Bangalore District Court
On 18.12.2017 And The Accused Handed ... vs On 20.12.2017. He Made Additional ... on 19 November, 2021
1 CC.21391/2018 (J)
IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 19th Day of November2021
Present: Lokesh Dhanapal Havale. B.A.L.L.B.,
XV Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.
Judgment U/s.355 of the Cr.P.C. 1973.
1.Sl.No.of the case CC.No.21391/2018
2.Name of the Complainant: Sri.G.DIWAKAR,
S/o.Shivaprasad Varma,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at # No.4, 10th "E: Cross,
Anjaneya Temple Road,
Near Om Shakthi Temple,
Balajinagar, Ittamadu BSK 3rd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 085.
3.Name of the accused: M.R.NITHIN CHAKRAVARTI,
S/o.M. Ramachandrappa,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.946/1, 4065,
12th Cross, SBM Colony,
Bangalore - 560 085.
Also available at:
Door No.25, 6th Cross,
'B' Block, Sri Krishna Garden
Badavane, Rajarajeshwarinagar,
Bangalore560098.
4.The offence complained of : U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
5.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.
6.Final Order: Acting U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C., accused is
Convicted.
7.Date of final Order 19.11.2021.
2 CC.21391/2018 (J)
***
This complaint is filed U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused
for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881.
2. The facts of the complaint in brief are as under:
The complainant knew the accused from the first week of
December 2017. He was searching for the Indica Car in OLX. He came
to know that the Car bearing registration No.KA05AG0849 of
platinum colour, 2016 Model, Engine No.4761DI03GTYP24845 and
Chassis No.MAT60175GPG23851 belonging to the accused was for
sale. He contacted the accused to purchase the same and accused
agreed to sell it for Rs.2,30,000/. The negotiation held in the house of
the accused in the presence of cousin of complainant by name
Dasharath and father of the accused. After the negotiation they entered
into an agreement for purchase of vehicle on 19.12.2017. On the day
the complainant had paid Rs.2,10,000/ by way of cash to the accused.
He agreed to pay remaining amount of Rs.20,000/ within 15 days
from the date of delivery of the vehicle. The car was delivered to the
complainant on 18.12.2017 and the accused handed over the
documents of the vehicle i.e. original RC card, Insurance dated
11.07.2017, Form No.47 dated 31.08.2016, Form No.49 dated
22.08.2016 and original tax receipt dated 19.12.2016 and also other
documents pertaining to the vehicle. He attached the car to the Uber
and used the same. He deposited Rs.20,000/ to the account of the
accused on 20.12.2017. He made additional payment to the accused on
23.12.2017 for a sum of Rs.19,000/ and on 28.12.2017. He deposited
3 CC.21391/2018 (J)
for a sum of Rs.4,000/ to the account of the accused. He also made an
extra payment of Rs.23,000/ to the accused. He spent Rs.5,300/ on
24.02.2018 for installing the battery. He borrowed Rs.1 lakh from Bajaj
Finance Limited and Rs.1 lakh chit fund and remaining amount of
Rs.30,000/ was borrowed from his office colleague by name Nagaraj.
Accused informed him that the Tata Indica car was hypothecated to
Tata Motors Finance Limited and acused agreed to clear the loan
within 45 days from the date of delivery or from the date of agreement.
The accused received the entire sale consideration of Rs.2,30,000/ but
he did not clear the loan amount. The accused has to pay the balance
loan amount of Rs.2,67,012/ to Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Due to the
failure of accused to repay the loan and to get NOC from Tata Motors
finance Ltd, the car was seized by the finance company on 13.05.2018
near Mekri circle. It was brought to the notice of the accused. The
accused reached the company and received the seizure receipt from the
Tata Motors Finance Ltd.. The accused assured that he would pay the
loan amount and get NOC from the finance company and transfer the
RC in the name of the company. Accused went on postponing the one
or other pretext. On repeated demand and request to clear the loan or
repay the loan amount of Rs.2,30,000/, the accused issued cheque
bearing No.548620 dated 15.06.2018 drawn on SBI Bank, SBM Colony
branch, Bengaluru. He presented the cheque for encashment through
his banker ICICI Bank, Kumara Park branch, Bengaluru on 18.06.2018
and it was returned dishonored on 19.06.2018 with endorsement
"Funds Insufficient". It was brought to the notice of the accused and
demanded for repayment. The accused instead of paying amount sent
SMS that if the complainant insist for payment he would commit
suicide and black mail him in order to avoid the payment. He issued
4 CC.21391/2018 (J)
legal notice to the accused on 04.07.2018 through RPAD and it was
served on him on 07.07.2018. Accused issued reply notice on
21.07.2018. Accused failed to make the payment within 15 days from
the date of service of notice. Hence prayed to punish the accused and
compensate the complainant.
3. After the institution of the complaint, cognizance was
taken and the case was registered as PCR No.10192/2018. The sworn
statement of the complainant was recorded and on the basis of sworn
statement and other materials on hand, criminal case was registered
against the accused and summons was issued to him. In response to the
service of summons the accused appeared through his learned counsel
and got enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers supplied to the
accused and the substance of accusation for the offence punishable
U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was read over to the accused.
He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During trial the complainant examined as PW1 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to P.15. The statement of the accused U/s. 313 of
Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused examined himself as DW1. He did
not mark any documents.
5. I have heard the argument of both learned counsels and
perused the entire materials. The following points would arise for my
consideration.
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused
issued cheque bearing No.548620 dated 15.06.2018
5 CC.21391/2018 (J)
for a sum of Rs.2,30,000/ drawn on SBI Bank, SBM
Colony branch, Bengaluru in his favour towards the
discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability and
on its presentation for encashment, it was
dishonored with an endorsement of "Funds
Insufficient" in the account maintained by the
accused and the accused has not paid the amount
even after 15 days from the date of return of notice,
which was sent to his correct address and thereby
accused committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act, 1881 ?
2. Whether the accused rebuts the presumption
U/s.139 of N.I.Act?
3. What order?
6. My answers to the above points are as under.
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7. Point No.1 & 2: The points are taken together for discussion
to avoid repetition of facts and evidence. At this juncture, it is necessary
to go through the provisions of N.I.Act before proceeding further. The
provisions under Section 118(a) and 139 of the Act., 1881 are
extracted and they reads thus;
"118. Presumptions as to negotiable
instruments. - Until the contrary is proved, the
following presumptions shall be made:
6 CC.21391/2018 (J)
(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.
(b) as to date: that every Negotiable
Instrument bearing date was made or drawn on
such date;
"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."
8. On plain perusal of the provisions under Section 118(a)
and 139 of the N.I.Act., as extracted herein above, it can be seen that
initially the presumptions constituted under these two provisions
favour the complainant. However, it is open to an accused to raise a
defence to rebut the statutory presumptions. An accused can raise a
defence, wherein the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability
can be contested.
9. It is also well established that 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
7 CC.21391/2018 (J)
already brought on record. An accused has constitutional rights to
maintain silence. Standard of proof on part of the accused and that of
the prosecution in a Criminal case is different. The prosecution must
prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubts, the
standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is
"Preponderance of probabilities".
10. Under the light of above extracted provisions of the Act, I
have perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. In order to
prove his case the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to P.15. Ex.P.1 is the vehicle sale agreement dated
19.12.2017. On perusal of Ex.P.1 it is clear that the accused sold the
vehicle Tata Indica bearing registration No.KA05AG0849 to the
complainant for Rs.2,30,000/ and received Rs.2,10,000/ under the
agreement by way of cash and it was agreed that the remaining balance
amount of Rs.20,000/ would be paid by the complainant within 15
days from the date of delivery of the vehicle. The vehicle was delivered
on 18.12.2017. Ex.P.2 is the R.C. card pertaining to the vehicle. Ex.P.3
is the insurance pertaining to the said vehicle. Ex.P.3 discloses that the
IDV value of the vehicle as on 11.07.2017 is Rs.4,59,292/. Ex.P.4 is
the Form No.27 issued by the Transport Department and it is the
authorization certificate issued to the owner of the vehicle i.e., accused.
Ex.P.5 is the Form No.49 which is the permit document issued by the
transport department giving permit to the accused and permit is valid
from 31.08.2016 to 30.08.2021. Ex.P.6 is the tax paid to the RTO
Bengaluru South in respect of the vehicle. Ex.P.7 is the bill for
Rs.5,300/ pertaining to the battery installed by the complainant on the
said vehicle.
8 CC.21391/2018 (J)
11. Ex.P.8 is the cheque bearing No.548620 dated 15.06.2018
for a sum of Rs.2,30,000/ drawn on SBI Bank, SBM Colony branch,
Bengaluru and Ex.P.8(a) is the signature of the accused on the cheque.
Ex.P.9 is the Bank endorsement dated 18.06.2018, which was received
with shara "Funds Insufficient". Ex.P.10 is the office copy of legal
notice dated 04.07.2018. Ex.P.11 and 12 are the postal receipts for
having sent the legal notice to the accused. Ex.P.13 is the postal
envelope, which has returned with shara "Addressee Left". Ex.P.14 is
the postal acknowledgement for having served the legal notice on the
accused. Ex.P.15 is the reply notice dated 21.07.2018 issued by the
accused to the complainant.
12. I have perused the exhibits on which the complainant has
placed his reliance. On perusal of the exhibits, it is clear that cheque at
Ex.P.8 bearing No.548620 dated 15.06.2018 for a sum of Rs.2,30,000/
drawn on SBI Bank, SBM Colony branch, Bengaluru was presented
through the Bank within its validity for encashment and the Bank
issued endorsement as per Ex.P.9 on 18.06.2018 with shara "Funds
Insufficient". The complainant issued statutory notice dated 04.07.2018
as per Ex.P.10 within time from the date of receipt of Bank Memo. The
notice was served on the accused and the service of notice was not
disputed. The complaint was filed on 28.07.2018, which is within
limitation. Therefore the presumptions U/s.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act
arise in favour of the complainant. The presumptions are rebuttable
and the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumptions. The
accused can rebut the presumptions by raising probable defences and
proving it relying on the evidence of the complainant or by leading his
direct evidence.
9 CC.21391/2018 (J)
13. The accused admitted the signature on the cheque at ExP.8
and the issuance of cheque. It is defence of the accused in the reply
notice that the vehicle was offered for sale in O.L.X for Rs.2,30,000/.
He contended that the complainant got executed the agreement from
him forcibly. The complainant agreed to pay the installments of loan to
the finance company but he failed to pay the loan. Therefore the
vehicle stood in his name was seized by the finance company, the
complainant approached him and asked him to give the money to pay
the loan and threatened him that if he refused to pay the amount
complainant will commit suicide and took signatures of the accused on
the cheque forcibly by black mailing him and thereby caused loss to
him. The presentation of cheque was not informed to him by the
complainant. The complainant also did not take the signature of the
accused on Form No.29 and 30 for transfer of vehicle in his name.
Ex.P.15(a) is the envelope in which the reply notice was sent.
14. The accused did not lead defence evidence. However he
need not lead defence evidence. He can very well rely on the evidence
lead by the complainant to prove his probable defences. The counsel
for the accused cross examined the PW.1 in respect of alleged
transaction of accused with the complainant. It was elicited in the
crossexamination of PW1 that he used the said vehicle Uber for 4 to 5
months and earned Rs.3000/ to Rs.5000/ per month by doing part
time work. He denied that Rs.50,000/ can be earned per month by
doing full time work. PW1 stated that the accused did not disclose him
that there was loan on the vehicle. He also denied that he mentioned in
para No.9 of the complaint that the accused informed about the loan
10 CC.21391/2018 (J)
on the vehicle. However on perusal of the complaint it is clear that it is
averred in the complaint that accused informed him about the loan.
15. Further PW.1 was cross examined about the payment
made by him. PW1 stated that he paid Rs.20,000/ one day prior to the
delivery of the vehicle. Later he gave the amount by way of cash on
line. He could not say the exact amount and the date of payment. He
voluntarily stated that he paid Rs.19,000/ and Rs.4000/ to the
accused. He paid Rs.1,70,000/ by way of cash on the day of delivery of
the vehicle and it was mentioned in the agreement. The payments as
stated by the complainant tally with the payments stated in the
complaint. Further PW.1 denied that he knew the IDV value of the
vehicle is Rs.4,59,292/. However it is not believable as the PW.1
produced and got marked insurance policy and IDV value is mentioned
in it.
16. It was further elicited that it is not mentioned in the
complaint that the accused agreed to repay the loan within 45 days and
thereafter transfer the vehicle in the name of the complainant. PW.1
stated that he did not know the amount of loan on the vehicle and he
did not mention it in the complaint. When he was asked that the loan
amount of vehicle is Rs.2,67,012/ in the Tata Motors Finance Ltd and
the same is mentioned in the complaint, he answered that he came to
know about the said fact after the seizure of the vehicle. The averments
made in the complaint and the evidence of the complainant show that
the accused informed the complainant about the loan and asked for 45
days to repay the loan.
11 CC.21391/2018 (J)
17. It was suggested to the complainant that he took the
vehicle for Rs.20,000/ and undertakes to repay the loan of vehicle but
PW1 denied it. He did not know the on road price of the vehicle in
2016. He did not know the value mentioned in the original bill of the
vehicle. He produced the same. He denied that he did not produce the
original bill of the vehicle. He denied that though the value of vehicle is
of the value of Rs.4,60,000/, he is deposing falsely that he purchased
the vehicle for Rs.2,30,000/. When he was asked that he did not take
the signature of the accused on all the documents for the purpose of
registration of vehicle in his name, he answered that the accused
sought for 45 days time. He did not take any action against the accused
after the lapse of 45 days. He voluntarily stated that as the accused
assured him to transfer the vehicle, he did not take action.
18. On perusal of the crossexamination of PW1, it is clear
that the answers elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 are minor
inconsistencies and nothing was elicited in support of the defence of
the accused. It is argued by the counsel for the accused relying on the
ExP.3 that the IDV value of the car is Rs.4,59,292/ and it is similar to
the market value of the vehicle and therefore it is not believable that
the accused agreed to sell the vehicle for Rs.2,30,000/. He further
argued that the accused informed about the loan to the complainant
and complainant agreed to pay the loan amount. However it is
pertinent to note that the accused did not take specific stand in the
reply notice about the IDV value of the car or the market value of the
car. He did not lead defence evidence. Instead the accused admitted in
the reply notice that the car was for sale in OLX for Rs.2,30,000/. If
the IDV value or the market value of the car is Rs.4,59,292/, why the
12 CC.21391/2018 (J)
car was for sale in OLX for Rs.2,30,000/ is not explained by the
accused. Further on perusal of Ex.P.1, it is clear that the accused
received entire sale amount and executed the agreement. He did not
deny the execution of Ex.P.1. However he took specific contention in
reply notice at Ex.P.15 that the complainant got executed Ex.P.1 from
him forcibly. There is no crossexamination of PW1 in that regard. It is
also pertinent to note that the counsel for the accused suggested PW1
in his crossexamination that he took the vehicle by giving only
Rs.20,000/ and he undertook to repay the loan of vehicle and PW1
denied it. However the suggestion clearly shows that the vehicle was
for sale in OLX for Rs.2,30,000/ only and the loan amount is included
in this sale amount. If at all the market value of the vehicle was
Rs.4,60,000/ he need not have put the vehicle for sale in O.L.X. for
Rs.2,30,000/ and if he had put the same excluding the loan amount,
he must have mentioned about the loan in the terms of the agreement
at ExP.1, the execution of which is not denied and the forcible
execution is not proved. Moreover whatever be the IDV value or the
market value of the car depending upon the model of the car, which is
in this case 2016 model car purchased in 2017, but there are other
factors affecting the value such as condition of the car, total running,
whether it was met with an accident or not etc. and especially the
company of the car, which in this case in Tata Company and it
obviously has less resale value than other company cars. Therefore the
argument of the counsel for the accused is not tenable.
19. It is further argued by the counsel for the accused that the
complainant claimed more amount than the cheque amount and
therefore the complaint is not maintainable. He relied on Ex.P.10,
13 CC.21391/2018 (J)
wherein complainant stated that he paid extra amount of Rs.23,000/
and he spent Rs.5,300/ on the installation of battery and claimed
Rs.28,300/ additional amount in the notice. On perusal of the
complaint, it is found that there is mention about the extra payment of
amount of Rs.23,000/ and spending of Rs.5300/ on the installation of
battery. He also produced the invoice of the battery as per Ex.P.7. No
doubt the complainant is claiming additional amount apart from the
cheque amount but it is not covered under the transaction with respect
to the cheque. It is clearly mentioned in the evidence affidavit of the
complainant that the additional amount is agreed to be paid by the
accused and therefore he is claiming additional amount. On perusal of
the reply notice as well as the complaint and evidence, it is clear that
the notice was issued only for the cheque amount and Rs.28,300/ was
mentioned separately and it is not included in the cheque amount.
Therefore it cannot be said that the additional amount is claimed under
the cheque in question.
20. The counsel for the accused did not cross examine the
PW.1 in respect of forcibly taking of the cheque by the complainant by
black mailing him and forcible execution of the agreement. Instead PW
1 was suggested that the cheque was taken as security till the
registration of the vehicle in the name of accused. It was also suggested
that the security cheque was misused after the seizure of the vehicle.
The suggestions were denied by PW1. Mere suggestions are not
sufficient. Moreover the contention taken in the reply notice and the
suggestions made and questions asked in the cross examination of
PW.1 are inconsistent with each other. It is pertinent to note that no
action was taken for misuse of security cheque/ forcibly taken cheque.
14 CC.21391/2018 (J)
No prudent man would have kept quiet, if his cheque was forcibly
taken/taken as security and misused. Therefore the defence of the
accused is not believable.
21. On perusal of Ex.P.8, it makes clear that the writings on
the cheque and signature appears to have written with same ink at the
same time. It is admitted by the accused that he signed the cheque in
question. He disputed the name and details written on the cheque.
PW.1 was not cross examined in that regard. Even though cheque was
blank and it was filled by the complainant, such aspects have no
bearing on the case because as per the presumption U/s.118(b) of
N.I.Act every Negotiable Instrument bearing a date was made or drawn
on such date and as per Section 20 of the N.I.Act, if the person signs
and delivers Negotiable Instrument and it is left incomplete and
thereby he authorizes the holder to complete the Negotiable Instrument
and thereby he is liable for the amount mentioned in the Negotiable
Instrument. Therefore, the defence of the accused is not tenable.
Further in view of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of lndia in Bir Singh V/s.Mukesh Kumar reported in AIR 2019 SC
2446, also the above defence is not tenable. The para No.38 and 40 of
the said Judgment are extracted and the paragraphs reads thus:
38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily
presented to a payee, towards some payment, the
payee may fill up the amount and other particulars.
This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The
onus would still be on the accused to prove that the
cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by
adducing evidence.
15 CC.21391/2018 (J)
40. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily
singed and handed over by the accused, which is
towards some payment, would attract presumption
under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the
cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
22. It is the specific defence of the accused that the cheque in
question was forcibly taken by the complainant by black mailing him to
commit suicide. The accused did not adduce any evidence to show that
the cheque in question was forcibly taken by the complainant. No
suggestions were made in the crossexamination of PW1 in that
regard. Instead it was suggested that the cheque was given to the
complainant as security. The said suggestion was also denied by PW1.
The accused has to prove his defence by adducing evidence. Moreover,
unless and until, the defence is able to prove that the cheque was
forcibly taken or taken as security, mere suggestion in that regard does
not rebut the presumption under section 118 (a) of the Act. Therefore,
the burden is on the accused to prove that there was no legally
recoverable debt or liability. Therefore the defence of the accused that
the security cheque/forcibly taken cheque was misused is not tenable.
23. The accused admitted the signature on the cheque and
issuance of the cheque. Therefore the presumption arises in favour of
the complainant. The admission attracts the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decisions reported in 2011 (11)
SCC 441 - Rangappa V/s Mohan and 2015 (8) SCC 378 -
T.Vasanthakumar V/s.Vijayakumari. The ratio is that the cheque shall
16 CC.21391/2018 (J)
be presumed to be for consideration unless and until the court forms a
belief that the consideration does not exist or considers the non
existence of consideration so probable that a prudent man ought under
such circumstances act upon the supposition that it does not exist. The
documents on record clearly show that the complainant has complied
the ingredients of Section 138(a) to (c) of the N.I.Act. In the case on
hand the accused did not prove his defence to rebut the presumption
U/s 139 of NI Act raised in favour of the complainant and therefore the
onus has not shifted on the complainant. In the case on hand no
evidence was brought on record to show that the cheque was not
issued for the discharge of debt or liability.
24. In the case on hand the accused did not prove his defence
to rebut the presumption U/s 139 of NI Act raised in favour of the
complainant and therefore the onus has not shifted on the complainant
to prove his case. In the case on hand no evidence was brought on
record to show that the cheque was not issued for the discharge of debt
or liability. Moreover the complainant produced vehicle sale agreement
as per ExP.1 to show that he paid Rs.2,30,000/ to the accused. The
complainant clearly substantiated his case by adducing the cogent
evidence. Therefore the accused failed to prove that there is no legally
recoverable debt or liability.
25. For the reasons mentioned herein above, it is crystallized
that the accused has utterly failed to prove that there was no existence
of legally enforceable debt between him and the complainant at the
given point of time and he has not at all issued the instant cheque
towards the discharge of legally enforceable debt of Rs.2,30,000/. On
17 CC.21391/2018 (J)
the other hand, the complainant proved that the accused issued the
cheque for the legally enforceable debt; the cheque was dishonored
due to insufficiency of funds in his account and the notice issued to the
accused was served on him. The complainant proved his case beyond
reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the accused failed to rebut the
statutory presumptions U/s.118(a) & (b) and 139 of the N.I.Act.
Accordingly the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable
U/s.138 of the N.I.Act. Hence, I proceed to answer the point No.1 in
Affirmative and Point No.2 in the Negative.
26. Point No.3 : In view of the reasons assigned on Point No.1
and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
As per the provisions of Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s.138 of NI Act, 1881 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,50,000/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only). On deposit of fine amount the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,45,000/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Only). The remaining balance amount of Rs.5,000/ is to be forfeited to the State.
In default of payment of the fine amount accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
The personal bond executed by the accused is hereby stands cancelled and cash surety of Rs.2,000/ 18 CC.21391/2018 (J) furnished by the accused shall be refunded to her after expiry of appeal period.
Copy of the judgment shall be furnished to the accused at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and printout taken by him, is verified and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 19th day of November2021.) (Lokesh Dhanapal Havale) XV Addl. CMM., Bangalore.
19 CC.21391/2018 (J) ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant: PW.1 G.Divakar Documents marked for the Complainant: Ex.P.1. Vehicle Sale Agreement.
Ex.P.2 Registration Certificate (R.C.)
Ex.P.3 Vehicle Insurance.
Ex.P.4 & P.5 Form No.47 and 49.
Ex.P.6 Road Tax Remittance Receipt.
Ex.P.7 Tax Invoice.
Ex.P.8 Cheque.
Ex.P.8a Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.9 Bank endorsement.
Ex.P.10 Legal Notice.
Ex.P.11 & 12 Two Postal receipts.
Ex.P.13 Postal envelope.
Ex.P.14 Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex.P.15 Reply Notice.
Ex.P.15(a) Empty Postal envelope.
Witnesses examined For Defence: Nil Documents marked for Defence: Nil (Lokesh Dhanapal Havale) XV Addl. CMM., Bangalore.