Bangalore District Court
Dr. B.N. Shetty vs Sri. Aslam on 12 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES &
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21).
Dated: This the 12th Day of October 2021
PRESENT: Smt. VANI A. SHETTY, B.A. Law L.L.B,
XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small
Causes & ACMM, Bengaluru.
C.C. No. 53663/2015
Complainant/s : Dr. B.N. Shetty,
(Dr. B.Nishakantha Shetty),
S/o. B.Naganna Shetty,
Aged about 65 years,
No.26, "Sannidhi", 2nd Cross,
Vivekananda Nagar,
Bangalore - 560033.
(By Sri/Smt. S.S.K., Advocate)
V/s.
Accused/s : Sri. Aslam,
S/o. Abdul Gaffer,
Aged about 55 years,
No.669, H.B.R. Layout,
Near Telephone Exchange,
Bangalore - 560004.
Residing at No.101, 1st floor,
"Ashoka Enclave",
Nathaji road, Bangalore.
(By Sri/Smt. M.H.R., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The accused in this case is tried for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, on the complaint of the complainant.
SCCH-21 2 C.C. No.:53663/20152. The summary of the complainant's case is that:
The accused borrowed a hand loan of Rs.50,00,000/- from the complainant and in discharge of the said amount, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.472513 dated 16.04.2015 for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on IndusInd Bank, HBR layout Branch, Bengaluru, assuring that the cheque would be honored if presented for the payment. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker Canara Bank, Vivekananda Nagar branch, Bengaluru. But the said cheque came to be dishonored on the grounds 'funds insufficient' on 30.06.2015. Thereafter on 03.07.2015, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused by RPAD demanding for the repayment of the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice sent through RPAD was served to the accused on 06.07.2015. Due to mistake, again issued rectification notice to the accused on 13.07.2015 and the same was served on 15.07.2015. The accused has not paid the amount and therefore, this complaint filed on 06.08.2015.
3. On filing of the complaint, the cognizance was taken for an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act and sworn statement was recorded. As there was sufficient ground to proceed further, a criminal case has been registered against the accused and he was summoned. The substance of accusation is stated to the accused and his plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and submitted that he has defence to make.
SCCH-21 3 C.C. No.:53663/20154. In support of the complainant's case, the complainant got examined himself as P.W1 and got marked 18 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. The statement of the accused is recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and his answers were recorded. The accused got examined himself as D.W1.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the written argument filed on behalf of the complainant.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proved that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881?
2. What order?
7. My answer to the above points is as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT No.1: In order to constitute an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the cheque shall be presented to the bank within a period of 3 months from its date. On its dishonor, the drawer or holder of the cheque as the case may be shall cause demand notice within 30 days from the date of dishonor, demanding to repay within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. If the drawer of the cheque fails to repay the amount mentioned in the cheque within 15 days SCCH-21 4 C.C. No.:53663/2015 from the date of service of notice, the cause of action arises for filing the complaint.
9. The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of his oral chief examination. In the affidavit, the complainant has testified regarding the lending of Rs.50,00,000/- to the accused, issuance of cheque, issuance of demand notice and also failure of the accused to pay the cheque amount. The complainant has produced the cheque bearing No.472513 dated 16.04.2015 for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on IndusInd Bank, HBR layout Branch, Bengaluru, alleged to be issued by the accused. Ex.P1 stands in the name of the complainant for Rs.50,00,000/-. Ex.P2 is the endorsement issued by the bank stating dishonor of Ex.P1 cheque. Ex.P3 and 4 are the office copies of legal notices dated 03.07.2015 and 13.07.2015. Ex.P5 & 6 are the postal acknowledgments evidencing the service of the notice.
10. In the present case, the cheque is dated 16.04.2015. The complainant has presented the cheque on 29.06.2015 i.e. within three months from the date of cheque as it could be seen from Ex.P2. Ex.P2 further shows that cheque in question was dishonoured on 30.06.2015. The notice was issued within the statutory period of time. The notice issued to the accused served on 06.07.2015 as per Ex.P6 postal acknowledgment. The cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 21.07.2015. The complainant has filed this complaint on 06.08.2015 i.e. within 30 days from the date of arisal of the cause of action. In this way, the SCCH-21 5 C.C. No.:53663/2015 complainant has complied all the mandatory requirements of Section 138 and 142 of N.I. Act.
11. Section 118 of N.I. Act lays down that until the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Section 139 of N.I. Act contemplates that unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole of any debt or liability. In the decision reported in 2001 Crl.L.J. page 4647 (SC) (Hiten P.Dalal -Vs- Bratindranath Banerjee) and in various other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and our Hon'ble High Court has repeatedly observed that in the proceeding under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant is not required to establish either the legality or the enforceability of the debt or liability since he can avail the benefit of the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act in his favour. It is also observed that by virtue of these presumptions, the accused has to establish that the cheque in question was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt or liability. Later in the year 2006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision M.S. Narayan Menon @ Mani -vs- State of Kerala and another (2006 SAR Crl. 616) has held that the presumption available under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act can be rebutted by raising a probable defence and the onus cast upon the accused is not as heavy as that of the prosecution. It was compared with that of a defendant in the civil proceedings. Subsequently in the year 2008, in Krishna Janardhana Bhat SCCH-21 6 C.C. No.:53663/2015
-Vs- Dattatreya G. Hegde (2008 Vo.II SCC Crl.166), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the existence of legally recoverable debt is not a presumption under Section 138 of N.I. Act and the accused has a constitutional right to maintain silence and therefore, the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 of N.I. Act should be delicately balanced.
12. In the decision of Rangappa - Vs - Mohan (AIR 2010 SC 1898), the Hon'ble Supreme has considered this issue and clarified that the existence of legally recoverable debt or liability is a matter of presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act. In para 14 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as here below:
"In light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondentclaimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra) may not be correct. However, this does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the decision in that case since it was based on the specific facts and circumstances therein. As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private SCCH-21 7 C.C. No.:53663/2015 parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own. "
13. In view of the above decision, now it is clear that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of N.I. Act does indeed include the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. It is a rebuttable presumption. It is open to the accused to raise the defence wherein the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. For rebutting presumption, the accused do not adduce evidence with unduly high standard of proof but, the standard of proof for doing so with that of preponderance of probabilities. If the accused is able to raise a probable defence, which creates doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability, the onus shifts back to the complainant. It is also clear for rebutting the presumption the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant or his cross- examination and he need not necessarily adduce his evidence in all the cases.
SCCH-21 8 C.C. No.:53663/201514. In the present case, the complainant has complied all the mandatory requirements of Section 138 and 142 of N.I. Act. As per the case of the complainant, the accused approached him for financial help of Rs.50,00,000/- to purchase a property in Bengaluru and accordingly, he paid Rs.50,00,000/- in cash on 15.11.2014 and towards the discharge of said amount, the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.50,00,000/- on 16.04.2015. On the other hand, the accused has taken up a defence that there was dispute with regard to the property in between the complainant and one Sri. Imran who is the son of sister of the accused. He has further contended that in connection with said dispute, the said Imran was detained at Kadagondanahalli police station and during the time of his detention, the sister of the accused i.e. mother of said Imran requested the accused to come to the police station and therefore, the accused went to police station and sought time to settle the dispute. At that time, the complainant insisted for security and hence, he issued 2 blank cheque in the police station to the complainant. It is the contention of accused that the transaction was only in between the complainant and Imran and he is not connected with the present transaction.
15. The accused has admitted the issuance of cheque and his signature in it. It is settled law that when the issuance of cheque and signature of accused in it are admitted, the court shall raise a presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act. This is consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of APS SCCH-21 9 C.C. No.:53663/2015 Forex Services Pvt Ltd vs Shakti International Fashion Linkers and others (2020 SCC Online SC 193) and Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa ((2019) 5 SCC 418) and also in the recent decision in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde vs. Sripad (2021 SCC online SC 788). Having regard to this, the onus is on the accused to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption. It is also settled law that the standard of proof required for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. In order to rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on the evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant.
16. The first contention raised by the accused is that he had issued Ex.P1 cheque as a security and not towards the legally enforceable debt. If a cheque is issued as a security and if the liability is not fulfilled, the payee is entitle to present the cheque for encashment. In this regard, our Hon'ble High Court in the case of Smt. Umaswamy vs. K.N. Ramanath (2006 Crl.L.J. 3760) held as hereunder:
"5. The contention that the cheque was issued only as security is preposterous. The cheque whether issued for payment of debt or as security makes no distinction in law. The cheque is a negotiable instrument, it may be that some times the cheque is issued with a request on the part of the drawer to defer the presentation of the cheque for some time to enable the drawer to make payment by cash and take back the cheque or allow time to arrange funds for encashment of cheque. When the amount is not paid as per oral understanding the payee is well-justified to present the cheque for encashment. The cheque even if it is issued as a security for payment, it is negotiable instrument and encashable security at the hands of SCCH-21 10 C.C. No.:53663/2015 payee. Therefore, merely because the drawer contends that it is issued as security is not a ground to exonerate the penal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act."
Further, in the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/s. Womb Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., vs. Vijay Ahuja and another (2019(4) RCR (Criminal) 358)), it is observed that issuance of cheque by way of security per se would not extricate the accused from the discharge of liability arising from such cheque and same required to be considered on the basis of evidence on record. In view of this, on this ground alone, the accused cannot be absolved from the liability and this defence required to be considered along with all other evidences available on record.
17. The accused has also taken up a contention that Ex.P1 cheque was issued by him in the police station when his sister's son Imran was detained by the police. This contention raised by the accused also requires a serious consideration for the reason that if there was pressure for settling the dispute, normally issuance of cheque cannot be considered as voluntarily. If the cheque was not issued voluntarily, it is not proper to raise the presumption. But in the present case, it is not the contention of the accused that the circumstances in the police station forced him to issue the cheque. In his chief examination, he has merely stated that the complainant insisted him to give security and therefore, he issued the cheque. But in the cross-examination of the complainant, it was suggested on behalf of accused SCCH-21 11 C.C. No.:53663/2015 that the complainant threatened the accused to send him to Jail and thereby, he was forced to issue Ex.P1 cheque. The defence version taken by the accused in the cross- examination of the complainant and in his chief examination are totally inconsistent in relation to the circumstances under which he issued the cheque. When the accused has taken up a defence of threat or coercion, he must be very specific and definite in his stand. The necessity of taking a specific defence in respect of threat, coercion or fraud, is also described even in a civil case as per O.VI Rule 4 CPC. It is true that the degree of proof required to probabalise a defence is not beyond reasonable doubt and it is only a preponderance of probabilities. It is also settled law that the strong presumption contemplated under section 118 and 139 of N.I. act can be rebutted only by a cogent evidence. But, the compulsion to give a cheque goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, I have carefully examined the entire evidence on record.
18. The accused claims that his sister's son Imran was detained in Kadagondanahalli police station. The accused has not disclosed the date, month or the year of detention. He has not even stated that since the complainant lodged a complaint before the police station, said Imran was detained. Inspite of denial of the complainant in respect of detention of said Imran, the accused has not chosen to produce any materials and he has not even chosen to examine said Imran. The accused claims that the detention of said Imran was informed to him from his mother who is none SCCH-21 12 C.C. No.:53663/2015 other than the sister of the accused. The accused has not even chosen to examine his sister. The complainant himself has admitted that he had lodged a complaint before Kadugondanahalli police station alleging life threat by the accused and said Imran. The copy of complaint is produced at Ex.P16. But, Ex.P16 is dated 16.06.2016. In the said complaint itself, the complainant has disclosed all the previous transactions and litigation with the accused and said Imran, including the issuance of Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.50 lakhs. Therefore, it is clear that Ex.P16 complaint is on 16.06.2016 i.e. after nearly a year from the date of presentation of Ex.P1 cheque on 29.06.2015. It clearly indicates that the complaint was lodged by the complainant only after instituting this complaint for the alleged life threat said to have given by the accused and Imran. Therefore, in order to probabalise the defence of the accused, he must produce some materials to show that at some point of time, prior to 16.06.2016, the complainant approached the police station and on the basis of that complaint, the accused was compelled to handover Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant. There are absolutely no materials to infer that the complainant lodged complaint against the accused or Imran at any point of time prior to 29.06.2015. Therefore, the contention of the accused that he had issued Ex.P1 cheque in the police station at the time of detention of Imran is not probabalised.
19. Learned counsel appearing for the accused relying upon the decisions rendered in the case of Abdul Samad vs. SCCH-21 13 C.C. No.:53663/2015 Satya Narayan Mahawar on 23.04.1990, K.T. Kurian vs. K.K.Sreedharan (LAWS(KER) 1991 251), Goa Plastic Pvt. Ltd., vs. Shri Chico Ursula D'Souza(1996 Cri. L. J.2344), Ashwini Satish Bhat vs. Jeevan Divakar(LAWS(BOM) 1999 230), A.V.Murthy vs. B.S.Nagabasavanna(AIR 2002 SC 985), M/s. Sarathy Enterprises vs. Selvaraj(Crl. Appeal No.816/1996 dated 09.02.2004), Taher N.Khambati vs. Vinayak Enterprises (LAWS(APH) 1994 817), Siba Shankar Sahu vs. Utkal Asbestos Ltd.,(LAWS(ORI) 1993 12 19), M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala and another((2006) 6 SCC
39), Goaplast (P) Ltd., vs. Chico Ursula D'Souza and another ((2003) 3 SCC 232), Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets ((2009) 2 SCC 513), Reverend Mother Mary Kutty vs. Reni C.Kottaram and another((2013) SCC 327) has seriously contended that there was no legally enforceable debt due to the complainant and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no dispute with regard to the position of law that the presumption for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act is maintainable only if the debt or liability is legally enforceable debt or liability. The complainant claims that he had lent huge amount of Rs.50 lakhs in cash. I have already observed that the complainant is entitled for the benefit of presumption contemplated under section 139 of N.I. Act. Therefore, the complainant need not prove the passing of consideration, unless a probable defence is raised or if the materials on record creates a doubt about the passing of consideration. The accused has failed to probabalise any of the defence. But, still it is the duty of court to examine as to whether the evidence on record SCCH-21 14 C.C. No.:53663/2015 creates a doubt about the passing of consideration, more particularly when the amount involved is very huge.
20. One of the contention raised by the accused is that the transaction was only in between the complainant and Imran and the accused has not made any transaction with the complainant. But, the certified copy of the complaint filed by the complainant against accused produced at Ex.P13 in C.C. No.57372/2016 shows that the accused offered to sell a site and the complainant paid some advance amount on 26.11.2009, 08.01.2010, 27.01.2009 and 16.02.2010 to the accused. It also shows that the deal could not be materialized and therefore, towards the repayment of said amount, the accused issued a cheque for Rs.15 lakhs which came to be dishonored and therefore, the complainant filed a complaint as per Ex.P13 for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act which ultimately settled between the complainant and accused on 26.10.2018 and the accused paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the complainant. In this regard, the accused has taken up a contention that said transaction was also in between the complainant and Imran and he settled the dispute after receiving the amount from Imran and subject to a condition that upon its settlement, the instant case also to be withdrawn by the complainant. But, the accused has not explained under what circumstances he issued cheque to the complainant involved in C.C. No.57372/16. The said case is settled on payment of Rs.10 lakhs by the accused after 3 years of institution of present case. It appears that the accused has not taken up the defence raised in the instant SCCH-21 15 C.C. No.:53663/2015 case in the said proceedings. He claims that the consent and payment made by Mr. Imran has led him to settle the previous case in C.C. No.57372/16. If the settlement amount was really paid by Imran, he could have directly paid the amount to the complainant. Even if said Imran had paid the settlement amount to the accused, nothing would have prevented the accused from disclosing the bank statement or some other records to prove that the settlement amount was actually received by said Imran. Therefore, having regard to the above facts and circumstances, this court has no option to hold that the transaction in relation to C.C. No.57372/2016 was in between the complainant and accused. Hence, the contention of accused that he has not made any transaction with the complainant cannot be accepted.
21. One of the important issue is whether the payment of Rs.50 lakhs in cash is permitted and can it be trusted. It is true that the court cannot encourage huge cash payments. The parties are expected to make the transaction through bank to avoid all legal complications. But, considering the object of legislation in enacting Sec.138 of N.I. Act, the court cannot disbelieve a transaction merely because it was made in cash. If the complainant has violated the statutory enactment and rules in connection with the business or other transaction, the appropriate authority can take appropriate legal action against him. Those aspects cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings and same is outside the scope of this proceedings.
SCCH-21 16 C.C. No.:53663/201522. The only question is whether the court can trust the payment of such huge amount by the complainant. In this regard it is relevant to note that the accused has not at all disputed the financial capacity of the complainant to lend the amount of Rs.50 lakhs to the accused. The accused has also not disputed that the complainant is a doctor and accused was patient from last 20 years. The intimacy of the complainant and accused is also not in dispute. In the previous paragraphs, it is also noticed that the complainant advanced some amount to the accused for the purchase of a site and latter it was settled after repayment made by the accused. It was also a cash transaction which is impliedly admitted by the accused. Apart from this, the complainant has produced the certified copy of Judgment and decree passed by the court of Hon'ble XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in O.S. No.415/2017 in a suit filed by the complainant against the above referred Imran who is none other than sister's son of the accused for refund of Rs.27 lakhs. The said suit was decreed in favour of the complainant directing the said Imran to pay Rs.27 lakhs with interest. It is also not in dispute that the decreetal amount involved in O.S. No.415/2017 also paid by the complainant in cash. The above evidence available on record clearly shows that there were several transactions made by the complainant in cash which were approved in two earlier judicial proceedings. Having regard to these aspects, though the consideration amount is very huge, it is impermissible to doubt the passing of consideration unless there is a probable defence or some materials on record which is capable of creating a doubt in SCCH-21 17 C.C. No.:53663/2015 the mind of court about the passing of consideration and more particularly, when the accused has not disputed the financial capacity of the complainant and the proved cash transactions previously made by the complainant.
23. It is also to be noted that when Ex.P1 cheque was dishonoured, the complainant issued notice to the accused demanding the cheque amount in compliance of Sec.138(b) of N.I.Act. There is no dispute that it was served to the accused. The accused has not chosen to reply the notice. If the presentation of cheque by the complainant for the huge amount of Rs.50 lakhs is false, the accused would have at least submitted a reply setting out the defence or explaining the circumstances under which he issued Ex.P1 cheque. But, the accused kept quiet. The complete silence of the accused speaks against him. The accused has not given any explanation for his silence. This is also an important aspect which supports the claim of the complainant and weighs against the accused. Apart from this, knowing fully well that the instant complaint is pending against the accused, during the pendency of this complaint, the accused has paid amount to the complainant and settled the other case filed against him in C.C. No.57372/16. If the present proceedings are false, the accused would have reacted strongly.
24. In view of reasons noted above, this court is of the opinion that none of defences raised by the accused can be treated as a probable defence and there is no evidence on record which creates a doubt in the mind of court against the SCCH-21 18 C.C. No.:53663/2015 passing of consideration. Hence, the presumption available in favour complainant is not rebutted. Consequently, the complainant has able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
25. POINT No.2: Section 138 of N.I. Act empowers the Court to sentence the accused upto two years and also to impose fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or with both. This cheque in question was issued on 16.04.2015 for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only). The complainant was deprived of money that was rightfully due to him for a period of more than six years. However, having regard to the facts of the case and the amount involved, there are no warranting circumstances to award the sentence of imprisonment as substantive sentence. Directing the accused to pay fine and also awarding compensation to the complainant would meet the ends of justice. But adequate default sentence shall have to be imposed to ensure the recovery of fine imposed to the accused. Therefore, the complainant is required to be suitably compensated as per Section 80 and 117 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and also appropriate in default sentence. Having regard to all these fact, I pass the following:
ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees SCCH-21 19 C.C. No.:53663/2015 fifty five lakhs only). In default to pay fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
Further, acting under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.54,90,000/- (Rupees fifty four lakhs ninety thousand only) on recovery shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
The office is directed to supply a free copy of judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, same is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of October 2021) (VANI A. SHETTY) XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
P.W 1 : Dr.B.N.Shetty List of documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement
Ex.P.3 : Legal notice
Ex.P.4 : Rectification notice
Ex.P.5 & 6 : postal acknowledgments
Ex.P.7 & 8 : Postal covers
Ex.P.9 : Promissory note
Ex.P.10 : Balance sheet
Ex.P.11 : C/c. of Income Tax return
Ex.P.12 : Order sheet of CC No.57372/16
Ex.P.13 Complaint in CC No.57372/16
SCCH-21 20 C.C. No.:53663/2015
Ex.P.14 C/c. of Judgment in O.S.No.415/2017
Ex.P.15 C/c of FIR
Ex.P.16 C/c. of Letter dated 16.06.2016
Ex.P.17 : C/c. of Order sheet of CC No.57372/16
Ex.P.18 C/c. of Complaint in CC No.57372/16
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
DW.1 : Aslam List of documents marked on behalf of the accused: Nil.
(VANI A. SHETTY) XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
***********