Bangalore District Court
Dr.Prabhakar. B.G vs N.Rajugowda on 28 January, 2026
KABC030654012019
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2026.
PRESENT:SMT.RASHMI H.B., B.A.(LAW)LL.B.,LLM.,
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU CITY.
C.C.No.20919 of 2019
Complainant :- Dr.Prabhakar B.G.,
S/o.Basavaraju,
Aged about 38 Years,
R/at.No.407, 14th Main,
M.C.Layout, Vijaynagar,
Bengaluru - 560040.
(Rep. By Sri.K.S., Advocate)
-V/s-
Accused :- Sri.N.Rajugowda,
S/o.Narasimaiah,
Aged about 36 Years,
R/at.No.35/1, 10th Main,
Kamakshipalya, Vrushabhavathi
Nagar, Bengaluru - 560079.
And also at:
ANR Company, No.875,
3rd Main Road, 7th Cross,
BSK 3rd Stage, 2nd Block,
Bengaluru.
And also Office address:
Shregandha Media, No.111,
NGEF Main Road, Nagarbhavi
Village, Behind Hanuman
Temple, Bengaluru-560072.
(Rep. By Sri.S.G., Advocate)
2 C.C.No.20919/2019
Date of complaint :- 18-07-2019
Date of Commencement :- 07-09-2019
of evidence
Offence complained :- Section 138 of N.I.Act
Opinion of the Judge :- Accused is found guilty.
(SMT.RASHMI H.B.,)
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed under section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
02.The brief facts of the complaint is as under:
The complainant and accused are known to each other since several years. In that cordial acquaintance, the accused has availed loan of Rs.30,00,000/- in different dates by way of cheque and RTGs from the complainant in order to meet his domestic, legal necessities and business needs. After several requests for repayment, to discharge said liability, on 04-04-2019, accused has issued a post dated cheque bearing 3 C.C.No.20919/2019 No.446002 dated 24-04-2019 for Rs.30,00,000/-, drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajeshwarinagar branch, Bengaluru, in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented said cheque for encashment through his banker Standard Chartered Bank, Bengaluru. The cheque is returned unpaid with bank endorsement dated 28-05-2019 for the reason "Payment Stopped by Drawer". Thereafter, the complainant has got issued legal notice to the addresses of accused on 04-06-2019 through registered post and 1 st address was returned with shara as "No such person return to sender" on 19-06-2019, 2nd address was returned with shara as "Insufficient address/return to sender on 07-06-2019 and 3rd address was returned with shara as "Door locked" on 08- 06-2019. But, the accused has failed to make payment of cheque amount. Hence, complainant has filed this complaint on 18-07-2019.
03. After presentation of complaint, this Court took cognizance of offence and recorded the sworn statement of complainant. Thereafter, a criminal case is registered against accused and summons is issued to the accused. 4 C.C.No.20919/2019 The accused appeared through his counsel and he is enlarged on bail. The copies of the complaint and other papers furnished to the accused. Substance of accusation was read over to him. Accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
04. As per directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Bank Association vs Union of India reported in 2014 (5) SCC 590, the sworn statement is treated as examination in chief of complainant. In order to prove the accusation made against the accused, the complainant examined himself as PW1 got marked 11 documents as Ex P1 to Ex.P11.
05. Thereafter, statement of accused is recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the accused has denied the incriminating evidence found on record as false and he submitted he would lead defence evidence. The accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked 01 document as Ex.D1.
5 C.C.No.20919/2019
06. Heard the arguments of learned counsels for complainant and accused. Perused entire case record carefully.
07. On the basis of contentions raised in the complaint the points that arises for determination of this Court are as follows:
1.Whether the complainant proves that, the accused issued the cheque towards discharge of legally enforceable debt?
2.Whether the complainant proves the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
3.What order?
08. Now, this Court answers to above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative;
Point No.2: In the Affirmative;
Point No.3: As per final order for the following:
:: R E A S O N S ::
09. POINTS No.1 and 2: Since these points are inter- relating with each other, they are taken up together for 6 C.C.No.20919/2019 common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and findings.
10. This case is tried as summons case. As this matter is tried as summons case, this Court relies on the evidence recorded by learned predecessor in office. In that regard, this Court relies on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mehsana Nagarik Sahkari Bank Ltd., V/s Shreeji Cab Co. & Others reported in 2014(13) SCC 619. Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that de- nova hearing is necessary only when the evidence is recording in summary manner. Therefore, this Court has proceeded with the case on the basis of part evidence recorded previously.
11. Before proceeding with the discussion, in order to prove the guilt of offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, initial burden casts on the complainant to prove the following ingredients:
a) The cheque must have been drawn for discharge of existing debt or liability.
7 C.C.No.20919/2019
b) Cheque must be presented within validity period.
c) Cheque must be returned unpaid due to insufficient funds or it exceeds the amount arranged.
d) Fact of dishonour be informed to the drawer by notice within 30 days.
e) Drawer of cheque must fail to make payment within 15 days of receipt of the notice.
12. In order to prove the case, the complainant - Dr.Prabhakar B.G., has examined himself as PW1. The PW1 has filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief reiterating entire complaint averments. In support of his oral evidence, he has produced Ex.P1 to 11 documents. The complainant got marked original cheque as Ex.P1, signature of accused as Ex.P1(a), bank endorsement as Ex.P2, demand notice as Ex.P3, three postal receipts as Ex.P4 to 6, three unclaimed RPAD Postal envelopes as Ex.P7 to 9 and two bank statements as Ex.P10 and 11.
13. During cross-examination of PW1, he has deposed he came to contact with accused in the year 2017. He has transferred amount to accused in 8 to 10 occasions. Pw1 8 C.C.No.20919/2019 has deposed he has transferred Rs 1,90,000/- in the month of March 2017 and Rs 13,00,000/- in the month of April 2018. On 04-04-2019 accused has issued the Ex P1 cheque at his Srigandha office. He has admitted the fact that accused has lodged complaint against his sister and Raju. PW1 has stated said complaint is related to some other dispute. The defence has suggested the fact that Ex P1 cheque only bears signature of accused and other writings are not belonged to accused. The said suggestions answered as not true. The defence has suggested when PW1 and his partner Vijay unable to run Chiguru Hospital, they sought financial help of accused. The said suggestions answered as not true. Further defence has suggested when accused joined the complainant, Vijay left the hospital after accused has settled the payment of Rs 10,00,000/- of accused. The said suggestions answered as not true. Thereafter accused and Pw1 has started Clinowin Research center. The said suggestions answered as not true. PW1 has admitted the fact that Clinowin center is in the name of accused. The defence has suggested the fact that sister of 9 C.C.No.20919/2019 complainant and Raju has forcibly sent the employees of hospital out and locked the research center which had all the original records including Cheques of accused and other documents. The said suggestions answered as not true. The defence suggested one of the cheque is misused by complainant. The said suggestions answered as not true. PW1 has specifically admitted the fact that he has sent the original cheques of accused belongs to his personal and company bank accounts, his passport, Aadhaar Card, Voter ID card and original gas bills through Courier. Further PW1 has admitted the fact after closure of Clinovin center, one Raghu came with list of belonging of accused. The PW1 has explained said Raghu did not take those documents and police refused to receive those documents and advised him to send the same to Courier. Therefore, he has sent the said documents through courier.
14. The evidence of PW1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P11 clearly show the complaint is filed within time and all the ingredients of section 138 of N.I.Act. The cheque is issued for legally recoverable debt and it is dishonored for 10 C.C.No.20919/2019 'Payment Stopped by Drawer'. Still the said endorsement of bank raises cause of action for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said point is settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its reported judgment in 2010 (11) SCC 441 and the case of Laxmi Dyechem Vs State of Gujarath reported in 2012(13) SCC 375. The said fact is brought to the notice of accused. The demand notices sent to the addresses returned with shara Door locked and Insufficient address and no such person. To the same address on service of summons accused has made appearance before the court. Therefore as per section 27 of General Clauses Act, receipt of legal notice through registered post to the correct address is sufficient proof of service. Till date the accused did not comply the demand of the complainant for payment of amount mentioned in the cheque. Therefore, PW1 has discharged his burden to prove the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
11 C.C.No.20919/2019
15. Another aspect is to consider whether the Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P1(a) signature belongs to the accused or not. The defense has admitted Ex.P1 cheque belong to accused and it bears his signatures. These facts clearly shows that the cheques in dispute is belongs to accused and he has signed the said documents. Therefore, presumption under section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act lies in favour of the complainant.
16. As per provision of section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act, the court has to presume liability of the accused and to such amount mentioned in the cheque to discharge legally recoverable debt. The said aspect was denied by the accused. 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. Thereafter, the onus of proving probable defense of the accused is on accused and standard of proof for rebutting presumption is preponderance of probabilities. To rebut presumption it is open for the accused to rely on evidence 12 C.C.No.20919/2019 or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise probable defense.
17. In that regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment reported in 2019(5) SCC 418 in the case of Basalingappa V/s Mudibasappa discussed the manner in which accused could rebut the presumption raised under section 118 and 139 of Negotiable instruments Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa reported in 2019 (5) SCC 418 laid down principles regarding how presumption under section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act can be rebutted.
18. To rebut the presumptions, accused entered into witness box as DW1. He has deposed in the month of April 2016 he got acquainted with complainant. At that time complainant is working at Qwintines clinical research center. Thereafter he along with his partner started Chiguru Multispeciality hospital by availing loans from Central Bank of India by paying monthly EMI of Rs 70,000/- and paying rent of Rs 30,000/- to Rs 35,000/-. In the month of 13 C.C.No.20919/2019 November 2016 complainant and his partner Vijaya sought his financial help and his financial help made them to settle bank loan and rent complications. On 04-12-2016, they have reopened the hospital. After six months, Partner of complainant Vijay left the hospital and at the request of complainant, he has paid Rs 5,00,000/- through cheque and Rs 5,00,000/- in cash to Vijay. Further he was paying salaries to Employees and Doctors. Further he has paid payments related to supply of medicine to hospital. In the year 2018, he has started Clinovin Clinical research center at the first floor of the hospital building and he was not made as official partner by complainant as there was Rs 30,00,000/- loan of bank is pending. On 12-03-2019 he was out of station and complainant did not in touch with accused. In mean time, sister of complainant Smt Nagarathna and Dr Raju came to hospital and taken out all staffs of hospital and locked the hospital. At that time, all the original records including the cheque book, Aadhaar Card, RC book were in his office at research center and those documents were taken by Nagarathna and Dr Raju by 14 C.C.No.20919/2019 break opening the lock. In that regard, he has lodged the complaint before police and police have registered NCR. Further he has sent stop payment request to his bank. He has deposed he did not receive any demand notice. Except receiving a SMS from bank about dishonour of cheque, he was not aware of the complaint. After he was intimated about NBW and he has appeared before this court. He has deposed he did not avail loan from complainant and the cheque is misused. Therefore, he prays to acquit him. In support, accused has got marked acknowledgment given by Byatarayanapura P.S., dated 14-05-2019 as Ex D1.
19. During cross-examination, Dw1 has deposed he is a Journalist. He has admitted the fact there are two cases of dishonour of cheque registered against him which are ended with conviction and he has filed appeals against those orders. He has admitted the fact that he has no document to show he has financially helped complainant to reopen the Hospital. He has admitted the fact that cheque is belong to him and it bears his signature. He has admitted though he did not avail loan from complainant, he has 15 C.C.No.20919/2019 received amount in his account. He has deposed there was an agreement to show he has paid Rs 10,00,000/- to Dr Vijay Kumar. Dw1 has explained said document is taken when lock of office is broken. He has deposed he has entered with building owner about lease to run the research center and said document is not produced. He has admitted the fact the summons and NBW issued to his addresses are served to him. He has admitted the fact that he did not take action immediately after he received SMS regarding dishonour of cheque.
20. On going through evidence on record, the accused has relied on police acknowledgment marked as Ex D1 to show his defence is probable to believe. The said Ex D1 is dated 14-05-2019. The Ex P1 cheque is dated 24-04-2019 and cheque is dishonoured on 28-05-2019. As per version of complainant this Ex P1 cheque is given on 04-04-2019 and it is presented as per instruction of the accused after the date of cheque i.e 24-04-2019. On the other hand, accused took specific defence that on 12-03-2019 this 16 C.C.No.20919/2019 cheque and other documents were locked inside the research center by the sister of complainant and Raju and they have taken out the cheque and it is misused by complainant and before presentation of cheque itself he has instructed the bank to stop payment and cheque is dishonored for reason 'payment stopped by drawer'.
21. On going through evidences on record the Dw1 has admitted the fact that Rs 30,00,000/- is credited by the complainant to his account. DW1 has claimed the said amount is not as loan and he has claimed to be partner of the complainant to run the hospital and he has opened the research center at the first floor of the hospital by entering into lease agreement with the owner of the building. It is evident to note, Dw1 has admitted he is not the medical professional or pharmacy related person. Dw1 has admitted the fact that he is Journalist. In the absence of partnership agreement or any kind of other agreement is not probable to believe accused is partner of complainant to run the hospital. Further accused has failed to produce any proof of payment regarding payment of Rs 10,00,000/- made to 17 C.C.No.20919/2019 out-gone partner of complainant Vijay. The accused did not produce any proof of payment regarding payments towards salary of staffs and supply of medicine to hospital. He did not examine any of such employees of hospital to believe his version.
22. In respect of knowledge about the custody of the cheque with Nagarathna or Raju by the accused relates back to 12-03-2019 as per version of Dw1 and Ex D1. But he did not send any legal notices to them or complainant to return the original documents including disputed cheque. The copy of complaint and statements given by accused, Nagarathna and Raju before the police is not produced. In the absence of such documents reliance on Ex D1 document which does not bears signature of then station house officer creates doubts and issuance of copy of unsigned police acknowledgment under Right to Information Act does not prove the fact that Police Sub-Inspector Narasimhamurthy M indeed inquired the receipt of complaint on 14-05-2019 and issued Ex D1 police acknowledgment. Further Dw1 has deposed NCR is registered based on his complaint. But no 18 C.C.No.20919/2019 NCR endorsement is produced by Dw1. If NCR is issued, the station house officer of a police station is duty bound to refer the complainant under section 155(4) of Cr.P.C., to Jurisdictional Magistrate for seeking permission to further investigate the matter. In the absence of such documents, sole reliance on Ex D1 which is not signed by the PSI cannot be made.
23. Regarding misuse of cheque, no admission elicited from the mouth of PW1. Further no action taken against the complainant or Nagarathna or Raju by accused after he got knowledge of the dishonour of cheque after he was intimated through SMS by bank. Further when incident took place on 12-03-2019, complainant approaching the police station with delay of 2 months creates doubt about credibility of witness. The version of complainant that Ex P1 cheque is issued on 04-04-2025. As accused has admitted the fact that Rs 30,00,000/- is credited to his account, then burden shifts on him to show said amount is not loan and indeed payment regarding his financial contribution to run hospital. But Dw1 failed to give such explanation about fact 19 C.C.No.20919/2019 why so much amount is transferred to him, if he does not borrowed amount from complainant.
24. The accused being aware of the fact that cheque is in custody of complainant or Nagarathna or Raju in the month of March 2019 itself, he has not issued legal notice to complainant seeking return of cheque. Further, he did not file police complaint regarding illegal custody of cheque by the complainant from the date when he has received all other original documents except cheque if ever such act is done. No prudent man would kept quiet after he being aware of fact that cheque is not returned by complainant or Nagarathna and Raju. Therefore, entire version of accused is found self serving statement. There is no circumstance made out to show accused was a partner to run hospital and he has made payments towards salaries of staffs and supply of medicine and he is also paid rents. The Dw1 failed to give proper explanation about the amount of Rs 30,00,000/- credited to his account. Therefore, entire evidence of Dw1 found not probable to believe. 20 C.C.No.20919/2019
25. In the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram vs Devinder Singh Hudan and another reported in 2019 (10) SCC 287 has held that even if defence is taken that cheque was lost, the same has to proved. In this case accused failed to prove the fact that Ex P1 chuque is not issued to complainant and it is kept inside the office which was taken by Nagarathna and Raju. The Dw1 has admitted the fact that he is already convicted in others cases of dishonour of cheques and he has preferred appeals against such conviction order. Therefore, his financial status is found not good and he has not produced his bank statement to show his account is having sufficient balance to make payments towards salaries, rent and supply of medicine of the hospital. The police acknowledgment with out signature of PSI/Station House officer does not presumed to be proper document to believe existence of facts mentioned in the said police acknowledgment. The issuance of true copy of police acknowledgment with out signature of receiving police official does not draw any kind of proof that accused 21 C.C.No.20919/2019 has approached the police before dishonour of cheque. Therefore, on the basis of sole oral evidence of Dw1 is found not probable and it does not rebut the presumptions. Therefore, accused has failed to rebut the presumptions raised under section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
26. As per section 139 of the N.I.Act, it shall be presumed unless contrary is proved, that the holder of cheque has received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 of N.I. Act for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. The Full bench judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rangappa vs Sri Mohan reported in 2010(11) SCC 441 has held that presumption mandated by section 139 of N.I.Act does indeed include the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore, once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant that the cheque is issued by accused and the signature, the burden casted on the accused to prove the contrary that cheque is not issued for any debt or other liability. The said proposition of law is laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the P Rasiya vs 22 C.C.No.20919/2019 Abdul Nazer and another. In the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2021 (5) SCC 283 in the case of M/S Kalamani Tex vs P. Balasubramanian. In the para 13 of said Judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"13. Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a plain reading of its judgement that the trail court completely overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under section 118 and section 139 of N.I.A. The statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these "reverse onus" clause become operative. In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him. The point of law has been crystalised by the court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs State of Gujarath..."
27. Considering aforesaid legal proposition, burden casted on accused to disprove the case of complainant and his defence must be found more probable. No admissions elicited from the mouth of PW1 about misuse of the cheque. 23 C.C.No.20919/2019 Therefore, defence of accused is found not probable and his evidence is not credible to believe.
28. Once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant that the cheque is issued by accused and the signatures, the burden casted on the accused to prove the contrary that cheque is not issued for any debt or other liability. However, in this case accused has failed to make probable defence to rebut the presumptions. The defence of accused is found self serving statement and it is not sufficient to rebut the presumptions. Hence, on the basis of the evidence of PW1 and Ex P1 to 11 documents, the complainant has proved the case and complainant is entitled for recovery of the amount as compensation.
29. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant has able to establish that Ex.P.1 cheque is issued to discharge liability of repayment of Rs.30,00,000/- to complainant by the accused. Ex.P1 is dishonoured for the reason "Payment Stopped by Drawer"
in the account of accused and complainant is entitled for 24 C.C.No.20919/2019 the cheques amount as compensation. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its reported judgement in 2025 SCC Online KAR 786 in the case of A V Poojappa vs Dr S K Vagdevi rep by her Special Power of Attorney Holder Sri H V Shivashankar in Para No.24 discussed the following aspect while imposing punishment, which reads as follows:
"24. While imposing the punishment, the Courts are required to examine the following aspects:
1. The quantum of the loan
2. The defence taken by the accused, more particularly whether he has taken a false defence and failed to prove the same.
3. Whether the accused has dragged on the matter unnecessarily and thereby delayed the disposal of the case at the stage of trial, appeal, revision,
4. Whether the transaction relates to business between the parties or the parties are business class who would have utilized the amount for their business and flourish, or
5. In other cases, the returns the loan amount would have brought, if it was kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank etc,"25 C.C.No.20919/2019
30. On considering said legal aspect, cheque is dated 24-04-2019. Already 6 Years Nine months have lapsed from inception of the complaint. If said cheque amount kept in FD in nationalized bank, interest at the rate of 6% per annum would have been accrued. Therefore, it would be appropriate to award additional compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as cost of the proceedings infavour of complainant. As per the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.996/2016 dated 09-07- 2025 in the case of M/s Banavathy & Company vs Mahaeer Electro Mech(P) Ltd has held as follows:-
"While passing the order of sentence after determining the fine/Compensation, the court shall also pass an order to pay future interest at the rate of 9 % per annum on the compensation amount payable to the complainant by fixing time of one or two months to deposit compensation amount so that even if the matter is challenged before the Sessions Court in appeal and High Court in revision the interest of the complainant will be protected".26 C.C.No.20919/2019
31. Considering the said legal proposition, it would be appropriate to award 9% per annum interest on the compensation amount payable to complainant if accused failed to comply the order of sentence within one month. The accused is not a repeated offender. Hence, there is no need to award imprisonment term. However, accused is liable to pay the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- to the state towards litigation expenses. Under these circumstances, this Court answers Points No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
32. POINT No.3: For the foregoing reasons stated in the Points No.1 and 2, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 40,10,000/-27 C.C.No.20919/2019
within one month and in case of default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Out of the fine amount Rs 40,00,000/-
shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as per section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum if accused failed to deposit compensation amount within stipulated time of one month. The remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be defray to the State.
In view of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. bail bonds stand extended for 6 months from this date.
Supply free copy of Judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and corrected by me th and signed, pronounced in the Open Court this28 day of January, 2026) (SMT.RASHMI H.B.,) XIX ADDL.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.28 C.C.No.20919/2019
::ANNEXURE::
List of Witnesses examined for Complainant:-
PW1 :- Dr.Prabhakar B.G., List of Documents marked for Complainant:-
Ex.P1 :- One Original Cheque, Ex.P1(a) :- Signature of Accused, Ex.P2 :- Bank Endorsement, Ex.P3 :- Office copy of the Legal Notice, Ex.P4 to 6 :- Three Postal Receipts, Ex.P7 to 9 :- Three Unclaimed RPAD Postal Envelopes, Ex.P10 & 11 :- Two Bank Statements.
List of Witnesses examined for Accused:-
DW1 :- Rajugowda N.
List of Documents marked for Accused:-
Ex.D1 :- Acknowledgment given by Byatarayanapura
P.S., dated 14-05-2019.
(SMT.RASHMI H.B.,)
XIX ADDL.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
29 C.C.No.20919/2019