IN THE HONOURABLE

COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS

YASHWANTPUR, BANGALORE

IN THE MATTER OF

MR.AMMA……………………………………………………………………COMPLAINANT

V.

MR.BINU………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE COMPLAINANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

SD/-

(COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT)

RISHAB GUPTA

ROLL NO: 71/11

SECTION B

1

CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3. STAEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4. ISSUES PRESENTED

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS IN BRIEF

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

8. PRAYERS

2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. & And

2. A.I.R. All India Reporter

3. Art. Article

4. Co. Company

5. Edn. Edition

6. Etc Et cetera

7. Govt. Government

8. H.C. High Court

9. Hon’ble Honourable

10. i.e. that is

11. J. Justice

12. Ltd. Limited

13. no. number

14. p. page

15. S.C. Supreme Court

16. S.C.C. Supreme Court cases

17. S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports

18. Sec. Section

19. v. versus

20. Vol. Volume

3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Referred

ICDS Ltd v Beena Shabeer And Another …………………………………………………pg 12

Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd. V. Indian Technologists and

Engineers (Electronics) (P) Ltd……………………………………………………………..pg 13

K.K. Sidharthan v. T.P. Praveena Chandran & another……………………………………pg 13

Goaplast (P) Ltd. V. Chico Ursula D’souza and Anr………………………………………pg 13

Modi Cements Ltd. V. Kuchil Kumar Nandi Goaplast (P) Ltd. V. Chico Ursula D’souza and

Another..…………………………………………………………………………………….pg 14

Hemant chemicals v Riverside Industries…………………………………………………..pg 14

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Malhotra vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr……………………….pg 15

Nexus Health and Beauty Care Private Limited and Another v. M/s. National Electrical Office,

through its Proprietor, Solan………………………………………………………………..pg 17

Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Baneerjee………………………………………………….pg 17

Kamalammal v. C.K. Mohanan & Anr……………………………………………………..pg 17

K.N. Beena v Muniyappan………………………………………………………………….pg 18

B. Mohana Krishna v. Union of India………………………………………………………pg 19

4

Statutory Compilations

Negotiable Instruments Act,1881

Books

1. Dr HK Saharay and Dr Madhusudan Saharay, Saharey’s Negotiable Instruments Act,1881,

Premiere Law Publishing

2. S. Krishnamurthi Aiyar, Law relating to Negotiable Instruments Act,1881, Universal

Publishing Co

Websites

1. www.indiankanoon.org

2. www.manupatra.com

3. www.lawyersclubindia.com

4. www.legalservicesindia.com

5. www.vakilno1.com

6. www.researchgate.net

5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The complainant has the honour to submit this memorandum before the Court of Hon’ble

Judicial Magistrate First Class Yashwantpur, Bangalore under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act,1881 which says that where any cheque drawn by a person on an account

maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from

out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned

by the bank unpaid due to reasons laid down in this section, he shall be liable for dishonor of

cheque and shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under this section.

6

ISSUES PRESENTED

1) WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAS A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE

LIABILITY TOWARDS THE COMPLAINANT WHICH HE HAS OMITTED TO

DISCHARGE AND WHETHER HE HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENCE UNDER

SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.

2) WHETHER THE PRESUMPTION CAN BE RAISED UNDER SECTION 139 OF

THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT UNLESS CONTRARY IS PROVED,

IN THE FAVOUR OF COMPLAINANT THAT CHEQUE WAS DRAWN FOR

THE DISCHARGE OF LIABILITY BY THE RESPONDENT IN LIEU OF THE

LOAN TAKEN BY HIM.

3) WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS TRYING TO ESCAPE THE LEGALLY

ENFORCEABLE LIABILITY TO BE DISCHARGED BY HIM BY MAKING

FALSE ALLEGATIONS

7

STATEMENT OF FACTS IN BRIEF

1. That Amma was the owner of Cine theatre situated at Yashwantpur and Binu was the

film distributor. That the two parties had business relationship wherein Binu provided

movies to Amma for screening at his theatre.

2. That in May 2006, Binu sought a loan of Rs. 5 lacs from Amma for supporting the

making of a Tamil movie “Pokari”. That the loan was advanced by Amma on 20-05-2006

and Binu promised to repay the loan on the release of the said movie.

3. That however, binu failed to repay the loan.

4. That on repeated requests of Amma, on 16-01-2007, Binu gave a cheque of Rs. 5 lacs.

5. That when the cheque was presented by Amma at the bank, the cheque was returned on

18-01-2007 with remarks “stop payment”. That thereafter, Amma issued legal notice to

Binu but the Latter neither made payment nor responded to the notice.

6. That however, Binu alleged that the cheque was given to Amma in 1999 as security

against loan of Rs. 5 lacs taken then. After Binu paid back the loan, Amma did not return

back the cheque saying that he had misplaced it. That Binu further alleged that Amma

had some ill-will in the release of the movie “Pokari” and Amma was using the old

cheque to take revenge from Binu.

8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE RESPONDENT HAS A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE LIABILITY TOWARDS

THE COMPLAINANT WHICH HE HAS OMITTED TO DISCHARGE AND

WHETHER HE HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.

An offence is made out under section 138 of this act as all the ingredients and essentials of

this section are fulfilled and legally enforceable liability of the respondent is established which

he willfully omitted to discharge.

Sec 138 requires that t he cheque should have been issued for the discharge , in whole or part, of any debt or other liabilityThere was fiduciary relationship bw the parties wherein the respondent, a distributor provided movies to the complainant who was the owner of a cine theatre for screening which shows they had business relations. The respondent took a loan from the complainant and in order to repay the loan ie for discharge of debt or liability the cheque was drawn by the respondent.

Cheque returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bankThe cheque was returned by the bank with the remarks ‘stop payment.’ Although this section does not expressly mention stop payment but many supreme court and high court judgements have held that dishonor of cheque due to stop payment attracts sec 138.

Provided   that   nothing   contained in this   section   shall   apply   unless- the   cheque   has been, presented to the bank   within   a period   of six months from the date on which it is   drawn   or   within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier The cheque was given by respondent on 16 Jan 2007 and it was presented by the complainant at the bank which was returned on 18 Jan 2007. The cheque was presented within the stipulated period, hence this requirement is satisfied.

9

The payee or the holder in due course. of the cheque as the   case may be, makes a demand   for   the   payment   of   the said   amount of money by giving a notice, in writing,   to the   drawer   of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt   of information by him from the bank regarding the return of   the cheque as unpaid The complainant issued a legal notice to the respondent within the stipulated time but the latter neither made payment nor responded to the notice

The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to   the   holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen     days of the receipt of the said noticeThe respondent did not make any payment inspite of the notice.

2. ACCORDING TO SECTION 139 THE PRESUMPTION IS IN THE FAVOUR OF THE CHEQUE HOLDER UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVED,THAT THE HOLDER OF A CHEQUE RECEIVED THE CHEQUE OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 138 FOR THE DISCHARGE,IN WHOLE OR IN PART,OF ANY DEBT OR OTHER LIABILITY.

The facts clearly state that on 16 Jan 2007 the respondent gave a cheque of Rs 5 lacs in lieu of the loan taken by him from the complainant on 20 May 2006. Hence the presumption is in favour of the complainant and the onus of proof is on

3. THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT ARE BASELESS AND ARE

MADE WITH MALAFIDE INTENTIONS TO ESCAPE LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE

LIABILITY TO BE DISCHARGED BY HIM.THE CHEQUE IN ISSUE IS THE ONE

WHICH WAS DRAWN ON 16 JAN 2007 BUT THE RESPONDENT DENIED IT AND

ALLEGED THAT IT WAS ISSUED IN 1999 AS SECURITY FOR LOAN TAKEN

WHICH WAS REPAID BY HIM AND NOW THE CHEQUE WAS BEING MISUSED BY

THE COMPLAINANT.

10

For the sake of arguments if we presume that this was the case then the bank would have not

accepted the cheque for encashment in the first place as its validity of six months had already

expired. Hence the allegations are fabricated.

11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. The legally enforceable liability of Mr Binu, the respondent is established under Negotiable

Instruments Act and he is liable for the offence of dishonor of cheque under sec 138 of this act as

all the ingredients and essentials are proved.

Sec 138 says:

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for

payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in

whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of

the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honor the cheque or

that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that

bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall without prejudice to

any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to

one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both1:

PROVIDED that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on

which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for

the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the

cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the

return of the cheque as unpaid, and

1 Sec 12

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the

payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the

receipt of the said notice.

Explanation: For the purpose of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally

enforceable debt or other liability.

An offence is made out under this sec as all the requirements are satisfied as follows:

Sec 138 requires that the cheque should have been issued for the discharge , in whole or

part, of any debt or other liability

A fiduciary relation is admitted between the two parties as the respondent, a distributor provided

movies to the complainant who was the owner of a cine theatre for screening. He took a loan of 5

lacs from the complainant in May 2006 for supporting the making of a tamil movie and in order

to repay the loan, gave him a cheque for Rs 5 lacs on 16 Jan 2007. By signing the cheque on the

given date he acknowledged the fact that a loan was taken by him from the complainant contrary

to his allegations that the cheque was drawn in 1999 as a security for a loan of 5 lacs taken from

the complainant which was repaid then itself but the cheque was never returned to him.

 In ICDS Ltd v Beena Shabeer And Another2, the Supreme Court held as follows:

"The word "any cheque" and "other liability" occurring in Section 138 are the two key

expressions which stand as clarifying the legislative intent so as to bring the factual context

within the ambit of the provisions  of the statute. These expressions leave no manner of doubt

that for whatever reason it may be, the liability under Section 138 cannot be avoided in the event

the cheque stands returned by the banker unpaid. Any contra-interpretation would defeat the

intent of the legislature”.

2 (2002) 6 SCC 42613

Cheque returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to

the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount

arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank

When the complainant presented the cheque to the bank it was returned on 18 Jan 2007 with the

remarks ‘stop payment’ which implies that the respondent had directed the bank to do so.

Although this section does not expressly mention stop payment as a cause for dishonor of

cheques but the recent trends in judicial pronouncements have widened the scope of sec 138 and

dishonor of cheques due to stop payment also attracts sec 138 as given by various supreme court

and high court judgements

.

It has, been held by a Bench of the Supreme Court in Electronics Trade and Technology

Development Corpn Ltd. v. Indian Technologists and Engineers (Electronics) (P) Ltd.3, that

even if a cheque is dishonoured because of 'stop payment' instruction to the Bank, section

138 would get attracted".

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that stoppage of payment due to

instructions does not amount to an offence under Section 138 and that, therefore, the ingredients

in Section 138 have not been satisfied. We find no force in the contention. The object of

bringing Section 138 on statute appears to be to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking

operations and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. Despite civil

remedy, Section 138 intended to prevent dishonesty on the part of the drawer of negotiable

instrument to draw a cheque without sufficient funds in his account main- tained by him in a

bank and induce the payee or holder in due course to act upon it. Section 338 draws presumption

that one commits the offence if he issues the cheque dishonestly. It is seen that once the cheque

has been drawn and issued to the payee and the payee has presented the cheque and thereafter, if

any instructions are issued to the Bank for non-payment and the cheque is returned to the payee

with such an endorsement, it amounts to dishonour of cheque and it comes within the meaning of

Section 138.

3 AIR 1996 SC 233914

Another two Judge Bench of SC while dealing with the same question in K.K. Sidharthan v.

T.P. Praveena Chandran & another4 observed, "This shows that section 138 gets attracted in

terms if cheque is dishonoured because of insufficient funds or where the amount exceeds the

arrangement made with the Bank.

The Supreme Court in the case of Goaplast (P) Ltd. V. Chico Ursula D’souza and Anr.5 held

that ‘stop payment’ and ‘dishonour of post dated cheque’ attract provisions of Section 138. 

In M/S. Modi Cements Ltd., VS. Kuchil Kumar Nandan6 it has been held by the Supreme

Court that when a cheque is dishonoured on the ground that the drawer had given instructions to

the Banker to stop payment, it would amount to an offence U/s. 138 of the Act,

The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench in the case of Hemant chemicals v Riverside

Industries7 has ruled that even stop payment of cheque could be punishable under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

"If due to stopping of payment a cheque is dishonoured, that case is also covered under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if other requirements of that Section are complied with.

This is settled position of law," Justice TV Nalawade observed while citing a Supreme Court

verdict.

Allowing the plea filed by Hemant Chemicals against Riverside Industries and its four directors,

the high court quashed the Jalgaon Session Court orders while directing to restore the complaint

lodged by the petitioner against the respondents. Justice Nalawade also asked the session court to

proceed against the accused directors of offences for which the process has been issued.4 (1996) 6 SCC 389

5 (2003) 3 SCC 232

6 (1998) 3 SCC 249

7 AIR 201215

Petitioner Swapnil Jakhete of Hemant Chemicals moved to the high court challenging Jalgaon

Session Court judgment of 2005 that declined his prayer of issuing process order against the

accused under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act (dishonour of cheque for

insufficiency of funds in the accounts) and Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing

delivery of property) of IPC.

He pleaded that Riverside Industries directors had approached him for supply of goods and

issued him a cheque before it was stopped. He requested the accused directors many a times to

clear the cheque or to pay the dues manually. But his requests were ignored. Jakhete contended

that the Riverside directors should be liable for the punishment. However, the session's court did

not accept this defence.

The sessions court took into consideration arguments by the accused that the cheques were not

honoured as the accused stopped payment. As payment was stopped and the cheque was not

dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, the provision of Section 138 of the Act is not attracted.

The petitioner strongly contended that it is a settled position of law that such a situation does

invoke Section 138 of the act. "In view of this position of law, this court holds that the order

made by trial court of setting aside order of issue process in respect of offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Act cannot sustain in law," Justice Nalawade ruled.

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-

(a)the  cheque  has been, presented to the bank  within  a period  of six months from the

date on which it is  drawn  or  within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

The cheque was given by the respondant on 16 jan 2007 to the complainant in lieu of the loan

taken by him and it was presented by the complainant at the bank which was returned on 18 jan

2007. This proves that the cheque was presented within the stipulated period as given in this

section, hence this requirement is saitisfied.

In a judgement given by the Kolkata High Court in the case of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Malhotra

vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr,8 it was held having regards to the last and third criminal

revision is concerned, according to the case of the complainant total 20 cheques were bounced.

Three cheques were issued on 13/11/07, 14/11/07 and 18/11/07,two cheques each, i.e. total 8 8 AIR 2010

16

cheques were issued on 12/11/07, 15/11/07,17/11/07 and 20/11/07 and three cheques each, i.e.

total 9 cheques were issued on 10/11/07, 16/11/07 and 19/11/07. According to the further case of

the complainant that he was intimated by his banker about such dishonour on 5/5/08, therefore,

obviously all those cheques were presented for encashment before August 5, 2008, i.e. within the

validity of those cheques and the cheques were returned on the ground the "payment stop by the

drawer". In such circumstances the penal consequences of Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act is very much attracted.

(b)the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque as the  case may be, makes a

demand  for  the  payment  of  the said  amount of money by giving a notice, in writing,  to

the  drawer  of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt  of information by him from the

bank regarding the return of  the cheque as unpaid

After the cheque was returned by the bank on 18 Jan 2007,the complainant issued a legal notice

to the respondant within the stipulated time but the latter neither made payment nor responded to

the notice.

(c)the drawer of such cheque  fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the

payee or, as the case may be, to  the  holder in due course of the cheque,  within

fifteen  days of the receipt of the said notice.

The respondent did not make any payment within the prescribed time. Cause of action arose in

this case when notice was served on the drawer ie the espondent in this case and drawer failed to

make payment of the amount of cheque within 15 days.

2. Section 139 of the Act lays down the principles of presumption with regard to guilt of a person

accused of dishonour of cheque under section 138 of the NI Act, 1881. It raises a presumption in

favour of holder of the cheque, in this case the complainant Mr Amma that the same has been

issued for discharge of any debt or other liability ie to repay the loan taken by Mr. Binu the

respondent as the facts clearly state that the respondent had taken a loan of Rs 5 lacs from the

complainant in May 2006 so the cheque given by him to the complainant shall be presumed to be

given for the discharge of his liability unless contrary is proved by the respondent.The

17

presumption under Section 139 of the Act is rebutable presumption, but the burden of proving

that a cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused.

Sec 139 expressly states that It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder

of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in

whole or in part, or any debt or other liability.9

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Nexus Health and Beauty Care Private Limited and

Another v. M/s. National Electrical Office, through its Proprietor, Solan10, observed that,

“The authority shows that even when the cheque is dishonoured by reason of stop-payment

instructions by virtue of Section 139 the Court has to presume that the cheque was received by

the holder for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability. Of course this is a

rebuttable presumption. The important thing is that the burden of so proving would be on the

accused.”

The SC in the case of Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Baneerjee 11held “The effect of these

presumptions is to place the evidential burden on the accused of proving that the cheque was not

received by the complainant towards the discharge of any liability. Because both sections 138

and 139 require that the court shall presume the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the

amounts for which the cheques are drawn…it is obligatory on the courts to raise this

presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of this presumption had been

established. It introduced an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal

cases and shifts the onus on to the accused.”

Kerala High Court held in the case of Kamalammal v. C.K. Mohanan & Anr 12that the

`PURPOSE' for which the cheque is received by the complainant can be presumed unde sec 139.

9

10 LAWS-HPH-2012-8-158

11 AIR 2001 SC 3897

12 AIR 200618

The Court can presume under Section 139 of the Act that the purpose for which the cheque is

received by the holder is, "for discharge of a debt or liability"

Before drawing presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Court must be

satisfied :-

(1) That the person who seeks the benefit of the presumption in Section 139 is the "holder" as

defined under Section 8 of the Act.

(2) That such person is entitled in his own name to the possession of the cheque and also to

receive the amount due from the parties thereto.

(3) It must be established that such a person is in possession of same by way of entitlement.

(4) There must be evidence at least for the fact that he "received" the cheque as of right and did

not obtain it by any other mode.

(5) If the court is satisfied that he is the "holder" of the cheque of the nature stated in Section 138

and that he "received" the same, the court can safely draw the presumption under Section 139 of

the Act.

presumption under section 139 of the Act that the cheque is "issued" for the discharge of a debt

or liability. Two decisions are often quoted on this aspect. Those are in K.N. Beena v

Muniyappan13 and in Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee,

 It is held in Beena's case, as hereunder :

"Under Section 139 the much clamour is often made and heard across the bar that the Supreme

Court held that there is a court has to presume, unless the contrary was proved, that the holder of

the cheque received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part, of a debt or liability. Thus in

complaints under Section 138, the court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a

debt or liability. This presumption is rebuttable. However the burden of proving that a cheque

had not been issued for a debt or liability is on the accused. This Court in the case of Hiten P.

Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee has also taken an identical view

13 2001(4) RCR(Criminal) 545 : (2001)8 SCC 45819

Constitutional Validity of sec 139

In B. Mohana Krishna v. Union of India14, the question came up for consideration that whether

the presumption raised in section 139 that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the

nature referred to in section 138, unless the contrary is established is violative of Article 20 (3) of

the Constitution of India. The Court while answering negative held that:

"Unless a person is compelled to be a witness against himself Article 20 (3) has no application.

The person charged under section 138 is not compelled to be a witness against himself. The

presumption of the nature incorporated in section 139 is a common feature in criminal statutes

for example section 12 of the Protection of Civil rights Act. The presumption under section 139

in favour of holder of cheque would not, therefore be violative of Article 20 (3)."

3.The allegations made by the respondent are baseless and are made with malafide intention to

escape legally enforceable liability to be discharged by him. The cheque in issue is the one which

was drawn on 16 Jan 2007 but the respondent denied it and alleged that it was issued in 1999 as

security for a loan taken then which was repaid by him and now the cheque was being misused

by the complainant.

For the sake of arguments if we presume,

That the cheque given in 1999 was dated, then it is debarred from being presented at the bank

for encashment as its validity period of 6 months has expired but as the cheque in issue was

entertained by the bank and returned with the remarks stop payment, it proves that it was drawn

on 16 Jan 2007 and presented within its validity period. If it was a cheque of 1999 it would have

been rejected by the bank at the first instance.

14 1995 (1) ALT Cri 33220

Secondly if it was not dated and was indeed given in 1999 as security by the respondent there is

no proof of the same as the cheque is not dated and this is merely a frivolous allegation to escape

liablility.

Hence if both the possibilities are presumed, the respondent’s allegations are proved false and

the cheque in issue continues to be the one which was drawn on 16 Jan 2007 by the respondent.

PRAYER

21

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities

cited, it is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court:

1. To make the respondent liable under sec138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881

2. Direct him to pay Rs 10 lacs to the complainant which is twice the amount of the cheque as

laid down in sec 138 of the Act

3. Sentence him to imprisonment of two years as laid down in sec 138 of the Act

And any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice,

equity and good conscience

And for this act of kindness Your Lordships respondent shall as duty bound ever pray.

22

23