;
Rangappa V/s. Mohan that;
27
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
“Very fact that the accused had failed to
reply to the statutory notice U/s.138 of
N.I.Act leads to inference that there was
merit in the complainant’s version– Apart
from not raising a probable defence, the
appellant accused was not able to
contest the existence of a legally
enforceable debt or liability.”
In the light of the above proposition of law, this
court has no hesitation to opined that, non-issuance of
the reply to the statutory notice, further strengthens the
case of the complainant.
22. Another contention of the accused is that,
except the signature contents of cheque are different i.e.
to say the handwriting and ink of the cheque other than
the signature of accused are different amounting to a
material alteration. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs.
Prabodh Kumar Tewari (2022), the Hon’ble Apex Court
has addressed the situation where the ink and
28
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
handwriting on the body of cheque differs from signature
of the accused and held that a drawer who signs a
cheque and hands it over to the payee is presumed to be
liable regardless of who filled the other details by
observing that cheque filled by the any other person
other than the drawer is immaterial and in C. Anthony
Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair (2002) 10 SCC 710 it is held
that ink difference alone is no longer a valid defense in
case of admission of his signature by the drawer in the
disputed cheque. The afore quoted decisions are
squarely applicable to the present facts of the case on
hand.
23. Further, in Writ Petition No.29144/2018
dated 29th day of August 2018, in a case of Dr.M.Krishna
Shetty V/s.Sri.H.R. Nagabhusha, wherein Hon’ble Court
pleased to observe that;
29
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
“the prosecution under Section 138 of
N.I.Act cannot be stalled for no-
compliance of Section 269 SS of the
Income Tax Act. Any cash transaction in
violation of section 269 SS of Income
Tax Act may give rise to an independent
criminal offences, but on account of
violation of the said provision, the
prosecution of the petitioner for the
alleged dishonour of cheque under
section 138 of Act does not become bad
in law.”
In view of the proposition of law laid down in the
aforesaid decisions, this court is of the considered view
that, non disclosure of the impugned transaction in the
Income Tax returns of the complainant, is not fatal to his
case.
24. From the discussions made supra, it is crystal
clear that, complainant has placed convincing,
corroborative oral and documentary evidence to prove
the loan transaction of ₹.2,00,000/- and issuance of a
cheque for discharge of the said loan amount with
30
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
interest. Apart from that, complainant has also proved
that, on presentation, said cheque was dishonoured for
want of sufficient funds in the bank account maintained
by the accused. The service of legal notice is also
proved. The accused has not repaid the amount covered
under the cheque till this day. He has not placed
probable defence to dislodge the statutory presumptions
raised in favour of the complainant. Therefore, this court
opined that, the complainant has successfully established
the guilt of the accused punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act. The learned trial Judge has considered
all these aspects in proper perspective and rightly held
that, accused has committed the offence punishable
U/s.138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, Points No.1 and 2 under
consideration are answered in the Affirmative.
31
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
25. POINT No.3:- The complainant has placed
cogent material to show compliance of all the ingredients of
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, which envisages
raising of statutory presumptions in favour of the
complainant. The accused is not successful in placing
acceptable contentions to rebut the presumptions. Thus,
the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused
punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
26. The trial court has assigned proper reasons in
the impugned judgment of conviction as against the
allegations made in the memorandum of appeal and
proceeded to pass conviction and imposed sentence of
fine amount. No grounds are made out in the
memorandum of appeal to interfere with the Impugned
judgment of conviction.
27. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned,
trial court has imposed sentence of fine directing the
32
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
accused to pay fine of ₹.2,36,000/-(Two lakhs Thirty Six
thousand ) to the complainant for dishonour of a cheque.
Out of fine amount of ₹.2,36,000/-(Two lakhs Thirty Six
thousand ) ₹.2,31,000/-(Two lakhs thirty one thousand
only) shall be paid to the complainant by way of
compensation and ₹.5,000/-(Five thousand) shall be paid
to State exchequer. In default of payment of fine amount,
accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of one year. Fine amount imposed is within the purview
of Section 138 of N.I.Act. Accused failed to establish the
fact that, sentence imposed is exorbitant and excessive.
There is no merit in the appeal. Order under appeal is
sustainable in law. Hence, interference of this court is not
necessary. Accordingly, point No.3 under consideration
is answered in the Negative.
33
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
28. POINT No.4:- In view of findings on the
above points No.1 to 3, this criminal appeal is devoid of
merits and the same is liable to be dismissed by
confirming impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence. Hence, this court proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal U/s.374(3) of
Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the
appellant is dismissed.
Consequently, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated
02/09/2024 passed in C.C.No.25181/2021 on
the file of 22nd ACMM, Bengaluru is
confirmed.
Appellant is directed to appear before
the Trial Court to deposit the fine amount or
to serve the default sentence.
34
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
Office is directed to transmit T.C.R.
along with copy of this Judgment to the trial
court, forthwith, for information.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed and computerized by her, then corrected, signed and
pronounced by me in open court on this 1st day of April, 2026).
(MALA.N.D.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65),
BENGALURU CITY.
35
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
Judgment pronounced in the
open court vide separate
judgment
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal
U/s.374(3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure filed by the appellant is
dismissed.
Consequently, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence
dated 02/09/2024 passed in
C.C.No.25181/2021 on the file of
22nd ACMM, Bengaluru is
confirmed.
Appellant is directed to appear
before the Trial Court to deposit the
fine amount or to serve the default
sentence.
Office is directed to transmit
T.C.R. along with copy of this
Judgment to the trial court, forthwith,
for information.
(MALA.N.D.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65),
BENGALURU CITY.
36
Crl.Appeal No.1593/2024
