Bangalore District Court
B S Sathyakumar vs Anil Ghanagiri Nagarajan on 18 February, 2026
SCCH-2 1 C.C.No.9182/2021
KABC020273862021
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-2).
C.C.NO. 9182/2021
:: PRESENT ::
Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
6th Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM, Bengaluru.
Dated: On this the 18th day of February, 2026.
Complainant : Sri. B S Sathyakumar
S/o Shakunaiah,
Aged about 66 years,
Flat No. 501, W 1 A block,
Vasathi Avathi Apartments,
Rachenahalli, Bengaluru 560045.
(By Sri. Laksha Kalappa B, Advocate)
- Vs. -
Accused : Sri. Anil Ghanagiri Nagarajan
Flat No. 401, C block,
Komarla Briagade Residency,
Chikkalasandra,
SCCH-2 2 C.C.No.9182/2021
Subramanyapura road,
Utharalli hobli, Bengaluru 560061.
(By Smt. Divya Ramesh, Advocate)
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The complainant has filed the present complaint U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred as N.I.Act).
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:-
The accused approached the complainant stating that, he was the sole proprietor of Vedaas, an entity trading in commodities such as Gold, Silver and Copper. As per the accused's promise of assured returns, the complainant wife Mrs. Pushpa Sathyakumar, the complainant's son Mr. Shreyas S Kumar and the complainant entered into several agreements between 2013 to 2014 by investing large amount of Rs.41,50,000/- and also promised to return the same at the end of 12 months. As per the agreement, the accused delivered his promises till September 2014 and thereafter the accused defaulted in payment towards the principal amounts invested by the complainant and his family.
After repeated followups by the complainant regarding the return of the principal amount, the accused has issued a SCCH-2 3 C.C.No.9182/2021 signed blank cheque bearing No. 017679 for Rs.20,00,000/- drawn on Axis bank, Mysore (KT) branch, Mysuru towards the discharge of his liability.
As per the instructions of accused, the complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker namely Canara Bank. However, the said cheque got bounced for the reason as "Drawer's Signature Differs" on 23.02.2021. Further, the complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment for the 2 nd time through his banker namely Axis Bank, Hegde nagar branch. However, the said cheque got bounced for the reason as "Insufficient Funds" on 01.03.2021. Thereafter, the complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused on 11.03.2021 through courier and also through RPAD. The notice sent to the residential address of the accused was served to him on 12.03.2021. In spite of service of notice also, the accused has neither repaid the amount nor sent any reply. Hence, cause of action arose to file the complaint.
3. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. After filing of the complaint, the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and it prima- facie found that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, criminal case was registered and the summons was issued to the accused.
SCCH-2 4 C.C.No.9182/20214. In response to the summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and thereafter plea was recorded. The accused was denied the accusation leveled against him, claimed to be tried. Further, the statement of the accused as contemplated U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of complainant and submitted that he has defence evidence.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Indian Bank Association and Others vs Union Bank of India and Another reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528, held that "Sworn Statement of the complainant has to be treated as examination in chief". In the instant case, the complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. P.W.1 was subject to the process of cross- examination from the side of accused. Per contra, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1. However, DW.1 failed to appear before this court to tender his cross-examination.
6. Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the materials available on record.
7. Now the points that arise for consideration of this Court are as hereunder:
SCCH-2 5 C.C.No.9182/20211. Whether the complainant has proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What Order?
8. The findings of this Court to the above-referred points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
9. POINT No.1: In order to prove the case, the
complainant examined himself as P.W.1 by filing affidavit in support of his oral examination-in-chief. In the affidavit P.W.1 has reiterated the complaint averments in verbatim. Hence, this Court need not to recapitulate the same once again at this juncture. In support of his oral testimony, P.W.1 has marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. Per contra, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1. It is relevant to note that DW.1 has failed to appear before this court to subject himself for cross- examination from the side of complainant.
SCCH-2 6 C.C.No.9182/202110. Now itself it is appropriate to see the documents marked at Ex.P-Series and Ex.D-Series.
Ex.P-Series.
Ex.P.1 is the cheque in question. Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of accused. Ex.P.2 & Ex.P.3 are the bank endorsements dated:23.02.2021 and 01.03.2021 respectively. Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.11 are the acknowledgment and memorandum of understanding dated 10.08.2013, 05.10.2013, 17.10.2013, 14.11.2013, 08.01.2014, 14.03.2014, 14.03.2013 and 01.04.2014. Ex.P.12 is the office copy of the legal notice dated:11.03.2021. Ex.P12(a) is the postal receipt. Ex.P.13 is the postal track consignment. Ex.P14 is the call recording of the telephonic conversation between the complainant and accused. Ex.P15 is the pen drive with audio files of voice recordings. Ex.P16 is the certificate U/Sec.65-A (4) of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P17 is the typed copy of whats app conversation between the complainant and accused. Ex.P18 is the certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P19 is the typed copy of telephonic conversation between the complainant and accused. Ex.P20 is the pen drive containing audio record. Ex.P21 is the certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act and Ex.P22 is the certified copy of acknowledgment and memorandum of understanding.
SCCH-2 7 C.C.No.9182/2021Ex.D-Series.
Ex.D.1 is the account statement pertaining to accused.
11. The learned counsel for complainant has relied on the following decisions:
i) 2020 SCC Online Mad 9030 between G Balaji and another Vs. Saravanasamy.
ii) (1999) 3 SCC 573 between Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao and another.
iii) ILR 2013 KAR 3941 between Sudarshan Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Vs. M/s. Techvac Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,
iv) (1962) 1 SCR 140 between Khan Bahadur Shapoor Fredoom Mazda Vs. Durga Prasad Chamaria and others.
v) 2019 SCC Online NCLT 23953 between Val-meet Engineering Private Limited ... Financial Creditor Vs. Trusted Aerospace Engineering Private Limited....
Corporate debtor.
vi) Criminal Revision Petition No. 256/2022 between Sri. Sudhakar Reddy C. B. Vs. Smt. Pushpa.
SCCH-2 8 C.C.No.9182/2021
vii) Criminal Revision Petition No.
100079/2016 (397) between Krishna
Automation & Software and others Vs. Balaachandra S Mule.
viii) Criminal Appeal No. 2045/2008 between M/s. Kumar Exports Vs. M/s.
Sharma Carpets.
ix) Criminal Appeal No.358/2017 between Sri. Anil G N and another Vs. Dr. S Radhesh.
x) (2012) 13 SCC 375 between Laxmi Dyechem Vs. State of Gujarat and others.
12. The learned counsel for accused filed reply arguments and also relied on the following decisions:
i) Criminal Revision Petition No. 287/2015 between S S Ramesh Vs. K Lokesh.
ii) ILR 2022 KAR 1071 betweem L R Sudhir Vs. K S Suresh Raju.
iii) Criminal Appeal No. 302/2010 between K N Raju Vs. Manjunath T V. SCCH-2 9 C.C.No.9182/2021
iv) Civil Revision Petition No. 655/2023 (IO) between Shri. Paramashiva N E Vs. Smt. Savithramma.
v) Writ Petition No. 105585/2023 (GM-RES) between Shri. Mohan Raghavan Vs. Shri. Vijaykumar Muddanna Shetty.
This court has carefully gone through the decisions relied by both the counsels and applied the principles to the case on hand.
13. Before going to discuss the main aspect, it is worth to reproduce the provisions of Sec.138 and 139 of N.I.Act, the same as hereunder:
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account: -
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the SCCH-2 10 C.C.No.9182/2021 cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for (a term which may be extended to two years), or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of Six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (The period of 6 months has been reduced to 3 months, vide R.B.I. notification No.RBI/2011-12/251,DBOD.AMLBC No.47/14.01.001/2011-12, dated:4th November 2011 (w.e.f. 01.04.2012))
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may SCCH-2 11 C.C.No.9182/2021 be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation: - For the purposes of the section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
139. Presumption in favour of holder:- It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
SCCH-2 12 C.C.No.9182/202114. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898, between Rangappa V/s Mohan wherein their lordships have observed at para 26 as hereunder:
"No doubt that there is a initial presumption which favours the complainant".
15. It is germane to note that the proceedings U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act is an exception to the general principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent until the charge leveled against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the proceedings initiated U/Sec.138 of the N.I. Act proof of beyond reasonable doubt is subject to the presumption envisaged under Sec.139 of the N.I. Act. Once the requirement of Sec.138 of the N.I. Act is fulfilled, then it has to be presumed that the cheque was issued in discharge of legally recoverable debt or liability. The presumption envisaged under Sec.139 of N.I. Act is mandatory presumption and it has to be raised in every cheque bounce cases.
16. Now this court has to see whether the complainant has complied the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I.Act or not? In this connection, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3, Ex.P12, Ex.P12(a) and Ex.P13 are relevant. Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing No.017679 SCCH-2 13 C.C.No.9182/2021 and 20.02.2021. Ex.P1(a) is the signature of the accused. Ex.P.2 & 3 are the bank endorsements dated:23.02.2021 and 01.03.2021. Ex.P.12 is the office copy of legal notice dated:11.03.2021. Ex.P.12(a) is the RPAD receipt. Ex.P.13 is the postal track consignment.
17. Now, the question before this court is whether cheque can be presented twice or not?. In order to answer this aspect it is worth to rely on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013 (1) SCC 177 between MSR Leathers Vs. S.Palaniappan wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "there is nothing in the provisions of Sec.138 of the Act that forbids the holder of cheque to make successive presentation of the cheque and institute the criminal complaint based on the second or successive dishonour of the cheque on its presentation". Therefore, it is crystal clear that within the stipulated period cheque can be presented for encashment any number of times. On careful perusal of Ex.P.1 coupled with Ex.P.2 & Ex.P3, it appears to this court that, the complainant has presented the cheque for encashment and same was got bounced twice on 23.02.2021 and 01.03.2021 respectively. Therefore, it is crystal clear that, the complainant has presented the cheques for encashment within stipulated period.
SCCH-2 14 C.C.No.9182/202118. Now, the next question before this court is whether the complainant has issued the notice in accordance with law or not? As per Ex.P.12, on 11.03.2021, the complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused. As per Ex.P.12(a), the complainant has dispatched the said notice on 12.03.2021. On careful examination of Ex.P.12 & Ex.P.12(a), it is crystal clear that, the complainant has issued the legal notice within 30 days from the date of receipt of bank endorsements.
19. Now, the next question before this court is whether the legal notice issued by the complainant was served on the accused or not?. As per Ex.P.13, the notice sent to the accused was delivered to him on 15.03.2021. It is relevant to note that, the accused side has not disputed the address of accused more fully described in Ex.P12. Therefore, it can be inferred that the complainant has issued the notice to the correct address of the accused and it amounts to deemed service.
20. Now, the next aspect is whether Ex.P.1 is pertaining to the bank account of accused and Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of accused or not? In the instant case the PW.1 was cross examined from the side of accused. On scrupulous reading of the entire cross-examination of PW.1, this court do not find single suggestion regarding Ex.P1(a) is not the signature SCCH-2 15 C.C.No.9182/2021 of accused. Therefore, it is crystal clear that Ex.P1 is pertaining to the bank account of accused and Ex.P.1(a) is his signature. That apart, the presumption under Sec.118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act favours the complainant. Hence, the complainant has complied the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
21. Now, it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court between Hiten P Dalal V/s Brathindranath Manarji reported in 2001(6) SCC 16, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, "under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant is not required to establish either the legality or enforceability of the debt or liability since he can avail the benefit of presumption U/Sec.118 and Sec.139 of N.I. Act in his favour".
22. It is also settled position of law that, the presumption available U/Sec. 138 of N.I Act is a rebuttable presumption. Further, to rebut the said presumption the accused need not to enter into the witness box. However, the accused can establish his probable defence by creating a doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
23. Further, it is also settled position of law that, the standard of proof of rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. It is also settled position of SCCH-2 16 C.C.No.9182/2021 law that, if the accused succeeded in rebutting the presumption then the burden shifts back to the complainant. At this juncture, again it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898, between Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, "the standard of proof to rebut the presumption is that one of preponderance of probabilities".
24. It is also settled position of law that, "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 otherwise valid, within the provisions of Sec.138 would be attracted".
25. Now this court has to see whether the accused has rebutted the presumption or not?. Already this court has observed that Ex.P1 is pertaining to the bank account of accused and Ex.P1(a) is the signature of accused. According to the averments of complaint, the complainant and accused were entered into several agreements between 2013 and 2014. The complainant and his family members have invested the amount as per the advice of accused. Thereafter the accused failed to adhere to his promises as per the agreements. After repeated insistence from the side of complainant, the accused has issued a signed blank cheque SCCH-2 17 C.C.No.9182/2021 for Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was presented for encashment the same was got bounced.
26. The learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that, the alleged transaction is time barred. She also pointed out that as per the Limitation Act the complainant has to recover all his alleged dues within 3 years from the date of cause of action. Hence, complaint is not maintainable and accused is entitled for acquittal. Per contra, the learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that the accused has not denied the issuance of cheque and his signature. Further, he has not denied the transaction. Further argued that, though the accused examined himself as DW.1, he has failed to appear before this court to subject himself for cross- examination from the side of complainant. Hence, adverse inference can be drawn. Further, the learned counsel for complainant would submit that there are whatsapp conversations between the complainant and accused.
27. The learned counsel for complainant also pointed out that the accused side has not denied the whats app conversation. As per the said conversation the accused admitted the liability. Further the learned counsel for complainant drew the attention of this court regarding call recording conversation wherein, the complainant and SCCH-2 18 C.C.No.9182/2021 accused have discussed about the transaction and also amount due from the accused side.
28. Further the learned counsel for complainant would submit that the whats app messages which exchanged between the complainant and accused are also amounting to acknowledgment of debt and relied on the decision of Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal reported in 2019 SCC Online NCLT 23953 in the case of Val - Met Engg. Pvt. Ltd., V/s. Trusted Aeroscope Engg. Pvt. Ltd., It is very useful to reproduce para 21 as here under:
"Para 21 - On perusal of the whatsapp messages, it appears that, the applicant/financial creditor has continuously been following the co-operate debtor, who has been giving assurances only, but no payments have been made.
Now, the question arises as to whether the whatsapp messages exchanged between the parties amount to be acknowledgment of debt and such communications are admissible in evidence. In this connection a reference may be made to the order dtd.1.3.2019 passed by Hon'ble NCLAT in company appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.143/2019 titled Bhandari Hosiery Exports Ltd V/s. In- Time Garments Pvt. Ltd., wherein the whatsapp messages were taken into SCCH-2 19 C.C.No.9182/2021 consideration for ascertaining a dispute between the parties which were made prior to the issuance of the notice u/Sec.8 of the I & B Code 2016. Therefore, this authority does not see any bar on relying upon the whatsapp messages which have been exchanged between the parties in the instant case, as the same are admissible u/Sec.65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. In this case, the last transaction took place on 14.09.2014 between the applicant/financial creditor and co-operate debtor and the whatsapp messages have started to get exchanged between the parties from 7.7.2015 till 28.1.2016, by which the co-operate debtor assured to make the payments to the applicant financial creditor and the application u/Sec.7 of the I & B code 2016 has been filed on 22.6.2018, which is within the period of limitation''.
29. The learned counsel for complainant has also relied on the decision of ILR 2013 KAR 3941 between Sudarshan Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Techvac Engg. Pvt. Ltd., wherein it is held as follows:
"e-mails have to be construed and read as due and proper acknowledgment and it would meet the parameters laid down U/Sec.18 of the Limitation Act SCCH-2 20 C.C.No.9182/2021 1963 to constitute a valid and legal acknowledgment of debt due''.
30. In the instant case also the complainant side has strongly relied on Ex.P17 i.e., Whats app messages exchanged between the complainant and accused from 29.03.2018 to 18.02.2022. At this juncture it is worth to reproduce the relevant Whats app conversation here itself for better understanding:
"18.12.2018 - 7.49 p.m. - Sathyakumar B S : Anil please transfer Rs.10,00,000/- to Navina's account tomorrow without fail this is most important''.
"06.03.2020 - 1.10 p.m. Sathyakumar B S : Anil why are you not picking my call? You had promised me that he would transfer Rs.10,00,000/- today by 10.30 but you did not why, for what reason you are not picking my call?'' "06.03.2020 - 1.18 p.m. Anil : I will transfer Sir''.
"1.09.2021 - 9.46 p.m. Anil : Credits by 11.00 a.m. tomo''.SCCH-2 21 C.C.No.9182/2021
31. Therefore, as per Ex.P17, Whats app messages have been exchanged between the complainant and accused. Hence by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble NCLT and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, it is crystal clear that Whats app messages also treated as acknowledgment of debt. Therefore, the contention of accused that the alleged liability is barred by limitation holds no water and cannot be accepted.
32. Further, on perusal of cross-examination of PW.1, it could be gathered that the accused side has taken a contention that the cheque has been misused by the complainant. At the cost of repetition, the accused examined himself as DW.1. However, he has failed to offer himself for cross-examination. That apart, the accused has not taken any action against the complainant regarding alleged misuse of the cheque.
33. Besides the above referred aspects, the accused has not explained how the cheque in question got into the possession of complainant. That apart, the accused has not at all taken steps to get back his cheque. Therefore, it is pellucid that the accused has issued the cheque in question towards the discharge of his liability. Therefore, the contentions put forth by the accused have failed to inspire the confidence of this court. As such, the defence raised by SCCH-2 22 C.C.No.9182/2021 the accused is not probable, not believable and amounts to vague defence. Hence, the accused has not raised probable defence. Based on the said vague defence the accused cannot rebut the presumption. At this juncture, it is worth to rely on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2018(8) SCC 165 between Kishan Rao V/s Shankar Gouda, Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "Mere denial regarding existence of debt shall not serve any purpose".
34. At the cost of repetition, the initial presumption favours the complainant. However, the said presumption is rebuttable. If the accused rebutted the presumption then burden shifts back to the complainant. Interestingly, in the instant case, the accused has not put forth plausible defence to rebut the presumption. In the absence of cogent evidence to show that the cheques were not issued in discharge of a liability, the defence raised by the accused failed to inspire the confidence of this Court to believe his version or to meet the standard of 'Preponderance of Probabilities'. Hence, with the help of presumption and also on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court has come to the conclusion that, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is pivotal to note that the present case is of the year 2021. Hence the complainant is entitled to the extent of Rs.26,00,000/- together with simple interest on the cheque SCCH-2 23 C.C.No.9182/2021 amount at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of its realization. Accordingly, this Court is answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
35. POINT No.2:- In view of the discussions referred to above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
:: O R D E R ::
Acting U/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The accused shall pay fine of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty six lakhs Only) to the complainant and in default to pay fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
However, it is clarified that, mere serving of default sentence by the accused, does not absolve him from the liability of payment of fine amount as ordered by this court.
The complainant is entitled for the interest at the rate of 9% per annum SCCH-2 24 C.C.No.9182/2021 on the cheque amount from the date of this order till realization.
By exercising the powers conferred U/Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C, the amount of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty six lakhs Only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation.
Office is hereby directed to provide free copy of judgment to the accused forthwith.
Bail bond of the accused shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and corrected by me, and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 18th day of February, 2026) (H.P. Mohan Kumar) VI Addl. Judge and ACJM., Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
:ANNEXURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : Sri. B S Sathyakumar.
SCCH-2 25 C.C.No.9182/2021
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque bearing No.017679 dated
20.02.2021.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2 & : Bank endorsements dated 23.02.2021 and Ex.P.3 01.03.2021. Ex.P.4 : Acknowledgment and memorandum of understanding to Ex.P11 dated 10.08.2013, 05.10.2013, 17.10.2013,
14.11.2013, 08.01.2014, 14.03.2014, 14.03.2013 and 01.04.2014.
Ex.P.12 : Office copy of the legal notice dated:11.03.2021.
Ex.P.12(a) : Postal receipt.
Ex.P.13 : Postal track consignment.
Ex.P.14 : Call recording of the telephonic conversation between the complainant and accused.
Ex.P.15 : Pen drive with audio files of voice recordings. Ex.P.16 : Certificate U/Sec.65-A (4) of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.17 : Typed copy of whats app conversation between the complainant and accused.
Ex.P.18 : Certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.19 : Typed copy of phone conversation between the complainant and accused.
Ex.P.20 : Pen drive containing audio record.
SCCH-2 26 C.C.No.9182/2021Ex.P.21 : Certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.22 : Acknowledgment and memorandum of understanding.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED:
D.W.1 : Sri. Anil Ghanagiri Nagarajan.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 : Account statement pertaining to accused.Digitally signed by H
HP P MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR Date: 2026.02.23
12:06:39 +0530
(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge and ACJM.,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.