[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Furtune Industries vs Shruthi Enterprises on 11 July, 2025
KABC030114392020
IN THE COURT OF XX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: BHOLA PANDIT,
B.Com.,LL.M.,
XX ADDL. C.J.M.
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 11th day of July 2025
C.C.No. 3065/ 2020
Complainant : Fortune Industries,
No.438, 12th Cross,
Peenya Industrial Area,
Bengaluru - 560 058
Rep. By its Proprietor,
Sri. Ganesh Hegde
{ By Sri. Nagaraj Hegde - Advocate }
Vs.
Accused : Shruthi Enterprises,
No.F-674, "Anagha"
2 C.C. 3065 / 2020
12th 'A' Cross,
Bharatnagar, 1st Stage,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru - 560 091
Represented by its Proprietor
Sri. Prakash Hegde
{ By Sri. B S Mahendra - Advocate }
Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act.,
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of Order : 11.07.2025
3 C.C. 3065 / 2020
JUDGMENT
The present complaint is filed under section 200 of
code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to
punish him for the offence punishable under section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as “N.I.
Act“).
02. The facts which leads to file the present complaint are
narrated as under :
It is stated that, the Complainant has running
industry of manufacturing all types of engineering
components since 16 years, under the name and style of
Fortune Industries, the accused has running similar
business in the name of “Shruthi Enterprises”. Both
belongs to same district and same community. The
accused involved in the business of rectifier i.e.
programmable pulse rectifier etc. which will be used for
the electro plating process. The Complainant has agreed
for the offer made by the accused to introduce new
technology in his industry named as “Zn Ni Plating” since
4 C.C. 3065 / 2020the Complainant is also looking forward to imporve their
quality of business, accordingly the Complainant has
entered into an oral agreement to introduce the above said
process / technology in its industry. It is further stated
that, as per the oral understanding, the accused enterprise
has given the quotation for the above said process for a
sum of Rs.15,84,857/- at the first instant and thereafter in
view of the enhancement of the material cost, quotation
has been assorted to a sum of Rs.20,60,282/- The
Complainant has agreed for the aforesaid quotation given
by the accused and the Complainant has paid a sum of
Rs.19,62,000/- to the accused by way of cash and also by
way of funds transfer between August 2016 to April 2018
and the accused has acknowledged the receipt of the said
amount.
It is contended that, since the accused has failed to
provide the service as per the oral agreement, the
Complainant has terminated the oral agreement in respect
of request made by the Complainant many times to stare
the business as agreed. Therefore, the Complainant has
5 C.C. 3065 / 2020lodged complaint on 16.07.2018 before the Rajagopalnagar
PS against the accused, then the accused has voluntarily
without any compulsion of anybody come forward to repay
the amount of Rs.19,62,000/- and in this regard the
Complainant and accused have entered into the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 26.17.2018.
Agreeing to the terms and conditions of the MOU the
accused has agreed to pay the sum of Rs.19,62,000/- to
the Complainant and has issued following 4 post dated
cheques.
SL.NO. CHEQUE NO CHEQUE DATE AMOUNT (RS) DRAWN ON
1 820864 31.08.2018 2,00,000/- SBI, Bharatnagar
Branch, Bengaluru-91
2 820865 31.03.2019 3,00,000/- SBI, Bharatnagar
Branch, Bengaluru-91
3 820866 30.09.2019 7,31,000/- SBI, Bharatnagar
Branch, Bengaluru-91
4 820867 31.12.2019 7,31,000/- SBI, Bharatnagar
Branch, Bengaluru-91It is further contended that on27.07.2018 itself the
accused has given statement before the Rajgopalnagar PS
after the issuance of above said post dated cheques out of
above said 4 post dated cheques when the Complainant
has presented first 3 cheques bearing No. 820864, 820865,
6 C.C. 3065 / 2020820866 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- and
Rs.7,31,000/- having different dates have been presented
for the payment with the Complainant bankers and all the
cheques were honoured and payment has been credited to
the account of Complainant to the tune of Rs.12,31,000/-
However, when the Complainant presented the last post
dated cheque bearing No.820867 dated 31.12.2019 for a
sum of Rs.7,31,000/- with his banker on 02.01.2020, it
was returned unpaid with a shara as ‘payment stopped by
drawer’ as per bank endorsement dated 03.01.2020. The
accused has issued untenable notice to the Complainant
on 19.12.2019 threatening him not to present the cheque
for realization for which the Complainant given suitable
reply. Therefore on 09.01.2020 the Complainant got
issued demand notice to the accused through his counsel
by RPAD which was duly served upon the accused on
10.01.020. Instead of making payment of the cheque
amount the accused has issued untenable reply on
27.01.2020. On these assertions, it is sought to convict
7 C.C. 3065 / 2020
the accused under section 138 of NI Act and award
compensation under section 357 of Cr.P.C.
03. On presentation of the complaint before this court
have scrutinize the averments of the complaint as well as
documents and thereby has taken cognizance for the
offense under section 138 of NI Act. Thereafter as per the
dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in the case of Indian
Bank Association and others V/s Union of India and
others, the sworn statement of the complainant has been
recorded as PW1and got exhibited in all 17 documents at
Ex.P1 to P17. Having made out prima facie case it is
ordered to register the complaint in register No.III issue
process against the accused.
04. In response to the summons, the accused put his
appearance before the court through his counsel and filed
bail application under section 436 of Cr.P.C., the accused
has been enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation
has been recorded and read over to the accused, he
8 C.C. 3065 / 2020
pleaded not guilty and wants to put forth his defense. As
per applications under section 145(2) of NI Act the accused
was permitted to cross examine PW1. The Learned defense
counsel has conducted marathon cross examination of
PW1. On termination of trial from the Complainant side,
the statement of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. has
been recorded and read over to him, he has denied the
same in toto and and wanted to lead defense side
evidence. The accused has entered into the witness box
and adduced his oral evidence as DW1 and got marked in
all 15 documents.
05. Heard oral arguments advanced by both the learned
counsel. To buttress his contention the Learned
prosecuting counsel has relied on following judgments.
Sl.No. CITATIONS 1 2021 SCC Online KAR 15576
More Retail Private Limited V/s. State of Karnataka
2 (2000) 2 scc 756
Panka Mehara and another V/s State of Maharashtra
3 (2021) 5 SCC 283
Kalamani Tex and another V/s. P Balasubramanian
9 C.C. 3065 / 2020
06. The following points that arise for my consideration
are as under;
POINTS
1. Does the complainant proves
beyond reasonable doubts that, the
accused has issued cheque
bearing No. 820867 dated
31.12.2019 for a sum of
Rs.7,31,000/- drawn on SBI,
Bharathnagar Branch, Bengaluru
towards the discharge of his lawful
liability of the complainant and
when the said cheque was presented
for encashment, it was returned
unpaid due to shara as “Payment
stopped by the drawer” as per
banker’s memo and in-spite of
issuance of demand notice , the
accused has failed to pay the
cheque amount, thereby has
committed the offence punishable
under section 138 of NI Act?
2. What Order or sentence ?
07. My findings to the above points is as follows;
1. Point No.1: In the Affirmative
2. Point No.2: As per final order
for the following;
10 C.C. 3065 / 2020
REASONS
08. POINT No.1: It is the specific case of the
complainant that, himself and the accused are running the
proprietorship business in respect of manufacturing all
types of engineering components since long time and there
was oral agreement between both of them with regard to
introduction of new technology in the premises of industry
of the Complainant by name “Zn Ni Plating ” and the
accused has under taken to install the said technology for
a sum of rs.20,60,282/-. Out of which the Complainant
has paid Rs.19,62000/-to the Complainant in between the
period of August 2016 to April 2018. However, due to
delay caused by the accused the Complainant terminated
the oral agreement and demand for the payment of money.
Thereafter only upon lodging complaint before the police,
the accused voluntarily come forward and agreed to pay his
advance amount of Rs.19,62,000/- and has issued 4 post
dated cheques and also executed MOU on 26.07.2018.
11 C.C. 3065 / 2020
Out of 4 cheques the Complainant got encashed first three
cheque amount to the tune of Rs.12,31,000/-. When the
Complainant has presented the last post dated cheque for
a sum of Rs.7,30,000/-, it has returned dishonoured due
to ‘Payment stopped by drawer’ and in respect of issuance
of the demand notice, the accused has failed to make the
payment of cheque amount by giving untenable reply,
hence it is sought to convict the accused.
09. To bring home guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubts for the offense punishable u/s 138 of NI
act, the sworn statement of Complainant has been treated
as affidavit evidence as per the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex
court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others
V/s Union of India and others, in his affidavit evidence the
Complainant has replicated the averments of the
complaint. To corroborate the oral testimony of the
Complainant, he got marked 17 documents as Ex.P1 to
P17. Ex.P1 is the disputed cheque, Ex.P2 is the bankers
return memo, Ex.P3 is the demand notice, Ex.P4 is the
12 C.C. 3065 / 2020
postal receipt, Ex.P5 is the reply notice, Ex.P6 is the
corresponding letter of accused, Ex.P7 is the reply notice
given by the Complainant to the notice of accused at
Ex.P6, Ex.P8 is the copy of complaint lodge before the
Rajgopalnagar PS, Ex.P9 is the police acknowledgment
Ex-P10 is the copy of statement made before the before the
police by the accused, Ex.P11 is the MOU, Ex-P12 to 14
are the GST certificates, Ex.P15 is the 65(B) certificate
relating to Ex.P12 to 14, Ex-P16 is CC copy of affidavit
evidence of of accused as DW1 in OS No.802 /2022 before
City Civil court at Bangalore, Ex.P17 is the CC copy
evidence of one Gopikrishna has adduced in OS
No.802/2022. To disprove the case of the complainant and
also to rebut the legal presumptions which could be drawn
in favor of the complainant the accused has adduced his
oral evidence as DW1 and got marked 15 documents at
Ex.D1 to D15. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of plaint in CC
No.802 /2022, Ex.D3 and 4 are the copy of email, draft
memo of understanding and bank account statement.
Ex.D5 is the certificate under section 65(B) evidence Act
13 C.C. 3065 / 2020
pertaining to documents at Ex.D2 to D4. Ex.D6 is CC
copy of GST Certificate. Ex.D7 is the corresponding letter
made by the accused in the name of the complainant,
Ex.D8 is the CC copy of postal acknowledgment, Ex.D9 is
the CC copy of judgment in OS No.802/2022 on the file of
commercial court, Ex.D10 is the decree copy of said
judgment, Ex.D11 to D13 are the copy of mail, Ex.D12 is
the Udyog Aadhar Certificate, Ex.D13 is the PAN Card of
Global Tech Fortune Industries. Ex.D14 and D15 are the
certificate under section 65(B) of Evidence Act and affidavit
of accused.
The learned defense counsel has conducted marathon
cross examination of PW1. Similarly, the learned
prosecuting counsel also conducted the cross examination
of DW1 in length.
10. Before to appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence produced on records, it is imperative on this court
to find out whether the Complainant has proved the
14 C.C. 3065 / 2020
necessary ingredients of section 138 of NI Act before filing
the present complaint.
11. On perusal of cheque at Ex.P1 and return memo at
Ex.P2 it appears that, within the period of its 3 months
validity, cheque was presented to the bank for encashment.
Looking to the date of issuance of demand notice at Ex.P3
on 09.01.2020 and looking to return memo of bank dated
03.01.2020 it appears that, within 30 days from receiving
the bank return memo the demand notice was issued.
Ex.P4 is the postal receipt. Though postal
acknowledgment is not produced but since the accused
has given reply notice under Ex.P5 it appears that only
after receiving the demand notice he has issued reply
notice on 27.01.2020. The present complaint has filed
before this court on 10.02.2020. Neither during cross
examination of PW1 nor in the evidence of DW1 no
question has been raised about the non compliance of
section 138 of NI Act before filing the present complaint.
Hence by considering of these material evidence, I have no
15 C.C. 3065 / 2020
hesitation to say conclusively that the present complaint
has been filed only after fulfillment of the requirements of
Section 138 of NI Act.
12. Much has been argued from the defense side
contending that, at the time of filing this complaint the
Fortune Industry was not in existence and it has been
converted into Glob Tech Industries Pvt. Ltd., by registering
the same on 21.03.2018. Therefore this complaint ought
to have been filed in the name of Glob Tech Fortune
Industries. It is further argued by the learned defense
counsel that, Ex.D12 and D13 have been obtained by the
complainant prior to the confirmation of Glob Tech Pvt.
Ltd., so any dues shall be recovered only in the name of
Global Tech Pvt. Ltd., and on these grounds only the
present complaint is untenable. Per contra, the learned
prosecuting counsel vehemently argued that, since the
transaction has taken place between Fortune Industries
and the accused, the complaint is maintaiable in the name
16 C.C. 3065 / 2020
of Fortune Industries itself. Accordingly it is sought to
reject the contention of the defense side.
13. By considering both the rival contentions and also on
perusal of the records available in the file, it is undisputed
fact that Fortune Industries is the Proprietorship of Ganesh
Hegde the complainant. Proprietorship business a sole
trading business and in order to run such business no
separate statutes are provided like running of partnership
firm, business or company under the Companies Act. To
run a sole trading business having license issued by the
concerned authority, getting GST certificate and keeping
current account in bank is sufficient. Mere closing of
Fortune Industries and opening of the Glob Tech Pvt. Ltd.,
does not mean that Fortune Industries has been merged
with Glob Tech Pvt. Ltd. In his cross examination PW1
stated that, himself is the Director of Glob Tech Industry
and his son is another Director of the same. Under such
circumstances as per the evidence brought on record and
the documents produced at Ex.P11 it can be held that, the
17 C.C. 3065 / 2020
alleged transaction for the installation of Zn Ni Planting
Technology is taken place only during the existence of the
Fortune Industries in the year 2018. Therefore even after
closer of said Fortune Industries by the complainant he
can very well claim the dues of Fortune Industries. The
establishment of new Company in the name of Global Tech
Pvt. Ltd., by the complainant and his son do not prevent
the complainant to recover any dues of Fortune Industries.
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the
arguments advanced by the learned defense counsel in
this regard is not sustainable. The learned defense
counsel has produced GST Registration cancellation copy
of Fortune Industries which do not help the accused in any
way. Furthermore, it is argued and contended that before
closer of Fortune Industries the complainant has got GST
certificate in the name of Glob Tech Pvt. Ltd., company and
in this regard he has produced some documents. This
contention also not sustainable as such it is the matter
between the GST authority and the complainant, the said
18 C.C. 3065 / 2020
contention do not cause any impact on the case put forth
by the complainant.
14. Section 118 & 139 of NI Act are two important
provisions and they provides for raising mandatory
presumptions in favour of the complainant until the
contrary is proved by the accused. Even in the catena of
decisions i.e., in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported
in 2010(11) SCC 441, in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh
Kumar reported in 2019(4) SCC 197, in the case of APS
Forex Services (P) Ltd., Vs.Shakthi International Fashion
Linkers reported in 2020(12) SCC 724, in the case of
Rajeshbai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in
2020(3) SCC 794, in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde Vs.
Sripad reported in Live Law 2021 SC 492 and in the relied
judgments of the complainant, a precedent is laid down
that, “Once the issuance of cheque and the signature
thereon is admitted by the accused, the court is required
to raise presumption in favour of the the complainant
stating that, the accused has issued the cheque for some
19 C.C. 3065 / 2020
consideration towards discharge of his legal debt or
liability of the complainant and that the complainant is
the due holder of the said cheque. The burden or reverse
onus shifts on the accused to rebut the statutory
presumptions under sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act.” Now,
it is well established law that, the presumption mandated
by section 139 of NI Act, thus indeed includes the existence
of legally enforceable debt or liability and it is open for the
accused to raise a probable defense wherein the existence
of legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested and
he shall prove before the court on preponderance of
probabilities, only thereupon a statutory presumption
raised in favour of the complainant stands rebutted.
15. The learned prosecuting counsel has also relied on
the larger bench judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Kalamani Tex and Another Vs.
P.Balasubramaniyan,wherein also the presumption relating
to section 138 and 118 has been upheld the previous ratio
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa V/s
20 C.C. 3065 / 2020
Mohan. From the ratio laid down in the above said
judgments now it is well settled that once the accused
admits the issuance of cheque from his account and his
signature thereon, it leads to raise the presumptions that
the cheque was issued as consideration for legally
recoverable debt and that the complainant is due holder of
the said cheque. The defense plea which can be taken by
the accused is immaterial while trying legal presumptions.
However, the defense plea is necessary and to be proved
the same on preponderance probabilities by the accused to
rebut the legal presumptions. In the instance case on
hand the accused has given reply notice as per Ex.P5
thereby he took his defense in the beginning itself. In the
reply notice at Ex.P5 wherein the accused has denied the
very execution of MOU stating that it was got executed
under pressure and threat of local rowdy elements, but no
specific defense has taken in the reply notice as to how the
present disputed cheque along with other three encashed
cheques were gone to the hands of the complainant.
However, during the course of cross examination of PW1 it
21 C.C. 3065 / 2020
is suggested that, the present cheque and other 3 cheques
were taken forcibly. In order to substantiate this fact and
prove the some on preponderance of probabilities the
accused himself has entered in the witness box and
adduced his oral evidence as DW1 wherein he deposed
that, since 2016 there was the business transaction
between him and the complainant. In the year 2018 the
complainant has sent draft MOU for carrying joint venture
business in respect of new invented technology by the
accused. However, the said proposal was not worked out.
He further deposed that, on the basis of complaint lodge by
the complainant under Ex.P8 he was summoned to the
police station and forcibly have taken MOU in Ex.P11 from
him along with 4 blank cheques. In support of his oral
testimony he has produced before the court in all 15
documents. By considering cross examination of PW1 and
cross examination of DW1 it can be seen that, as pe the
oral agreement clearly reveals that the accused has under
taken to make ready of Zn Ni Plating technology for the
Complainant for a sum of Rs.20,60,282/-. It is also
22 C.C. 3065 / 2020undisputed fact that, the accused has received
Rs.19,62,000/- from the Complainant . The dispute
existing between the Complainant and the accused is as
per the Complainant the accused has failed to complete
the oral agreement and MOU.
16. As per the contention of the accused he had made
ready the said technology in the premises of Fortune
Enterprises and only thereafter he has received its amount.
On the contrary it is the case of the Complainant that in
respect of receiving the amount the accused has failed to
prepare and supply that technology to his premises.
Though during the cross examination
PW1 a suggestion has been made that, the accused has
prepared and installed the said technology in his premises
and the demo was also shown, that suggestion has been
denied by PW1. On the other hand during cross-
examination of PW1 he has stated that, he has prepared
and made ready said technology and it was sent to the
premises of the Complainant through transport. This is
23 C.C. 3065 / 2020
the very contradiction evidence and statement of accused.
Further if at all the accused has supplied task and
prepared the technology and installed in the premises of
the Complainant as per his own evidence he would have
produced the photograph of such technology which was
suppose to have been installed. Even DW1 during his
cross examination has under taken to produce the
photographs but not produced the same. The accused has
stated in his evidence and also cross examination that, the
MOU was forcibly taken from him in the police station
whereas during his cross examination himself has
admitted that, while executing the said document one Sri.
Gopi Krishna was accompanied with him and the evidence
of the said Shri Gopi Krishna adduced before the court of
Commercial is produced before the court. The same is
marked at Ex.P17 and the evidence of the said Gopikrishna
itself falsified the contention of the accused that, Ex.P11
was forcibly taken in the police station. The evidence of
Gopikrishna at Ex.P17 very much corroborates the oral
testimony of PW1. On further scrutiny of Ex.P16(a) which
24 C.C. 3065 / 2020
is the own evidence of accused as discussed above he has
transport the said technology through goods carrier tempo
to the premises of Complainant but not produced any
transport records. Hence the MOU produced Ex.P11 very
much supports the case of the Complainant that in order
to repay the amount received from the Complainant of
Rs.19,62,000/- and for the payment of remaining amount
of Rs.7,31,000/- issued disputed cheque. That apart when
the accused is very much admitting about honoring 3
cheques which eh has issued in favour of complainant,
that fact leads to held that towards discharge of legally
recoverable debt the accused has issued cheque in favour
of complainant. That apart at one point this defense of the
accused that MOU and 4 cheques have been taken forcibly
from him in the police station and at another point 4
cheques were taken forcibly by sending rowdy elements
from his house. If that being so the accused would have
filed the complaint before the concerned police or he could
have file private complaint before the jurisdictional court
for using any force against him for the alleged snatching 4
25 C.C. 3065 / 2020
cheques and MOU. The cheque at Ex.P1 has returned
unpaid due to ‘stop payment order’ received by the
accused, that fact also attract the offense u/s 138 of NI
Act. However, the accused produced his bank account
statement at Ex.D2 stating that, on 03.01.2020 he had
sufficient amount in his account only because of his
making of stop payment order the cheque was dishonored.
Ofcourse on perusal of bank account statement it reveals
that, on 03.01.2020 he had balance of Rs.7,35,000/- out
off amount in his account but since the accused has failed
to prove his probable defense under such circumstances
the said evidence doe not comes to his aid and do not
falsifies the case of the Complainant . I have carefully gone
through the judgment of Hon’ble Commercial Court
produced at Ex.D9 wherein page No.53 para No.96 Sub
para No.3 it is the finding of the Hon’ble Civil Court that
the plaintiff has proved that the above said cheques were
issued by the Prakash Hegde (accused in this case) the
Ganesh Hegde (Complainant in this case) of Fortune
Industries towards legally recoverable debt . Thus the
26 C.C. 3065 / 2020
findings of the Hon’ble Civil Court to strengthen the case of
the Complainant that the accused has issued disputed
cheque 3 encashed cheques towards discharge of legally
recoverable debt fo the Complainant . Thus, from
considering the oral and documentary evidences placed on
record, I am of the considered opinion that, the
Complainant has prove his case beyond all reasonable
doubts, on the contrary the accused has failed to put forth
probable defense and to prove the same on preponderance
of probabilities. The citation relied by the Learned
prosecuting counsel are applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case on hand. The Learned defense
counsel has submitted a note in the form of questionnaire
but which cannot be looked into. Hence, I answered point
No.1 in the Affirmative.
POINT NO.2:
17. In view of the reasons stated and discussed above, the
complainant has proved the guilt of the accused
punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act It is worth to
27 C.C. 3065 / 2020
note that, the offence is of the nature of civil wrong.
Hence, it is proper to award sentence of fine, instead of
awarding sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, this
court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under section 255 (2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, accused is
hereby convicted for the offence
punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.9,45,000/-
(Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Five
Thousand only). In default, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for 1
(one ) year.
Acting under section 357(1) of
code of criminal procedure, it is
ordered that an amount of
Rs.9,40,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs
28 C.C. 3065 / 2020
Forty Thousand only)., there from
shall be paid to the complainant as a
compensation, remaining fine amount
of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand
only) is defrayed to the state for the
expenses incurred in the prosecution.
The bail bond of accused stands
canceled subject to appeal period.
Supply free copy of judgment to the
accused.
{Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, revised corrected
and then pronounced in the open court on this 11th day of July 2025}.
(BHOLA PANDIT)
XX ACJM,
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1 Ganesh Hegde
List of documents produced on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque 29 C.C. 3065 / 2020 Ex.P. 1(a) Signature of the accused Ex.P. 2 Bank endorsement Ex.P. 3 Copy of the legal notice Ex.P. 4 Postal receipt Ex.P.5 Reply notice Ex.P.6 Accused Industry letter dated 19.12.2019 Ex.P.7 Office copy of reply notice of the Complainant Ex.P.8 Copy of complaint given to Rajgopalnagar PS Ex.P9 Acknowledgment of Rajgopalnagar PS Ex.P10 Copy of statement of the accused dated 27.07.2018 Ex.P11 MOU dated 06.07.2018 Ex.P12 to 15 Internet copies of GST Certificate, cancellation order 30 C.C. 3065 / 2020 GST Registration, GST returns, 65(B) Certificate
Ex.P16. Certified copy of evidence in OS
No.802/2022
Ex.P17 Ex.P17 is the CC copy evidence
of one Gopikrishna has
adduced in OS No.802/2022.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
D.W.1 Prakash Hegde
List of documents produced on behalf of accused:
Ex.D.1 Certified Copy of complaint in
OS 802/ 2022
Ex.D.2 & 3 One page of covering letter and
email copy of page No.6 of
MOU
Ex.D.4 Online copy of bank statement
Ex.D.5 65(B) Certificate
Ex.D.6 Certified copy of GST
Registration certificate of Global
Fortune Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Ex.D.7 & D.8 Certified copy of notice sent
31 C.C. 3065 / 2020
Complainant and
acknowledgment relating to the
said notice
Ex.D.9 & 10 Certified copy of order and
decreed in OS No. 802 /2022
Ex.D.11 Change of company name
Ex.D.12 Aadhar Card
Ex.D.13 PAN Card
Ex.D.14 & 15 65(B) certificate u/s Indian
Evidence Act
XX A.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru.
[ad_2]
Source link