Bangalore District Court
B Mohan Kumar vs Sms International Beverages Pvt Ltd on 19 July, 2025
SCCH-2 1 C.C.No.3663/2020
KABC020177022020
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-2).
C.C.No.3663/2020
:: PRESENT ::
Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
6th Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM, Bengaluru.
Dated: On this the 19th day of July, 2025.
Complainant : B. Mohan Kumar,
S/o K.V. Balakrishnan,
Aged about 51 years,
Proprietor of M/s Zeus India Enterprise,
No.17, 4th Cross,
Lakeshore Garden,
Thindlu, Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bangalore-560097.
(By Sri. R. Ranganatha, Advocate)
- Vs. -
Accused 1. SMS International Beverages Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.49,
Industrial Area Lodhi Majra,
Baddi, Solan,
SCCH-2 2 C.C.No.3663/2020
Himachal Pradesh,
Pin Code-174102.
Represented by Managing Director.
2. Mr. Hari Om Goyal,
Aged about 55 years,
Managing Director of
SMS International Beverages Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.49,
Industrial Area Lodhi Majra,
Baddi, Solan,
Himachal Pradesh,
Pin Code-174102.
(By Sri. G. Raghunandan, Advocate)
3. Mr. Sudheer Gupta,
Aged about 55 years,
Managing Director of
SMS International Beverages Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.49,
Industrial Area Lodhi Majra,
Baddi, Solan,
Himachal Pradesh,
Pin Code-174102.
(By Sri. T.S. Venkatesh, 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).SCCH-2 3 C.C.No.3663/2020
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:-
The complainant is a Proprietorship trading firm by name M/s Zeus India Enterprise, engaged in supply of all types of processed fruit pulp and concentrates packed in cans and drums to various fruit drink manufactures and whole sellers in India. The accused No.1 is the Private Limited Company and accused No.2 is the Managing Director of accused No.1. Since 2014, the accused No.1 and 2 are the customers to complainant, as such the accused No.2 approached the complainant by placing order to supply of goods. In pursuance of the same, the complainant had supplied Totapuri Mango Pulp (Natural) and Alphonso Mango Pulp(Natural) etc., from 2018 to the accused company on credit basis as per purchase order issued by the accused company. The accused have assured to pay amount within thirty to forty-five days from the date of each purchase and also agreed to pay interest at appropriate rate on the delayed payment after the due date of each purchase.
Further, after delivery of materials as per order placed by the accused, the invoices issued by the complainant has been acknowledgment by the accused No.1 and 2 after due verification. In this connection, several e-mail and Whatsapp messages sent by the complainant to the accused No.2. Thereafter, the accused have failed to pay the due amount within stipulated period and they are liable to pay balance amount of Rs.31,54,573/- to the complainant only towards purchase of items on different dates.SCCH-2 4 C.C.No.3663/2020
Further, the accused No.2 is well known that, the complainant has obtained the loan by pledging his house property in bank and used the said amount to provide credit to his customers including accused. The complainant is unable to pay the loan amount for past several months and the banker given caution to take appropriate action to recover the loan by discharging the house property, which was pledged to the bank.
After several requests, accused No.2 representing the accused No.1 issued cheque bearing No.788635, dated:07.08.2019, for Rs.5,52,636/- and another cheque bearing No.788636, dated:14.08.2019 for Rs.5,52,636/-. In total Rs.11,05,272/-.
As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant has presented the cheque for encashment through his banker Bank of India, Sahakaranagara branch, Bengaluru. However, the said cheques got bounced with the reason as "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused on 07.11.2019 which was duly served to the accused on 14.11.2019. The complainant also sent the notice the accused through e-mail as well as Whatsapp. In-spite of service of notice also, the accused has neither paid 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 SCCH-2 5 C.C.No.3663/2020 found that the accused No.1 and 2 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 No.1 and 2.
4. In response to the summons, the accused No.2 appeared through their counsel and thereafter plea was recorded. The accused No.2 was denied the accusation leveled against him. Further, the statement of the accused No.2 as contemplated U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused No.2 has denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of complainant and submitted that he has defence evidence. It is relevant to note that, accused No.3 was subsequently impleaded. After impleading, this Court has issued summons. The accused No.3 appeared before the Court and his plea was recorded. Further, as per the submission of counsel for accused No.3, on 27.06.2024, this court has dispensed the recording of 313 statement with respect to accused No.3 by relying on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
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 examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31 and Ex.P.5(a) SCCH-2 6 C.C.No.3663/2020 and Ex.P.5(b). P.W.1 was subject to the process of cross- examination from the side of accused. No evidence adduced from the side of accused.
6. Heard arguments from both side. Perused the materials available on record.
7. Now the points that arise for consideration of this Court are as hereunder:
1. 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 SCCH-2 7 C.C.No.3663/2020 recapitulate the same once again at this juncture. In support of his oral testimony, P.W.1 has marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.31 and Ex.P.5(a) and Ex.P(b).
10. Now itself it is appropriate to see the documents marked at Ex.P-Series.
Ex.P-Series Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are the cheque in question. Ex.P.1(a) and Ex.P.2(a) are the signature of accused No.2. Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are bank endorsements. Ex.P.5 is the office copy of the legal notice dated:07.11.2019. Ex.P.5(a) and Ex.P.5(b) are the RPAD receipts. Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 are the postal track consignment. Ex.P.8 is the certified copy of GST registration certificate. Ex.P.9 is the Company Master Data. Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.17 are the Invoices. Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.25 are E-way bills. Ex.P.26 is the certificate U/Sec.65B of Evidence Act. Ex.P.27 is the extract of account ledger. Ex.P.28 is the E-mail communication 4 in numbers. Ex.P.29 is the notice sent through e-mail. Ex.P.30 is the Whatsapp chats with accused No.3. Ex.P.31 is the Whatsapp chats with accused No.2.
11. 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:
SCCH-2 8 C.C.No.3663/2020138. 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 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. SCCH-2 9 C.C.No.3663/2020 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 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 10 C.C.No.3663/202012. Learned counsel for the complainant furnished the following decisions:
1. Crl.R.P.770/2017, between Sri. Raghavendra Vs. M/s National Steel Tubes.
2. (2012) 5 SCC 661, between Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited.
3. Criminal Petition No.4600/2022, between MPP Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Rupa Banerji.
The learned counsel for the accused No.3 has relied on the following decisions:
1. 2024 SCC Online SC 3802, between Ravi Dhingra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another.
2. ILR 2001 KAR 101, between N.G. Narayanaswamy Vs. M/s Vijayananda Roadlines Limited.
3. MANU/KA/5695/2019, between H.M. Paramila Vs. M. Babu Reddy.
4. 2012 SCC Online Mad 5450, between Serling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd., and Another Vs., Bharat Cargill Holdings Pvt. Ltd., SCCH-2 11 C.C.No.3663/2020 No.308, Sofia's Choice, No.7, St. Mark's Road, Bangalore.
5. 2006 (4) CTC 529, between B. Raman and Others Vs. Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd., rep. by its Company Secretary, No.3, Doraiswamy Road, T. Nagar, Chennai.
6. In Crl. P. 9909/2017, between Smt. G.K. Akshata Vs. V. Raghavendra
7. Crl. Petition No.103859/2025, between Perfect Lasercut and Fab (India) Pvt.
Ltd.,and others Vs. Vimala Inderchand Jain, represented by SPA Holder, Vimalkumar.
I have carefully gone through the decisions relied by the counsel for the complainant and accused and applied the principles to the case on hand.
13. 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".SCCH-2 12 C.C.No.3663/2020
14. Now this court has to see whether the complainant has complied the ingredients of Sec.138 (a) to (c) of N.I.Act or not? In this connection, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5, Ex.P.5(a) and Ex.P.5(b), Ex.P.6, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.29 are relevant. Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing No.788635, dated:07.08.2019 and Ex.P.2 is the cheque bearing No.788636, dated:14.08.2019. Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are the bank endorsements dated:11.10.2019 and 14.10.2019. Ex.P.5 is the office copy of legal notice dated:07.11.2019. Ex.P.5(a) and Ex.P.5(b) are the RPAD receipts. Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 are the Postal Track Consignments. Ex.P.29 is the notice sent through e-mail to the accused Nos.2 and 3.
15. A scrupulous perusal of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 coupled with Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, it appears to this court that, the complainant has presented the cheques in question for encashment within the stipulated period. Further, the said cheques got bounced on 11.10.2019 and 14.10.2019 respectively. Therefore, it is crystal clear that, the complainant has presented the cheques in question for encashment within the stipulated period.
16. Now, the next question before this court is whether the complainant has issued the notice in accordance with law or not? In order to answer this aspect, it is appropriate to take Ex.P.5, Ex.P.5(a), Ex.P.5(b), Ex.P.6, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.29. Ex.P.5 is the office copy of legal notice dated:07.11.2019. Ex.P.5(a) and Ex.P.5(b) are the RPAD receipts. Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 are the Postal SCCH-2 13 C.C.No.3663/2020 Track Consignments. Ex.P.29 is the notice sent through e-mail to the accused Nos.2 and 3.
17. Learned counsel for the accused No.3 vehemently argued that, before filing the complaint, the complainant has not issued the legal notice to the accused No.3. Though accused No.3 is the Managing Director of accused No.1, the complainant has not issued the notice to accused No.3. The said flaw cannot be cured and the complaint filed by the complainant without issuing notice to accused No.3 is fatal and liable to be dismissed. He also pointed out that, without issuing notice to Managing Director, complaint cannot be filed.
18. Per-contra learned counsel for the complainant submits that, accused No.1 is the Company. He has issued the legal notice to the accused No.1. Further argued that, the complainant bonafidely believed that, accused No.2 was the Managing Director of accused No.1, hence at the first instance he has arrayed Hari Om Goyal as accused No.2. He also argued that, the accused No.3 affixed his signature on behalf of 1 st accused. After searching the internet, the complainant came to know that, accused No.3 is the Managing Director of accused No.1. Then only he arrayed the Managing Director of accused No.1 as accused No.3. He also pointed out that, the complainant has sent the notice to the accused No.3 also through Whatsapp as well as e-mail. The accused No.3 accepted his liability while chating with the complainant. He also pointed out that, he has issued the SCCH-2 14 C.C.No.3663/2020 legal notice to the accused No.1. The accused No.1 duly represented by accused No.3 and received the legal notice. Moreover, the order of impleading of accused No.3 has not been challenged till this day. Therefore, the said order attains finality. Now the accused No.3 cannot escape by assigning technical default.
19. With these backdrop, this court has to analyze the case on hand with respect to the issuance of notice. Admittedly, the complainant has issued the legal notice on 07.11.2019 to accused No.1 and accused No.2 as per Ex.P.5. It is interesting to note that, the cause title of the notice reveals that, accused No.1 is the Company, the same is represented by its Managing Director. It is not the case of the accused No.3 is that, he is not the Managing Director of accused No.1. However, the case of the accused No.3 is that, the complainant has not issued the notice to him.
20. Now the important question before this court is whether the complainant has issued the legal notice to accused no.3 or not? In this connection, it is ideal to take Ex.P.29 for discussion. Ex.P.29 is the e-mail communication. In other words, it appears to this court that, the complainant has issued the legal notice also through e-mail. Further, the contents of the said document reveals that, the legal notice sent through e-mail is not only to the accused No.2 but also accused No.3. In other words, the complainant has sent the notice to the accused No.3 by using electronic mode ie., by way of e-mail. In the instant case it is not SCCH-2 15 C.C.No.3663/2020 the defence of the accused No.3 is that, the e-mail address mentioned in Ex.P29 is not pertaining to him and he is not the Managing Director of accused No.1. Therefore, it is crystal clear that, the complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused No.3 by using electronic mode ie., by way of e-mail. Hence, the contention of accused No.3 regarding the complainant has not issued the legal notice to him cannot be accepted and holds no water. Apart from that, the notice issued by the complainant was duly served on accused No.1 i.e., the company. It is relevant to note that accused No.3 is the managing director of accused No.1. The said notice received by accused No.3 as a Managing Director of accused No.1. As such the accused No.3 has the knowledge of issuance of legal notice. With these discussions, this Court has come to the conclusion that, the complainant has issued the legal notice in accordance with law.
21. Now, the next question before this court is whether the legal notice issued by the complainant was served on the accused or not?. In this connection it is appropriate to take Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7, the postal track consignments and Ex.P.29 ie., E-mail communication. On perusal of Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7, it appears to this Court that, the notice has been duly served on the accused No.1 on 14.11.2019. Further, notice sent to accused No.3 through e-mail was duly served on him. It is relevant to note that, during the course of cross-examination of PW.1, Ex.P.29 was not challenged. In other words, Ex.P.29 is remained as unchallenged. Further, there was no suggestion regarding the SCCH-2 16 C.C.No.3663/2020 e-mail address mentioned in Ex.P.29 is not pertaining to the accused No.3. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the complainant has issued the legal notice not only to the accused No.1 but also accused No.3 and the same has been duly served on the accused Nos.1 and 3. Therefore with great respect the decisions relied by the learned counsel for accused No.3 will not come to his aid and the said decisions are rendered in a factually distinguishable case.
22. Now, the next aspect is whether Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are pertaining to the bank account of accused No.1 and Ex.P.1(a) and Ex.P.2(a) are the signatures of accused No.3 or not?. It is relevant to note that, after service of notice, the accused No.3 filed vakalath on behalf of accused No.1 under the capacity of Managing Director. Further, after impleading the accused No.3, he has filed his vakalath. A careful comparison of the vakalath filed by the accused No.3 in his individual capacity and also filed vakalath under the capacity of Managing Director of accused No.1, it appears to this Court that, both signatures are one and the same. Let this court put it other way, accused No.3 has affixed his signature in his individual capacity as well as managing director of accused No.1. Therefore, it is manifestly clear that, accused No.3 is the Managing Director of accused No.1. Apart from that, it is not the case of the accused No.3 that, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are not pertaining to accused No.1 and the signatures found in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are not his signatures.
SCCH-2 17 C.C.No.3663/2020Therefore, it is crystal clear that, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are the cheques pertaining to accused No.1 and the Ex.P.1(a) and Ex.P.2(a) are the signatures of accused No.3. Apart from that, as per Sec.118 and Sec.139, presumption favours the complainant. With the help of discussions referred to above, the complainant has complied the ingredients of Section 138(a) to (c) of NI Act.
23. Now, the next question before this court is whether the accused has rebutted the presumption or not?. Before going to discuss the said aspect, 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".
24. 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.
25. Further, it is also settled position of law that, the standard of proof of rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of SCCH-2 18 C.C.No.3663/2020 probabilities. It is also settled position of 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".
26. 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".
27. At this juncture, it is ideal to take the cross-examination of P.W.1 for discussion. On going through the entire cross- examination of P.W.1, learned counsel for the accused suggested that, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were not issued by accused No.3, however same were issued by accused No.2 namely Hari Om Goyal. The said suggestion was denied by P.W.1. At this juncture it is relevant to reproduce the said suggestion here itself for better understanding: "ನಿಪಿ.1 ಮತ್ತು ನಿಪ.2 ಅನ್ನು ಸುದೀರ್ ಗುಪ್ತ ರವರು ನೀಡಿಲ್ಲ ಬದಲಾಗಿ ಹರಿ ಓಂ ಗೋಯಲ್ರವರು ನೀಡಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ''.
28. For the sake arguments, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were not issued by accused No.3 and issued by accused No.2, how the SCCH-2 19 C.C.No.3663/2020 accused No.2 got the possession of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 is not forthcoming from the side of accused No.3. In other words, the accused No.3 has not properly and convincingly explained regarding how accused No.2 possessed Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. That apart, if there was no liability on the part of accused No.1 and accused No.3, then what was the necessity for the accused No.3 to chat with the complainant. As per Ex.P.30, there was a Whatsapp communication between the accused No.3 and complainant. Moreover, the accused No.3 has not taken any action against the accused No.2. Therefore, it can be inferred that, the accused No.3 has issued the cheques in question to the complainant towards discharge of liability. In-spite of that, he has taken a vague defence by contending that, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were not issued by him. The said contention is not only amounts to vague, but also hard to believe. Therefore the contentions put forth by the accused failed to inspire the confidence of this court. As such, the defences raised by the accused are not probable, not believable and amounts to vague defences. Hence, the accused Nos.1 and 3 have not raised probable defences.
29. 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 Nos.1 and 3 have not put forth plausible defence to rebut the presumption and what are all the defences taken by the accused SCCH-2 20 C.C.No.3663/2020 No.3 is amounting to vague defences. Based on the said vague defences the accused No.3 cannot rebut the presumption.
30. Again at the cost of risk, the versions of the accused failed to inspire the confidence of this Court. In the absence of cogent evidence to show that the cheques were not issued in discharge of a liability, the defences raised by the accused No.3 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 the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court has has come to the conclusion that, the accused No.1 & 3 has committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, this Court is answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
31. 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 No.1 and 3 are convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The accused No.3 shall pay fine of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only) to the complainant and in default SCCH-2 21 C.C.No.3663/2020 to payment of fine, the accused No.3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
However, it is clarified that, mere serving of default sentence by the accused No.3, does not absolve him from the liability of payment of fine amount as ordered by this court.
By exercising the powers conferred U/Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C, the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen 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 No.3 forthwith.
Bail bond of the accused No.3 and that of surety shall stands cancelled.
Accused No.2 is acquitted.
(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 19 th July, 2025) (H.P. Mohan Kumar) VI Addl. Judge and ACJM., Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.SCCH-2 22 C.C.No.3663/2020
:ANNEXURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : Sri. B. Mohan Kumar.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque No.788635, dated:07.08.2019. Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused No.3. Ex.P.2 : Original Cheque No.788636, dated:14.08.2019. Ex.P.1(a) & : Signatures of the accused No.3.
2(a) Ex.P.3 & 4 : Bank endorsements. Ex.P.5 : Office copy of legal notice dated:07.11.2019. Ex.P.5(a) : 2 RPAD receipts. & 5(b) Ex.P.6 & 7 : 2 Postal Track Consignments. Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of GST registration certificate. Ex.P.9 : Company Master Data. Ex.P.10 to : Invoices 8 in numbers. 17 Ex.P.18 to : E-way bills 8 in numbers. 25 Ex.P.26 : Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.27 : Account Ledger Extract. Ex.P.28 : E-mail communications 4 in numbers. Ex.P.29 : Notice sent through e-mail SCCH-2 23 C.C.No.3663/2020
Ex.P.30 : Whatsapp chats of complainant with accused No.3. Ex.P.31 : Whatsapp chats of complainant with accused No.2.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED:
- None -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
- Nil -Digitally signed by H
HP P MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR Date: 2025.07.31
14:44:44 +0530
(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge and ACJM.,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.