Bangalore District Court
A.Ramu vs R.Umashankar on 14 February, 2024
1
C.C.No.11366/2018
KABC030330162018
Presented on : 09-05-2018
Registered on : 09-05-2018
Decided on : 14-02-2024
Duration : 5 years, 9 months, 5 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
PRESENT : SRI.JAI SHANKAR.J,
B.A.L., LL.B
XXII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
C.C.NO. : 11366/2018
COMPLAINANT : Sri.A. Ramu,
S/o. B.S. Appanna,
Aged about 63 years,
Residing at Flat No. FRF-5,
Chaithrashree Palace Apartments,
5th Main, Vijaya Bank Layout,
Bilekahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 076.
(By Sri. R.A. Mohan., Adv.,)
2
C.C.No.11366/2018
V/S.
ACCUSED : Sri. R. Umashankar,
S/o. Ramachandra,
Aged about 33 years,
Employee of A.T. & T
Communication Pvt. Services India
Ltd.,
Salapuriya Sub Zone,
6th Floor, Wing-V,
Sarjapura Outer Ring Road,
Near Bellanduru,
Bengaluru - 560 037.
(By S.K. Law Associates.,)
Offence complained of : U/s.138 of N.I.Act
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 14.02.2024
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complainant's case is as under:
3
C.C.No.11366/2018 The complainant is the younger brother of the accused mother and in such relationship, on 03.05.2017, the accused had approached the complainant for a hand loan of Rs.2 Lakhs for his marriage expenditure which was to be held on 14.05.2017 at Gavipuram, Guttahalli Temple, Bengaluru. On such request, the complainant availed a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the Co-operative society and by adjusting the Rs.50,000/- which was in cash, he has advanced Rs.1,25,000/- to the accused on the assurance that, the accused would repay the said amount within a period of six months. Though, the accused had assured to repay the loan amount of Rs.1,25,000/- within six months, having failed to repay the said amount, on repeated demand, the accused has issued the cheque bearing No.292811, dt:09.02.2018 for Rs.50,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Akshayanagar Branch, Bengaluru, with an assurance that, if the cheque is presented for honoring, it would be honored. Believing the representation, when the complainant presented the cheque through his banker ie., 4 C.C.No.11366/2018 Canara Bank, Akshaya nagar Branch, Bengaluru., it is being dishonored for the reason "Account Closed' as per memo dt: 23.02.2018. Immediately, the complainant has got issued the legal notice dt:15.03.2018 to the accused, but the notice returned with postal shara as "Refused", which has given cause of action to file the 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 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.292811, dt:09.02.2018 for Rs.50,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Akshayanagar Branch, 5 C.C.No.11366/2018 Bengaluru. towards discharge of his liability which was returned unpaid on presentation for the reason "Account closed" 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?
5. The sworn statement and the documents marked at Ex.P.1 to P.5 of the complainant is being treated as the complainant evidence as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2010 (5) SCC 590. Thereafter, on examining further, the complainant got marked Ex.P.6 to P.12 documents and also got examined his sister by name Smt. Rajamma as PW.2 and closed his side evidence. The statement of accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded and he has denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him and has submitted that, he has the evidence and and accordingly, he is being examined as 6 C.C.No.11366/2018 DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 13 documents and closed his side evidence.
6. Heard the argument. The counsel for accused has filed written arguments along with citations as referred below.
1) Crl Appeal No.604/09 along with Misc. Crl.Appeal 2912/09 dt: 05.04.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in Amzad Pasha Vs. H.N.Lakshmana., which is dealt on the provision of Sec.138 of N.I.act.
2) ILR 2014 KAR 6572 - H Manjunath Vs. A.M. Basavaraju, wherein it is held that, as there is no statement as to when the amount was actually given to the accused, the judgment of acquittal was held justified.
3) ILR 2008 KAR 4629 - Shiva Murthy Vs. Amruthraj., 2013 (3) KCCR 1940 - Smt. Lakshmi Subramanya Vs. B.V. Nagesh and (2008) 4 SCC 54 - Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, ILR 2007, KAR 2709, Senguttuvan Vs. Mahadevaswamy and (2019) 5 SCC 418, Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa which are all dealt on the point of presumption and rebuttable presumption.7
C.C.No.11366/2018
4) (2015) (1 SCC) 99, K. Subramani Vs. K. Damodara Naidu which is dealt on the point of financial capacity,
5) Copy of the Judgment in CC. No.3286/2019 - Smt. Shantha S.N. Vs. Mr. Ananda., 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1922, Bhalla Automobiles Vs. Rajesh Rambhau Maurya (2011) which pertains to the judgment of 138 of N.I.act.
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.292811, dt:09.02.2018 for Rs.50,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Akshaya nagar Branch, Bengaluru. . The complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker. The said 8 C.C.No.11366/2018 cheque was returned unpaid with an endorsement "Account closed" on 23.02.2018. Thereafter, the complainant has got issued demand notice on 15.03.2018 to the accused by demanding the payment of the cheque amount, the said notice was returned with shara as refused, which gave raise to the cause of action to file this 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 cheque dt:09.02.2018 The said cheque is returned with an endorsement as Funds Insufficient as per Ex.P.2, the return advise dt: 23.02.2018. The Ex.P.3 is the office copy of the legal notice dt:15.03.2018, Ex.P.3(a) is the postal receipts, Ex.P.4 & 5 are the unserved postal envelopes dt:26.03.2018 and 27.03.2018 respectively. The present complaint is filed on 04.05.2018. A careful scrutiny of the documents relied by the complainant goes to show that, a 9 C.C.No.11366/2018 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 herself 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, 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.
10
C.C.No.11366/2018
11. A combined reading of the referred sections raises a presumption infavour of the holder of the cheque that, she 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 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 by cross examining the PW.1 and also adducing his evidence, has really rebutted the presumption available under the law which requires due consideration. Here, it is undisputed fact that, the accused is the son of the complainant's sister the PW.2 Smt. Rajamma. It is also undisputed fact that, the disputed cheque belongs to the accused and it is being dishonored for the reason account closed. It is also undisputed fact that, the accused is also 11 C.C.No.11366/2018 being convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I.Act filed by one Venkatesh in CC.No. 15776/2018 which is under challenge in appeal. Here, the complainant claims that, as the accused was in the need of the financial assistance for his marriage on 14.05.2017, he availing Rs.75,000/- from the co-operative society and by adjusting Rs.50,000/- which was in cash, had advanced Rs.1,25,000/- to the accused. It is also his case that, towards the discharge of the loan liability, the accused has issued the disputed cheque which is being dishonored. But however, the accused denies the very claim of the complainant by denying the loan transaction and also denies, of he issuing the disputed cheque to the complainant. He denies the signature appearing in the cheque and claims that, he was financially well of a particular year and also claims that, as there was a family issue between him and his mother, he started to reside separately from his mother. He also claims that, he had issued the disputed cheque with other two cheques to his 12 C.C.No.11366/2018 mother towards her maintenance, but as there was a differences in the family, his mother happens to have got filed a false present complaint by colluding with the complainant and also claims that, his mother has also got filed the another cheque bounce case through her brother's son-in-law only to harass him. Thereby, denying the entire claim of the complainant, has prayed to dismiss the complaint.
13. So, by gathering the rival claims of the parties, it would not be wrong to say that, heavy burden is upon the complainant to establish the loan transaction, the issuance of the cheque by the accused was towards the discharge of the loan liability, the signature appearing therein pertains to the accused and he committing an offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I.Act. Likewise, the burden is also upon the accused to establish that, he had issued the disputed cheque towards the maintenance of her mother and he never issued the disputed cheque to the complainant. So 13 C.C.No.11366/2018 here, if the rival claims of the parties are taken into consideration, it is the specific case of the complainant that, as the accused was his sister's son, he had financially helped for the purpose of his marriage by availing the loan from the co-operative society. Though, the accused totally denies the complainant raising the loan from the co- operative society and also questioned, the very financial capacity of the complainant, but it is also admitted fact that, the complainant is a retired bank employee and it is also admitted fact that, the complainant was receiving the retirement benefits along with pension benefits. Perhaps, these facts are not being denied by the accused. So, if these fact are taken into consideration, it goes to indicate that, the complainant being the retired employee, he was getting the pension and he was financially well so as to adjust the amount and to lend the loan.
14. Perhaps, it is a case of the complainant that, he had raised Rs.75,000/- from the Co-operative society in the 14 C.C.No.11366/2018 year 2017 and he had advanced to the accused. Though, the accused do dispute this fact, but the very production of the Ex.P.6 the statement issued by Daivajna Credit- co- operative society suffices that, the complainant raising Rs.75,000/- from the society. As said above, though the accused do deny the complainant availing the loan from the society, but the Ex.P.10 to P.12 the receipts would also go to indicate that, the amount paid under it is being paid by the accused. When, the accused has admitted the fact of he remitting the installment amount under Ex.P.10 to 12, I am of the considered view that, the complainant has established of he availing Rs.75,000/- from the society and the said fact coupled with the complainant being retired and receiving the pension, he is financially well so as to lend Rs.1,25,000/- to the accused.
15. It is relevant here to note that, though the accused admits the Ex.P.10 to P.12 the receipts for remitting the amount to the Co-operative society and so 15 C.C.No.11366/2018 also, the complainant establishing the fact of raising loan from the society, he has to establish the said amount with adjusting Rs.50,000/- being paid to the accused. As said above, the accused totally denies the signature appearing at Ex.P.1 and claims that, it is being forged by his mother the PW.2 and the complainant. Here, it is relevant to note that, when he himself has categorically admitted the fact of he issuing the disputed cheque to his mother towards her maintenance, I do not understand as to how he would dispute the signature appearing in the disputed cheque. Because, he categorically deposes that, except the signature appearing therein, the other contents is alleged to be filled by the complainant. To put it in simple word, except he contends that, he had handed over the signed blank cheque to his mother, he denies the other contents appearing therein. When, the accused categorically admits the signature appearing therein, I do not find any force in his argument so far the denial of the signature is 16 C.C.No.11366/2018 concerned. The complainant has clearly established the signature appearing therein pertains to the accused.
16. Here, it is also relevant to note that, no prudent man would issue a cheque unless there is liability under it. As said above, even the defence raised by the accused makes more relevant so as to appreciate the complainant case. The complainant by deposing the loan transaction and issuance of the cheque by the accused has made out a ground to draw presumption U/s.118 & 139 of N.I.Act. Here, though the accused has effectively and elaborately got cross examined the PW1, but nothing worth was elicited from the mouth of the PW.1. The PW.1 consistently has deposed about the loan transaction and also, the issuance of the cheque. Perhaps, the complainant by examining the PW.2 who is none other than the mother of the accused has got deposed about the loan transaction and the issuance of the cheque which admittedly cannot be brushed aside. Perhaps, the accused claims that, as there was a differences 17 C.C.No.11366/2018 in the family and that, he is residing separately from his mother which could also be gathered from Ex.D5 to D7, he claims that, he had issued the disputed cheque towards the maintenance of her mother and not to the complainant. But merely, producing these documents would really preclude the accused to say that, he had issued the disputed cheque toward the maintenance of her mother, which also requires due consideration. Because, through out the statement at Ex.D7 given by the accused, no where there finds the averment of the issuance of the cheque towards the maintenance of his mother. Perhaps, the statement would go to indicate that, he has undertaken to deposit Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the account of his mother. Even, the bank statement of his mother the PW.2 at Ex.D4 would nowhere goes to disclose the fact of he handing over the cheque towards the maintenance and that being encashed by his mother.
18
C.C.No.11366/2018
17. It is an admitted fact that, as per Ex.D4, the PW.2 owns an account in the bank of SBI and it also cannot be denied that, when the accused claims that, he undertakes to deposit Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the account of his mother, what made him to issue the disputed cheque towards the maintenance, rather depositing directly through his account. Even for a moment, if it is construed that, he had issued the disputed cheque with other two cheques towards the maintenance of his mother, certainly nothing had prevented him to reduce the name of his mother and the alleged maintenance amount in the cheque, rather he issuing a blank signed cheque. Admittedly, there is no probable evidence forthcoming to appreciate the stand of the defence. Perhaps, when he claims that, he had issued the disputed cheque with other cheques towards the maintenance of her mother, rather he keeping open his account, he has not made out a valid ground as to why he has closed it. Even for a moment, if it is construed that, the cheque was issued towards the maintenance of his 19 C.C.No.11366/2018 mother, the accused closing the account itself goes to indicate that, his intention was to avoid the payment under the cheque, as the case may be.
18. No doubt, the accused claims that, he never raised the loan from the complainant nor had issued the disputed cheque to the complainant, but again he has not made out a case as to why he got remitted the monthly installment amount to the society as per Ex.P.10 to P12. No doubt, the Ex.D8 to D13 the statement would go to indicate that, the accused was employed and was getting a salary at a particular point of time, but that alone would not preclude the accused to say that, he has not raised any loan from the complainant when more particularity he has not established his defence by placing the probable evidence. It would not be wrong to say that, the circumstantial evidence coupled with ExP.10 to P.12 with Ex.P.1 would evidence that, the accused has raised the hand loan of Rs.1,25,000/- for his marriage and he issuing 20 C.C.No.11366/2018 the disputed cheque to the complainant. Moreso, the accused has also not initiated any action against the complainant or the PW.2 when he is so particular that, a fraud is alleged to be played by the complainant and Pw.2 on him. An inference could be drawn that, as he had issued the disputed cheque towards the discharge of loan liability, he has not initiated any action against the complainant or on his mother. Absolutely, there is no evidence forthcoming to appreciate the defence case. In this back ground, when the complainant was able to establish the loan transaction and the issuance of the cheque, the law permits the holder of the cheque to fill the other contents. In this back ground, I am of the considered view that, the complainant was able to establish that, the accused has raised hand loan of Rs.1,25,000/- and has issued the disputed cheque towards the discharge of the legally enforceable debt.
19. Now coming to the statutory notice is concerned, the complainant has got produced Ex.P.3 the office copy of legal notice. On perusal of this document, it indicates that, 21 C.C.No.11366/2018 he has referred two addresses, one pertains to the residential address and the another office address. The Ex.P.4 the notice issued to the office address appears to have been refused by the accused. Perhaps, the accused do not dispute the address referreing at Ex.P.4. In fact, by gathering the address referred at Ex.P.4 with Ex.D.8 to D.13 it suffices that, the address refers to the work place of the accused which cannot be brushed aside. When, such being the case, I am of the considered view that, the complainant has complied the issuance of the mandatory notice as contemplated U/s. 138 of N.I.Act and the accused has intentionally refused to receive the notice inspite of he having the knowledge of the dishonor of the cheque.
20. It could be said that, though, the accused has taken a probable defence to disprove the complainant case, but that is not being established by placing the positive evidence. The very oral evidence available on record, totally contradictory to the documentary evidence. It is need less to 22 C.C.No.11366/2018 say that, documentary evidence do prevail on the oral evidence. Absolutely, there is no evidence available on record, to hold that, the disputed cheque was handed over to his mother towards the maintenance. So, in this back ground, when the provisions U/s.118 and 139 of N.I. Act is looked into, it raises the presumption in favour 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. It also permits the complainant to fill the cheque having established the Ex.P.1 being issued towards the discharge of loan liability. Though, the accused claims that, except the signature, the other contents does not pertains to him, but when he has failed to rebut the presumption, the provision permits the complainant to fill up the cheque as the case may be.
21. 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 23 C.C.No.11366/2018 it is held that, when once the signature of an accused on the cheque is established, than the reverse onus clauses become operative, aptly applies to the case in hand. In the case in hand, the accused has admitted the disputed cheque pertains to him and also signature appearing therein belongs to him. When the complainant has established the accused having issued the cheque at Ex.P.1 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 proved by placing positive evidence. In this background, having the accused not disputed the complainant case by placing positive evidence or by cross examining the PW.1 which favours his case, I am of the considered view that, the cheque issued by the accused at Ex.P1 is 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.
24
C.C.No.11366/2018
22. 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 as well as the signature present 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 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 25 C.C.No.11366/2018 the cheque in question at Ex.P.1 was not issued for the discharge of debt or liability.
23. 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 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 was not issued towards the legal liability, but the said fact and the version is not been established. The principles laid down in the decisions referred by the accused cannot be denied, but with due respect it does not come to the rescue of the defence raised by the accused.
24. From the discussion made supra, it could be said that, the complainant has established her case by placing 26 C.C.No.11366/2018 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. 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 liability, the accused has issued Ex.P.1 and intentionally got dishonoured by closing his bank account . Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in the "Affirmative'.
25. 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 Court also dealt in the decision reported in (2018) 1 SCC 560, M/s. Meters and Instrument Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 27 C.C.No.11366/2018 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 with interest U/s.357 of Cr.P.C., it would meet the ends of justice. By considering these aspects, I am of the considered view that, it would be just and proper to impose fine of Rs.77,000/-. Out of the compensation of Rs.77,000/-, an amount of Rs.72,000/- shall be awarded to the complainant U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following : 28
C.C.No.11366/2018 ORDER Acting under section 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.77,000/- ( Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand only).
In default thereof, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for the term of one year.
Acting U/s.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., it is ordered that, Rs.72,000/-( Rupees Seventy Two Thousand only).there from shall be paid to the complainant 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 14th day of February 2024).
Digitally signed
JAI by JAI SHANKAR
SHANKAR J
Date: 2024.02.14
J 17:47:03 +0530
(JAI SHANKAR.J)
XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
29
C.C.No.11366/2018
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri. A Ramu PW.2 ; Smt. Rajamma
List of exhibits marked on behalf of complainant:-
Ex.P1 : Original cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P2 : Bank Memo
Ex.P3 : Legal notice
Ex.P3(a) : Postal receipts
Ex.P4 & 5 : Unserved RPAD cover
Ex.P6 & 7 : Statement of Accounts
Ex.P8 & 9 : Notices issued by Daivagna Credit co-
operative Society Ltd.,
Ex.P10 to 12 : Certified copy of the Deposit challans
Ex.P10(a) to 12(a) : Signatures of the depositor List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused :-
DW.1 : Sri. Umashankar List of exhibits marked on behalf of the accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of the complaint in CC 15775/2018 Ex.D.2 & D3 : Certified copies of the cheques Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of the Bank pass book Ex.D5 : Acknowledgement Ex.D6 : Complaint dt: 27.10.2017 before C.K. Achukattu Police Station Ex.D7 : Statement of accused before C.K. Achukattu police station 30 C.C.No.11366/2018 Ex.D8 to 13 : Certified copies of the Payslips for the month of February, March, April 2017 and December 2020, January 2021, Feb. 2021 Digitally signed JAI by JAI SHANKAR SHANKAR J Date: 2024.02.14 J 17:47:12 +0530 (JAI SHANKAR.J) XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
31 C.C.No.11366/2018