Bangalore District Court
Uday R vs Ashwini S on 17 December, 2024
SCCH-2 1 C.C.No.4697/2022
KABC020098872022
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-2).
C.C.NO.4697/2022
Present : Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
6th Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM, Bengaluru.
Dated: On this the 17th day of December, 2024.
Complainant : Uday R.,
S/o Ramesh M.,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.263, 8th Main,
Nagendra Block,
Srinagar,
Bangalore-560 050.
(By Sri. B.V.S., Advocate)
- Vs. -
Accused : Ashwini S.,
D/o Late Suresh K.V.,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.56, EWS,
Housing Board Colony,
R.S. Naidu Nagar,
Near St. Philomina Church,
Mysore-570 007.
SCCH-2 2 C.C.No.4697/2022
Also at:
Vida Design and Construction Pvt. Ltd.,
No.2341, Basaveshwara Main Road,
Nayan Jewellers,
K.R. Mohalla,
Agrahara,
Mysore-570001.
(By Sri. S.K., Advocate)
:: J U D G M E N T :
:
The complainant has filed the present complaint
U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the accused has committed
the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
(herein after referred as N.I.Act).
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:-
The accused and complainant are known to each other
since many years. As such the accused approached the
complainant during last week of September-2018 and requested
the complainant to lend Rs.9,75,000/- as hand loan in order to
overcome from her business. At that point of time, the
complainant informed the accused that, he can give the said
amount with the help of 2 or 3 installments. The accused was
agreed for the same and she wanted money on or before
30.10.2020.
Further, the complainant had given Rs.2,00,000/- to the
accused on 05.10.2018, Rs.3,00,000/- on 20.10.2018,
Rs.75,000/- on 21.10.2018, Rs.4,00,000/- on 30.10.2018, in
SCCH-2 3 C.C.No.4697/2022
total Rs.9,75,000/- was given by the complainant to the accused
by way of cash. The accused was agreed to return the said
amount within February-2020 and handed over original sale
deed pertaining to her cousins property.
Further, when the complainant demanding for money, the
accused postponed by assigning one or the other reasons.
Further, on 05.12.2020, the accused approached the
complainant and upon mutual discussion, the accused was
agreed to pay Rs.12,00,000/-. At that point of time, the accused
requested the complainant to return the original sale deed. The
accused agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on 21.01.2021 and also
undertakes to execute hand loan agreement on 21.01.2021 in
favour of complainant.
Further, on 21.01.2021, the accused approached the
complainant and repaid Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant by
way of cash. At that point of time, the complainant returned
original sale deed and the accused had issued three cheques
bearing No.279059, 279060, 279061 towards security. The
accused also executed hand loan agreement in favour of
complainant. As per the recitals of said loan agreement, in case
of default, the complainant is at liberty to present the cheques
for encashment.
Further, the complainant waited till April-2021. However, the
accused did not made any payment as assured by him. During
the first week of May-2021, the complainant asked the accused
about dues. The accused has stated that, due to Covid-19, he
could not arrange funds and instructed the complainant to
SCCH-2 4 C.C.No.4697/2022
present the cheque bearing No.279059, drawn on Punjab
National Bank issued with respect to Rs.11,00,000/-.
As per the instructions of accused, the complainant has
presented the aforesaid cheque for encashment on 07.09.2021
through his banker i.e., Karnataka Bank Ltd., Srinigara Branch,
Bangalore. However, the aforesaid cheque was dishonored and
returned on 08.09.2021 with shara as “Funds Insufficient”.
Further, as per the assurance of accused, the complainant
presented the cheque bearing No.279060 on 22.12.2021. The
said cheque also dishonoured with an endorsement as “Funds
Insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant has issued the legal
notice dated:17.01.2022 through RPAD. The complainant also
send the notice to the accused through Whatsapp also. The
notice returned with shara as no such person. The accused has
intentionally evading to receive the notice. Hence, cause of
action arose to file the complaint.
3. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. After filing of the complaint, the sworn
statement of the complainant was recorded and it prima-facie
found that the accused committed the offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, criminal case was registered and
the summons was issued to the accused.
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared
through her counsel and thereafter plea was recorded. The
accused was denied the accusation leveled against her, claimed
to be tried and stated that she has defence to make. Further, the
SCCH-2 5 C.C.No.4697/2022
statement of the accused as contemplated U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.,
was recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating
evidence appeared against her in the evidence of complainant
and submitted that she has defence evidence.
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in Indian Bank
Association and Others vs Union Bank of India and Another
reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528, held that “Sworn Statement
of the complainant has to be treated as examination in
chief”. In the instant case, the complainant examined himself
as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.5(a), Ex.P.5(b),
Ex.P.6(a), Ex.P.7(a). Thereafter, P.W.1 was subject to the
process of cross-examination from the side of accused. The
accused has not adduced evidence.
6. Heard arguments from both side. Perused the materials
available on record.
7. Now the points that arise for consideration of this Court
are as hereunder:
1. Whether the complainant has proved
that the accused has committed the
offence punishable U/Sec.138 of
N.I.Act?
2. What Order?
SCCH-2 6 C.C.No.4697/2022
8. The findings of this Court to the above-referred points are
as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
9. POINT No.1: In order to prove the case of the complainant,
the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 by filing affidavit in
support of his oral examination-in-chief. In the affidavit P.W.1
has reiterated the complaint averments in verbatim. Hence, this
Court need not to recapitulate the same once again at this
juncture. In support of his oral testimony, P.W.1 has marked
documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.5(a), Ex.P.5(b),
Ex.P.6(a), Ex.P.7(a).
10. Now itself it is appropriate to see the documents marked
at Ex.P-Series.
Ex.P-Series.
Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing No.279059 dated:07.09.2021.
Ex.P.1(a) is the signature. Ex.P.2 is the cheque in question
bearing No.279060,dated:22.12.2021. Ex.P.3 is the bank
endorsement pertaining to Ex.P.1. Ex.P.4 is the bank
endorsement pertaining to Ex.P.2. Ex.P.5 is the office copy of
the legal notice dated:17.01.2022. Ex.P.5(a) and Ex.P.5(b) are
the RPAD receipts. Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 are the returned RPAD
covers. Ex.P.6(a) and Ex.P.7(a) are the returned legal notices.
SCCH-2 7 C.C.No.4697/2022
Ex.P.8 is the hand loan agreement. Ex.P.9 is the color printout
pertaining to Whatsapp chat. Ex.P.10 is the 65B certificate.
11. Before going to discuss the main aspect, it is worth to
reproduce the provisions of Sec.138 and 139 of N.I.Act, the same
as hereunder:
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of
funds in the account: –
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
honour 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 be extended
to two years), or with fine which may extend to
twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
SCCH-2 8 C.C.No.4697/2022
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 period of 6
months has been reduced to 3 months, vide R.B.I.
notification No.RBI/2011-12/251,DBOD.AMLBC
No.47/14.01.001/2011-12, dated:4th November 2011
(w.e.f. 01.04.2012))
(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; and
(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.
SCCH-2 9 C.C.No.4697/2022
Explanation: – For the purposes of the section, “debt
or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or
other liability.
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 section 138 for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or
other liability.
12. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898, between
Rangappa V/s Mohan wherein their lordships have observed at
para 26 as hereunder:
“No doubt that there is a initial presumption
which favours the complainant”.
13. It is germane to note that the proceedings U/Sec.138 of
N.I. Act is an exception to the general principle that the accused
is presumed to be innocent until the charge leveled against him
is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the proceedings initiated
U/Sec.138 of the N.I. Act proof of beyond reasonable doubt is
subject to the presumption envisaged under Sec.139 of the N.I.
Act. Once the requirement of Sec.138 of the N.I. Act is fulfilled,
then it has to be presumed that the cheque was issued in
SCCH-2 10 C.C.No.4697/2022
discharge of legally recoverable debt or liability. The
presumption envisaged under Sec.139 of N.I. Act is mandatory
presumption and it has to be raised in every cheque bounce
cases.
14. Now the important question before this Court is whether
the complainant has complied the ingredients of Sec.138 of
N.I.Act or not? In order to answer this aspect, Ex.P.2, Ex.P.4,
Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.5(a), Ex.P.5(b), Ex.P.6(a) and Ex.P.7(b) are
relevant. Ex.P.2 is the cheque in question dated:22.12.2021.
Ex.P.4 is the endorsement dated:23.12.2021. On careful perusal
of Ex.P.4, it appears to this Court that, the complainant has
presented the cheque in question for encashment well within the
statutory period. Ex.P.5 is the office copy of legal notice
dated:17.01.2022. Ex.P.5(a) and Ex.P.5(b) are the RPAD
Receipts. These documents reveal that, the complainant has
posted the notice on 17.01.2022 itself. Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 are
the returned RPAD covers. The accused has taken a contention
that, the complainant has not issued notice to the correct
address of the accused, hence the complaint is not
maintainable.
15. Now the question before this Court is whether the
complainant has issued the notice in accordance with law or
not?. It is relevant to state that the object of issuance of notice
to the drawer is to provide an opportunity to pay the cheque
amount within 15 days of service of notice and thereby free
himself from the penal consequences of Sec.138 of Negotiable
SCCH-2 11 C.C.No.4697/2022
Instruments Act. In this regard, it is worth to rely on the
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2007(6) SCC 555,
between C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr,
Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as hereunder: ” Section
27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has
been effected when it is sent to the correct address by
registered post. In view of the said presumption, when
stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to the
address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further aver in
the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice
unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the
addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless
and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of
notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which
the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course
of business. This Court has already held that when a notice
is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal
endorsement refused or not available in the house or house
locked or shop closed or addressee not in station, due
service has to be presumed”.
16. In the instant case, the complainant has issued the legal
notice on 17.01.2022. The said document has been marked as
Ex.P.5. As per Ex.P.6, Ex.P.6(a), Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.7(a), it can be
inferred that, the complainant has issued notice to the two
addresses of the accused. Both notices returned with shara as
no such person. During the course of cross-examination of
P.W.1 also, learned counsel for the accused put a denial
SCCH-2 12 C.C.No.4697/2022
suggestion with regard to issuance of notice to the correct
address of the accused. Further, learned counsel for the
accused vehemently argued that, no notices were served on the
accused. It is interesting to note that, though the notices
returned unserved, the accused has not furnished her
authenticated address before the Court. Moreover, the accused
has not disputed that, she no way related to Vida Design and
Construction Private Limited. Therefore, the above referred
decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand. In the instant
case, though the accused disputed the issuance of notice.
However, the accused has not produced the documents to
substantiate her version. In other words the accused has not
produced documents to prove her address. Hence, this Court is
of the opinion that, the complainant has correctly issued the
notice to the address of accused and the accused was evading to
receive the same. Therefore, with the help of principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision referred to
above, this court has come to the conclusion that, the service of
notice issued by the complainant amounts to deemed service.
17. Now the question before this Court is whether Ex.P.1 is
pertaining to the account of accused and Ex.P.1(a) is the
signature of the accused or not?. A careful perusal of the entire
cross-examination of P.W.1, there is no serious dispute with
regard to issuance of cheque and signature. Further, during the
course of cross-examination of P.W.1, learned counsel for the
accused suggested that, there is a recital in Ex.P.8 regarding
cheque bearing No.279059, 279060, 279061 were issued
SCCH-2 13 C.C.No.4697/2022
towards security. At this juncture the said deposition is very
much necessary to reproduce here itself for better
understanding: “ನಿ.ಪಿ.8 ರ ಹ್ಯಾಂಡ್ ಲೋನ್ ಅಗ್ರಿಮೆಂಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿ ನಿಮಗೆ ಒಟ್ಟು
ಹನ್ನೆರಡು ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನೀಡಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಬರೆಯಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲೆಯ ಪುಟ 2ರ
ಕೊನೆಯ ಪ್ಯಾ ರಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳನ್ನು ಅಂದರೆ 279059, 279060, 279061 ಗಳನ್ನು ಭದ್ರತೆಗಾಗಿ
ನೀಡಲಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಒಕ್ಕಣೆ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳನ್ನು ನಗದೀಕರಣಕ್ಕೆ
ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ”. A meticulous reading of above referred
cross-examination, it can be inferred that, Ex.P.1 is pertaining
to the account of accused and Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of
accused. It is pivotal to note that, the presumption under
Sec.118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act favours the
complainant. Therefore, it is of the considered opinion of this
Court that, the complainant has complied the ingredients of
Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
18. Now, it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court between Hiten P Dalal V/s Brathindranath Manarji
reported in 2001(6) SCC 16, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed that, “under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, the complainant is not required to establish either the
legality or enforceability of the debt or liability since he can
avail the benefit of presumption U/Sec.118 and Sec.139 of
N.I. Act in his favour”.
19. It is also settled position of law that, the presumption
available U/Sec. 138 of N.I Act is a rebuttable presumption.
Further, to rebut the said presumption the accused need not to
enter into the witness box. However, the accused can establish
SCCH-2 14 C.C.No.4697/2022
his probable defence by creating a doubt about the existence of
legally enforceable debt or liability.
20. Further, it is also settled position of law that, the
standard of proof of rebutting the presumption is that of
preponderance of probabilities. It is also settled position of law
that, if the accused succeeded in rebutting the presumption
then the burden shifts back to the complainant. At this
juncture, again it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898, between
Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has observed that, “the standard of proof to rebut the
presumption is that one of preponderance of probabilities”.
21. It is also settled position of law that, “it is immaterial
that, the cheque may have been filled in by any person
other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the
drawer. If the cheque otherwise valid, within the provisions
of Sec.138 would be attracted”.
22. With these backdrop, it is appropriate to analyze the case
on hand. According to the complainant, the accused has issued
the two cheques. The complainant presented those cheques for
encashment, same were bounced with reasons as “Funds
Insufficient”. It is interesting to note that, the complainant
presented the complaint based on the second cheque bearing
No.279060 dated:22.12.2021. On careful perusal of the entire
cross-examination of P.W.1, the accused has denied the
transaction. Now, the important question before this Court is
SCCH-2 15 C.C.No.4697/2022
whether there is a transaction by and between the complainant
and accused or not?. In this connection Ex.P.8 is relevant.
Ex.P.8 is the hand loan agreement. On careful perusal of this
document, it appears to this Court that, the accused is the first
party and the complainant is the second party. Further, there is
a recital regarding the accused has received Rs.9,75,000/- and
finally agreed to pay Rs.12,00,000/- in total. Further it appears
to this court that, there is a recital regarding the accused has
repaid Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash. Further, the said
document reveals that, the accused was in due of
Rs.11,00,000/-. It is interesting to note that, though the P.W.1
was cross-examined at length, there is no denial suggestion
regarding execution of Ex.P.8. Likewise it is not the case of the
accused that, signatures found in Ex.P.8 is not pertaining to the
accused. Further, it is not the case of the accused that, she has
not executed Ex.P.8. Therefore, it appears to this Court that,
the accused has executed the loan agreement with respect to
entire loan transaction by and between the complainant and
accused.
23. According to the complainant, the loan transaction by
and between the complainant and the accused was in the year
2018. As per the complaint averments, the cheque was issued
on 21.01.2021. Now the question before this Court is whether
the debt amounts to barred by limitation or not?. It is relevant
to note that, the alleged loan transaction commences on
05.10.2018 and the accused has executed hand loan agreement
on 21.01.2021 as per Ex.P.8. As per Ex.P.8, the accused has
SCCH-2 16 C.C.No.4697/2022
admitted the loan and executed the hand loan agreement.
Therefore, though the debt was initially time barred. However,
bv execution of hand loan agreement i.e., Ex.P.8, it becomes new
contract which is enforceable. In this connection it is
appropriate to rely on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka decided in Crl.Petition No.243/2021 between K.R.
Sudhir Vs. K.S. Suresh Raju. In this decision the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka held that, “even if in respect of a time
barred debt, an agreement comes to existence subsequently
according to Sec.25(3) of the Contract Act, it becomes a new
contract, which is enforceable. Thus, a cheque issued in
that connection and if the same is dishonoured attracts
penal action under Sec.138 of N.I. Act”.
24. The above referred decision is aptly applicable to the case
on hand. In the instant case also, though loan transaction is
with respect to the year 2018, however the accused herself has
executed hand loan agreement on 21.01.2021 as per Ex.P.8.
25. Again it is worth to take Ex.P.8 for discussion. On going
through the contents of Ex.P.8, it appears to this Court that, the
complainant has admitted to repay Rs.11,00,000/- within April-
2021. Further, it appears to this Court that, on 21.01.2021
itself the accused paid Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash. At the
cost of repetition, the accused has not denied the execution of
Ex.P.8. Further, it is not the case of the accused that, she has
not affixed her signature in Ex.P.8. Apart from that, it is not
the case of the accused that, she has already repaid
Rs.11,00,000/- to the complainant as agreed in Ex.P.8. Hence,
SCCH-2 17 C.C.No.4697/2022
the cheques in question mentioned in Ex.P.8 as issued towards
security purpose will not come to the aid of accused.
26. At the cost of repetition, the initial presumption favours
the complainant. However, the said presumption is rebuttable. If
the accused rebutted the presumption then burden shifts back
to the complainant. Interestingly, in the instant case, the
accused has not put forth plausible defence to rebut the
presumption and what are all the defence taken by the accused
is amounting to vague defence. Based on the said vague defence
the accused cannot rebut the presumption. At this juncture, it is
worth to rely on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in
2018(8) SCC 165 between Kishan Rao V/s Shankar Gouda,
Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “Mere denial
regarding existence of debt shall not serve any purpose”.
27. Again at the cost of risk, the versions of the accused
failed to inspire the confidence of the Court and the defence
taken by the accused is not believable. In other words, the
accused has not raised plausible defence to rebut the
presumption. In the absence of cogent evidence to show that
the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt or other
liability, the defence raised by the accused fails to inspire the
confidence of this Court to believe her version or to meet the
standard of ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’. Hence, with the
help of presumption and also on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence on record, this Court has come to the
conclusion that, the accused has committed the offence
punishable U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
SCCH-2 18 C.C.No.4697/2022
Accordingly, this Court is answered Point No.1 in the
Affirmative.
28. POINT No.2:- In view of the discussions referred to
above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C, the
accused is convicted for the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
The accused shall pay fine of
Rs.11,05,000/- (Rupees Eleven
Lakhs Five Thousand Only) and in
default to payment of fine, the
accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 3
months.
However, it is clarified that, mere
serving of default sentence by the
accused, does not absolve her from
the liability of payment of fine
amount as ordered by this court.
By exercising the powers conferred
U/Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C, the amount
of Rs.11,05,000/- (Rupees Eleven
Lakhs Five Thousand Only) is
SCCH-2 19 C.C.No.4697/2022ordered to be paid to the
complainant as compensation.
Office is hereby directed to
provide free copy of judgment to the
accused forthwith.
Bail bond of the accused and that
of her surety shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and corrected by
me, and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 17th December, 2024)(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge and ACJM.,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
:ANNEXURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : Sri. Uday R.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque No.279059, dated:07.09.2021.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused. Ex.P.2 : Original Cheque No.279060, dated:22.12.2021. Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of the accused. Ex.P.3 : Cheque Return Memo dated:08.09.2021. Ex.P.4 : Cheque Return Memo dated:23.12.2021. Ex.P.5 : Office copy of legal notice dated:17.01.2022. Ex.P.5(a), : 2 RPAD receipts. 5(b) SCCH-2 20 C.C.No.4697/2022 Ex.P.6 : Returned postal cover. Ex.P.6(a) : Unserved legal notice. Ex.P.7 : Returned postal cover. Ex.P.7(a) : Unserved legal notice. Ex.P.8 : Hand Loan Agreement dated:21.01.2021. Ex.P.9 : Color printout pertaining to WhatsApp chat. Ex.P.10 : Certificate under Sec.165B of Indian Evidence Act.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED:
– None –
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
– Nil –
Digitally signed
by H P
HP MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR
Date: 2024.12.19
11:41:24 +0530
(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge and ACJM.,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.