Bangalore District Court
G Venkatesh vs K Balaji Singh on 1 April, 2024
KABC020085812022
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH24).
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated: On this 1st day of April 2024
CC NO.3993/2022
1. Sl.No. of the Case : C.C.No.3993 of 2022.
2. The date of : 19.03.2022
commission of the
offence
3. Name of the : Mr. G. Venkatesh,
Complainant S/o Late C. Gopal,
Aged 51 years,
Residing at No.330,
10th main, Sampige Layout,
Bengaluru 560 079.
(By Sri. L.S. Krishne Gowda,
Advocate)
4. Name of the : Sri. K. Balaji Singh,
Accused S/o Krishna Singh Rajput,
Aged 58 years,
SCCH-24 2 C.C.3993/2022
Residing at No.262,
Noble Residency Layout,
5th main, 3rd cross,
Kamanahalli main road,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru 560 076.
Also at:
Working as Electrical Engineer
At S.K.F. India Ltd.,
Token No.11008,
Haridwara, Plot No.2,
Industrial Part - II,
BHEL Township,
Village Salampur,
Mehadoodh SIDCUL,
Bahadrabad Bypass Road,
Haridwar,
Uttarakhand - 249 402.
(By Sri Prabhu Pujar S,
Advocate)
5. The offence complained : Under Section 138 of the
of or proves Negotiable Instrument Act.
6. Plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination
7. Final Order : Accused is found guilty
8. Date of such order for : 01042024
the following
SCCH-24 3 C.C.3993/2022
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed under Sec. 200 of Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
02. It is contended that, the accused being in close association with the complainant and his brother inlaw Vijay Singh for past many years, and now the accused is residing in Uttarkhand, has approached the complainant through his brother in law Mr.Vijay Singh in the third week of November2021 and requested for an hand loan of Rs.5,50,000/ for his financial constraints. The complainant has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,50,000/. On 21.11.2011 the complainant has lend sum of Rs 5, 50,000 / by way of cash to Mr.Vijay Singh as per the request made by the accused. On receipt of the hand loan, the botherinlaw of the accused as per the directions of accused has issued two postdated cheques bearing Nos. 635431 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ and No.635432 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/, dated 0512 2021 belonging to the accused towards repayment of debt drawn on ICICI Bank, Chamarajpet branch, SCCH-24 4 C.C.3993/2022 Bengaluru in favour of complainant. In the first week of December2021 Mr. Vijay Singh as per the instructions of the accused has requested the complainant to present the said cheques in the last week of December 2021. As per the instructions of the accused, complainant has presented the two cheques through his banker "Deepak Sahakari Bank Limited" Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru, the aforesaid cheque bearing No.635431 and 643462 presented on 30122021 came to be dishonoured on 31 122021 with an endorsement 'FUNDS INSUFFICIENT"
and "REFER TO DRAWER" Thereafter, the complainant got issued demand notice to the accused on 24.01.2022 to both residential and factory address and same were returned unserved on 25.01.2022. Accordingly, the accused have committed offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I Act, Hence, the complaint.
03. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and verifying the documents, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. The accused on receiving the summons appeared before this Court through their counsel and were enlarged on bail and their plea was SCCH-24 5 C.C.3993/2022 recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for evidence of the complainant.
4. The complainant got examined himself as PW.1, and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to 9. Then, the case was posted for recording the statement of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. In the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused have denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and claimed to be tried. The accused himself examined as DW.1, one witness is examined as DW.2 and got marked documents as ExD1 and 2 and closed his side. Hence, the case was posted for arguments.
5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records.
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that accused have committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?SCCH-24 6 C.C.3993/2022
7. My findings on the above points are as under
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
: R E A S O N S :
8. POINT NO.1: This is a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
9. It is the case of the complainant that, accused has approached through his brother in law for hand loan of Rs.5, 50,000, accordingly complainant has paid said sum to the accused through his brother in law, to discharge the legally enforceable debt the accused has issued two post dated cheques dated 5.12.2021 and when the cheques were presented for encashment same were returned with endorsement "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT" and "Refer to drawer" . Though the said fact was brought to the knowledge of the accused by issuing legal notice but accused has failed to repay the cheques amount.
SCCH-24 7 C.C.3993/202210. In order to substantiate the contention, the complainant got examined himself as Pw1 and got marked in all 9 documents as ExP1 to Ex.P9. If the documents produced by the complainant are perused, ExP1 and 2 are the cheques. The accused nowhere has disputed the cheques relate to his account so also his signature in the Ex.P1 and 2. It is deposed by Pw1 that cheques in question was issued by the accused towards discharge of liability. The cheques in question was presented by the complainant through his banker which was returned with memo as per ExP3 and 4 stating 'FUNDS INSUFFICIENT' and "REFER TO DRAWER". Hence, he got issued legal notice to the accused through RPAD, which is produced at Ex.P.5. The postal receipts are marked at Ex.P.6 and 7. The postal cover is marked at Ex.P.8. The postal acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P9.
11. It the defence taken by the accused that, at present he is residing in Haridwar, Uttarakhand and complainant is working in the same company, the complainant never gave hand loan of Rs.5,50,000/ and he never asked the complainant to lend sum of SCCH-24 8 C.C.3993/2022 Rs.5,50,000/, he was not present when the alleged transaction was held, he has not asked his brother in law Vijay Singh to ask money from the complainant on his behalf , his two cheques were missed from his house at Bangalore, hence he gave letter to bank for stop payment on 31122021, he has not given any cheque to the complainant and complainant has misused the two cheques lost by him and lodged false complaint against the accused.
12. In order to probablise the defense, the accused got examined himself as Dw1 and got marked Bank statement as per Ex.D1 and D2 and examined one witness as DW.2.
13. It is held by the full bench of our Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2010 (1) DCR 706 that;
"The Statutory presumption mandated by sec.139 of the Act, does indeed in clude the existence of a legally enforce able debt or liability. However, the pre sumption U/S 139 of the Act is in the na ture of a rebuttable presumption and it is SCCH-24 9 C.C.3993/2022 open for the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally en forceable debt or liability can be con tested".
14. In view of the above decision, once the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption would automatically fall in favour of the complainant that, the alleged cheque was issued for discharge of an existing legally enforceable debt or liability against the accused and the burden will shift on to the accused to rebut the same.
15. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act, if the ingredients of section 138 of NI Act are proved by the complainant co extensively. Additionally, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled. At the outset, an essential ingredient of Section 138 of N.I Act is that cheque in question must have been issued towards legal liability. Under Section 118 of the Act, a presumption shall be raised regarding consideration, date, transfer, endorsement and regarding holder in the case of Negotiable Instruments. Even under Section 139 of the Act, a rebuttable presumption shall be raised that, the SCCH-24 10 C.C.3993/2022 cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of legally enforceable debt. These presumptions are mandatory provisions that are required to be raised in case of negotiable instruments.
16. In (2009) 2 SCC 513 it was held that "Standard of Proof required for rebuttal does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt Something probable has to be brought on record . Burden of proof can be shifted back to the complaint by producing convincing circumstantial evidence.
17. When accused has admitted that cheque ExP1 and ExP2 relates to his account so also his signatures there in, rebuttable presumption shall be raised that cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of legally enforceable debt. Now it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by probablising the defense taken by him.
18. As observed supra, the accused has admitted that disputed cheques relates to his account so also his signature in the Ex.P1 and 2. The complainant who got SCCH-24 11 C.C.3993/2022 examined as Pw.1 has deposed that himself and accused were working together since 30 years, he is working as Sector Operator whereas earlier accused was working as electrician and now as engineer, that he is drawing monthly salary of Rs.60,000/, that accused is in Management post and he is working as workman , that accused salary is more than his salary. It is deposed by PW.1 that apart from his monthly salary he is fetching Rs.25,000/ from rent and earning income from agricultural property, that accused got transferred to Uttarkand somewhere in the year 2020 and that accused was doing real estate business along with his brother in law.
19. If the cross examination of PW.1 and the evidence of accused is perused, the accused nowhere has disputed the financial capacity of the complainant to lend sum of Rs.5, 50,000/ . No single suggestion was posed to the PW.1 questioning his financial status. Further the accused nowhere during the cross examination of Pw.1 has disputed the avocation and income one stated by the PW.1. Hence, much discussion would not warrant on the point regarding the financial status of the complainant.
SCCH-24 12 C.C.3993/202220. So far as the service of statutory notice is concerned, the complainant has produced Ex.P6 to 9. The complainant has issued legal notice to the accused to his residential address at Bangalore and official address at Haridwar, Uttarakhand. The notice issued to the accused to his residential at Bangalore is returned un served as per Ex.P.8 whereas the notice issued through his office address was duly served as evident from Ex.P9. The DW.1 during his cross examination has admitted the service of legal notice issued to his office address. Admittedly, accused has not given reply to the said legal notice. Hence, it can be said that legal notice is duly served to the accused. Though the legal notice was duly served to the accused but by giving reply he has not taken any defense at an earliest point of time.
21. In the evidence, the accused has taken the defence that his two cheques were missed from his house at Bangalore, in that regard he has given letter to the bank for stop payment on 31122021, that he has not availed any loan from the complainant and he has not issued cheques to the complainant and complainant has SCCH-24 13 C.C.3993/2022 misused the said lost cheques and filed the false complaint.
22. But during the crossexamination of PW.1 the accused has taken all together different version. The defense taken by the accused during the cross examination of PW.1, during his evidence and in the evidence of DW.2 is all together different and it contradicts with each other.
23. As per the case of complainant, the accused has availed hand loan of Rs.5, 50,000/ through his brother in law i.e., Dw.2 because accused was in Haridwar. It was much argued by the learned counsel for accused that there was no direct contact between the complainant and accused since 2020 till this date, the complainant neither had called the accused over phone nor personally met him, the complainant neither has given alleged amount directly to the accused nor accused has directly given cheque to the Pw.1 and as per the very case of the complainant the amount was given to Vijay Singh but not to the accused , the accused has not come from Uttarakhand since 2022 to issue disputed cheque, SCCH-24 14 C.C.3993/2022 at any point of time the complainant and accused ever met after the accused got transferred to Uttarakhand. It is further vehemently argued by the learned counsel for accused that as per the case of complainant loan was given on 21112021 and on the very same date Vijay Singh had given disputed post dated cheque on behalf of the accused and if that being the case how could on the date of disbursement of amount itself the accused had come to know that complainant will lend sum of Rs.5,50,000/ so as to issue cheque for Rs.5,50,000/.
24. In the light of the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for accused if the averments of complaint and evidence of the PW.1 is perused, according to the complainant the accused approached the complainant through his brotherinlaw in the third week of November 2021 requested for hand loan of Rs.5,50,000/ undertaking to return the loan amount within two weeks from the date of receipt of loan amount and that since accused was known to the complainant and they are the close associates since several years, the complainant has agreed to pay the hand loan and accordingly on 2111 2021 he lend sum of Rs.5,50,000/ to the accused SCCH-24 15 C.C.3993/2022 through his brotherinlaw. It is nowhere the case of complainant that on the very date of request made by the accused for hand loan, he lend sum of Rs.5,50,000/ but as per the case of complainant it is after agreeing to lend sum of Rs.5,50,000/ to the accused, on 21112021 he lend hand loan to the accused. When on third week of November 2021 the complainant had agreed to pay the hand loan it can be said that on 21/11/2021 the accused had the knowledge that complainant will lend sum of Rs 5,50,000 and accordingly he was ready with the cheque for Rs.5,50,000/ to issue it on 21/11/2021 to the complainant through Vijaya Singh towards discharge of the loan amount. Hence on the aforesaid ground the court cannot doubt the fact of issuance of post dated cheques by the accused on 21112021 through Vijaya Singh.
25. It is the definite case of the complainant that both accused and his brotherinlaw are known to him since several years. The DW.1 and DW.2 have admitted the said fact. The DW.2 even has admitted that himself and accused were running real estate business and his having transaction with the complainant. It is relevant to SCCH-24 16 C.C.3993/2022 state here that according to the complainant since accused was in Haridwra, at the instruction of accused his brotherinlaw visited the house of complainant and demanded for hand loan of Rs.5,50,000/ on behalf of the accused and complainant had talk with the accused through the mobile phone of Vijay Singh and accused given an understanding to the complainant that at his instruction only Vijay Singh had come to his house asking for hand loan on his behalf and he himself issued cheque for discharge of loan.
26. As observed supra, though in the evidence in chief of accused he has taken the contention that complainant has misused the lost cheque of accused but during the crossexamination of PW.1, suggestion was posed to the PW.1 by the counsel for accused that sum of Rs.5,50,000/ was availed by Vijay Singh and Vijay Singh himself had issued Ex.P1 and 2 related to the account of accused and thereby accused tried to impress upon the court that Ex.P1 and 2 are misused by Vijay Singh by availing loan of Rs.5,50,000/ for his personal use. The PW.1 has admitted the hand loan of Rs.5, 50,000/ given to the Dw2 so also Ex.P1 and 2 issued by Vijay Singh but SCCH-24 17 C.C.3993/2022 deposed that at the instruction of accused he has given sum of Rs.5,50,000/ to Vijay Singh. By posing suggestion to the aforesaid effect, the accused has admitted the loan of Rs.5,50,000/ given by the complainant and cheque as per Ex.P1 and 2 issued towards discharge of the said loan amount.
27. It is the further suggestion posed to the PW.1 by the counsel for accused that complainant and Vijay Singh colluded together have misused the Ex.P1 and 2 related to the account of accused and filed false case stating that accused is indebted to the complainant .
28. As observed supra, the accused during his examination in chief has taken the defence that his lost cheques were misused by the complainant hence he issued stop payment instruction to the bank. To evidence of the said fact, the accused has produced the letter addressed to the bank at Ex.D2. If Ex.D2 is perused, it is dated 31122021 and said letter is addressed to the Manager, ICICI Bank, Shivalik Nagar branch, Haridwra. Instruction as per ExD2 was given for stop payment/destroy of cheque no.635431 and 635432 i.e., SCCH-24 18 C.C.3993/2022 Ex.P1 and 2 stating that those cheques were misplaced by the accused.
29. As per the evidence of DW.1 he had no account in the ICICI bank, Haridwra Branch so as to issue notice of stop payment. Further it is nowhere stated when did he lost the two cheques so as to issue stop payment instruction on 31122021. If really, the said cheques were lost, the accused could have given stop payment instruction to the Manager ICICI Bank, Chamrajpet, Bangalore, Hence, it can be said that Ex.D2 is created by the accused to substantiate his defence.
30. During the crossexamination of DW.1, he admitted that he is holding very responsible post and being in responsible post he would sign any document after carefully going through the contents . It is admitted by DW.1 that cheque is an important document and it is to be signed only after it is duly filled and that Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 relates to his account and it bears his signature. The DW.1 being an educated person holding responsible post while admitting that cheque is to be signed only after it is duly filled, again stated that the writings in SCCH-24 19 C.C.3993/2022 Ex.P.1 and Ex.P2 are not his writings . When accused admitted that he is not signing any blank document and that after going through the documents only he will sign the documents, under such circumstance when Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 bears the admitted signature of accused, it can be said that it is after the cheques were duly filled and after going through the contents of the cheques only the accused has signed the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
31. It is admitted by DW.1 that, in the evidence in chief he has not mentioned the cheque numbers of the alleged lost cheques and that he has not lodged any complaint before Jurisdictional police about the lost cheques. It is admitted by DW.1 that Vijay Singh is his brother in law and their relationship is very cordial. It is admitted by DW.1 that complainant is his friend and that if anybody misused his document he has the knowledge that he has to take legal action against such person and that even though complainant has misused his cheque he has not taken any legal action against him till this day. According to the Dw.1 there was no necessity for him to take legal action against the complainant.
SCCH-24 20 C.C.3993/202232. When accused has the knowledge that if anybody misused his documents he has to take legal action against them, under such circumstances, if really complainant has misused the cheques of accused, then accused being an educated person and being prudent man would have taken legal action against the complainant soon after he came to know about the misuse of cheques by the complainant. It is deposed by Dw1 that if any cheque relating to his account is presented to the bank for encashment he will get message to his mobile. When message was received by the accused regarding presentation of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 by the complainant and its being dishonored, the accused soon thereafter could have lodged complaint against the complainant or could have issued legal notice to the complainant but accused stated that there was no necessity to take legal action. It is because complainant has not misused the cheque, the accused thought it not fit to take legal action against the complainant.
33. In order to substantiate the defense of the accused, he got examined his brother in law as DW.2.
SCCH-24 21 C.C.3993/202234. The DW.2 in his examination in chief itself has admitted that complainant is known to him and he had business transaction with the complainant . It is deposed by DW.2 that in the month of June 2017 he had availed Rs.6,00,000/ from the complainant and in that regard he had issued two cheques relating to his account and complainant insisted him to issue two cheques relating to the account of accused as security, accordingly he had issued two cheques relating to the account of accused and that accused has not asked the DW.2 to issue his cheques as security to the complainant. It is the further evidence of DW.2 that he had issued said two cheques of accused pertaining to his transaction with the complainant during the year 2017 and that since the said transaction has not completed the said cheques were with the Dw2 and that he had not brought to the knowledge of the accused about his given two cheques relating to the account of accused to the complainant as security and he had not given any information to the accused regarding his having transaction with the complainant. It is deposed by DW.2 that as on 2111 2021 i.e., on the date of issuance of disputed cheque he SCCH-24 22 C.C.3993/2022 was in Mysore. But DW.2 has not placed any document to prove that on 21112021 he was in Mysore so as to say that he has not issued disputed cheques on that particular date.
35. During the crossexamination it is admitted by DW.2 that accused is his brotherinlaw and that their relationship is very cordial and that he is looking after the transaction of the accused and that after understanding the document only he use to sign the documents and that cheque is an important document and one has to sign the cheque after its being filled. The Dw.2 having admitted that cheque has to be signed only after its being filled but further deposed that he has issued blank signed cheques of the accused to the complainant. Admittedly it is nowhere stated by the DW.2 either in his examination in chief or cross examination the cheque numbers relating to his account and of the account of accused which he stated to have been given to the complainant as security and he has not stated in respect of which transaction he has issued the aforesaid cheques. It is admitted by DW.2 that he had the knowledge that without obtaining the permission of SCCH-24 23 C.C.3993/2022 accused he cannot issue cheques relating to the account of accused. Though DW.2 has deposed that he has requested the complainant through whatsapp to return the cheques relating to the account of accused which alleged to have been given by him as security but no document to that effect has been produced. As like accused even DW.2 also has not taken any legal action against the complainant for his alleged misuse of the cheques.
36. If the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 is perused, as observed supra, DW.1 and 2 are the close relatives. From 2020 accused is residing in Haridwara on employment. The Dw.2 himself is looking after and managing the transaction of the accused. Accused is the friend of complainant. Even DW.2 is also known person to the complainant. At the risk of repetition, the accused at one breath contends that complainant has misused his lost cheques and another breath contends that the disputed cheques were issued by the DW.2 relating to his transaction with the complainant, thereby accused has taken two divergent defenses. If Dw.2 had issued Ex.P1 and 2 relating to his alleged transaction with the SCCH-24 24 C.C.3993/2022 complainant and when accused was aware of the said fact, then the question of cheques lost by the accused does not arise. Further when DW.1 and 2 are the close relatives and their relationship is cordial, under such circumstance if really DW.2 without the permission of accused had misused the disputed cheques and given it to the complainant as security towards his personal transaction with the complainant, under such circumstance definitely accused would have taken stringent legal action against the Dw.2 for his betraying the trust reposed by the accused. No man of ordinary prudent under such circumstances would kept mum without lodging complaint against such betrayed person. When admittedly Dw.2 was looking after the transaction of accused in his absence at Bangalore and when complainant and accused are close friends, under such circumstance considering the facts and circumstances of the case it can be said that accused himself over the phone of Dw.2 had asked the complainant for hand loan of Rs.5,50,000/ and accordingly the complainant lend said sum to the accused through the hands of Dw2 and it is towards the discharge of said loan amount only the accused had issued Ex.P1 and 2 through the hands of SCCH-24 25 C.C.3993/2022 Dw2 . The accused by not substantiating his defense has failed to probablise the defence taken by him.
37. The learned counsel for the complainant during the course of argument has referred judgment reported in 2018 (8) SCC 469 between T.P. Murugan (Dead) Through legal representatives Vs. Bojan wherein it was held that "once a cheque has been signed and issued in favour of holder of cheque, there is statutory presumption under S.139 of NI Act that the cheque is issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liabilityHowever, said presumption is a rebuttable one Issuer of cheque can rebut that presumption by adducing credible evidence that the cheque was issued for some other purpose like security for loan".
38. Per contra the learned counsel for accused has referred judgment rendered in 2016 (4) AIR (Kar)(R) 99 between Smt.Nasreen Pasha Vs. Sri Malik Ahmed. The said judgment is in reference of Sec.45 of the Evidence Act regarding expert opinion but the said judgment has no relevance at this stage because the order passed by SCCH-24 26 C.C.3993/2022 this court on application u/Sec.45 of Evidence Act has not been challenged by the accused.
39. 2016 (2) KLJ 194 between Smt.Threja Vs Smt.Jayalaxmi. In the said case accused was able to probablise his defence that the cheque was not issued for discharge of loan but was used as security for the said sum. Under such circumstance the Hon'ble High Court has acquitted the accused. But in this case the accused has failed to probablise the dual defence taken by him.
40. In the light of the discussion herein above, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant has proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
41. POINT No.2 : In the light of the reasons on the point No.1 , I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Sec.255 (2) of Cr.PC, the accused are found guilty of the o/p/u/s 138 SCCH-24 27 C.C.3993/2022 read with section 142 of NI Act and they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,65,000/ (Rupees Five Lakh Sixty Five Thousand only) out of which Rs.5,60,000/ shall be paid as compensation to the complainant under Sec.357 of CRPC and Rs.5,000/ shall be payable to the State.
In the event of default in payment within a period of 3 months, the accused shall be convicted to simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
The bail bond of accused and that of surety stands cancelled.
Office to furnish the copy of this judgment, free of cost to the accused.
(Typed by P.O. on laptop, print taken, signed and then pronounced in open court on this the 1st day of April 2024).
(ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.
SCCH-24 28 C.C.3993/2022:ANNEXTURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEALF THE COMPLAINANT P.W.1 : Sri. G. Venkatesh LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 & 2 : Cheque given by accused Ex.P.1(a) & 2(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P.3 & 4 : Bank endorsements Ex.P.5 : Copy of legal notice Ex.P.6 & 7 : Two Postal Receipts Ex.P.8 : Postal Cover Ex.P.9 : Postal acknowledgement
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED DW.1 : - Mr.Balaji Singh K DW.2 : - Mr.Vijay LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Ex.D1 : ICICI Bank Account Statement
Ex.D2 : - Requisition given to bank to stop
payment
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM
Bengaluru.
Digitally
signed by
ROOPASHRI
ROOPASHRI Date:
2024.04.03
15:15:09
+0530