[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
K.B. Girish vs Sujatha Gopal on 1 July, 2025
CC.No.20739/2022
KABC030525202022
Presented on : 29-06-2022
Registered on : 29-06-2022
Decided on : 01-07-2025
Duration : 3 years, 0 months, 2 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 1st day of July 2025
Present: Smt.Tejaswini K.M., B.A.L. LL.M,
XVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
CC. No.20739/2022
Mr.K.B.Girish
Aged about 48 years
S/o Late. Byra Shetty
R/at No.20/2, 3rd Main, 10th Stage,
BEML Layout, Opp. Amma's Pasty,
Srinivasapura Cross,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560098.
....Complainant
(By Sri N.Krishna Murthy., Advocate)
Versus
2 C.C.20739/2022
Smt.Sujatha Gopal
W/o Late Gopal
Balaji Departmental Store,
No.2138, 38th C Cross,
Jayanagar 9th Block,
Bengaluru - 560041.
And R/at No.1169, 35th 'B' Cross,
4th 'T' Block, Vishnuvardhan House Road,
Jayanagar 'T' Block,
Bengaluru - 560041.
.... Accused
(By Sri N.Manohar., Advocate)
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Date of commencement
of evidence : 27.06.2022
Date of closing evidence : 27.09.2024
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
3 C.C.20739/2022
JUDGMENT
This case is registered against the accused for the
offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
2. Factual matrix of the complainant’s case is as
under:
The complainant is acquainted with the accused and
the accused was running departmental store in the name
and style as ‘Balaji Departmental Store’. To clear all the
petty loans, the accused sought hand loan of Rs.1,80,000/-
to the complainant in the month of February 2021. The
complainant had Rs.30,000/- in hand at home and he has
withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from his bank account
and given Rs.1,80,000/- by way of cash to the accused on
12.02.2021. The accused has agreed to repay it within 6
months, but due to pandemic, she could not pay the
4 C.C.20739/2022amount. On 13.02.2022 the accused has called the
complainant and give cheque bearing No.000122 dated
13.02.2022 for Rs.1,80,000/-, drawn on Karur Vysya Bank,
Jayanagar Branch, Bengaluru, in discharge of loan. The
complainant presented the cheque before the bank. But
the said cheque got dishonoured for ‘Refer to Drawer’
vide memo dated 15.01.2022. The complainant got issued
legal notice on 11.02.2022 demanding the accused to
make payment amount within 15 days from the date of
service of notice and it was received by the accused on
17.02.2022. However, the accused has not repaid the
amount. Hence the complainant has constrained to file
the present complaint.
3. After receiving the complaint, this court has
meticulously gone through the documents and affidavit
filed along with it and then took cognizance of the offence
5 C.C.20739/2022
punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and
ordered for registration of the compliant as P.C.R.
4. Sworn statement of the complainant was
recorded and marked 14 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-14. As
there were sufficient materials to constitute the offence,
this court has proceeded to pass an order for issuing
process against the accused.
5. In pursuance of summons, accused has appeared
through her counsel and applied for bail. She was
enlarged on bail. Then the substance of accusation was
read over to the accused in the language known to her,
for which she pleaded not guilty.
6. As per the direction of Hon’ble supreme court in
“Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others
reported in (2014)(5) SCC 590, this court treated the
sworn statement of the complainant as complainant
6 C.C.20739/2022
evidence and posted matter for cross-examination of
PW.1. The counsel for the accused has fully cross-
examined PW.1. Thereafter the complainant closed his
side of evidence.
7. The statement of accused as contemplated under
the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded
vide dated 06.01.2024 and the incriminating evidence as
such forthcoming against the accused in the evidence of
PW.1 and the documents has been read over and
explained to the accused in the language known to her.
She denied all incriminating evidence.
8. In order to substantiate her defense, the accused
got herself examined as DW.1. DW.1 was subjected for
cross-examination by the learned counsel for the
complainant.
7 C.C.20739/2022
9. Learned Counsel for both sides have not
addressed arguments on merits. I have perused the oral
and the documentary evidence placed on record.
10. Points that arise for my consideration are as
under:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the
accused towards discharge of her liabilityissued a cheque bearing No.000122 dated
13.01.2022 for Rs.1,80,000/-, drawn on The
Karur Vysya Bank, Jayanagar Branch,
Bengaluru in favour of complainant, on
presentation of the same for encashment, it
was dishonored for “Refer to Drawer” in the
account maintained by the accused, then in-
spite of issuing demand notice to the
Accused and in complying with statutory
requirement under Negotiable Instrument
Act, Accused did not repay the cheque
amount, thereby she has committed an
offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act?
8 C.C.20739/2022
2. What Order?
11. My Answer to above points are as under:-
Point No.I :- In the Affirmative,
Point No.II :- As per the final order for
the following....
REASONS
12. POINT NO.I:- In nutshell case of the complainant
is that he has lent loan of Rs.1,80,000/- to the accused on
12.02.2021 and in repayment of the said amount the
accused has issued cheque in question. But it got
dishonoured for the reason ‘Refer to Drawer’. Despite of
giving notice, the accused has not repaid the amount.
Hence the present complaint.
13. To substantiate his case the complainant
stepped into witness box and got examined as PW.1. He
has got marked Ex.P1 to P14. He has produced the
cheque issued by accused and the same is marked as
9 C.C.20739/2022
Ex.P-1, the signature of the accused is marked as Ex.P-
1(a), copies of bank memos are marked as Ex.P-2 & P3,
copies of bank challans are mared as Ex.P-4 & P-5, copy of
demand notice dated:11.02.2022 is marked as Ex.P-6,
copies of postal receipts are marked as Ex.P-7 & 8, copy of
the postal acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P-9, copy of
returned notice is marked as Ex.P-10, postal cover is
marked as Ex.P-11, copy of postal receipt is marked as
Ex.P-12, copy of postal acknowledgment is marked as
Ex.P-13 and complaint is marked as Ex.P-14.
14. Defense of the accused is as follows:
She does not know the complainant and she has not
received any money from the complainant. She had
invested for chit fund with Smt.Usha in the year 2018 and
it was closed in the year 2020, that time the cheque was
given to Smt.Usha for security purpose. After completion
of the chit, the accused sought Smt.Usha to return the
10 C.C.20739/2022cheque, but she has not returned it. As such the accused
has given complaint in the Chennammanakere Achukattu
police station in the year 2020, but Usha told she lost her
cheque. That cheque has been misused and filed this
case. She has not received any demand notice from the
complainant. Hence, on these grounds accused prays
acquit her from this case.
15. Negotiable Instruments Act provides for some
presumption in favour of the complainant i.e., Section 118
reads as here: – “That every negotiable instrument was
made or drawn for consideration and that every such
instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed,
negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed,
negotiated or transferred for consideration”.
16. Further Sec 139 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act provides for presumption in favour of a holder. It
reads as here: – “It shall be presumed, unless the contrary
11 C.C.20739/2022
is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the
cheque, of the nature referred to in sec 138, for the
discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other
liability.”
17. Combined reading of above said sections raises
a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that
he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part
of any debt or other liability. However, it is settled
principle of law that the presumption available u/s 139 NI
Act can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable
defense.
18. The complainant has reiterated the contents of
complaint in his chief-examination. During cross-
examination by the counsel for the accused he has
deposed that he is doing cable operating work from past
26 years and he has income of Rs.2 to 3 lakhs month. He
pays Rs.12,500/- for the rent of his shop and he can save
12 C.C.20739/2022
around Rs.70,000/- per month, after deducting all his
expenses. He knows the accused from the year 1996-1997
as she was residing in the same road in a rented house.
He has paid Rs.1,80,000/- on 15.02.2021, he has taken
gold loan and arranged Rs.1,50,000/- and along with, he
had Rs.30,000/-, intotal the said amount of Rs.1,80,000/-
was given to the accused. He deposed that he has not got
executed any document from the accused while giving the
loan. He has deposed that the accused herself has filled
the cheque and given to him. Since the accused sought
loan amount by way of cash, he has given it by way of
cash. He does not know who signed to Ex.P9 postal
acknowledgment. He admits that there is a difference in
the signature at Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P9 postal
acknowledgment. He denied that the accused has not
received the notice. He deposed he met the accused in
13 C.C.20739/2022
her Balaji Departmental Store. He denied the suggestion
that accused does not run any departmental store.
19. PW1 denied the suggestion of the counsel for
the accused that he has not given loan to the accused. He
admits he knows one Smt.Usha who is police and her
husband name is Kumar. He denied the suggestion of the
counsel for the accused that Smt.Usha was running chit
business. He denied the suggestion of the counsel for the
accused that the accused had invested money with
Smt.Usha in the said chit fund. He denied the suggestion
of the counsel for the accused that in the said transaction
accused had given cheque in question towards security to
Smt.Usha and same is misused by him and false case is
filed by him. The remaining suggestions of the counsel
for the accused are denied by him.
20. Percontra, the accused stepped into witness box
and got examined as DW.1. She has deposed that her
14 C.C.20739/2022
correct address is No.342, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru.
She does not know the complainant and she has not
received any money from the complainant. She had
invested for chit fund with Smt.Usha in the year 2018 and
it was closed in the year 2020 that time the cheque was
given to Smt.Usha for security purpose. After completion
of the chit, the accused sought Smt.Usha to return the
cheque, but she has not returned it. As such the accused
has given complaint in the Chennammanakere Achukattu
police station in the year 2020, but Smt.Usha told she lost
her cheque. That cheque has been misused by the
complainant and filed this case. She has not received any
demand notice from the complainant.
21. During cross-examination by the counsel for the
complainant, DW1 has deposed that she does not know
the complainant. When it is suggested that between 1997
to 1998 she was residing in Srinivasanagar, Yellamma
15 C.C.20739/2022
Temple, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru, she has
answered about 23 years back, she has changed the said
address. Further it is suggested by the counsel for the
complainant that she was residing in the house of lottery
Shivanna which is 3 roads away from the first address, she
answered aforesaid mentioned address is lottery
Shivanna’s house address and she has changed the said
address. She denied the suggestion of the counsel for the
complainant that she was running Balaji Departmental
Store in Jayanagar. She denied the suggestion of the
counsel for the complainant that she sought loan of
Rs.1,80,000/- from the complainant and received it on
12.02.2021 agreeing to repay it within 6 months.
22. DW1 admits that cheque belongs to her account
and it bears her signature. She admits she has an account
in Karur Vysya Bank, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. She deposed
that she does not know that the cheque has got
16 C.C.20739/2022
dishonoured, twice. She denied the suggestion of the
counsel for the complainant that complainant has given
the notice to her shop address. She denied that she has
refused to take notice. She denied that she owes cheque
amount to the complainant.
23. I have meticulously gone through the complaint
and evidence placed on record. Both counsel have not
addressed the arguments on merits. At the outset the
accused during cross-examination has unequivocally
admitted that cheque belongs to her account and it bears
her signature. The Honorable Supreme Court of India in
“Triyambak S Hegde v Sripad” (2022) 1 SCC 742 while
relying upon the the constitution bench judgment of
Basalingappa v Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, under
para 14 of its judgment reiterated that
“once the cheque was issued and that the
signatures are upon the cheque are accepted by
17 C.C.20739/2022
the accused, the presumptions undee Sec 118
and 139 of the NI Act arise against the accused.
That is, unless the contrary is proved, it shall be
presumed that the cheques in question were
drawn by the accused for a consideration and
that the complainant had received the cheque in
question in discharge of debt/liability from the
accused.”
24. Therefore, as per Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act initial
presumption has to drawn infavour of the complainant
that cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable
debt. The burden lies on the accused to rebut the said
initial presumption on the scale of preponderance of
probabilities.
25. The complainant has deposed that he has given
Rs.1,80,000/- by way of cash to the accused. He has
pleaded and also deposed that he had Rs.30,000/- with
him and remaining Rs.1,50,000/- has withdrawn from the
account and same was given to the accused. He has
18 C.C.20739/2022
deposed that he had income of Rs.2 to 3 lakhs per month.
However no document is produced by the complainant to
prove the same. But there is an initial presumption
regarding passing of consideration U/Sec.118 of NI Act,
therefore this Court has to presume that the complainant
has paid Rs.1,80,000/- to the accused until the accused
rebuts it on the scale of preponderance of probabilities.
26. The defense of the accused is that she had
invested for chit fund with one Smt.Usha and during that
time, she had given cheque in question towards security
to Smt.Usha and that cheque has been misused by the
complainant and false case is filed. Since the initial burden
is on the accused to rebut the initial presumption drawn
in favour of the complainant, the accused shall establish
chit transaction before the Court to believe her defense.
She has deposed that the chit was commenced in the year
2018 and it was closed in the year 2020 and she has
19 C.C.20739/2022
received Rs.2 lakhs from the said chit. Firstly to prove that
she has invested money with Smt.Usha for chit
transaction , no proof is produced. Secondly, to prove that
she had received Rs.2 lakhs from the chit transaction also
no proof is produced. Thirdly, there is no proof to believe
that the cheque in question was given to Smt.Usha as
security. This witness Smt.Usha is also not examined
before the court.
27. The accused herself has deposed that said chit
was closed in the year 2020 itself. Instant complaint is
filed on 09.03.2022. Therefore, the accused had 2 years
time to recover her cheque from Smt.Usha, if at all she
had given it for security in chit transaction. In chief-
examination accused has deposed that she had given
police complaint against Smt.Usha in the year 2020 itself.
However copy of the complaint is not produced before the
Court for the reasons best known to her. Even she has not
20 C.C.20739/2022
examined Smt.Usha before this Court. None of the chit
members are examined before this Court to establish her
defense. No iota of evidence brought on record to
establish this chit transaction with Smt.Usha. Based on
self interested testimony of accused, such defense cannot
be accepted for want of evidence.
28. If at all Smt.Usha has refused to return the
cheque she could have issued ‘stop payment instructions’
to her banker or she could have given legal notice to her
seeking return of the cheque or she could have lodged
police complaint or the private complaint before the
Court. Despite of having sufficient time of 2 years, till the
date of filing this case, accused has not at all made any
such endeavor to recover her cheque. Under such
circumstances, such imprudent conduct of the accused
makes defense untrustworthy.
21 C.C.20739/2022
29. In the present case complainant has presented
the cheque twice to the bank as per Ex.P2 & P3 on
14.01.2022 and 05.02.2022. The accused admits that she
maintained account in the Karur Vysya Bank, Jayangar,
Bengaluru. Then she must have received message from
the bank when the cheque was presented by the
complainant. Atleast at that stage accused could have
been get herself alert and she had all opportunity to resist
the act of the complainant. However, she had not taken
any action against the complainant.
30. Further complainant has given legal notice as
per Ex.P6 through RPAD and it was served as per Ex.P9.
The complainant has given notice to the 2 addresses of
the accused. Notice at Ex.P10 has been returned as ‘no
such person’. During cross-examination of PW.1, the
accused has disputed her address shown in the legal
notice, but PW.1 has denied it. Except her statement in
22 C.C.20739/2022
the evidence, no evidence has been produced to prove
her correct address. She could have produced her current
residential address proof to disprove that the notice is
given to the wrong address. However, the accused has
not made such endeavor also. Therefore, this Court
declines to accept that the notice is not served on her.
31. Therefore, as per Sec.27 of General Clauses Act
the notice is deemed to be served. K. Bhaskaran vs
Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr reported in AIR 1999
SUPREME COURT 3762, Apex court held that
“No doubt Sec 138 of the Act does not require
that the notice should be given only by `post’.
Nonetheless the principle incorporated in Sec 27
(quoted above) can profitably be imported in a case
where the sender has despatched the notice by post
with the correct address written on it. Then it can be
deemed to have been served on the sendee unless
he proves that it was not really served and that he
was not responsible for such non-service. Any other
interpretation can lead to a very tenuous position as
the drawer of the cheque who is liable to pay the
23 C.C.20739/2022
amount would resort to the strategy of subterfuge
by successfully avoiding the notice. “
32. In C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr
(2007) 6 SCC 555, the Hon’ble Apex court has held; “
17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement
of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of
Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a
notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that
he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15
days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the
complaint under Sec 138 the Act, make payment of the
cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made
payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving
a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the
complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not
pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the
Court along with the copy of the complaint under Sec 138 of
the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper
service of notice as under Sec 138 , by ignoring statutory
presumption to the contrary under Sec 27 of the G.C. Act
and Sec 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other
interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of
the legislation… ”
33. Therefore, such defense of the accused that
notice is not served holds no water. Not responding to
notice by way of giving reply is also fatal to the defence.
24 C.C.20739/2022
34. The difference in the inks used to fill up details in
cheque and to affix the signature is also noway helpful to
the accused to establish her defense. Recently in (2019) 4
SCC 197) ie Bir Singh V Mukesh Kumar, Apex court has
held that
“A meaningful reading of the provisions of the
Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular,
Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a
person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the
payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to
rebut the presumption that the cheque had been
issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a
liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have
been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if
the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the
cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of
Section 138 would be attracted”.
35. Though there is a difference in the ink used to
fillup the the details of cheque, Sec.20 of NI Act will came
25 C.C.20739/2022
into force. Nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of
PW.1 to suspect his case.
36. Therefore, having scrutinizing the entire
evidence this Court is of the view that the accused has
utterly failed to establish her defense on the scale of
preponderance of probabilities. AIR 2023 SC 5018 in
between Rajesh Jain V/s Ajay Singh, Apex court held that
“62. The fundamental error in the approach
lies in the fact that the High Court has questioned
the want of evidence on part of the complainant
in order to support his allegation of having
extended loan to the accused, when it ought to
have instead concerned itself with the case set up
by the accused and whether he had discharged
his evidential burden by proving that there
existed no debt/liability at the time of issuance of
cheque..”
37. Rohitbhai J Patel vs The State Of Gujarat,
reported in [2019] 5 S.C.R. 417, Apex court observed that
“19. Herein above, we have examined in detail
the findings of the Trial Court and those of the High
26 C.C.20739/2022
Court and have no hesitation in concluding that the
present one was clearly a case where the decision of
the Trial Court suffered from perversity and
fundamental error of approach; and the High Court
was justified in reversing the judgment of the Trial
Court. The observations of the Trial Court that there
was no documentary evidence to show the source of
funds with the respondent to advance the loan, or
that the respondent did not record the transaction in
the form of receipt of even kachcha notes, or that
there were inconsistencies in the statement of the
complainant and his witness, or that the witness of
the complaint was more in know of facts etc. would
have been relevant if the matter was to be examined
with reference to the onus on the complaint to prove
his case beyond reasonable doubt. These
considerations and observations do not stand in
conformity with the presumption existing in favour of
the complainant by virtue of Sec 118 and 139 of the
NI Act. Needless to reiterate that the result of such
presumption is that existence of a legally enforceable
debt is to be presumed in favour of the complainant.
When such a presumption is drawn, the factors
relating to the want of documentary evidence in the
form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as
regards source of funds were not of relevant
consideration while examining if the accused has
been able to rebut the presumption or not. The other
observations as regards any variance in the statement of
27 C.C.20739/2022
complainant and witness; or want of knowledge about
dates and other particulars of the cheques; or washing
away of the earlier cheques in the rains though the office
of the complainant being on the 8 th floor had also been
of irrelevant factors for consideration of a probable
defence of the appellant. “
38. The principle laid down in above cases aptly
applicable to present case. As accused failed to
probabalise her defence and rebut the presumption as
afore-stated, case of the complainant cannot be doubted
for want of proof for source of income etc. Accordingly
court proceed to answer POINT NO.I IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.
39. POINT NO.II:- In view of the reasons assigned in
above point, it is ample clear that accused has committed
the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act. A bare reading
of sec.138 of the NI Act indicates that the purport of
sec.138 is to prevent and punish the dishonest drawers of
cheques who evade their liability. The Hon’ble Apex Court
28 C.C.20739/2022in its recent decision in M/s. Meters & instrument Pvt
Ltd. Vs. Kanchana Mehta reported in (2018)1 SCC-560
held at para 18(ii)
that”(ii) The object of the provision being primarily
compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the
object of enforcing the compensatory element,
compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged
but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate
compensation as may be found.” In view of the reasons
assigned in above point, it is ample clear that accused has
committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act.
40. Therefore, having regard to the amount
advanced, time from which it is lying with the accused,
and keeping in mind the primary object of the provision,
this court is of the opinion that, rather than imposing
punitive sentence, if sentence of fine is imposed with a
direction to compensate the complainant for its monitory
29 C.C.20739/2022loss, by awarding compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C,
would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, this court
proceeds to pass following …..
ORDER
The accused is found guilty for the offence
punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the
accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine
of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty
Thousand Only), in default of fine amount, she
shall undergo simple imprisonment for Six
Months for the offence punishable under
section 138 of N.I.Act.
Out of the fine amount collected from the
accused, an amount of Rs.3,45,000/- (Rupees
Three Lakhs Forty Five Thousand only) shall
be paid to the complainant as compensation
U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining fine of
30 C.C.20739/2022Rs.5,000/- shall be adjusted towards the cost of
state expenses.
The bail bonds of the accused shall be in
force till the appeal period is over as
contemplated under the provisions of
Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
Office to supply the copy of the
Judgment to the accused forthwith at free of
cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and
then judgment pronounced in the open court on this the 1 st day of July
2025).
Digitally
signed by
Tejaswini K M
Tejaswini Date:
KM 2025.07.05
17:06:18
+0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1: Sri.K.B.Girish
II. List of documents on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P-1 : Original Cheque.
Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of the accused
31 C.C.20739/2022Ex.P-2 & 3 : Bank memos.
Ex.P-4 & 5 : Bank challans.
Ex.P-6 : Legal notice.
Ex.P-7 & 8 : Postal receipts.
Ex.P-9 : Postal acknowledgment.
Ex.P-10 : Postal Cover.
Ex.P-11 : Returned Notice.
Ex.P-12 : Postal receipt.
Ex.P-13 : Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.P-14 : Complaint.
III. List of witnesses for the accused:
D.W.1: Smt.Sujatha Gopal
IV. List of documents for accused:
Nil
Digitally
signed by
Tejaswini K M
Tejaswini Date:
KM 2025.07.05
17:06:25
+0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M ),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
32 C.C.20739/2022
[ad_2]
Source link