Bangalore District Court
Saveo Healthtech Private Limited vs Ganesh on 14 August, 2025
KABC030039242024
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 14th day of August 2025
Present : SRI. GOKULA. K
B.A.LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore City.
C.C.No.2011/2024
Complainant : Saveo Healthtech Private Limited
No.79/2, New Timber Yard Layout
Bengaluru 560 026.
Rep by its authorized signatory
Mr.Mohammed Yousuf
(By NB - Advocate )
V/s
Accused : Ganesh
S/o.Bathula Shankaraiah
R/at No.1-37, Choutuppal Manday
Nelapatla
Nalgonda 508 252.
(By SS - Advocate )
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
Final Order: Accused is Convicted
Date of judgment : 14.08.2025
2
C.C.No.2011/2024
JUDGMENT
The complainant filed the complaint under under Section
200 of Criminal Procedure Code against the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments
Act.
2. The brief case of the complainant is as under:
That the complainant is a distributor of various medicinal
goods at wholesale prices. The accused had been employed as a
Business Development Executive (BDE) by the company from
30.09.2021 to 24.05.2023 having Employment Code No.A0412.
The scope of the accused’s work was to distribute
pharmaceutical products to various retailers and in return
collect payments from various retailers. That during his tenure,
the accused was entrusted with managing and handling
company funds as he collected funds from various retailers on
behalf of the complainant. But the accused failed to remit the
collected funds to the complainant as per the job description
and misappropriated the funds of 23 invoices amounting to
Rs.13,89,084/- vide invoices for the period from 28.09.2023 to
07.02.2024. On investigation it was revealed that the accused
had siphoned off Rs.13,89,084/- and refused to account for the
funds collected. Hence, the complainant issued a termination
letter for the act of misbehavior, misconduct and integrity
3
C.C.No.2011/2024
issues. On confronting these allegations, the accused issued a
cheque bearing No.000691 dated 16.10.2023 drawn on ICICI
Bank, Gandimaisamma Branch, Hyderabad for a sum of
Rs.13,89,084/- towards payment of the due amount. Based on
the promise of the accused to honour the cheque, the
complainant presented said cheque for encashment through its
banker i.e. Standard Chartered Bank, Koramangala Branch,
Bangalore, but the said cheque returned dishnoured on 17-10-
2023 for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. On receipt of said
intimation, the complainant got issued legal notice on
31.10.2023 demanding to pay the due amount. The notice
duly served on the accused on 30.11.2023. Inspite of service of
notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the
complainant with in the statutory time. Therefore, the accused
has committed the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Therefore the complainant has filed the
complaint.
3. On the basis of Private complaint filed by the
complainant, this court has taken cognizance of offence and
registered the case in PCR No.1139/2024 and recorded sworn
statement of the complainant and got marked 11 documents as
Ex.P 1 to P 11. This court by considering the material on record
issued process under Section 204 of Cr.PC by registering the
4
C.C.No.2011/2024
criminal case. In response to the process issued by this court,
the accused appeared before this court and he is released on
bail. The copy of the complaint is served to the accused along
with the summons as contemplated under Section 207 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
4. The substance of the acquisition as provided Section 251
of Cr.PC is read over to the accused and his plea is recorded.
The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others
reported in AIR 2014SCW3463, the affidavit filed by the
complainant at the stage of taking cognizance and documents
marked is treated as evidence under section 145 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. The PW 1 is recalled and he is subjected to
cross examination. After closer of evidence of the complainant
the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the
prosecution is read over to the accused and his statement under
Section 313 of CrPC recorded. The accused has denied the
incriminating circumstances as false. The accused himself
examined as DW 1 and got marked the documents as Ex.D1 to
Ex.D6. In the cross examination the complainant got marked
two documents as EX.P 12 and 13 by confronting to DW1.
5
C.C.No.2011/2024
6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and
arguments of learned counsel for the accused and perused the
material on record and the written arguments submitted by the
accused.
7. On the basis of the material on record the following points
arise for the consideration of this court :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused has issued
the cheque bearing No.000691 dated
16.10.2023 for a sum of Rs.13,89,084/- drawn
on Gandimaisamma Branch, Hyderabad
towards discharge of legally recoverable debt
and on presentation of the same it is
dishonoured for funds insufficient on 17-10-
2023 and inspite of service of demand notice
dated 31-10-2023 on 30-11-2023 the accused
has not complied the demands in the notice
and thus the accused committed an offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act ?
2. What Order of Sentence?
8. The findings of this court to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 As per final order
for the following :
REASONS
6
C.C.No.2011/2024
9. POINT NO.1: To prove the case the authorised representative
of the complainant examined as PW-1 and in his evidence
affidavit he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
To prove the incorporation of the company the PW 1 has
produced the web copy of the Incorporation Certificate as Ex.P
1. It proves the legal status of the complainant company. The
PW 1 has produced the copy of Board Resolution as Ex.P.2. As
per the board resolution the PW 1 is authorized to represent the
company before the court of law and to do the acts stated
therein. These documents proves authority of PW 1 to represent
the complainant company. The accused has also not disputed
the legal status of the complainant and authority of PW 1 to
depose on behalf of the complainant.
10. The essential ingredients of section 138 and 142 of
Negotiable Instruments Act to be complied are i) drawing of the
cheque by the accused ii) presentation of the cheque to the
bank with in the period of three months, iii) returning of the
cheque unpaid by the drawee bank iv) giving notice in writing to
the drawer of the cheque demanding of the payment of cheque
amount with in the period of 30 days, v) failure of the drawer
to make payment within the period of 15 days after receipt of
the demand notice and v)Presentation of the complaint within a
7
C.C.No.2011/2024
month by the complainant after expiry of 15 days of service of
notice to the accused. Therefore it is proper to consider
whether the statutory requirements for constituting the offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied by
the complainant.
11. The PW 1 has deposed that accused had been employed as a
business development executive (BDE) by the company from
30.09.2021 to 24.05.2023 having Employment Code No.A0412.
The scope of the accused’s work was to distribute
pharmaceutical products to various retailers and in return
collect payments from various retailers. He is having
responsibility of distribution of pharmaceutical products to
various retailers and in return collect the payments from
various retailers. It is the case of the complainant that the
accused having collected the amount from the retailers as per
the 109 invoices marked in Ex.P 10, the accused has not
remitted the amount to the complainant company and
misappropriated the same. In this regard the complainant has
produced the account statement showing the details of invoices
wherein amount due from the accused as per Ex.P 9. He has
deposed that the accused failed to remit the funds collected
from the retailers to the complainant as per the job description
and misappropriated the funds of 23 invoices amounting to
8
C.C.No.2011/2024
Rs.13,89,084/- vide invoices dated from 28.09.2023 to
07.02.2024. Therefore this amount is legally recoverable
amount from the accused.
12. The PW 1 has deposed that on confronting these allegations,
the accused issued a cheque bearing No.000691 dated
16.10.2023 drawn on ICICI Bank, Gandimaisamma Branch,
Hyderabad for a sum of Rs.13,89,084/- Said cheque is marked
as Ex.P.4. He has deposed that they have presented said cheque
for collection through their banker i.e. Standard Chartered
Bank, Koramangala Branch, Bengaluru and said cheque
returned dishonored on 17.10.2023 for the reason “Funds
Insufficient” in the account of the accused to honour the
cheque. The PW 1 has produced said memo of dishonour as
Ex.P5. As provided under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, law presumes that on production of banker slip or memo
having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has
been dishonored, presume the fact of dishonor of such said
cheque, unless and until same is disproved. The PW1 has
deposed that they have got issued legal notice dated 31.10.2023
calling upon the accused to pay the amount involved in the
cheque as per Ex. 6. The notice duly served on the accused on
30.11.2023 and the postal receipt and the letter issued by the
postal authority are produced as ExP7 & Ex.P.8. The accused
9
C.C.No.2011/2024
has admitted in his evidence as DW 1 that Ramalu is his grand
father, to whom the notice is served as per Ex.P 8 postal
endorsement. The DW 1 has also deposed that his father has
sent the legal notice through whatsup stating that it is delivered
in the house. Thus the DW 1 has admitted about receipt of the
legal notice. The accused has not issued reply to the demand
notice. The PW 1 deposed that inspite of service of notice, the
accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant with
in the statutory time. The complaint is filed before this court on
16.01.2024. Thus the complainant has complied all the
statutory requirements for constitution of offence under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused in his cross
examination as DW 1 has admitted his signature in Ex.P 4
cheque and it is drawn from his account. Therefore, the
complainant is entitled for presumption under Section 118 and
139 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The provisions of Section 139
of Negotiable Instrument Act reads as under:-
139- Presumption in favour of holder – It should 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.
13. Hon’ble Supreme court in a decision reported in (2010) 11
SCC 411 between Rangappa V/s Sri Mohan has held that –
10
C.C.No.2011/2024
The presumption mandated by Section 139 of the act
does indeed include the existence of a legally
enforceable debt or liability.
It is also observed that
Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse
onus clause that has been included in furtherance of
the legislative objective of improving the credibility of
negotiable instrument. It is also held that in such a
scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the
construction and interpretation of reverse onus
clauses and the defendant caused cannot be
expected to discharge an unduly high slandered or
proof.
14. The complainant in his arguments has relied on the
reportable decision of Hon’be High Court of Karnataka om Crl.
Appeal No.508/2015 between Smt. Parvathamma M Vs Smt.
Chandrakala V dated 14-06-2024. In this decision Hon’ble High
Court by relying on the decision of Supreme court in Rajesh
Jain Vs Ajay Singh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148. In this
decision Hon’ble Supreme court has held that –
“Section 139 NI Act-Effect of Presumption and
Shifting of Onus of Proof
34. The NI Act provides for two presumptions:
Section 118 and Section 139. Section 118 of the Act
inter alia directs that it shall be presumed, until the
contrary is proved, that every negotiable instrument
was made or drawn for consideration. Section 139 of
11
C.C.No.2011/2024the Act stipulates that ‘unless the contrary is
proved, it shall be presumed, that the holder of the
cheque received the cheque, for the discharge of,
whole or part of any debt or liability’. It will be seen
that the ‘presumed fact’ directly relates to one of the
crucial ingredients necessary to sustain a conviction
under Section 138.
35. Section 139 of the NI Act, which takes the form
of a ‘shall presume’ clause is illustrative of a
presumption of law. Because Section139 requires
that the Court ‘shall presume’ the fact stated
therein, it is obligatory on the Court to raise this
presumption in every case where the factual basis
for the raising of the presumption had been
established. The rules discussed herein below is
common to both the presumptions under Section
139 and Section 118 and is hence, not repeated-
Reference to one can be taken as reference to
another. But this does not preclude the person
against whom the presumption is drawn from
rebutting it and proving the contrary as is clear from
the use of the phrase ‘unless the contrary is proved’.
36. The Court will necessarily presume that the
cheque had been issued towards discharge of a
legally enforceable debt/liability in two
circumstances. Firstly, when the drawer of the
cheque admits issuance/execution of the cheque
and secondly, in the event where the complainant
proves that cheque was issued/executed in his
favour by the drawer. The circumstances set out
12
C.C.No.2011/2024
above form the fact(s) which bring about the
activation of the presumptive clause. [Bharat Barrel
Vs. Amin Chand] [(1999) 3 SCC 35]
37. Recently, this Court has gone to the extent of
holding that presumption takes effect even in a
situation where the accused contends that ‘a blank
cheque leaf was voluntarily signed and handed over
by him to the complainant. [Bir Singh v. Mukesh
Kumar11]. Therefore, mere admission of the
drawer’s signature, without admitting the execution
of the entire contents in the cheque, is now
sufficient to trigger the presumption.
38. As soon as the complainant discharges the
burden to prove that the instrument, say a cheque,
was issued by the accused for discharge of debt, the
presumptive device under Section 139 of the Act
helps shifting the burden on the accused. The effect
of the presumption, in that sense, is to transfer the
evidential burden on the accused of proving that the
cheque was not received by the Bank towards the
discharge of any liability. Until this evidential
burden is discharged by the accused, the presumed
fact will have to be taken to be true, without
expecting the complainant to do anything further.
15. The accused has also placed reliance on the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs
Dattatraya G. Hegde 2002(4) SCC 54, Kumar Exports Vs
Sharma Carpets 2009 (2) SCC 513, M.S. Narayana Menan Vs
13
C.C.No.2011/2024
State of Kerala (2006) 6 SCC 39. I have gone through the
principles laid down in these decisions. All these decisions are
regarding presumptions under Section 139 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and its rebuttal. Therefore in view of the
principles laid down in these decisions , once the complainant
has established the initial compliance of requirements under
Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, onus shifts
on the accused to rebut the presumption existing in favour of
the complainant. Until this evidential burden is discharged by
the accused, the presumed fact will have to be taken to be true,
without expecting the complainant to do anything further.
16. Thus by applying the settled legal principles laid down in
the above decisions, once the complainant discharges his
burden the accused shall rebut the presumption with probable
evidence either eliciting the material from the evidence of
complainant or producing his evidence. In this case the
accused has admitted his signature in the Cheque and it is
drawn from his account. The accused has not issued any reply
at the initial stage at the time of service of the legal notice. The
defence of the accused is first disclosed in the cross
examination of PW 1.
14
C.C.No.2011/2024
17. The accused has admitted that he was working as a
Business Development Executive in the complainant company
and he is operating at Hydrabad. It is also an admitted fact that
the complainant has made an allegation of misappropriation of
the amount of the complainant by the accused and in this
regard case is registered in Crime No. 274/2023 for the offence
under Section 408, 420 of IPC before Chanerghat police station
on the basis of complaint dated 28-07-2023. The FIR copy is
marked as Ex.P 12. It is admitted that said case is not finally
decided and pending adjudication.
18. In the cross examination of PW 1 the accused has asked
as to why action for recovery is not initiated against the
customers under Ex.P 10 invoices, the PW 1 has deposed that
the customers have informed that they have made payment to
the accused and also accused by issuing Ex. P 13 apology letter,
has admitted his liability and assured to pay the due amount,
therefore he has not taken action against customers for
recovery. Therefore not taking action against the customers or
shop owners for recovery is not a doubtful circumstance to
create doubt in the testimony of PW1.
19. The accused, in the cross examination of PW 1, has taken
the contention that he has issued Ex.P 4 cheque as per Ex.D 1
15
C.C.No.2011/2024
letter dated 01-06-2023. The PW 1 has admitted Ex. D 1 letter
in his cross examination. It is stated that said letter Ex.D 1 is
given by the accused in the presence of concerned Investigation
officer at Hydrabad during settlement process. As per the
contents of the letter the accused has admitted that he has mis-
utilized approximately 5 lakhs and stated that he will give
clarification for 6.5 lakhs has it is on customer, or with him
from customer within 5th june 2023. In the letter the accused
has also undertaken to give his two cheques for security and
two cheques of his brother for guarantee. It is pertinent to note
that there is no acknowledgment of the complainant about
receiving the cheques as security. It is only promise of the
accused to issue cheque in Ex.D 1. In the cross examination of
PW 1 the accused has taken the contention that he has issued
blank signed cheque and the complainant has filled the same.
But the PW 1 has denied such suggestions. It is pertinent to
note that the accused has not made any specific suggestion to
PW 1 when he has given Ex.P 4 cheque to the complainant and
in what circumstances he has given the cheque.
20. The accused himself examined as DW 1. In his evidence for
the first time he has taken the contention that he has received
call from the police station and during inquiry the police
compelled him to give blank signed cheque to Mithil and that
16
C.C.No.2011/2024
has been misused. In the cross examination DW 1 has deposed
that in the month of September 2023 Chaderghat police called
him to the police station and they have instructed to bring the
cheque and sent a constable with him and obtained the cheque
assuring that the complaint will be closed and cheque will be
given to the complainant for security. But he has deposed that
he has not given any complaint against the police for forcibly
obtaining the cheque. In the cross examination he has deposed
that he has issued stop payment instructions to the banker, but
he has not produced any documents for the same. The cheque
is dishonoured as per Ex.P 5 for the reason ‘funds insufficient.
Therefore this statement of the accused is not trustworthy. The
accused has also not issued reply notice to the demand notice.
In the cross examination of PW 1 also accused has not
suggested these aspects to PW1. In the cross examination the
accused has admitted Ex. P 13 apology letter given by him to
the complainant and also deposed that said letter is in his
handwriting. But he has deposed that the Chaderghat police
have threatened him and forcibly obtained Ex.P 13 letter in the
midnight 12 O’clock without allowing him to go to the home. In
the cross examination he has deposed that he has not lodged
any complaint against police for forcibly taking the letter and
the cheque by the Chaderghat police to the higher police officers
17
C.C.No.2011/2024
and not taken any legal action against the police inspector. In
the cross examination of PW 1 the accused has not made any
suggestions about these aspects deposed by him and not
utilized the earliest opportunity by issuing rely notice. If this
type of serious things were happened no prudent person will
keep quit without lodging complaint against the police officials
or without giving stop payment instructions to the banker or at
least without issuing reply notice narrating the things happened
in the case. Therefore these aspects deposed by the accused
doesn’t inspire the confidence of this court to believe the version
of the accused.
21. In the cross examination DW 1 has admitted that he used to
collect money from the medical shop owners for the goods
supplied on behalf of the complainant. He has also deposed that
some of the shop owners used to give the money by way of cash,
by phone-pay, UPI to his account, He has also deposed that he
used to deposit the cash received by him to his bank account.
He has also admitted that the complainant company has not
authorized to receive money from the shop owners by cash or
through UPI to his personal bank account and not issued any
authorization letter. This portion of evidence prima-facie shows
that the accused has received money from the shop owners and
got it credited to his personal bank account. This clearly
18
C.C.No.2011/2024
establishes the contentions raised by the complainant that
accused has misutilised the amount of the complainant. It is
admitted fact that the complainant has terminated services of
the accused.
22. The accused has also taken the contention in his evidence
as DW 1 that in January 2023 he was willing to start his own
business by leaving job in the complainant company, but the
officials of complainant requested him not to leave the job and
thereafter they have instructed to clear all the formalities
especially incoming and outgoing payments. He has deposed
that the credit branch of complainant has initially issued excel
sheet in whats up for Rs.8,00,000/- and shown Rs.13,00,000/-
against him. When he asked about enhancement they stuck on
to Rs.8,00,000/-. In this regard the accused has produced some
of the screen shots of whats-up, but these will not authenticate
the said contentions of the accused. Even in the arguments the
counsel for the accused has not pointed out the aspects
deposed by DW 1 about the whats-up communications. The
accused has also produced his statement of accounts his
account with Federal Bank for the year 2021-2025 as Ex.D 3
and Statement of accounts of Paytm as Ex.D 4 and 5. But the
accused has not specified which amount is transferred to the
complainant in respect of which invoice etc. The accused should
19
C.C.No.2011/2024
have pointed out by giving details about the transactions
relevant to his defence. Therefore this type of bald contentions
taken by the accused at the fag end of the case in this evidence
without making such suggestions to PW 1 or by raising such
contentions by way of reply notice, it is clear that the accused is
trying to cover up his defects without taking firm defence.
Therefore all these contentions does not inspire the confidence
of the court to believe his version of defence.
23. Therefore for the above discussion this court can safely
conclude that the defence taken by the accused is not a
probable defence and not sufficient to rebut the presumption
under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The defence
taken by the accused also does not aid the accused to
probablise that existence of legally recoverable debt is doubtful.
The accused has admitted issuance of cheque to the
complainant and also admitted that it is drawn from his bank
account and also admitted his signature in the cheque as Ex.P
4(a). He has also admitted execution of Ex.P 13 letter in his
hand writing acknowledging his liability to pay a sum of
Rs.13,97,906/-. He has not been able to prove with probable
evidence, the circumstances under which he has issued the
cheque and executed letter Ex.P 13. Therefore it is to be
presumed that EX.P 4 cheque is issued towards discharge of
20
C.C.No.2011/2024
legally recoverable debt as acknowledged in Ex.P 13. All the
statutory requirements for constitution of offence under Section
138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied by the
complainant. Therefore this court concludes that the
complainant has successfully proved that the accused has
committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this court answers the
above point No.1 in the Affirmative.
24. POINT NO. 2 : While answering the point no. 1 this court
concluded that the complainant proved that the accused
committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. The Amount covered under the
cheque is Rs.13,89,084/-. The cheque is dated 16-10-2023. The
money involved in the case is used in commercial transactions.
Therefore considering all these aspects the amount of fine
calculated for a sum of Rs.16,23,300/-. Therefore considering
all these aspects this court proceed to pass the following –
ORDER
By exercising powers conferred U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C.,
the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and he is sentenced
21
C.C.No.2011/2024
to pay a fine of Rs.16,23,300/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Twenty
Three Thousand Three hundred Only), In default to pay the fine,
the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months.
Further acting U/s 357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine
amount a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) shall
be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
Further acting U/s 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. a sum of
Rs.16,18,300/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs, Eighteen Thousand
Three hundred Only) out of the fine amount on recovery shall be
paid as compensation to the complainant.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her,
corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the
14th day of August 2025).
(GOKULA.K)
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 : Mohammed Yousuf
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Web copy of Incorporation Certificate
Ex.P2 : Notarised copy Board Resolution
Ex.P3 : Web copy of Appointment Letter
Ex.P4 : Cheque
22
C.C.No.2011/2024Ex.P5 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P6 : Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P7 : Postal receipt
Ex.P8 : Confirmation letter issued by the postal
authority
Ex.P9 : Web copy of the Account Statement
Ex.P10 : 109 Invoices
Ex.P11 : Web copy of the Termination Letter
Ex.P12 : Copy of the FIR No.274/2023
Ex.P13 : Letter bearing signature of accused
Ex.P13(a) : Signature of the accused.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
DW.1 : Ganesh
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
Ex.D1 : Copy of the acknowledgment
Ex.D2 : Web copies of whats app communication
Ex.D3 : Statement of Account
Ex.D4&5 : Statement of Account of PayTM Payments
Ex.D6 : Certificate U/s.63 of BSA, 2023.
Digitally
signed by
GOKULA GOKULA K
Date:
K 2025.08.14
16:59:13
(GOKULA.K.) +0530
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
[ad_1]
Source link