Bangalore District Court
Sri. K.B. Ravindra vs Sri. Lokesh @ Ravi on 31 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
:: PRESENT ::
SRI. NAGARAJEGOWDA. D. B.Com, L.L.B.,
XIII A.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
C.C. NO.11727/2011
Dated: This the 31st day of OCTOBER-2019
COMPLAINANT/S: Sri. K.B. Ravindra,
S/o. Late. Sri. Bajjegowda,
Aged about 44 years,
Occ: Milk Vending Business,
No.307, KMF Milk Shoppe,
Palace Guttahalli Main Road,
Opp: Dattatreya Temple,
Bangalore-560003.
V/s.
ACCUSED: Sri. Lokesh @ Ravi,
S/o. Sri. Boregowda,
Aged Major,
R/at. No.15/1, 2nd 'A' Road,
Gandhigrama, Near Malleshwaram,
Railway Station,
Subramanya Nagar,
Bangalore-560021.
And also:
R/at. C/o. Sri. Umesh,
S/o. Sri. Boregowda,
No.32, 2nd Block,
1st Cross, Bagalakunte,
Bangalore-560073.
JUDGMENT 2 C.C.11727/2011
And also:
Carrying on the business
At No.2159/15, 'Tanu Traders',
8th Main Road, 'A' Main,
'E' Block, Rajajinagar, 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560010.
Offence Under Section.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquitted
**
:: JUDGEMENT ::
Earlier on the 17th day of October-2014 my learned predecessor has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Against which, the complainant has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.1066/2014. In which after contest, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 6th December-2017 has passed an order by allowing the appeal and set aside the judgement of this court and remand back the case to this court with a direction to reconsider the materials JUDGMENT 3 C.C.11727/2011 produced by both the parties and dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, this case has been taken up for further proceedings and after recording both side oral and documentary evidence further and also heard the arguments on both counsels and posted the case for judgment.
2. The complainant filed the private complaint under Section.200 of Cr.P.C alleging that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The brief facts of the complainant case as per Ex.P15 complaint reads as follows:
The accused is the relative of complainant through the mother of the complainant. The accused and his brother Sri. Umesh both working as Assistants in the complainant's Milk Shoppe and at present, they have left their jobs from the complainants Milk Shoppe. In the last week of May-2010 the accused and his brother had JUDGMENT 4 C.C.11727/2011 approached the complainant and requested for hand loan of Rs.5,50,000/- telling that the same is required to meet the marriage expenses urgently of their cousin sister and promised to repay the same within six months and they are ready to give pro-note, agreement on stamp paper duly executed as a security for the prompt repayment of the said loan. Besides the accused also promised to issue post dated cheque on Vijaya Bank, Malleshwaram Branch with the authority to the complainant to fill up his name the loan amount both in words and figures including the date. Accordingly, the complainant taking into consideration of relationship with the accused and his brother and believed their words and promise held out by them, he has received the pro-note and agreement on stamp papers which duly executed by the accused and besides handing over the blank cheque bearing No.067425, dated: 02-12-2010 for Rs.5,50,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore infavour of the complainant and handing over of duly executed pro-note, agreement and blank cheque in the presence of Sri. R. Hemanth Kumar JUDGMENT 5 C.C.11727/2011 S/o. Late. Sri. Rajashekar of Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10, Sri. G. Janardhanan S/o. Sri. Gopala Chettiar of Vyalikaval, Bangalore-03 and Sri. Amarnath S/o. Sri. Bachchappa of Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10 and the said documentary evidence have given as security for due performance of prompt repayment of the aforesaid hand loan. The complainant has presented the said cheque for collection through his banker namely Syndicate Bank, SYB, Palace Guttahalli (PGH) Branch, Bangalore for realization of the loan amount on 02-12-2010. But the said cheque returned unpaid with shara as 'Fund Insufficient' on 04-12-2010. The complainant tried to contact the accused over phone as well as personally, but the accused tried to avoid the complainant. However in the night at about 10.20 p.m. on 09-12-2010 both accused and his brother Umesh along with three to four rowdy persons suddenly barged into the complainant's business premises and hurled vulgar words on him and challenged the complainant saying that he cannot do anything to them and complainant in his life time not able to recover the JUDGMENT 6 C.C.11727/2011 aforesaid hand loan amount and that if the complainant makes any approaches either to police or court, then the complainant and his family will be finished and so saying the accused and his brother and their coterie left the shop. The complainant immediately lodged the police complaint in Vyalikaval Police Station. The police have registered the complaint in Crime No.283/2010 for the offence punishable under Section.504, 506 R/w. 34 of IPC against the accused and his brother. The attitude and conduct of the accused revealed not only that the accused was not ready to repay the hand loan taken by him from the complainant, but also revealed that in order to avoid the said payment the accused colluding with his brother Umesh not only abused the complainant, but also threatened the lives of complainant's family and the complainant. The complainant therefore taking legal advice got issued the statutory legal notice dated: 27-12-2010 and the same was sent by RPAD to the three addresses of the accused. The notice sent to the residential address of the accused returned with postal shara as 'No such person in JUDGMENT 7 C.C.11727/2011 that name, not known' on 28-12-2010 and the notice sent to the address of accused brother is returned with postal shara as 'No such person, hence returned to sender' and notice sent to the accused business address was returned with postal shara as 'Not claimed' inspite of intimation slip delivered on 28-12-2010 and 29-12-2010. The intention of the accused crystal clear that he has avoided with ulterior sinister motive to receive the aforesaid legal notice. Thus he has committed an offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and punish the accused in accordance with law by awarding compensation to the complainant by sentencing him to pay double the amount of the cheque in the interest of justice and equity.
4. After recording sworn statement of complainant with documentary evidence, this court has registered the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Summons issued to the accused. The accused appeared through his counsel and enlarged on bail. There afterwards, plea of JUDGMENT 8 C.C.11727/2011 accusation has been read over and explained to the accused of the language known by him and he pleaded not guilty and claims tobe tried.
5. In support of the case of complainant, the complainant filed an affidavit by way of chief-examination as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P15 and later at the time of cross-examination of DW's, got marked Ex.P16 to P18 and on behalf of complainant, examined two more witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 who are witnesses to the Ex.P14 and identified their signatures found on the said document as Ex.P14(b) and (c) and these PW.1 to 3 have been fully cross-examined by the accused counsel and at the time of cross-examination of PW.1, got marked Ex.D1 and D2 and thus complainant closed his side evidence.
6. There afterwards, accused examined under Section.313 of Cr.P.C. statement. In which he totally denied the entire case of the complainant. In support of his denial, accused examined himself as DW.1 and examined one witness as DW.2 and got marked Ex.D3 to D15 and JUDGMENT 9 C.C.11727/2011 after remanding this case, examined one more witness as DW.3 and through him got marked Ex.D10 to 15. But inspite of opportunity has been given, the complainant counsel did not cross-examine DW.3. Hence, the cross- examination of DW.3 taken as nil and thus accused closed his side evidence.
7. In support of the case of complainant, the learned counsel for complainant did not appear before this court. Hence, their side arguments taken as nil. But the accused counsel submitted written arguments by narrating the facts and circumstances and submits that the accused has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, prays for acquittal of the accused.
8. On the basis of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the following points arises for my considerations:
POINTS
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the complainant had JUDGMENT 10 C.C.11727/2011 paid Rs.5,50,000/- by way of cash in the last week of May-2010 and accused and his brother executed pro-note, agreement on stamp paper and also issued post dated cheque bearing No.067425, dated: 02-12-2010 for Rs.5,50,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore infavour of the complainant. The complainant has presented the said cheque for collection through his banker Syndicate Bank, SYB Palace Guttahalli (PGH) Branch, Bangalore. But the said cheque was returned dishonoured due to 'Funds Insufficient' on 04-12-2010.
Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice to the three addresses of the accused on 27-12-2010 sent through RPAD. The said notice sent to residential address and his brother address was returned with shara as 'No such persons' and notice sent to the business address of the accused was returned with shara as 'Not claimed', inspite of intimation slip delivered on 28-01-2010 and 29-12-2010. Thus the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What order?
JUDGMENT 11 C.C.11727/2011
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order,
for the following.
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1: In support of the case of complainant, the complainant earlier examined as PW.1 filed by way of an affidavit. In which he has stated that the complainant and accused and his brother Umesh are relatives and the accused and his brother were working as Assistants in the Milk Shoppe of the complainant and at present they have left their jobs. The accused and his brother had approached the complainant in the last week of May-2010 and requested for hand loan of Rs.5,50,000/- telling that the same is required to meet marriage expenses of their cousin sister and promised to repay the same within six months. At that time, for repayment of said loan amount, the accused has executed pro-note, agreement on stamp paper as security and issued post dated cheque bearing JUDGMENT 12 C.C.11727/2011 No.067425, dated: 02-12-2010 for Rs.5,50,000/- and he had paid hand loan to the accused, for that the accused handing over duly executed pro-note, agreement and blank cheque in the presence of R. Hemanth Kumar, G. Janardhan and Amarnath as security and the complainant has presented the said cheque after duly fill up through his banker Syndicate Bank, SYB Palace Guttahalli Branch, Bangalore. But the said cheque is returned with banker shara as 'Funds Insufficient' on 04- 12-2010. The complainant has tried to intimate the same to the accused over phone as well as personally. But on 09- 12-2010 at about 10.20 p.m. the accused, his brother Umesh along with three to four rowdy persons suddenly barged into the business premises of complainant and they have threatened the complainant with dire consequences. For that, the complainant lodged the police complaint against them in Vyalikaval Police Station in Crime No.283/2010 for the offence punishable under Section.504, 506 R/w. 34 of IPC. After consent with the legal advise, the complainant got issued legal notice to the JUDGMENT 13 C.C.11727/2011 three address of the accused on 28-12-2010 sent through RPAD. The notice sent to two address were returned with postal shara as 'No such person'. But on his business premises the same was returned with shara as 'Not claimed'. Inspite of issuance of legal notice, the accused did not reply or comply the notice and thus the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and initially got marked Ex.P1 to P15.
11. Ex.P1 is the cheque alleged tobe issued by the accused and identified the signature of the accused as per Ex.P1(a). Ex.P2 is the challen for having deposited Ex.P1 cheque into the bank for collection. Ex.P3 is the endorsement issued by the banker stating that Ex.P1 cheque is returned dishonoured due to 'Insufficient Funds'. Ex.P4 to P6 are the postal receipts. Ex.P7 to P9 are the postal covers i.e., legal notice as per Ex.P10 sent to the accused are returned with postal shara as 'No such persons', but the notice issued to the business address of JUDGMENT 14 C.C.11727/2011 the accused at Ex.P9 is returned with shara as 'Not claimed' by the accused. But on the postal shara it is mentioned as 'Door lock, Intimation delivered' etc. Ex.P11 and P12 are the notices sent to the accused addresses. Ex.P13 and P14 are the on demand promissory note and consideration receipt alleged tobe executed by the accused on 24-05-2010 and identified the signature of the accused as per Ex.P13(a) and P14(a). And in order to prove the execution of these on demand promissory note and consideration receipt, the complainant got examined PW.2 and PW.3. Both of them have supported the case of complainant and identified their signatures found on Ex.P13 and P14. Ex.P15 is the complaint is not under dispute. Later got marked, Ex.P16 is another copy of legal notice issued to the accused. Ex.P17 is the examination of chief of DW.1. Ex.P18 is copy of Memorandum of Understanding alleged tobe executed by one Umesh as a second party infavour of Ravindra. K.B. who is complainant. In which the 2nd party has paid Rs.1,25,000/- and examined two witnesses, through them JUDGMENT 15 C.C.11727/2011 identified their signatures as Ex.P18(b) and (c) and also identified the signature of Umesh as Ex.P18(a).
12. On the basis of said documentary evidence in order to show the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- in the last week of May-2010 without mentioning the date on which he advanced loan amount to the accused and also the complainant has not produced his bank statement to show that he had sufficient amount with him. Because, the accused had denied the entire case of complainant. Hence, it is the duty of the complainant to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt and in the cross-examination of PW.1, he denied that he had given loan amount to the accused for performance of his cousin sister marriage and at the time of cross-examination of PW.1, the accused counsel got marked Ex.D1 is the signature of complainant in Ex.P15 complaint at the first page and the same has been compared with Ex.P18 MOU agreement. In which, the signature of complainant are one and the same in this regard in order to find out the said JUDGMENT 16 C.C.11727/2011 signature belongs to the accused or not after remanding this case, the accused filed necessary application under Section.45 of Indian Evidence Act and after contest on 11- 09-2018, my learned predecessor has dismissed the said application stating that the MOU and also signature on Ex.P15 is concern is supplementary document and are not prime documents under Section.73 of Indian Evidence Act. This court has got power to comparison of signature. Accordingly, on perusal of signature found on Ex.P15 complaint in the first page as per Ex.D1 along with signature of the complainant as per Ex.P18 are one and the same.
13. Except total denial of the contention of complainant, the complainant has not produced any other documents to show that he had got sufficient amount with him and in order to appreciate the case of complainant, at Page No.12 of his cross-examination, the relevant portion is in kannada reads as follows:
UÀÄ£Éß ¸ÀAB 282B2010 gÀ°è ªÀAiÀiÁå°PÁªÀ¯ï ¦.J¸ï.£À°è zÁR¯ÁVzÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀt K£ÁVzÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ JUDGMENT 17 C.C.11727/2011 £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¸ÀzjÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è DgÉÆæUÀ½§âgÀÆ ©qÀÄUÀqÉUÉÆArzÁÝgÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ ¥Àæ.¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÀArPÉ 4 gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ 3 d£À ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÉà £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ zÁR°¹zÀ C¥ÀgÁ¢üvÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è PÀÆqÀ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. Further at the end of his cross-examination at Page No.13 the relevant portion is in kannada reads as follows:
DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À vÀªÀÄä ¨ÀszÀævÉUÁV PÉÆlÖ ZÉPÀÌ£ÄÀ ß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ «gÀÄzÀÝ zÁR°¹PÉÆArzÉÝÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. DgÉÆæ CxÀªÁ CªÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸Á® PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¨ÁQ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
14. As per the said suggestion, the accused has stated his defence and documentary evidence, it shows that the alleged cheque in question is not at all issued any discharge of any liability. Further in the complaint, the complainant has stated that Ex.P1 cheque has been issued for discharge of liability. But he has stated some other things and in the cross-examination of PW.2 and PW.3, they have also stated that Ex.P1 cheque and pro-note have been given for the purpose of security towards the complainant. Except signature of accused and it was given JUDGMENT 18 C.C.11727/2011 in blank form etc. In the further cross-examination of PW.2 and PW.3, except total denial of contention of accused, the complainant has failed to produce any independent witness to support his case. As such whatever the contention taken by the complainant will not support his case to show that the complainant had paid huge amount of Rs.5,50,000/- to the accused and for repayment of the said loan amount, the accused has issued Ex.P1 cheque and the same was dishonoured due to 'Insufficient Funds' etc.
15. The accused has denied the entire case of complainant. In support of his denial, the accused examined H.B. Shankregowda as DW.1. In which he has stated that he performed the marriage of his daughter Asha on 2nd and 3rd June-2010. But he denied that the accused asked the complainant or his brother Umesh for any financial assistance of his daughter marriage more particularly the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and in order to appreciate the case of accused at the time of his cross- JUDGMENT 19 C.C.11727/2011 examination at Page No.3, the relevant portion is in kannada reads as follows:
£Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB 08-01-2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¥Àæ.¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¹zÉÝÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ¥Àæ.¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ FUÀ £ÉÆÃr UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÉÝãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥Àæ.¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦.17 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥Àæ.¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è gÀ«ÃAzÀæ, CªÀÄgÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆà PÁgÀt ºÉüÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ºÉý DgÉÆæUÉ ºÀt PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
16. And also examined DW.2 who is brother of accused by name Umesh. In his chief-examination, he has stated as per the cross-examination of PW.1 and the alleged cheque has been issued only for the purpose of security in the Milk Diary Shop etc. And in his cross-examination he denied the entire case of complainant and Ex.P1 cheque is belongs to the brother of accused. But he denied the said cheque has been issued to the complainant for discharge of loan etc. Except total denial of the contention of complainant, the accused is not at all issued Ex.P1 cheque not for discharge of any liability etc. Except total denial of the contention of the accused, the complainant has failed to give corroborative evidence to support his case. JUDGMENT 20 C.C.11727/2011
17. After remanding this case, the accused examined one witness by name Lokesh as DW.3 filed by way of an affidavit and he too also support the case of accused and through him got marked Ex.D10 legal notice which is sent to the complainant on 27-09-2018 through post. Ex.D11 is the postal receipt and the same was duly served to the complainant as per Ex.P12 postal acknowledgement and on 14-12-2012 he too also sent another notice to the complainant as per Ex.D13 and the same is sent through RPAD as per Ex.D14 postal receipt and the same is duly served as per Ex.D15 postal acknowledgement card and identified the signature on Ex.D5 MOU as per Ex.D5(c) and also identified the signature on Ex.P18 xerox copy of MOU as per Ex.P18(c). But inspite of sufficient opportunity has been given, the complainant did not cross-examine this DW.3 itself goes to show that the complainant has not approached this court with clean hands and the complainant has remained absent before this court and failed to address the arguments on merits. Ex.D2 is the letter issued by the complainant in the name of one Lokesh JUDGMENT 21 C.C.11727/2011 about two blank cheques etc., and Ex.D3 is the notarized copy of Current account Passbook along with statement of the Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., stands in the name of Shubha Enterprises. In which on 11-08- 2009 in the name of complainant, an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been withdrawn and the said relevant entry is marked as per Ex.D3(a). Ex.D4 is the Passbook of the Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., stands in the name of Shubha Enterprises. Ex.D5 is the Memorandum of Understanding taken between the complainant with one accused brother by name Sri. B. Umesh and identified the signature of complainant and accused brother and also DW.3 as witness identified his signature as Ex.D5(a) to (c). Ex.D6 is the copy of FIR. Ex.D7 is the complaint lodged by the complainant on 15- 12-2010 to the Vyalikaval Police station about the alleged act of the accused as per the contents of complaint. Ex.D8 is the charge sheet submitted by the police in the said case. Ex.D9 is the order sheet in Crime No.282/2010 of Vyalikaval Police Station. Ex.D10 to D15 are the notices JUDGMENT 22 C.C.11727/2011 and postal receipts and postal acknowledgment card sent to the complainant by one Lokesh were duly served to the complainant on 27-09-2018 and 14-12-2012 and in the cross-examination of DW.2 nothing has been elicited to disprove the contention of accused.
18. As such, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence of both complainant and accused, the accused had given rebuttal evidence to the case of complainant to show that the alleged cheque in question is not at all issued for discharge of any liability, but the same is issued for only for security purpose and as such the complainant has failed to prove the alleged guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
19. POINT NO.2: From the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section.255(1) Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence JUDGMENT 23 C.C.11727/2011 punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused is set at liberty and his bail bond and surety bond if any will be continued for a period of 6 (six) months in compliance of under Section.437(a) Cr.P.C. (Dictated to the stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of October-2019) (NAGARAJEGOWDA. D.) XIII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : K.B. Ravindra PW.2 : Hemanth Kumar PW.3 : Amarnath
Documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P1 : Cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P2 : Challen
Ex.P3 : Endorsement
Ex.P4to6 : Postal Receipts
JUDGMENT 24 C.C.11727/2011
Ex.P7to9 : Returned Postal covers
Ex.P10to12 : Legal notices
Ex.P13 : On demand promissory note
Ex.P14 : Consideration Receipt
Ex.P15 : Complaint
Ex.P16 : Legal notice copy
Ex.P17 : Chief-examination Affidavit of DW.1
Ex.P18 : copy of MOU
Witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
DW.1 : H.B. Shankregowda DW.2 : Umesh. B. DW.3 : Lokesh. B.
Documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D1 : Signature of complainant in complaint Ex.D2 : Letter Ex.D3&4 : N/c of Passbook and Statements Ex.D5 : Memorandum of Understanding Ex.D6 : Copy of FIR Ex.D7 : Copy of Police complaint Ex.D8 : Copy of Charge sheet Ex.D9 : Copy of Order sheet in Crime No.282/2010 Ex.D10 : Notice under Section.65 of Evidence Act Ex.D11 : Postal receipt Ex.D12 : Postal acknowledgement card Ex.D13 : Legal notice JUDGMENT 25 C.C.11727/2011 Ex.D14 : Postal receipt Ex.D15 : Postal acknowledgement card (NAGARAJEGOWDA. D.) XIII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.