Mrs. C. Anuradha, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4439 Tel

           THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO


                        CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1253 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

The appellant-complainant seeks to assail the judgment of acquittal dated 16.03.2009 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, in private

complaint case C.C.No.160 of 2007 filed by said complainant against the accused

Dodda Surya Narayana(2nd respondent herein), for an offence under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity 'the Act').

2. The facts before the trial Court are that the accused borrowed Rs.1,49,623/- from the complainant but failed to repay despite demands, ultimately the accused

issued Ex.P.1 cheque from his account in favour of the complainant for said amount,

dated 04.10.2006 drawn in State Bank of India, Markapur, presented for collection in

Syndicate Bank, Markapur, on 01.03.2007, returned dishonoured on the reason of

'insufficiency of the funds' covered by Ex.P.2 cheque return memo, and Ex.P.3 is

returned cheque and the same is intimated to the accused through legal notice, dated 05.03.2007 covered by Ex.P.4, issued by the complainant to the accused, and

though the accused received notice not paid the amount, hence the complainant is constrained to file the private complaint case.

3. The accused appeared before the Court pursuant to the summons and after

supply of case copies under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when

questioned on substance of accusation under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (for brevity, "The Cr.P.C.") he pleaded not guilty.

4. On behalf of the complainant during the course of trial besides himself as

PW1 cause examined PW2 K.V.S.Siva and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4, as

mentioned above and the accused also cross-examined the P.Ws.1 and 2 and on

defence side the accused examined himself as D.W.1 only and got marked Ex.D.1

calculation memo.

5. After closure of evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of

the Cr.P.C. who denied the incriminating material put to him and stated no defence.

6. Appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Court below ultimately held that the complainant could not prove guilt of the accused for the

offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and thereby not found guilty in acquitting

the accused with findings that in view of the principles of law laid down by the Apex

Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs.Dattatraya G.Hegde, it should be held that

the complainant has failed to discharge his initial burden that the accused had given

Ex.P.1 cheque towards discharge of existing legally enforceable debt and held the

accused is not guilty.

7. It is attacking the said findings, the present appeal is filed with the contentions in the grounds that the acquittal judgment of trial Magistrate is contrary

to law, that the trial Magistrate erred in holding the complainant failed to discharge his initial burden that the accused has given Ex.P.1 cheque towards discharge of

existing legal enforceable debt in spite of the legal position as contemplated under Section 139 of the N.I.Act, that the Court below ought to have noticed that the

accused issued cheque dated 04.10.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,49,623/- drawn on the State Bank of India, Markapur and therefore ought to have drawn presumption in

favour of the complainant, that the trial Magistrate erred in holding that the burden lies on the complainant to prove that there was a legal enforceable liability between the complainant and accused and the cheque was issued towards the discharge of

the said liability, that the Court below ought to have disbelieved the unimaginable version of the accused that the complainant obtained his signature when he has

taken the prize money in the chit transaction and later filed it with counter interest, that the Court below totally erred in acquitting the accused on the presumption that

the burden lies on the complainant to prove that there was a legally enforceable debt in spite of the factual position that the accused issued the cheque in question

admitting his liability of debt, that the Court below ought to have seen that the accused even failed to file any documents in support of his contention that the

cheque was obtained with his signature when he has taken the prize money in the chit transaction and therefore erred in concluding that the accused succeeded, thereby sought for setting aside the acquittal judgment of trial Magistrate and allow

the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the same during the course of hearing.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-accused, on the

other hand, represents that for this Court while sitting in appeal, there is nothing to interfere with the finding of the trial Court, hence to dismiss.

9. Perused the material on record. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in trial Court for the sake of convenience.

10. Now the points that arise for consideration are:

(1). Whether the accused did not issue the cheque in favour of the complainant for discharge of legally enforceable debt to make liable for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and if so, the trial court's acquittal judgment is unsustainable?

(2). To what result?

Point No.1:

11-(A). Before advert to the merits of the matter, it is beneficial to quote; the provisions incorporated in Chapter XVII of the N.I. Act make a civil transaction to be

an offence by fiction of law and with certain (rebuttable) presumptions that shall

be drawn. Sections.138 to 142 are incorporated in the N.I.Act,1881 as Chapter XVII by the Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable instruments Laws

(Amendment) Act,1981 (66 of 1988) which came into force w.e.f.01-04-1989 and the

N.I.Act was further amended by Act,2002 (55 of 2002) which came into force

w.e.f.06-02-2003 incorporating new sections 143 to 147 in this Chapter XVII and further some of the existing provisions not only of the Chapter XVII but also of other

Chapters amended to overcome the defects and drawbacks in dealing with the

matters relating to dishonour of cheques.

11-(B). The object and intention of these penal provisions of the Chapter XVII

(Sections 138 - 147), in particular, Sections 138 & 139 (besides civil remedy), are to prevent issuing of cheques in playful manner or with dishonest intention or with no

mind to honour or without sufficient funds in the account maintained by the drawer in

Bank and induce the Payee/Holder or Holder in due course to act upon it. The remedy available in a Civil Court is a long drawn matter and an unscrupulous

drawer normally takes various pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the payee. Since

a cheque that is dishonoured may cause uncountable loss, injury or inconvenience

to the Payee due to the latter's unexpected disappointment, these provisions incorporated are in order to provide a speedy remedy to avoid inconvenience and

injury to the Payee and further to encourage the culture of use of cheques and

enhancing credibility of the instruments as a trustworthy substitute for cash payment

and to inculcate faith in the efficacy of Banking operations - GOA PLAST (PVT.) LTD. v. CHICO URSULA D'SOUZA.

11-(C). To fulfill the objective, the Legislature while amending the Act has

made the following procedure:

In the opening words of the Section 138 it is stated: "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,--

-------, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall,

without prejudice to any other provision of this Act (See Sec.143), be punished -

---. Provided, nothing contained in this section shall apply unless,-(a), (b); and (c) Explanation---(supra)."

"(i) Under Section 138 a deeming offence is created by fiction of law.

(ii) An explanation is provided to Section 138 to define the words "debt or other liability" to mean a legally enforceable debt or other liability."

(iii) In Section 139, a presumption is ingrained that the holder of the cheque received it in discharge of debt or other liability.

(iv) Disallowing a defence in Section 140 that drawer has no reason to believe that cheque would be dishonoured.

(v) As per Section 146(new section) the production of the Bank's slip or Memo with official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured is prima facie evidence for the Court to presume the fact of dishonour of such cheque unless such fact is disproved by the accused.

11-(D). Further the provision for issuing notice within thirty days under section

138 after dishonour is to afford an opportunity to the Drawer of the cheque to rectify

his mistakes or negligence or in action and to pay the amount within fifteen days of receipt of notice, failing which the drawer is liable for prosecution and penal

consequences.

11-(E). Reasonability of cause for non-payment is not at all a deciding factor.

Mensrea is irrelevant. It is a strict liability incorporated in public interest.

11-(F). Availability of alternative remedy is no bar to the prosecution

11-(G). In the words-where any cheque, the word any suggests that for

whatever reason if a cheque is drawn on an account maintained by him with a Banker in favour of another person for the discharge of any debt or other liability, the liability cannot be avoided in the event of the cheque stands returned by the Banker unpaid.

12-A. The Apex Court in NARAYAN MENON v. STATE OF KERALA held that once the complainant shown that the cheque was drawn by the accused on the

account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount in favour of the

complainant from out of that account for its discharge and the same when presented returned by the Bank unpaid for insufficiency of funds or exceeds arrangement, such

person shall be deemed to have been committed an offence under Section 138 of

N.I. Act. What Section 139 of the Act speaks of the presumption against the accused

to rebut is the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred in Section 138 of the Act for discharge of debt. For rebutting such presumption, what is

needed is to raise a probable defence. Even for the said purpose, the evidence

adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon. Accused need not enter

into the witness box and examine other witnesses in support of his defence. Accused need not disprove the prosecution case in its entirety. Therefore, the

rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be

adduced before the court in support of the defence that the court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the

standard of reasonability being that of the "prudent man".

12-B. The presumption that further applied among clauses (a) to (g) of Section 118

of N.I. Act also, like the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, as per Section 4

of the Evidence Act, is a rebuttable presumption for which the burden is on the

accused, however, to rebut the presumption if a case is made out by accused either by pointing out from the case of the complainant including very documents and

cross-examination or by examining any person and need not be always by coming to witness box vide decision in KUMAR EXPORTS PVT. LTD. V. SHARMA CARPETS.

12-C. Further, as per the expression of the Apex Court in RANGAPPA vs. MOHAN (3-Judges Bench) paras-9 to 15 referring to Goa Plast's case (supra), KRISHNA

JANARDHAN BHAT (supra) by distinguishing at para-14 saying the observation in KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT (supra) of the presumption mandated by Section 139 does not indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability is

not correct, though in other respects correctness of the decision does not in any way cause doubted; by also referring to HITEN P. DALAL v. BRATINDRANATH BANERJEE holding at paras-22 and 23 therein of the obligation on the part of the

Court to raise the presumption under 138, 139 and 118 of the N.I. Act, in every case where the factual basis for raising the presumption has been established since introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal

cases and shifts the onus on to the accused, as a presumption of law distinguished from a presumption of fact as part of rules of evidence and no way in conflict with

presumption of innocence and the proof by prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but for saying to rebut the accused can discharge the burden showing reasonable probability of non-existence of the presumption of fact and to

that proposition, the earlier expression in BHARAT BARREL & DRUM MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. AMIN CHAND PYARELAL para-12 showing the burden on the accused is to bring on record by preponderance of probability either

direct evidence or by referring to circumstances upon which he relies, rather than bare denial of the passing of the consideration; apparently that does not appear to be of any defence, to get the benefit in discharge of the onus against, also held

referring the M.M.T.C. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. MEDCHL CHEMICALS & PHARMA (P) LTD that where the accused able to show justification of stop payment letter

even from funds are there, but no existence of debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque for encashment to say no offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act made out in discharge of the burden. It was concluded referring to the above,

including of MALLAVARAPU KASIVISWESWARA RAO v. THADIKONDA RAMULU FIRM & ORS paras-14 and 15 that the initial presumption lays in favour of the complainant and Section 139 is an example of a reverse onus clause, which has

been included in furtherance of the legitimate objection of improving the credibility of the negotiable instruments. While Section 138 specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139

is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. Bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the

private parties involved in commercial transactions and the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clause and the accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof and in the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an

evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden to discharge by preponderance of probabilities by raising creation of doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability to fail the prosecution and for that the accused can rely on the

material submitted by the complainant also in order to raise such a defence and he may not need to adduce any evidence of his own.

12-D. It was also observed in para-15 that the accused appear to be aware of the fact that the cheque was with the complainant, further-more the very fact that the accused has failed to reply to the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Act leads

to the inference that there was merit in the complainant's version. It was also held by this court way back that having received and acknowledged the statutory legal notice after dishonour of cheque, non-giving of reply to said legal notice,

improbablises the defence version, as any prudent person under the said circumstances should have, but for no defence to reply.

13. From above legal position, coming to decide on the facts from oral, circumstantial and documentary evidence, how far it is proved the case of the complainant and from drawing of presumptions and inferences if any, how far

rebutted by accused concerned:

13-a. It is important to note that among the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and

D.W.1 with reference to Exs.P.1 to P.5 wrongly described in the memo of evidence as P.1 to P.4 only and Ex.D.1; the notice issued covered by Ex.P.4(wrongly described in the memo of evidence as Ex.P.3) were mentioned by the complainant

in demanding the accused to pay the amount is that the accused has been indebted to the complainant to a tune of Rs.1,49,623/- in the cash transactions between them

and in spite of repeated demands, he failed to pay except issuing cheque Ex.P.1 dated 04.10.2006 for the said amount and believing his words the complainant received the cheque under the impression of it would be honoured and when the

same presented through his banker, it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds, hence, to pay the amount within 15 days. On perusal of the said notice averments show there are several transactions of which the accused is indebted to

the complainant the said amount of Rs.1,49,623/-, the Ex.P.5 is said to be the acknowledgment of the legal notice and there is no reply as per the averments in the complaint also from para-2 of page -1, the accused is a customer of the complainant and having dealings with cash transactions thereunder he has indebted to the

complainant to a tune of Rs.1,49,623/- and subsequently in spite of demands he did not pay but for issued said Ex.P.1cheque and the same presented and returned dishonoured and even issued the statutory notice demanding to pay within 15 days

having received did not pay and accused issued the cheque with malafide intention knowing that there are no sufficient funds in his account and thereby liable for cheque dishonour transaction. From the tenor of the same, it shows it is not a cash

borrowal for which the cheque was issued. There is no mention even the date when the amount paid, there is no mention even what is the nature of the account dealings between them for the said amount due by the date of issuing Ex.P.1 cheque dated

04.10.2006 of said amount if it is a cash borrowal as such huge amount lending cannot be believed but for outcome of any account of balance that is also tenor from

the notice and complaint averments of the transactions between the accused and complainant under which out of the borrowals the said amount fallen due. It is not even stated what is the interest calculated and for what purpose and what was the

total amount borrowed and what is due no accounts even filed. In this background coming to the sworn statement of the complainant also same was the version at the pre-cognizance stage. It is also his evidence in the course of trial as P.W.1 that there

are money transactions between them and whenever he borrowed money, the accused used to give cheque for the amount borrowed and on 04.10.2006 he accordingly, borrowed of Rs.1,49,623/- and issued the Ex.P.1 cheque for the same.

This is what the trial Court also found a new and developed version for the first time conceived in the P.W.1 chief-examination while saying money transactions and

while saying the practise of availing amounts borrowed because the accused is in the habit of giving cheques, allegedly on 04.10.2006 said odd figure. In the cross- examination, P.W.1 deposed that there were money transactions between them

since the year 2002 and the accused repaid the amounts twice and taken back his cheques and the said borrowals also thrice more than Rs.1,00,000/- at each time. The complainant as P.W.1 also admitted that he is also running a private chits and

accused as a member of chit for Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2004 and the transaction is completed and he has no record for the same. He deposed that he personally collected subscriptions from the members and denied the suggestions that he has

given in writing a calculation memo to the accused with regard to the chit transactions adding interest and compound interest as per the calculation shown to him. He deposed that he has given money to the accused and took Ex.P.1 cheque from him. He admitted that it is averred in his legal notice (Ex.P.4) and complaint that for the amounts indebted by the accused of Rs.1,49,123/- for the repeated demands

only he issued Ex.P.1 cheque on 04.10.2006 and the same also denied by the accused. He denied the suggestion that he received three cheques and returned two cheques and filled the third cheque of Rs.1,49,123/- which is Ex.P.1. He deposed

that there is no record to show withdrawal of money transactions or source of getting such money of Rs.1,49,123/- to lend to the accused. He deposed that he presented the Ex.P.1 for collection twice and the same was returned twice and from the third

presentation he issued Ex.P.4 notice after dishonour i.e. served on the accused and denied the suggestion that there is no legally enforceable debt or the accused paid

entire money and there is nothing due under Ex.P.1 cheque and taking undue advantage of availability of it, he got filled the case.

13-b. The evidence of P.W.2 Manager of the Syndicate Bank regarding dishonour of

cheque for the reasons ' funds insufficient' and accordingly the same was intimated to P.W.1 after received Ex.P.2 dishonour intimation through Ex.P.3 to P.W.1 and in

the cross-examination, he deposed that he did not bring any record in relation thereto. That is the evidence from the complainant side and accused came to the witness box as D.W.1 in saying P.W.1 was running private chit(P.W.1 also admitted

as referred supra) and he is a member of chit for Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2004(P.W.1 also admitted the same) and he became the highest bidder of the said chit and at the time of receiving the price money, the complainant obtained three

blank signed cheques from him as security and at the date he became highest bidder, he paid 11 months subscription already and later also paid three more months subscription and P.W.1 prepared calculation memo with counter interest

from 15.05.2005 till 01.05.2006 covered by Ex.D.1 (the same is also confronted to P.W.1) P.W.1 returned two blank signed cheques and misused other blank signed

cheque by cause filled in filing the case for the balance payable under the chit transaction as mentioned in Ex.D.1 and that the P.W.1 himself got the account number changed in Ex.P.1 into online account number of him though he has given

the blank cheque long back prior to the online banking and thereby there is no legally enforceable debt.

13-c. In the cross-examination of D.W.1, he deposed that he signed on Ex.P.1 at the correction i.e. striking off some letter, and he received the Ex.P.4 legal notice and did

not give reply and there is no signature of P.W.1 in Ex.D.1( so called calculation) and he is being called as Raji Reddy and there is no documentary proof that P.W.1

maintained chits since it is oral and denied the suggestion that the Ex.P.1 is in his own handwriting and he is indebted Rs.1,49,623/- towards discharge of the debt for which he issued Ex.P.1 in relation to the transactions and deposing falsehood.

13-d. Thus, the evidence on record, from the above there is no dispute on the fact that the Ex.P.1 cheque is issued from the account of the accused so also the

signature. Importantly, on perusal of Ex.P.1 cheque shows the same was filled with same pen including the signature of accused at a time. The accused/D.W.1 also admitted that there is a correction for which he put his signature in Ex.P.1 and the

same is also as same date as suggested by complainant to the accused. It is clear that it is in the same handwriting of the accused though he denied the same, which is clear to a naked eye from perusal of entire writings of same person with same pen.

It clearly shows the accused voluntarily issued the cheque for the said amount even taken for arguments sake from what P.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination and the accused as well as what the accused deposed in his chief examination of P.W.1 was running a chit and accused was a member of one of the chits and failed to pay

even as per Ex.P.4 notice and the complaint averments there were transactions between the P.W.1 and the accused/D.W.1 earlier and for the amounts due under the transactions, after several demands accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque. Though that is probable and appears during his coming to the witness box, P.W.1 for the first time in his chief examination as referred supra, tried to say as if he lent Rs.1,49,623/- odd amount on the date of Ex.P.1 cheque and there are earlier transactions also for

which he was issued cheques for the amount borrowed and liquidated and there is no evidence available with him. The accused also did not dispute the means of the complainant in this case. Even he did not produce any record about how that is due and what account basis but the fact remains here to the core for the cheque was not a blank cheque duly signed, the writing of the same person that is the accused who

signed the cheque is the scribe of the contents with the same pen and also put his signature with one correction on the cheque though not in the changed account number from mainly to on line that makes no difference and coupled with, nothing given of reply admittedly by the accused having received Ex.P.4 legal notice under Ex.P.5 acknowledgment is also admitted by the accused in his cross-examination as D.W.1 as also held by the Apex Court in Rangappa(supra at para-15) and also in

Chapala Hanumaiah Vs Kavuri Venkateshwarlu but for truth of the version of the notice contents of there are transactions between the accused and complainant of which said amount covered by Ex.P.1 is due for which he issued the cheque, he could have replied by denying the transactions and that is what is reflected even in the complaint though the complainant tried to improve in his evidence for the first

time of lending his cash that is not correct from what is referred supra however that will not disentitle the complainant much less allow the accused to escape from the liability. No doubt the trial Court held referring to Krishna Janardhan Bhat supra if it is lending for the first time of such huge amount under Section 271(D) read with 269SS of the Income Tax Act other transaction above Rs.20,000/- shall be routed through cheque and in contravention leads to penal consequences and unless there

is probability for mere asking, lending of Rs.1.5 laksh in that case held highly improbable to believe without documentary evidence and without even any witness for such lending oral in saying giving of cheque that is in dispute that too without keeping any documents to draw adverse inference in saying there is no presumption for the debt but for once debt is proved as legally enforceable. In fact though on facts

the finding was upheld, said observation of no presumption of debt and the same is legally enforceable in the of Krishna Janardhan Bhatt(supra) held as not correct law in the later expression of the three judge bench of Apex Court in Rangappa (supra). Thus, the trial Court conclusion is not tenable, more particularly from the cheque duly issued by the accused with his signatures and writings with the same pen with no worth explanation against said issuing unless for the legally enforceable debt

due and that too without even reply to the legal notice served. Having regard to the above, the acquittal judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

Point No.2:

14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

15. For appearance and hearing of the accused on the quantum of sentence post on 15.12.2014.

_____________________________ Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO

Date: 25.11.2014.

12.11.2015 :

The accused who is 2nd respondent to the appeal present and heard on sentence as Ex.P1--cheque is for Rs.1,49,623/- and the case tried even as a summons case, from the amendment to the N.I Act in 2002-03 w.e.f., 06.02.2013 (Amended Act 55 of 2002) which mandates the trial in summary procedure and convert if necessary as summons procedure and that was not questioned as irregular much less any prejudice caused thereby, and this provision speaks on conviction, for sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one year and an amount of fine exceeding Rs.5,000/- (without any limit with non-obstante clause irrespective of the provisions of Cr.P.C) and the bar under Section 29 of Cr.P.C of outer limit of fine of Rs.10,000/- (amended and substituted for Rs.5,000/- by the Cr.P.C amendment Act of 2006) as was earlier, after this provision Section 143 introduced thereby of no application. It was also held by the Apex Court in SOMNATH SARKA VS. UTPAL BASU MALLICK that the Act not contemplated grant of compensation but envisages imposition of fine not exceeding twice the amount of dishonoured cheque and out of said fine amount, the complainant be compensated under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and that 'unlike for other forms of crime, the punishment here (insofar as the complainant is concerned) is not a means of seeking retribution, but is more a means to ensure payment of money. The complainant's interest lies primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the drawer of the cheque in jail. The threat of jail is only a mode to ensure recovery. As against the accused who is willing to undergo a jail term, there is little available as remedy for the holder of the cheque."

Having regard to the above and from the submission by the appellant/complainant of the endeavour is to recover the amount of compensation from out of fine or otherwise, rather than sentencing the accused to jail, accused is at present taken to judicial custody and is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment till rising of the day and to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/- with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment. Out of said fine, Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by the accused towards fine to the State and remaining Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. For payment by appeal respondent No.2/ accused time granted is one month from today and failing which the trial Court to cause recover the fine amount under Section 431 read with Section 421 of Cr.P.C. by issuing warrant levying the fine with default sentence of three months Simple Imprisonment as per Sections 65 to 68 read with 53(6) I.P.C.

_____________________________________

Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO

12.11.2015

knl