Bangalore District Court
Smt. Raina Bhatia vs Mr. Prabhu P.B on 17 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Sri. V. NAGARAJA, LL.B., LL.M.,
XXI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2020
C.C. No.9921/2018
COMPLAINANT: Smt. RAINA BHATIA
W/o. Manoj R. Bhatia,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at. No.211,
"JALA SHAMBHAVI COMPLEX"
No.22/23, 1st Main Road,
Gandhinagara,
Bengaluru - 560 009.
Represented by its SPA Holder/
Husband Sri. Manoj R. Bhatia
(Reptd. By: KRN., Advocate)
V/s.
ACCUSED: 1. Mr. PRABHU P.B.
Proprietor of
M/s. ADSUN MEDIA SOLUTIONS
2. M/s. ADSUN MEDIA SOLUTIONS
Represented by its Proprietor.
Office at: J.P. Square,
Plot No.190, 1st Floor,
Sankey Road, Sadashivanagara,
Bengaluru - 560 080.
(Reptd. By: BRP., Advocate)
:JUDGMENT:
Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 138 of N.I. Act, seeking for 2 C.C.No.9921/2018 penalizing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and also for awarding compensation to her.
2. Case of the complainant in a nutshell is that:
Accused No.1 being sole proprietor of accused No.2 M/s. ADSUN MEDIA SOLUTIONS, had approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/- for the purpose his business. As the accused No.1 is very close friend to her husband and well acquainted to her, she advanced Rs.15,00,000/- to the accused through her cheque bearing No.863817 dated 28.04.2016 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Bengaluru City Branch, Gandhinagara, Bengaluru. So, after receiving the said loan, the accused No.1 on his behalf as well as on behalf of accused No.2, has executed on demand promissory note and consideration receipt and also assured to repay the same with interest @ 1% per month.
3. It is further averred that after availing the loan, the accused has repaid Rs.13,50,000/- as principal and Rs.1,35,000/- as interest under various dates through transfer of money. However, in order to repay remaining 3 C.C.No.9921/2018 balance of Rs.1,50,000/-, he issued her a cheque bearing No.372918 dated 28.01.2018 for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Rajajinagara, Bengaluru and assured to honour the said cheque. So, believing the words of accused, on 28.01.2018, she presented the above said cheque through her banker i.e., Indian Overseas Bank, Gandhinagara Nagara Branch, Bengaluru. But said cheque was dishonoured for the reason "Payment Stopped by Drawer". So, the bank authorities issued endorsement dated 30.01.2018. So, she got issued legal notice to accused dated 12.02.2018 through RPAD to accused regarding dishonour of cheque and called upon him to pay cheque amount, whereas said notice has been duly served on accused on 15.02.2018, but accused has failed to pay the cheque amount. Hence, accused has committed offence punishable U/s.138 of NI Act. Hence, she is constrained to file this complaint seeking for penalizing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act., and also seeking for awarding of compensation to her.
4 C.C.No.9921/2018
4. In pursuance of summons issued by this court, accused made appearance through his counsel and obtained bail and now he is on bail.
5. As these proceedings are summary in nature, substance of accusation read over and explained to accused in language known to him whereas, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, her husband who is her SPA holder has been examined as PW-1 and got documents marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11. After completion of evidence of complainant, statement of accused as specified U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., has been recorded and he has been examined as DW-1 and got marked documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5.
7. I have heard arguments of both learned counsels, they also filed their written arguments and learned counsel for accused filed memo with citations.
8. Perused the records.
9. After perusal of records, the points arise for my consideration are:
5 C.C.No.9921/2018
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused in order to discharge his legally enforceable debt, he has issued her a cheque bearing No.372918 dated 28.01.2018 for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Rajajinagara, Bengaluru?
2) Whether complainant further proves that
she has complied with mandatory
requirements as specified under Section 138 of N.I. Act?
3) What Order?
10. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : Does not Survive for Consideration
Point No.3 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1: As I have already stated, in order to prove the case of the complainant, her husband who is her SPA holder has been examined as PW-1 and he filed his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit by reiterating entire complaint averments as stated above. In support of his oral testimony, he relied upon Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11.
12. On the other hand, accused has been examined as DW-1 and got documents marked Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5.
13. Before appreciation of evidence of both parties, I am of the opinion, it is worth to note presumptions 6 C.C.No.9921/2018 envisaged in N.I. Act as well as ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Three Judges Bench Judgment reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 (Rangappa V/s. Sri Mohan) wherein it is held:
"The presumption mandated by Section 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. This is of course in the nature of a rebuttable 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 respondent /complainant."
It is further held:
Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to Section 139 of the NI Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption.
14. So in the light of above presumptions and ratio decidendi laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, if the present facts and situations are analyzed, it is obvious that according to complainant, accused has issued cheque for discharging of his liability. On the other hand, on considering the stand taken by the accused, it is obvious 7 C.C.No.9921/2018 that though accused No.1 who is sole proprietor of accused No.2, disputes his liability as claimed by complainant, but he is not disputing the facts that cheque is belonged to his proprietorship concern and it bears his signature. So, as I have already stated in view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in the Judgments stated supra, that as soon as accused admits the facts that cheque is belonged to his account and it bears his signature, then the mandatory presumption u/S 139 of N.I. Act comes to the aid of complainant and he can rest upon said presumption.
Now the crucial question arises as to whether accused is able to rebut the said presumption or not?
15. It is significant to note on considering the stand taken by the accused No.1, who is sole proprietor of accused No.2, in his defence evidence, he has clearly admitted the fact that he has borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant on 28.04.2016 and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1% per month.
16. It is also admitted fact that accused has repaid Rs.13,50,000/- to complainant through money transfer to the account of complainant under various dates as reflected in Ex.D-1 bank account statement of the accused. 8 C.C.No.9921/2018 It is also admitted fact that accused has also paid Rs.1,35,000/- as interest after deducting Rs.15,000/- as TDS.
17. It is significant to note, the complainant contended that as accused repaid part principal amount of Rs.13,50,000/-, but still he was due of remaining Rs.1,50,000/-. So, in order to pay the said amount, he issued present cheque on 28.01.2018 for Rs.1,50,000/-.
18. Per contra, accused has contended that as on the cheque date i.e., 28.01.2018, he was not at all due of Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed by the complainant, but he was only due of Rs.22,590/-. In fact, after availing the loan of Rs.15,00,000/- on 28.04.2016, immediately after seven days i.e., on 04.05.2016 itself, well in advance, he paid interest of Rs.1,35,000/- after deducting TDS Rs.15,000/- on entire principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. So, when he paid the entire interest well in advance, in the beginning itself and he continuously paid principal in monthly installments to an extent of Rs.13,50,000/- and further he paid principal of Rs.12,150/- on 28.07.2017, Rs.21,000/- on 20.11.2017, Rs.10,500/- on 26.02.2018, Rs.9,000/- on 19.07.2018 and Rs.4,500/- on 21.07.2018 9 C.C.No.9921/2018 as reflected in Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5. So, he was only due of Rs.22,590/-. But, the complainant in order to grab more money from him, he charged interest @ 2% and adjusted the payments towards interest without adjusting the same for principal and now misused one cheque out of ten cheques, which were given for each Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of availing the loan for security purpose and filed this false complaint. Hence, present complaint is liable to be dismissed and he may be acquitted.
19. In support of above defence, learned counsel for accused argued that presumption envisaged under Section 139 of N.I. Act is rebuttable presumption. So, initially court can raise such presumption if there is no dispute with respect to signature of the drawer. However, accused can rebut the said presumption by raising probable and acceptable defence and standard of proof required by the accused to rebut the said presumption is only preponderance of probabilities. So, he can rebut the presumption by contesting on the fact of existence of legally enforceable debt.
20. He further argued that herein this case, admittedly, well in advance, accused had paid entire 10 C.C.No.9921/2018 interest of Rs.1,35,000/- (after deducting Rs.15,000/- as TDS) on entire principal amount at the beginning itself and later he continuously paid Rs.1,50,000/- per month for a period of nine months, which totally Rs.13,50,000/-. Thereafter, he paid Rs.12,150/- on 28.07.2017, Rs.21,000/- on 20.11.2017, Rs.10,500/- on 26.02.2018, Rs.9,000/- on 19.07.2018 and Rs.4,500/- on 21.07.2018 as reflected in Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5. So, accused was only due of Rs.22,590/-. So, under such circumstances, question of legally enforceable debt/liability to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed by the complainant does not arise. So, the cheque amount is more than actual due amount. So, from this fact itself the initial presumption comes to an end and onus shifts on the complainant to prove the liability of the accused to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/- independently without the aid of presumption. He further argued that keeping apart the presumption, the complainant has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence as to how the accused is liable for the alleged amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. He further argued that unless there is specific contract regarding penal interest or delayed interest, complainant cannot charge interest @ 2% per month. Herein this case, the 11 C.C.No.9921/2018 complainant has charged 2% of penal interest only in order to make false claim Rs.1,50,000/-. So, on these grounds, complaint is liable to be dismissed and accused may be acquitted.
21. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court.
1. SCC (2003)1
2. SCC 9 July 2018
22. Per contra, learned counsel for complainant argued that when accused is not disputing the loan transaction of Rs.15,00,000/- and also the facts that cheque is belonged to his account and it bears his signature, then the mandatory presumption shall draw in favour of the complainant that he has received the cheque for legally enforceable debt. Hence, accused is liable for prosecution U/s.138 of NI Act.
23. He further argued that the alleged interest paid by the accused is subsequent to the compliant, which will not absolve the criminal liability of the accused. On the other hand, the facts and circumstances of the case clearly prove the version of the complainant that accused has 12 C.C.No.9921/2018 issued present cheque to discharge his liability of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, accused is liable to be convicted and maximum sentence may be imposed.
24. Having regard to the arguments of both counsels, before appreciating the defence of accused, it is worth to note the standard of proof required by accused to rebut the mandatory presumption already raised in favour of complainant.
25. At this juncture, it is worth to note ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said Rangappa V/s. Mohan's case wherein Hon'ble Court held that:
"It is a settled position that 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 prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, 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 the 13 C.C.No.9921/2018 accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own"
26. At this juncture, it is also worth to note judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2013)3 SCC 86 (Vijay V/s. Laxman and another) where it is held:
"Case set up by holder of cheque itself dubious, thus, held, initial presumption itself comes to an end"
It is further held that:
"Though the evidential burden is initially placed on the defendant by virtue of Section 118 it can be rebutted by the defendant by showing a preponderance of probabilities that such consideration as stated in the pronote, or in the suit notice or in the plaint does not exist and once the presumption is so rebutted, the said presumption "disappears". For the purpose of rebutting the initial evidential burden, the defendant can rely on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or on presumption of law or fact. Once such convincing rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the Court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the plaintiff who has also the legal burden"14 C.C.No.9921/2018
27. In the light of above ratio decedendi, if the present facts and situations are analyzed, as I have already pointed out, admittedly, as per version of the complainant himself, accused has repaid Rs.13,50,000/- principal and also interest of Rs.1,35,000/- after deducting TDS of Rs.15,000/- as reflected in Ex.P-11 account ledger extract maintained by complainant and Ex.D-1 bank statement of accused. It is further significant to note, above said undisputed Ex.P-11, Ex.D-1, Ex.D-2 and Ex.D-3 (payment voucher disputed), they clearly reveal that accused has made following payments to the complainant.
Date of payments Amount
04.05.2016 Rs.1,35,000/-
31.05.2016 Rs.1,50,000/-
29.06.2016 Rs.1,50,000/-
29.07.2016 Rs.1,50,000/-
30.08.2016 Rs.1,50,000/-
04.10.2016 Rs.1,50,000/-
08.11.2016 Rs.1,50,000/-
07.12.2016 Rs.1,50,000/-
06.02.2017 Rs.1,50,000/-
17.02.2017 Rs.1,50,000/-
28.07.2017 Rs.12,150/-
20.11.2017 Rs.21,000/-
15 C.C.No.9921/2018
19.07.2018 Rs.9,000/-
21.07.2018 Rs.4,500/-
Total Rs.15,31,650/-
28. So, from the above admitted payments, it is crystal clear that even prior to alleged cheque dated 28.01.2018, the accused has already paid Rs.15,18,150/- i.e., more than principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as on 20.11.2017. So, as on 20.11.2017 itself, the accused had paid above said Rs.15,18,150/- to complainant, then the complainant has not properly explained how the accused is still liable to pay Rs.1,50,000/- which is covered under the cheque dated 28.01.2018. So, from this serious doubtful circumstance, the initial presumption raised in favour of complainant comes to an end and disappears, thereby presumption is rebutted.
29. So, now the doctrine of reverse burden comes in to picture that is to say onus of proving the fact of liability of the accused shifts on the complainant and he has to prove the same independently without the aid of presumption, because presumption has already rebutted as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said judgment Vijay V/s. Laxman and another.
16 C.C.No.9921/2018
30. Whereas learned counsel for complainant argued that accused has repaid part principal amount of Rs.13,50,000/- in nine monthly installments @ Rs.1,50,000/- each and also paid interest Rs.1,35,000/- and for remaining balance principal of Rs.1,50,000/-, he issued the present cheque, whereas amount of Rs.12,150/-, Rs.9,000/- and Rs.4,500/- paid by the accused are adjusted as a overdue interest for delay and Ex.D-3 alleged payment voucher is not issued by complainant, whereas it is created by the accused only in order to show that he has made payment. Hence, said voucher cannot be looked into. On the other hand, the memo of calculation filed by the complainant substantiate the claim of the complainant that accused was due of Rs.1,50,000/- as on the date of issuance of cheque. Hence, same has to be taken into consideration etc.
31. Having regard to the arguments of learned counsel for accused, at this juncture, it is worth to note that PW-1, in his cross-examination, he clearly admitted:
"DgÉÆæUÉ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ±ÉÃPÀqÁ 1 gÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ §rØ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤ÃrzÀgÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ §rØAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 17 C.C.No.9921/2018 C¸À®Ä JµÀÄÖ ¨ÁQ EzÉAiÀiÁà CµÀÖPÉÌ ªÀiÁvÀæ §rØ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÄÁæAiÀÄÄ C¸À®Ä JµÀÄÖ ¨ÁQ EvÉÆÛà CµÀÖPÉÌ ªÀiÁvÀæ §rØ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÁªÀÅ ¤ÃrzÀ 15 ®PÀë C¸À°UÉ ±ÉÃPÀqÁ 1 gÀAvÉ §rØAiÀÄÄ 1,50,000/- DVzÀÄÝ, DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀj §rØAiÀÄ ºÀtPÉÌ n.r.J¸ï. 15 ¸Á«gÀ PÀrvÀ ªÀiÁr gÀÆ.1,35,000/- ¤ÃqÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ gÀÆ.1,35,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß DvÀ ZÉPï£À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ÃrzÀ£ÀÄ, D jÃw n.r.J¸ï. gÀÆ.15,000/- DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ PÀrvÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆj£À°è ºÉý®è. £ÁªÀÅ DgÉÆæUÉ ¸Á® ¤ÃrzÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°èAiÉÄà £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ §rØAiÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀgÀÄ"
"¢£ÁAPÀ 03.05.2016 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ gÀÆ.1,35,000/- ZÉPï£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAPïUÉ £ÀUÀ¢üÃPÀgÀtPÉÌ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉÝ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸Àj"
32. So, from the above evidence, it is crystal clear that though there is no specific condition to pay interest in a specified dates. However, the accused himself immediately after availing the loan, he has paid interest of Rs.1,35,000/- (after deducting TDS of Rs.15,000/-) on 18 C.C.No.9921/2018 entire principal amount in the very beginning i.e., on 04.05.2016 itself. So, this conduct of the accused indicates that he had no intention to keep interest due in the subsequent dates. It is further significant to note, on perusal of date of repayments made by the accused, except in the month of September, he regularly made payment of Rs.1,50,000/- in each month totaling to Rs.13,50,000/-. Moreover, he has also paid two installments in a same month of February within a span of ten days to compensate payment skipped in September. So, under such circumstances, when accused has paid entire interest well in advance, at the beginning itself and thereafter he made regular payments in the each month, then question of overdue interest for delay payments as claimed by complainant does not arise, because, it is not the case that accused made payments i.e., installments of principal along with interest. But, as I have already pointed out that accused has paid entire interest well in advance in the beginning itself.
33. It is significant to note, one more reason for not accepting the claim of complainant that PW-1 himself admitted that he used to charge interest only on the principal which was due as on the date of charging the 19 C.C.No.9921/2018 interest. If that is the case, for each payment of Rs.1,50,000/-, interest would be reduced. So, under such circumstances, question of overdue of principal or interest does not arise. Even otherwise, at the cost of repetition, as I have already pointed out, the accused has paid entire interest on entire principal amount well in advance in the beginning itself and he paid regular installments in every month. So, under such circumstances, question of accruing interest or overdue interest does not arise. So, under such circumstances, the contention of the complainant that he has adjusted Rs.12,150/-, Rs.9,000/- and Rs.4,500/- towards overdue interest for delay cannot be accepted.
34. It is further significant to note, even though ignoring the following payments made by accused i.e., Rs.21,000/- on 20.11.2017 as reflected in Ex.D-3 as complainant disputes the same and payment of Rs.9,000/- on 19.07.2018 and payment of Rs.4,500/- on 21.07.2018 as reflected in the bank account statement of the accused which are subsequent payments i.e., after the cheque dated 28.01.2018, but so for as payment of Rs.12,150/- paid by the accused on 28.07.2017 i.e., prior to cheque 20 C.C.No.9921/2018 date should be adjusted as principal and same has to be deducted in Rs.1,50,000/-. So, it comes only Rs.1,37,850/-. So, it can be easily stated the cheque amount is more than existing liability. So, under such circumstances, the crucial question arises as to whether Section 138 can be attracted when cheque amount is more than the amount of actual debt due?
35. At this juncture, it is worth to note ratio laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the judgment reported in 2001 SCC Online Mad 922 (Angu Parameswari Textiles (P) Ltd., and other V/s. Sri. Rajam and Co.) wherein it is held:
"If the cheque is more than the amount of the debt due, Section 138 cannot be attracted"
36. At this juncture, it is also worth to note, ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2013)8 SCC 71 (Mrs. Aparna A. Shah V/s. M/s. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd.,) wherein it is held that:
"The penal provision must be strictly construed"21 C.C.No.9921/2018
"The proceedings filed U/s.138 of NI Act, cannot be used as an arm twisting tactics to recover the amount allegedly due"
37. So, in the light of above principle, if the present facts and situations are analyzed, as I have already pointed, present cheque amount is more than actual due amount. So, under such circumstances, Section 138 cannot be attracted, because penal provision has to be strictly construed and proceedings U/s.138 of NI Act cannot be used as arm twisting tactics to recover actual due amount from the accused as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said judgment. Hence, I do not find any force in the arguments of learned counsel for complainant. Hence, I hold this point in the Negative.
38. Point No.2: In view of discussion made on point No.1, this point does not survive for consideration. Hence, I hold this point accordingly.
39. Point No.3: For the foregoing reasons discussed on points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) r/w Section 264 of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.22 C.C.No.9921/2018
The bail bonds of the accused and surety bonds stands cancelled.
However, accused shall execute personal bond of Rs.1,50,000/- in view of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Directly dictated to Stenographer on computer, computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of January, 2020) (V. NAGARAJA) XXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW-1 : Manoj Bhatia LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P-1 : Cheque
Ex.P-2 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P-3 : Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P-4 : Postal Receipts
Ex.P-5 to 7 : Postal Acknowledgement Cards
Ex.P-8 : On Demand Promissory Note
Ex.P-9 : Consideration Receipt
Ex.P-10 : SPA
Ex.P-11 : Account Ledger Extract
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
DW-1 : Prabhu P.B. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D-1 & 2 : Statement of Accounts
Ex.D-3 : Payment Voucher
Ex.D-4 : Stop Payment Letter
Ex.D-5 : Letter
(V. NAGARAJA)
XXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.