Bangalore District Court
The Accused Has Denied The Prosecution ... vs The Cheque On Presentation Returned As ... on 29 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES & ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JANUARY 2020.
PRESENT: Smt. K.UMA., B.A.L.,LL.B.,.
VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& ACMM, Bengaluru.
C C NO.1439 OF 2018
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.1973
1. Sl. No. of the case : C. C. No.1439/18
2. The date of commission of
the offence : -
3. Name of the Complainant : Smt.G.Jayalakshmi,
W/o Sri.G.Vijaya Kumar
"Sri.Vaari Nilaya",
No.38, II 'A' Cross,
Kallappa Layout,
Amruthahalli,
Sahakara Nagara Post,
Bengaluru-560092.
(By Sri.N.Shamanna, Advocate)
4. Name of the Accused : Sri.S.Lokesh,
S/o Srinivas,
Aged about 29 years,
First Floor, No.10,
Near Easwara Temple,
Amruthahalli,
Sahakara Nagara Post,
Bengaluru-560092.
(By Sri.Chokka Reddy, Advocate.)
SCCH-2 2 CC No.1439/18
5. The offence complained : Under Section 138 of the
of or proves Negotiable Instruments
Act
6. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.
and his examination
7. Final order : Accused is Acquitted.
8. Date of such order : On 29.01.2020.
for the following;
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused under Sec.200 of Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance of the offence taken on presentation of the private complaint and ordered to register the criminal case, as there were prima facie materials to proceed against the accused.
2. The brief facts of the Complainant's case is that; It is the contention of the Complainant that, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) on 30.10.2016 stating that the same is required for House Construction and promised that the same would be refunded within Six months. The Accused has not repaid the SCCH-2 3 CC No.1439/18 same as promised, but got issued a cheque bearing No.596770 dated 18.01.2018 for Rs.4,50,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Amruthahalli Branch, Bengaluru-560092, in her favour. On presentation of said cheque through her banker - State Bank of India , Amruthahalli Branch, Bengaluru, but the same was returned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient" on 19.01.2018. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued legal notice on 02.02.2018 through RPAD under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the NI Act"), to the Accused to make payment of the cheque amount. Despite due notice, Accused failed to pay the amount covered under cheque within statutory period of notice of demand. Hence, this complaint.
3. On being served the summons and upon issuance of NBW, the Accused appeared through his counsel and got released him on bail. Plea of the Accused recorded, by explaining the substances of accusation. Accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. The Accused filed application under Section 145(2) of N.I Act, seeking permission to cross- SCCH-2 4 CC No.1439/18 examine Complainant and to proceed in accordance with Law. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the Accused is permitted to cross-examine Complainant/PW-1.
4. The Complainant in support of the case got examined herself as PW-1 and produced six documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. After closure of Complainant's evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the Complainant. The Accused has denied the prosecution version in toto. The Accused got examined him as DW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.
5. Complainant Counsel files written notes of Arguments. Heard arguments of complainant and Accused.
6. Following points that arise for my consideration;
1. Whether Complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What order?
SCCH-2 5 CC No.1439/18
7. My findings to the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1: The Complainant - Smt. G.Jayalakshmi in proof of her contention, got examined herself as PW1, who filed affidavit in-lieu of oral examination-in-chief. PW1 has deposed in consonance with the averments of the complaint. According to PW1 the cheque - Ex.P1 has been issued by the Accused. The cheque on presentation returned as "Insufficient Funds" as per the bank endorsement produced at Ex.P2. Hence, she got issued legal notice to the Accused, which is produced at Ex.P3 through RPAD vide postal receipt marked at Ex.P4, which was served as per Postal Acknowledgment as per Ex.P5. PW-1 has also produced Bank Statement at Ex.P.6. This is the evidence placed by the Complainant.
9. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the Complainant, it reveals that the complaint is filed well within time in accordance with the provisions of Negotiable SCCH-2 6 CC No.1439/18 Instruments Act. Moreover, there is no dispute with regard to taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N I Act.
10. On the other hand the Accused in proof of his defense got examined him as DW1. In examination in chief DW1 has deposed that, he never approached the Complainant for hand loan of Rs.4,50,000/- on 30.10.2016 for construction of his house and he never promised to refund the said amount within the 6 months. Accused has deposed that, he has no knowledge of his mother's money transactions with the complainant. His bank cheque books and other papers were kept in his house and the same were misplaced in his house. Accused has deposed that, when the notice was served on him from the court then only he came to know that his cheque was misused by the Complainant. The cheque book was issued from State Bank of India, Amruthahalli on 2014. The cheque was issued on 17.011.2018 is false and concocted story. Accused deposed that, he never approached the Complainant for hand SCCH-2 7 CC No.1439/18 loan. The notice is not served to him. Accordingly, he prays for acquittal.
11. With this evidence of Complainant and the defence raised by the accused, I shall examine the probability of defense put forth by the Accused in the light of principles enunciated in the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatreya G Hegde, reported in 2008 (4) SCC 54. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus; Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption in regard to the second aspect of the matter. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that, the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability.
12. It is necessary to point out the mandatory presumption to be raised in respect of negotiable instrument as contemplated under Negotiable Instruments Act. Indisputably, a mandatory presumption is required to be raised in terms of Section 118 (b) and Section 139 of the Act. Section 138 of the Act has three ingredients viz.:
SCCH-2 8 CC No.1439/18
1. that there is a legally enforceable debt;
2. that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes a legally enforceable debt; and
3. that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds.
13. On hearing arguments of Accused and on perusing the evidence of both parties, it is relevant to point out that in the present nature of cases the court has to determine whether version of Complainant is true or the theory put-forth by the Accused is true?.
14. At the outset, an essential ingredient of Section 138 of N I Act is that the cheque in question must have been issued towards legally enforceable debt. 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 cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of legally enforceable SCCH-2 9 CC No.1439/18 debt. These presumptions are mandatory provisions that are required to be raised in case of negotiable instruments.
15. Keeping in mind the position of law as stated supra, let me deviate to appreciate the evidence of PW-1 deposed during cross-examination. On appreciation of the evidence of the Complainant deposed during cross-examination, it indicates that, she is a house wife and has come to Bengaluru prior to 25 years. Her Husband name is Vijaykumar and he is working at LNT Company and her husband's salary is Rs.60,000/- per month. The housing loan and vehicle loan are cleared as of now as she obtained Rs.5,00,000/- loan from LIC and repaid in monthly installments of Rs.6,000/-. The address shown in the cause title of complaint of her is own house, which was constructed prior to 12 years and prior to that, she was residing in lease house. She does saree business since 6 years at home and earns Rs.10,000/- per month.
16. On further appreciation of the evidence of the Complainant deposed during cross-examination, it indicates that, she do not have any documents to show that, she is SCCH-2 10 CC No.1439/18 getting Rs.10,000/- per month as income in saree business. She deposits the amount in bank account and the bank statement can be produced. Her daughter gets salary of Rs.50,000/- per month. Her daughter has completed education prior to 5 years and is working for LNT company as a Software Engineer. PW-11 has deposed that she was maintaining family and education of her children out of the income of her husband prior to she doing saree business. PW-1 has deposed that, she is not doing chit business and finance business. Prior to the present case transactions, she did not do any financial transactions with the Accused.
17. On further appreciation of the evidence of the Complainant deposed during cross-examination, it indicates that, the accused had approached PW-1 prior to one week from 30.10.2016 the date on which she lent loan. PW1 has further deposed that, mother of accused had requested her for lending loan and her son would be surety for the amount. PW-1 has deposed that she paid loan to the mother of Accused and the same was informed to her husband and her children. According SCCH-2 11 CC No.1439/18 to PW1, she was having savings out of the salary of her husband and her daughter and the same was given to the Accused and she did not withdrawn money from the bank.
18. On further appreciation of the evidence of the Complainant deposed during cross-examination, it indicates that, according to PW1, she had saved money for her daughter's marriage. PW-1 has deposed that, mother of Accused had got executed an agreement for having received the money and she can produce the same. The Accused and her husband did not signed as witnesses to the agreement and she got prepared the agreement. PW1 has deposed that, she did not receive On Demand Promissory Note or cheque from the Accused. PW1 has denied to the suggestion given to the effect that, she was not having liquid cash with her of Rs.4,50,000/- on 30.10.2016. PW1 has deposed that, she has documents for having with drawn money from her husband and daughters bank account.
19. On further appreciation of the evidence of the Complainant deposed during cross-examination, it indicates that, according to PW1, her daughter had obtained loan in order SCCH-2 12 CC No.1439/18 to purchase gold ornaments and out of the said loan some amount was paid to her. PW1 has deposed that, she can produce the bank statement pertaining to her daughter's bank account. PW1 has deposed that, she did not file any case against the mother of accused on the basis of agreement. PW1 has deposed that, she had requested mother of Accused, on various occasions going to the house of Accused for repayment of loan and she did not issue notice to that effect. According to PW1, the Ex.P1 cheque was given by the accused for repayment of loan in her presence to his mother on 17.01.2018 and in turn the mother of Accused had given the cheque to her. PW1 has deposed that, no guarantee agreement was executed by the Accused on behalf of his mother in order to repay the loan. According to PW1, the was issued by the Accused in repayment of loan as the complainant was demanded on various occasions.
20. On further appreciation of the evidence of PW1 deposed during cross-examination, it indicates that, PW1 has deposed that, she do not have any documents to show that, the Accused is a contractor. PW1 has denied to the suggestion given SCCH-2 13 CC No.1439/18 to the effect that, she is doing chit business and her husband is doing money lending business. PW1 has denied to the suggestion given to the effect that, Kannan is doing business and was taking care of all the business transactions of her family. PW1 has deposed that, the Accused has himself given the Ex.P1 cheque and she do not know whether the Accused has used the cheque leafs in connection to the Ex.P1 cheque. PW1 has denied to the suggestion given to the effect that, the mother of accused has subscribed for the chit for total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and at the time of bidding the chit amount after 4 installments the disputed cheque was given towards surety to the complainant by the mother of accused.
21. On further appreciation of the evidence of PW1 deposed during cross-examination, it indicates that, PW1 has deposed that, the name appearing in Ex.P5 Postal Acknowledgment is Lokesh @ loki S/o Srinivas @ Seenappa. The signature of Lokesh is not appearing in Postal Acknowledgment. PW1 has denied to the suggestion given to the effect that, as the name of Accused is wrongly written in the SCCH-2 14 CC No.1439/18 Postal Envelope, the legal notice is not served upon accused. PW1 has deposed that, she has stated in legal notice that, Rs.4.5 Lakhs was received by the mother of Accused. PW1 has denied to the suggestion given to the effect that, the accused is not liable to pay the cheque amount. PW1 has denied to the suggestion given to the effect that, she is not having the financial capacity to lend such huge amount to the accused. PW1 has deposed that, she is not an Income Tax Assessee. All further possible suggestions have been denied by this witness.
22. In further chief examination, PW1 has produced the bank statement of her husband at Ex.P6. During cross examination, PW1 has deposed that, her husband is having bank account in State Bank since 10 years and she did not receive amount in the bank account on or prior to one week from 30.10.2016. As per Ex.P6, an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- was withdrawn and on 30.10.2016, the balance was Rs.4,947/-. As per Ex.P6 in the month of September, an amount of Rs.5906/- is shown as balance. PW1 has deposed that, based on the cheque, she has withdrawn the amount from her SCCH-2 15 CC No.1439/18 husband and from her daughter's bank account. According to PW1, the mother of accused has received the legal notice. All further possible suggestions have been denied by this witness.
23. With this evidence of complainant, let me appreciate the evidence of accused deposed during cross-examination. On appreciation of the evidence of DW-1 deposed during cross- examination, it reveals that, accused has studied up to PUC. He is working as Fitness Trainer. His parents name is Srinivas and Padma. DW1 has denied to the suggestion given to the effect that, he is working as a Civil Contractor. DW1 has further denied to the suggestion given to the effect that, he has received court summons and the warrant has been executed on him. According to DW1, the police have taken him to Police Station and informed about the case.
24. On further appreciation of the evidence of DW1 deposed during cross examination, it indicates that, the cheque does belongs to his bank account and the signature appearing in the cheque is that of him. The bank statement produced by him for the period from 01.01.2014 to 28.02.2014 and has done SCCH-2 16 CC No.1439/18 transactions using 2 cheques. Further DW1 has denied to the suggestion given to the effect that, he had transacted using cheque No.066967 and 596769. DW1 has denied to the suggestion given to the effect that, he received loan from the Complainant through his mother. Further DW1 has denied to the suggestion given to the effect that, he has given cheque to the Complainant in repayment of loan and in order to escape from the liability he is deposing falsely before the court.
25. On over all appreciation of evidence of PW1 and DW1 and documentary evidence, it clearly reflects that, as per the contention of the Complainant, she had lent loan of Rs.4,50,000/- to the accused on 30.10.2016. As appreciated supra, during cross-examination of PW1, she has deposed that, Rs.4,50,000/- was paid to the mother of Accused as the Accused was in need of money and to that effect, the mother of Accused had executed an agreement. It is pertinent to note that, the complainant did produced the so called agreement, which said to have executed by the mother of accused. Except the cheque, the Complainant did not produce any documents to SCCH-2 17 CC No.1439/18 establish the financial transactions held between her and the Accused, as the Accused in its entirety has denied the receipt of loan of Rs.4,50,000/- form the complainant.
26. It is relevant to point out that, according to Complainant the loan amount was given to the mother of Accused as deposed during cross-examination. Contrary to this, in the complaint the complainant has made assertion to the effect that, she lent loan paid to the Accused on 30.10.2016. The said fact is not established by the Complainant. The accused has taken contention that, the legal notice is not served upon him as the name mentioned in the legal notice is not that of him. The accused has disputed the address and name of accused mentioned in the notice.
27. The Accused has further stated that, the address mentioned in the legal notice is wrong as deposed by him in para 4 of his affidavit. To establish the same, the Accused has produced Aadhar Card. Ex.D1 Bank Statement is also produced to establish his address. With respect to the name accused mentioned in the postal acknowledgment, has been admitted by SCCH-2 18 CC No.1439/18 the PW1 during cross examination. Further, according to PW1, the Accused was well known in the locality as Loki S/o Seenappa, hence, the legal notice was sent to the correct address. As per postal acknowledgment the post recived by Padma and according to complainant Padma is mother of accused. However, it has to be taken note that, the legal notice is not received by the accused as per postal acknowledgment.
28. As appreciated herein above, the Complainant is an house wife and she is not earning member. According to complainant, she had savings out of the salary of her husband and salary of her daughter. The same is not substantiate and she did not examine any of the witness. Though the Complainant had produced bank statement of her husband in support of her financial capacity but the Complainant has failed to establish that, she lent loan of Rs.4,50,000/- to the Accused as stated by her in complaint and in chief examination affidavit. As appreciated herein above during cross examination, PW1 has very well stated that, she had paid amount to the mother of Accused and in turn the agreement was executed and the same SCCH-2 19 CC No.1439/18 is not produced by the Complainant. Therefore, the liability of Accused cannot be fastened on Accused.
29. It is relevant to point out that, the Complainant did not produce any documents to establish her financial capacity. In the case as appreciated supra, the Complainant though got document executed payment of money to the mother of complainant, she did not substantiate the same. The Complainant has failed to establish advancement of loan and her financial capacity by producing cogent evidence.
30. In this case, the alleged transactions involved huge amount. Therefore, the initial burden is on the Accused and it is equally necessary to know as to how the Complainant advanced such huge amount to Accused. In this regard, it is not out of place to rely on the decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 278 (John K John V/s Tom Verghees and another) in this decision, the Honb'le Supreme Court has observed that;
"The presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act, could be raised in respect of some consideration and burden is on the Complainant to show that, he had paid amount SCCH-2 20 CC No.1439/18 shown in the cheque. When ever there is huge amount shown in the cheque, though the initial burden is on the Accused, it is equally necessary to know how the Complainant advance the huge amount".
31. At this stage, it is not out of place to place reliance on a decision reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 99 in the case of K.Subramani Vs. K. Damodara Naidu. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision has held thus;
"Legally recoverable debt not proved as complainant could not prove source of income from which alleged loan was made to accused." As held in the above decision, the Complainant did not furnish her bank account or documents to establish she had sufficient funds to make payment of amount. As per the principles laid down in the above 2 decisions, it is incumbent upon the Complainant to prove her financial capacity.
32. The Complainant did not show account of the amount said to have been paid to the accused. Therefore, it means the said alleged amount is unaccounted amount. In this connection it is not out of place to place a reliance on a decision SCCH-2 21 CC No.1439/18 reported in 2014(3) DCR 760 (Vijay Kundanlal Sharma V/s Satyavan Bikaji Jadvan and another) the Honb'le court has held that;
"Un accounted cash amount is not legally enforceable debt or liability within the meaning of explaining to section 138 of N.I.Act.
In the instant case, as stated herein above, the Complainant did not produce any documents to show how the cheque amount is legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the decisions cited herein above clearly applicable to the case on hand.
33. On appreciation of entire evidence of both Complainant and Accused, the Accused has created some shadow of doubt in the case of Complainant. It is law that, it is not necessary to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The degree of proof has to be explained, as held in the decision reported in 2011(3) KCCR 1825 (United Distributors Mangalore V/s Geetha K Ray), the Hon'ble Court has held that, "The Accused in an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act is not expected to prove his defense SCCH-2 22 CC No.1439/18 beyond reasonable doubt as he expected by Complainant in criminal trial."
34. In another case reported in 2011(1) DCR 135 (Mssrs, Barclay Bank PLC V/s. Rajkumar Sharma), the Hon'ble Court has held that, "In cases under Section 138 of N.I.Act, if two views are possible then version in favour of Accused is to be accepted."
As per the principles laid in the above 2 cases, the Accused has clearly rebutted the presumption which lies in favour of Complainant. The Complainant failed to prove her case with cogent evidence. The Accused has laid rebuttable evidence through oral and documentary evidence, which supports his stand at the same time, it creates genuine doubt in the case of Complainant and the same is reasonable doubt. The burden shifted on the Complainant to clear all these doubts. But the Complainant has failed to do so.
35. In Rangappa V/s Mohan case, the Honb'le Supreme Court has held that, to rebut the presumption of Section 139 of SCCH-2 23 CC No.1439/18 N.I. Act, the standard of proof for doing so is that of preponderance of probability. Therefore, if Accused is able to raise the probable defense, which creates doubt about existence of legally enforceable debt or liability, the presumption can fail. The Accused can deny all the materials submitted by the Complainant in order to raise such a defense, the Accused need to adduce the evidence of his or her own.
36. No doubt the cheque is primary loan document to prove the liability. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, initial presumption under Section 118(A) and 139 of N I Act, would raise in favour of the Complainant that, the said instrument was issued by the Accused for consideration to discharge legally enforceable debt. This presumption is rebuttable presumption. The Accused by placing the cogent and acceptable materials rebutted the said presumption. Even if presumption is not rebutted in order to attract Section 138 of N.I. Act, the debt has to be a legally enforceable debt as is clear from the explanation to Section 138, which provides that, for the SCCH-2 24 CC No.1439/18 purpose of said section the debt or other liability means legally enforceable debt or other liability.
37. It is relevant to state that the Complainant deposed during cross-examination that the subject cheque was issued by the Accused in repayment of loan. In this connection it is not out of place to rely on a decision reported in 2010(2) K.L.J. 284 in the case of B. Girish Vs. S. Ramaiah. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its decision has held thus;
"In the case on hand, it is the specific defence of the Accused that there was no monetary transaction between him and the Complainant and that he has not received any loan from the Complainant at any point of time and the cheque was not issued for discharge of any debt or liability. Admittedly, the Complainant had no financial capacity to pay Rs.50,000/- nor he had any savings. In the absence of any evidence placed by the Complainant, it is highly difficult to believe that he had borrowed money from a Credit Co-operative Society and others for the purpose of lending the loan to the Accused. In addition to this, except the cheque in question, there is no other documentary evidence to show that the SCCH-2 25 CC No.1439/18 Complainant had lent Rs.50,000/- to the Accused and the Accused had acknowledged the receipt of the same. No contemporary documents have come into existence. When a substantial amount of Rs.50,000/- was lent, it is reasonable to expect that the creditor would insist on the debtor to execute some document evidencing such transaction. Absence of any such documentary evidence would create great amount of doubt about the genuineness of the transaction. Section 269 (ss) of the Income - Tax Act, 1961 insists that all transactions involving Rs.20,000/- and above, should be through 'account payee cheques'. All these circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned Magistrate are sufficient to hold that the defence of the Accused is highly probable and that the Accused has rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act".
38. As observed in the above decision, it is incumbent upon the Complainant to support her financial capacity and payment of money through bank to Accused with documentary proof. If at all the Complainant had paid money to Accused, then it must be an unaccounted amount.
SCCH-2 26 CC No.1439/18
39. It is relevant to point out that Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, provides for the initial presumption in favour of the Complainant unless the contrary is proved. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. In the instant case the initial presumption has been rebutted by the probable defense taken by the Accused by cross-examining PW-1, as appreciated supra. In the result, I am of the considered opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove that the Accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answer point No. 1 in the negative.
40. POINT No.2:- In the light of the reasons on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. the Accused is hereby Acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
SCCH-2 27 CC No.1439/18
The bail bond and surety bond of the Accused is hereby stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer through online, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 29th day of January 2020.) (K.UMA ) VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, & ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:
PW1 : Smt. G. Jayalakshmi
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of Accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo
Ex.P.3 : Copy of Legal notice
Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt
Ex.P.5 : Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.P.6 : Bank Statement.
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
DW1 : Sri.S.Lokesh SCCH-2 28 CC No.1439/18 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:
Ex.D.1 : Bank Statement Ex.D.2 : Notarized copy of Aadhar Card.
(K.UMA ) VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, Bengaluru.