Bangalore District Court
Is A Company Incorporated Under The vs Had Subscribed For A Chit Group Bearing ... on 21 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 21st day of April, 2018
PRESENT: Sri. A. V. Patil., B.Com, LLB (Spl)
XLII A.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru City.
CC.No.18265/2016
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1. Sl.No. of the case : CC.No.18265/2016
2. The date of commence of evidence: 09.05.2017
3. The date of Institution : 25.04.2016
4. Name of the Complainant : M/s Kapil Chits (K) Pvt Ltd
Having its registered office,
At No.499, East End Road,
Jayanagar, 9th block,
Bangalore-68.
Branch Bellary
Rep by its Legal Officer,
Sri. T. Prasad
S/o T. Govindappa
5. Name of the Accused : Mr. Mahamad Haneef
S/o Sri. Mohamed Ghouse,
R/at No.49/2, M.R Palya,
Cholanayakanahalli,
R.T Nagar, Bangalore- 560 032.
6. The offence complained
2 C.C.No.18265/2016
of or proved : U/s.138 of N.I. Act
7. Plea of the accused on
his examination : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Order : Accused is acquitted
9. Date of such order : 21.04.2018.
JUDGMENT
1. This case has been registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The gist of the complainant's case is that:
Complainant is a Company incorporated under the Company's Act 1956 and they are in the business of promoting and conducting chits as per the provisions of the Chit Funds Act.
Accused had subscribed for a chit group bearing No.BIT03J with Ticket No.20 for a chit value of Rs.5,00,000/- payable at Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of 50 months at Hebbal Branch. The accused successfully bid in auction held on 27.09.2011 and has received the prize amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
on 14.02.2012 after furnishing requisite surety. At the time of receiving prize amount the accused had under taken to repay the future subscription amount regularly. However, last payment 3 C.C.No.18265/2016 made by accused on 27.02.2013 and fails to make the further installment amount. When the representative of the complainant approached the accused with the account statement which discloses that accused was due to pay in all Rs.3,51,800/-. Towards that dues accused had issued cheque bearing No.975122 dated 16.02.2016 for Rs.3,51,800/-drawn on State Bank of India, Bangalore, to clear the balance amount. On 20.02.2016 complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through its banker i.e., Union Bank of India, 4th block, Jayanagar Branch, Bengaluru for collection. However, the said cheque was dishonoured for the reason 'Exceeds Arngements' with a memo dated 23.02.2016. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 16.03.2016 by RPAD and through courier calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered under the aforesaid cheque. The notice sent through RPAD was returned 'unserved' and the notice sent through courier has been returned with a shara 'Insufficient Address'. Accused has neither denied the claim of the complainant nor tendered the amount within 15 days as provided under N.I Act. According to the complainant, the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly the complainant filed the complaint on 25.04.2016.
3. In pursuance of the summons, the accused has appeared 4 C.C.No.18265/2016 through Counsel and got enlarged on bail by executing necessary documents. The copy of the complaint was furnished to the accused, as required under law. As there is sufficient material, plea was recorded against the accused on 09.03.2017 and explained to the accused in his vernacular, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. In order to prove the case, the Legal Officer of the complainant Company examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to
13. Then the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C came to be recorded on 19.05.2017, wherein the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was read over and explained the accused. Accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D6.aaaa
5. The learned Counsel for complainant argued that accused being the chit member became successful bidder in auction and received the prize amount. But the accused is defaulter in making payment of the chit amount. On insisting for payment accused issued the disputed cheque, on presentation it was dishonoured for the reasons 'funds insufficient'. Even though received the legal notice accused neither paid the cheque amount nor issued any reply. Accused not initiated any action for the alleged missutilization. The ingredients of Sec.138 and 142 are duly complied with. Subsequent to filing of the complaint accused had 5 C.C.No.18265/2016 paid certain amount on different dates and the total amount paid by the accused is Rs.1,00,000/-. Taking into consideration of the fact of payment made by the accused prayed to convict the accused as provided under law.
6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for accused argued that the PW1 has no proper authorization to conduct this case. The resolution produced at Ex.P1 is incomplete document and is not in accordance with law therefore no reliance could be placed on the said document. The Ex.P5/agreement produced by the complainant is not in respect of the chit number produced at Ex.P12 and 13. Ex.P13 is sanction order No.DRB/Chits/318/BITo3J/2010-2011. From the said number it could be said that the Ex.P5 is not in respect of the chit order passed a per Ex.P13. Even otherwise also, accused has paid the entire amount in respect of chit taken by him. He is not due to pay any amount. The cheque collected from accused has been misused and filed false complaint. The complainant has also filed E.P proceedings and recovered sum amount from the sureties. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused by dismissing the complaint.
7. Perused the material placed on record.
8. On the basis of the above facts, the following points arise for my consideration:
6 C.C.No.18265/2016
1) Whether the complainant proves that he has authority to file the complaint and depose in this case?
2) Whether the complainant proves that the accused towards discharge legal recoverable debt issued cheque bearing No.975122 for Rs.3,51,800/- dated 16.02.2016 drawn on State Bank of India, Bengaluru, in favour of complainant, on presentation for encashment it was returned as 'Exceeds Arrangement' and in spite of receipt of legal notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act?
3) What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as under :
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Affirmative Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following REASONS
10. In order to prove the case, the Legal Officer of the complainant Company T. Prasad filed affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. He also got marked documents Ex.P1 to 13. Ex.P1 is the Board resolution, Ex.P2 is the cheque, Ex.P2(a) is the signature of the accused, Ex.P3 is the bank memo, Ex.P4 is the office copy of the legal notice, Ex.P4(a) is the Postal receipt, 7 C.C.No.18265/2016 Ex.P4(b) is the courier receipt, Ex.P4(c) is the returned postal cover, Ex.P4(cc) is the legal notice found in the returned postal cover, Ex.P5 is the chit agreement, Ex.P6 is the complaint, Ex.P7 is the Memorandum of article of association, Ex.P8 is the payment voucher, Ex.P9 is the Pronote, Ex.P10 is the surety form, Ex.P11 is the account extract, Ex.P12 & 13 Chit commencement certificate & chit commencement order. In the cross examination accused has taken the specific defence that the complainant has no proper authorization to file the complaint. The accused has made entire chit payment to the complainant and is not due to pay any amount.
11. In order to prove the defence, accused examined himself as DW1 and has stated that the bus driver Mohinudin and Jairuddin are stood as sureties. The complainant had paid certain amount to the accused and remaining is recovered by the complainant from the payment of accused and the above said sureties. Nothing is due to pay by the accused. In support of his contention has produced documents at Ex.D1 to 6. Ex.D1 is the pass book, Ex.D2 to 4 are the receipts and other two receipts are marked as Ex.D5 and 6 subject to objections. In the cross examination has stated that nothing has been produced to show that an amount of Rs.20,000/- each was covered from the sureties. 8 C.C.No.18265/2016
12. This is all the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant and accused in support of their respective contentions.
13. Point No.1:-In No.1 the case on hand complainant/PW1 Mr. T Prasad, Legal Officer of complainant Company claims that he is properly authorized to file the complaint and conduct the case. As against this it is the definite case of the accused that the complaint has not filed by the authorized person, there is no proper authorization in favour of PW1 to file the complaint and conduct the case as prescribed under Companies Act.
14. Before considering the arguments let me note the ratio laid down in a citation reported in ILR 2007 Karnataka 3155 (Director Maruti Feeds and Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs Basanna Pattekar) wherein, it has held that "When a complainant deposing on behalf of the Company - on production of resolution - authorizing the Directors of the Company to establish that the Directors has been authorized to depose for and on behalf of the Company is fatal to the complainant and the complainant can not be entertain in the absence of authorization or power of attorney" and has held that "specific authorization authorizing the complainant or a power of attorney authorizing to file the complaint is required. ......". 9 C.C.No.18265/2016
15. In a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rendered in Criminal appeal No. 2653/2008 dated 27.9.2013 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in para No.5 has held that ;
"5. Insofar as this Court is concerned, there are three reported decisions, namely, Menon Ventures V/s Birla M Limited, ILR 2005 KAR 3167, Director Maruti Feeds and Farms Private Limited V/s Basanna Pattekar, ILR 2007 KAR 3155 and Om Shakthi SC/ST and Minority Credit Co-operative Society Limited V/s M. Venkatesh, ILR 2007 Kar.5126, holding the view that the Company being a juristic person, any person on behalf of the Company would have to be authorized by the Company in the Articles of Association or by a separate resolution to depose on behalf of the Company .
Section 142 of the NI Act lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except upon a compliant, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque. If the payee is a corporate body or a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, in terms of Section 291 of the Companies Act, 1956, it is the Board of Directors Directors who are entitled to exercise all powers as the Company is authorized to exercise and do. Thus, a Company , though a legal entity, can act only through its Board of Directors (See: National Small Industries Corporation Limited V/s Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC 330).
Keeping in mind the views taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above referred decisions, let me see the present facts of the case.10 C.C.No.18265/2016
16. In the light of the arguments of both the side and the views taken in the above referred citations, I perused Ex.P1/Board Resolution copy. The leaned counsel for complainant harped much upon the authorization letter. For the sake of convenience the contents of said documents is extracted and reproduced here:-
MINUTES OF THE 49TH MEETING MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OF KAPIL CHITS (KARNATAKA) PVT LTD, HLED ON 15.12.2009 AT Plot No.26, Krishnapuri Colony, West Maredpally, SECUNDERABAD, AT :02:00 PM
4. "Resolved to authorize Mr. T. Prasad, to file the suits execution petitions, complaints, and give evidence before any court of law or any offices for recovery of due amounts from defaulting subscribers on behalf of the company, under The Chit Funds Act, 1982 in Bangalore Courts".
//TRUE EXTRAT// (K.DAYANANDAM) MANAGING DIRECTOR "ATTESTED"
(T.PRASAD) (K.DAYANANDAM)
17. The complaint is filed by Sri.T Prasad, on the basis of the Ex.P1/resoluition. The said copy of the said resolution is given by one of the Managing Director K.Dayanandam of the complainant 11 C.C.No.18265/2016 Company. It is the definite case of the accused that Ex.P1/resolution is not in accordance with the law and Sri.T.Prasad has no authority to file complaint to depose in this case.
18. In the light of arguments now the question is whether the complainant proves that he has authorization to file the complaint and to depose in this case as required under law. To ascertain the same we have to go through the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant. Before taking into consideration Ex.P1/Board Resolution copy, it is necessary to go through the evidence given by PW1 in his cross examination in this regard. For the sake of convenience the same is extracted and reproduced here:
".............. ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁV PÉ. zÀAiÀiÁ£ÀAzï J£ÀÄߪÀ DqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉðñÀPÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ DxÁgÉÊeÉñÀ£ï£ÀÄß ¢B15.12.2009 gÀAzÀÄ ¹PÀAzÀgÁ¨Ázï£À°è PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. . . . . . ¤¦-1 gÀ°è £Á®Ì£Éà PÀArPÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ EzÀÄÝ G½zÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ PÀArPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁPÉ ºÁdj¸À°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÆ CªÀÅ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀݪÀ®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ ºÁdj¸À°®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¦gÁå¢ PÀA¥À¤UÉ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ gÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ.zÀAiÀiÁ£ÀAzï J£ÀÄߪÀ E§âgÀÄ ¤zÉðñÀPÀjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
It is evident from the above evidence that on 15.12.2009 one K. Dayanand, Managing Director has given authorization on behalf of the complainant company, fourth paragraph of Resolution is only connected to him and other three are not connected to him, 12 C.C.No.18265/2016 therefore other three paragraphs are not produced. There are two Directors to the complainant company.
19. If we consider contents of Ex.P1/resolution coupled with the above reproduced evidence it is very much clear that the document produced by the complainant at Ex.P1 is incomplete document. No provision of law permits to produce portion of document which is relevant to the case. The complainant claims that he has proper authorization given by the complainant under resolution. In that case, the complainant is under obligation to produce the alleged full resolution through which he was given authorization. In the instant case, only portion of board resolution has been produced and no explanation is offered by the complainant while producing the document. First time in the cross examination PW1 has stated that other three paragraphs are not connected to him. To substantiate the same, nothing has been produced by the complainant. Since the document produced at Ex.P1 is incomplete document in the considered opinion of this Court no reliance could be placed on the said Ex.P1.
20. Even otherwise also in the light of the above evidence perused the Ex.P1/ Board Resolution copy on the basis of which PW1 has deposed in this case. The copy of the said board resolution is issued by Managing Director by name K. 13 C.C.No.18265/2016 Dayanandam. In the above reproduced evidence PW1 has categorically stated that there are two Directors i.e., K. Dayanandam and Ramachandara Reddy to the complainant Company. Complainant has produced Memorandum and Articles of Association at Ex.P7. As per the said document there are three Directors to the complainant Company as against the evidence of PW1. In Articles of Association nothing has been mentioned who is proper person to give authorization and to issue extract of resolution. There is no mention in entire resolution about the presence of all the Directors.
21. As per the Company Act board of Directors of the Company collectively entitle to excise the powers and to do the acts on behalf of the Company. Sec.291 of the Companies Act confirms the authority to the board of Directors collectively. Therefore, if the complaint is to be filed, it is necessary for the board of Directors to authorize any person to file the complaint and to depose the facts in a case and such an authority could be granted by the board of Directors only under resolution. Ex.P1/board resolution does not reflect about the collective decision of all the Directors. In other words all the board of Directors has not issued any authorization in favour of PW1 to file a compliant and depose to the facts in a case. It is in pursuance of Ex.P1/resolution that 14 C.C.No.18265/2016 PW1/T Prasad has filed the complaint and deposed on behalf of he complainant. As noted supra, PW1 is not authorized by all Directors of the complainant Company. Nothing has been produced in the evidence to show that all the Directors of the complainant Company collectively given him an authorization by passing the resolution either to file the complaint or to depose the facts. In the absence of said resolution the PW1 will not get any authority either to file the complaint or to depose to the facts. Ex.P1/copy of the resolution, in the absence of any material particulars cannot be said that it is in accordance with the provisions of S-291 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, without delegation of the power to institute such proceedings from the board of Directors would invalidate any proceedings brought without necessary authority. Since the Company is a juristic person, any person on behalf of the Company has to be authorized by Company under the Articles of association. On appreciation of evidence placed on record PW1 fails to produce any documentary evidence to show that all the Directors of a Company have given him authorization by passing the resolution. For the foregoing reasons in the considered opinion of this Court the complainant miserably fails to prove that he has given authorization as required under law. Hence, I answer this point in the Negative.
15 C.C.No.18265/2016
22. Point No.2:-
No.2 In fact in view of my finding on Point No.1 this point does not survive for consideration. Since the full pledged trial is completed, in the opinion of this Court it just and proper to record the finding on this point too. In this case accused has not disputed Ex.P2/cheque pertains to his account and his signature on it. By virtue of section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in view of the principle lay down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts in catena of decisions the complainant discharged his initial burden and the presumption is in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e., complainant. Now the burden lies on accused to lead the rebuttal evidence to disprove the fact that he has not issued Ex.P2/cheque to the complainant for discharge of debt or liability.
23. Now whether the said presumption is rebutted by the accused is to be seen. To substantiate his contention the accused has examined himself as DW1 and got marked documents at Ex.D1 to 6.
24. At out set it is necessary to note that the accused has not disputed he was the chit member and received the prize amount. It is the definite case of the complainant that the accused was due to pay an amount of Rs.3,51,800/- to the complainant in connection with the chit alleged in the complaint and towards payment of that amount accused has issued the disputed cheque. Subsequent to the 16 C.C.No.18265/2016 filing of the complaint the accused on different dates paid total Rs.1 lakh. However, it is definite case of the accused that he was repaid the entire amount and not due to pay any amount. The learned Counsel for accused cross examined the PW1 and made suggestions to the effect that accused has repaid the entire chit amount, though accused is not due to pay any amount by misusing the cheque collected by the complainant towards security. The said suggestions have been denied by the PW1. It is settled law that the suggestions made and denied by the witness is no evidence at all. However, accused able to elicit the from the mouth of PW1 to the effect that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid on different dates after filing of the complaint.
25. To substantiate the defence taken by the accused nothing has been produced. Accused claims that the amount is recovered from two sureties to the tune of Rs.20,000/- each in Execution Petition. Complaint has seriously disputed the said payments. In spite of serious dispute by the complainant about the said payments accused fails to prove the alleged payments as required to prove. Hence, in the opinion of this Court accused fails to prove the said payments. Further nothing has been produced to prove the defence of the accused to the effect that complainant collected cheque from 17 C.C.No.18265/2016 accused towards security. The defence taken by the accused remains intact without any proof.
26. At the same time it is necessary to note that it is the definite case of the accused that complainant has misused the cheque which was collected towards security. If complainant misused the cheque of accused, as a prudent man he could have initiated legal against the complainant. But nothing has been produced by the accused to show that he has initiated legal action against the complainant for the alleged misutilization.
27. It is equally important to note that if really the accused given the Ex.P2/cheque towards security, as a prudent man the accused is expected to intimate his banker to stop the payment in case of presentation of said cheque for encashment. But in the instant case of the accused has not intimated his banker and this conduct show the falsity of the case of the accused.
28. It is equally important to note that prior to filing of the complaint the accused got issued legal notice as per Ex.P4. Accused has not disputed the service of legal notice. In the instant case even after receipt of legal notice accused neither issued reply not paid cheque amount even after receipt of summons for the best reasons known to him.
18 C.C.No.18265/2016
29. Non-initiating the legal action for alleged misutilization, non- intimating to his banker and non-issuance of reply are the strongest circumstances to draw inference against the accused. As noted supra it is settled that the presumption has to be rebutted by cogent proof and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. On appreciation of material on record in the considered opinion of this Court, the evidence placed on record by the accused is not sufficient to rebut presumption. Hence, it cannot be said that the accused has rebutted the presumption.
30. In this case, the court has to peruse whether mandatory requirements of Sec.138 and 142 of N.I. Act are complied with or not to take cognizance of complaint for the commission of crime punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. It should be ascertained from the date of issuance of cheque, presentation of cheque, communication of Bank endorsement, issuance of legal notice for payment of cheque amount, service of notice and date of institution of complaint. Ex.P2/cheque is dated 16.02.2016 presented to the bank for encashment and received the intimation of dishonour of cheque for the reason 'Exceeds Arrangement' as per Ex.P3 dated 23.02.2016, complainant got issued notice as per Ex.P4 on 16.03.2016. Complaint is filed on 25.04.2016. It is evident from the available material that the cheque presented for 19 C.C.No.18265/2016 encashment within the validity time, notice demanding the cheque amount and filing of complaint before the court after service of notice are within the period of specified by law.
31. On appreciation of entire evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the accused has miserably failed to prove the fact that he has not issued cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt. On the contrary, the complainant has proved that the accused has issued cheque/Ex.P2 for a sum of Rs.3,51,800/- towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and on presentation of the cheque, it was dishonored for the reasons 'Exceeds Arrangement'. Even after service of legal notice, the accused has not paid the cheques amount. However, accused paid about Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on different dates. Hence, in the considered view of this Court, the complainant has proved that the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, I answer the above point No.1 in the affirmative.
32. Point No.3:-
No.3 The complainant able to establish that the accused has issued Ex.P2/cheque towards the legally enforceable debt. However, in view of finding on point No.1 the complainant has no proper authorization as required under law, I proceed to pass the following:20 C.C.No.18265/2016
ORDER Acting u/s 264 of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
The Bail bond executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed Under Sec.437 (a) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, taken print out corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the open court this the 21st day of April, 2018) (A. A. V. Patil Patil) XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:-
COMPLAINANT PW1 : Sri. T. Prasad LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
DEFENCE:-
DW.1 : Sri. Mohammed Haniff LIST OF
OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:-
COMPLAINANT
Ex.P1 : Board Resolution
Ex.P2 : Cheque
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P3 : Bank Memo
Ex.P4 : Office copy of the legal notice
Ex.P4(a) : Postal receipt
Ex.P4(b) : Courier receipt
Ex.P4(c) : Returned postal cover
21 C.C.No.18265/2016
Ex.P4(cc) : Legal notice found in the returned postal cover Ex.P5 : Chit agreement Ex.P6 : Compliant Ex.P7 : Memorandum & article of association Ex.P8 : Payment voucher Ex.P9 : Surety form Ex.P10 : Pronote Ex.P11 : Account extract Ex.P12 : Chit commencement certificate Ex.P13 : Chit commencement order LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:-
DEFENCE
Ex.D1 : Pass book
Ex.D2 to 4 : Receipts
Ex.P5 & 6 : Receipts (Marked subject to Objection) (A. A. V. Patil) Patil XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.22 C.C.No.18265/2016
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER Acting u/s 264 of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
The Bail bond executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed Under Sec.437 (a) of Cr.P.C.
XLII A.C.M.M, Bangaluru.
23 C.C.No.18265/201624 C.C.No.18265/2016 25 C.C.No.18265/2016 26 C.C.No.18265/2016 27 C.C.No.18265/2016 28 C.C.No.18265/2016 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER XLII A.C.M.M, Bangaluru.