Bangalore District Court
H. Ananda Murthy vs Jagadeesh on 4 January, 2025
KABC020369562022
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
(SCCH-24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated: On this day of 4th day of January 2025
CC NO.14074/2022
1. Sl.No. of the Case : C.C.No.14074 of 2022.
2. The date of : 03-03-2022
commission of the
offence
3. Name of the : Sri. H Ananda Murthy
Complainant Aged about 43 years,
S/o Hanumantharayalla M
R/at No.37/27, 4th cross,
Vivekananda Block,
P.G Halli, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru -560 062.
(By Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty,
Advocate)
4. Name of the Sri. Jagadeesh,
Accused S/o Venkatesh G
Aged about 28 years,
C/o Vasanthamma,
SCCH-24 2 C.C.14074/2022
No.32, Surya Enclave,
4th cross, Abbigere,
B.D.S.L, N.S.R layout,
Bengaluru -560 090.
(By Sri.Harish D.G. Advocate)
5. The offence complained : Under Section 138 of the
of or proves Negotiable Instrument Act.
6. Plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination
7. Final Order : Accused is found guilty
8. Date of such order for : 04-01-2025
the following
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed under Sec. 200 of Cr. P. C.
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is the case of the complainant that: The
accused and complainant are friends since several years.
The accused had approached the complainant in the
month of January -2020 for a hand loan of
Rs.4,00,000/- for his financial necessities. Believing the
words of accused, the complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/-
by way of cash on 27-01-2020 and further paid
Rs.2,00,000/- on various dates through google pay and
SCCH-24 3 C.C.14074/2022
also by way of cash, with a condition that the accused
has to repay the same within a span of one year.
3. The accused did not pay back the money within
the time specified, hence, the complainant made
repeated requests to the accused to repay the same.
Finally the accused issued cheque no.860214 dated 10-
09-2021 for Rs.4, 00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank,
K.G.F, Robert sonpet Branch, Bengaluru in favour of
complainant. As per the instruction, when cheque was
presented through his banker i.e., Axis Bank,
Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru, same was returned
dishonor with memo “Funds Insufficient” on 03-11-
2021. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice
to the accused on 01-12-2021 through RPAD. The said
notice was returned un-served on 07-12-2021 with
shara ‘Door Lock’, ” No such number in this address”. In
spite of the said demand notice the accused has failed
and neglected to settle the amount, thus committed
offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I Act.
4. After recording the sworn statement of the
complainant and verifying the documents, cognizance
was taken against the accused for the offence
punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. The accused on
receiving the summons appeared before this Court
SCCH-24 4 C.C.14074/2022
through his counsel and enlarged on bail and his plea
was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims
to be tried. Hence, case was posted for the evidence of
complainant.
5. The complainant got examined himself as PW.1,
and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to 8. Then, the
case was posted for recording the statement of accused
under Sec.313 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. The
accused did not adduce defence evidence. During the
cross-examination of PW.1 the learned counsel for the
accused confronted the documents and got marked as
Ex.D.1 and 2. Hence, the case was posted for
arguments.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves
that accused has committed offence
punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.
Act?
2. What order?
SCCH-24 5 C.C.14074/2022
8. 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 :-
9. POINT NO.1:- This is a private complaint filed
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
10. It is the case of the complainant that, towards
the discharge of legally enforceable debt, the accused
has issued cheque bearing No.860214 for Rs.4,00,000/-
dated 10-09-2021 and when the cheque was presented
for encashment, same was returned with endorsement
“Funds Insufficient”. Though the said fact was brought
to the notice of accused by issuing legal notice but
accused has failed to repay the cheque amount.
11. In order to substantiate the contention, the
complainant got examined himself as Pw1 and got
marked in all 5 documents as ExP1 to Ex.P8. If the
documents produced by the complainant are perused,
Ex.P1 is the cheque which bears the signature of
accused. The accused nowhere has disputed the cheque
which relates to his account and he even has not
SCCH-24 6 C.C.14074/2022
disputed his signature in the Ex.P1. It is deposed by Pw1
that cheque in question was issued by the accused for
discharge of liability. The cheque in question was
presented by the complainant through his banker which
was returned with memo as per Ex.P2 stating ‘Funds in
sufficient’. Hence, he got issued legal notice to the
accused through RPAD, which is produced at Ex.P.3.
The postal receipt is marked at Ex.P.4. The postal cover
is at Ex.P5. Copy of Audio recordings in compact disk is
at Ex.P6. Printout of whats app chats is at Ex.P7 and
Certificate u/Sec. 65 of Evidence Act is at Ex.P8.
12. On careful perusal of the oral and documentary
evidence it would go to show that the accused had ad-
mitted that signature on the disputed cheque is his own.
Hence, once this fact has been acknowledged, Section
139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque
pertained to a legally enforceable debt or liability. This
presumption is of a rebuttal nature and the onus is on
the accused to raise a probable defence. The learned
counsel at this juncture has referred judgment reported
in criminal Appeal No.1020/2010 between Rangappa Vs.
Mohan wherein it was observed that “Once cheque re-
lates to the account of the accused and he accepts and
admits the signature on the said cheque, then initially
presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the
SCCH-24 7 C.C.14074/2022
Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised by the Court
in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred
to in Section 139 of the N.I Act is a mandatory presump-
tion and not a general presumption, but the accused is
entitled to rebut the said presumption. What is required
to be established by the accused in order to rebut the
presumption is different from each case under given cir-
cumstances. But the fact remains that a mere plausible
explanation is not accepted from the accused and it
must be more than a plausible explanation by way of re-
buttal evidence. In other words, the defence raised by
way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and capable
of being accepted by the Court.
13. The learned counsel in further has referred the
judgment rendered in AIR 2001 SC 3897 between Hiten
P Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee wherein also it was
observed that “In the case of a mandatory presumption
the burden resting on the accused person in such a case
would not be as light as it is where a presumption is
raised under S. 114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be
held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that
the explanation offered by the accused is reasonable and
probable. It must further be shown that the explanation
is a true one. The words “unless the contrary is proved’
which occur in this provision make it clear that the pre-
SCCH-24 8 C.C.14074/2022
sumption has to be rebutted by ‘proof’ and not by a bare
explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to
be proved when its existence is directly established or
when upon the material before it the court finds its exis-
tence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act
on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the
explanation is supported by proof, the presumption cre-
ated by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted”.
14. Hence, when signature in the cheque is admit-
ted it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved
that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for the
discharge of in whole or in part of any debt or other lia-
bility. Now it is for the accused to rebut the presumption
with probable defense.
15. It is true that accused has not led his
evidence. But if the cross examination of PW.1 is
perused, it is the defence taken by the accused that
there was no money transaction held between him and
the complainant and that at no point of time he had
borrowed sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant
and that he had chit transaction with the complainant
and in that regard for raising the chit amount in the
name of accused, he has issued three blank signed
SCCH-24 9 C.C.14074/2022
cheques as security and the complainant by misusing
one among the three cheuqes has filed false complaint
against him. The accused in further has seriously
disputed the service of legal notice to him and contended
that since legal notice is not duly served to him, there is
non compliance of mandatory requirement as provided
under Sec. 138 (b) of NI Act. Hence, complaint is not
maintainable and on that score itself the complaint is
liable to be dismissed.
16. The PW.1 during his cross examination has
deposed that accused is his relative as he happens to be
the brother of the wife of his cousin brother and that he
know the accused since 5 years and that he is doing
colour lab and photography work and earning
Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- p.m and that after deducting
his monthly expenses, his monthly savings would be
around Rs.30,000/-. Apart from that he has leased the
house on monthly rent and drawing income there from
and that he is an income tax assessee but has not
disclosed the amount paid to the accused in the Income
Tax return. It is further deposed by Pw1 that by
collecting amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from his father and
by collecting rest of the amount from his friends, he had
given Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused and that out of
Rs.4,00,000/ sum of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- was
SCCH-24 10 C.C.14074/2022
given to the accused through google pay and balance
amount was paid by way of cash.
17. If the entire cross examination of PW.1 is
perused, nowhere the accused has disputed the
avocation and income of the complainant and has also
not disputed the financial capacity of the complainant to
lend sum of Rs.4,00,000/ to the accused. When financial
status of the complainant is not in dispute, there is no
necessity for the complainant to prove his financial to
give sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused.
18. Admittedly, the complainant has not produced
his income tax returns. When complainant himself has
stated that he has not disclosed the disputed loan
transaction in the income tax returns, even if
complainant had produced his income tax returns it
would no way helpful either to the case of complainant
or to the case of accused. So far as non disclosure of
disputed loan transaction in the income tax returns and
its consequence is concerned, at this juncture it would
be relevant to refer here the judgment rendered by
Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in CRR
5263/2018 between Shrimati Ragini Gupta Vs. Piyush
Dutt Sharma dated 07-03-2019 wherein the accused has
taken the defence that complainant has never disclosed
SCCH-24 11 C.C.14074/2022
his source of income in the income tax return and he
has never filed his income tax return, therefore it should
be presumed that he did not have any source of income.
Under the given set of facts the Hon’ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh held that “Mere non-filing of Income
Tax Return would not automatically dislodge the source
of income of the complainant. Non-payment of Income
Tax is a matter between the revenue and the assessee. If
the assessee has not disclosed his income in the Income
Tax Return, then the Income Tax Department is well
within its rights to reopen the assessment of income of
the assessee and to take action as per the provisions of
Income Tax Act. However, non-filing of Income Tax
Return by itself would not mean that the complainant
had no source of income and thus, no adverse inference
can be drawn in this regard only because of absence of
Income Tax Return. Whether there was any loan
transaction between the parties or not and whether there
was any legally recoverable debt or not, is the subject
matter which can be ascertained in the light of entire
case led by the parties. Where the accused has failed to
satisfactorily explain the circumstances under which the
cheque was issued by the accused or misused by the
complainant, then it can be safely inferred/ presumed
SCCH-24 12 C.C.14074/2022
that cheque was issued in discharge of legally
recoverable debt /liability”.
19. In Crl. Revision Petition No.1299/2017 between
P.Jayashankar Naidu vs. Sri P Lakshamana @ Ganesh
the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has observed that
“When the complainant has stated that he is not in fact
a income tax assessee, question of drawing adverse
inference against complainant for not producing income
tax returns does not arise”.
20. Keeping in mind the observation made in the
aforesaid rulings, coming to the case in hand , the mere
fact that the complainant has not disclosed the disputed
loan transaction in the IT returns it would not sufficient
to raise doubt regarding the disputed loan transaction
and in turn sum of Rs.4,00,000/- lend by the
complainant to the accused.
21. So far as the dispute raised by the accused
regarding non service of legal notice is concerned, if the
evidence both oral and document is perused, the
complainant has issued legal notice to the accused
through RPAD. The said notice was returned with shara
“Door locked” and “No such number returner to sender”.
In the legal notice the address of the accused is
SCCH-24 13 C.C.14074/2022
mentioned as “Jagadeesh, C/o Vasanthamma. No.32,
Surya Enclave, 4th cross, Abbigere, BDSL, N.S.R Layout,
Bangalore -560 090. The said address and the address
mentioned in the cause title of the complaint are one
and the same. The learned counsel for accused during
the course of cross examination of PW.1 has confronted
the Adhaar card and DL of the accused and marked it as
Ex.D1. Admittedly, in the Adhaar card and DL the
address of the accused is mentioned as “Resident of #06,
3rd cross, Potte Phalli, Near Govt., School, Parandahalli,
Kolar-563122. It is the permanent address of the
accused. Nowhere the accused has stated that during
the year 2020 also he was residing in the address given
in the Ex.D1. Further the accused nowhere has stated
that at no point of time he had resided in Bangalore.
During the cross examination of PW.1 suggestion was
posed on behalf of the accused that during the year
2020 for nearly 4 months the accused had served as
driver in the vehicle of complainant and towards the
salary of the accused, the complainant had transferred
sum of Rs.40,000/- through google pay to the accused .
The complainant has denied the said suggestion. The
complainant is the resident of Bangalore. Hence, the
very suggestion posed to the PW.1 stating that accused
was working with the complainant as driver would go to
SCCH-24 14 C.C.14074/2022
show that accused was also residing in Bangalore on
employment, even though his permanent address is at
Kolar.
22. The complainant by referring the un-served
postal cover at Ex.P5 has admitted that legal notice is
not served to the accused since the number is wrongly
mentioned in the legal notice but deposed that he has
issued the legal notice to the address and location given
by the accused himself. Now at this juncture it would be
relevant to refer here Ex.P7 i.e., the whatsapp chat held
between the complainants and accused. During the
cross examination of PW.1, suggestion was posed on
behalf of the accused that there was constant chat and
conversation held between the complainant and
accused. The accused nowhere has disputed the Ex.P7
but only contended that it was an incomplete screen
shot of whatsapp chat held between the complainant
and accused and the complainant has produced the
screen short of whatsapp chat only to the extent which
is favorable to the case of complainant by not producing
the screen short of entire whats app chat. The accused
by posing suggestion to the Pw1 to the aforesaid effect
has admitted the conversation as per Ex;P7 held
between him and the complainant. So far as the dispute
raised by accused regarding the incomplete screen short
SCCH-24 15 C.C.14074/2022
of whatsapp chat is concerned, when accused has
admitted the conversation held between him and the
complainant as per Ex.P7, if it is an incomplete
document and if there is any other conversation/ whats
app chat held between the complainant and accused,
then the accused could have produced the screen short
of the said document. The complainant while admitting
that he has produced portion of the screen short of the
document which is the whats app chat held between the
complainant and accused during the year 2021 to 2023
has further deposed that since there was no
conversation held between him and the accused other
than the period depicted in the Ex.P7, he has not
produced the screen short of the rest of the period. Now
if really Ex.P7 is an incomplete document and if really
there was any other whatsapp conversation/ chat held
between the complainant and accused which favors the
case of accused, then the accused could have produced
the said document before the court because when
conversation was held by way of sending messages
through whatsapp, the said messages will be in the
mobile of the accused and he could have produced the
screen short of the said whatsapp chat. Hence, Ex.P7
can very well be relied upon.
SCCH-24 16 C.C.14074/2022
23. If Ex.P7 is perused, wherein there is whatsapp
chat held between complainants and accused and
complainant had asked the accused to send his address
and location. Accordingly on 15-10-2021, complainant
himself sends the address of the accused for verification
from the accused. The said address of the accused reads
as follows:
“Surya Enclave 4th cross Road, Srikrupa
Layout, Abbigere, Abbigere, Bengaluru -560015.
24. The accused having received the said message
confirmed that the said address is the correct address.
Thereafter the complainant send one more message
asking for the house number and PIN number. For
which accused forwarded his house number and PIN
number as “Door No.32, BDSL NSR Layout, Bangalore
560 090. If the address of the accused mentioned in the
legal notice and complaint is compared with the address
one confirmed by the accused as his own address in the
whatsapp chat, they are the one and same. If really, the
address mentioned in the legal notice is the incorrect
address of the accused then it can be said that the
accused intentionally has given his wrong address to the
complainant to see to it that no legal action would be
taken against him and for the wrong address furnished
by the accused , the complainant cannot be blamed.
SCCH-24 17 C.C.14074/2022
Now at this juncture it would be relevant to refer here
the bail bond executed by the accused. After registering
the case in CC register, summons was issued to the
accused. On service of summons the accused appeared
before the court on 27-07-2023 and enlarged on bail. In
the bail bond executed by the accused which is in the
case record, he has mentioned his address which is in
consonance with the address mentioned in the legal
notice and complaint. Hence, it can be said that address
mentioned in the legal notice is the correct address of
the accused and to the correct address of the accused
only notice was sent through RPAD. When legal notice
was sent to the correct address of accused through
RPAD, presumption shall be drawn u/Sec.27 of the
General Clauses Act regarding due service of legal notice.
Now at this juncture it would be relevant to refer here
the judgment relied by the learned counsel for
complainant rendered in Crl.,Revision Petition
No.814/2021 between C. Niranjan Yadav Vs. D. Ravi
Kumar wherein it was observed that “the object of
issuing legal notice u/Sec. 138 of NI Act is to protect a
bonafide drawer of cheque. It was not the intention of
the legislative that the moment a cheque is bounced,
drawer of said cheque cannot be presumed as dishonest
in each and every case. At times there may be genuine
SCCH-24 18 C.C.14074/2022
reason for non hounoring the cheque by the banker of
the drawer. Therefore, to protect such drawer, who is
honest enough in honuoring its commitments, should be
given a chance to rectify the mistake on account of
dishonour of cheque. While looking in to the proper
service of notice the court has to see whether the
address of the accused which is known to the
complainant has been properly mentioned in the
registered cover. If it is sent through such registered
address, responsibility of the complainant would end
and it is for the accused to say as to why he could not
receive the cover.
25. When complainant has issued legal notice to the
address furnished by the accused himself , the mere fact
that during the cross examination the PW.1 has
admitted that the PIN number and house number is
wrongly mentioned in the notice, the court cannot
discard the entire case of the complainant. When as
observed in the aforesaid judgment, the purpose of
issuing notice is to save the bonafide drawer of the
cheque, nothing prevented the accused to pay the money
after he appeared before the court. Hence, it can be said
that notice is duly served to the accused.
SCCH-24 19 C.C.14074/2022
26. The accused while admitting the Ex.P1 relates
to his account so also his signature in the Ex.P1 has
contended that he has issued three blank cheques with
respect to the chit transaction as security for raising chit
amount in his name. The accused nowhere has posed
suggestion to the PW.1 that the rest of the writings
except his signature are in the hand writing of the
complainant. When accused has stated that he has given
blank signed cheque, it is useful to refer here the
judgment relied by the learned counsel for complainant
reported in AIR 2019 SC 2446 between Bir Singh Vs.
Mukesh Kumar wherein it was observed that “If a signed
blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee,
towards some payment, the payee may fill up the
amount and other particulars. This in itself would not
invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the
accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of
a debt or liability by adducing evidence.
27. Hence, even a blank cheque leaf voluntarily
signed and handed over by the accused which is towards
some payment, would attract presumption u/Sec. 139 of
the NI Act in the absence of any cogent evidence to show
that cheque was issued in discharge of debt.
SCCH-24 20 C.C.14074/2022
28. Coming to the material defence taken by the
accused as to the issuance of disputed cheque as
security for the chit transaction is concerned, it is the
suggestion posed to the PW.1 on behalf of accused that,
the accused had chit transaction with the complainant
and for raising chit amount in the name of accused, he
has issued three blank cheques and the complainant
has misused one of the cheque and filed the false
complaint. It is nowhere stated by the accused the year
in which he has given the disputed cheque as security
and what total chit amount etc was. The complainant
has denied his running any chit business and accused
being the subscriber. The complainant while admitting
that accused has given two blank signed cheques ,
further deposed that complainant has financially
assisted the accused during his marriage and for the
repayment of the said amount, the accused has issued
disputed cheque as security. The PW.1 further deposed
that since accused failed to repay the amount borrowed,
at the intervention of well wishers, the accused agreed to
invest money in the chit business by paying Rs.10,000/-
per month and the complainant was using the said
amount in the chit business with the others in the name
of accused and accused agreed to repay the amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- received by him from the complainant out
SCCH-24 21 C.C.14074/2022
of the chit amount invested with others. The
complainant has admitted sum of Rs.40,000/-received
by him from the accused as per Ex.D1 towards payment
of chit subscription raised in the name of accused with
others. Though the accused has stated that he has
transferred sum of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant
towards the said chit transaction but if Ex.D1 is
perused, only sum of Rs.40,000/- was transferred
through google pay in the name of complainant. As
observed supra, complainant has admitted the transfer
of Rs.40,000/- from the accused but stated that the said
amount was towards the subscription of chit which was
made in the name of accused with others as accused has
invested money in the chit business so as to repay the
loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- received by him from the
complainant.
29. If Ex.P7 is perused, wherein there is reference
about the chit business and also reference about the
amount borrowed by the accused from the complainant
and the time sought by the accused for repayment of the
said amount to the complainant and there is also
exchange of whatsapp messages regarding payment of
amount to the accused by the complainant by borrowing
money from finance and due to nonpayment of amount
by the accused the complainant had to pay interest to
SCCH-24 22 C.C.14074/2022
the financier etc. Hence, from the Ex.P7 it can be
gathered that the accused has borrowed sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant and towards the
discharge of said debt, he has issued Ex.P1 which was
returned as Insufficient Fund. Though the accused has
denied the passing of the consideration but bare denial
of the passing of the consideration does not appear to be
any defence. Something which is probable has to be
brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the
onus of proving to the complainant. Hence, it can be said
that accused has failed to rebut the presumption by not
probablising the defence taken by him.
30. In the light of the discussion made herein
above, this court is of the considered opinion that
complainant has proved that accused has committed
offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the
affirmative.
31. POINT No.2 :- The Negotiable Instruments Act
is a Special Enactment, and the provisions of the Act
prevail over the general provisions contained in Code of
Criminal Procedure. Therefore, keeping the relevant
provisions of the Act in mind the sentence is to be
SCCH-24 23 C.C.14074/2022
passed. In the light of the reasons on the point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following;
32. POINT No.2 :- In the light of the reasons on
the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Sec.255 (2) of Cr.PC, the
accused is found guilty of the o/p/u/s 138
read with section 142 of NI Act and he is
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.4,10,000/-
(Rupees Four lakh Ten thousand only) out of
which Rs.4,05,000/- shall be paid as
compensation to the complainant under
Sec.357 of CRPC and Rs.5,000/- shall be
payable to the State.
In the event of default in payment within a
period of 2 months, the accused shall be
convicted to simple imprisonment for a period
of 3 months.
The bail bond of accused and that of
surety stands cancelled.
SCCH-24 24 C.C.14074/2022
Supply free copy of the judgment to
the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected
and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 4 th day of
January 2025.)
(ROOPASHRI)
XXII Addl.SCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru.
:ANNEXTURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEALF THE
COMPLAINANT
P.W.1 : H Ananda MurthyLIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque on 10-09-2021
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2 : Endorsement
Ex.P.3 : Copy of legal notice.
Ex.P.4 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P.5 : Postal cover
Ex.P.6 : Copy of audio recordings in
compact disk
Ex.P7 : Printout of whatsapp chats
Ex.P.8 : Certificate U/Sec.65 B of Evidence
Act.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED
– None –
SCCH-24 25 C.C.14074/2022
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Ex.D1 – Xerox copy of Aadhar card and DL of
the accusedEx.D2 : – Down load copy of google pay history
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru.