Bangalore District Court
Swathi Enterprises vs Arun Kumar .P on 20 March, 2024
KABC020271322019
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY.
SCCH6
Present: Smt. Chetana S.F.
B.A., L.L.B.,
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge &
ACMM, Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
CC. No. 5972/2019
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MARCH, 2024
Complainant:
SWATHI ENTERPRISES
REP BY ITS PROP SRI.BHASKAR.M.
S/O LATE G MUTHU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NO. 1/45, 4TH CROSS,
MANJUNATHNAGARA,
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU560010.
VERSUS
Accused:
ARUN KUMAR .P
S/O PARASHURAM,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO. 26, 6TH CROSS,
NETHAJI LAYOUT,
CHANDRA LAYOUT,
NEAR RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
BENGALURU560040.
Sri.K.H. Pradeep KumarAdvocate for complainant,
Sri.S.R.RajashekaraAdvocate for Accused
2 CC NO.5972 of 2019
: J U D G M E N T :
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec. 200 of
Cr.P.C. for the offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act as
against the accused praying to punish the accused for the said
offence.
2. The case of the complainant is that, accused has
requested the complainant for Rs.3,60,000/ and promised that
he would repay it within six months and complainant had given
Rs.1,90,000/ on 2032018 and Rs.1,70,000/ on 3062018
by way of cheque and accused received Rs.3,60,000/. That
even after lapse of six months, the accused has not paid the
amount borrowed by him. Inspite of repeated request and
demands, he ha s not paid the amount to the complainant. In
the second week of August 2019 the accused has issued
postdated cheque bearing No.948818 dt.1382019 drawn on
SBI, Hampinagar branch, Bengaluru for Rs.3,60,000/ to the
complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque
issued by the accused with his banker, but the said cheque was
3 CC NO.5972 of 2019
returned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient" by his
banker on 1482019. The Complainant got issued legal
notice on 2682019 through registered post acknowledgment
to the accused. The said notice was returned with false shara
on 2882019. The accused has failed and neglected to to
discharge of debt to the complainant. Accordingly, the accused
has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I Act.
Hence, this complaint.
3. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant
and also verifying the documents, cognizance was taken against
the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I.
Act. The accused on receiving the summons appeared before
this Court through his counsel and he enlarged on bail and his
plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for evidence of the
complainant.
4. The complainant got examined herself as PW.1 and got
marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to 11. Then, the case was
4 CC NO.5972 of 2019
posted for recording the statement of accused under Sec.313
Cr.P.C. In the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has
denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and
claimed to be tried. The accused got examined himself as DW
1 and one witness Satish got examined as DW2 and got
marked ExD1 and ExD2.
5. Heard the arguments of both side and Perused the
records.
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the complainant proves that the cheque bearing No.948818 dt.1382019 drawn on SBI, Hampinagar branch, Bengaluru for Rs.3,60,000/ issued by the accused has been dishonored on the ground of 'Funds Insufficient' and even after receiving the intimation regarding the dishonor of cheque failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under
Point No.1: In the Affirmative 5 CC NO.5972 of 2019 Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
: R E A S O N S :
8. POINT NO.1: In view of the present legal position as held by our Hon'ble High Court as well as Apex Court of India in a catena of decisions as well as relevant provisions of the Act, this court has to see whether the complainant has complied all the requirements as contained in Sec.138 of NI Act so as to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence. If so, whether the accused is able to rebut the legal presumption available to the complainant under Sec.139 of the Act by adducing probable defense or not. However, it is held by the full bench of our Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2010 (1) DCR 706 that;
"The Statutory presumption mandated by sec.139 of the Act, does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. However, the presumption U/S 139 6 CC NO.5972 of 2019 of the Act is in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open for the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested".
9. Therefore, in view of the above decision, once the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption would automatically fall in favour of the complainant that, the alleged cheque was issued for discharge of an existing legally enforceable debt or liability against the accused and the burden will shift on to the accused to rebut the same.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION
10. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfill all the essential ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision reveals the following necessary ingredients of the offence: First Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him 7 CC NO.5972 of 2019 for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity;
Second Ingredient: The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;
8 CC NO.5972 of 2019
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
11. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act if the abovementioned ingredients are proved by the complainant coextensively. Additionally, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled. Notably, there is no dispute at bar about the proof of only first, third, and fifth ingredient. The complainant had proved the original cheque vide Ex.P.1 which the accused person had not disputed as being drawn on the account of the accused. It was not disputed that the cheque in question was presented within its validity period. The cheque in question were returned unpaid vide return memo dated 1482019 vide Ex.P.2 due to the reason, "Funds Insufficient". The complainant had proved the service of legal demand notice dated 2682019 vide Ex.P3 by bringing on record the postal receipt vide Ex.P4 9 CC NO.5972 of 2019 and ExP5postal cover. Thus, there is a dispute with regard to the second ingredient to the offence. As such, the first, third, fourth and fifth ingredient of the offence under section 138 of the NI Act stands proved.
12. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned, the complainant has to prove that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debtor any liability. In the present case, the issuance of the cheque in question is not denied. As per the scheme of the NI Act, once the accused admits signature on the cheque in question, certain presumption are drawn, which result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Another presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of NI Act. The provision lays down the presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
10 CC NO.5972 of 2019
13. The combined effect of these two provisions is a presumption that the cheque is drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections use the expression "shall", which makes it imperative for the court to raise the presumptions once the foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16.
14. Further, it has been held by a threejudge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri.Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act includes the presumption of existence of a legally enforceable debt. Once the presumption is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the same by establishing a probable defence. The principles pertaining to the presumptions and the onus of proof were recently summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 as under:
11 CC NO.5972 of 2019
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Section 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in the following manner: 25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.12 CC NO.5972 of 2019
25.4. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence. Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence."
15. The presumptions raised under Section 118(b) and Section 139 N.I.Act are rebuttable presumptions. A reverse onus is cast on the accused, who has to establish a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities to prove that either there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability. In this case, the arguments raised by the Ld.counsel for the accused to rebut the presumption are discussed below:
I. ACCUSED HAS TAKEN THE DEFENCE THAT THE NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN SERVED.
16. The accused has taken the specific defence that the notice has not been served to him as such no cause of action arises to file the complaint against him. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has argued that as per 13 CC NO.5972 of 2019 Ex.P3 legal notice has been issued to the accused and he has produced the postal cover as per Ex.P5 wherein the postal authority has written the shara as No such person and incorrect address on 2782019.
17. On perusal of the evidence of DW.1, DW.1 in his crossexamination para No.2 was confronted with postal acknowledgment for the service of the notice which was admitted by the DW1 and was marked as ExP8. Further PW1 admitted that the address mentioned in the ExP7 Adhaar card of the accused and the address mentioned in the complaint and the ExP3 notice and RPAD cover ExP5 is his address. Further DW1 stated that in 2023 he has vacated the said address. On perusal of the address of accused in the complaint and ExP7 Adhaar card of the accused with that of the address mentioned in the Ex.P3 both are one and the same. As such it is clear that Ex.P3 notice has been sent to the correct address of the accused. Moreover it is pertinent note here that even accused has admitted that the address in the Ex.P3 and ExP7 14 CC NO.5972 of 2019 and ExP5 postal cover is his correct address. Thus it is clear that Ex.P3 notice has been sent to the correct address. Thus it appears that the accused for the sake of the defence has denying the service of the notice by mere denying the same.
18. Moreover, in this regard, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S Indo Automobiles Vs. M/S. Jaidurga Enterprises reported in 2008 (2) DCR 499 and also as provided under Sec.27 of the Mysore general clauses Act, 1897. When a notice is sent to the correct address of the addressee, even if the same is returned unserved due absence or nonclaiming or refusal of the addressee, the same amounts to deemed service. Moreover, the very purpose of giving statutory notice to provide an opportunity to the accused/drawer to make payment of the cheque amount and escape from the criminal prosecution. The nonservice of the notice would be ground only in the case of the accused admitting the liability under the cheque and pleading only exemption from the criminal prosecution for non payment of the 15 CC NO.5972 of 2019 cheque amount. Thus this defence of the accused is of no consequence in the present case as he is totally denying the liability under the said cheque.
19. In the present case the notice has been sent to the correct address of the accused as admitted by the accused himself. As such the statutory demand notice is deemed to have been duly served on the accused. Hence defence taken by the accused that notice not served to him does not holds good.
2nd defence: complainant is not having the locusstandi to file the complaint
20. The accused has taken the specific defence that disputed that complainant has not produced any single document to show that he was the proprietor of M/s Swathi Enterprises and cheque has been issued in the name of M/s Swathi Enterprises and as such complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. In this regard, counsel for the accused cross examined PW1 at length wherein PW1 admitted 16 CC NO.5972 of 2019 that he was the proprietor of M/s Swathi Enterprises and he was doing civil construction work under the said firm. Further admitted that he has no problem to produce the said documents to show that he was the proprietor of M/s Swathi Enterprises. Further PW1 admitted that books of accounts has been maintained in the M/s Swathi Enterprises but he has not mentioned about the present transaction in the books of accounts and also in the IT returns. Further PW1 stated that the said M/s Swathi Enterprises has been registered.
21. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued that he has filed the complaint in the name of M/s Swathi Enterprises as a proprietor of M/s Swathi Enterprises and he is the proprietor of M/s Swathi Enterprises and cheque has been given by the accused to him and even accused himself has admitted about the issuance of ExP1 cheque to the complainant. Further argued that complainant has produced exP6 bank account statement which clearly reveals that the said bank account stands in the name of M/s 17 CC NO.5972 of 2019 Swathi Enterprises. Further later on PW1 has produced ExP9 registration certificate of the establishment relating to the M/s Swathi Enterprises.
22. On perusal of ExP9 it discloses that Baskar the complainant is the proprietor of M/s Swathi Enterprises and was carrying on the civil construction work and the said firm was registered. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the said registration certificate was valid only till 3112 2014 and as such at the time of transaction and the issuance of the cheque, the said enterprises was not at all in existence and as such ExP9 cannot be believed. Though admittedly ExP9 reveals that the said M/s Swathi Enterprises has been registered and registration was valid till 31122014, but that itself does not mean that M/s Swathi Enterprises has been completely closed and was not working. At the most we can say that the registration of the said M/s Swathi Enterprises was expired and it was valid only till 31122014 and PW1 has not produced any document to show that as on the date of 18 CC NO.5972 of 2019 the present transaction PW1 has renewed the registration. As the present complaint filed for an offence punishable u/s 138 of NI Act being the summary procedure, this court cannot go into the validity of the registration of the said firm at the time of the present transaction. Moreover, it is for the proper authority to take any necessary action in that regard for non renewal of the registration certificate. Even it is not the case of the accused that no such Swathi enterprises is existed at any point of time. Even the learned counsel for the accused himself in his cross examination para No.4 has posed the suggestion that PW1 was lending the money to the public under the name of Swathi enterprises and doing the money lending business and charging higher interest. As such it can be believed that Swathi enterprises is still in existence at the time of present transaction. From the ExP9 it is clearly established that the said Baskar complainant was the proprietor of the M/s Swathi Enterprises.
19 CC NO.5972 of 2019
23. Apart from this, complainant has produced exP10 in come tax returns for the year 20222023 which clearly shows that the said Muthu Bhaskar is the proprietor of the M/s Swathi Enterprises. Thus from the ExP9 and 10, it is clearly established that Muthu Bhaskar is the proprietor of M/s Swathi Enterprises and he being holder in due course as a locusstandi to file the complaint. As such the defence taken by the accused is not proved.
THIRD DEFENCE :Financial capacity:
24. Further accused has taken the specific defence that complainant has no financial capacity to lend the money. in this regard counsel for the accused has suggested PW1 about his income for which PW1 in his crossexamination para 3 deposed that he was doing civil construction work and having income of Rs.1 lakh p.m. and after his expenses he would save Rs.60,000/ to Rs.70,000/p.m. Though PW1 admtited that he has no document to show that he was saving about Rs.60,000/ to Rs.70,000/p.m. but it is pertinent to note here 20 CC NO.5972 of 2019 that counsel for the accused has not at all denied the above said income and savings of the PW1 at least by way of putting any single suggestion.
25. Further accused himself by taking defence that he has borrowed loan of Rs.1,70,000/ from the PW1 on 3062018 has admitted that PW1 was having sufficient financial capacity to lend the loan. Further accused by taking the defence that complainant used to do the money lending business under the name of M/s Swathi Enterprises and filed cheque bounce case against Ashalatha, Venkatesh, Girish and Ranganath has impliedly admitted the financial capacity of the complainant.
26. Further with regard to the defence taken by the accused that complainant used to do the money lending business in the name of M/s Swathi Enterprises and receiving the higher interest the counsel for the accused cross examined PW1 at length in this regard. PW1 in his crossexamination admitted that he has filed two cheque bounce cases against one Girish in CC NO.11412/2022 and agaisnt Ranganath in CC 21 CC NO.5972 of 2019 No.4640/2018 and PW1 denied filing of any other cheque bounce case CC No.7990/2018 against Ashalatha and CC No.7989/2018 against Venkatesh. Though PW1 admtited that he has filed two cheque bounce cases agaisnt two persons but that itself will not prove that PW1 was doing the money lending busienss without any other cogent evidence. Even accused has not produced any document to show that PW1 was doing any money lending business. Mere taking the defence is not sufficient to prove the defence. without any supporting cogent material evidence and document the defence taken by the accused cannot be believable. Hence under such circumstances, it can be said that accused has failed to prove the said defence. As such accused has failed to prove that complainant was not having financial capacity to lend the money.
4th defence: No legally enforceable debt existed as on the date of issuance of cheque.
22 CC NO.5972 of 2019
27. It is the specific defence of the accused that on 306 2018 accused has borrowed the loan of Rs.1,70,000/ from the complainant agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and at that time, complainant has taken his signed blank cheque and signature to the blank papyer and xerox copies of his Adhaar card and pan card. Further according to the accused, he has paid Rs.20,400/ p.m. for one year in respect of interest and in July 2019 he has repaid Rs.1,70,000/ in cash and thereafter he has asked for the return of his cheque, but PW1 by saying that he has kept the said cheques in house has not given back his cheques. Even inspite of several requests made by the accused, PW1 has not returned his cheques and thereafter due to the covid period, accused has not asked for return of his cheques and the documents. When police came to his house, then only he came to know about the complaint lodged by the PW1. When he has went to the police station, police has not registered his complaint by asking him to 23 CC NO.5972 of 2019 approach the court. Thus complainant has misused the cheque and filed this false case against him.
28. In this regard, on perusal fo the evidence and materials on record, if for the sake of the argument, if the version of the accused is believed as gospel truth, then, a genuine question arises in the minds of the court that why no document has been prepared and produced before the court in respect of his contention. When accused was having knowledge about possession of his cheques in the hands of the complainant, then why accused has not taken any action against the PW1 even when PW1 has not returned back his cheque, even after the repayment of the loan. There is no plausible explanation given by the accused in this regard.
29. Though DW1 contended that due to covid, he has not asked for the return of his cheques, but according to the accused in July 2019, he has repaid the amount and covid has been commenced in the month of December and from July to December why accused has not taken any steps for recovery of 24 CC NO.5972 of 2019 his cheque from the complainant. No explanation and proper reasons has been stated in this regard by the accused. Moreover the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 10102019 itself. Even accused has not taken any legal action against the complainant and even not issued any notice against the complainant at least when PW1 has not return back his cheque, accused would have given the stop payment notice to his bank, but accused has not taken any steps for preventing the misuse of his cheque or any action for misuse of the cheque by the complainant. Even in spit eof service of the notice, accused has not given any reply to the PW1 and taken the defence at an earliest opportunity. The very conduct of the accused creates a doubt about the defence taken by the accused.
30. Moreover, ordinarily no prudent man would keep quite after giving the signed blank cheque and signed blank papers to a third person that too after receiving the notice. In this regard it is pertinent to note the principle held in Sri. 25 CC NO.5972 of 2019 Prakash @ Jnana Prakash v/s Miss T.S. Susheela reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4815 our Hon'ble High Court has held that If the documents had been illegally obtained by the complainant, it is inexplicable that the petitioner did not choose to give a complaint to the police or to take other measures insofar as that conduct of the complainant is concerned and hence has disbelieved the evidence set forth Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Court to the present case on hand, the accused in this case also has not taken up any legal measures against complainant regarding possession of cheque. From this an inference can be drawn that no prudent man will keep himself silent without taking any steps to safeguard his interest when his document lies with the possession of other party.
31. In this regard As held by our Hon'ble High court in the case of Siddappa Vs. Smt. Chand bee Hyderabad reported in 2014 Cr.R 646 (kant), "mere suggestion will not 26 CC NO.5972 of 2019 take place of proof even by means of preponderance of probabilities and something more is required to rebut the presumption".
32. In the present case, the accused has taken the specific defence by mere suggestions which has been totally denied by the complainant and has not adduced any evidence and produced any documents to prove the same.
33. Further complainant in support of his contention has produced the bank statement as per ExP6 wherein on 306 2018 complainant has transferred amount of Rs.1,70,000/ to the accused through cheque No.334375 and even this fact is admitted by the accused. On perusal of the bank statement from January to March sufficient amount has been withdrawn by the PW1 and this fact corroborates the contention of the complainant that he has given the amount of Rs.1,90,000/ by way of cash on 2032018 to the accused.
34. Further though accused has got examined his brother as DW2 who has deposed that accused has borrowed the loan 27 CC NO.5972 of 2019 of Rs.1,70,000/ on 2082018 at the rate of 12% interest per month and accused was paying interest at the rate of 12% every month and on 2182018 he has paid sum of Rs.14,100/ to the complainant being the part of monthly interest payable by the accused to that effect and complainant has sent the message to him in that respect to have received Rs.14,100/ and has produced ExD2 whatsapp printout. But accused has no where taken the said defence or said contention earlier in the crossexamination of the PW1 for the reasons best known to him. For the first time only that too in the evidence of the DW 2, DW2 has deposed that he has given the interest of Rs.14,100/ to the PW1 in respect of the loan transaction. Even it is pertinent to note here that DW1 in his evidence or in the crossexamination of the PW1, no where taken the contention that at the time of borrowing of the loan his broither DW2 was present and even DW2 has paid the interest amount. As such the said contention appears to be a after thought.
28 CC NO.5972 of 2019
35. Moreover DW2 being the brother of the accused he is the interested witness and his evidence cannot be believable without any other corroborative evidence. Apart from this, in the cross examination of DW2, it was suggested by the counsel for the complainant that the said amount is related to the other transaction and the same was denied by the DW2. Even DW2 admitted that as per ExD2, only amount of Rs.14,100/ received is mentioned and it is not clearly mentioned that the said amount is towards any interest and DW2 even admitted that neither DW1 nor he has received any receipt for the payment of the interest amount. Even on perusal of ExD2 only message Satish received Rs.14,100/ and it is not specifically stated that the said amount is towards the interest of his brother i.e., Arunkumar transaction, as such version of the DW2 cannot be believable.
Conclusion para.
36. In view of all the above discussions, it can be concluded that the complainant has established through cogent 29 CC NO.5972 of 2019 and convincing evidence the fact of issuance of the cheque for discharge of legality enforceable debt, which is dishonored for want of sufficient funds, issuance of legal notice within stipulated time, failure on the part of Accused to repay the amount within stipulated period. On the other hand, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant through probable evidences that would preponderate upon the evidence lead by the complainant. Therefore, the accused is held to have committed an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
37. POINT NO.2: In view of my answer to point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: : O R D E R : Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,65,000/ for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. The amount of 30 CC NO.5972 of 2019 Rs.3,60,000/ shall be paid to the complainant by way of compensation in accordance with Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C.
within three months from today.
The remaining amount of Rs.5,000/ shall be confiscated to the state. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The bail and surety bond of the accused and surety shall stand canceled. Office to furnish the copy of this judgment, free of cost to the accused persons. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, after her typing, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the 20th day of March, 2024).
(CHETANA S.F.) IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACMM, Court of Small Causes, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Complainant:
P.W1 - Bhaskar M.
31 CC NO.5972 of 2019
For the accused:
DW1 Arunkumar
DW2 Satish
List of documents marked for the Complainant: Ex.P1 - Cheque Ex.P1(a) - Signature of accused Ex.P2 - Bank Endorsement Ex.P3 - Legal notice Ex.P4 - Postal receipt Ex.P5 - Postal cover Ex.P6 _ Karnataka bank statement Ex.P7 Adhaar card copy Ex.P8 Postal acknowledgment Ex.P9 Registration certificate Ex.P10 Income tax returns Ex.P11 Col.65B certificate For the accused: Ex.D1 65B certificate Ex.D2 Whatsapp messages (CHETANA S.F.) IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACMM, Court of Small Causes, BENGALURU.