Bangalore District Court
Ag Sons Interiors Pvt Ltd vs Mr.Kedarnath Basavangoud on 1 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BENGALURU
: PRESENT :
PADMA PRASAD, BA (Law), LLB.
XXXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2020.
C.C.No.57908/2017
COMPLAINANT : AG SONS INTERIORS PVT LTD
#83/3 Sait Palya Hennur Main
Road
Lingarajapuram
Bangalore 560084
Represented by Managing director
Mr.A.g Hoover
S/o NN Hoover
Aged 68 years
.Vs.
ACCUSED : Mr.KEDARNATH BASAVANGOUD
PATIL
S/o Not known
Aged Adult
#440 2nd Block 1st Stage HBR
Layout
Bangalore 560043
****
2
C.C.No.57908/2017
JUDGMENT
This complainant filed this complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The complaint case in nutshell is that the complainant is a company who is in to manufacturing and installment of kitchens and wardrobes for commercial and residential use. Accordingly, the accused has entrusted the work of installing a modular kitchen with kitchen cabinet in the kitchen and wardrobes in 3 bedrooms in the house of the accused located at No.440, 2nd Block, 1st Stage, HBR Layout. Accordingly, the complainant has commenced the work. The accused has paid Rs.2,00,000/ on 14.09.2016, Rs.2,50,000/ on 30.11.2016, Rs.1,00,000/ each on 12.12.2016 and 23.01.2017, Rs.49,268.50 on 27.02.2017. The complainant further claims that he has completed the work successfully on 04.03.2017 and this accused towards the balance payment of Rs.77,696.50 issued a cheque bearing No.123115 dtd:03.03.2017 drawn on ICICI Bank, R.T.Nagara Branch. The complainant 3 C.C.No.57908/2017 when presented the said cheque for encashment that has been returned without encashment with bank memo dtd:04.03.2017 stating "Payment stopped by drawer". Subsequently, when the complainant called upon the accused to enquire about the said dishonor of cheque the accused requested the complainant to redeposit the same. Accordingly, the complainant again presented the said cheque for encashment on 02.06.2017 that has been returned without enashment with bank memo dtd:05.06.2017 stating "Payment stopped by drawer". Thereafter the complainant caused a legal notice to the accused on 09.06.2017 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. The accused instead of complying with the notice has given untenable reply on 28.06.2017. Hence, filed the complaint.
3. After filing the complaint, sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded and on perusing the materials on record i.e., cheque, bank endorsement, legal notice and documents for having been caused the notice to the accused, the court has been taken 4 C.C.No.57908/2017 the cognizance of offence and issued summons to the accused.
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and he was on court bail. Plea has been recorded; accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the case, the complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.8.
6. On closure of complainant side evidence, the accused statement has been recorded under Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., by placing the incriminating evidence appeared against the accused that are denied by the accused.
7. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 in support of his defense and also got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to 9. The accused admitted the entrustment of the work of the modular kitchen and wardrobe at his house and also admitted the payments claimed in the complaint and issuance of 5 C.C.No.57908/2017 the cheque involved in this case for the amount stated therein. The definite defense of the accused is that the complainant has not completed the work entrusted to the accused to the satisfaction of accused and his wife. The accused further claimed that the complainant has stolen the materials of his kitchen and wardrobes. The accused further claimed that he has lodged the complaint against the complainant etc. The accused further claimed that he is ready to pay the amount if the complainant completes the work. The accused further claimed that as the complainant has not completed the work as agreed by him to the satisfaction of the complainant the cheque amount has not been paid and he has issued stop payment instructions to his banker. The accused further claimed that he has sufficient bank balance when the cheque has been presented for encashment. The accused further claimed that he has given proper reply to the notice. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
8. On the basis of above, the point for consideration is that;
6C.C.No.57908/2017 "Whether the complainant has proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?"
9. Heard the arguments and perused the materials on record. On that basis my finding on the above point is in the "Affirmative" for the following;
REASONS
10. The complaint case in nutshell is that the complainant is a company who is in to manufacturing and installment of kitchens and wardrobes for commercial and residential use. Accordingly, the accused has entrusted the work of installing a modular kitchen with kitchen cabinet in the kitchen and wardrobes in 3 bedrooms in the house of the accused located at No.440, 2nd Block, 1st Stage, HBR Layout. Accordingly, the complainant has commenced the work. The accused has paid Rs.2,00,000/ on 14.09.2016, Rs.2,50,000/ on 30.11.2016, Rs.1,00,000/ each on 12.12.2016 and 23.01.2017, Rs.49,268.50 on 27.02.2017. The 7 C.C.No.57908/2017 complainant further claims that he has completed the work successfully on 04.03.2017 and this accused towards the balance payment of Rs.77,696.50 issued a cheque bearing No.123115 dtd:03.03.2017 drawn on ICICI Bank, R.T.Nagara Branch. The complainant when presented the said cheque for encashment that has been returned without encashment with bank memo dtd:04.03.2017 stating "Payment stopped by drawer". Subsequently, when the complainant called upon the accused to enquire about the said dishonor of cheque the accused requested the complainant to redeposit the same. Accordingly, the complainant again presented the said cheque for encashment on 02.06.2017 that has been returned without enashment with bank memo dtd:05.06.2017 stating "Payment stopped by drawer". Thereafter the complainant caused a legal notice to the accused on 09.06.2017 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. The accused instead of complying with the notice has given untenable reply on 28.06.2017. Hence, filed the complaint.
8C.C.No.57908/2017
11. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 in support of his defense and also got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to 9. The accused admitted the entrustment of the work of the modular kitchen and wardrobe at his house and also admitted the payments claimed in the complaint and issuance of the cheque involved in this case for the amount stated therein. The definite defense of the accused is that the complainant has not completed the work entrusted to the accused to the satisfaction of accused and his wife. The accused further claimed that the complainant has stolen the materials of his kitchen and wardrobes. The accused further claimed that he has lodged the complaint against the complainant etc. The accused further claimed that he is ready to pay the amount if the complainant completes the work. The accused further claimed that as the complainant has not completed the work as agreed by him to the satisfaction of the complainant the cheque amount has not been paid and he has issued stop payment instructions to his banker. The accused further claimed that he has sufficient bank balance when the cheque has been 9 C.C.No.57908/2017 presented for encashment. The accused further claimed that he has given proper reply to the notice. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
12. The complainant in support of his case examined himself as P.W.1 and he adopted the sworn statement as his evidence and also got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 8. Ex.P.1 is the cheque, Ex.P.2 & 3 are the Bank Return Memos, Ex.P.4 is the office copy of the legal notice, Ex.P.5 and 6 are the postal receipt and acknowledgment, Ex.P.7 is the is the board resolution, Ex.P.8 is the reply notice. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment in time, the cheque has been dishonoured for the reasons stated therein, legal notice issued in time and the complaint is also filed in time. The issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant for the amount stated therein and the signature of the accused in the cheque is not in dispute as well as the entrustment of the work claimed by the complainant in the complaint is not in dispute. Hence, certainly the initial presumption 10 C.C.No.57908/2017 under Sec.139 of N.I.Act can be drawn in favour of the complainant.
13. When the complainant made out a primafacie case to draw the initial presumption under Sec.139 of N.I.Act in favour of the complainant, the burden shifts on the accused to prove the contrary to the complaint case and also give a rebuttal evidence to the complaint case.
14. Before proceeding further in the case it is just and necessary to note the admitted facts in this case. The accused has entrusted the work of modular kitchen and wardrobe of his house to the complainant. The accused has paid Rs.6,99,268.50 to the complainant on various dates claimed in the complaint. The admitted balance between the parties is Rs.79,696.50. The accused admitted the issuance of cheque at Ex.P.1 in favour of the complainant dtd:03.03.2017 and also admitted that the entire writings in the cheque including date payees name and the amount is in his handwriting.
11C.C.No.57908/2017
15. The disputed fact in this case is that the complainant claimed that he has completed the entire work entrusted to him and he is entitled for the amount stated in the cheque for the work done by him. The claim of the accused that the work has not completed to his satisfaction hence, he is not liable to pay the money stated in the cheque to the complainant. Therefore, now it is to be considered by this court is that whether the work has been completed or whether the complainant is entitled to receive the money subject to the satisfaction of the accused or not to be considered.
16. The accused claimed that the complainant has not completed the work and also the complainant has stolen materials from his house as such he has issued a stop payment instruction to his banker. The accused further claimed that he has informed the complainant not to present the cheque as well as issuance of stop payment instructions to his banker. As already stated above the main grievance of the accused is that the complainant has not completed the work to the satisfaction of the accused.
12C.C.No.57908/2017
17. As already stated above the main grievance of the accused is that the work has not been completed in time and it is suggested to the complainant during the crossexamination that the accused was intended to have a house warming ceremony in the month of February 2017 but as the complainant has not completed the work he could not have the house warming ceremony in the month of February 2017. If the said claim of the accused is accepted, then the accused is totally blaming the complainant stating that the complainant has not completed the work in time. In the case on hand the accused produced the exchange of Whatsapp message between him and the complainant. If the said Whatsapp messages have been taken in to consideration in its entirety, certainly it clearly reveals that the delay is not caused due to the conduct of the complainant but it is the accused not responded immediately many a times and many a times this accused claimed that he was busy and could not contact the complainant in connection with the work. Further, the said messages also shows that the accused has changed some plans. It is also found from the said Whatsapp 13 C.C.No.57908/2017 messages at Ex.D.8 that daughter of the accused is not happy about certain work and the daughter want some changes. Therefore, to the satisfaction of whom the complainant has to carry out the work is not properly made out. Similarly the message exchanged between Mala Patil and the complainant at Ex.D.9 also discloses similar things.
18. It is also relevant to note that the counsel for the accused while advancing the argument claimed that the agreement between the complainant and the accused regarding the work entrusted to the complainant is a oral agreement. What has been agreed between the parties is not properly explained and even during the trial not made out by the parties and there is no document or evidence before the court to arrive at the conclusion that whether the work has been completed satisfactorily or as per the order placed by the accused to the complainant.
19. It is also relevant to note that this accused / D.W.1 during his crossexamination at page No.9 claimed that there is a terms of order / contract. The 14 C.C.No.57908/2017 accused also claimed that he has produced the said order / contract to the court. In spite of that no such order / contract has been placed before the court. If that has been placed before the court; the court would have came to know about what is the actual contract between the complainant and the accused regarding the work and whether the complainant has carried out the work as agreed in the terms of the order / contract.
20. The main grievance of the accused is that the work carried out by the complainant is not to the satisfaction of the accused. The satisfaction is differs from person to person, individual to individual as such, the said fact or word satisfaction itself is not a ground to hold that the accused is not liable to pay the amount claimed in the cheque to the accused. Only thing to be considered is that whether the accused has completed the work entrusted to him or not. It is also relevant to note that there is no material before the court to show that with what specification work has been entrusted by the accused to the complainant initially and whether the plan has 15 C.C.No.57908/2017 been subsequently modified or changed is without any explanation. The complainant is liable to carry out the work that has been agreed between the parties when they entered into the oral agreement. The accused cannot change the plan subsequently to his satisfaction or to the satisfaction of his daughter or wife.
21. The accused much relied on Ex.D.8 and 9 in support of his defense in the case. There is no messages between the complainant and the accused as per Ex.D.9 in between 28.02.2017 to 10.03.2017. Similarly, the Ex.D.8 also shows that there is no Whatsapp messages between the complainant and the accused on 03.03.2017 and 04.03.2017. It is relevant to note that there is no complaint or messages to the accused either in the Ex.D.8 or 9 on 03.03.2017 or 04.03.2017 that the complainant has not completed the work. It is relevant to note that the complainant even in Ex.D. 9 as on 08.05.2017 claimed that he has finished his part of work and prayed for the payment of balance amount. It is relevant to note that what part of work has not 16 C.C.No.57908/2017 completed by the complainant is not made out by the accused.
22. According to the accused he has the house warming ceremony on 3.3.2017. If really work has not been completed as on 3.3.2017, certainly there would have been the exchange of message between the complainant and accused as on 3.3.2017 & 4.3.2017. Even there is no material on record to show that this accused has called the complainant on the said dates. It is also pertinent to note that as per the claim of accused during cross examination of complainant at page No.4, this accused found the theft of shutters of Kitchen cabinet and shutters of one wardrobe. If it were so, the natural conduct is to call the complainant and do the enquiry with the complainant as the accused claimed that one key was with the complainant but surprisingly there is no material on record to show that this accused has made any enquiry with the complainant on that day about the theft of aforesaid materials. The said conduct leads to draw inference that the claim of the 17 C.C.No.57908/2017 accused that work has not completed to his satisfaction is an afterthought.
23. It is also the complaint of the complainant as per Ex.D.8 and 9 that the accused is changing everything and the said fact is evident from the said documents that initially 4 burner has been installed and thereafter it has been changed to 3 burner and it appears that due to the change of said kitchen set there was a problem in the kitchen. Even the said documents also discloses that the complainant asked to change some design in the wardrobe as the daughter of the accused want to change the same. There is claim during the cross examination that the accused insisted to provide shutters with 'G' profile but when actually the accused insisted for the same is without explanation and it is not made out by the accused that said fact was included in original oral agreement. In this context it is useful to refer the Whatsapp message of complainant dated 20th February 2017 wherein the complainant asked the accused about 'T' Channel profile for wardrobe for which the complainant has not given any reply. If 18 C.C.No.57908/2017 really the accused was diligent he should have immediately told the accused to put the 'G' channel profile for wardrobe. All these facts sufficiently shows that the accused was not firm or stick on his plans and he was changing the plans often.
24. It is also relevant to note that the complainant has sent one Whatsapp message to the accused on 22nd February 2017 that reads as "This is a simple statement to scrutinise and clear. If you have any questions I can clarify them immediately. It is important for you to address this issue today itself to ensure I'm able to complete the work on time. I'll modify the cost for your daughter's bedroom for veneer finish and send you the revised statement". This message also discloses that the complainant was intended to complete the work in time. It is also relevant to note that the accused wanted to redo the wardrobe in the bedroom of his daughter as per message dated 28.2.2017 for which also this complainant has agreed. All these facts certainly proves that this complainant made fair and honest effort to complete the work to the satisfaction of 19 C.C.No.57908/2017 accused. It seems that the accused and his family members were not certain about what they wanted and they goes on changing their plans.
25. Admittedly, the accused had the house warming ceremony as on 04.03.2017 and he was staying therein. Absolutely there is no written request or demand by the complainant to show that what are the works not done by the complainant in pursuance to the contract. It is relevant to note that either on 03.03.2017 or 04.03.2017 this accused has made any request or correspondence with the complainant regarding the non completion of work.
26. The definite claim of the accused is that the complainant has stolen the shutters of the kitchen cabinets and shutters of one Wardrobe. The accused claimed that the said fact came to his knowledge when he visited the house of the accused on 03.03.2017. If really it were so, the natural conduct of the accused to make an enquiry with the complainant but there is no material on record to show that the complainant has made any enquiry 20 C.C.No.57908/2017 with the complainant on the same day. It is true that the complainant has filed a complaint on 11.03.2017 as per Ex.D.5. It is relevant to note that as per Ex.D.8 this accused has sent a message to the complainant on 05.03.2017 asking him about the completion of work. On 07.03.2017 this accused again sent a message to complete the work. If really this complainant has committed the theft of the shutters of kitchen cabinets and one wardrobe certainly that would have been revealed in the Ex.D.8 or Ex.D.9 in the messages exchanged between the parties. Apart from that there is no material on record to show that the complainant has stolen the aforesaid properties or the said properties have been recovered from the possession of the complainant by the police on the basis of the complaint. This fact sufficiently shows that the said complaint itself is an after thought.
27. It is relevant to note that there is no exchange of messages between the complainant and the accused particularly on 03.03.2017 and 04.03.2017 at Ex.D.8 & 9. In fact certain messages have been omitted in 21 C.C.No.57908/2017 Ex.D.9 document. Why the messages have been omitted is without any explanation. In fact that creates the suspicion about the genuineness of the messages. Further, even Ex.D.8 discloses the message sent to the complainant by the accused and few messages of the complainant. The said fact also creates some suspicion.
28. The Ex.D.9 document discloses that the accused is expected to do the correction work. In fact on 06.09.2017 the wife of the accused sent a message to finish the correction and collect the final payment. Even this fact shows that the complainant has completed the work entrusted to him and the accused and his family member are expecting the complainant to do the correction work on the completed work.
29. The claim of the accused is that the complainant is liable to complete the work to the satisfaction of the accused. How to assess the said satisfaction is without any explanation. There is no material on record to show that what are the specification given by the accused to the complainant to complete the 22 C.C.No.57908/2017 work or what are the work actually entrusted to the complainant and work particulars entrusted to the complainant is not before the court so that the court can assess about the work done by the complainant. As already stated earlier, the accused not at all made out any case to show that what are the work that has been not completed by the complainant is without any explanation. The word satisfaction is differs from person to person. Apart from that if the WhatsApp messages are accepted, then it will reveals that the daughter of the accused not satisfied with some work and it is also relevant to note that the accused goes on changing the work specifications. Under such circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the complainant has not completed the work satisfactorily.
30. It is true that the cheque is dishonored for the reasons stop payment instructions. It is also true that the accused shown that there were sufficient bank balance in his bank account when the cheque has been presented. Now, under this circumstance the court has to consider that whether there was debt 23 C.C.No.57908/2017 or liability by the accused in favour of the complainant. The liability of the accused in favour of the complainant is admitted fact. It is also admitted fact that the accused has paid 90% of the amount due to the complainant and the cheque is issued towards the 10% of the work done by the complainant. It is also relevant to note that the entire cheque has been written by the accused including the date, payees name, amount in the cheque. Therefore, the accused admitted that he is liable to make the payment of amount stated in the cheque to the complainant. As already discussed above the work has been completed by the complainant. The only reason assigned by the accused to issue stop payment is that the work is not done to his satisfaction that cannot be accepted. Hence, it has to be inferred that the accused is liable to make the payment of amount stated in the cheque to the complainant. Further, if the accused is not satisfied with the work of the complainant he has to approach the proper forum regarding the deficiency in the service of defective work but he cannot stop the 24 C.C.No.57908/2017 payment due to the complainant for the work carried out by him.
31. In the case on hand the transaction is admitted by the accused, the accused also admitted that he is liable to pay the amount stated in the cheque. The issuance of the cheque is not in dispute. The accused also admitted that the entire contents in the cheque including the date, amount has been written by the accused. The material on record nowhere discloses that the complainant has failed to complete the entrusted work. Hence, whatever the amount stated in the cheque is the legally enforceable debt / liability by the accused in favour of the complainant. Under such circumstances though the accused had the sufficient balance and though the cheque dishonoured for the reasons stop payment instructions it has to be inferred that the accused has committed the offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act as the amount stated in the cheque is the liability to be cleared by the accused and the cheque has been issued towards the clearance of said liability. Hence, the defense of the accused cannot be 25 C.C.No.57908/2017 accepted. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons this court is of the humble opinion that the complainant proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.
32. In this case, the complainant has claimed compensation. As per Section 357 of Criminal Procedure Code and as per the ruling reported in; 2001 Cri.L.J. 950 (SC), (Pankajbai Nagibai Patel V/s State of Gujarath), the court can award compensation and there were no limits for the same. As such, the court has to consider how much compensation could be awarded in this case. As per Section 80 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the interest at 18% P.A. can be granted when there is no agreed rate of interest. As per the proved facts of the case, the accused has issued cheque towards the legally enforceable debt, the accused has issued a cheques dated 04.03.2017 as per Ex.P.1 and thus, the accused has to pay interest on the cheque amount from the date of cheque and so, the accused has to pay interest for about 2 years 9 months till this date. If the interest is calculated at 18% P.A. to the cheque amount for the above period, certainly, the 26 C.C.No.57908/2017 complainant is entitled for the suitable compensation to the cheque amount as per Section 80 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque amount in this case is Rs.77,696.50 and if the interest is calculated for 33 months, the accused shall pay the interest to the complainant at 18% P.A. that amounts to Rs.38,460/. The case is pending nearly about 2 years 9 months as such if the cost of Rs.1,000/ is added to the compensation, it will comes to Rs.1,17,156/ (Cheque amount is Rs.77,696/, interest is Rs.38,460/ and cost Rs.1,000/). Hence, this court is of the humble opinion that in all the complainant is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.1,17,156/. Further as per the ruling reported in 2000 Cri.L.J 1793(b) SC - (State of Karnataka V/s Krishnappa) wherein it is held that while imposing sentence, the courts are expected to properly operate sentence system, it should be impose such sentence for code offence which serve as detention of commission of like offences by others - Socio economic status, prestige, race, caste or creed of accused or victim are irrelevant considerations in sentencing policy. Hence, in this case also, if the 27 C.C.No.57908/2017 accused is punished with simple imprisonment for one year and pay compensation to the complainant. Anyhow the object of Sec.138 of N.I.Act is to have accountability in the business transaction and the intention of the complainant is only to get his money back. The complainant certainly not interested in sentencing the accused for any imprisonment. Further, the offense is punishable with imprisonment or fine. Anyhow the object of Sec.138 of N.I.Act is to have accountability in the business transaction and the intention of the complainant is only to get his money back. The complainant certainly not interested in sentencing the accused for any imprisonment. Further, the offence is punishable with imprisonment or fine. Hence, in this case after awarding the compensation certainly imposing of fine to the accused is sufficient sentence.
33. As per the ruling reported in 2002 Cri.L.L. 1003, SC (Suginthi Suresh Kumar V/s Jagadishan). Where in it is held at page no.1005, at para 5 that:
28C.C.No.57908/2017 "In the said decision this court reminded all concerned that it is well to remember the emphasis laid on the need for making liberal use of Section 357(3) of the Code. This was observed by reference to a decisions of this Court in 1988 (4) SCC 551 Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh. In the said decision this court held as follows:
"The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of the claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment may also very depending upon the acts of each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by installments, may also be given. The court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default."29
C.C.No.57908/2017
34. In view of the aforesaid precedent of Hon'ble Apex Court, if the accused is ordered to further imprisonment of a year in default to pay the compensation will make the ends of justice. Accordingly I answer the above point in "Affirmative". In the result, following;
ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act and sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/. In default to pay the fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.
Acting under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., the compensation is awarded and the accused shall pay compensation of Rs.1,17,156/ to the complainant. In default to pay compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of a period of 1 year.
30C.C.No.57908/2017 Office to furnish free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of January, 2020) (PADMA PRASAD), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1.Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 : Sri.Mr.A.G.Hoover
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Original cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P.2 & : Bank return memo
Ex.P.3
Ex.P.4 : O/c of the legal notice
Ex.P.5 : Postal receipt
Ex.P.6 : Postal Acknowledgement
Ex.P.7 : True copy of board resolution
Ex.P.8 : Reply notice
31
C.C.No.57908/2017
3.Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 : Sri.Kedarnath Basavanagowda Patil
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of the 1st page of order sheet in PCR No.10709/2018 Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of the complaint Ex.D.3 : Bank statement Ex.D.4 : Letter issued by the bank Ex.D.5 : Copy of t he complaint Ex.D.6 : Police endorsement Ex.D.7 : Certificate U/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.D.8 : Screen shot of Watssapp message and to SMS sent to the complainant Ex.D.9 (PADMA PRASAD), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.