Bangalore District Court
Kalakrishna V vs J Chandran on 18 December, 2025
KABC0C0043382019
IN THE COURT OF XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICAL MAGISTRATE, MAYO
HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (ACJM-34)
PRESENT: Smt.PARVEEN A BANKAPUR, B.Com.LLB.
XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
Dated : This the 18th day of December, 2025.
C.C.No.51188 of 2019
COMPLAINANT : Mr. Kalakrishna V.,
S/o. Late T. Venkatesh,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at No.5/40, Muniveerappa Lane,
Lingarajapuram 5th Cross,
St. Thomas Town,
Bengaluru -560 084.
(By Mrs. A. Nancy Prince & Sajida
Momeen - Advocate)
V/s
ACCUSED : Mr. J. Chandran,
S/o. Late Sri M.N. Jayaraman,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.913, Surabhi Apts,
HRBR, 1st Block, Kalyan Nagar,
Bengaluru -560 043.
(By Mr. Rajendra Pattanshetti -
Advocate)
1 Date of Commencement 28.02.2018
of offence
2 Date of report of offence 03.05.2018
3 Presence of accused
3a. Before the Court 06.12.2019
3b. Released on bail 06.12.2019
4 Name of the Complainant Mr. Kalakrishna V.
5 Date of recording of 08.02.2019
evidence
6 Date of closure of evidence 26.11.2025
7 Offences alleged U/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
8 Opinion of Judge Accused is found guilty.
2
C.C.No.51188 of 2019
JUDGEMENT
The Private Complaint is filed by the Complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submits that the Accused is known to him through his friend Mr.Lakshminarayan. The Accused was developing a layout and there were sites available for sale. The Complainant was an interested in purchasing 4 sites from him.
In this regard, a Sale Agreement was executed between him and Accused on 15.6.2016 and Accused had received a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from the Complainant.
The Complainant further submits that inspite of receipt of said amount, the Accused has failed to get the sites registered in his name. Thereafter, the Accused issued a cheque bearing No.447594 dtd.28.2.2018 for Rs.5,00,000/-
drawn on Corporation Bank, H.R.B.R. Layout Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the Complainant towards part-payment of said amount.3
C.C.No.51188 of 2019 It is further stated in the complaint that the Complainant presented the said cheque through its banker State Bank of India, Lingarajapuram branch, Bengaluru for realization. But the said cheque was dishonoured for "funds insufficient" with an endorsement dtd.3.3.2018. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued demand notice through RPAD on 28.03.2018 through his Counsel to the Accused. The notice sent to the Accused was duly served on 4.4.2018. Inspite of receipt of legal notice the Accused has neither paid the Cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Accordingly, the Complainant has filed present complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sc.138 of N.I Act. Hence, this complaint.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit, and documents etc., the court took cognizance of an offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act by following the guidelines of Apex Court issued in Indian Bank Association case and ordered to be registered a criminal case against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
4
C.C.No.51188 of 2019
4. After issuance of summons, accused appeared before the court and enlarged himself on bail. Plea was recorded, read over and explained to the accused, who pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for complainant's evidence.
5. The Complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and he got marked 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to 10. Ex.P11 to 18 documents came to be marked through confrontation during the cross-examination of DW1.
6. The statement as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence appeared against him. The Accused got examined himself as DW1 and got marked documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D3.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the materials placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration.
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused in discharge of legally recoverable debt has issued a Cheque bearing No.447594 dtd.28.2.2018 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, H.R.B.R. Layout Branch, Bengaluru in 5 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 favour of the complainant which came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "funds insufficient" and in spite of service of notice accused has not paid the Cheque amount and thereby committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
9. My findings on the above points is:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS Point No.1:-
10. Initially when the case posted for cross-examination of PW1, the Complainant and Accused were settled the matter by filing of joint application u/Sec.147 of N.I. Act. In view of said application the matter is settled for Rs.12 lakhs as a full and final settlement and on the basis of said application, my predecessor has passed judgement and order by directing the Accused to pay the settled amount as per joint compromise petition submitted u/Sec.147 of N.I. Act. Otherwise, the Accused may be convicted only on the basis of joint compromise petition. Aggrieved Accused preferred appeal before Hon'ble Appellate Court and Hon'ble Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and remand 6 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 back the matter by directing for fresh trial and dispose the same within period of 3 months.
11. Existence of legally recoverable debt is a sine qua non for prosecuting the case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. For convenient purpose the essential ingredients to constitute offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is summarized as below:
(i) That there must be a legally enforceable debt.
(ii) That the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes the legally enforceable debt.
(iii)That the cheque so issued had been returned due to "insufficient funds".
12. It is the core contention of the complainant that, the Accused is known to him through his friend Mr.Lakshminarayan. The Accused was developing a layout and there were sites available for sale. The Complainant was an interested in purchasing 4 sites from him. In this regard, a Sale Agreement was executed between him and Accused on 15.6.2016 and Accused had received a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from the Complainant. After receipt of said amount, the Accused has failed to get the sites registered in his name. Thereafter, 7 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 the Accused issued a cheque bearing No.447594 dtd.28.2.2018 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, H.R.B.R. Layout Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the Complainant towards part- payment of said amount, which was dishonoured for "funds insufficient" with an endorsement dtd.3.3.2018. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued demand notice through RPAD on 28.03.2018 through his Counsel to the Accused. The notice sent to the Accused was duly served on 4.4.2018. Inspite of receipt of legal notice the Accused has neither paid the Cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Accordingly, the Complainant has filed present complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sc.138 of N.I Act. Hence, this complaint.
13. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, Complainant got examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the contents of complaint in his examination-in-chief. He has also placed the agreement of sale at Ex.P1, Ex.P2 is the original passbook, Ex.P3 is the original handloan agreement, Ex.P4 is the copy of endorsement issued by the police, Ex.P5 is the original Cheque bearing No.447594 dtd.28.2.2018, Ex.P6 is the bank endorsement, Ex.P7 is the office copy of legal notice issued by the Complainant to the Accused on 28.3.2018 at 8 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 Ex.P8 is the two postal receipts, Ex.P9 and 10 are the postal acknowledgements Ex.P11 to 16 are the original cheques, Ex.P17 is the copy of complaint and Ex.P18 is the copy of appeal petition.
14. The documents produced by the complainant of course established that complainant meets out the procedural requirements of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but it is to be considered whether all these documents establish the offence committed by the accused.
15. The Negotiable Instruments Act raises two presumptions. One contained in Section 118 and the other in Sec. 139 thereof. For the sake of convenience Sec 118(1) of the N.I. Act is extracted here below:
118. Presumptions as to negotiable Instruments--
Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made ;--
(a) of consideration that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
1. To (g) . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
C.C.No.51188 of 2019 Provided that where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from an person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence of fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence of fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him".
16. Further Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under:
"139, Presumption in favour of holder. It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."
Scope and ambit and function of the presumption U/s 118(a) and Sec 139 of NI Act came to be considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court of Indian in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde (2008 AIAR (Criminal 151) The Supreme Court has laid down the law in the following phraseology.
" D Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Secs 139, 138--Presumption under-same arises in regard to second aspect of the matter provided under Sec 138-- Existence of legally enforceable debt is not a matter of presumption under Sec 139- It merely raises presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or 10 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 other liability - Merely an application of presumption contemplated under Section 139 of N.I.Act should not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction."
17. Further, said decision was followed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Kempanarasimhaiah Vs P.Rangaraju & Others (2008 (5) KCCR 3371). Relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: -
"12. As to the provisions of Sections 138 of N.I.Act, the following principles emerge from the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court at para Nos 21, 23, 25, 26 and 34 of its Judgment in the above said case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde, AIR 2008 SC 1325.
(i) Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption that the cheque was issued towards discharge in whole or in part in any debt or other liability, which presupposed legally enforceable debt. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability." ( para 21)
(ii) The question as to whether the presumption stood rebutted or not, must be determined keeping in view the other evidences on record. Where the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration. (para 26) 11 C.C.No.51188 of 2019
(iii) An accused, for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute, need not examine himself.
He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on records (para 23)
(iv) Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different. Further more where as prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is " preponderance of probabilities'" ( para 23 & 25)
(v) Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies ( para 25)
(vi) Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be deliberately balanced (para 34)
18. Thus from the observations extracted above, it is clear that presumption Under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is only to the extent that the cheque was drawn for discharge in full or in part of any debt or other liability and the said presumption do not relate to the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore, before drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act, it is the duty of the Court to see whether or not the complainant has discharged his initial burden as to existence of legally enforceable debt. No doubt, as per Section 118(a) of the Act, there is a rebuttable presumption 12 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 that every negotiable instrument, is accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."
19. Factual matrix of the case is required to be tested on the anvil of principles emerging from the above-referred decisions.
20. The defence taken by the Accused is that, the Accused has invested Rs.10 lakhs in the property and since that property is in litigation and he has returned said amount to the Complainant and cheques issued by him are misused by the Complainant by filing of this complaint.
21. To substantiate the claim the Complainant examined himself as PW1. He deposed that, the Accused was introduced by Mr.Lakshminarayana, who is close friend of the Complainant in the month of February 2016. It is further deposed that, at that time the Accused informed that, he was developing a layout and there were sites available for sale. It is further deposed that, the Complainant was interested in purchasing of 4 sites from the Accused and entered into sale agreement as per Ex.P1 and paid amount of Rs.20 lakhs to the 13 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 Accused. It is further deposed that, Rs.10 lakhs amount was paid through cheque No.117422 dtd.16.6.2016 and Rs.10 lakhs was paid by cash to the Accused in the presence of witnesses. It is further deposed that, after receipt of Rs.20 lakhs amount, the Accused has failed to get the sites registered in the name of Complainant and Complainant waited about 18 months and thereafter he approached to the jurisdictional police on 28.11.2017 and lodged NCR as per Ex.P4. It is further deposed that, when Accused call from the police, Accused was not available. It is further deposed that, thereafter, the Accused was unable to register the sites and he promised to repay the Rs.20 lakhs amount taken from the Complainant and executed handloan agreement on 21.10.2017 as per Ex.P3. It is further deposed that, inspite of various cheques being given by the Accused for the return of money, neither Accused registered the sites nor did not honour the cheques neither did not return the amount. It is further deposed that, after 3 months the Accused approached Banaswadi police station and in reply to the complaint the Accused promised to return Rs.5 lakhs and also promising to repay the remaining balance amount within six months. It is further deposed that, thereafter, the Accused has 14 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 issued Ex.P5 cheque for Rs.5 lakhs towards part payment of amount received by him. It is further deposed that, the Complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment which was dishonoured with reason "funds insufficient" as per Ex.P6. It is further deposed that, thereafter the Complainant got issued legal notice to the Accused as per Ex.P7 and same duly served upon the Accused as per Ex.P 9 and 10. It is further deposed that, inspite of receipt of legal notice, neither the Accused paid the cheque amount nor replied the notice.
22. Considering the oral and documentary evidence prima facie presumed that, Ex.P5 cheque was issued by the Accused towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. To rebut the presumption, the learned counsel for Accused cross-examined the PW1 at full length. In the cross-examination PW1 stated that, he know the Accused since from 10 years and he know the Accused through his friend Mr. Lakshminarayana. He further stated that for forming the layout the Accused requested financial assistance of Rs.20 lakhs. He further stated that as a handloan he asked Rs.20 lakhs from him. He further stated that Rs. 10 lakhs was paid through account transfer 15 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 and remaining Rs.10 lakhs was paid by way of cash. He further stated that he was doing real estate business and in the year 2016 his annual income is Rs.3 lakhs and also he get rent amount of Rs.50,000/- per month. He further stated that Accused assured that loan amount will return within six months otherwise, he execute agreement with respect of 4 sites. He further stated that Accused has issued 3 cheques and in the notice he also mentioned as Accused is to be pay Rs.20 lakhs. He further stated that in his notice, he mentioned about dishonour of cheque of Rs.5 lakhs. He denied that the cheque was issued by the Accused is for the security purpose which was misused by him by filing of this false complaint.
23. To rebut the presumption, the Accused examined himself as DW1. He deposed that, Rs.10 lakhs amount was paid for investment in the property. He further deposed that that property was in litigation and Complainant has filed police complaint against him in Banaswadi. He further deposed that after one month he settled the matter with Complainant and on 12.12.2017 paid Rs.3 lakhs to the Complainant and on 23.12.2017 he again paid Rs.2 lakhs. He further deposed that in the year 2018 he issued cheque for Rs.6 lakhs which was 16 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 dishonoured and thereafter, he paid Rs.2.5 lakhs to the Complainant on 20.6.2018 as per Ex.D1. He further deposed that in the month of August 2018 he again issued cheque for Rs.1 lakh and Rs.50,000/- amount by cash. He produced copy of that cheque and payment receipt at Ex.D2. He further deposed that again 25.8.2018 he paid Rs.50,000/- by cash and said amount was received by his friend Mr. Lakshminarayana as per Ex.D3 and only Rs.50,000/- amount was balance to be paid to the Complainant. He further deposed that Rs.5 lakhs cheque was not issued by him.
24. In the cross-examination he stated that, he is doing real estate business. He admits that, he received Rs.10 lakhs amount from the Complainant through cheque. He further admits that he told to the Complainant that he will sell 4 sites for consideration amount of Rs.5 lakhs each. He further admits that, due to non forming the layout and due to unavailable of documents he was not sell the sites to the Complainant. He denied that he received Rs.10 lakhs cash amount from the Complainant. He admits that the cheque issued by him for Rs.20 lakhs as per Ex.P11 and also admits that, earlier he was issued 2 cheques to the Complainant on 17 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 16.10.2016 and 16.12.2016 which were out dated as per Ex.P12 and 13. Therefore, he issued Ex.P11 cheque to the Complainant. He further admits that, Ex.P 11 cheque also outdated therefore, he issued again one cheque for Rs.20 lahks as per Ex.P14. He admits that whatever cheque issued by him are outdated he issued fresh cheques to the Complainant Further admits that for repayment of RS. 20 lakhs amount he was issued 4 cheques for Rs.5 lakhs each and out of 4 cheque s Ex.P5 cheque is one of them. He further admits that before presentation of Ex.P5 cheque the Complainant informed him for the presentation. He further admits that, at the time of issuance of cheque there is no Rs.5 lakhs balance in his account. He further admits that, after dishonour of Ex.P5 cheque he received message to his mobile phone. He further admits that on 30.9.2021 out of Rs.20 lakhs amount, the matter is settled with the Complainant for Rs.12 lakhs and at that time, he issued 3 cheques for Rs.12 lakhs. He further admits that, two cheques issued before the court i.e., cheque No.000052 and 000053 are dishonour ed as per Ex.P15 and
16. He further admits that at the time of filing of compromise petition before this court, the court has been enquired to both 18 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 parties about involuntariness of the compromise. He further admits that he agreed for the terms of compromise petition and signed before the court as well as in the order sheet. He further stated that, out of Rs.20 lakhs he was paid Rs.9.5 lakhs. He admits that, he was filed documents which shows that, he was paid Rs.4.5 lakhs to the Complainant. He denied that, after deducting Rs.4.5 lakhs he will liable to pay balance amount of Rs.15.5 lakhs.
25. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed by both parties, it is clear that there is a transaction between Complainant and Accused. It is further clear that, Accused has borrowed Rs.20 lakhs from the Complainant. It is further clear that the Accused agreed to repay Rs.20 lakhs amount within six months and in case of default he will sell 4 sites to the Complainant. It is further clear that Ex.P5 cheque was issued by the Accused for the partial payment of loan amount . It is further admits that signature on Ex.P5 belongs to the Accused.
26. There is no specific defence of the Accused he only taken defence that, cheques were issued for the purpose of 19 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 security and Complainant has misused the cheque by filing of false complaint. Further, taken defence that, he was repaid the amount to the Complainant and nothing has to be paid to the Complainant. The Accused has produced Ex.D1 copy of cheque Rs.2.5 lakhs and Ex.D2 is cheque of Rs.1 lakh and Ex.D3 is the receipt in which Rs.50,000/- cash paid to the Lakshminarayana who received on behalf of Complainant. Ex.D2 is the copy of cheque along with copy of amount of Rs.50,000/- received by the Complainant. The Complainant has not disputed about receipt of Rs.4.5 lakhs from the Accused. It is pertaining to note that the loan amount is Rs.20 lakhs. Out of Rs.20 lakhs amount, the Accused has paid Rs.4.5 lakhs to the Complainant as per Ex.D1 to 3. Ex.P4 cheque is issued by the Accused for Rs.5 lakhs is the partial amount of loan borrowed by him for forming of layout. Therefore, in the cross-examination of DW1, he clearly admits that, for repayment of Rs.20 lakhs amount, he issued 4 cheques each for Rs.5 lakhs and out of that, 4 cheque s Ex.P4 is one of them. hence, Ex.P4 cheque is issued by the Accused towards discharge of legally enforceable debt.
20
C.C.No.51188 of 2019
27. As discussed above, it has to be presumed that the cheque in question was issued by the accused to discharge the legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused can place rebuttal evidence so as to show that the cheque was not issued for consideration. As appreciated supra, accused has failed to put acceptable and satisfactory evidence to probabilise the defence. Therefore, there is no question of saying that the cheque was not issued for liability. Therefore, complainant has discharged his initial onus laid on him. When he has discharged his initial onus, it raises presumption U/s 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused has failed to rebut the presumption either in cross-examining PW-1 or in his evidence.
28. So, far as sentence and compensation is concern, an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, is a civil wrong and compensatory in nature, punitive is secondary, considering, the above settled principle of law with facts and circumstances of the case, which clearly reveals that, towards discharge of loan amount, the cheque in question of issued by the accused to the complainant. Therefore, considering the nature of transaction, duration of pendency, litigation 21 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 expenses, I am opinion that, if sentence of fine of Rs.7,25,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Twenty-five Thousand only) is imposed that would meet the ends of justice, accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.7,25,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Twenty-five Thousand only) out of that, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only) as a compensation as per Sec.395(1) of B.N.S.S., remaining amount of Rs.5,000/-, is to be appropriated to the State, in case of default the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered in Affirmative.
29. POINT No.2 : In view of discussion held in Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/S 278(2) of B.N.S.S., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.7,25,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Twenty-
five Thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Further, it is made clear that out of fine amount, Rs.7,20,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only) 22 C.C.No.51188 of 2019 is to be paid to the complainant as compensation as per the provision U/Sec.395(1) of B.N.S.S and Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be remitted to the State. Bail bond stands cancelled.
Supply the free copy of this judgement to the Accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of December, 2025) Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN A A BANKAPUR Date: 2025.12.19 (PARVEEN A BANKAPUR) BANKAPUR 17:49:23 +0530 XXXIV ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 Mr. Kalakrishna V.
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Agreement of Sale Ex.P.2 Passbook Ex.P.3 Handloan agreement Ex.P.4 N.C.R. Ex.P.5 Cheque Ex.P.6 Bank endorsement Ex.P.7 Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.8 Postal receipts Ex.P.9 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P.10 Speed post acknowledgement Ex.P11 to 16 Cheques Ex.P17 Copy of complaint Ex.P.18 Copy of appeal petition
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 Mr.Chandran
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused :
Ex.D.1 Copy of Cheque
Ex.D.2 Copy of receipt
Ex.D.3 Copy of receipt
Digitally signed by
PARVEEN A PARVEEN A
BANKAPUR (PARVEEN A BANKAPUR)
BANKAPUR Date: 2025.12.19
17:49:28 +0530
XXXIV ACJM, Bengaluru.