Bangalore District Court
R Nangegowda vs D J Muniraju on 17 May, 2024
KABC0C0049622021
IN THE COURT OF XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (ACMM-34)
PRESENT: Smt.PARVEEN A BANKAPUR,B.Com.LLB.
XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE,
Dated : This the 17th day of May, 2024.
C.C.No.51517/2021
COMPLAINANT : Mr. R. Nangegowda
S/o. Late G.N. Ramaiah,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.247, Doddagubbi V & P,
Bengaluru - 560 077.
(By M/s.Ravi Law Associates-
Advocates)
V/s
ACCUSED : Mr. D.J. Muniraju
S/o. Sri Jayaramaiah,
Aged about 41 years,
R/at No.188A, Doddagubbi V & P,
Bengaluru - 560 077.
(By Mr. C.V. Annaiah - Advocates)
1 Date of Commencement 08.06.2020
of offence
2 Date of report of offence 03.08.2020
3 Presence of accused
3a. Before the Court 24.11.2021
3b. Released on bail 24.11.2021
4 Name of the Complainant Mr. R. Nanjegowda
5 Date of recording of 19.02.2021
evidence
6 Date of closure of evidence 04.01.2024
7 Offences alleged U/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
8 Opinion of Judge Accused is found guilty.
2 C.C.No.51517/2021
JUDGEMENT
The Private Complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submits that, the Accused is his friend for many years and out of acquaintance, the Accused in the first week of July, 2017 requested him for a handloan of Rs.10 lakhs to meet his personal commitments and assured him to repay the same within a span of one year. Considering the request of the Accused, he paid Rs.3 lakhs on 4.7.2017 and Rs.6 lakhs on 5.3.2018 total Rs.9 lakhs. Further the Accused assured him that he would add some additional amount at the time of repayment.
It is further submitted by the Complainant that upon his repeated requests and demands for repayment of the said loan amount, the Accused issued 2 Cheques bearing No.722115 dtd.8.6.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/- and another Cheque bearing No.722116 dtd.8.6.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/- both drawn on 3 C.C.No.51517/2021 Karnataka Bank Ltd., Doddagubbi branch, Bengaluru towards repayment of the said loan amount and the additional amount which was agreed earlier. The Accused also executed a loan undertaking agreement. Further the Accused assured that the said cheques would be honoured on their presentation for encashment.
It is further submitted by the Complainant that, as per the assurance of the Accused, he had presented the said cheques through his banker Pragathi Grameen Bank, Kothanur branch, Bengaluru for encashment on 19.6.2020, but they came to be dishonoured with a reason "funds insufficient" on 20.06.2020. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued demand notice to the Accused through RPAD on 6.7.2020 through his counsel and the same was served on the Accused on 8.7.2020 Inspite of receipt of legal notice, the Accused has neither paid the cheques amount nor replied to the notice. Accordingly, the Complainant has filed present complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.4 C.C.No.51517/2021
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit, and documents etc., took cognizance of an offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act by following the guidelines of Apex Court issued in Indian Bank Association case and ordered to be registered a criminal case against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
4. After issuance of summons, accused appeared before the court and enlarged himself on bail. Plea was recorded, read over and explained to the accused, who pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for complainant's evidence.
5. The Complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8.
6. Accused was examined U/S 313 of Cr.P.C.
Incriminating evidence appearing in the complainant's evidence was read over and explained to the accused who denies the same. The Accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked one document from his end as Ex.D1.
5 C.C.No.51517/2021
7. Heard both counsels at length in great detail. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for Accused has filed the written arguments.
The learned Counsel for Complainant has placed the following citations
1. Cri.Apl.No.1233-35/2022 SCC in the case of Rasiya V/s. Abdul Nazer and Another
2. Cri.Apl.No.362/22 SCC in the case of Tedhi Singh V/s. Narayan Dass Mahant
3. Cri.Apl.No.2023 Spl Leave Petn.(Crl) No.12802/22
4. Cri.Apl.No.2000/22 (A) Karnataka High Court in the case of R. Pramod V/s Gangadharaiah
8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the materials placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration.
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused in discharge of legally recoverable debt have issued 2 Cheques No.722115 dtd.8.6.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/- and another Cheque bearing No.722116 dtd.8.6.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/- both drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Doddagubbi branch, Bengaluru in favour in favour of the complainant which came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "funds insufficient" on dtd.20.06.2020 and in spite of service of notice accused has not paid the Cheques 6 C.C.No.51517/2021 amount and thereby committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
9. My findings on the above points is:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS Point No.1:-
10. Existence of legally recoverable debt is a sine qua non for prosecuting the case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. For convenient purpose the essential ingredients to constitute offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is summarized as below:
(i) That there must be a legally enforceable debt.
(ii) That the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes the legally enforceable debt.
(iii)That the cheque so issued had been returned due to "insufficient funds".
11. It is the core contention of the complainant that, the Accused being his friend approached him in the first week 7 C.C.No.51517/2021 of July, 2017 requested him for a handloan of Rs.10 lakhs to meet his personal commitments and assured him to repay the same within a span of one year. Considering the request of the Accused, he paid Rs.3 lakhs on 4.7.2017 and Rs.6 lakhs on 5.3.2018 total Rs.9 lakhs. Further the Accused assured him that he would add some additional amount at the time of repayment. Upon his repeated requests and demands for repayment of the said loan amount, the Accused issued 2 Cheques bearing No.722115 dtd.8.6.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/- and another Cheque bearing No.722116 dtd.8.6.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/- both drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Doddagubbi branch, Bengaluru towards repayment of the said loan amount and the additional amount which was agreed earlier. The Accused also executed a loan undertaking agreement. Further the Accused assured that the said cheques would be honoured on their presentation for encashment, But the said Cheques were dishonoured with a reason "funds insufficient" on 20.06.2020 on their presentation. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued demand notice to the Accused through RPAD on 6.7.2020, which was duly served on the 8 C.C.No.51517/2021 Accused on 8.7.2020 Inspite of receipt of legal notice, the Accused has neither paid the cheques amount nor replied to the notice. Accordingly, the Complainant has filed present complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
12. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, Complainant got examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the contents of complaint in his examination-in-chief. He has also placed the original Cheques bearing No.722115 dtd.8.6.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/- and another Cheque bearing No.722116 dtd.8.6.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/- at Ex.P.1 and 2, bank endorsements at Ex.P3 & Ex.P4, office copy of legal notice issued by the Complainant to the Accused on 6.7.2020 at Ex.P5, Postal receipt at Ex.P6, postal acknowledgement at Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 is the original Loan Undertaking Agreement.
13. The documents produced by the complainant of course established that complainant meets out the procedural requirements of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but 9 C.C.No.51517/2021 it is to be considered whether all these documents establish the offence committed by the accused.
14. The Negotiable Instruments Act raises two presumptions. One contained in Section 118 and the other in Sec. 139 thereof. For the sake of convenience Sec 118(1) of the N.I. Act is extracted here below:
118. Presumptions as to negotiable Instruments--
Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made ;--
(a) of consideration that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
1. To (g) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Provided that where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from an person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence of fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence of fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him".
10 C.C.No.51517/2021
15. Further Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under:
"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."
Scope and ambit and function of the presumption U/s 118(a) and Sec 139 of NI Act came to be considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court of Indian in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde (2008 AIAR (Criminal 151) The Supreme Court has laid down the law in the following phraseology.
" D Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Secs 139, 138--Presumption under-same arises in regard to second aspect of the matter provided under Sec 138-- Existence of legally enforceable debt is not a matter of presumption under Sec 139- It merely raises presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability - Merely an application of presumption contemplated under Section 139 of N.I.Act should not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction."11 C.C.No.51517/2021
16. Further, said decision was followed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Kempanarasimhaiah Vs P.Rangaraju & Others (2008 (5) KCCR 3371). Relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: -
"12. As to the provisions of Sections 138 of N.I.Act, the following principles emerge from the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court at para Nos 21, 23, 25, 26 and 34 of its Judgment in the above said case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde, AIR 2008 SC 1325.
(i) Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption that the cheque was issued towards discharge in whole or in part in any debt or other liability, which presupposed legally enforceable debt. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability." ( para 21)
(ii) The question as to whether the presumption stood rebutted or not, must be determined keeping in view the other evidences on record. Where the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration. (para 26)
(iii) An accused, for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute, need not examine himself.
He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on records (para 23) 12 C.C.No.51517/2021
(iv) Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different. Further more where as prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is " preponderance of probabilities'" ( para 23 & 25)
(v) Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies ( para 25)
(vi) Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be deliberately balanced (para 34)
17. Thus from the observations extracted above, it is clear that presumption Under Section 139 of the N.I,.Act is only to the extent that the cheque was drawn for discharge in full or in part of any debt or other liability and the said presumption do not relate to the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore, before drawing the presumption under section 139 of the N.I.Act, it is the duty of the Court to see whether or not the complainant has discharged his initial burden as to existence of legally enforceable debt. No doubt, as per Section 118(a) of the Act, there is a rebuttable presumption that every negotiable instrument, is accepted, endorsed, 13 C.C.No.51517/2021 negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."
18. Factual matrix of the case is required to be tested on the anvil of principles emerging from the above-referred decisions.
19. The defence taken by the Accused is that, Complainant and Accused are doing real estate business and both are jointly doing real estate (brokerage) business and at that time the Complainant had obtained signature on blank e-stamp paper and also obtained 3 blank signed Cheques from the Accused for security purpose in respect of brokerage transaction and due to misunderstanding Accused had stopped the said business with the Complainant and Complainant misused the said Cheques and e-stamp paper by presenting had by filing of this false complaint against him.
20. To substantiate the claim of Complainant, he examined himself as PW1. In the evidence he deposed that, Accused and Complainant are friends since many years and in the first week of June 2017 Accused requested handloan of 14 C.C.No.51517/2021 Rs.9 lakhs for his personal commitments by assuring that he will repay the said amount within one year. He further deposed that, the Complainant had paid the said loan amount in two installments by cash, Rs.3 lakhs on 4.7.2017 and Rs.6 lakhs on 5.3.2018 respectively. It is further submitted that Accused assured that, he would add some additional amount at the time of repayment. He further stated that, after expiry of stipulated period, Accused did not repay the loan amount and issued Ex.P1 and 2 Cheques for Rs.5 lakhs each, which were dishonoured on their presentation as per Ex.P3 and 4. It is further deposed that accordingly, the Complainant got issued legal notice as per Ex.P5 and same was duly served upon the Accused as per Ex.P7.
21. It is admitted fact that, Complainant and Accused were doing real estate business. Further it is admitted fact that the Accused has issued Cheques in favour of Complainant. In the cross-examination PW1 stated that, he has earning income of Rs.10 lakhs per year from his real estate business. He further stated that, he was let out land to Fresh to Home 15 C.C.No.51517/2021 company and getting Rs.2.8 lakhs rent per month. In the cross- examination he further stated that, apart from Accused, he lent amount to one Mr. Muniraju. He further stated that on friendship only he would lent the loan amount. He further stated that, he paid the loan amount by cash to the Accused. He further stated that, the said loan amount was kept in his house, which was earned by him from real estate business and rent amount. In the cross-examination he admits that at the time of transaction of brokerage, commonly obtained Cheques and stamp paper. But he denied that, from the Accused he obtained blank Cheques and e-stamp paper. He further denied that, there is a misunderstanding between Complainant and Accused and Complainant had misused the blank Cheques and blank bond papers of the Accused and created Ex.P8. He further stated in the cross-examination that, Accused borrowed loan for his personal purpose and further stated that, for the medical treatment of his father, wife and child. In the cross-examination learned Counsel for accused suggested that, Accused is a driver, which is denied by the PW1 by stating that, Accused working as a broker.
16 C.C.No.51517/2021
22. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed by the Complainant, Ex.P8 is the Loan Undertaking Agreement, which was executed by the Accused in favour of Complainant on 26.8.2019 i.e., before Cheques' date. In Ex.P8 it is stated by the Accused that, he have borrowed Rs.9 lakhs to meet his personal commitments from Complainant in the year 2017 and 18 in two installments and he agreed to pay additional amount of Rs. 1 lakh. Therefore, he had issued Ex.P1 and 2 Cheques each for Rs.5 lakhs to the Complainant and also undertake that, Cheques will be honoured on presentation. The Accused has not denied his signatures on Ex.P8. Ex.P5 is the office of legal notice wherein the Complainant stated about payment of loan, issuance of Cheque by the Accused and also execution of Ex.P8 and Cheques dishonoured by reason "funds insufficient". After receipt of legal notice, the Accused has not replied the notice and also not paid Cheques amount to the Accused. Therefore, from the oral and documentary evidence of Complainant, it presumed that, Ex.P1 and 2 Cheques were issued by the Accused for clearance of legally recoverable debt. 17 C.C.No.51517/2021
23. On the other hand to rebut the presumption, the Accused examined himself as DW1 and he deposed that he know the Complainant and both are jointly doing brokerage business by showing the properties to the third parties and at that time, the Complainant had obtained signed blank e-stamp and 3 signed blank Cheques from him for the security purpose in respect of brokerage transaction. He further deposed that due to misunderstanding between them regarding property transaction, he stopped business with the Complainant and Complainant filled the blank signed e-stamp paper and also filled the blank signed Cheques and presented and filed false complaint against him with intention to harass the Accused. He further deposed that he never received alleged sum of Rs.3 lakhs and 6 lakhs on 3.7.2017 and 5.3.2018 respectively and also not issued Ex.P1 and 2 Cheques for repayment of alleged loan. It is further deposed that he has not suffering from any financial problem. Therefore, the question of borrowing alleged loan does not arise. He further deposed that, his wife and child are not suffering any ill health at any point of time. It is further deposed that the Complainant filed number of cases against the 18 C.C.No.51517/2021 known persons and also filed one complaint by Mr. Muniraju in O.S.No.50843/2021 for claiming Rs.9,90,000/-.
24. In the cross-examination DW1 clearly admits that, Ex.P1 and 2 Cheques belongs to his bank account and also admits his signatures on both Cheques. Further he admits that, he received legal notice from the Complainant and not replied the said notice. He stated in the cross-examination that, he and Complainant jointly doing brokerage business, in that respect Complainant took signed blank stamp paper and 3 signed blank Cheques for security purpose and misused by the Complainant. He further stated that, he has not taken any legal action or police complaint for misusing of his security Cheques and stamp paper by the Complainant. He further stated in the cross-examination that, he unable to say that against which persons the Complainant filed complaints. He produced Ex.D1 which is the private complaint filed by the Complainant and against Mr.A.Muniraju for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. It is pertaining to note that, the Complainant himself stated in his evidence that, he was 19 C.C.No.51517/2021 filed complaint against present Accused and another person Mr.Muniraju. Therefore, allegation made by the Accused that the Complainant is habit of filing complaint against persons is not sustainable. Further it is denied by the Accused that, Ex.P1 and 2 Cheques were issued for the business purpose as a security not for repayment of the loan amount.
25. The defence of the Accused is that, the Complainant and Accused were jointly doing brokerage business and at that time, the Complainant took blank signed Cheques and blank signed stamp papers and due to misunderstanding between them, with an intention to harass the Accused, the Complainant misused the Cheque and filed false complaint against him.
26. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for accused argued that, the Complainant admits in the cross- examination that, he is doing real estate business and Accused also doing real estate business and the Complainant used to collect the blank signed Cheques and stamp paper. Therefore, it is clearly shows that, the Complainant obtained 20 C.C.No.51517/2021 blank signed Cheques and blank signed stamp paper and misused the same. But the learned Counsel for accused has not explained that, on what transaction the Complainant took blank Cheques and stamp paper for the security purpose.
27. Ex.P8 is the Loan Undertaking Agreement which was executed by the Accused by agreeing that, he was borrowed Rs.9 lakhs and with additional amount he had issued Ex.P1 and 2 Cheques for Rs.5 lakhs each. The Accused has not denied his signature on Ex.P8 and Ex.P1 and 2 Cheques. Further he admits that, he received legal notice from the Complainant. If the Complainant misused the blank Cheques and stamp paper, what prevented to take action against the Complainant by the Accused by filing of police complaint or any other legal action against him. Therefore, the defence taken by the Accused is not acceptable. Further the only contention of the Accused is that, the Cheques in question were issued for security purpose, not for the repayment of loan. In this regard, the learned Counsel for Complainant relied on order of Hon'ble 21 C.C.No.51517/2021 Apex Court in Crl. Apl.No.1233 -1235/2022 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that;
"Once the initial burden is discharged by the Complainant that the Cheque was issued by the Accused and the signature and issuance of Cheque is not disputed by the Accused, in that case the onus will shift upon the Accused to prove the contrary that the Cheque was not for any debt or other liability."
Further relied judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl. Apl.No.362/2022 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that;
"Principle has developed that, all which the Accused needs to establish is a probable defence. As to whether a probable defence has been established is a matter to be decided on the facts of each case on the conspectus of evidence and circumstances that exists."
28. In the present case the Accused stated that the Cheques in question were issued for the security purpose in brokerage transaction. But he has not explained under what transaction he has issued security Cheques to the Complainant. But he has admits that, he has issued blank 22 C.C.No.51517/2021 signed Cheques and stamp paper in favour of Complainant for security purpose. In this regard, it is useful to refer the decision reported in 2014 (9) SCC 129 in the case of Dashrath Rathod V/s. State of Maharashtra and also 2019 (4) SCC 197 in the case of Bir Singh V/s. Mukesh Kumar, wherein it is held that;
"A blank undated Cheque i.e., voluntarily issued by the Accused, would not invalidate the Cheque but, would be subject to evidence adduced by the Accused. In the present case, the defence would also not be available to the Accused as the Accused as per its own submission during the course of cross- examination he stated that, the Cheque was handed over to the Complainant company by him towards security purpose.
Further, in 2021 SCC Online SC 1002 in the case of Sripathi Singh V/s. State of Jharkhand, it is held that;
"Merely issuing of Cheque towards security purpose would not absolve the Accused of the liability as the same would render the Cheque as nothing more than an on demand promissory Note. Thus the position of law on aspect of Cheques issued towards security is 23 C.C.No.51517/2021 un-ambigious and the said defence also fails to safeguard the malafide intention of the Accused."
29. As discussed above, it has to be presumed that the Ex.P1 and 2 cheques were issued by the accused to discharge the legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused can place rebuttal evidence so as to show that the cheques were not issued for consideration. As appreciated supra, accused has failed to put acceptable and satisfactory evidence to probabilise the defence. Therefore, there is no question of saying that the cheques were not issued for liability.
30. The accused himself admits that Ex.P1 and 2 Cheques were issued by him to the Complainant and also admits his signatures on the Cheques. Therefore, complainant has discharged his initial onus laid on him. When he has discharged his initial onus, it raises presumption U/s 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused has failed to rebut the presumption either in cross-examining PW-1 or in his evidence.
24 C.C.No.51517/2021
31. So, far as sentence and compensation is concern, an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, is a civil wrong and compensatory in nature, punitive is secondary, considering, the above settled principle of law with facts and circumstances of the case, which clearly reveals that, towards repayment of loan amount, the cheques in question of issued by the accused to the complainant. Therefore, considering the nature of transaction, duration of pendency, litigation expenses, I am opinion that, if sentence of fine of Rs.12,10,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Ten Thousand only) is imposed that would meet the ends of justice, accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.12,10,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Ten Thousand only) out of that, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.12,05,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Five Thousand only) as a compensation as per Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C., remaining amount of Rs.5,000/-, is to be appropriated to the state, in case of default the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered in Affirmative.
25 C.C.No.51517/2021
32. POINT No.2 : In view of discussion held in Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.12,10,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Ten Thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Further, it is made clear that out of fine amount, Rs.12,05,000/-
(Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Five Thousand only) is to be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be remitted to the State.
Bail bond stands cancelled.
Supply the free copy of this judgement to the Accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 17th May, 2024) Digitally signed by PARVEEN A PARVEEN A BANKAPUR BANKAPUR Date: 2024.05.18 17:11:13 +0530 (PARVEEN A BANKAPUR) XXXIV ACMM, BENGALURU.
26 C.C.No.51517/2021ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 Mr. R. Nangegowda
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheques &2 Ex.P.3 Bank endorsements &4 Ex.P.5 Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.6 Postal receipt Ex.P.7 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P.8 Loan Undertaking Agreement
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 Mr. D.J. Muniraju
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of documents in C.C.No.50843/2021 PARVEEN A Digitally signed by PARVEEN A BANKAPUR BANKAPUR 17:11:19 +0530 Date: 2024.05.18 (PARVEEN A BANKAPUR) XXXIV ACMM, BENGALURU.