Bangalore District Court
Lalitha Mallaiah Pujari vs N R Manjunath on 19 December, 2024
KABC0C0021542019
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU
-: PRESENT:-
P.S. Santhosh Kumar, M.Com., LL.M.,
XXXIII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
C.C.NO.50527/2019
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Lalitha Mallaiah
Pujari,
W/o Cyriac Sebastin,
Aged about 75 years,
R/at No.110,
2nd Cross,
Byappanahalli New
Extension,
Bengaluru-38
Vs.
ACCUSED : Sri. N.R. Manjunath,
S/o Late R.Rajanna,
R/at No.54,
2nd Floor, 9th Cross,
Byappanahalli New
Extension,
Sarvygnanagar,
Bengaluru-560038.
2
C.C.No.50527/2019
J U D G E M E N T
The complainant has filed this private complaint
U/s.200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence
punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:-
The accused introduced himself as a Real Estate
Business man and promised the complainant to
negotiate for a site from Karnataka Telecom
Department Employees Society. Believing his words,
the complainant paid Rs.32,00,000/- towards purchase
of a site. The accused miserably failed to fulfill the
commitment of getting a site to the complainant. The
accused, inspite of several requests, has not returned
the amount of Rs.32,00,000/- and was postponing
payment of said Rs.32,00,000/- to the complainant.
Finally, he issued the cheques bearing No.014994
dated 01.09.2018 for Rs.8,00,000/- and 014996 dated
26.09.2018 for Rs.24,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank,
Indiranagar, Bangalore, towards repayment of the said
amount. Thereafter, the complainant presented the
3C.C.No.50527/2019
said cheques for encashment through her banker, but
it came to be dishonored for the reason “funds
insufficient” on 16.10.2018 and she received the
endorsements to that effect on 29.10.2018. Thereafter,
the complainant issued legal notice dated 09.11.2018
to the accused calling upon the accused to pay the
cheques amount. But, inspite of service of said notice,
the accused failed to pay the cheques amount.
Hence, the accused has committed the offence
punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement
affidavit, the documents etc., the court took
cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec.138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act by following the
guidelines of Apex Court issued in Indian Bank
Association case and ordered to register a criminal
case against the accused for the offence punishable
U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
4
C.C.No.50527/2019
4. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared
through his counsel, he was enlarged on court bail,
further, substance of plea was recorded, the accused
pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried. In
order to prove her case, the complainant got
examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7
and Ex.P8 to 20 were marked by way of confrontation
during cross-examination of DW1. Upon closure of
complainant’s side evidence, the court examined the
accused U/s 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied the
incriminating materials appearing against himself and
the accused has got examined himself as DW1 and got
marked Ex.D1 to 6 and Ex.D7 is marked by way of
confrontation during the cross-examination of PW1
and closed his side evidence.
5. I have gone through the written arguments filed by
the counsel for the complainant. I have also gone
through the citations relied upon by the counsel for
the complainant;
5
C.C.No.50527/2019
1. AIR Online 2023 KAR 153, between M.Shashikala
Vs. S. Wilfred of the Hon’ble Karnataka High
Court.
2. AIR Online 2023 KAR 544, between R.Premkumar
Since Deard, By Lrs Vs. Ramesh Chand Bafna of
the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court.
3. AIR 2019 SC 1876, between Rohitbhai Jivanlal
Patel Vs. State of Gujrath and Another of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. (2021)5 SC Cases 283, between Kalamani Tex
and Another Vs. P. Balasubramanian of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the accused. I have also
gone through the citation relied upon by the counsel
for the accused;
1. CRA No.630/1995 dated 06.06.1995, between V.A.
Sivaraman Vs. Vasu and Another of the Hon’ble
Kerala High Court.
Perused the materials available on record.
6. The following points would arise for my
consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond
all reasonable doubts that the accused
has committed an o/p/u/s 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act?
6
C.C.No.50527/2019
2. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No1: In the Affirmative,
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following,
R E A S O N S
8. POINT No.1: I have gone through the materials
available on record. The learned counsel for the
complainant has argued reiterating complaint
allegations in his written arguments. The learned
counsel for the complainant has argued that the
complainant intended to apply for a site measuring
50 x 80 ft. in the year 2012 and during the course of
enquiry with the Telecom Housing Society, she came
in contact with the accused and the accused assured
her to get her a site by his influence he has over the
directors of the Society and believing his words, the
complainant negotiated with the accused and then the
accused brought the application form of the society
7
C.C.No.50527/2019
filled and then the complainant handed over two
cheques for Rs.4,00,000/- each drawn on Vijaya Bank,
Indiranagar branch, and assured her prompt
submission of the same to the Society. He has further
argued that after few days later, the accused came
and told her that Society is not accepting cheques and
insisted for cash payment and returned the said
cheques, and believing the words of the accused, the
complainant gave Rs.9,80,000/- to the accused as per
Ex.P16(a) and (b) and the accused did not provide her
any acknowledgment for having deposited the said
amount to the society and did not give any
information about the status of her application for
allotment of a site and after few months, the accused
collected a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- from the
complainant on various dates. He has further argued
that when there was no response to her repeated
requests about allotment of the site, she approached
Byappanahalli police to lodge a complaint against the
accused in the year 2015 and thereafter, the
complainant enquired with the Society about her
8
C.C.No.50527/2019
application and came to know that it was rejected
since cheques issued by the accused were got
dishonored as per Ex.P11 and 12. He has further
argued that even though the accused took cash from
the complainant, he has not remitted the cash and
instead given his own cheques and thus, had deceived
the complainant. She has further argued that the said
police recorded the statement of the accused and the
complainant and closed it by recording NCR. She has
further argued that in the meantime, the accused had
given various cheques and cash receipt to the
complainant as per Ex.P17 to 20 towards discharge of
his legally recoverable debt and liability. He has
further argued that she again lodged a complaint with
the said police in the year 2018 against the accused
and the police called upon the accused for enquiry
and sensing the imminent arrest, the accused took
anticipatory bail from Hon’ble CCH-21 as per Ex.D1
and thereafter, the accused appeared before the police
and agreed to settle the matter with the complainant
and accordingly, handed over cheques at Ex.P1 and 2
9
C.C.No.50527/2019
towards discharge of said Rs.32,00,000/- and the said
cheques were got dishonored for the reason “Funds
Insufficient” and inspite of intimating the said fact
through legal notice dated 09.11.2018, he did not pay
the cheques amount and hence, the accused is liable
to be convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.138
of Negotiable Instruments Act.
9. Ex.P1 and 2 are the cheques in question dated
26.09.2019 and 01.09.2019 drawn on Canara Bank of
Indiranagar branch, for Rs.24,00,000/- and
Rs.8,00,000/- respectively. Ex.P3 and 4 are the return
memos dated 16.10.2018 said to have been issued by
the complainant’s banker which go to show that the
cheques in question were dishonored for the reason
“Funds Insufficient”. Ex.P5 is the copy of the legal
notice dated 09.11.2018 said to have been sent by the
complainant to the accused intimating the fact of
dishonor of the cheques to the accused and
demanding payment of cheques amount. Ex.P6 is the
postal receipt and Ex.P7 is the postal acknowledgment
10
C.C.No.50527/2019
which goes to show that the statutory notice sent to
the accused was duly served. Ex.P8 is the certified
copy of the petition said to have been filed by the
accused before the Hon’ble CCH-21 seeking
anticipatory bail apprehending arrest by the
Byappanahalli Police and it is dated 04.09.2018. Ex.P9
is said to be the copy of the application submitted to
the Society for allotment of membership. Ex.P10 is
said to be the copy of application for purchase of site.
Ex.P11 and 12 are the cheques pertaining to the
account of the accused maintained with Indian Bank
and they are dated 11.10.2012. Ex.P13 and 14 are the
receipts issued by the said society in favour of the
complainant. Ex.P13 goes to show that there is a
writing as ‘cheques returned’ over it. Ex.P15 is the
acknowledgment said to have been executed by the
accused on 12.02.2013 in favour of the complainant
on borrowing handloan of Rs.2,00,000/- and giving a
cheque for Rs.2,40,000/- as security. Ex.P16(a) and (b)
are the acknowledgments executed by the complainant
on 10.10.2012 for receiving an amount of
11
C.C.No.50527/2019
Rs.5,80,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant
towards booking of site and first installment payable
to the said Society. Ex.P17 to 20 are the cheques said
to have been issued by the accused in favour of the
complainant in the meantime towards repayment of
the total amount of Rs.32,00,000/-.
10. It is relevant to mention here that during the
cross-examination of DW1, the accused has
categorically admitted the issuance of the cheques in
question at Ex.P1 and 2 in favour of the complainant
in his own handwriting. The accused has nowhere
denied his signatures on the cheques in question at
Ex.P1(a) and 2(a). Such being the case, it is relevant
to mention here that when the accused has admitted
the issuance of the cheques in question and his
signatures on it, the initial presumption as
contemplated U/S 139 of the N.I Act has to be raised
by the court in favour of the complainant, however
the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumptions
as held in the case of Sri Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan by
12
C.C.No.50527/2019
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2010 SC
1898.
11. Once the presumption U/S 139 and 118 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act is raised, it is for the
accused to rebut the said presumption by adducing
cogent evidence in support of his defence. It is
relevant to mention here that during his chief-
examination, the DW1 has taken a defence stating
that during October 2012, he had been to see the
sites formed by Telecom Employees Society at Attibele
and there, he met the complainant for the first time.
The complainant being an age-old lady requested him
to assist her to file application for site allotment and
she called him over phone on 07.11.2012 asking him
to visit her house and accordingly, he had been to
her house. He has further stated that the complainant
gave him there filled application form bearing
No.757/2012 alongwith two completed cheques at
Ex.P11 and 12 for Rs.4,00,000/- each drawn in favour
of Karnataka Telecom Department Employees Co-
13
C.C.No.50527/2019
operative Society with a request to submit the same
and on the same day evening, the complainant
requested him that there was a problem in her bank
and asked him to return the said cheques and
accordingly, he returned it to her and later, she
requested him to issue his two cheques for sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- each towards her application and agreed
to return it within some days and accordingly, he
submitted her application with said two cheques and
thereafter, she informed him that she knows the
procedure and she will pursue the allotment procedure
thereafter. He has further stated that in the year
2015, the complainant lodged a complaint before
Byappanahalli Police against him alleging that he
owes her Rs.32,00,000/- and on enquiry the police
recorded his statement and closed the complaint by
issuing NCR. He has further stated that again in
August 2018, the said police asked him to visit the
police station and when he went there, the police
forced him to issue cheque for Rs.8,00,000/- and he
issued it as per Ex.P2 due to threat and fear and
14
C.C.No.50527/2019
again, the said police called him to the police station
on 15.09.2018 and at that time, the cousin of the
complainant Sri.Mahesh Poojari came to his house and
took him to the police station and there, the inspector
Sri.Ramesh demanded him to issue a cheque for
Rs.24,00,000/- and cash Rs.50,000/- to the
complainant for not getting her the site allotted or
otherwise threatened to file different criminal cases
against him and hence, he issued the cheque in
question as per Ex.P1 and paid Rs.50,000/- to the
complainant and thereafter, the inspector told him
that until the payment of Rs.32,00,000/- by cash, he
would retain the said two cheques in the police
station itself. He has further stated that he issued
stop payment instructions to his banker on 01.10.2018
and also issued legal notice to the said inspector
Sri.Ramesh on 03.10.2018 for return of his cheques
and also issued notice to the complainant on
06.10.2018 for requesting the complainant to return
his cheques and also not to present for encashment
and the complainant has issued reply to it on
15
C.C.No.50527/2019
20.10.2018 stating that he possess cheques of her. The
said stop payment instructions, notices issued to the
Inspector and the complainant and the reply given by
the complainant to it are marked as Ex.D2 to 4 and 6
respectively. He has further stated that thereafter he
received summons from this court and the
complainant has filed false complaint against him. It
is relevant to mention here that though the accused
has stated in his chief-examination that he appeared
before this court after receiving the summons, during
his cross-examination, the accused has categorically
stated that he has received the legal notice issued by
the complainant. He has further stated during his
cross-examination that he has given reply to the said
notice and also admitted that no such reply has been
produced before the court and immediately, thereafter
he has admitted the suggestion made by the learned
counsel for the complainant that he has not produced
any reply notice since he has not given any reply
notice to the complainant. It is relevant to mention
here that if at all the story narrated by the accused in
16
C.C.No.50527/2019
his chief-examination was true and well within his
knowledge, what prevented him from issuing reply
notice to the legal notice at Ex.P5 to the complainant
narrating the same story cannot be ascertained from
the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the
accused. Further during his cross-examination, the
accused has categorically admitted that he has not
lodged any complaint against the said police
inspector, who allegedly has helped the complainant
for collection of the cheques in question, to his higher
authority though he has stated that he has issued the
notice to the said police inspector as per Ex.D3.
Further he has categorically admitted that he had no
impediment to issue notice as per Ex.D3 to the said
police inspector immediately after collection of
cheques from him forcibly and by threatening him to
implicate in false cases. It is relevant to mention here
that the accused though stated to have issued Ex.P2
in August 2018 and Ex.P1 on 15.09.2018, Ex.D3 goes
to show that it has been issued by him to the said
police inspector on 03.10.2018. It is relevant to
17
C.C.No.50527/2019
mention here that there is no explanation by the
accused as to why there was delay in issuing such
notice even though there is much time gap between
the alleged date of issuance of said two cheques by
him and issuance of notice as per Ex.D3 and if at all
they were really obtained by the police inspector by
force and giving threat as alleged, certainly the
accused would have issued notice like Ex.D3
immediately after issuing first cheque itself and he
could not have waited till issuance of second cheque.
12. Further it is relevant to mention here that the
accused though stated in his chief-examination that
the complainant got returned the cheques issued
alongwith the application given to him to file before
the society on the same day evening of issuing it
stating that there was some problem in her bank and
instead she obtained two cheques of the accused for
Rs.4,00,000/- each as per Ex.P11 and 12 agreeing to
return the said money within some days and
accordingly he filed her application with his two
18
C.C.No.50527/2019
cheques to the society, there is nothing on record
which goes to show that, what steps the accused took
against her for recovering said money. Further
writings over Ex.P13 clearly goes to show that the
cheques issued alongwith the application were
returned. If at all the accused had no sufficient
money, for what reason he issued his two cheques as
per Ex.P11 and 12 to the complainant cannot be
ascertained. Further definitely he might had
knowledge or he was aware about return of his
cheques at Ex.P11 and 12 on their immediate
presentation as they belong to his account and such
being the case, if at all he was requested by the
complainant to present the application alongwith
Ex.P11 and 12, to the society, certainly he could have
taken some steps to see that the amount of Ex.P11
and 12 remitted to the society and there is no
material on record which would go to show that the
accused had made any such remittance or to show
that he has taken any legal steps against the accused
for recovery of the money at Ex.P11 and 12, that too
19
C.C.No.50527/2019
when he has categorically admitted in his cross-
examination that he had issued it to the complainant
for allotment of sites. The above observed lapses on
the part of the accused in relation to Ex.P11 and 12
makes this court to believe the version of the
complainant that even though the accused took cash
of Rs.9,80,000/- from the complainant saying that
society was not accepting the cheques for payment,
without remitting it to the society has annexed his
cheques as per Ex.P11 and 12 to the application of
the complainant to deceive her. It is relevant to
mention here that during the course of cross-
examination of DW1, he has categorically admitted
receipt of Rs.5,80,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- as per
Ex.P15 and 16 and also the writings of it are in his
handwriting and the said admissions clearly support
the version of the complainant regarding payment of
Rs.9,80,000/- by her to the accused in order to remit
the same to the Society alongwith her application. It
is further relevant to mention here that the accused
has himself stated in his chief-examination that after
20
C.C.No.50527/2019
he submitting her application, the complainant told
him that she knows the procedure and she would
pursue the allotment procedure thereafter. If at all the
allotment procedure was being looked after by the
complainant as stated by the accused thereafter, what
was the necessity for the accused to issue cheques in
question in favour of the complainant on the
insistence of the police cannot be ascertained and the
accused would have taken appropriate legal action
against the said police and the complainant then
itself, but there is nothing on record which shows
that the accused has taken any such legal steps.
Further it is relevant to mention here that the accused
though stated that he had issued stop payment
instructions to his banker and produced the document
at Ex.D2 in support of it, the cheques in question
were dishonored for the reason “funds insufficient”
and not for the reason “payment stopped by drawer”.
Further Ex.D2 though reveals that the reason for stop
payment as they were issued wrongly by force, no
further details could be seen as to on whose force he
21
C.C.No.50527/2019
issued such stop payment instructions and as such, the
said document cannot be taken into consideration in
order to believe the specific version of the accused
that the above said police inspector forced him to
issue the cheques in question in favour of the
complainant threatening him saying that he would file
other criminal cases against him.
13. Further the certified copy of the petition said to
have been filed by the accused seeking anticipatory
bail before the Hon’ble CCH-21 goes to show that he
himself claimed that he was a mediator for the
complainant and the said Society towards allotment of
site in favour of the complainant. But, during the
cross-examination of DW1, he has denied the
suggestion made by the learned counsel for the
complainant that the accused stood as a mediator
between the complainant and the said society for
negotiating the price as well as allotment of site. The
said statement of the accused himself in Ex.P8 goes to
show the active participation the accused did towards
22
C.C.No.50527/2019
getting the complainant a site by the Society and
further Ex.P8 came to be marked only upon
confrontation to him during his cross-examination.
Further Ex.P9 to 20 entire documents have been
marked in view of the admission made by the accused
upon confronting it during his cross-examination.
14. It is relevant to mention here that the
complainant has stated that Ex.P17 to 20 were the
cheques issued by the accused time and again towards
repayment of said amount of Rs.32,00,000/-. But, the
accused during his cross-examination has narrated a
new story denying the said contention saying that
Ex.P17 to 20 were issued by him towards security for
the handloan of Rs.13,00,000/- borrowed from a third
party through the complainant in the year 2013 and
the complainant did not return his cheques even after
its repayment and the complainant has acknowledged
receipt of repayment of said loan in her dairy and the
accused though stated so did not furnish any details
about the said third party from whom he alleged to
23
C.C.No.50527/2019
have received said Rs.13,00,000/- and the details of
repayment as to the the mode and date on which he
repaid it for the best reasons known to him. Further
there is nothing on record for having taken any legal
action by the accused against the complainant for not
returning Ex.P17 to 20 even after such repayment in
favour of the complainant. Further if at all the
accused had borrowed that money from a third party
what was the need for him to repay the said loan to
the complainant is also not forthcoming from the
materials available on record. Further the accused has
failed to get any single admission from the mouth of
the complainant during her cross-examination
regarding issuance of the cheques in question in her
favour on the threat and force made by the above
said police. Upon considering the entire materials on
record, it is crystal clear that merely because the
accused had issued notices to the said police inspector
and the complainant as per Ex.D3 and 4 is not
sufficient to believe the defence of the accused that
the cheques in question were obtained by the
24
C.C.No.50527/2019
complainant forcibly and threatening the accused
through the above said police inspector and it can be
said that the cheques in question were issued to the
complainant by the accused towards discharge of his
liability in respect of the amount of Rs.32,00,000/-
collected by him during the course of the transaction
relating to getting allotment of a site to the
complainant. In this background, the ratio laid down
in the abovesaid decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High
Court relied upon by the accused is not applicable to
the present facts and circumstances of the case since
in the said decision the appeal preferred by the
complainant against the accused was not only
dismissed on the ground that the accused has proved
that the cheque was issued under the pressure of the
police, but mainly on the point that the complainant
had withheld the relevant agreement dated 29.09.1990
and the notebook in which handing over of the gold
to the accused was allegedly recorded by him as the
cheque was issued towards taking loan of 150 grams
gold. Further doubting the financial capacity of the
25
C.C.No.50527/2019
complainant about possessing such a huge sum does
not arise as the accused did not dispute the fact that
the accused was a Chief Personal Manager at Indian
Telephone Industry, Dooravaninagar, Bangalore, and
she has salary income and further, as per the accused
version itself, he approached the accused to get loan
of Rs.13,00,000/- by a third party through the
complainant and he was the mediator for the
complainant and the Society to get her a site from the
Society. As such, considering the entire materials on
record and keeping in mind the settled ratios laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in the abovesaid decisions relied
upon by the counsel for the complainant with regard
to drawing of presumption, burden of proof on the
parties and standard of proof required to rebut the
presumptions in cheque bounce cases, in my opinion,
the accused has utterly failed to rebut the
presumptions available in favour of the complainant
by adducing cogent oral and documentary evidence
and the complainant has proved her case beyond all
26
C.C.No.50527/2019
reasonable doubts that the accused has committed
offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Hence, I am of the opinion that the
accused has committed the offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
15. It is relevant to mention here that the accused
having issued cheque at Ex.P1 in favour of the
complainant has failed to pay the cheque amount and
hence, the complainant is to be suitably compensated
for the delay caused by the accused in its repayment.
Further the punishment prescribed for the offence
U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is imprisonment
for a period which may extend to two years or with
fine which may extend to twice the amount of the
cheque or with both. Considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, nature, year of the
transaction, nature of the instrument involved, cost of
litigation and the rate of interest proposed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in 2012 (1) SCC 260 (R.Vijayan Vs
Baby), I am of the opinion that it is just and
27
C.C.No.50527/2019
desirable to impose fine of Rs.49,50,000/- and out of
the said amount, it seems to be proper to award a
sum of Rs.49,40,000/- as compensation to the
complainant as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C and the
remaining sum of Rs.10,000/- shall go to the State
towards expenses. With these observations, my
findings on Point No.1 is in the Affirmative.
16. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point
No.1, I proceed to pass following;
O R D E R
Acting u/s. 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the
accused is hereby convicted for the offence
punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act,1881.
The accused is hereby sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs.49,40,000/-. In default, the
accused shall undergo simple imprisonment
for 6 months.
28
C.C.No.50527/2019
Out of the fine amount, Rs.10,000/-
shall be paid to the State towards expenses
and remaining amount of Rs.49,40,000/- to
the complainant as compensation as per
the provisions of Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C..
Further, it is made clear that in view of
proviso to Sec.421(1) of Cr.P.C, the
accused would not be absolved from his
liability to pay compensation amount of
Rs.49,40,000/- awarded u/s. 357 of Cr.P.C.
even if he undergoes the default sentence.
The bail bond and cash security of the
accused stand hereby continued till the
appeal period is over.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of
this judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, directly over Computer, corrected,
signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 19th day of December,
2024)
(P.S. Santhosh Kumar),
XXXIII ACJM, BENGALURU.
29
C.C.No.50527/2019
A N N E X U R E
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 : Smt. Lalitha Mallaiah Pujari
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 & 2 : 2 Original cheques
Ex.P.1(a)& 2(a) : Signatures of the accused
Ex.P.3 & 4 : Bank return memos
Ex.P.5 : Office copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.6 : Postal receipt
Ex.P.7 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of Orders in Crl.Misc.No.
25843 /2018
Ex.P.9 : Karnataka Telecom Department
Employees Co-Operative Society Limited
application for associated membership
form
Ex.P.10 : Karnataka Telecom Department
Employees Co-Operative Society Limited
application form for purchase site
Ex.P.11 & 12 : Original cheques
Ex.P.13 & 14 : Original cash receipts
Ex.P.15 : Acknowledgment for having received
the amount
Ex.P.15(a) : Signature
Ex.P.16 : Acknowledgment for having received
the amount
Ex.P.16(a) & (b) : Signatures of accused
Ex.P.17 to 20 : 4 Original cheques
30
C.C.No.50527/2019
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
DW1 : Sri. N.R.Manjunath
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D1 : Certified copy of Orders in Crl.Misc in
25843/2018
Ex.D2 : Certified copy of my letter for stop
payment
Ex.D3 : Office copy of legal notice issued to
Inspector
Ex.D4 : Office copy of legal notice issued to
complainant
Ex.D5 : Postal receipt
Ex.D6 : Reply notice of complainant
Ex.D7 : Receipt issued by the complainant(P.S. Santhosh Kumar)
XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.