Bangalore District Court
Vinay vs Naveen on 4 March, 2025
1
C.C.No. 27387/2019
KABC030848232019
Presented on : 18-11-2019
Registered on : 18-11-2019
Decided on : 04-03-2025
Duration : 5 years, 3 months, 16 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI.JAI SHANKAR.J,
B.A.L., LL.B
XXII ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2025
JUDGMENT U/s.278(2) of BNSS -2023
(OLD CORRESPONDENCE NO. 255(2) OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
C.C.NO. : 27387/2019
COMPLAINANT : Sri. K.K. Vinay,
S/o. Sri. K.B. Krishnaiah Setty,
Aged about 44 years,
Residing at No.35,
2
C.C.No. 27387/2019
12th Cross, 1st Main Road,
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bengaluru - 560 060.
(By Sri. V.S. Narayana. Adv.,)
V/s.
ACCUSED : Sri. Naveen.V,
S/o. Vishwanath,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at No.890, 1st Floor,
3rd Cross, Ashok Nagar,
BSK I Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 050.
(By Sri. Suneel S Narayan., Adv., )
Offence complained : U/s.138 of N.I.Act
of
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is Convicted
Date of order : 04.03.2025
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant
against the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3
C.C.No. 27387/2019
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is as
under:
It is contended that, the complainant and the accused
are known to each other from past 10 years and under such
acquittance, the accused used to borrow a hand loan of
Rs.11 Lakhs from the complainant for improvement of real
estate business on different dates and promised to repay
the said amount with a span of period. Towards repayment
of the loan amount, the accused has paid a sum of Rs.1
Lakh to the complainant by way of cash on 11.10.2018 and
for remaining amount, the accused has issued two post
dated cheques bearing No.295522, dt: 30.04.2019 for a sum
of Rs.5 Lakhs and another cheque bearing No. 295534, dt:
20.06.2019 for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs both drawn on IDBI
Bank, JP Nagar Branch, Bengaluru. assuring that, on its
4C.C.No. 27387/2019
presentation, it would be honoured. Believing the
representation, when the complainant presented the
cheques through his banker ie., Bank of India, Jayanagar
Branch, Bengaluru, it dishonored with shara as “Drawers
signature Differs” dt: 25.06.2019. Thereby, the complainant
got issued the demand notice dt:20.07.2019 through RPAD
and courier which were served on the accused on
23.07.2019 & 22.07.2019, respectively. But despite of
which, he has not chosen to comply the same, which has
given cause of action to file the present complaint.
3. After filing of the complaint, this court has taken
cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act.
Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Being
satisfied that, there are prima-facie materials to proceed
against accused, summons was issued. After appearance of
5
C.C.No. 27387/2019
the accused, he was enlarged on bail and plea was recorded.
The accused has not pleaded guilty, but submitted that, he
would go for the trial.
4. From the basis of the pleadings, the following
points that arise for my consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that, the
accused issued cheque bearing No.295522,
dt: 30.04.2019 for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs
and another cheque bearing No. 295534,
dt: 20.06.2019 for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs
both drawn on IDBI Bank, JP Nagar
Branch, Bengaluru, towards discharge of his
liability which was returned unpaid on
presentation for the reason “Drawer
Signature Differs” and despite of knowledge
of the notice, he has not paid the said cheque
amount and thereby, committed an offence
punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What order?
6
C.C.No. 27387/2019
5. The sworn statement and the documents marked
at Ex.P.1 to P.8 by the complainant is being treated as the
complainant evidence as per the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Indian Bank Association Vs. Union of India
and Ors., reported in 2010 (5) SCC 590. The statement of
the accused as required U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. was read over
and explained to accused, he denied the incriminating
evidence appeared against him and submitted that, he has
no evidence from his side.
6. Heard. The defence has also filed written
arguments. The counsel for the complainant has relied
upon the decisions referred below:
1. (2019) 18 SCC 106 – Rohitbhai Jivanlala Patel Vs.
State of Gujarat and another.,
7C.C.No. 27387/2019
2. (2015) 8 SCC 378 – T. Vasanthkumar Vs.
Vinayakumari
3. (2021) 5 SCC 283 -Kalamani Tex Vs.P,
Balasubramanian
4. (2018) 8 SCC 469 – T.P. Murugan Vs. Bojan & Posa
Nandhi Rept byy through power of attorney holder T.P.
Murugan Vs. Bojan
7. Crl.Rev. P No.2011/2013 – Gajanan Vs. Appasaheb
8. Crl Rev.P No.932/2021 – D.B. Jatti Vs. Naraindas
BodaramThe defence has also relied upon the decisions referred
below:
1. (2014) 2 SCC 236- John K Abraham Vs. Simon C
Abraham and another
8C.C.No. 27387/2019
3. 2007(7) Supreme 500- K. Prakashan Vs. P.K.
surenderan
5) 2019(3) KCCR 2126 (SC) – Anns Rajashekar Vs.
Augustus Jeba Ananth
10) 2011(3) KCCR 1825 – (Crl. A No.1136/2004) – M/s.
Inted Distributors Mangalore Vs. Geetha K Rai
9
C.C.No. 27387/2019
11) 2010(5) KCCR SN 435 (Crl.A No.137/2007) – B.
Girish Vs. S.Ramaiah
12) H.R. Nagarathna Vs. Jayashreeprasad
13) Crl.Appeal No.2637/2009 DD No. 23/10/2013 –
Shivalingappa Vs. Basagonda
14) Crl. Appeal No. 2558/2009 – DD 29/10/2013 –
Mallappa Gangappa Halingali Vs. Basavaraj Murigeppa
Gani
15) 2011(3) AIR Kar 434 – Girish Vs. S. Ramaiah
16) (2008) 1 SCC 258 – K. Prakashan Vs. P.K.
Surenderan
17) Crl. Appeal No.939/2010 DD – 7.8.2019 –
Yeshwanth Kumar Vs. Shanth Kumar N)
18. Crl.Appeal No.405/2018 – Sri. P.R. Sarveshwar
Reddy Vs. Sri. A Somashekar Reddy
19. Crl. R.P No.844/2016- Smt. Annapoorna Vs. S.P.
Nandish
10
C.C.No. 27387/2019
20. Crl. Appeal No. 3257/2024 – Sri.Dattatraya Vs.
Sharanappa.
All the decisions and judgments relied by the parties
are dealt on the point of burden of proof, presumption,
rebuttable presumption and the financial capacity.
7. Perused the materials available on record.
8. My answer to the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 :- In the Affirmative
Point No.2 :- As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- The complainant has filed this
complaint alleging that, the accused has committed an
offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. He pleads and
asserts that, the accused in discharge of his liability has
issued the cheque bearing No.295522, dt: 30.04.2019 for a
11
C.C.No. 27387/2019
sum of Rs.5 Lakhs and another cheque bearing No. 295534,
dt: 20.06.2019 for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs both drawn on IDBI
Bank, JP Nagar Branch, Bengaluru, which is being
dishonored with shara as “Drawer Signature Differs”.
Thereby, he got issued the legal notice which is being
served, but the accused has not chosen to comply it, which
has given a cause of action to file the complaint.
10. In this scenario, if the documents placed by the
complainant is scrutinized, the complainant in order to
examine the compliance of statutory requirements as
envisaged U/s.138 of NI Act, he got produced the Ex.P.1 &
P2 the cheques dt: 30.04.2019 & 20.06.2019, respectively.
The said cheques are returned with an endorsement as
Drawer signature differs as per Ex.P3 & 4 respectively, the
return advise dt:25.06.2019, the Ex.P.5 is the office copy of
12
C.C.No. 27387/2019
the legal notice dt:20.07.2019, Ex.P 6 is the postal receipt,
Ex.P.7 is the postal acknowledgment and Ex.P.8 is the
courier receipt. The postal acknowledgment would indicate
the service of notice on dt: 23.07.2019. The present
complaint is filed on 30.08.2019. A careful scrutiny of the
documents relied by the complainant goes to show that, a
statutory requirement of Sec.138 of NI Act is being complied
with and this complaint is filed well in time. The
complainant has discharged his initial burden by examining
him as PW.1 and by producing the documents as referred
above. Thus, complainant is entitled to rely on the statutory
presumptions enshrined U/s.118 R/w. Sec. 138 of N.I.Act.
Sec. 118 of the Act reads as thus, that every Negotiable
Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that,
every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed,
13
C.C.No. 27387/2019
negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated
or transferred for consideration.
Further Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act provides
for presumption infavour of PA holder. It reads like this, it
shall be presumed, unless the contrary 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 any other liability.
11. A combined reading of the referred sections
raises a presumption infavour 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. No doubt, the said
presumptions of law are rebuttable in nature, the accused
can take probable defense in the scale of preponderance of
probabilities to rebut the presumption available to the
14
C.C.No. 27387/2019
complainant. It is need less to say that, the evidence of the
PW.1 can be rebutted even by effectively cross-examining
the PW.1, rather entering the witness box.
12. So here, it is relevant to note that, whether the
accused has really rebutted the presumption available
under the law which requires due consideration. It is an
undisputed fact that, the disputed cheques at Ex.P1 & P2
does belong to the accused. Even it cannot be denied that,
on the presentation of the disputed cheques, both the
cheques are being dishonorued with the shara as Drawer
signature differs. Here, the complainant claims that, as the
accused was well acquainted with him had borrowed
Rs.11 Lakhs and towards the repayment, he had paid Rs.1
lakh and towards the repayment of the balance amount had
issued the disputed cheques which are being dishonored
15
C.C.No. 27387/2019
and thereby, he has issued the demand notice which is
being served, despite which the accused has not complied
his demand. So, therefore he claims that, having he
established these facts, he is entitled to claim presumption
U/s.118 & 139 of N.I.Act. However, the accused though
admit the acquaintance of the complainant, but he totally
deny the loan transaction and issuance of the cheque to
the complainant. On the other hand, he contend that, he is
doing a real estate business and he was forming a layout at
Srirangapatna in which the complainant intended to invest
and accordingly, he had invested. He also contends that, as
he could not get the good profit from the investment and
though he is a resident of Mahalakshmipuram layout and
though the Kengeri police station come within his limits
where he resides, but by using his influence at
Byatarayanapura police station has forcibly obtained three
16
C.C.No. 27387/2019
signed blank cheques from the accused. He has also
questioned the financial capacity of the complainant and
thereby, claiming that, he has rebutted the presumption
seeks for acquittal.
13. In this back ground, if the rival claims of the
parties are taken into consideration, the initial burden is
upon the complainant to establish the loan transaction and
the accused issuing the disputed cheque towards the
discharge of loan liability. As said, the burden is upon the
complainant to establish the loan transaction. As said
above, the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 & 2 does belongs to
the accused is not in dispute. So also, the disputed
cheques at Ex.P.1 & P.2 are being dishonored with the
shara as drawer signature differs is also not in dispute. So,
this shara indicates that, the disputed cheques are being
dishonored on the ground that, the signatures found in
17
C.C.No. 27387/2019
the disputed cheques do differ with the specimen signature
of the accused submitted to the bank. Here, it is relevant to
note that, though the accused has taken a defence that, he
was brought to the station and was forcibly obtained three
cheques, but nowhere in the entire cross-examination of
PW.1, has disputed the signatures appearing in the
disputed cheques. Perhaps, he has categorically admitted
that, he had issued only a blank signed cheques as a
security for the purpose of developing the property which
itself again suffices that, the signature found in the
disputed cheques does belongs to the accused. Here, it
would be appropriate to extract the admission which reads
like this, “ವಿವಾದಿತ ಚೆಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಅರೋಪಿಯು ಕೇವಲ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿ
ನಿವೇಶನಗಳನ್ನು ಅಭಪಿಿವೃದ್ದಿ ಪಡಿಸುವ ಭದ್ರತೆಯ ಸಲುವಾಗಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆಂದರೆ
ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ”. So, here this admission suffices that, the
18
C.C.No. 27387/2019
signatures appearing in the disputed cheques are done by
the accused with an intention to get it dishonored.
14. It is relevant to note that, the accused has
seriously disputed the financial capacity of the complainant
in advancing Rs.11 Lakhs or Rs.10 lakhs, as a case may
be. In other words, he has disputed the financial capacity of
the complainant to advance the said amount to him. Here,
the complainant claims that, he had advanced Rs. 11
lakhs after he availing loan from LIC, Kotak Mahindra
Bank, ICICI bank and also, after availing a personal loan
on credit card had handed over the said amount to the
accused. Here, it is relevant to note that, though the
complainant has undertaken to produce the documents to
this regard, but he has not chosen to produce it. But,
however merely the complainant not producing the said
documents would not be a fatal to the complainant case so
19
C.C.No. 27387/2019
as to appreciate his financial capacity in advancing Rs.11
lakhs. Because, the very evidence placed on the record
would justify the financial capacity of the complainant. As
said, the accused nowhere disputes his well acquaintance
with the complainant. He claims that, the complainant had
come forward to invest in the real estate business and
since, he was forming a layout at Srirangapatna, the
complainant had invested the amount and since, he did
not get a good profits, he happens to have forcibly obtained
the disputed cheques in station. Nowhere, the accused has
specifically contended as to what is the exact amount that
was being invested by the complainant and he has also not
produced any documents to show that, he had formed the
layout at Srirangapatna.
20
C.C.No. 27387/2019
15. It is not in dispute that, the accused is doing a
real estate business and it is also not in dispute that, the
complainant is a medical representative of distributing the
medicines. Here, when the accused has taken a specific
contention that, the complainant had invested the amount
in forming the layout or the real estate business as the case
may be, he indirectly admits the financial capacity in
advancing the amount which cannot be brushed aside.
Moreso, the defence raised by him also makes more
relevant so as to appreciate the claim of the complainant.
Because, by not only perusing the oral and documentary
evidence available on record, it indicates that, the accused
has utterly failed to establish his defence by entering the
witness box, but the cross-examination of the PW.1 also
indicates that, the accused has not chosen to complete the
21
C.C.No. 27387/2019
cross-examination of PW.1 which itself suffices that, the
accused has failed to rebut the presumption.
16. Perhaps, at one breath he claims that, having
the complainant suffered a loss in investing in the real
estate business and he was forced to issue the cheque in
the station, but at another breath he takes the defence that,
he had issued the disputed cheques with another cheque
towards the security purpose for having the complainant
invested in developing the property. Here, the accused has
taken two folded defence which is not being established by
placing the probable evidence. For a moment, if it is
construed that, the complainant had falsely filed the
complaint before the Byatarayanapura Police station by
using influence and had obtained the disputed cheques
with another cheque through force, but when the accused
is so particular that, he is not due for any amount as
22
C.C.No. 27387/2019
claimed by the complainant and that, he was forced to
issue the disputed cheques, certainly nothing had prevented
the accused to initiate some action against the complainant
or on the officers working in the station to their superior
officers. Even, the accused has not specifically contended
his inconvenience for not initiating any legal action against
the complainant or the officials. Even, the accused had no
impediment to demand the return of the disputed cheques
with other cheques in writing, which admittedly not
forthcoming.
17. Moreso, even he had no impediment to request his
bank to stop the payment by disclosing the real incident
which again not forthcoming, but rather the Ex.P.3 & 4
would speak otherwise. If really, the disputed cheques were
obtained through force and if the accused had stopped the
payment of the cheques by disclosing the real incident,
23
C.C.No. 27387/2019
certainly, the said evidence would have supported his stand.
It would not be wrong to say that, when the accused has
taken a particular defence, more particularly the allegation
of the complainant using his influence on the police
officials and obtaining the cheques forcibly, he ought to
have made some efforts which would have certainly come to
his rescue. Perhaps, even, he has not made any efforts to
reply the demand notice by putting forth this defence. Here,
the service of demand notice at Ex.P.7 & 8 is not being
denied by the accused. Even, through out the cross-
examination of the Pw.1, nowhere he has suggested the
non service of the demand notice. In the decision reported
in 2019 SCC OnLine Kar.2117- V.R.Shresti Vs.,
Bhaskar.P., wherein the Hon’ble High court has opined
that, if really the accused had no transaction with the
complainant, he would have given reply to the notice and
24
C.C.No. 27387/2019
not replying the same would go to establish that, the
defence made is false and the court should draw the
presumption against the accused for not replying the legal
notice. The decision aptly applies to the case in hand. Not
replying the notice at the initial stage would hold no water
so far the defence case is concerned and in this
background, the case of the complainant has to be accepted
by drawing presumption. Absolutely there is no evidence
available on record to appreciate the defence claim.
Perhaps, it indicates that, after thought the accused has
taken this defence. Here, it relevant to note that, no prudent
man would issue the cheque and squat over the matter,
unless it is being issued towards a legally recoverable
liability. It would not be wrong to say that, the defence
raised by the accused is totally contradictory to his stand
which is not corroborated with the evidence. In other
25
C.C.No. 27387/2019
words, it suffices that, having the accused failed to establish
his defence, an inference could be drawn that, the
complainant has established his case for having advanced
Rs.11 lakhs to the accused and the accused issuing the
disputed cheques towards the discharge of legal liability.
18. In the decision reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283 –
Kalamani Tex and Another., Vs. P.Balasubramanian,
(2010) 11 SCC 441- Rangappa Vs. Sri.Mohan., Wherein
it is held that, when once the signature of an accused on
the cheque is established, than the reverse onus clauses
become operative, also aptly applies to the case in hand.
When the complainant has established the accused having
issued the cheque at Ex.P.1 & P2 towards the discharge of
loan liability and their existed a legally enforceable debt, the
onus to disprove it, shifts on the accused which is not been
26
C.C.No. 27387/2019
proved by placing positive evidence. In this background,
having the accused not disputed the complainant case by
placing positive evidence, I am of the considered view that,
the cheque issued by the accused at Ex.P.1 & P2 are for the
legally enforceable debt and this fact is being established
by the complainant by placing cogent and positive evidence
which is not rebutted by the other side.
19. As said above, the accused has not disputed the
cheque does pertains to him. It could be said that, the
accused has not disputed the cheque in question and
signature found therein. When the drawer has admitted the
issuance of cheque therein, the presumption envisaged
U/s.118 R/w.139 of N.I.Act would operate infavour of the
complainant. The said provisions lies on a special rule of
evidence applicable to negotiable instruments. The
27
C.C.No. 27387/2019
presumption is one of law and thereunder the court shall
presume that, the instrument was endorsed for
consideration. So also, in the absence of contrary evidence
on behalf of the accused, the presumption U/s.118 of
N.I.Act goes in favour of the complainant. No doubt, as said
statutory presumptions are rebuttable in nature, but when
the complainant has relied upon the statutory
presumptions enshrined U/s.118 R/w.Sec.139 of N.I.Act, it
is for the accused to rebut the presumption with cogent and
convincing evidence. To put it in other way, the burden lies
upon the accused to prove the cheque in question at Ex.P.1
& P2 were not issued for the discharge of debt or liability.
20. It is worth to note that, Sec.106 of Indian
Evidence Act postulates that, the burden is on the accused
to establish the fact which is especially within its
knowledge. This provision is exception to the general rule
28
C.C.No. 27387/2019
that, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to
establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In that view
of matter, the burden is on the accused to prove that, the
cheque in question was not issued for discharge of any
liability. But, despite the accused has taken the defence
that, the Ex.P.1 & P2 were not issued towards the legal
liability, but the said fact and the version is not been
established.
21. From the discussion made supra, it could be
said that, the complainant has established his case by
placing positive evidence. On the other hand, the accused
failed to to establish his defence by placing probable
defence and also, failed to elicit the said fact from the
mouth of the PW.1. To put it in other way, the accused
though taken a probable defence, but it is not been
established by placing the positive evidence. In this back
29
C.C.No. 27387/2019
ground, it could be said that, the principle enumerated in
the decisions relied by the accused cannot be denied, but
with due respect the said decisions and judgments are not
applicable to the case in hand. The presumption of law lies
in favour of the complainant as envisaged U/s.118 R/w.
Sec. 139 of N.I.Act. In this back ground, the case of the
complainant requires to be accepted. The evidence placed
on record establishes that, the complainant has proved
that, for discharge of the legal liability, the accused has
issued Ex.P1 & P2 and it is being dishonored as per Ex.P3
& P4. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in the
“Affirmative’.
22. Point No.2:- For the reasons discussed in the
point No.1, the complainant has proved the guilt of the
accused punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. The Hon’ble Apex
30
C.C.No. 27387/2019
Court also dealt in the decision reported in (2018) 1 SCC
560, M/s. Meters and Instrument Pvt. Ltd., Vs.
Kanchana Mehta., wherein, It is held that “the object of
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 the later stage subject to
appropriate compensation has may be found acceptable to
the parties or the court”. By considering the decision, it
could be said that, the time when the transaction has taken
place and the primary object of the provision being kept in
mind, I am of the considered view that rather imposing
punitive sentence, if sentence of fine is imposed with
a direction to compensate the complainant for its monetary
loss by awarding compensation U/s.357 of Cr.P.C.,
it would meet the ends of justice. By considering
31
C.C.No. 27387/2019
these aspects, I am of the considered view that, it would be
just and proper to impose fine of Rs.10,05,000/-. Out of
the compensation of Rs.10,05,000/-, an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- shall be awarded to the complainant
U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly I proceed to pass the
following :.
ORDER
Acting U/s.278(2) of BNSS -2023
(Old Correspondence No. 255(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure), the accused is convicted for
the offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused is
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,05,000/- (Rupees
Ten Lakhs and Five Thousand only) .
In default thereof, the accused shall undergo
simple imprisonment for the term of one year.
Acting U/s. 396 of BNSS - 2023 (Old
Correspondence No.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C), it is
ordered that, Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh
only), there from shall be paid to the complainant
32
C.C.No. 27387/2019
as compensation. The remaining fine amount of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is
defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in
the prosecution.
The office is to furnish the free copy of this
Judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Directly dictated to stenographer on computer, typed by her, revised by me and
then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of March 2025).
JAI Digitally signed by
JAI SHANKAR J
SHANKAR Date: 2025.03.04
J 17:14:43 +0530
(JAI SHANKAR.J)
XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri. K.K. Vinay
List of exhibits marked on behalf of complainant:-
Ex.P.1 & 2 : Original cheque
Ex.P1(a) & 2(a) : Signatures of the accused
Ex.P3 & 4 : Bank Memos
33
C.C.No. 27387/2019
Ex.P5 : Legal notice
Ex.P6 : Postal receipt
Ex.P7 : Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.P8 : Courier receipt
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:-
-Nil-
List of exhibits marked on behalf of the accused:-
– Nil-
Digitally
signed by JAI
JAI SHANKAR J
SHANKAR Date:
J 2025.03.04
17:14:48
+0530
(JAI SHANKAR.J)
XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
34
C.C.No. 27387/2019
[ad_1]
Source link