Bangalore District Court
Smt.T.A.Pushpa Yadav vs Dr. S.Nagaraj on 14 January, 2022
1
C.C.No. 8576/2015
THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 14th day of January 2022
Present: Sri.S.B.HANDRAL, B.Sc., L.L.B(SPL).,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No. 8576/2015
Complainant : Smt.T.A.Pushpa Yadav,
Wife of Shivashankar.K.N.
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at No.64,
3rd Floor, Annaiah Ashraya,
Lalbagh Siddapura,
Jayanagara 1st Block,
Bengaluru - 560 011.
(Rep. by Sri.S.R.Sreenivasa Murthy,
Adv.,)
Vs
Accused : Dr. S.Nagaraj,
Son of Late Subbanna,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing/Working at
Siddalingappa Memorial
Hospital, Konankunte Cross,
Kanakapura Road,
Bengaluru 560 062.
(Rep. by Sri.Ravi kumar, Adv.,)
2
C.C.No. 8576/2015
Case instituted : 26.2.2015
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 14.01.2022
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that, she is a social worker and working for NGO organization run by various NGO's and got a good reputation in social service in this regard, the accused was also contributed his services for the NGO organization run by NGO's, out of the said social service the accused came to know her and for her outstanding service, thereby a sort of intimacy has been developed in exchanging the various works supporting the NGO's cause. The complainant further contends that, out of their intimacy, the accused requested her to lend a sum of Rs.7 Lakhs for his urgent necessities and agreed to repay the 3 C.C.No. 8576/2015 same within a month or two, believing the status and service of the accused, she has paid a sum of Rs.7 lakhs by way of cash by arranging the said funds through her friends and paid the same to the accused in the month of November 2014, to instill her confidence, the accused has given a post dated cheque bearing No.507232 dt:11.1.2015 for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs drawn on state Bank of Mysore, Sarakki Branch, Bangalore in her favour and before presenting the said cheque, she tried to contact the accused over the mobile phone intimating that, the cheque given by the accused was due for encashment on 11.1.2015, but intentionally the accused avoided her either to talk in person or through mobile. The complainant further contends that, she presented the said cheque for encashment through her banker ie Karnataka Bank Ltd., Wilson Garden Branch, Bangalore on 14.1.2015, but the said cheque was came to be bounced with a shara "Funds Insufficient" , thereafter she got issued legal notice dt; 2.2.2015 through RPAD calling upon him to pay the cheque amount to her and the said notice was received by the accused but nor replied. Hence the complainant has filed this present 4 C.C.No. 8576/2015 complainant against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Before issuing process against the accused, the Complainant has filed her affidavitinlieu of her sworn statement, in which, she has reiterated the averments of the complaint. In support of her sworn statement, P.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 i.e, original Cheque dt:11.1.2015 as per Ex P.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 is that of the accused as per Ex.P.1(a), Bank challan as per Ex.P.2, Bank Memo as per Ex.P.3, the office copy of the Legal Notice as per Ex.P.4, Postal acknowledgement as per Ex.P.5.
4. Primafacie case has been made out against the accused and summons was issued against the accused in turn accused appeared before the court and got enlarged on bail and the substance of the accusation has been read over to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. Thereafter, the statement of the accused as 5 C.C.No. 8576/2015 required under Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and has chosen to lead his rebuttal evidence, subsequently the accused himself examined as DW1 and he has not produced any documentary evidence.
6. Heard the arguments by learned counsel for the complainant and accused and also perused the written argument submitted by the learned counsel for the accused and materials on record and the learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the decisions 1) 2020 (3) AKR 778 , 2) 2020 (3) KCCR 2109 3) 2020 (1) KCCR 505 and 4) 2020 (4) KCCR 3065.
7. On the basis of complaint, evidence of complainant and documents and having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and accused, the following points that are arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued cheque bearing No. 507232 dated:
11.1.2015 for Rs.7,00,000/ drawn 6 C.C.No. 8576/2015 on State bank of Mysore, Sarakki Branch, Bangalore to discharge legally recoverable debt to the complainant and when the complainant has presented the above said cheques for encashment through his banker but the said cheques have been dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" on 14.1.2015 and the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 2.2.2015 and inspite of it the accused has not paid the cheques amount within prescribed period there by the accused has committed an offence U/s.138 of the Negotiable instruments Act?
2. What Order?
8. The above points are answered as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2:As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1: Before appreciation of the facts and oral and documentary evidence of the present case, it is relevant to mention that under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to establish guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts 7 C.C.No. 8576/2015 however, a proceedings U/s.138 of N.I.Act is quasi criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond all reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions as envisaged U/s.118, 139 and 136 of N.I.Act. An essential ingredient of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act is that, whether a person issues cheque to be encashed and the cheque so issued is towards payment of debt or liability and if it is returned as unpaid for want of funds, then the person issuing such cheque shall be deemed to have been committed an offence. The offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act presupposes three conditions for prosecution of an offence which are as under:
1. Cheque shall be presented for payment within specified time i.e., from the date of issue or before expiry of its validity.
2. The holder shall issue a notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer within one month from the date of receipt of information of the bounced cheque and
3. The drawer inspite of demand notice fails to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice.8
C.C.No. 8576/2015 If the above said three conditions are satisfied by holder in due course gets cause action to launch prosecution against the drawer of the bounced cheque and as per Sec.142(b) of the N.I. Act, the complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arise to file complaint.
10. It is also one of the essential ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act that, a cheque in question must have been issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I.Act envisages certain presumptions i.e., U/s.118 a presumption shall be raised regarding 'consideration' 'date' 'transfer' 'endorsement' and holder in course of Negotiable Instrument. Even Sec.139 of the Act are rebuttable presumptions shall be raised that, the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally recoverable or enforceable debt and these presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in cases of negotiable instrument, but the said presumptions are not conclusive and rebuttable one, this proportion of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in catena 9 C.C.No. 8576/2015 of decisions.
11. In the present case the complainant got examined as PW.1 by filing her affidavit evidence wherein she has reiterated the entire averments of the complaint and in her evidence testified that, she is a social worker and working for NGO organization run by various NGO's and got a good reputation in social service in this regard, the accused was also contributed his services for the NGO organization run by NGO's, out of the said social service the accused came to know her and for her outstanding service, thereby a sort of intimacy has been developed in exchanging the various works supporting the NGO's cause. The complainant/PW.1 further testified that, out of their intimacy, the accused requested her to lend a sum of Rs.7 Lakhs for his urgent necessities and agreed to repay the same within a month or two, believing the status and service of the accused, she has paid a sum of Rs.7 lakhs by way of cash by arranging the said funds through her friends and paid the same to the accused in the month of November 2014, to instill her confidence, the accused has given a post dated 10 C.C.No. 8576/2015 cheque bearing No.507232 dt:11.1.2015 for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs drawn on state Bank of Mysore, Sarakki Branch, Bangalore in her favour and before presenting the said cheque, she tried to contact the accused over the mobile phone intimating that, the cheque given by the accused was due for encashment on 11.1.2015, but intentionally the accused avoided her either to talk in person or through mobile. The complainant/PW.1 further testified that, she presented the said cheque for encashment through her banker ie Karnataka Bank Ltd., Wilson Garden Branch, Bangalore on 14.1.2015, but the said cheque was came to be bounced with a shara "Funds Insufficient" , thereafter she got issued legal notice dt; 2.2.2015 through RPAD calling upon him to pay the cheque amount to her and the said notice was received by the accused but nor replied.
12. In support of her sworn statement, P.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 i.e, original Cheque dt:11.1.2015 as per Ex P.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 is that of the accused as per 11 C.C.No. 8576/2015 Ex.P.1(a), Bank challan as per Ex.P.2, Bank Memo as per Ex.P.3, the office copy of the Legal Notice as per Ex.P.4, Postal acknowledgement as per Ex.P.5.
13. In the present case, there is no dispute between the complainant and Accused with regard to their acquaintance. It is not in dispute by the accused that, the cheque in question ie., Ex.P.1 belongs the account of the accused and signature found at Ex.P.1(a) is that of signature of accused. The accused has also not disputed that, the cheque in question was presented to the encashment within its validity period and the said cheque has been returned as dishonoured for the reason of "Funds insufficient" as per the returned memo issued by the concerned bank i.e Ex.P.3, hence as a matter on record it is proved by the complainant that, the cheque in question was dishonoured for the reason of Funds Insufficient. Hence, the accused has admitted that, cheque in question belongs to his account and signature found on the cheque in question is that of his signature and the cheque in question has been presented within its validity period and same has been dishonoured for the 12 C.C.No. 8576/2015 reason of Funds Insufficient. It is also not in dispute by the accused that, the legal notice caused by the complainant was within 30 days from the date of receipt of bank memo but the accused has denied the service of legal notice on him.
14. On the other hand the complainant in order to prove the service of notice upon the Accused, has produced the documents i.e copy of the bank endorsement, legal notice, postal acknowledgement which are at Ex.P.3 to P.5 respectively. On perusal of the Ex.P.3 to P.5 it appears that, the complainant has issued legal notice within 30 days from the date of receipt of endorsement of the bank and the said notice was sent through RPAD and the said RPAD was duly served on the accused as per Ex.P.5 ie postal acknowledgement which was received on behalf of the accused. Hence, the documents produced by the complainant makes it clear that, the legal notice issued by the complainant was served on the accused. It is true that, during the course of cross examination of the complainant she ignored the suggestion made to her that, the signature found on 13 C.C.No. 8576/2015 Ex.P.5 is not of the accused but she denied the suggestion that, she got created and has produced the documents by colluding with the postal department to show that, the legal notice was received by the accused. In order to substantiate the defence ie., the complainant has produced the documents by colluding with the postal department, the accused except oral suggestion to the complainant nothing has been produced before the court. If really the complainant got colluded with the postal department and created the documents, definitely the accused would have proved this fact by examining the concerned officials of the postal authorities, but the accused except making suggestion has not made any efforts to prove his defence, therefore mere suggestion that, the complainant by colluding with the postal department got created the Ex.P.5 ie., postal acknowledgement cannot be acceptable one. In addition to that, in his cross examination categorically admitted that, he is running a big hospital and there are 15 persons working in his hospital and if any letters send to his hospital, the concerned staff will receive the said letters and in turn they will hand over the same to 14 C.C.No. 8576/2015 him. The accused has also not denied the suggestion specifically posed to him that, the legal notice issued by the complainant was received by the staff of his hospital, hence it goes to show that, the accused himself has not denied the suggestion that, his staff in the hospital have received the legal notice caused by the complainant and admitted also that, his staff used to receive the letters addressed to his hospital, in such circumstances the very admissions of the accused corroborates the claim of the complainant that, the legal notice issued by her was received by the accused as per Ex.P.5.
15. In addition to the above, it is also relevant here to mention that, though the accused has denied the receipt of legal notice issued by the complainant as per Ex.P.5 ie., postal acknowledgement, but has not denied the fact that, the complainant got issued legal notice to his correct address through RPAD and the accused nowhere denied the address mentioned by the complainant in the legal notice or postal acknowledgement ie Ex.P.4 and P.5 respectively , hence it goes to show that, the complainant has issued legal notice through RPAD 15 C.C.No. 8576/2015 to the correct address of the accused and same has been received by the accused as per Ex.P.5, in such circumstances, it can be held that, the notice sent by the complainant to the correct address of the Accused is presumed to have been served on him U/s. 27 of General Clauses Act. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2011 ACD 1572 (KAR) in the case of Jayamma Vs. Lingamma, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, "Notice sent at correct address returned unclaimed - is deemed to be served. It is also relevant here to refer the decision reported in 2008(4) Civil code cases 027 (SC) "M/s. Indo Automobiles Vs., M/s. Jai Durga Enterprises and others." wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "notice sent by registered post with acknowledgement to a correct addressservice of notice has to be presumed". Therefore in view of the principles of law in the above decisions, it can be safely held that, the service of notice on accused in this case is presumed to have been served on him since in this case also the complainant has issued notice to the 16 C.C.No. 8576/2015 accused to his correct address through registered post and the said notice was served on the accused, hence the notice issued by the complainant through registered post is held to be proper. In addition to that, it is relevant here to refer the decision reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3578 in the case of C.C.Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and another., wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that " the drawer of the cheque is permitted to deposit the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of his appearance before the court in pursuance of the service of summons on him and in such situation, his defence of non service of the legal notice cannot be available to him'. Hence, in view of the said principles of law, even for sake of discussion, though there is no cogent and reliable documentary proof to substantiate the claim of the complainant with regard to address of the Accused to show there is due service of the legal notice on the Accused, in view of settled position of law by virtue of the above said decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, the Accused is not entitled to the technical defence of the alleged non service of the legal notice.
17C.C.No. 8576/2015 Therefore, the argument convassed by the learned counsel for the accused in the written argument that, the notice issued by the complainant was not served on the accused and the complainant has not complied the mandatory requirements of Sec.138(b) of N.I.Act and complaint is not maintainable cannot be acceptable. Hence, on careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant, makes it clear that, complainant has complied all the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138(a) to (c) of N.I.Act and initial presumptions can be drawn in favour of the complainant as required U/s.118 (a) and 139 of N.I.Act.
16. The accused in his defence has denied the transaction in question and also issuance of the cheque in dispute towards discharge of liability in question. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused has cross examined the complainant in length but nothing has been elicited either to discredit or discard the evidence of the complainant. The accused has more concentrated on production of documents by the complainant with regard to her 18 C.C.No. 8576/2015 source of income and also collection of document by the complainant at the time of lending of the loan amount. The complainant in her cross examination has specifically stated that, he came to know about the accused through the sister of the accused by name Aruna and since 1996 she knows the accused and except the transaction in question there are no other transaction between her and the accused. It is specifically stated by the complainant that, at the time of lending of the loan amount to the accused herself, accused and sister of the accused were present. It is relevant here to mention that, the complainant in her complaint and evidence has specifically stated that, the accused being a doctor and well acquainted to her in serving the common man by way of NGO organization such as medical shop and assisting the down trodon and catering to the needs of down trodon and requested a sum of Rs.7 Lakhs as hand loan for that, she was having certain amount of money and also adjusted the remaining money through her friend and paid a sum of Rs.7 Lakhs to the accused, but the accused has not stated the name of the person from whom she has arranged the money. It is also relevant here to 19 C.C.No. 8576/2015 mention that, during the course of cross examination she has stated that, she has arranged the money from one Mr. Manohar and paid the said amount to the accused. It is also relevant here to mention that, the accused during the course of cross examination has suggested that, " ಆರರರಪಗ ದ ನನನ ಕರಟಟರನವ ಹಣ ಮನರರಹರಗ ಸರರದನ ಎಎದರ ಸರಯಲಲ. further suggested that, ಮನರರಹರರವರನ ಆರರರಪಗ ಬಎಗಳರರನಲ ಹಣ ಕರಟಟರನತತರ ಎಎದರ ಸರಯಲಲ ಮನರರಹರ ದ ನಎತರ ನನನ ಆರರರಪಗ ಬಎಗಳರರನಲ ರವರನ ನನಗ ಹಣ ಕರಟಟ ದನ ಕರಟಟರನತತರನ ಎಎದನ ಉತತರಸರನತತರ. ಆರರರಪಗ ಮನರರಹರ ರವರಗ ಹಣ ಕರಡಬರಕನ ಎಎದರ ಸರಯಲಲ ಆದರ ನನಗ ಕರಡಬರಕಎದನ ಉತತರಸರನತತರ". hence the very suggestions goes to show that, though the accused has denied entire claim of the complainant including the acquittance of the accused and also receipt of the loan amount, but the accused during the course of cross examination of the complainant has admitted by suggesting that, whatever the amount paid by the complainant belongs to one Manohar and accused is liable to pay the said amount to the said Manohar but not to the complainant, but the complainant has specifically stated that, she has mobilized the 20 C.C.No. 8576/2015 loan amount from her friends ie., Manohar and after receiving the said amount from the Manohar in turn she had given to the said amount to the accused, therefore the accused has admitted the receipt of amount from the complainant but it is the defence of the accused that, the said amount has been given by one Mr. Manohar in this regard accused has not produced any evidence or examined the said Manohar, hence it goes to show that, the accused has clearly admitted receipt of the amount from the complainant.
17. No doubt, the complainant in her legal notice, complaint and evidence has not stated the name of the person from whom she having arranged the funds but during the course of her cross examination she has clearly stated that, she has mobilized the said funds from one Mr.Manohar, therefore non mentioning the name of the person from whom she had arranged the fund in the legal notice, complaint and evidence might be a lapse on the part of the complainant, however it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the entire case of the complainant. If this court were to doubt the case of 21 C.C.No. 8576/2015 the complainant only because she need not pleaded name of her friend from whom she arranged the funds so as to lend the same to the accused, then the very purpose of inserting the presumption U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act would become purposeless and futile. Therefore when the statute has already provided the presumptive value in respect of a cheque which is admittedly issued by the accused to the complainant, the court cannot interpret the other facts in a way around so as to take away very object of inserting such presumptions in the statute. Therefore there is no reason for this court to doubt the case of the complainant only by laying stress on the fact that, the complainant has not produced the documents to show the source through which she claims to have arrange the funds, therefore for the said reasons the defence raised by the accused during the course of cross examination cannot be acceptable one. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision in the case of Lekhraja sharma V/s. Yeshpal Gupta decided by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay wherein it is held that " when the signature on 22 C.C.No. 8576/2015 the cheque is admitted by the accused to be his own, the non production of the witness by the complainant, from whom he claims to have arranged the funds so as to lend the accused is immaterial". Therefore the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay are squarely applicable to the case on hand since in this case also the complainant though she claimed that, she has mobilized the amount from her friend ie. Manohar and in turn same has been lent to the accused but she has not produced the document and also not examined the said person but on the contrary the accused himself admitted that, cheque in question belongs to his account and signature on the cheque is also that of his signature, in such circumstances the defence raised by the accused is immaterial. Therefore on entire perusal of the cross examination of the PW.1, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of complainant or accept the defence of the accused
18. It is important to note here that, the accused in his defence has not only denied the 23 C.C.No. 8576/2015 existence of loan transaction in question and also issuance of cheque i.e Ex.P.1 towards discharge of the loan transaction in question but also contended that, the complainant has not produced the documents to show her source of income. But the perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant i.e Ex.P.1 to P.5 and admitted facts by the Accused, the complainant has proved that the cheque in question belongs to the account of the Accused i.e ExP.1 and signature found at Ex.P.1(a) is that of the signature of the Accused and also proved that, the cheque in question was presented within its validity period and it was dishonoured for the reason of "Funds Insufficient" as per Ex.P.3 and thereafter a legal notice was caused by the complainant as per Ex.P.4 through RPAD to the Accused and it was served on the accused, in such circumstances, it can be held that, the complainant has discharged her initial burden by complying the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of N.I. Act and initial presumptions are available in favour of the complainant U/s.118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act. Consequently it is for the Accused to rebut the presumptions available in 24 C.C.No. 8576/2015 favour of the complainant to show that, the cheque in question was not issued either to the complainant or towards discharge of any legally recoverable debt by producing cogent and convincible evidence but not mere suggestions or even by plausible explanation. In such circumstances, when the presumptions U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act are available to the complainant, even a presumption can be drawn to the extent of existence of legally recoverable debt or liability against the Accused unless and until the said presumptions are rebutted by the Accused, even in the absence of documents produced by the complainant with regard to loan transaction in question. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decisions reported in 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 between 'M/s.Devi Tyres V/s.Navab Jan' and in 2011 ACD 1521 (KAR) between 'Smt. Usha Suresh V/s. Shashidharn', in 2010 SC 1898 between 'Rangappa Vs. Mohan' and 2011 ACD 1412 (KAR) between 'N.Hasainar Vs. M.Hasainar, S/o. Ibrahim'. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above decision i.e., 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 at para No.6 was pleased to 25 C.C.No. 8576/2015 hold that issuance of cheque itself was an adequate proof of existence of debt or liability. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India i.e. Hon'ble Three Judges Bench Decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan ., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - S.139 -
Presumption under- scope of - Held, presumption mandated by S. 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability-However such
presumption is rebuttable in nature - Criminal Trial - Proof - Presumptions - Generally. Further held that "Signature on the cheque was his, statutory presumption under S.139 comes into play and the same was not rebutted even with regard to the materials submitted by complainant Appellant not able to prove "lost cheque" theory - Apart from not raising a probable defence appellant was also not able to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability-hence, his conviction by High 26 C.C.No. 8576/2015 Court, held, proper. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, reported in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2018 DT 15032018 between ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR held that "Negotiable Instruments Act facts like source of funds are not relevant if the Accused has not been able to rebut the presumption. It is further held that " When such a presumption is drawn, the facts relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the Accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not". In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "
Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption under - burden to prove - the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the 27 C.C.No. 8576/2015 cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence U/s.138 of NI Act. It is also held that, " the accused has failed to lead any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, a finding returned by both the Trial Court and High Court. Both courts not only erred in law but also committed perversity when the due amount is said to be disputed only on the account of discrepancy in the cartons, packing materials or the rate to determine the total liability as if the appellant was proving his debt before the civil court. Therefore it is presumed that, the cheque in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques received the same 28 C.C.No. 8576/2015 in existing debt". It is also held that, "the Trial court and the High Court proceeded as if, the appellant is to prove a debt before civil Court wherein, the plaintiff is required to prove his claim on the basis of evidence to be laid in support of his claim for the recovery of the amount due. A dishonour of cheque carries statutory presumption of consideration. The holder of cheque in due course is required to prove that, the cheque was issued by the Accused and that when the same presented , it was not honoured Since there is a statutory presumption of consideration, the burden is on the Accused to rebut the presumption that, the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability". It is also relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2019 KAR 493 in the case of Sri.Yogesh Poojary Vs. Sri.K.Shankara Bhat, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, the presumption mandated by Sec.139 of N.I Act includes the presumption that, there existed a legally 29 C.C.No. 8576/2015 enforceable debt or liability, however such presumption is rebuttable in nature". In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Shri.V.R.Shresti Vs. Shri. Bhaskara.P. in Crl. Appeal No. 2109/2017 dated: 15.10.2019 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "the Accused has not given any reply to the notice and also in the crossexamination, he categorically admits that, the cheque has bounced on account of no sufficient fund in the bank account of the Accused. Mere non producing of the document before the court with regard to the source of income to advance a loan is not a ground to dismiss the complaint. The Accused ought to have rebutted the contention of the complainant by producing cogent evidence before the court and mere denial is not enough". In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in ICL 2021(2) SC 529 in the case of M/s. Kalamani Tex Vs. P.Balasubramanian , dt: 10.02.2021 wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that " once the 30 C.C.No. 8576/2015 accused had admitted his signatures on the cheque and deed, the trial court ought to have presumed that, the cheque was issued as consideration for legally enforceable debt". In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of Indian in Crl. Appeal No.132/2020 in the case of D. K. Chandel Vs. M/s Wockhardt (L) wherein it is held that, "Production of account books / cash book may be relevant in the civil court, may not be so in the criminal case filed under Sec.138 of N.I. Act while restoring the trial court judgments, the High Court observed that "the reason given by the lower Appellate Court that, he did not bring the cash book or order book etc., could well be understood, if civil suit is tried." But may not be so in the criminal case filed under Sec.138 of N.I. Act. This is because of presumption raised in favour of holder of cheque. Therefore on careful reading of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and High Court of Karnataka in the above referred decisions makes it very clear that, 31 C.C.No. 8576/2015 once the holder in due course i.e. the complainant proved that, the cheque in question belongs to the drawer and signature appearing on the cheque is that of the drawer i.e., Accused and complied the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of N.I.Act, presumptions U/s.118(a) and 139 of N.I.Act indeed does extend to the existence of legally recoverable debt and when such presumption is drawn, the facts relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence regarding source of funds were not of relevant unless the Accused rebutted the presumption available to the complainant as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court of Karnataka in the above decisions. In the present case also the complainant has complied the mandatory requirements and has proved that, the Accused has issued the cheque in question in her favour and the Accused has admitted the cheque belongs to his account and his signature on the cheque and complainant has proved that the legal notice issued by her was served on the Accused in such circumstances, presumptions have to be drawn even to the extent of existence of legally enforceable debt 32 C.C.No. 8576/2015 as per Sec.118(a) and 139 of N.I.Act. Therefore the defence taken by the Accused appears that, the complainant has to prove her claim by producing her evidence as if it is required for proving her debt before the Civil Court, but same cannot be permissible in proceeding initiated U/s.138 of N.I. Act, as held by the Hon'ble Apex court of India in the above referred decisions, therefore in view of the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions, it is presumed that, cheque in question was drawn for consideration as the Accused has admitted the cheque in question belongs to him account and the signature found on the cheque in question is that of his signature, therefore for the above said reasons, the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel of the accused at para No. 4 to 11 and 1 to 15 in the written argument ie., the complainant has not produced the documents to show her source of income and has not examined one Mr. Manohar alleged to be given the amount to the complainant and the complainant has not produced the documents to show that, the accused has received the loan amount in question and has issued the cheque in question towards discharge of 33 C.C.No. 8576/2015 the loan amount as claimed by the complainant and has not produced the document to show that, she is a social worker and working with various NGO organizations and having sufficient source of income and has not produced the document to show that, she is an engineering graduate and consultant and having licence to that effect and other arguments canvassed in the above stated paras of the written argument cannot be acceptable one and sustainable in law, since the accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumptions available to the complainant.
19. In order to rebut the presumptions available to the complainant, the accused himself examined as DW.1 and in his evidence has stated that, he have not received any amount from the complainant and not issued disputed cheuqe to her. The accused /DW.1 further deposed that, his sister Miss. Aruna was obtained the hand loan from the complainant for the purpose of medical expenses to her husband , at that time the complainant asked one Surety with the said Aruna, hence his sister requested him to give two signed blank cheques, 34 C.C.No. 8576/2015 accordingly he have issued the cheques to his sister. The accused further deposed that, he have not received any demand notice from the complainant and if he have received the demand notice at the same time he would have issued reply to the same and there is no transaction between him and the complainant as claimed by the complainant and the complainant unnecessarily filing cases against him for unlawful gain by misusing the cheques given by him to his sister.
20. On careful perusal of the defence of the accused it goes to show that according to the accused he had not received any amount from the complainant and has not issued cheque in question to her but his sister by name Miss. Aruna obtained a hand loan from the complainant for the purpose of medical expenses to her husband and at that time the complainant requested one surety and inturn his sister has requested him to give two signed blank cheque, accordingly he issued the cheques to his sister and the said cheque is misused by the complainant. In order to prove the said defence except the oral evidence nothing has been produced 35 C.C.No. 8576/2015 before the court by the accused, if really his sister has obtained loan from the complainant and inturn at the request of his sister he has issued the signed blank cheques to his sister and inturn his sister has given his cheques to the complainant towards surety, definitely the accused would have examined his own sister ie., Miss.Aruna to prove his defence but the accused has not examined his sister for his unrevealed reasons and Miss Aruna is a material witness to prove the defence of the accused but the accused for his best reasons known to him has withhold the material witness from examining before the court, therefore the defence of the accused cannot be acceptable one. It is important here to mention that, the accused during the course of cross examination of the complainant has denied the claim of the complainant and in toto also her acquittance with him and also denied the financial capacity and also lending of loan amount and also production of the documents, but during his evidence has admitted that, the complainant has advanced loan amount to his sister Miss. Aruna for the purpose of medical expenses to her husband and also admitted that, he had issued blank signed 36 C.C.No. 8576/2015 cheque to his sister and in turn the said cheques have been given to the complainant as surety, in such circumstances it goes to show that, though the accused has denied the acquittance and financial capacity of the complainant and lending of loan amount by the complainant but has admitted her acquaintance , financial capacity and lending of loan amount in his evidence only, therefore the conduct of the accused ie., inconsistent defence taken by him during the course of cross examination of the complainant and in his evidence cannot be acceptable one. It is also important here to refer that, it is the specific defence of the accused that, the complainant has lend loan amount but according to him, her sister was obtained loan from the complainant and he had given a blank signed cheque to his sister as the complainant demanded surety for advancing loan amount to his sister and in turn the blank signed cheque was given to the complainant by his sister and same has been misused by the complainant but the accused has not produced any documentary proof or examined his sister to prove the said defence on the contrary the receipt of loan amount from the complainant 37 C.C.No. 8576/2015 remained as it is. If really the sister of the accused received the loan amount and cheque in question was issued by the accused as blank signed cheque towards surety to the said loan amount the same has to be proved by the accused but the accused has not proved the said defence in such circumstances an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused that, in order to over come the liability to pay the cheque amount in question, the accused has taken such defence but not for any other reason since the accused has admitted that, cheque in question belongs to his account and signature found on the cheque is that of his signature and also issuance of the cheque in favour of the complainant, therefore a presumption would arises in favour of the complainant U/s.139 of N.I.At as the cheque in question was issued by the accused towards discharge of the liability in question not for the surety to the loan amount obtained by the sister of the accused as stated by the accused in his defence. Therefore on entire perusal of the defence of the accused it appears that, except the oral say ie. self serving statement of the accused nothing has been produced before th court to prove his defence or to 38 C.C.No. 8576/2015 rebut the presumptions available to the complainant as U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act and to shift the onus of proof on the complainant.
21. In addition to the above, if really the accused had given his two signed blank cheques to his sister towards surety in respect of the loan obtained from the complainant for the purpose of medical expenses to her husband and the complainant in turn by misusing his cheques given to his sister and has filed this false complaint against him, definitely the accused would have taken action or filed complaint against the complainant or his sister Miss. Aruna by alleging that, his blank signed cheques were misused by the complainant or atleast he would have issued stop payment instructions to his bank authority but no such efforts have been made by the accused prior to the presentation of the cheque in question to the bank for encashment or even the accused has not disclosed his defence by issuing reply to the notice caused by the complainant though it was served on him, therefore the conduct of the accused in non taking of action against the complainant or against 39 C.C.No. 8576/2015 his sister in respect of alleged misuse of cheque in question may leads to draw an adverse inference against the accused that, he has not taken any action against the complainant or his sister about his alleged misuse of cheque since the cheque in question was issued by the accused to the complainant towards discharge of his liability in question but not for any other reason. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2018 SC 3601 in a case of T.P.Murugan(dead) Thr. Lrs.V. Bhojan Vs. Posa Nandi, rep. Thr. Lrs. PA holder, T.P. Murugan V. Bhojan, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that "Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) Ss.118, 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption as to enforceable debt cheques allegedly issued by accused towards repayment of debt Defence of accused that 10 cheques issued towards repayment of loan back in 1995 - behavior of accused in allegedly issuing 10 blank cheques back in 1995 and never asking their return for 40 C.C.No. 8576/2015 7 years, unnatural - Accused admitting his signature on cheques and pronote, presumption under S.139 would operate against him - Complainant proving existence of legally enforceable debt and issuance of cheques towards discharge of such debt Conviction, Proper." Hence by applying the above principles of law to the present facts of the case in the present case the Accused has not produced any documents to prove his defence, under such circumstances, it can be held that, the accused has not made any effort to get return of the cheque in question alleged to have been given to his sister, in such circumstances, the said unnatural conduct of the accused in non taking of action may leads to draw an adverse inference against the accused that, the cheque in question issued by the accused only towards discharge of the liability and presumption U/s.139 of N.I. Act would operate against him, as he has admitted the signature and cheque in question belongs to him.
22. It is relevant here to mention that, the 41 C.C.No. 8576/2015 complainant during the course of her cross examination has admitted that, she herself has written contents of the cheque in question ie Ex.P.1 and also written the date on the cheque and has presented the said cheque to the bank. The learned counsel for the accused in the written argument has much argued on the above stated admissions of the complainant by contending that, the complainant herself admitted that, she had written the date and contents of the cheque in question and presented the cheque to the bank itself goes to show that, the complainant has misused the blank signed cheque given by the accused towards surety , therefore though there is no transaction between the accused and the complainant and the accused is not liable to pay any amount despite of it the complainant misused the blank signed cheque of the accused which was collected from the sister of the accused and has field this false complaint against the accused. So far as concerned to the above line of argument of the learned counsel for the accused, as it is already held in the above that, the accused has miserably failed to prove that, he had issued a blank signed cheque to his sister towards surety in 42 C.C.No. 8576/2015 respect of the loan obtained from complainant and even the complainant has not admitted in her cross examination that, the accused has issued blank signed cheque to his sister and same has been collected by her while lending the loan amount to the sister of the accused but mere admitting that she had written the contents of the cheque and date and presented the cheque to the bank, it cannot be held that, complainant had misused the cheque in question or the cheque was issued by the accused as blank signed cheque and subsequently it has been misused by the complainant. It is an admitted fact by the accused that, the cheque in question belongs to his account and signature found on the cheque is that of his signature, in such circumstances it can be held that, once signature on the negotiable instrument act is admitted, in that circumstances sec. 20 of N.I. Act comes into play i.e. as per Sec. 20 of N.I.Act if the blank or incomplete Negotiable Instrument is given to the holder in due course, it is to be presumed that, he had given authority to the holder in due course to fill up the remaining portion. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 43 C.C.No. 8576/2015 2006 KAR 2054 in the case of H.S.Srinivasa Vs. Girijamma and another wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that " a reading of sec.20 of the act which is extracted above reveals that, the words used are ' either wholly blank or having written therein an incomplete negotiable instrument' . The instrument may be wholly blank or incomplete in a particular in either case, the holder has authority to make or complete the instrument as a negotiable one. The authority implied by a signature to a blank instrument is so vide that, the party so signing is bound to be a holder in due course. Promissory notes are often executed in the name of the payer and left unfilled to be afterwards filled by the actual holder, the object being to enable the owner to pass it off to another without incurring the responsibility as an endorser. Thus, it is seen that, person in possession of an incomplete instrument in maternal particulars has the authority prima facie to fill it and thus the executants becomes liable to pay the amount 44 C.C.No. 8576/2015 due'. In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras reported in 2005 (1) DCR 85 in the case of P.A.Thamatharan Vs. Dalmia cements (B) Ltd., wherein it is held that " Negotiable Instrument Act 1991 - Sec. 138 - dishonour of cheque - plea
-body of cheque was not written by Accused - held it is not mandatory and no law prescribes that, the body of cheque should also be written by the signatory to the cheque, a cheque could be filled up anybody and if it is signed by the account holder of the cheque'. In another decision reported in 1996 Cri. L.J.3099( Guj) :
1997 II Crimes : 1997 (I) CCR 603 wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that "no law provides that, in any case of any negotiable instrument entire body has to be written by maker or drawer only". It is further held that, " when a cheque is admittedly issued blank are incomplete and there is no dispute regarding the signature, it can be presumed that, there is an implied consent for filling up the cheque as when required by holder and get it encashed.45
C.C.No. 8576/2015 Complaint of dishonour of such cheque cannot be held to be beyond the scope of penal provisions of Sec.138". In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court to India reported in (2002) 7 SCC in the case of P.K. Manmadhan Karthra Vs.Sanjeeva Raj., wherein it is held that " As long as signature on the cheque is admitted, whether the ink with which the other particulars are filled up is different or that the hand writing is not that of drawer does not matter. Until rebutted, the presumption that, cheque was issued for consideration exists". In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in a case of Crl. Appeal No. 1664/2003 C/w. Crl.Appeal No.1663/2003 dated: 18.6.2008 in the case of R.Mallikarjuna Vs. H.R.Sadashivaiah wherein the Hon'ble High Court at para No.19 held that " But, the question is, whether that renders instrument unenforceable. In this regard, it must be observed that, this court similar circumstances in the case of S.R. Muralidar Vs. Ashok G.Y. reported in 3001 (4) 46 C.C.No. 8576/2015 KAR. LJ K. 122 referring to the provisions of Sections 20, 138, 139, and 140 of the Act and after interpreting alteration and filling up of the cheque observed thus " The trial court has made much about the difference in ink. Admittedly, Accused cheque is issued bearing signature of the Accused. It is the contention of the defence that, blank cheques issued for the business transactions have been illegally converted as a subject matter to this case fastening false liability........ It is not objectionable or illegal in law to receive a inchoate negotiable instrument duly signed by the maker despite the material particulars are kept blank if done with an understanding and giving full authority to the payee to fill up the material contents as agreed upon. Such a course of action in law cannot vitiate the transaction nor can invalidate the negotiable instrument issued and such transaction fully begins the maker of the negotiable instrument to the extent it purports to declare........ The fact 47 C.C.No. 8576/2015 that, a document executed is inchoate with regard to some of the material particulars would not render such contract invalid nor make the instrument illegal or inadmissible. Voluntarily, if a person were to deliver an inchoate instrument authorizing the receiver to fill up the material contents as agreed upon, the cheque does not get tainted as in admissible nor it amounts to tampering with the material particulars...... In the present case there is no categorical defence version, it is only by conjunctures and surmises, a case is made out from the difference in ink between the signature of the cheque and the other handwritten contents. Therefore in view of the principles of law of Hon'ble Apex court of India and also Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Madras referred above, in the present case the Accused has admitted the signature on Negotiable Instrument i.e. cheque and he also admitted issuance of the cheque, it is prima facie proof of authorizing the holder in due course i.e. the complainant to fill up the remaining contents 48 C.C.No. 8576/2015 of the Negotiable Instrument, therefore it cannot lie in the mouth of the Accused that, the complainant had misused or fabricated the cheque in question issued by her and the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one as the instruments i.e., cheque in question cannot be rendered unenforceable merely because the contents have been filled by the complainant, as it would not rendered such instrument illegal or inadmissible, the complainant certainly can base action on it.
23. In addition to that, even for sake of discussion if it is assumed that, Accused has given cheque in question to the complainant without mentioning the name of the payee and date, in such circumstances also it attracts the penal liability as contemplated U/s.138 of N.I. Act. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2019 SC 2446 in the case of Birsingh Vs. Mukesh Kumar., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "presumption U/s.139 is presumption of law, distinguished from presumption of facts and also held that, 49 C.C.No. 8576/2015 presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with presumption of innocence which requires prosecution to prove case against the Accused and also held that obligation on the prosecution may discharged with the help of presumptions of law and presumption of fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing reasonable plausibility of non existence of presumed fact." In the present case though the Accused has denied the contents of the cheque in question except his signature but he did not proved his defence or produced any documents or satisfactory evidence to rebut the presumptions as available U/s.139 of the N.I.Act, under such circumstances in view of the above principles of law, it can be presumed even on fact also that the complainant has proved her case by discharging her burden by complying the mandatory provisions. In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex court has also held that, "presumption as to legally enforceable debt is rebuttable, the signed blank cheque if voluntarily presented to payee towards payment 50 C.C.No. 8576/2015 payee may fill up amount and other particulars and it in itself would not invalidate cheque and onus would still be on the accused to prove that, cheque was not issued or discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence." In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption under - burden to prove - the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence 51 C.C.No. 8576/2015 U/s.s.138 of NI Act. In view of the principles of law laid down as above, even for sake of discussion, if it is admitted by the complainant that, she had written the contents of the cheque and date on the cheque in question in such circumstances also in view of the principles of law laid down in the above decision that itself would not invalidates the cheque in question and it can be presumed that, the said cheque has been issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt, therefore the defence of the accused that, except the signature on the subject cheque and has not filled up the rest of the contents in it cannot be acceptable one and for the above said reasons the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel at para No.10 to 15 cannot be acceptable one.
24. It is also important to note here that, the Accused has not denied or disputed that the cheque in question as well as the signature therein do belong to him and he has failed to explain as to how cheque in question has come to the possession of the Complainant, this would also give rise to an adverse inference against him. This preposition of 52 C.C.No. 8576/2015 law finds support from the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2010(1) KCCR 176 in the case of "Siddappa Vs. Manjappa". In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.A.No.664 of 2012 dated: 19.9.2019 in the case of "M.Abbas Haji Vs. T.M.Chennakeshava" held that, " the Accused has to explain how the cheque entered into the hands of complainant". Hence in the present case also the Accused has failed to explain how the cheque in question was entered into the hands of complainant. Therefore for the above said reasons the defense taken by the accused cannot be acceptable one and accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant by adducing cogent and convincible evidence.
25. Therefore considering all these aspects of the case and totality of the circumstances and on careful and meticulous appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant and accused the complainant has successfully established beyond 53 C.C.No. 8576/2015 all reasonable doubt that, she has lent an amount of Rs.7,00,000/ to the accused as hand loan and the accused in turn has issued cheque in question ie Ex.P.1 towards discharge of the loan amount and thereafter the complainant has presented the cheque ie Ex.P1 through her banker and same was returned dishonoured with an endorsement of "Funds Insufficient" and thereafter she got issued legal notice to the accused and inspite of service of the said notice, the Accused did not repaid loan amount borrowed by him, hence the complainant filed the present complaint against the accused. On the other hand, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption available infavour of the complainant with regard to the existence of legally recoverable debt under Ex.P.1 cheque. Therefore accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act, accordingly for the above said reasons this point is answered in the Affirmative.
26. Point No.2: Negotiable Instrument Act was enacted to bring credibility to the cheque and the very purpose of enactment is to promote the use of negotiable instrument, while to discourage the 54 C.C.No. 8576/2015 issuance of cheque without having sufficient funds in their accounts. Such being the case the intention of the legislature is that, complainant be suitable compensated while accused be punished for his act. Hence while awarding the compensation the said fact is to be kept in mind and suitable compensation is awarded to the complainant certainly it will not cause injustice to the accused, accordingly the complainant is entitled for the compensation as ordered by the court and for the said reasons, it is just and proper to pass the following : ORDER Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.7,15,000/ (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand only), in default accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of (3) three months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Further acting U/sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.7,10,000/ (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Ten 55 C.C.No. 8576/2015 Thousand only)shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on recovery a sum of Rs.5,000/= (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
The Bail bond and surety bond of the Accused stands cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer online, printout taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of January 2022).
(SRI.S.B. HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant: P.W.1 : Smt. T.A.Pushpa Yadav
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant: Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused 56 C.C.No. 8576/2015 Ex.P.2 : Bank challan Ex.P.3 : Bank Memo Ex.P.4 : Office copy of the Legal Notice Ex.P.5 : Postal acknowledgement
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused: DW.1 : Dr. S.Nagaraj
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused: Nil (SRI.S.B.HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
57 C.C.No. 8576/2015