Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
Received on : 01.03.2018
Registered on : 01.03.2018
Decided on : 15.09.2023
Duration : 05 Y. 06 M. 14 D.
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
C.N.R.No.MHMM190036292018
Exh. No. 22
Mrs. Reena Rane,
Age about – 42 Yrs.,
R/o. Room No.1. Usha Nivas,
Bhandarwada, Marol,
Andheri (East),
Mumbai – 400 059. ....Complainant
V/s.
Mr. Sunil Umesh Shellar,
Age about – 40 Yrs.,
R/o. 2/4, Jadhav Chawl,
Sham Nagar,
Near Knowledge House,
Andheri (East),
Mumbai – 400 060. ....Accused
Complaint for the Offence Punishable Under Section 138 of The
Negotiable Instruments Act.
Learned advocate of the complainant : Smt. Vipula Naik
Learned advocates of the accused : Shri A.M.Takekar &
Pandharinath Palekar
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 1 of 19 --
2 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 15/09/2023)
The accused is alleged to have issued the cheque which was
returned unpaid due to insufficiency of fund in the account maintained
by him. Thus, the accused stands prosecuted for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(Hereinafter
it is referred as 'N.I. Act', in short).
The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass as under:
2. The complainant had purchased a car bearing registration
no.MH02CR5434 on loan and she paid down payment of
Rs.1,00,000/ to the concerned bank in this regard. However, she could
not manage to pay the E.M.I. in respect of the said loan. Therefore, she
raised loan from private financier. Thereafter, she decided to clear loan
which she had taken from the private financier. Therefore, she put an
advertisement in OLX App on 07/11/2017 regarding the sale of her said
car.
3. The accused was in need of a car and therefore, on
11/11/2017, he approached to the complainant and put his offer to
purchase the said car. Having inspected the car and the documents,
the accused agreed to buy the said car. He issued a cheque bearing
no.001708 for sum of Rs.3,50,000/ towards the said transaction. The
accused got the possession of the said car alongwith the relevant
documents from the complainant.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 19 --
3 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
4. Having received the said cheque, the complainant
deposited it in Axis Bank, Andheri, on 18/11/2017. But the same was
dishonoured by the banker for the reason of “Insufficient fund” in the
account maintained by the accused. The complainant intimated the
accused in this regard. The accused requested her to deposit the said
cheque again and assured that the cheque would be cleared.
5. Having got the assurance regarding the clearance of the
cheque, the complainant again presented the said cheque for
encashment on 21/12/2017 with her banker. But unfortunately the
said cheque was again dishonoured for the same reason i.e. “Insufficient
fund”. Hence, the complainant issued the statutory demand notice
through her advocate to the accused on 16/01/2018 by registered post.
But the said notice was returned on 18/01/2018 with the remark of
“Unclaimed”.
6. In short, according the complainant, the accused
committed offence punishable under section 138 Negotiable Instrument
Act by issuing the cheque which was dishonoured for want of sufficient
fund in the account maintained by the accused. Hence, the complainant
knocked the doors of this Court by filing the present complaint on hand.
7. The learned predecessor in office issued process against the
accused as per Section 142(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In
response the summons, accused appeared. The contents of particulars
(Exh.No.07) for the offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act were readover and explained to the
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 19 --
4 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
accused in his vernacular language. The accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
8. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant
examined herself by way of filing affidavit in lieu of examinationin
chief (Exh.No.08) under section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. Besides oral evidence, the complainant relied upon the following
documentary evidence.
Description of documents Exh.No.
Original Delivery Note 10
Original cheque 11
Cheque Memo 12
Courier receipt 13
Bank Statements 14 Collectively
Postal receipt and demand notice 15 & 16
Unclaimed notice with acknowledgement 17
9. In view of the incriminating evidence placed on record, the
statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure vide Exh.No.19 wherein the accused has
taken stand that he did not receive the legal notice. The accused
further submitted that the cheque belongs to his friend and the
complainant filed false case to recover the amount from him.
10. The learned advocate for the complainant, Smt. Vipula
Naik, filed her written note of argument vide Exh.No.21 and submitted
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 19 --
5 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
that the complainant succeeded to establish the guilt of the accused and
therefore, she prayed to punish the accused in accordance with Law.
11. Per contra, the learned advocate for the accused, Shri A. M.
Takekar in his well searched argument submitted that the accused has
successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of N. I. Act
and therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted.
12. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides, I
perused the record. In view of the accusation and the defence following
points arise for my determination. In the light of evidence, I record my
findings thereon with reasons as under:
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Does complainant prove that disputed
cheque was issued by the accused for
discharging legally enforceable
liability?
: Proved
2. Does the complainant prove that the
cheque was returned unpaid due to
insufficiency of fund in the account
maintained by the accused?
:
Proved
3. Does the complainant prove that she
had issued the statutory demand
notice to the accused within
limitation?
:
Proved
4. Does the complainant prove that the
accused failed to pay the cheque
amount in spite of being served with
the notice within the statutory
limitation?
Proved
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 5 of 19 --
6 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
5. Whether the accused succeeded in
rebutting the presumption arising out
of section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act?
:
Disproved
6. Whether the offence punishable under
section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act is made out against
accused ?
:
In affirmative
7. What order ? : The accused is
convicted for the
offence punishable
under section 138
of the Negotiable
Instruments Act as
per final order
:R E A S O N S:
13. In the present case on hand, the accused is alleged to have
committed the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. In order to prove the offence punishable under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the following mandatory
ingredients are required to be satisfied:
i) A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him
in a bank for the payment of certain 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.
ii) That the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six
months from the date, on which it is drawn or within period of its
validity, whichever is earlier.
iii) That the cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because the
amount of money standing to the credit of the account, is insufficient to
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 6 of 19 --
7 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
honour the cheque or that exceeds and amount arranged to be paid
from that account by an agreement made with the bank.
iv) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand
for the payment of said amount of money by giving a notice in writing,
to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of the
information by him from the bank regarding dishonour of the cheque as
unpaid.
v) The drawer of the said cheque fails to make payment of said amount of
money to the payee or holder in due course of the cheque within 15
days from the receipt of the said notice.
vi) The payee or holder in due course lodged written complaint in the
court within 30 days thereafter.
vi) The drawer of the said cheque failed to rebut the presumption under
section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Keeping in mind these ingredients, I proceed to determine the
points noted above.
AS TO POINT NO.1:
(Does complainant prove that disputed cheque was issued by the accused,
in favour of the complainant for discharging legal enforceable liability?)
14. It is the case of the complainant that the accused agreed to
buy her car and he paid the consideration amount in this regard by way
of the cheque for sum of Rs.3,50,000/ bearing no.001708 for
discharging legally enforceable liability. Therefore, before appreciating
the evidence in this regard, let us have a glance at the term of legally
enforceable liability.
15. A liability is a legally binding obligation payable to another
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 7 of 19 --
8 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
entity. Legally enforceable means capable of being enforced from a legal
point of view. In the present case on hand, the complainant deposed
that she intended to sell her car and therefore, she published the
advertisement in this regard on the OLX App. It is pertinent to note
here that while conducting the crossexamination, the accused did not
deny this fact. On the other hand, the accused has come with the
specific stand that he and his friend Vishal approached the complainant
to purchase the said car. Thus, the suggestion given by the accused
impliedly suggests that there was transaction between the complainant
and the accused in respect of sale and purchase of the said car.
16. In the present case on hand the complainant has filed the
cheque on record which is said to have been issued by the accused. In
fact, in view of section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it shall
be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of the 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. So also
section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a presumption
that the cheque was issued for certain consideration.
17. Though the complainant was crossexamined at length, yet
the accused did not deny the fact that the cheque in question does not
bear his signature. In such circumstances, I am guided by the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of M/s. Kalamani Tex and
another V/s. P. Balsubramaniyam [Criminal Appeal No. 123 of
2021] the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Negotiable Instruments Act
mandates that onces the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 8 of 19 --
9 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
negotiable instrument are established, then these 'reverse onus' clauses
become operative.
18. It is the stand of the accused that the delivery note
(Exh.No.10) filed on record does not bear his signature. In fact, having
gone through this document, it appears that one Vishal Chalke executed
the said delivery note regarding the delivery of the car bearing
registration no.MH02CR5434.
19. In fact, the crossexamination of the complainant discloses
that it is the stand of the accused that he and said Vishal Chalke
approached the complainant to purchase the said car. So also it is the
stand of the accused that he and said Vishal Chalke are the partners and
they intended to purchase the said car in partnership. From these
premises, it can be inferred that the partner of the accused namely
Vishal Chalke might have executed the delivery note of the said car on
behalf of the accused.
20. Apart from this, the accused has never challenged the
delivery note by taking a stand that it is a fabricated document. Hence,
even though the said delivery note does not bear the signature of the
accused, still the accused cannot be escaped from the liability in respect
of the cheque given by him in favour of the complainant towards the
said transaction.
21. It is pertinent to note here that the said delivery note was
executed on 12/11/2017 and the cheque in question was issued on
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 9 of 19 --
10 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
18/11/2017. In such circumstances, in my opinion, if the accused had
no concern with the said sale and purchase of the car, then there was
no any reason for him to issue the cheque after execution of the delivery
note (Exh.No.10) in favour of the complainant. Thus, the chronological
events (i.e. meeting of the accused and his partner with the
complainant regarding the sale and purchase of the car, execution of
delivery note by his partner and issuance of the cheque) give rise to
inference that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in order
to discharge his liability as deposed by the complainant.
22. In fact, it is not the stand of the accused that the
complainant obtained the said cheque by playing mischief or by plying
fraud with him. So also while conducting the crossexamination of the
complainant, no suggestion was given to the complainant in this regard.
In such circumstances, it can be inferred that the accused issued the
cheque in question voluntarily. Moreover, the accused has not denied
his signature made on the said cheque. In such scenario, I am guided
by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Bir
Sing V/s. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 wherein it is
held that
“The cheques duly signed and voluntarily made over to payee, was in
discharge of debt or liability arises irrespective of whether cheque was post
dated or blank cheque for filing by payer or any other person in the
absence of evidence of undue influence”.
23. In view of the discussion noted above, I have come to the
conclusion that the complainant has proved that disputed cheque was
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 10 of 19 --
11 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
issued by the accused, in favour of her for discharging legal enforceable
liability. Hence, I record my finding in affirmative for Point No.1.
AS TO POINT NO.2:
(Does the complainant prove that the cheque was returned unpaid with
endorsement of “Funds insufficient”?)
24. It is the case of the complainant that the Cheque No.
001708 which had been issued by the accused was dishonoured due to
insufficiency of fund in the account maintained by the accused. The
complainant deposed that after having received the said cheque, she
deposited the same in the Axis Bank. But the said bank returned the
cheque with the endorsement fund insufficient. In order to corroborate
the oral testimony in this regard, the complainant filed the computer
generated copy of cheque return memo (Exh.No.12) and her bank
account statement (Exh.No.13). These documents have presumptive
value unless it is rebutted. These documents specifically disclose that
the cheque in question was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund in
the account maintained by the accused.
25. In fact, the documents filed by the complainant (i.e. cheque
return memo and bank statement filed at Exh.12 & 13 respectively)
have not been disputed by the accused. Moreover, no any rebuttal
evidence has been lead by the accused in this regard. Therefore, in my
opinion, the oral testimony of the complainant is duly corroborated by
the documentary evidence. Hence, it can be held that the complainant
proved the fact that the cheque was returned unpaid due to
insufficiency of fund in the account maintained by the accused.
Resultantly, I record finding in affirmative for Point No.2.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 11 of 19 --
12 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
AS TO POINT NO.3 & 4:
(Does the complainant prove that he had issued the statutory demand
notice to the accused within limitation demanding the cheque amount?)
(Does the complainant prove that the accused failed to pay the cheque
amount in spite of being served with the notice within the statutory
limitation?)
26. In view of Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, the payee or the holder in due course of cheque, is required to
make a demand for the payment of the amount of money by giving a
notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days from the
receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the
cheque as unpaid. So let us scan the evidence in this regard.
27. According to the evidence of the complainant, after having
received intimation regarding the dishonour of the cheque, she issued
the notice to the accused on 16/01/2018 by registered post. In order
to support her oral evidence, the complainant filed the office copy of the
statutory demand notice (Exh.No.16). So also she filed the postal
receipt (Exh.No.15) and the envelope in which the said notice was sent.
In fact, the said envelope was returned with the endorsement of
“unclaimed”.
28. It is pertinent to note here that the address of the accused
mentioned in the postal receipt and the said envelope is exactly similar
to the address noted in the complaint. Therefore, it can be presumed
that the notice was sent on the proper address of the accused.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 12 of 19 --
13 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
29. In the case of Malanbai Ratnaparkhi V/s. Govinda R.
Motade reported in 2002 Cr.L.J.1188, the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court held that
“Once the notice is shown to have been dispatched by post and the
envelop in which such notice was sent, was carrying correct address of the
sendee written on it, the presumption would arise in favour of the sender
to the effect that such notice was duly served upon the sendee unless that
presumption is rebutted by necessary evidence alongwith the fact that the
sendee was not responsible for such nonservice”.
30. It is settled that where a notice is not claimed even though
sent by registered post, with the aid of Section 27 of the General
Clauses Act, the drawer of the cheque may be called upon to rebut the
presumption which arises in favour of service of notice. In the present
case on hand the accused did not adduce any cogent evidence to rebut
the said presumption. Hence, it can be presumed that the said notice
was served on the accused within the statutory period of 30 days.
31. Having gone through the record, it transpires that the
accused failed to make the payment of the money to the complainant in
due course of the cheque within 15 days from the receipt of the said
notice. It is admitted portion that the accused has not made full and
final payment of the cheque amount till passing this Judgment.
32. In view of the discussion of the above, I have no hesitation
to hold that the complainant had issued the statutory demand notice to
the accused within prescribed period and the accused failed to pay the
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 13 of 19 --
14 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
cheque amount to the complainant within the statutory period of
limitation. Hence, I record my finding in affirmative for Points No.3
and 4.
AS TO POINT NO.5:
(Whether the accused succeed in rebutting the presumption arising out of
section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?)
33. In the case of Goa Plast Pvt. Ltd., V/s Chico D'souza
(2003 SCC (Cri)499, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the object
behind section 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and held
that the entire burden is on accused to show that cheque was not issued
for any debt or liability as mentioned in the complaint. It is settled that
the standard proof of rebutting the presumption is preponderance of
probabilities. Having regard to this settled position, I turn to make the
scrutiny of the evidence placed on record to determine whether the
accused rebutted the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
34. At the outset, it is pertinent to note here that the accused
neither stepped into the witness box nor did he produce any
documentary evidence to establish his defence. But it is settled that
even though the accused does not examine himself, yet he can establish
his defence from the crossexamination of the witnesses of the
complainant and from the other material placed on record. Having
regard to this proposition, I turn to make the scrutiny of the evidence
placed on record.
35. It is pertinent to note here that the accused has taken a
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 14 of 19 --
15 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
stand that he had given the cheque to his partner Vishal who misused it.
In fact, while conducting the crossexamination the complainant, the
accused suggested that he and his said friend Vishal had approached
her for the deal of sale and purchase of the car. In fact, the accused did
not initiate any legal proceeding against his partner Vishal who is
alleged to have misused the said cheque. Moreover, it is not the stand
of the accused that the complainant misappropriated or misused the
said cheque in collusion with his said partner Vishal. In such scenario,
for want of cogent and relevant evidence, the defence raised by the
accused does not appear to be probable.
36. The accused has stated in his statement recorded under
section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure that the complainant filed
this false case against him because she knows that she can not recover
the amount from his partner Vishal who is in jail. But this defence is
not digestible because the cheque in question does not bear signature of
said Vishal and therefore, the complainant is not supposed to initiate
legal proceeding against said Vishal for dishonour of the cheque in
dispute. In short, the defence taken by the accused does not hold
water. On the other hand, the complainant had succeeded to discharge
her burden to prove that the cheque in question was issued by the
accused towards the legal debt or liability as contemplated under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
37. It would not be out of place mentioned here that the
accused had not raised another specific stand except the denial of the
positive evidence adduced by the complainant.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 15 of 19 --
16 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
38. In the backdrop of the discussion noted above, I have come
to the conclusion that the accused utterly failed to rebut the
presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Hence, I record my finding in negative for Point
No.5.
AS TO POINT NO.6:
39. In view of the positive finding for Point No.1 to 4, it can be
held that the complainant has duly proved her claim by adducing
cogent and relevant evidence. Hence, it can be concluded that the
offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
is made out against the accused.
40. I explained the accused that he is guilty for the offence of
dishonour of the cheque. He is further intimated that the N.I.Act has
provided punishment to the offence of imprisonment up to two years or
fine up to twice the amount of the cheque in dispute or both.
Thereafter, I asked the accused to clarify his stand on the nature and
quantum of the sentence, if any. Therefore, the accused is called upon
to make his submission on the quantum of punishment. Hence, I take
pause to hear the accused.
Sd/
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
DATE: 15.09.2023 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
41. The accused submitted that he is responsible member of his
family and therefore, leniency may be shown. The learned advocate for
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 16 of 19 --
17 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
the accused Shri A. M. Takekar also prayed to show leniency while
slapping the punishment.
42. At the time of passing judgment, neither the complainant
nor her advocate remained present.
43. Having heard the learned advocate for the accused on the
quantum of punishment, I perused the record.
44. Having regard to the conduct of the accused and the nature
of the offence, I do not find any special reason or justification to extend
the benefit of probation to the accused as per the provision of
Probation of Offender Act.
45. In the case of M/s. Kalamani Tex and another V/s. P.
Balsubramanian, decided in Special Leave Petition (Cri)
No.1876/2018 dated 10/02/2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given
certain guidelines and for ready reference relevant paras from said
judgment are quoted below:
“As regard to the claim of compensation raised on behalf of the
respondent, we are conscious of the settled principles that the object of
Chapter XVII of the NIA is not only punitive but also compensatory. The
provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal liability for
dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for realization of the cheque
amount. It is also well settled that there needs to be a consistent approach
towards awarding compensation and unless there exist special
circumstances, the Courts should uniformly levy find up to twice the
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 17 of 19 --
18 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
cheque amount along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum.”
46. In the case of Kaushalya Devi Massand V/s. Reookishori
Khore, (Criminal Appeal No.723/2011), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act cannot be
equated to any offence under the Indian Penal Code as Section 138
attracted liability to civil wrong that has been given criminal overtone.
47. In the present case on hand the complainant has been
waiting for justice since last five years. The complainant being woman
has been attending the Court regularly to get her legal claim. In fact,
the record shows that the accused not only tried to avoid his liability
but also took lame excuses and denied to perform his part of contract.
Thus, having regard to the ratio laid down in citation supra and the
nature of the case, following order would meet the ends of the justice:
O R D E R
1] The accused Mr. Sunil Umesh Shellar, Age – 40 Yrs., R/o. 2/4,
Jadhav Chawl, Sham Nagar, Near Knowledge House, Andheri
(East), Mumbai – 400 060, is hereby convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act in view of Section 255 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2] The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.6,00,000/ (Rs. Six
Lac Only) for having committed the offence punishable under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In default of
payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 18 of 19 --
19 C. C. No.4401187/SS/2018
for period of three months.
3] The amount of fine of Rs.6,00,000/ (Rs. Six Lac Only) which is
imposed on the accused shall be paid to the complainant/victim
under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
within two months from today.
4] The amount of compensation as noted above shall be paid to
the complainant, subject to expiry of the appeal period or the
orders of Honourable Appellate Court (if any).
5] The accused has not spent any period in the custody during the
trial. Hence, setoff under section 428 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is not given to the accused.
6] The copy of this Judgment be provided free of cost to the
accused immediately after it is prepared in view of section 363
(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
7] The accused is informed about his right of appeal against this
judgment within a statutory period.
8] The Judgment is dictated on dais and pronounced in open
Court.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
Date : 15.09.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 19 of 19 --