Bangalore District Court
Smt. Mangala.N.R vs Miss Ashika.K on 16 July, 2025
KABC030701902018
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 16th day of July 2025.
PRESENT:SMT.RASHMI H.B., B.A.L.,LL.B.,LLM.,
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU CITY.
C.C.NO.25988/2018
Complainant :- Smt Mangala N.R.
W/o.Hucche Gowda,
Aged 43 Years,
R/at. No.8, 5th Main, 6th Cross,
J.C.Nagar, Mahalakshmipuram,
Kurubarahalli,
Bengaluru- 560086.
(Rep. by Sri.R.A., Advocate)
-V/s-
Accused :- Miss.Ashika K.,
D/o.Late.Kumar,
Aged about 22 Years,
R/at.No.30, 2nd Stage, King
Fisher Water Factory Road,
Thirumalappa Nagar, Attur
Layout, Yelahanka, Bengaluru.
(Rep. By Sri.A.T.J., Advocate)
Date of complaint :- 14-09-2018
Date of commencement :- 22-09-2018
of Evidence
2 C.C.No.25988/2018
Offences complained Section 138 N.I.Act
Opinion of the Judge Accused is found guilty.
(SMT.RASHMI H.B.,)
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed under section 200
of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence
punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
02. The brief facts case of the complaint is as
under:
It is the case of complainant that the complainant
and accused are relatives. The accused has availed hand
loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on 15-11-2017
to clear her debts and to solve personal problems. To
discharge said liability, the accused has issued a cheque on
cheque bearing No.000002, dated:28-05-2018 for
Rs.5,00,000/-, drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Yelahanka
New Town branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant.
3 C.C.No.25988/2018
The complainant presented said cheque for encashment
through her banker State Bank of India, Kurubarahalli
branch, Bengaluru on 01-07-2018. But the cheque is
dishonoured with bank endorsements dated: 06-07-2018
for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the
complainant has got issued legal notice to the accused
through his counsel on 04-08-2018 through registered post
and same was duly served to the accused and accused has
sent untenable reply dated 14-08-2018. Inspite of service
of notice, the accused did not pay cheque amount within
the stipulated time. Hence, the complainant has filed this
complaint on 14-09-2018.
03. After presentation of complaint, this Court
took cognizance of offence. This court has recorded the
sworn statement of complainant. Thereafter, a criminal
case is registered against accused and summons is
issued to the accused. The accused appeared through
her counsel and she is enlarged on bail. The copies of
the complaint and other papers furnished to the
4 C.C.No.25988/2018
accused. Substance of accusation was read over to her.
Accused pleaded guilty.
04. In order to prove the accusation made against
the accused, complainant has got examined herself and
one witness as PW1 and 2 and got marked 16
documents as Ex P1 to Ex.P16. Thereafter, statement of
accused is recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C.
wherein the accused has denied the incriminating
evidence found on record as false and she submitted
she would lead defence evidence. The accused
examined herself as DW1 and got marked 2 documents
as Ex.D1 and 2.
05. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for
complainant and accused. Perused entire case record
carefully.
06. On the basis of contentions raised in the
complaint the points that arises for determination of this
Court are as follows:
5 C.C.No.25988/2018
1.Whether the complainant proves
that, the accused issued the cheques
towards discharge of legally
enforceable debt?
2.Whether the complainant proves the guilt
of the accused for the offence
punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act?
3.What order?
07. Now, this Court answers to above points
are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative;
Point No.2: In the Affirmative;
Point No.3: As per final order for
the following:
:: R E A S O N S ::
08. POINT No. 1 and 2 : Since these points are
inter-relating with each other, they are taken up together
for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and
findings.
09. This case is tried as summons case. As this
matter is tried as summons case, this Court relies on the
6 C.C.No.25988/2018
evidence recorded by learned predecessor in office. In that
regard, this Court relies on decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Mehsana Nagarik Sahkari
Bank Ltd., V/s Shreeji Cab Co. & Others reported in
2014(13) SCC 619. Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had observed that de-nova hearing is necessary only when
the evidence is recording in summary manner. Therefore,
this Court has proceeded with the case on the basis of part
evidence recorded previously.
10. Before proceeding with the discussion, in order to
prove the guilt of offence under section 138 of N.I. Act,
initial burden casts on the complainant to prove the
following ingredients:
a) The cheque must have been drawn
for discharge of existing debt or
liability.
b) Cheque must be presented within
validity period.
c) Cheque must be returned unpaid due
to insufficient funds or it exceeds the
amount arranged.
d) Fact of dishonour be informed to the
drawer by notice within 30 days.
7 C.C.No.25988/2018
e) Drawer of cheque must fail to make
payment within 15 days of receipt of
the notice.
11. In order to prove the case, the complainant Smt
Mangala N.R., has examined herself as PW-1. The PW-1
filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief reiterating
entire complaint averments. In support of her oral
evidence, she produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 documents. The
PW1 got marked original cheque, Bank endorsement,
demand notice, postal receipt, postal track consignment
extract, reply notice, Bank original pass book as Ex P1 to 7.
12. Further, complainant has summoned the branch
bank manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank and Sri Rakesh L S
has appeared and examined as PW2. Further, he has
produced the documents. The PW2 has got marked the
account opening form of accused as Ex P8 and its
accused’s signatures as Ex P8(a) to (d), Form No 60 as
Ex P9, declaration of accused as Ex P10, Enrollment
Letter for Silk Programme as Ex P.11, certified copy of
cheque and deposit slip as Ex P.12, attested copy of
8 C.C.No.25988/2018
aadhaar card of accused as Ex P.13, certified copy of silk
debit card application as Ex P.14, certified copy of check
list as Ex.P.15 and certified copy of specimen signatures
of accused as Ex P16.
13. During cross-examination of PW-1, she has
admitted the fact that she has filed two other complaints of
dishonour of cheques against the mother and husband of
accused in CC.No.22557/2018 and CC.No.25251/2018. PW1
has stated accused, her mother and her husband have
came to her house to request her financial assistance on
10-11-2017 and she has lend amount after 5 days in the
presence of her mother. PW1 has deposed on the date of
lending itself, accused has issued the cheque in her favour.
She has deposed out of Rs 6,00,000/- amount kept in
Sudha Co-operative Bank, she has lend Rs 5,00,000/- to
accused. The defence has pointed out in Ex P7 the amount
of Rs 6,00,000/- is credited to her said account and out of
said amount Rs 5,00,000/- is withdrawn by complainant.
Pw1 has deposed accused has issued a post dated cheque.
9 C.C.No.25988/2018
The PW1 has admitted on 20-11-2017 her daughter’s
marriage was solemnized. PW1 has explained out of
support of her parental house funds, she has performed
marriage of her daughter. She further explained out of sale
amount of parental house property Rs 10,00,000/- is paid
to her and she does not have document to show such
payment. During cross-examination of PW1, defence has
suggested that accused and her mother have sold their
property for Rs 31,50,000/- and they have no necessity to
avail loan from the complainant. The said suggestions
answered as not true. Further, accused has suggested in
the year 2015-16 itself accused has lodged complaint
before Yalahanka New Town Police station for missing of
her cheque. The PW1 deposed her ignorance about such
complaint. The accused has kept three signed cheques in
her house for down payment to purchase a car and the said
cheques were misused. The said suggestions answered as
not true.
14. During examination of PW2 who is bank manager
of accused’s banker has deposed the signatures of accused
10 C.C.No.25988/2018
found in the application for opening account, specimen
signature, vakalath filed by her are different. PW2 has
explained when cheque was presented to the SBI and they
sought information from Kotak Mahindra Bank, on the first
hand they would check the balance and issued the
endorsement that no sufficient funds to honour the cheque.
15. Ongoing through evidence on record, it is clearly
shows the complaint is filed within time and all the
ingredients of section 138 of N.I.Act. The cause of action for
the complaint is arised out of Ex.P1 cheque. PW1 deposed
that, disputed cheque is issued for legally recoverable debt.
PW1 deposed accused issued Ex.P1 cheque and the same is
dishonored for the reason “Funds Insufficient” as per
bank return memo marked as Ex.P2. Same is
communicated to the accused. But till date the accused did
not comply the demand of the complainant for payment of
amount mentioned in the cheque. On going through the
records, PW1 has discharged her initial burden to prove the
11 C.C.No.25988/2018
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
16. Another aspect is to be considered whether the
Ex.P.1 cheque belongs to the accused or not. As per the
bank memo, cheques are dishonoured for the reason ‘Funds
Insufficient’ and not for the reason ‘Signature Differs’. PW2
has explained when cheque came for encashment they
would firstly cheque the bank balance and issue the
endorsement. It prima-facie shows that accused has no
balance to honour the cheque. Therefore, as per section
146 of N.I.Act accused failed to show bank memo is not
correct.
17. But in this case accused/DW1 specifically has
stated signature found in the Ex P1 cheque is not belong to
her. It is evident to note the signatures of accused found in
vakalaths, court depositions, plea and statement under
section 313 of Cr.P.C., and her bank account opening form,
specimen signatures are different. The accused has
admitted the fact that Ex P1 cheque belong to her account.
12 C.C.No.25988/2018
The cheques are itself documents acknowledging the loan
to be repaid by accused to complainant. Therefore,
presumption under section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act lies in
favour of the complainant. Therefore, complainant has
proved existence of legally recoverable debt.
18. In such case, accused should make probable
defence to rebut the presumption raised under section 118
and sec 139 of N.I.Act. In that regard, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in its Judgment reported in 2019(5) SCC
418 in the case of Basalingappa V/s Mudibasappa
discussed the manner in which accused could rebut the
presumption raised under section 118 and 139 of
Negotiable instruments Act. As per provision of section 118
and 139 of N.I. Act, the Court has to presume liability of
the accused and to such amount mentioned in the cheques
to discharge legally recoverable debt. The section 139 of
the Act mandates a presumption that the cheques was for
the discharge of any debt or other liability. Therefore, the
onus of proving probable defense regarding non existence
13 C.C.No.25988/2018
of legally recoverable debt and non issuance of cheques is
on the accused and standard of proof for rebutting the
presumption is preponderance of probabilities.
19. In order to rebut presumption, accused entered
into witness box as DW1. In her examination in chief, she
has stated in order to buy a car, she and her mother along
with her husband have kept signed blank cheques to avail
car loan from financial institution in their house and those
cheques were not taken by banker and those cheques were
kept in their house. However, those cheques were missing
and she has lodged complaint before the police and the
police have gave acknowledgment. She has produced Ex
D1 police acknowledgment and Ex D2 certified copy of sale
agreement to show her mother has sold property for Rs
27,50,000/- and there was no necessity to avail loan.
20. During cross-examination, DW1 has admitted the
fact that complainant is her relative. She has admitted Ex
P1 cheque belongs to her and she has deposed cheque does
not bear her signature. Further, she has deposed she had
14 C.C.No.25988/2018
lodged complaint before the police station and Bank.
Further, she has deposed the fact that cheque given to her
husband and Ex P1 cheque are different and she does not
recall the cheque number given to her husband. She has
specifically stated the cheque mentioned in Ex D1 is
different to Ex P1 cheque. PW1 deposed that she did not
give complaint against complainant for misuse of cheque.
She deposed police did not receive her complaint for
missing cheque and instructed her to approach the court.
21. On going through the records, accused has taken
specific defence in her reply notice marked as Ex P6 stating
complainant is totally stranger to her and her cheque was
missing and it was unfilled and she failed to instruct her
bank for stop payment due to lack of knowledge. But she
has given complaint before the police regarding the missing
of the cheque. The Police acknowledgment shows the
cheque bearing No 000002 is missing. The said cheque is
marked before this court as Ex P1. But, the accused has
made two contradictory statement before the court about
15 C.C.No.25988/2018
her defence set out in Ex P6 reply notice, Ex D1 police
acknowledgment and her evidence.
22. The accused has taken specific contention that
complainant is stranger to her, in her reply notice marked
as Ex P6. During chief examination and cross-examination,
DW1 has specifically admitted the fact that complainant is
her relative. The aspect of acquaintance between the
parties as asserted by complainant is admitted by DW1.
Therefore, one of the defence that accused and complainant
are totally stranger found improbable to believe.
23. The defence has contended that Ex P1 is unfilled
as per reply notice. In the reply notice accused is silent
about the said cheque is signed by her or not. The said fact
contradicted by DW1 in her examination in chief stating the
cheque is signed and given to her husband to give to the
banker to avail car loan and said cheque is gone missing as
per Ex D1. The reply notice did not mentioned the said
assertion of DW1 and it does not mentioned the admission
of signatures. It is evident to note accused/DW1 has denied
16 C.C.No.25988/2018
her signature in Ex P1 cheque. As per her version missing
cheque as per Ex D1 is given to her husband to avail car
loan and ExP1 cheque is different cheque which were
missing. The said contradiction statement made by accused
appear to have made on account of difference of signatures
found in the Ex P1 cheque and her signature in the account
opening form and specimen signature. The stand taken by
Dw1 during her cross examination that Ex P1 cheque is
different cheque which is not signed by her is contradictory
to her version in examination in chief where she has stated
her signed cheque kept in the house gone missing.
Therefore, accused has failed to make probable explanation
about how the missing cheque gone into custody of the
complainant, other than the version of complainant.
24. It is evident to note as per records available on
record such as Ex P1 cheque, bail bond, vakalath, plea,
statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., deposition of DW1,
Ex P8 to 16 documents, the signatures of accused is found
with variation and differences. Even her own document
17 C.C.No.25988/2018
marked as Ex D2 also shows her different version of
signature. The admission of accused about her signature
related to deposition and Ex D2 sale deed shows two
different style of signatures. The said selective admission of
her signatures on record shows her evidence is not credible.
Further, handing over blank signed cheques to banker to
avail car loan is improbable to believe as car itself
hypothecated to banker. Therefore, the explanation of DW1
regarding cheques gone missing are found improbable to
believe.
25. The defence failed to give explanation how
cheques are came to the custody of complainant if they
were lost inside the house of accused. Non registration of
instruction to bank to stop payment soon after police
acknowledgment as per Ex D1 shows the version of accused
is not a conduct of prudent man. Inspite of demand notice
served to her, accused did not lodge complaint before the
police that her lost cheque as intimated in Ex D1 is misused
by the complainant, shows her version is not believable.
18 C.C.No.25988/2018
The contradictory stands taken by Dw1 during her evidence
shows she is having different versions to make to suit her
stand and there is not credibility in her evidence. Therefore,
version of complainant that Ex P1 cheque was given to her
towards repayment of hand loan lent by her found probable
to believe. The PW1 has produced her bank pass book
extract showing on the date of lending she has sufficient
amount to extend financial assistance to accused.
Therefore, defence of non-existence of liability and misuse
of missing cheques are found improbable to believe.
26. Another defence of accused that complainant
does not have financial capacity to lend the amount.
The counsel for accused argued that by considering the
three cases filed by the complainant against accused,
her mother and her husband is to be considered for
determining her financial capacity to lend loan on the
back ground that she is a tailor by her occupation. The
defence has contended complainant has pleaded in
three cases which shows complainant has lend Rs
19 C.C.No.25988/2018
14,00,000/- on 15-11-2017 and 16-11-2017. In that
regard no account statement is produced. It is evident
to note the accused has sent reply notice soon after the
service of demand notice. In the said demand notice,
accused did not take such stand questioning the
financial capacity of complainant. Further, no whisper is
made in the reply notice that complainant has alleged
to have misused the signed three cheques belongs to
accused, her husband and her husband and
complainant has made false claim of Rs 14,00,000/-
together. Therefore, contention taken by the defence
during arguments in absence of disputing financial
capacity of complainant to lend to the tune of Rs
14,00,000/- in reply notice, complainant not required to
prove her financial capacity.
27. The Ex P7 itself shows the complainant had
withdrawn amount of Rs 5,00,000/- from her account
on 15-11-2017. Therefore complainant has prima-facie
shown her financial source for lending in this case.
20 C.C.No.25988/2018
Therefore, further enquiry of her financial capacity is
not required. At this stage, it is relevant to discuss
about judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
2020 SCC OnLine SC 193 in the case of APS Forex
Services Pvt. Ltd vs Shakti International Fashion
Linker and Other in para 20 held , which reproduced
as follows :
“20. Now so far as the reliance is
placed by Learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the accused on the decision of
this Court in the case
of Basalingappa (supra), on going through
the said decision, we are of the opinion
that the said decision shall not be
applicable to the facts of the case on hand
and/or the same shall not be of any
assistance to the accused. In that case
before this Court, the defense by the
accused was that the cheque amount was
given by the complainant to the accused
by way of loan. When the proceedings
were initiated under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act the accused denied the debt
liability and the accused raised the
defense and questioned the financial
capacity of the complainant. To that, the
complainant failed to prove and establish
his financial capacity. Therefore, this
Court was satisfied that the accused had a
probable defense and consequently in
absence of complainant having failed to
prove his financial capacity, this Court
21 C.C.No.25988/2018acquitted the accused. In the present
case, the accused never questioned the
financial capacity of the complainant. We
are of the view that whenever the
accused has questioned the financial
capacity of the complainant in support
of his probable defense, despite the
presumption under Section 139 of the
N.I. Act about the presumption of
legally enforceable debt and such
presumption is rebuttable, thereafter
the onus shifts again on the
complainant to prove his financial
capacity and at that stage the
complainant is required to lead the
evidence to prove his financial
capacity, more particularly when it is
a case of giving loan by cash and
thereafter issuance of a cheque. That
is not a case here.”
28. On going through said legal proposition, the
accused has to make probable defence to disbelieve the
case of complainant, then only burden shifts on
complainant to prove the financial capacity. It is not
mandated on the complainant to prove financial capacity at
the first instance. Therefore, it is mandated on the accused
to make probable defence regarding non existence of loan
and misuse of cheques. But, in this case, accused has failed
to make probable defence regarding misuse of cheque.
22 C.C.No.25988/2018
Further, in this case, accused has failed to make probable
defence. Further, Ex P7 shows the sufficient balance
amount and withdrawal Rs 5,00,000/- in cash on the date
of alleged lending is made out. Therefore, it is not
necessary to look into financial capacity of complainant to
draw inference regarding defence.
29. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its
reported judgement in Tedhi Singh Vs Narayan Dass
Mahant reported in 2022(6) SCC 735 in para observed as
follows:
” 11. We have gone through the nature of the
evidence in this case. We also bear in mind the
fact that three courts have held in favour of the
respondent. In this regard,we bear in mind that
though it is true that reply notice was sent by the
appellant, therein he admits the case of the
respondent that the parties were having a cordial
relationship. In the reply notice the appellant has
not set up any case that the respondent did not
have the financial capacity to advance the loan.
Infact even we notice that there is no reference to
the loss of the cheque book or signed cheque leaf.
23 C.C.No.25988/2018
No complaint was given of the loss of the cheque
book or signed cheque itself either to the police or
to the bank.”
30. On considering the said proposition, the financial
capacity of the complainant is to be disputed at the first
instance on service of demand notice by sending reply
notice disputing financial capacity is required. But, in this
case, accused did not disputed financial capacity of
complainant in her reply notice. No reference is made in
reply notice that cheques with signatures of accused are
lost and no complaint is produced. Therefore, non-
production of documents related to financial transaction
does not rebut the presumptions raised under section 118,
139 of N.I.Act.
31. Further, non-mentioning of the financial
transaction in the income tax returns does not draw
adverse inferences to hold that there was no legally
enforceable debt or the presumption standing in favour of
the complainant is successfully rebutted by the accused.
The said proposition is laid down by Hon’ble High Court of
24 C.C.No.25988/2018
Karnataka reported in 2019(1) Kar.L.R. 185 in the case of
Yogesh Poojary vs K Shanakar Bhat. Considering said
proposition of law, though complainant did not file income
tax returns, it does not prove that no such transaction
taken place at all.
32. As per section 139 of the N.I.Act, it shall be
presumed unless contrary is proved, that the holder of
cheque has received the cheque of the nature referred to in
section 138 of N.I. Act for discharge in whole or in part of
any debt or other liability. The Full bench judgement of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rangappa
vs Sri Mohan reported in 2010(11) SCC 441 has held
that presumption mandated by section 139 of N.I.Act does
indeed include the existence of legally enforceable debt or
liability. Therefore, once the initial burden is discharged by
the complainant that the cheque is issued by accused, the
burden casted on the accused to prove the contrary that
cheque is not issued for any debt or other liability. The said
proposition of law is laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
25 C.C.No.25988/2018
India in the case of the P Rasiya vs Abdul Nazer and
another. In the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India reported in 2021 (5) SCC 283 in the case of M/S
Kalamani Tex vs P. Balasubramanian. In the para 13 of
said Judgement the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as
follows:
“13. Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a
plain reading of its judgement that the trail court
completely overlooked the provisions and failed to
appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under
section 118 and section 139 of N.I.A. The statute
mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused
on the cheque/negotiable instrument are
established, then these “reverse onus” clause
become operative. In such a situation, the obligation
shifts upon the accused to discharge the
presumption imposed upon him. The point of law has
been crystalised by the court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal
Patel vs State of Gujarath…”
33. However in this case accused has failed to make
probable defence to rebut the presumptions. The defence of
accused is found self serving statement and it is not
26 C.C.No.25988/2018
sufficient to rebut the presumptions. Hence, on the basis of
the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P1 to 16 documents, the
complainant has proved the case and complainant is
entitled for recovery of the amount as compensation.
34. On considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, the complainant has able to establish that Ex.P.1
cheque is issued to discharge liability of repayment of
Rs.5,00,000/- to complainant by the accused. Ex.P1 is
dishonoured for the reason ‘Insufficient of Funds’ in the
account of accused and complainant is entitled for the
cheque amount as compensation. Further, complainant is
entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- as cost of the
proceedings. The accused is not a repeated offender.
Hence, there is no need to award imprisonment term.
However, accused is liable to pay the fine amount of
Rs.10,000/- to the state towards litigation expenses. Under
these circumstances, this Court answers Points No.1 and 2
in the Affirmative.
27 C.C.No.25988/2018
35. POINT No.3: For the foregoing reasons stated
in the Points No.1 and 2, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
The accused is found guilty for the
offence punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C,
the accused is convicted for the offence
punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 5,20,000/- and
in case of default she shall undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 months.
Out of the fine amount Rs.5,10,000/-
shall be paid to the complainant as
compensation as per section 357(1)(b) of
Cr.P.C. The remaining amount of Rs.10,000/-
shall be defray to the State.
In view of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. bail
bonds stand extended for 6 months from this
date.
28 C.C.No.25988/2018
Supply free copy of Judgment to the
accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and corrected by me
th
and signed, pronounced in the Open Court this16 day of July, 2025 )(SMT.RASHMI H.B.,)
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
::ANNEXURE::
1.List of Witnesses examined for Complainant:
PW1 :- Smt Mangala N.R., PW2 :- Rakesh L.S.,
2.List of Documents marked for Complainant:-
Ex.P1 :- Original Cheque
Ex.P1(a) :- Signature of Accused,
Ex.P2 :- Bank Endorsement,
Ex.P3 :- Office copy of the Legal Notice
Ex.P4 :- Postal Receipt,
Ex.P5 :- Track Consignment,
Ex.P6 :- Reply Notice dated 14-08-2018,
Ex.P7 :- Bank Pass Book,
Ex.P8 :- Account Opening Form,
Ex.P8(a)to(d) :- Signatures of Accused,
Ex.P9 :- Form No 60,
Ex.P10 :- Declaration,
Ex.P11 :- Enrollment Letter for Silk Programme,
Ex.P12 :- C/copy of Cheque & Deposit Slip,
Ex.P13 :- C/copy of Aadhaar Card of Accused,
Ex.P14 :- C/copy of Silk Debit Card Application,
Ex.P15 :- C/copy of Check List,
Ex.P16 :- C/copy of Specimen Signature.
29 C.C.No.25988/2018
3. List of Witnesses examined for Accused:
DW1 :- Smt.Ashika K.,
4. List of Documents marked for Accused:
Ex.D1 :- Acknowledgment dated 13-04-2017
issued by Yelahanka P.S.,
Ex.D2 :- C/copy of Sale Deed dated 02-06-
2017.
(SMT.RASHMI H.B.,)
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
30 C.C.No.25988/2018