Bangalore District Court
H M Prabhuswamy vs Srinivas on 20 January, 2025
KABC030186562021
Presented on : 15-03-2021
Registered on : 15-03-2021
Decided on : 20-01-2025
Duration : 3 years, 10 months, 5 days
IN THE COURT OF XX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: SRI. SHRISHAIL BHIMASHEN BAGADI,
B.Com.,L.L.B.,
XX ADDL. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
Dated this the 20th day of January 2025
C.C.No. 6322/ 2021
Complainant : Sri.H M Prabhuswamy,
Aged about 52 years,
S/o. Mallikarjunappa,
R/at No.73, 1st Main Road,
7th Cross, Rajagopalanagara,
Peenya 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 58
{ By Sri.Hanumantharayappa M-
Advocate }
Vs.
2 C.C. 6322 / 2021
Sri. Srinivasa,
Accused : Aged about 52 years,
Proprietor of
M/s.L V Fab Tech,
B/at No.102, Thigalarapalya,
Andrahalli Main Road,
Bengaluru - 58
{ By Sri.S.N.Rajashekar Raju
- Advocate }
Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act.,
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is guilty
Date of Order : 20.01.2025
3 C.C. 6322 / 2021
JUDGMENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under
section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the accused, alleging
that the accused has committed an offence punishable
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are as
follows :
The complainant and accused have known each other
for five years; based on their cordial acquaintance, the
accused approached the complainant in the first week of
August 2019 to seek financial assistance of Rs. 4,40,000/-
to meet his domestic and personal commitments. The
accused assured the complainant that he would repay the
loan amount within three months with interest at the rate
of 12% per annum. Looking into the financial need of the
accused, the complainant lent a sum of Rs. 4,40,000/- to
the accused on 05.09.2019 by way of cash. After receipt of
the loan, the accused failed to pay the interest and
4 C.C. 6322 / 2021principal amount. After repeated demands and personal
approaches, the accused issued a cheque bearing no.
000026 dated 07.10.2020 for a sum of Rs. 4,40,000/-
drawn on M/s PMC Bank Ltd, Peenya Branch,
Bengaluru.The accused informed the complainant that the
said cheque was given to him towards the principal amount
and assured him that he would pay the principal amount
on or before 07.10.2020. As per the instructions of the
accused, the complainant presented the said cheque for
collection on 07.10.2020 through his banker, State Bank of
India, Peenya Branch, Bengaluru, but the said cheque
came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘Bank
blocked by RBI’ as per bank endorsement dated
07.10.2020. The factum of dishonour of the cheque was
duly communicated to the accused by issuing a legal notice
dated 20.10.2020. The legal notice was duly served to the
accused on 22.10.2020. After receipt of the legal notice, the
accused gave an evasive reply notice dated 29.10.2020.
Even after the completion of fifteen days from the date of
5 C.C. 6322 / 2021
the legal notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque
amount; hence the complainant has filed this complaint.
3. The complainant to prove the material allegations
made against the accused in the complaint, examined
himself as PW.1 by way of sworn statement and got marked
documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.7. on perusal of contents of
complaint, sworn statement and documents, the court took
cognizance of the offense punishable under section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, and registered the top
noted case and also issued a summons to the accused. On
receipt of the summons, the accused appeared before the
court through his counsel and was enlarged on bail, the
copy of the complaint and other relevant documents were
supplied to him, the substance of the accusation was read
over and explained to him, he did not pleaded the guilt and
claimed to be tried. As per section 145(1) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, the sworn statement affidavit of the
complainant treated as chief examination, and also
adopted the documents, the learned counsel for the
6 C.C. 6322 / 2021
accused fully cross examined the PW.1. after completion of
the complainant side evidence, the incriminating evidence
available against the accused was read over and explained
to him, the accused denied entire evidence of the
complainant and to prove his defense examined himself on
oath as DW.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.D.1 to
D.6.
4. On perusal of the complaint averments and
material documents produced before the court, the
following points that arise for my consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1.Whether the accused has
successfully rebutted the
presumption available against him
under section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, that the cheque in
question was not issued to the
complainant to pay the legally
enforceable debt ?
7 C.C. 6322 / 2021
2.Whether the complainant has
complied with mandatory
requirements of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act ?
3.What order or sentence ?
5. I have heard arguments from the learned counsel
for the complainant and learned counsel for the accused.
6. The learned counsel for the accused in support of
his arguments placed his reliance on the following
judgments.
1. (2015) 1 SCC 99
K.Subramani V/s K.Damodara Naidu
2. (2019) 5 SCC 418
Basalingappa Vs Mudibasappa
3. (2013) 3 SCC 86
Vijay V/s Laxman and another
4. 2015 0 Supreme (P&H) 1429
Karan Anand Vs Kamal Bakshi
5. ILR 2014 KAR 6572
Sri.H.Manjunath Vs Sri.A.M.Basavaraju
6. ILR 2009 KAR 172
Sri.A.Viswanatha Pai Vs Sri.Vivekananda S.Bhat
7. (2014) 2 SCC 236
John K.Abraham Vs Simon C.Abraham
and another
8. 2009 Cr.L.J 3777 Bombay High Court
8 C.C. 6322 / 2021
Sanjay Mishra Vs Ms.Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki
and another
7. Upon hearing arguments and on perusal of the oral
and documentary evidence made available by the
complainant and the accused and on going through the
ratio laid down in the decisions referred by the learned
counsel for the accused, my answers to the above said
points are as under.
Point No.1 In the negative
Point No.2 In the affirmative
Point No.3 As per the final
order for the following
REASONS
Point No.1 and 2 :
8. These points are interconnected with each other,
hence to avoid repetition of facts and appreciation of
evidence, both points are taken together for common
discussion.
The complainant filed this complaint to recover the
cheque amount from the accused and to punish him in
accordance with the law. It is the case of the complainant
9 C.C. 6322 / 2021
that he and the accused have known each other for five
years, based on acquaintance; the accused approached the
complainant in the first week of August 2019 for financial
assistance of Rs. 4,40,000/- for his domestic problems and
personal commitments. Accordingly, the complainant lent a
sum of Rs. 4,40,000/- to the accused on 05.09.2019 by
way of cash; the accused undertakes to pay the amount
within three months and also agrees to repay the amount
with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. After the
stipulated period, the accused failed to pay the principal
amount and interest. After repeated demands and personal
approaches, the accused issued the disputed cheque to the
complainant on 02.07.2020 by putting the date
07.10.2020, and he issued the said cheque to pay the
principal amount and undertakes to pay the interest on or
before 07.10.2020. As per the request of the accused, the
complainant presented the said cheque for collection on
07.10.2020, but the said cheque came to be dishonoured
with an endorsement ‘Bank Blocked by RBI ‘ as per the
bank endorsement dated 07.10.2020. The factum of
10 C.C. 6322 / 2021
dishonour of the cheque was duly communicated to the
accused by issuing a legal notice dated 20.10.2020, which
was duly served to him on 22.10.2020. The accused,
instead of payment of the cheque amount, issued an
evasive reply notice on 29.10.2020; accordingly, the
complainant has filed this complaint.
9. The complainant to prove his case, examined
himself as PW.1 and in his examination in chief affidavit,
he has reiterated the contents of the complaint, in addition
to the oral evidence, the complainant has produced the
documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.7. among these documents
Ex.P.1 is the cheque issued by the accused, the signature
of the accused marked as Ex.P.1(a), Ex.P.2 is the cheque
return memo, wherein it is mentioned that, the cheque
issued by the accused was dishonored due ‘ Bank Blocked
by RBI’, Ex.P.3 is the legal notice issued by the
complainant to the accused calling him to pay the cheque
amount, Ex.P.5 is the postal acknowledgment, Ex.P.6 is
the reply notice issued by the accused, Wherein he took up
the contention that there was a chit transaction between
11 C.C. 6322 / 2021
the complainant and accused; at the time of bidding the
chit amount, there was an agreement entered between
them, and the cheque in question was given to the
complainant as a security for the chit amount, and after
repayment of the chit amount, the complainant tore the
agreement, and he promised the accused that the cheque
in question had been misplaced; if he got the cheque, then
he would return the same, but he did not return the
cheque. Ex.P.7 is the bank statement.
10. The learned counsel for the accused has cross-
examined the PW.1 and asked certain questions regarding
the financial capacity to lend money to the accused. The
PW.1 has stated in his cross-examination that he withdrew
the sum of Rs. 4,40,000/- from his SBI savings bank
account on 05.09.2019, and he had only a sum of 20 to 30
thousand additional amounts in his hand except the
amount withdrawn from the bank on 05.09.2019. He
further stated that he has filed several cheque bounce
cases against different persons; he further admits that the
writings made on Ex.P.1 and other cheques produced in
12 C.C. 6322 / 2021
various cases are the same; indirectly he admits that he
has filled up the cheques and dates. Except for these
admissions, the learned counsel for the accused failed to
elicit from the mouth of the complainant that the cheque in
question was given to him as security for availing the chit
fund amount.
11. The accused to rebut the presumption under
section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, examined
himself on oath as DW.1 and in his examination in chief
deposed that, he knew the complainant from his friend by
name Nagaraj, in the year 2017 the complainant offered a
chit amount of Rs.5 lakh, the members of chit was required
to pay per month of Rs.25,000/-, so he took two chits for
Rs.5 lakh, and he used to pay a sum of Rs.25 thousand per
month, he paid each month chit amount of Rs.25 thousand
for twenty months, and he received 7th and 14th chit
amount, at that time he had executed an agreement with
complainant and also gave one blank signed cheque as a
security, and he cleared entire chit amount in the year
2018, and he asked the complainant to return the
13 C.C. 6322 / 2021
agreement and blank signed cheque, but he told that, the
cheque was misplaced and if he got the cheque would
return to him, thereafter he came to know about misuse of
cheque when he received notice from the complainant,as
such, there was no financial transaction that took place
between him and the complainant, and he had paid the
entire chit amount to the complainant, and there was no
due amount payable by him to the complainant. In
addition to oral evidence, the accused has produced the
documents as per Ex.D.1 to D.6; among these documents,
Ex.D.1 is the cheque produced in CC No.10989/2022
issued in the name of the complainant by one Putteswamy.
The handwriting that appeared on Ex.D.1 and Ex.P.1 is
one and the same. Ex.D.2 is another cheque produced in
CC No.10982/2022 issued in the name of the complainant;
the handwriting appeared on Ex.D.2 and Ex.P.1 are the
same. Ex.D.3. D4, D.5 are the certified copies of the private
complaints filed by the complainant against the different
persons for the offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. Ex.D.6 is the copy of the reply
14 C.C. 6322 / 2021
notice given by Puttegouda, stating that he and the
complainant entered into the chit fund business, and the
complainant took the cheque from him as security.
12. The learned counsel for the complainant has
cross-examined DW.1 and extracted certain material
admissions to show that the accused failed to rebut the
presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The DW.1/Accused in his cross-
examination deposed that he studied up to SSLC, he writes
and reads in the Kannada language, he admits that Ex.P.1
cheque belongs to him, and the signature appeared on the
cheque is also his, and he also identified his signature
appeared on postal acknowledgment/Ex.P.5 and he sent a
reply notice as per Ex.P6, but he does not know the
contents of the reply notice, and also he does not know
that the accused persons in respect of Ex.D3 and D.4 cases
have compromised the cases with the complainant; he
further deposed that he could not produce any documents
to show that the complainant was doing chit business
because the said chit business was unregistered.
15 C.C. 6322 / 2021
13. The defense of the accused is that the cheque in
question was received by the complainant from the accused
as security for lending chit amounts to the accused. The
foremost question involved in this case is whether the
accused has established before the court that the
complainant was doing chit business or money lending
business. The accused has produced certified copies of the
cheques produced in another case. The handwriting
appeared on the cheque and in the present cheque are one
and the same. If the complainant filled up the cheques to
recover the legally recoverable debt, it is permissible; it is
the duty of the accused to prove that, as of the date of
issuance of cheque there was no existence of the legally
recoverable debt, in this regard I have relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported
in (2019)4 SCC 197 Bir Singh Vs Mukesh Kumar , wherein
it was held 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, without admitting the execution of the entire
16 C.C. 6322 / 2021
contents in the cheque, is not sufficient to trigger the
presumption. Further held that, as soon as the
complainant discharges the burden to prove that, the
instrument was issued by the accused for discharge of
debt, the presumptive device under section 139 of the Act,
that helps to shift the 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.”
14. The learned counsel for the accused has
vehemently argued that the complainant did not have the
financial capacity to lend money; in this regard, it is useful
to see the contents of the reply notice marked as Ex.P.6,
wherein the accused did not raise any defence regarding
the financial capacity of the complainant; under such
circumstances, the complainant need not establish his
financial capacity, in this regard I have relied upon the
judgment reported in 2022(6)SCC 735 between Tedhi Sing
17 C.C. 6322 / 2021
versus Narayan Mahanth, In this judgment the Hon’ble
Apex Court of India has held that the presumption under
Section 139 of the act that the holder of the cheque
received the cheque of the nature referred in Section 139
for the discharge in whole or in part of debt or liability,
however, is expressively made subject to the possession
being proved to the contrary, in other words, it is open to
the accused to establish reverse onus the accused is not
expected to discharge as an unduly high standard of proof,
accordingly that the principle has developed that which the
accused needs to establish is probable defence as to
whether the probable defence has been established is the
matter to be decided by the facts every case on the
conspectus evidence and circumstantial evidence. The
pursuance under Section 138 of N.I.Act is not of a civil suit
and at the time when the complainant is gives his evidence
unless the case is setup in reply notice to the statutory
notice sent that the complainant did not have financial
capacity it cannot be expected of the complainant to
initially lead evidence to show that he had financial
18 C.C. 6322 / 2021
capacity to that extent the Court in our opinion were right
to holding that those lines however the accused has to the
right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular
case did not have capacity and therefore the case of the
accused is acceptable which he can do by producing
independent materials namely examining case witnesses
producing documents it is also upon to him to establish a
very same aspect by pointing out to the material produced
by the complainant himself he can further more
importantly achieve this result through cross examination
of the witnesses of the complainant ultimately it becomes
duty of the Court to consider carefully and appreciate of
the evidence and then come to the conclusion that whether
in a given case the accused has shown that the case of the
complainant is in peril for the reasons that the accused has
establish the probable defense, and held that if the accused
fail to give reply notice then it is to be presumed that she
admits the case of complainant and she did not establish
the financial capacity, it is not expected to the
complainant to prove the financial capacity before the
19 C.C. 6322 / 2021
Court. In the reply notice took up the contention that the
complainant had not financial capacity then it is possible
for the complainant to produce sustainable document or
evidence to prove the financial capacity therefore the
decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for accused is
not applicable to the case on hand because in this case the
accused has fail to give reply notice and she has not
disclose her defense by issuing reply notice under such
circumstances it is not expected to the complainant to
prove the financial capacity before the Court.
15. The accused has produced the case details as
per Ex.D.3 and D.4, though the accused in CC
No.10989/2022/Ex.D.4 took up the contention that the
complainant was doing chit-fund business, but the very
same accused admitted his liability and entered into a
compromise with the complainant. If really the
complainant in CC No.10989/2022 had received the
cheque as a security for lending the chit amount, and if
really he had misused the said cheque even after
repayment of the chit-found amount, then the accused of
20 C.C. 6322 / 2021
that case could not have entered into a compromise with
the complainant. On perusal of Ex.D.1 to D.7, it is clear
that the complainant had financial capacity to lend money,
under such circumstances it is not desirable to raise the
presumption that, the complainant did not have financial
capacity to lend money. In this regard, it is useful to refer
to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
reported in AIR 2019 SC 1876 between Rohitbhai Jivanlal
Patel Vs State of Gujarat and another, in this case the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that, it is required
to be presumed that the cheques in question were drawn
for consideration and the complainant received it in
discharge of an existing debt and onus is shifted on the
accused to rebut it. Unless onus is discharged by accused
that preponderance of probabilities are tilting in his favor,
doubt on the case of complainant cannot be raised for want
of evidence regarding source of funds for advancing the
loan to the accused.
16. The learned counsel for the accused has relied
upon the decision reported in (2014) 2 SCC 236 between
21 C.C. 6322 / 2021
John K.Abraham Vs Simon C.Abraham and another, in
this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that,
the complainant failed to produce relevant document in
support of the alleged source for advancing money to the
accused and complainant also not aware as to when and
where the transaction took place for which the cheque in
question was issued to him by the accused. This judgment
was rendered in the year 2014, thereafter the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has delivered the latest Judgment
reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1275 between Rajesh Jain
Vs Ajay Singh, in this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has held that, the legal burden is the burden of proof
which remains constant throughout a trial. On the other
hand, the evidential burden may shift from one party to
another as the trial progresses, according to the balance of
evidence given at any particular stage. In all trials
concerning dishonour of cheque, the court are called upon
to consider whether the ingredients of the offence
enumerated in section 138 of the Act have been met and if
so, whether the accused was able to rebut the statutory
22 C.C. 6322 / 2021
presumption contemplated by section 139 of the Act,
further, it said that section 139 is a reverse onus clause
and requires the accused to prove the non-existence of the
presumed fact, I,e that cheque was not issued in discharge
of a debt/ liability. Further held that, the NI Act provides
for two presumptions, one under section 118 of the Act,
which directs that it shall be presumed, until the contrary
is proved, that every negotiable instrument was made or
drawn for consideration. Further, under section 139, which
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. The ‘presumed fact’ directly relates to one of the
crucial ingredients necessary to sustain a conviction under
section 138 of the NI Act. Further held that, section 139 of
the NI Act, which takes the form of a ‘shall presume’ clause
is illustrative of a presumption of law. It is obligatory for
the court to raise this presumption has been established.
But this does not preclude the person against whom the
presumption has been established. But this does not
23 C.C. 6322 / 2021
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’, after taking note of Bir Singh Vs Mukesh Kumar
(2019)4 SCC 197, wherein it was held 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, without admitting
the execution of the entire contents in the cheque, is not
sufficient to trigger the presumption. Further held that, as
soon as the complainant discharges the burden to prove
that, the instrument was issued by the accused for
discharge of debt, the presumptive device under section
139 of the Act, that helps to shift the 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. In the
case of Basalingappa Vs Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418
24 C.C. 6322 / 2021
held that, to rebut the presumption and prove to the
contrary, it is open to the accused to raise a probable
defence, wherein the existence of a liability enforceable
debt or liability can be contested. The words ‘ until the
contrary is proved’ occurring in Section 139 do not mean
that accused must necessarily prove the negative that the
instrument is not issued in discharge of any debt/liability,
but the accused has two options. The first option is to
prove that the debt/liability does not exist and conclusively
establish the cheque was not issued in discharge of a
debt / liability. The second option is to prove the non
existence of debt / liability by a preponderance of
probabilities by referring to the circumstances of the case.
The nature of evidence required to shift the evidential
burden need not necessarily be direct I,e oral or
documentary evidence or admissions made by the opposite
party ; it may comprise circumstantial evidence or
presumption of law or fact.
17. The accused has not taken any action against
the complainant regarding the misuse of the cheque, and
25 C.C. 6322 / 2021
also he has not stated anything in his reply notice that the
complainant did not have the financial capacity to lend
money. The complainant has specifically stated in the legal
notice, the complainant, sworn statement that he had lent
money to the accused on 05.09.2019; therefore, the
complainant has not stated any contradictory evidence
regarding the date of lending money to the accused. The
complainant has indeed filed several cheque bounce cases
against different persons. When any particular person
issues a cheque to the complainant to discharge the legally
enforceable debt without maintaining sufficient balance,
then the complainant certainly would file a cheque bounce
case against them. Mere filing several cheque bounce cases
does not mean that all the cases filed by him are false
cases; moreover, in some of the cases, the accused persons
have entered into a compromise with the complainant. If
those cases are false cases, then the accused persons could
not have entered into a compromise with the complainant.
Therefore, because of recent judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India reported in 2023 SCC Online SC
26 C.C. 6322 / 2021
1275 between Rajesh Jain Vs Ajay Singh , and regarding
the failure of the accused to take defence in his reply notice
regarding the financial capacity of the complainant, the
decision rendered in 2022(6)SCC 735 between Tedhi Sing
versus Narayan Mahanth, there is no need to prove his
financial capacity, the decision relied upon the learned
counsel for the accused reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418
Basalingappa Vs Mudibasappa has been discussed by the
Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case Rajesh Jain Vs
Ajay Singh. Even if the complainant filled up the blank
cheque, it is permissible as per section 20 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, which has been discussed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of (2019)4 SCC 197 Bir
Singh Vs Mukesh Kumar. Therefore, with due respect, the
decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the
accused do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the
case and also because of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India. If the facts and evidence of the
case are not sufficient to dispose of the case, then the court
has to go through with the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
27 C.C. 6322 / 2021
Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court, but in this case, the
accused failed to rebut the presumption that he had
cleared the chit amount and he had given the cheque as
security for availing the chit fund amount; under such
circumstances, the court need not go into the financial
capacity of the complainant.
18. Therefore, overall analysis of the oral and
documentary evidence made available by the complainant
and the accused, it is clear that the accused had issued the
cheque to pay the legally enforceable debt, and the accused
failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act; hence the accused is liable to
be convicted for the offence under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, accordingly I answer point
no.1 in the negative and point no.2 in the affirmative.
Point No.3:
19. For the above said reasons and discussions, I proceed
to pass the following:
28 C.C. 6322 / 2021
ORDERS
Acting under Section 255(2) of code
of criminal procedure, the accused is
hereby convicted for the offense
punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
As per section 357(1)(b) of code of
criminal procedure, the accused
persons shall pay a fine of
Rs.4,45,000/- (RUPEES FOUR LAKH
FORTY FIVE THOUSAND ONLY) out of
that Rs.4,40,000/- (RUPEES FOUR
LAKH FORTY THOUSAND ONLY )
payable to the Complainant as
compensation and of Rs.5,000/-
( RUPEES FIVE THOUSAND ONLY) is
remitted to the state of government, in
default of payment of fine the accused
shall under go simple imprisonment for
a period of 6 months.
The bail bond and surety bonds
executed by the accused stands
canceled.
29 C.C. 6322 / 2021
The office is directed to supply free
copy of the judgment to the accused.
{Typed directly on laptop, revised corrected and then pronounced in
the open court on this 20th day of January 2025}.
(SHRISHAIL BHIMASHEN BAGADI)
XX A.C.J.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1 H M Prabhuswamy
List of documents produced on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque
Ex.P. 1(a) Signature of the accused
Ex.P.2 Bankers Return Memo
Ex.P.3 Copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.4 Postal receipt
Ex.P.5 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.6 Reply notice
30 C.C. 6322 / 2021
Ex.P.6(a) Postal cover of reply notice.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
D.W.1 Srinivas
List of documents produced on behalf of accused:
Ex.D1 & D2 Cheques
Ex.D3 Copy of complaint in
CC 16732/2020
Ex.D4 Copy of complaint in
CC 10989/2020
Ex.D5 Copy of complaint in
CC 10983/2020
Ex.D6 Copy of legal notice dated
10.01.2022
XX A.C.J.M.,
Bengaluru.
[ad_1]
Source link