Bangalore District Court
M/S Shree Charan (P) Ltd vs Shekar K on 1 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE & M.A.C.T.,
BENGALURU (SCCH-22).
Sri. B. Venkatappa,
PRESENT: B.A.L.L.B.,
XX Addl.Small Causes Judge & XVIII
A.C.M.M. & Member M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
Dated This the 1st Day of April, 2019.
CRIMINAL CASE NO.3028/2018
Complainant - M/s Shree Charan (P) Ltd.,
No.70/147,
Dr. Rajkumar Road,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560 010.
Represented by its Director
Sri Mahabaleshwara Bhat,
(Rept: By Sri. Amshith Hegde H.S.,
Advocates, Bengaluru)
-Versus-
Accused 1. Shekar K.,
S/o Kalivarthan.
2. Shivam Jewelers,
Represented by its Proprietor
Shekar K.
Both are residing at:-
#141 (Old 895),
Nagarathpet Main Road,
Near Raja Market,
Bangalore-560 002.
(Rept: By Sri. Chandra Shekara K.,
Advocate, Bengaluru)
2 SCCH-22
C.C.3028/2018
Date of Institution. : 29.06.2018.
The offence complied : Under Sec.138 of the
off or proved. Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the accused. Pleaded not guilty.
Date of : 14.11.2018.
commencement of
recording evidence.
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of such order : 01.04.2019
(B. VENKATAPPA)
XX A.S.C.J. & XVIII A.C.M.M.,
& MEMBER, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
3 SCCH-22
C.C.3028/2018
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The complainant M/s Shree Charan (P) Ltd., has filed this complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case are as follows:
The complainant is running chit fund business. The accused is one of the subscriber of the chit run by the complainant and subscribed for Ticket No.13 in Chit group No.5NB/LT/12 for a chit value of Rs.25,00,000/- and subscription installment payable at Rs.62,500/- per month for a period of 40 months. Towards Ticket No.13, the accused has paid a sum of Rs.14,78,925/- including dividend and still there is an outstanding of Rs.10,21,375/- to the complainant company. The accused is also liable to pay the damages of sum of Rs.61,283/- along with interest of Rs.5,71,821/- in total the accused is liable to pay sum of Rs.16,54,479/- to the complainant company. The accused has also subscribed for a Ticket No.40 in chit Group No.NB/LT/11 for a chit value of Rs.25,00,000/- payable at Rs.62,500/- per month for a period of 40 months. Towards Ticket No.40, the accused has paid a sum of Rs.34,03,945/- including dividend and still there is 4 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 an outstanding of Rs.96,055/- to the complainant company. The accused is also liable to pay the damages of sum of Rs.5,763/-
along with interest of Rs.50,463/- in total the accused is liable to pay sum of Rs.1,52,281/- to the complainant company. Towards both the above said chits, the accused is liable to pay total amount of Rs.18,06,760/- to the complainant. After repeated requests and reminders, accused has issued a cheque bearing N o.000023 dated:05.05.2018 drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Market, Bangalore Branch in favour of the complainant towards the payment of above said outstanding amount. The complainant has presented the said cheque through its banker i.e., The Union Bank of India, RMC Yard, Yeshwanthapur Branch, Bangalore, for encashment. But the said cheque was returned dishonoured with memo dated:11.05.2018 stating that, "Account Closed". The complainant got issued the legal notice through his counsel to the accused on 19.05.2018 through R.P.A.D. by demanding him to pay the cheque amount. Inspite of service of legal notice, the accused has not paid the cheque amount and nor complied the notice issued by the complainant. Hence, this Complaint.
3. The accused appeared before this Court through his counsel and he is enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation was 5 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 read over and explained to the accused. He has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. To prove the guilt of the accused, on behalf of the complainant company, its Director and authorized person by name Sri.Mabaleshwar Bhat examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked twelve documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and closed his side evidence.
5. After closure of the complainant's side evidence, statement of the accused recorded as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence against him, which appears in the complainant side evidence. On behalf of accused, Ex.D.1 is marked through cross-examination of P.W.1 and the accused himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked six documents as per Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.6.
6. Heard the arguments from both sides.
7. The points that would arise for my consideration are as follows :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.000023 dated:05.05.2018 for a sum of 6 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 Rs.18,06,760/- drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Market Bangalore Branch in order to discharge legally enforceable debt?
2. Whether the complainant proves that, after dishonor of the cheque, he has issued notice to the accused in compliance to Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act?
3. What order ?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
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 ::
POINT No.1 and 2 :
9. The complainant M/s Shree Charan (P) Ltd., has field this complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
10. In this case the burden of proving the ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is heavily on the complainant. The complainant, in order to prove these points 7 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 examined its Director and authorized person by name Sri. Mabaleshwar Bhat as P.W.1 and also got marked as many as twelve documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and closed its side evidence.
11. In this case the burden of proving the point No.1 and 2 is heavily on the complainant. For the purpose of appreciating the evidence, firstly I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant side. The Director and authorized person of the complainant company Sri. Mabaleshwar Bhat in his evidence before this Court has almost reiterated whatever the allegations made in the complaint. In addition to his oral evidence, P.W.1 has also got marked as many as twelve documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. I have gone through the same. Ex.P.1 is the Board Resolution of the Complainant Company. It shows that the Managing Director of Complainant Company has given authority to P.W.1 to prosecute this case. Ex.P.2 is the Cheque and Ex.P.2(a) is the signature of the Accused on Ex.P.2. It shows that, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.000023 dated:05.05.2018 for a sum of Rs.18,06,760/- drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Market Bangalore Branch in favour of the complainant company. Ex.P.3 is the Endorsement dated:11.05.2018 issued by 8 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 the Union Bank of India and it shows that, the said cheque was returned for the reason "Account Closed". Ex.P.4 is the Copy of Legal Notice dated:19.05.2018, it shows that the complainant had issued the legal notice to the accused No.1 and 2 calling upon them to pay the cheque amount of Rs.18,06,760/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 are the Postal Receipt. They show that, the legal notice was issued by the complainant to the accused No.1 and 2. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 are the returned Postal Covers and Ex.P.7(a) and Ex.P.8(a) are the two returned legal notices. They show that, the notice issued by the complainant to accused No.1 and 2 were returned for the reason unclaimed. Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 are the two Chit Agreements and Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 are the two Vouchers. They show that, the accused No.1 has executed the two Chit Agreements in favour of the complainant company towards chit group No.NB/LT/11 and chit group No.5NB/LT/12 for a chit value of Rs.25,00,000/- each payable at Rs.62,500/- per month in each chit group for a period of 40 months by agreeing the terms and conditions of the complainant company. Further it shows that, the accused No.1 has received the amount of Rs.17,39,185/- on 13.10.2012 and Rs.17,39,185/- on 29.09.2013 and 30.09.2013. During the course 9 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 of cross-examination of P.W.1 by the learned counsel for the accused, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 to disbelieve his evidence in the examination-in-chief.
12. After closure of the complainant's side evidence, statement of the accused recorded as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence against him, which appears in the complainant side evidence. The accused himself examined as D.W.1. He has deposed before this court that, he had two chits in the year 2012 and 2013 from the complainant company and he has received the entire chit amount. At the time of chit the complainant has obtained blank signed cheque for the purpose of security of the said chit amount. At the time of chit the complainant has collected signature on blank papers. In the year 2017 the Managing Director of the complainant company and its directors have came to his shop and they have directed him to pay due amount of Rs.10,28,285/-. The same was mentioned in Ex.D.1. As per the directions of the complainant company, he has deposited chit installments amount to the complainant as per Ex.D.1. The said amount was collected from collection boys of the complainant company as per the advice of one Mr. Raghu and the collection boys have received the amount and entered the received 10 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 amount in the chit pass book. Hence, he has prayed for dismiss the complaint. In support of his case he has produced Ex.D.1 i.e., the Subscriber Report. It shows that, the Managing Director of the complainant company has directed the accused to pay due amount of Rs.10,28,285/-. As per the directions of Managing Director of the complainant company, the accused has paid some amount to the complainant in different dates. The accused has produced Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.6 i.e., the receipts. They show that, the accused had paid some amount to the complainant company.
13. It is the defence of the accused that, the accused is the subscriber of the chit of the complainant company and he has paid entire chit amount to the complainant company. In support of his case, the accused has produced Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6. They show that, the accused has already paid some amount to the complainant company. At the time of chit, the complainant company has collected Ex.P.2 i.e.,cheque towards security of the said chit amount and the accused has repaid entire amount to the complainant. But the accused has not produced any other documents to show that, the complainant had collected the said Ex.P.2 for the purpose of security of chit amount. The further defence of the accused is that, at the time of chit, the complainant 11 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 company had obtained signatures on chit agreement and vouchers and they are blanked at the time of putting signature. In support of his defence, the accused has not produced any documents to show that, Ex.P.9 to 11 are blank at the time of putting his signature. On the other hand, the complainant has produced Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11 i.e., the Chit agreement and vouchers. They show that the accused is the successful bidder of the complainant company and he has received Rs.17,39,185/- each from the complainant and he had paid some amount to the complainant company. On the other hand, the accused has stated that, he had repaid the entire chit installments to the complainant company. But the accused has not produced any documents before this Court to show that, he has repaid the entire chit amount to the complainant company. If really the accused had repaid the entire chit installments amount to the complainant company, it is the duty of the accused to request the complainant to return the said security cheque and other documents to his custody, but he did not requested the complainant and he may take legal action against the complainant company for non-returning the security documents, but he did not do so. It shows that, the accused is the successful bidder of the chit of the complainant and he has repaid 12 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 part installments amount to the complainant company and towards discharge of remaining amount, he has issued a cheque in favour of the complainant company.
14. During the cross-examination the accused himself admitted that, he has received the entire amount as mentioned in Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 i.e. two vouchers. He has further admitted that, Ex.P.2 i.e., cheque and signature on the said cheque belongs to him. This admission clearly goes to show that, the accused had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. If the accused had repaid the entire amount to the complainant, he may received the NOC from the complainant company. But the accused has not made any efforts to obtain NOC from the complainant company.
15. It is further defence of the accused that, the legal notice was not served upon him, if the legal notice was served to him he may issued replay notice to the complainant by denying the contents of the said legal notice. On careful perusal of Ex.P.4 i.e., copy of legal notice, it shows that, the address mentioned in the complainant and Ex.P.4 is one at the same. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.1, he has admitted that, he is residing in 13 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 the address mentioned in Ex.P.9 i.e., Chit Agreement. On careful perusal of Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 and also the address mentioned in the cause title of complaint and legal notice, they are one at the same. It shows that, the address given by the accused to the complainant for issuance of legal notice is one at the same. The said legal notice was returned to the complainant stating that, "unclaimed", which is mentioned in Ex.P.7. It shows that, the accused has intentionally avoided the service of notice to him. It shows that, as per Section 27 of General Clause it is deemed service.
16. On perusal of entire documents placed by the complainant, it shows that, the accused is the subscriber for Ticket No.13 in Chit Group No.5NB/LT/12 for a chit value of Rs.25,00,000/- for a period of 40 months and installment payable at Rs.62,500/- per month and he has paid Rs.14,78,925/- and he is due for a sum of Rs.10,21,375/-, damages of Rs.61,283/- and interest of Rs.5,71,821/-. In total the accused is due an amount of Rs.16,54,479/- and also he is the subscriber of another chit No.40 in chit group No.NB/LT/11 for chit value of Rs.25,00,000/- for a period of 40 months and subscription installment payable at 14 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 Rs.62,500/- per month. Towards the said chit the accused has paid Rs.34,03,945/- and due an amount of Rs.96,055/-, damages of Rs.5,763/- and interest of Rs.50,463/-. In total the accused is liable to pay Rs.1,52,281/-. In this case the complainant has claimed Rs.18,06,760/- for total amount due by the accused in two chits. But the complainant has not produced any documents to show that, there is agreement in between the complainant and accused towards damages and also interest. Therefore, the complainant is entitled only due amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Towards discharge of the said due amount, the accused had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant. Hence, the accused is liable to pay Rs.11,17,430/- i.e., due amount of both the chits with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Therefore, the complainant has proved the necessary ingredients under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and also towards discharge of said chit due amount the accused had issued Ex.P.2 i.e., Cheque in favour of the complainant.
17. After going through the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant and after going through the arguments of the complainant, now let me see whether the complainant has proved ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act or not. For 15 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 that purpose I have completely gone through Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act which deals with "Dishonour of Cheques". z
18. In order to constitute an office under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the complainant has to fulfill the following requirements, which are as follows:
1. Cheque who have been issued for the discharge in whole or part of any debt or any other liability.
2. The cheque should have been presented before the bank within the period of six months or within the period of its validity which ever is earlier.
3. The payee should have issued a legal notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within of 30 days from the date of information from the bank.
4. After receipt of the notice, the drawer should have failed to pay cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.
5. On payment of the amount due, on the dishonored cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice by the drawer, the complaint should have been filed by the complainant within one month from the date of expiry of grace time of 15 days before a metropolitan Magistrate or not below the rank of JMFC.
16 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018
19. For that purpose, I have gone through the documentary evidence placed by the complainant side. In this case Ex.P.2 is the cheque bearing No.000023 dated:05.05.2018 for a sum of Rs.18,06,760/-. Ex.P.3 is the endorsement issued by the Union Bank of India and it endorsed that, "Account Closed" and returned on 11.05.2018. Ex.P.4 is the legal notice dated:19.05.2018 which was returned for the reason non claimed and accused has not repay the cheque amount or given any reply to the said notice, that means within six months from the date mentioned in Ex.P.2, it was produced before the bank for encashment and it was dishonored as per the bank endorsement at Ex.P.3. The legal notice dated:19.05.2018 was served to the accused, then this complaint filed within one month from the date of expiry of grace period. Therefore in this case, the complaint has been filed within time. Hence, the mandatory provision laid down under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act has been complied by the complainant in this case.
20. In this case, the accused has denied the oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant and also he has led defence evidence to prove his defence. I have completely gone through the Section 139 of N.I Act, which reads as under:
17 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 "Sec.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 in Section 138 for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability."
Therefore as per Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the presumption arises in favour of payee or holder of the cheque that the cheque was issued for discharge of debt or liability legally enforceable. The important ruling about this Section are:
1. ILR- 2000 KARNATAKA Page 1750;
2. AIR 2001 S.C. Page- 2895;
3. AIR 2002 S.C. Page-182;
In this case the accused has not denied Ex.P.2 cheque and also not denied the signature at Ex.P.2(a). Therefore, I am of the opinion that, indirectly the accused has admitted the case of the complainant. Therefore the admitted facts need not be proved as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. Once the signature of the accused is admitted on the disputed cheque, what may be consequence? Regarding this point, I have gone through the ruling reported in AIR-2000 S.C. Page- 145, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "Presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act is to be drawn when the drawer has admitted his signature on the cheuqe".
18 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018
21. Therefore, in the instance case, accused has not at all denied the Ex.P.2 cheque and his signature on the said cheque. In this case the accused is indirectly admitted the case of the complainant. Therefore much discussion regarding the same is not required. Further regarding the same point, I have also reported the ruling reported in 2004 part 3 KCCR 1816. Both these ruling are very much applicable for the present case on hand. In the above said ruling the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court held that:
" (Sec. 118 and 138) of Negotiable Instrument Act:
Presumption as to: when once the issuance of cheque and signature on it is admitted, the Court has to presume that, the cheque has been issued for discharge of debt or liability. The burden on the proof shifted on the accused to prove that, there was no liability or debt or that the cheque was issued to different person. Therefore the cheque is not issued infavour of the complainant".
In this case the complainant has proved the necessary ingredients under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
22. I have also gone through the ruling reported in AIR 2000 Kar. 169, which reads as follows:
"AIR. 2000 Kar. 169, (H. Marigowda Vs. Tippamma and Others).
19 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 As per Section 20 of Negotiable Instrument Act, even if the blank cheque is given, the holder has authority to make or complete the instrument as a negotiable one. It means the accused has impliedly given permission to the holder of the cheque to fill up blanks in the cheque, once all these things are established, Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act states that, "the cheque has been issued for the discharge of debt or liability unless the contrary is proved".
23. Therefore after going through the above said ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, it is very clear that, as per Section 20 of Negotiable Instrument Act, even if the blank cheque is given, the holder of the cheque has authority to complete the instrument as negotiable one as the accused has impliedly given permission to holder of the cheque to fill up the blanks in the cheque. Therefore, since to rebut the presumption infavour of the complainant. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the cheque in question, which is Ex.P.2 has been issued by the accused in favour of the complainant company for discharge of a legally enforceable debt.
24. Now the question arise before the Court is whether this Court is having power to impose fine of Rs.5,000/-. The punishment provide for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is the offences punishable with 20 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 imprisonment, which may extend for two years or with fine, which may extent to twice the amount of the cheque or both. Regarding this point, I have relied upon the following rulings:
1. Criminal Law Journal 1999 page 4606 S.C.
2. AIR 1999 S.C. 3762.
3. 2000 (2 ) Karnataka Law Journal page
621.
4. AIR 2001 SC page 537.
In the above rulings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "in view of provision of Section 29 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate cannot impose a fine not exceed Rs.5,000/- for an offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but however the Magistrage can take report under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C., where no limit is prescribed on the amount of compensation which could be awarded".
As per the principles laid down in the above said ruling, it is very clear that, the Court is having power to impose amount as compensation amount. As per the amended act of Negotiable Instrument Act, now the Court can impose any amount of fine. Which may extent to twice the amount of cheque or both. Further as per Section 80 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the Court may also grant interest.
21 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018
25. Therefore, in this case looking into any angle, I am of the opinion that, the oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant clearly goes to show that, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence, it is fit case for conviction. Further it is to be noted that, the cheque in dispute produced at Ex.P.2 is an amount of Rs.18,06,760/- and this Court is having ample power to impose fine, which may extent to twice the amount of cheque and also having a power to imprisonment to accused apart from the fine, which may extent to 2 years or with fine. Further as per amended Negotiable Instrument Act and also the recent rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is having ample power to impose fine amount to the accused on double the cheque amount under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. and this Court is having power to give compensation to the complainant. Further looking into any angle, the complainant has sufficiently proved ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. On the other hand the oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant is material, consistent, believable and acceptable. Hence, I will accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the 22 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 complainant. So for as principles laid down in the rulings are very much applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
26. Looking into the any angle, in this case the complainant company has sufficiently proved necessary ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant company as above are believable, acceptable, cogent and considerable. Therefore, under such circumstances, this Court has no other option except accepting the case of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has sufficiently prove the ingredients under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and as per the amended Negotiable Instrument Act and also the recent rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is having power to impose interest on cheque amount. In this case the accused No.1 and 2 are one of the subscriber of the complainant company chits and after received the chit amount accused No.1 is due to pay installment amount and towards due amount he has issued a cheque in favour of the complainant company. Therefore, the accused is liable to pay amount of Rs.11,17,430/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque i.e., Rs.11,17,430/- + Rs.92,180/- = Rs.12,09,610/- to the complainant. The 23 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 complainant company is entitled to the cheque amount of Rs.12,09,610/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Ten only). Accordingly I answer Point No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
POINT NO.3:
27. In the light of above discussed facts and circumstance of the case, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and hence, he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
The accused is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also liable to pay fine of Rs.12,09,610/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Ten only) for the above said offence, in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of another two months.
Further, it is also held that, out of the fine deposited by the accused, the accused is also liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.11,99,610/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Ten only) to the complainant within three months from the date of this order and the remaining fine 24 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is to be confiscated to the state.
The bail bond of the accused and surety stands cancelled.
Furnish the free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 1st day of April, 2019).
(B. Venkatappa) XX A.S.C.J. & XVIII A.C.M.M., & MEMBER, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant :
P.W.1 - Sri. Mabaleshwar Bhat.
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the Accused :
D.W.1 - Shekar.
List of Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant :
Ex.P.1 - Board Resolution of the Complainant Company.
Ex.P.2 - Original Cheque. Ex.P.2(a) - Signature of the accused on Ex.P.2. Ex.P.3 - Bank Endorsement. Ex.P.4 - Copy of Legal Notice. Ex.P.5 & 6 - Two Postal Receipts.
Ex.P.7 & 8 - Two returned Postal Covers. Ex.P.7(a) - Copy of Two returned notices. & 8(a)
25 SCCH-22 C.C.3028/2018 Ex.P.9 & - Two Chit Agreements.
10 Ex.P.11 & - Two Payment Vouchers.
12 List of Documents marked on behalf of the Accused :
Ex.D.1 - Subscriber Report.
Ex.D.2 to - 5 Amount Paid Receipts by the accused to the 6 complainant company (B. Venkatappa) XX A.S.C.J. & XVIII A.C.M.M., & MEMBER, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.