Bangalore District Court
Tower-2 vs No.25 on 19 November, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019
PRESENT
Sri. K. GURUPRASAD, B.A., LL.B (Spl.)
XIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU
CASE NO C.C. NO.56401/2018
M/s. Capco Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office at SJR i-Park, Ground Floor,
COMPLAINANT Tower-2, Block PHI, Whitefield, Bengaluru - 66.
Reptd by Authorized Signatory -
Ms.Dharani P.M
Mr.Suresh Kumar K.R
ACCUSED No.25, Golden Petals, Flat No.GB, Malagala Main
Road, Nagarabavi, Bengaluru - 560 078.
OFFENCE U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
PLEA OF THE
ACCUSED Pleaded not guilty
FINAL ORDER Accused is convicted
(K. GURUPRASAD)
XIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU
2
JUDGMENT
The present complaint is filed under Sec.200 Cr.PC for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is the case of the complainant that, the accused was Sr. Manager (Finance) of complainant company. Since the accused misused the corporate credit card belonging to complainant and mis-appropriated funds amounting to Rs.18,79,367/-, the complainant company terminated the services of accused vide letter dtd.23.2.2017. Since after termination of services, the complainant had to pay Rs.4,60,207/- to the accused towards salary of February 2017, leave encashment, and gratuity, the accused was liable to pay a sum of Rs.14,19,160/- to the complainant company after deduction of Rs.4,60,207/-. Earlier the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.000104 dtd.15.4.2017 to the complainant for Rs.14,19,160/-. But since the accused could not arrange necessary funds by 15.4.2017, the accused issued another cheque bearing No.000114 dtd.18.5.2018 for Rs.14,19,160/- drawn on HDFC Bank, M.G. Road branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the said cheque for collection to his banker i.e HDFC Bank, Richmond Road branch, Bengaluru, the said cheque came to be 3 dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient" through bank memo dtd.19.5.2018. When the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 5.6.2018 calling upon him to pay cheque amount, the said legal notice was duly served on the accused on 8.6.2018. However, the accused has neither replied to the said notice nor paid the cheque amount and as such the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence this complaint.
3. After filing of this complaint, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. This court was satisfied as to prima facie case made out by the complainant for issuance of the summons. Accordingly, criminal case was registered against the accused and summons was ordered to be issued.
4. In pursuance of court process issued by this court, the accused appeared through his counsel and got enlarged on bail. Thereafter plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, its Authorized Representative examined herself as CW.1 (PW.1) and got marked Ex.P1 to P9 and closed her side of evidence. Thereafter, statement of the accused U/s.313 of Cr.PC was recorded. The accused denied incriminating materials in the 4 evidence of complainant against him. Thereafter the accused examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 and closed defence side of evidence.
6. Heard counsel for complainant. Even though sufficient opportunity has been given to accused to advance arguments, the accused has failed to do so. Both parties filed written arguments. Perused the complaint, evidence on record, written arguments and court records.
7. The following points arise for my consideration and determination;
1) Whether the complainant proves that
the accused has issued cheque in
question in discharge of legally
enforceable debt or liability as
contended by complainant?
2) Whether the complainant further proves that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief's as prayed in the complaint?
4) What Order?
58. The above points are answered as under;
Point No.1 to 3 : In affirmative,
Point No.4 : As per the final order,
for the following.......
REASONS
9. Point Nos. 1 and 2: Since these two points are inter linked and to avoid repetition they are taken together for discussion.
10. As regard to limitation to file this complaint, Ex.P2 is cheque dtd.18.5.2018 drawn on HDFC Bank, M.G. Road, Bengaluru in favour of complainant. Ex.P3 is cheque return memo dtd.19.5.2018 issued by HDFC Bank, Richmond Road branch, Bengaluru. Ex.P4 is copy of legal notice dtd.5.6.2018 got issued by the complainant to the accused. Ex.P5 is postal window receipt dtd.6.6.2018 issued by the postal department for having sent Ex.P4-notice by registered post on 6.6.2018. Ex.P6 is postal acknowledgement signed by accused for having received Ex.P4-notice by registered post on 8.6.2018. No doubt signature appearing on Ex.P6-postal acknowledgement is different from the signature of accused appearing on Ex.P2-cheque. However DW.1 has admitted on page 7 of his cross-examination that after filing of this 6 complaint, he has received court summons in which the same address as shown in the cause title on the complaint is mentioned. It is pertinent to note that the address of Golden Petals, Nagarabavi, Bengaluru is shown in complaint cause title, notice and postal acknowledgement. Even DW.1 has disclosed in his examination-in-chief that his address is Golden Petal Apartment, Nagarabavi II Stage, Bengaluru. Therefore, it can be inferred that the address appearing on Ex.P4-legal notice and Ex.P6-postal acknowledgement is correct. As per Sec.27 of General Clauses Act, any notice issued by registered post at correct address is presumed to have been served on the addressee. The burden of rebutting said presumption is on the person who disputes service of said notice. In the present case on hand, the accused has utterly failed to prove that Ex.P4-notice was not served on him. Hence, it can be concluded that Ex.P4-legal notice is duly served on the accused on 8.6.2018.
11. Thus, it is clear from Ex.P2 to P6 that when the complainant has presented Ex.P2-cheque to his banker, it was returned dishonored with shara dtd.19.5.2018 as funds insufficient. It is further clear that when the complainant got issued Ex.P4- legal notice by registered post on 6.6.2018, it was duly served on the accused on 8.6.2018. In other words, when the complainant presented the cheque in question within three months from the date of said cheque, it was 7 dishonored and that when the complainant got issued statutory notice U/s.138 of N.I. Act by registered post to the accused within 30 days from the date of intimation of dishonour of said cheque, it was duly served on the accused on 8.6.2018. Hence, the present complaint filed on 11.7.2018 i.e after expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of such legal notice and 30 days thereafter is well within time.
12. As regard to legally enforceable debt or liability, in 2010 (11) SCC 441 - (Rangappa Vs Sri. Mohan), it is held that;
" The presumption mandated by Sec.139 of the Act includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. This is of course in the nature of a rebutable 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, herein, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant"..............."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 presumption can fail. The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases 8 the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own".
13. If the facts and circumstances of this case are considered in light of above said principle of law, it is clear that it is not disputed by the accused that Ex.P2-cheque is drawn on bank account of the accused and that it bears his signature. Therefore, statutory presumption arises U/s.139 of N.I. Act in favour of the complainant that Ex.P2 -cheque is issued in discharge of any debt or liability. The burden of rebutting the said presumption by probable defence is on the accused.
14. It is complainant case that the accused who was Sr. Manager (Finance) in the complainant company misused corporate credit card belonging to complainant company and also mis-appropriated the funds amounting to Rs.18,79,367/- and as such he was terminated from the services on 23.2.2017 under Ex.P7-termination letter which was received and acknowledged by accused as per Ex.D1. It is further complainant case that since complainant had to pay Rs.4,60,207/- to the accused towards salary for February 2017, leave encashment and gratuity, the accused agreed to pay balance due amount of Rs.14,19,160/- and issued a post dated cheque dtd.15.4.2017 for said amount. It is further complainant case that since the accused could not arrange for the requisite funds by 15.4.2017 and the said cheque 9 became stale, the accused issued letter dtd.5.7.2017 to the complainant as per Ex.P8 and issued post dated cheque as per Ex.P2. It is further complainant case that there were exchange of several e-mails as per Ex.P9, under which CW.1 who is H.R Manager of the complainant company repeatedly demanded accused to pay said due amount of Rs.14,19,160/- to which accused repeatedly requested time to arrange for funds. It is further complainant case that when accused failed to pay the said due amount, complainant finally presented Ex.P2-cheque to the banker and the same came to be dishonored.
15. On the other hand, it is the defence of the accused that he has not mis-appropriated any corporate credit card or funds of the complainant while he was in employment of the complainant nor issued Ex.P2-cheque towards payment of mis-appropriated amount. It is specific defence of the accused that in 2012 there were differences between one Neel Ramachandran who is Head of complainant company in India and accused because, the accused had communicated the fact of mis-appropriation of funds by said Neel Ramachandran to financial controller in London. It is further defence of the accused that due to such differences, the accused was terminated from services of the complainant company on the alleged ground of mis-appropriation of money and that copy of Ex.P7 was served on the accused as 10 per Ex.D1 and the accused signed on Ex.P7 termination letter only to acknowledge the receipt of said letter and not admitting the contents of Ex.P7. It is further defence of the accused that in February 2017, the accused was liable to pay Rs.3,26,000/- towards car loan of Orix Car Leasing Company and towards said liability, the accused had given his two cheques by way of security to the complainant company. It is further defence of the accused that though accused deposited said car loan amount in the HDFC Bank account of the complainant on 2.4.2017, the complainant company did not return the said two cheques of the accused and misused one of said cheques and filed this false complaint to harass the accused, though the accused is not liable to pay any mis- appropriated amount.
16. On careful perusal of evidence on record, it is clear that the defence of the accused is not probable nor does it inspire confidence of this court. It is because Ex.P7 is termination notice dtd.23.2.2017 issued by complainant company to the accused. It is clear from Ex.P7 termination notice that it is alleged against the accused that accused was frequently using corporate credit card and mis- appropriated the funds to the extent of Rs.18,79,367/- and as such the complainant company reserved the right to lodge both civil and criminal offence against the accused and the accused in turn agreed to pay the outstanding amount after 11 deduction of Rs.4,60,207/- (towards salary for the month of February 2017, leave encashment and gratuity amount) against said mis-appropriated amount. It is further clear that the accused shall issue post dated cheque for the balance outstanding amount and that the accused shall also settle the dues on account of availing the company vehicle lease by the 3rd of March to the complainant company directly, after which the car would be transfered to accused. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P7 bears the signature of accused which was put by the accused on 23.2.2017. It is the defence of the accused that he has signed on Ex.P7 termination notice for having received Ex.D1 copy and not signed on Ex.P7 admitting the contents of the said termination notice. No doubt, merely because the accused has signed on Ex.P7 termination notice, it cannot be readily concluded that the accused has admitted the contents and allegations in Ex.P7 termination notice. However one has to consider surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused to ascertain whether the accused has received said termination notice under protest or he has received said notice without disputing allegations made therein. It is pertinent to note that DW.1 has admitted during cross- examination that he has not taken any legal action against complainant company disputing the allegations of mis- appropriation of the money in the said termination notice 12 and seeking re-in-statement to his job in the complainant company. DW.1 has also admitted during cross-examination that he has not communicated with finance controller in London regarding his removal from the job on illegal grounds. Dw.1 has also admitted during cross-examination that when he received copy of termination notice, he has not got issued reply notice to the complainant company denying the allegations made in said Ex.P7 termination notice. If any prudent employee in the place of accused had been innocent, he would have denied in writing the allegations made in Ex.P7 termination notice against him and would have taken appropriate legal action against complainant company for his re-in-statement to his job. However the accused has failed to issue such reply notice and to take legal action against complainant company which is alleged to have made false allegations of mis-appropriation of funds. This inaction on the part of the accused raises serious doubt that since the accused was indulged in mis-appropriation of funds, the accused kept quite and took no action though he has been terminated from the service on the allegation of mis-appropriation of funds. At least the accused could have made any endorsement on Ex.P7 termination notice that he is receiving copy of Ex.P7 under protest or that he is not admitting the allegations in the termination notice. Therefore, though there is no specific endorsement on the 13 Ex.P7 termination notice that the accused has signed on the said termination notice after admitting the allegations made therein, it can be concluded from the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused that the accused has admitted the allegations made in the termination notice. This in turn raises serious doubt regarding the defence of the accused.
17. Secondly, Ex.P8 is letter dtd.5.7.2017 written by the accused to the complainant company and signed by him. It is clear from Ex.P8 that the accused informed the complainant company that he would pay outstanding amount of Rs.14,19,160/- after P.F amount is credited to his account and that he is sending cheque along with said letter, in lieu of previous cheque which would be stale cheque after 15th July. It is further clear from Ex.P8 letter that the accused requested to process his P.F withdrawal without any further delay. CW.1 has deposed that the accused has written said letter to the complainant company and that the said letter bears his signature. No doubt, it was suggested to CW.1 during cross-examination by counsel for accused that though accused has not written said letter to the complainant company has created the said letter. The said suggestion has been denied by CW.1 during cross-examination. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P8 letter was produced and got marked in February 2019 while the accused has entered the 14 witness box in August 2019. Interestingly, the DW.1 has not whispered anything regarding Ex.P8-letter denying his handwritings and his signature in Ex.P8-letter and disputing the contents of Ex.P8-letter. In other words, DW.1 has not denied and rebutted his signature and contents of Ex.P8 letter though he had opportunity to do so. Therefore merely because suggestion has been put to CW.1 during cross- examination, which is denied by CW.1, it cannot be concluded that Ex.P8 letter is not genuine document, particularly when DW.1 has not denied and rebutted the said document. Hence Ex.P8 letter is sufficiently proved by the complainant company. In Ex.P8 letter the accused has himself admitted his liability to pay Rs.14,19,160/- to the complainant company and issuance of fresh cheque in favour of complainant company. The said fresh cheque is none other than Ex.P2-cheque. In view of admission of liability by the accused in Ex.P8 letter, the defence of the accused cannot be believed.
18. Thirdly, Ex.P9 are e-mail letters exchanged between CW.1 and accused on 21.3.2018, 22.3.2018, 28.3.2018, 29.3.2018, 12.4.2018, 18.4.2018, 3.5.2018, 14.5.2018 and 21.5.2018. It is clear from these e-mail letters that CW.1 repeatedly insisted and requested the accused to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.14,19,160/- and that the accused repeatedly requested time to arrange 15 for funds to pay the outstanding amount and finally when the accused failed to pay the outstanding amount, CW.1 intimated the accused that the cheque in question will be deposited and legal formalities will be initiated against the accused. Ex.P9 e-mail letters have been produced with affidavit U/s.65-B of Indian Evidence Act and along with C.D containing soft copy of said e-mail letters. The counsel for accused has seriously disputed Ex.P9 e-mail letters on the ground that the said e-mail letters have been manipulated by CW.1 before its production in this case. However Ex.P9 e- mail letters have been produced and got marked in February 2019 while the accused has entered the witness box as DW.1 in August 2019. However even though Ex.P9 e-mail letters have been produced prior to evidence of DW.1, he has not at all whispered anything regarding Ex.P9 e-mail letters nor denied the genuineness and contents of said e-mail letters. It is not the case of the accused that no e-mail letters have been exchanged between accused and CW.1. On the other hand, it is contended that the said e-mail letters between the accused and CW.1 have been produced after manipulation. If Ex.P9 e-mail letters had been produced after manipulation, as alleged by counsel for the accused, there was no difficulty to produce the real and genuine e- mail letters exchanged between the accused and CW.1. If the accused had produced such real e-mail letters, this court 16 could have determined whether there is any manipulation in Ex.P9 e-mail letters. However, the accused has not produced such e-mail letters nor has DW.1 denied and rebutted the genuineness and contents of Ex.P9 e-mail letters. Therefore it can be concluded that the e-mail letters exchanged between the accused and CW.1 as per Ex.P9 are genuine. Therefore, it is clear that the accused has admitted in said e- mail letters his liability to pay the outstanding amount and he requested the complainant company to give some more time to pay the same. In view of said e-mail letters, it can be concluded that the defence of the accused is not probable.
19. Fourthly, even subsequent conduct of the accused goes against the defence of the accused. It is the defence of the accused that though he deposited entire due amount towards car loan to the complainant company, the complainant company has not returned two cheques which had been given by the accused by way of security towards payment of said car loan. However DW.1 has admitted during cross-examination that he has not got issued any legal notice to the complainant company calling upon the complainant company to return the said two cheques. DW.1 has also deposed that he has orally requested CW.1 and one Anand to return the said two cheques. DW.1 has also deposed that the said DW.1 intimated him that said cheques were lost. DW.1 has also deposed that he has not given stop payment 17 direction to his banker after the said cheques were lost. If these statements of DW.1 are carefully scrutinized, it is clear that even though complainant company is alleged to have failed to return two cheques of the complainant even after payment of car loan, the accused has not got issued legal notice to the complainant company nor has he taken any legal action against complainant company. The accused has also not given stop payment direction to bank regarding the alleged cheques. Any prudent-man in the place of accused would have given stop payment instruction to his banker and would have got issued legal notice to the complainant calling upon the complainant to return the said cheques and would have taken appropriate legal action against the complainant company. Moreover, the statement of DW.1 that he has orally requested CW.1 to return to his two cheques does not inspire confidence of this court because there was exchange of e-mail letters between CW.1 and accused during said relevant period and the accused could have requested CW.1 in one of such e-mail letters to return the cheques. But in Ex.P9 e-mail letters exchanged during the said relevant period the accused has not made any request or demand to CW.1 to return his two cheques which were alleged to have been given by way of security towards car loan. Hence the defence of the accused that he had given two cheques to the complainant company by way of security to the car loan and 18 not towards his liability to pay outstanding amount of Rs.14,19,160/- cannot be accepted.
20. The counsel for accused has argued in his written arguments that the accused has established that there was vengeance between Neel Ramachandran and accused, as a result of which said Neel Ramachandran was transferred to Hongkong. It is further argued that the accused has established that said Neel Ramachandran had informed CW.1 to file this complaint against the accused. It is further argued that the details of credit card and details of credit card number and what was the financial limit of credit card and when it came into existence and when said credit card came to an end are not disclosed in notice, complaint or in evidence of CW.1. It is further argued that there was no difficulty to mention these details of credit card and since those details are not mentioned in complaint, the case of the complainant is doubtful. It is further argued that it is established that the complainant company has collected two cheques from accused and that entire car loan was cleared and as such, it is clear that cheques collected by the complainant were never handed over to the accused even after clearance of the car loan by the accused. In this regard, counsel for the accused relied upon decision in 2014 (1) DCR 9 in which it is held that when there is serious lacuna in the evidence of the complainant, which strikes at the root of a 19 complaint U/s.138 of N.I. Act, acquittal of the accused is just and proper.
21. However, above said arguments of the counsel for the accused cannot be accepted because the complainant company has sufficiently proved liability of the accused to pay the cheque amount by producing Ex.P7 to P9- documents. DW.1 has not denied and rebutted Ex.P8 and P9- documents. As discussed above, it is clear from Ex.P7 to P9 that the accused admitted his liability to pay the cheque amount and requested for time to pay the amount and issued two cheques towards said liability. If the complainant company had not produced Ex.P7 to P9, this court would have probably raised serious doubt in the complainant case and would have taken serious note of omission to mention the details of credit card and nature of misuse of said credit card by the accused. However when the complainant has sufficiently proved Ex.P7 to P9 which clearly show the liability of the accused, mere fact that the complainant has not disclosed the details of credit card or details of misuse of said credit card is not fatal to the complainant case. Therefore when the accused has utterly failed to prove his defence and the complainant has sufficiently proved the liability of the accused to pay the outstanding amount, above said omissions cannot be considered as fatal to the complainant case. Hence, the arguments of counsel for 20 accused cannot be accepted and the decision relied by counsel for the accused is not helpful to the accused.
22. The counsel for accused argued in the written arguments that the complainant has not produced Resolution of Board of Directors of the complainant company, which is very much necessary. It is further argued that the present complaint filed by CW.1 without any copy of Resolution of Board of Directors is not maintainable under law and the said Ex.P1-Authorization Letter has been prepared by the advocate without knowledge of Board of Directors and as such the complainant company never authorized CW.1 either to file this complaint or to give evidence or to conduct the case.
23. The above said arguments of the counsel for the accused cannot be accepted because even though Ex.P1 is termed and described as Authorization Letter, on careful perusal contents of Ex.P1, it is clear that it is copy of Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the complainant company on 28/6/2018 at Bengaluru. It is further clear that in the said Resolution, Board of Directors has authorized CW.1 to sign and file the present complaint against the accused and also to conduct the case and to give evidence. No doubt, Ex.P1-copy of Resolution does not contain signatures of Board of Directors. However it cannot be forgotten that it is certified true copy of Resolution and 21 not xerox certified copy of said Resolution. It is pertinent to note that no suggestion has been put by counsel for the accused during cross-examination of CW.1 that no Resolution has been passed by the Board of Directors of the complainant company authorizing CW.1 to file this complaint. Therefore, it is clear from the contents of Ex.P1 that said document is copy of Resolution of Board of Directors and that the contention of the accused that the present complaint is filed by CW.1 without Resolution of Board of Directors of the complainant company cannot be accepted.
24. In view of my above discussion, I am of considered opinion that the accused has utterly failed to prove or probabalize his defence and thereby to rebut statutory presumption in favour of the complainant. It clearly appears from the evidence on record that defence of the accused is only afterthought without any basis. Unless and until the accused rebuts the statutory presumption with convincing and cogent evidence, burden cannot be shifted on the complainant. The complainant has placed sufficient materials on record to establish his contention. The evidence on record is sufficient to accept the case of the complainant that accused had issued cheque in question towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability and the complainant has proved all the requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act, so as to 22 constitute the offence against the accused. Therefore, Point Nos.1 & 2 are in affirmative and answered accordingly.
25. Point No.3: As discussed in connection with Point Nos.1 & 2, the complainant has proved his case as to commission of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act by the accused. The punishment prescribed for the said offence is imprisonment for a period which may extent to two years or with fine. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, nature, year of the transaction, nature of the instrument involved, provisions of Sec.117 of N.I. Act, cost of litigation and the rate of interest proposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (1) SCC 260 (R.Vijayan Vs Baby), etc., this court is of the considered view that it is just and desirable to impose fine of Rs.16,15,000/- and out of the said amount a sum of Rs.5,000/- has to be remitted to the State and the remaining amount of Rs.16,10,000/- is to be given to the complainant as compensation as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.PC and accordingly Point No.3 is answered in Affirmative.
26. Point No.4: For the reasons discussed in connection with Point Nos.1 to 3 this court proceed to pass the following......
23ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.PC accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused shall pay a fine of Rs.16,15,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act within one month. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 15 months.
By exercising the power conferred U/s.357(1) of Cr.PC., out of total fine amount of Rs.16,15,000/- , a sum of Rs.16,10,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be remitted to the State.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled. The cash security deposited by the accused is ordered to be continued till expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the free copy of this judgment to the accused forth with.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, computerized and print out taken by him is verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 19th Day of November, 2019) (K. GURUPRASAD) XIV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru 24 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the complainant:
CW.1 : Ms. Dharani P.M
Witnesses examined for the defence:
DW.1 : Sri. Suresh Kumar
Documents marked for the complainant:
Ex.P1 : Board Resolution
Ex.P2 : Cheque
Ex.P3 : Bank endorsement
Ex.P4 : Legal notice
Ex.P5 : Postal receipt
Ex.P6 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P7 : Termination notice
Ex.P8 : Letter dtd.5.7.2017
Ex.P9 : e-mail copy dtd.21.5.2018
Documents marked for the defence:
Ex.D1 : Copy of termination notice
(K. GURUPRASAD)
XIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU