Bangalore District Court
Akash Subash Gupta vs Chandrappa on 13 January, 2025
KABC020117442023
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY.
(SCCH-6)
Present: Smt. Chetana S.F.
B.A., L.L.B.,
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
CC. No.3694/2023
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
COMPLAINANT/S Sri. Akash Subash Gupta,
S/o. Subash Gupta,
Aged about 45 years,
R/a Flat No.413,
Ranka Park Apartment,
Lalbagh Road,
Bangalore-560027.
(By Sri. S.C.Mahadeva Murthy, Advocate)
-Vs-
ACCUSED Sri. Chandrappa,
S/o. Chikka Bangalurappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/a No.16, BSK 6th Stage,
2nd Block, Near Maramma Temple,
Kariaynpalya,
Rajarajeshwarinagar,
Bangalore-560 098.
(Sri. Shreeram T. Nayak, Advocate)
SCCH-6 2 CC No.3694/2023
-: J U D G M E N T :-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Secs.138
and 142 of the N.I. Act R/w. Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. for the offences
punishable under Secs.138 and 142 of N.I. Act as against the
accused praying to punish the accused for the said offences.
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant
carrying on business in Real Estate and accused is engaged in
the real estate business and both accused and complainant
know each other for the last five years and in view of the
acquaintance, accused approached the complainant along with
his friend Sri.Manjunatha.M with an offer of sale of property
bearing survey No.170 to the extent of 4 acres 3 guntas situated
at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore and conveyed to
the complainant that the accused and his friend
Sri.Manjunatha are the agreement holders of the said property
entered with the owners under agreement of sale dated
09.09.2015 which is registered as Doc.No.JPN-1-04720/2015-
16 and another agreement entered by the accused with other
legal heirs of Late. Chinnappa Reddy and further the accused
SCCH-6 3 CC No.3694/2023
and his friend stated that they have no sufficient funds to get
the property registered in their names, so the accused and his
friend offered to sell the said property to the complainant.
Hence the complainant paid an advance amount of
Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- to the accused and to his
friend Sri.Manjunatha.M. vide cheque No.820922 and
No.820923 drawn IDBI Mission Road, Bangalore. Later, on
perusal of the document furnished for legal opinion of the said
property and upon a private survey conducted by the
complainant, it came to the knowledge that the said property
already acquired and formed a layout by BEML Employees Co-
operative Society and sites have been sold and there is no
physical possession of the land to purchase by the complainant.
Immediately the complainant brought to the notice of the
accused and his friend and asked to return the entire advance
amount. However, the accused and his friend told to the
complainant that they were not aware of the development as far
as the property under the agreement is concerned and later the
accused and his friend agreed to refund the advance amount to
SCCH-6 4 CC No.3694/2023
the complainant. Even after lapse of period, accused has failed
to pay the hand loan amount and hence, complainant has
demanded to repay the said hand loan amount. After several
requests and demands, accused has issued two cheques
bearing No.000041 dated 20.12.2022 for a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No.000040 dated
10.01.2023 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Uco Bank,
Uttarahalli Branch, Bangalore with an assurance and promise
that the same will be honoured on presentation. The
complainant presented the aforesaid cheque through his banker
the IDBI Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore for
encashment and same came to be dishonored by the accused
banker on 31.01.2023 and 02.02.2023 with shara "Funds
Insufficient" and "Refer to drawer". The Complainant got issued
legal notice dated 27.02.2023 through RPAD and said notice
was sent to the accused on 08.03.2023. Accordingly, the
accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of
N.I Act. Hence, this complaint.
3. After recording the sworn statement of the
SCCH-6 5 CC No.3694/2023
complainant by way of affidavit and also verifying the
documents, cognizance was taken against the accused for the
offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act. The accused
appeared before this Court through his counsel and enlarged on
bail and his plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for evidence
of the complainant.
4. The complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and
got marked 7 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.7. Thereafter, the case
was posted for recording the statement of accused under
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. In the statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C., the
accused has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing
against him and claimed to be tried and examined himself as
DW.1 and got marked 4 documents as Ex.D.1 to D.6.
5. Heard the arguments of both side and Perused the
records.
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
1.
Whether the complainant proves that the
cheque No.000041 dated 20.12.2022 for a
SCCH-6 6 CC No.3694/2023
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and another cheque
bearing No.000040 dated 10.01.2023 for a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Uco Bank,
Uttarahalli Branch, Bangalore, issued by the
accused have been dishonored on the ground
of ‘Funds Insufficient’ on 31.01.2023 and
‘Kindly contact Drawer Drawee Bank and
please present again’ on 02.02.2023 and even
after receiving the intimation regarding the
dishonor of cheques failed to pay the cheques
amount within the stipulated period and
thereby the accused has committed an
offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under
Point No.1: In the Affirmative;
Point No.2: As per final order for the
following:
-: R E A S O N S :-
8. POINT NO.1:- In view of the present legal position as
held by our Hon’ble High Court as well as Apex Court of
India in a catena of decisions as well as relevant provisions
of the Act, this court has to see whether the complainant
has complied all the requirements as contained in Sec.138
of NI Act so as to bring home the guilt of the accused for
SCCH-6 7 CC No.3694/2023
the alleged offence. If so, whether the accused is able to
rebut the legal presumption available to the complainant
under Sec.139 of the Act by adducing probable defense or
not. However, it is held by the full bench of our Apex Court
in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2010 (1)
DCR 706 that;
“The Statutory presumption mandated
by sec.139 of the Act, does indeed in-
clude the existence of a legally en-
forceable debt or liability. However,
the presumption U/S 139 of the Act is
in the nature of a rebuttable presump-
tion and it is open for the accused to
raise a defence wherein the existence
of a legally enforceable debt or liability
can be contested”.
9. Therefore, in view of the above decision, once the
cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption would
automatically fall in favour of the complainant that, the alleged
cheque was issued for discharge of an existing legally
enforceable debt or liability against the accused and the burden
will shift on to the accused to rebut the same.
SCCH-6 8 CC No.3694/2023
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION:-
10. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it
would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be
met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under
Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfill all the
essential ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision
reveals the following necessary ingredients of the offence:-
First Ingredient: The cheques were
drawn by a person on an account
maintained by him for payment of
money and the same is presented for
payment within a period of 3 months
from the date on which it is drawn or
within the period of its validity;
Second Ingredient: The cheques were
drawn by the drawer for discharge of
any legally enforceable debt or other
liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheques were
returned unpaid by the bank due to
either insufficiency of funds in the
SCCH-6 9 CC No.3694/2023account to honour the cheque or that
it exceeds the amount arranged to be
paid from that account on an
agreement made with that bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the
said amount has been made by the
payee or holder in due course of the
cheque by a notice in writing given to
the drawer within thirty days of the
receipt of information of the dishonour
of cheque from the bank;
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to
make payment of the said amount of
money within fifteen days from the
date of receipt of notice.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE-
11. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence
under Section 138 NI Act if the above-mentioned ingredients are
proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the
conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be
fulfilled. Notably, there is no dispute at bar about the proof of
only first, third, and fifth ingredient. The complainant had
SCCH-6 10 CC No.3694/2023
proved the original cheques vide Ex.P.1 and P.2 which the
accused person had not disputed as being drawn on the
account of the accused. It was not disputed that the cheques in
question was presented within its validity period. The cheques
in question was returned unpaid vide return memo dated
31.01.2023 and 02.02.2023 vide Ex.P.3 and 4 due to the
reason, “Funds Insufficient” and “Kindly contact Drawer Drawee
Bank and please present again”. The complainant had proved
the service of legal demand notice dated 27.02.2023 vide Ex.P.5
by bringing on record the postal receipt vide Ex.P.6 and postal
acknowledgment vide Ex.P.7. Thus, there is a dispute only with
regard to the 2nd ingredient and 4th ingredient to the offence. As
such, the 1st, 3rd, & 5th ingredient of the offence under section
138 of the NI Act stands proved.
12. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned,
the complainant has to prove that the cheque in question was
drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debtor
any liability. In the present case, the issuance of the cheque in
question is not denied. As per the scheme of the NI Act, once
SCCH-6 11 CC No.3694/2023
the accused admits signature on the cheque in question, certain
presumption are drawn, which result in shifting of onus.
Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the presumption that
every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for
consideration. Another presumption is enumerated in Section
139 of NI Act. The provision lays down the presumption that the
holder of the cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or
part, of any debt or other liability.
13. The combined effect of these two provisions is a
presumption that the cheque is drawn for consideration and
given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability.
Both the sections use the expression “shall”, which makes it
imperative for the court to raise the presumptions once the
foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is
placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16.
14. Further, it has been held by a three-judge bench of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan
(2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under
SCCH-6 12 CC No.3694/2023
Section 139 of NI Act includes the presumption of existence of a
legally enforceable debt. Once the presumption is raised, it is for
the accused to rebut the same by establishing a probable
defence.
15. The presumptions raised under Section 118(b) and
Section 139 NI Act are rebuttable presumptions. A reverse onus
is cast on the accused, who has to establish a probable defence
on the standard of preponderance of probabilities to prove that
either there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability. In
this case, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the
accused to rebut the presumption are discussed below:
First defence: notice not served
16. Accused has taken the specific defence that notice has
not been served to him. In this regard, counsel for the
complainant cross-examined PW.1 by putting the question that
at the time of giving the notice, PW.1 do not know where the
accused was residing and what was the occupation of the
accused for which, PW.1 pleaded his ignorance and further
stated that PW.1 was having the Aadhaar Card of the accused
SCCH-6 13 CC No.3694/2023
and for that address he has sent the notice. On the other hand,
it was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that,
the Ex.P.5 notice has been duly sent to the accused through
registered postal Acknowledgment as per Ex.P.6 and the said
notice has been duly served. Even PW.1 has produced Ex.P.6
postal receipt and Ex.P.7 Postal Acknowledgment. On perusal
fo Ex.P.7 it clearly shows that the notice has been duly served
to the accused. Apart from all these, accused DW.1 in his
cross-examination dated 05.11.2024 has clearly admitted
categorically admitted that ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರು ನನಗೆ ಚೆಕ್ ಅಮಾನ್ಯಗೊಂಡ ನಂತರ
ನೋಟೀಸನ್ನು ಕಳುಹಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಶಾನೆ ಪಿ-7 ಅಂಚೆ ಸ್ವೀಕೃತಿಗೆ ನಾನೇ ಸಹಿ ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
Further admitted that, ನಿಶಾನೆ ಪಿ-5 ನೋಟೀಸಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತ್ಯು ತ್ತರವನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾ ರ ಎಂದರೆ
ಇಲ್ಲ. Thus, DW.1 himself has clearly admitted that, notice has
been duly served to him and inspite of that, he has not given
any reply. Thus the defence taken by the accused is not
acceptable and believable.
Second defence:
17. Further, the accused has taken the specific defence
that, on 09.10.2019 accused along with Manjunath .M has
SCCH-6 14 CC No.3694/2023
entered into one memo of understanding and the assignment
deed with the complainant and P. Nagarjuna Reddy that they
would get release deed from Sri. Prakash and obtain all
necessary documents for the sale as the khatha had to be
transferred and property has to be podied and other necessary
revenue documents had to be prepared and complainant by
entering the MOU and assignment deed by paying the advance
consideration demanded the cheques from him/accused and
Sri. Manjunath for the purpose of security till the completion of
the registration of the sale-deed in favour of the complainant
and Nagarjuna Reddy and also received all the original
documents related to the said property. Further the defence of
the accused that complainant has assured that he would give
the same once the sale-deed is completed in his favour.
Thereafter, accused along with L. Prakash had entered into
registered cancellation of sale agreement with all the vendors
and accused along with Sri. Manjunath entered into registered
agreement of sale without possession in respect of the land
survey No.170 along with the vendors. Thereafter, accused and
SCCH-6 15 CC No.3694/2023
Manjunath M. started procuring necessary documents to get
khatha of the property transferred as required by the
complainant and in the meanwhile, the amount given by the
complainant was also transferred to the vendors of the said
property. When the khatha transfer was done and all the acts
required by the complainant as per the assignment was
completed. Accused and Manjunath M. approached the
complainant to get the property registered in his name as they
had invested lot of money to bring the family members of the
vendors together along with the expenses for khatha and
procuring the revenue documents, but the complainant avoided
them and suddenly issued the notice from the court.
Complainant has misused the cheques issued for the purpose of
security and filed this false and prevolous case against him.
18. On perusal of whole cross-examination of the PW.1, it is
pertinent to note here that nowhere the accused has taken the
above said specific defence in the cross-examination of the
PW.1, accused counsel has only taken the above said defense
that, even after the payment of the transfer of the amount by
SCCH-6 16 CC No.3694/2023
the accused to the original owners, complainant has not
returned back the cheque given by the accused for security
purpose. Nowhere in the cross-examination of the PW.1 accused
counsel stated for what purpose accused and the Manjunath
has received amount of Rs.30,00,000/- from the PW.1 and
whether accused and the said Manjunath have completed the
work assigned to him and complied the terms as per MOU and
the assignment. Even accused has not at all stated any details
and the circumstances under which, they have received the
amount from the complainant and under what circumstances
they have issued the cheque and for security of which, they
have given the cheques. The accused has not disclosed his
defense and set up his defence and given an opportunity to the
PW.1 to reply and give clarification with regard to the defence
taken by (accused) him by putting his defence through
suggestion in the cross of PW.1. As such, the defense taken by
the accused appears to be clearly after thought, and created.
19. Apart from this, accused has not taken the above said
specific defense at earliest time by giving the reply to the notice
SCCH-6 17 CC No.3694/2023
or taken any criminal proceedings against the complainant. In
the absence of any such recourse being adopted by the accused,
it is highly impossible to believe his defence. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan Reported in 2010 (1)
DCR 706, wherein it was held as fallows:
“-Very fact that the accused had failed
to reply to the statutory notice under
Sec.138 of N.I.Act leads to inference
that there was merit in the
complainant’s version”.
20. In the present case also the accused inspite of the
service of the notice has not replied to the notice and taken the
defence at the later stage only for the sake of the defence. That,
being the true facts it can be held that, the accused has failed
to establish his defence.
21. Apart from this, for the sake of the arguments, if the
defence of the accused is believed as gospel truth then the
genuine question arises in minds of court as to, when accused
has given the above said cheque and entered into MOU and
assignment and thereafter accused and said Manjunatha have
entered into an agreement of sale within one month from the
SCCH-6 18 CC No.3694/2023
date of the MOU, then in the year 2019, why till filing of this
case, accused and the said Manjunath has kept quite, without
asking for the return of their cheques. Even accused and the
said Manjunatha has not demanded for the return of the
cheques and also payment of the amount invested by them for
procuring the revenue documents by giving atleast giving notice.
There is no clarification given by the accused in this regard for
reasons best known to him. All these facts and circumstances
makes the defence of the accused unbelievable and unreliable.
22. Moreover if at all as per version of accused, if they have
issued cheque as security purpose, then why said fact has not
been mentioned in either MOU or assignment deed. No
clarification is given for same.
23. Apart from this, on perusal of the whole cross-
examination of the PW.1 and even in the evidence of the
accused, nowhere the accused has denied the receipt of
Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant as per the MOU and the
assignment deed Ex.D.6. In fact, accused himself has produced
the MOU dated 09.10.2019 and assignment agreement dated
SCCH-6 19 CC No.3694/2023
09.10.2019. Even accused himself by producing the said
documents has admitted the execution of the MOU and the
assignment deed agreement as per Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.6. Even
accused himself in his affidavit evidence para No.4 has admitted
about the receiving of the amount by stating that “Complainant
upon entering the MOU and the assignment deed and by
paying the advance consideration demanded the cheques
from both me and Sri. Manjunath M. for the purpose of
security.” Thus, accused himself has admitted about the
payment of the advance consideration amount by the
complainant to them.
24. Though accused has produced bank statement of
Manjunatha M. as per the Ex.D.3 showing the payment of
various amount to Kowsalya, Radhika, Jagannatha and other
vendors, in the agreement for sale without possession Ex.D.1,
but it is not the case of the complainant or even it is not the
defense of the accused that has paid Rs.30,00,000/- to the
accused and the Manjunatha to be paid to the vendors. As
such, the contention of the accused that he has paid the
SCCH-6 20 CC No.3694/2023
amount paid by the complainant to the vendors cannot be
acceptable.
25. Moreover, as per the Ex.D.5 MOU, para No.2 it is
clearly stated that the 2nd party i.e., complainant and
Nagarjuna Reddy has paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to the
first party i.e., Rs.15,00,000/- to the Chandrappa and
Rs.15,00,000/- to the Manjunatha in the presence of the
witnesses. Further it is mentioned that the first party is
hereby accepted and acknowledged receipt of the said sum
from the second party. Further, it is also agreed that the
second party shall pay the balance consideration at the
time of registration of the sale-deed in the name of the
second party or its nominees. Further, as per para No.3,
the first party has agreed to furnish all the connected title
documents as the title deeds, grant certificates, RTC
extracts for last 40-45 years mutation extracts and all
other related documents in the name of the present land
owner to the second party. Further, as per para No.12, the
party of the first part assures and undertakes that they
SCCH-6 21 CC No.3694/2023
shall not enter into any kind of agreement/s or
understanding with any third party, within a vicinity of the
property agreed to be procured. Further as per Ex.P.6
assignment agreement, the accused Chandrappa has
received Rs.15,00,000/- and Manjunatha .M has received
Rs.15,00,000/- and as per Clause(2) of the Ex.D.6. The
following conditions are imposed by the assigner.
The party of the Second Part has paid a sum of
Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) to the First
Party in the following manner as an advance amount:
An amount of Rs.15,00,000/- vide Cheque bearing
No.820922 drawn on IDBI bank, Mission Road Branch,
favouring Chandrappa.
An amount of Rs.15,00,000/- vide Cheque bearing
No.820923 drawn on IDBI bank, Mission Road Branch,
favouring Manjunath.M.
Before the presence of the witnesses attesting
hereunder, which amount the First Party do hereby
accepts and acknowledges, the receipt of the said
SCCH-6 22 CC No.3694/2023sum from the Party of the Second part. The Party of
the Second Part shall pay the balance consideration
at the time of registration of Sale Deed either in the
name of the Second Party or its nominee/s.
26. Further as per Clause(3), the Assignor shall deliver the
originals of the title of the schedule property to the assignees or
their nominees on the date of this assignment agreement.
Further, in para No.7 in the event of Assignees to this
agreement committing breach and upon expiry of the time limit
this agreement shall stands cancelled automatically and the
Assignor shall refund the advance amount together with
interest and all expenses incurred to the Assignees.
27. Thus, as per Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.6, specifically para No.7
consequences of breach of Ex.D.6 it is clearly stated that upon
the committing breach of the agreement by any party to the
agreement, the agreement shall stands cancelled automatically
and the assigner i.e, Chandrappa/accused and Manjunath shall
refund the advance amount together with interest. Thus as per
Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.6 it is clear that accused has received the
SCCH-6 23 CC No.3694/2023
amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and Manjunatha has received
Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant and Nagarjuna Reddy in
respect of the MOU and as per the admission given by the
accused in his cross-examination dated 05.11.2024. But as per
the accused himself that before the agreement, complainant has
knowledge that the property has been sold out to 3 rd party and
already layouts formed and sites are already alloted. Thereby
accused himself admitted that the property has been sold out to
the some third party. Thus it is clear that accused failed to
procure the revenue documents and failed to obtain all
clearance and permissions and khatha transfer and other
documents that may be required to effectively convey the
schedule property in favour of the complainant. Thus, it is
clear that there was a breach of agreement and as per the
agreement, Ex.D.6 the assigner i.e., Chandrappa accused and
Manjunath accused shall repay the advance amount together
with interest and all expenses incurred to the assigner. Under
such above said facts and circumstances, complainant has
clearly establish that accused has issued the above said
SCCH-6 24 CC No.3694/2023
cheques and to refund the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- received
by him under the Ex.D.5 MOU and Ex.D.6 assignment
agreement.
28. On overall appreciation of the evidence and materials
on record, accused has failed to establish his defence. Thus, in
view of the above discussion, accused has failed to rebut the
presumption available in favour of the complainant. On the
other hand, complainant has clearly established that accused
has issued Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheques for discharge of legally
recoverable debt liable to be payable by him.
Conclusion:
29. In view of all the above discussions, it can be concluded
that the complainant has established through cogent and
convincing evidence the fact of issuance of the cheques for
discharge of legality enforceable debt, which is dishonored for
want of sufficient funds, Issuance of legal notice within
stipulated time, failure on the part of accused to repay the
amount within stipulated period. On the other hand, the
accused has failed to rebut the presumption available to the
SCCH-6 25 CC No.3694/2023
complainant through probable evidences that would
preponderate upon the evidence lead by the complainant.
Therefore, the accused is held to have committed an offence
punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, Point No.1
is answered in the Affirmative.
30. POINT NO.2:- In view of my answer to point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:-
-: O R D E R :-
Acting under Section 278(1) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, accused are hereby convicted for
the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine
of Rs.15,05,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I.
Act. The amount of Rs.15,00,000/- shall
be paid to the complainant by way of
compensation in accordance with
Sec.395 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, within one
month from today.
SCCH-6 26 CC No.3694/2023
The remaining amount of
Rs.5,000/- shall be confiscated to the
state. In default of payment of fine, the
accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six
months.
The bail and surety bond of the
accused and surety shall stand
canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her. After her
typing, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the 13 th
day of January, 2025).
(CHETANA S.F.)
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 :- Akash Subash Gupta
List of witnesses examined for the accused:-
DW.1 :- Sri. Chandrappa
List of documents marked for the Complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Cheque dated 10.01.2023
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of accused
SCCH-6 27 CC No.3694/2023
Ex.P.2 : Cheque dated 20.12.2022
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P.3 & 4 : Bank Endorsements (2 in Nos.)
Ex.P.5 : Legal Notice dated 27.02.2023
Ex.P.6 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P.7 : Postal Acknowledgment
List of documents marked for the accused:-
Ex.D.1 : E-copy of Agreement for sale without
possession
Ex.D.2 : E-copy of Cancellation of sale
agreement
Ex.D.3 : E-copy of Agreement for sale dated
12.11.2019 without possession
Ex.D.4 : Certificate under Sec.65(B) of the
Indian Evidence Act
(CHETANA S.F.)
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge &
ACJM, Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
SCCH-6 28 CC No.3694/2023