Bangalore District Court
M /S Ninjacart Service Pvt Ltd vs Sps Trading Company on 10 April, 2026
KABC030428112025
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2026
Present : SRI. GOKULA. K
B.A.LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore City.
C.C.No.25162/2025
Complainant : M/s Ninjacart Services Private Limited
R/o Helios Business Park
E Block, 2nd floor,
Opp: New Horizon College Bus stop
Service Road,
Kadabeesanahalli,
Bengaluru 560 103.
Rep by its Associate Manager
Mr.Adarsh R.
(By SGA Advocate )
V/s
Accused : M/s.SPS Trading Company
Rep by Krishnan Pavithra
B102, KRK Nest Apartment
Nehru Nagar
Near Lemon Sports Club,
Tiruppur
Kangayampalayam,
Tamil Nadu,
India 641 401.
(By PS - Advocate )
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
2
C.C.No.25162/2025
Final Order: Accused is Convicted
Date of judgment 10.04.2026
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 223 of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha 2023 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief case of the complainant is as under:
That the complainant is involved in the business of wholesale trading of agricultural products and fresh produce supply. The complainant is tied up with Non Banking Financial Institution and enables service of credit facility to its borrowers.
That Trillionloans Fintech Private Limited has entered a partnership agreement with the complainant and authorizes the complainant to act as agent on behalf of Trillionloans Fintech Private Limited. The accused engaged in the business of whole sale trade and agricultural products and commission agency.
The accused applied for loan before the complainant, through Trillionloans Fintech Private Limited in loan application No.231164 and the complainant extended credit facility to the accused for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- out of which the accused availed sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. Since the accused had applied 3 C.C.No.25162/2025 loan in online platform, she has also signed the loan agreement and other documents digitally. During the process of loan transaction, the accused issued signed NACH bearing UMRN No.ICIC7020308244000066 on 02.08.2024 drawn on ICICI Bank for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. After availing the loan, the accused assured to make payment, later the accused failed to make payment as per the agreement. Hence, the complainant has processed NACH mandate through its banker AU Small Finance Bank, Koramangala for a outstanding sum of Rs.21,92,000/- and on processing said E NACH Mandate, it is returned dishonored with remarks "Balance Insufficient" on
03.05.2025. On receipt of said intimation, the complainant got issued legal notice on 27.05.2025 through registered post and demanded to pay the amount dishonoured under E-NACH Mandate. The notice issued to the accused is duly served on the accused on 30.05.2025. Inspite of issuance of notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant with in the statutory time. Therefore, the accused has committed the offence punishable Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the complainant has filed the complaint.
3. On the basis of Private complaint filed by the complainant, this court taken cognizance of offence and registered the case in PCR No.10808/2025 and recorded sworn statement of the 4 C.C.No.25162/2025 authorized officer of complainant as PW 1 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.10. This court by considering the material on record issued process under Section 227 of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita by registering the criminal case. In response to the process issued by this court, the accused appeared before this court and she is released on bail. The copy of the complaint is served to the accused along with the summons as contemplated under Section 230 of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita.
[
4. The substance of the acquisition as provided Section 274 of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita is read over to the accused and plea is recorded. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others reported in AIR 2014 SCW 3463, the affidavit filed by the complainant at the stage of taking cognizance and documents marked is treated as evidence under section 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As the evidence of the complainant is on record the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the complainant is read over to the accused and her statement under Section 351 of BNSS is recorded. The accused has denied the same as false. On the application of the accused, PW1 is 5 C.C.No.25162/2025 recalled and he is examined in full. The complainant got marked additional documents as Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.14. The accused is examined as DW 1 and examined one witness as DW 2 and she has produced documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7.
6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and Arguments of learned counsel for the accused and perused the material on record.
7. On the basis of the material on record following points arise for the consideration of this court :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has issued NACH Mandate bearing NACH bearing UMRN No.ICIC7020308244000066 on 02.08.2024 drawn on ICICI Bank for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of the complainant and on processing for collection of balance amount of Rs.21,92,000/- it is dishonoured for the reason "Balance Insufficient" on 03.05.2025 and inspite of service of demand notice dated 27.05.2025 on 30.05.2025, the accused failed to repay the amount with in the statutory period and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ?
2. What Order or Sentence?6
C.C.No.25162/2025
8. The findings of this court to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 As per final order,
for the following :
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1: To prove the case the authorized representative of the complainant is examined as PW-1 and in his evidence affidavit he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The complainant is a company incorporated under Companies Act which is tied up with NBFC, the Trillion Loans Fine Tech limited, facilitating loan facility as a assignee. To prove the incorporation of the company the PW 1 has produced the notarized copy of certificate of incorporation as Ex.P 1. The PW 1 has produced the notarized Copy of Resolution of Board of Directors of the company as Ex.P 2. The PW 1 has also produced the authorization letter issued by Trillion loans as Ex.P.3. As per Ex.P 2 and Ex.P3, the PW1 is authorized to represent the complainant company and prosecute the cases filed by the complainant. These documents prove the legal status of the complainant as a Company and authority of PW 1 to represent the complainant company.
10. The PW 1 has deposed that the accused applied for loan before the complainant through Trillionloans Fintech Private Limited in loan application No.231164 and the complainant extended credit facility to the accused for a sum of 7 C.C.No.25162/2025 Rs.50,00,000/- out of which the accused availed sum of Rs.20,00,000/- . Since the accused had applied loan in online platform, he has also signed the loan agreement and other documents digitally. Pw 1 has produced said loan documents as Ex.P 4. In the sanction letter there is clear authorization by Trillion Loans fine-tech pvt Ltd to the complainant to recover the loan and also process the NACH mandate or any other mandate on behalf of Trillion Loans. The PW 1 further deposed that during the process of loan transaction the accused issued signed NACH mandate bearing UMRN No. ICIC7020308244000066 on 02.08.2024 drawn on ICICI Bank for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of the complainant towards due discharge of debt/liability. The complainant has produced the E copy of the NACH Mandate as Ex.P 5. He has deposed that initially the accused made regular payments and later the accused failed to make payment as per the agreement, hence, complainant has processed E-NACH mandate through their banker AU Small Finance Bank, Koramangala for a outstanding sum of Rs.21,92,000/-and on processing said E NACH Mandate, it is returned dishonored with remarks "Balance Insufficient" 03-05-2025. The complainant has also produced the loan statement as Ex.P 13. which shows that outstanding due amount as on 10-12-2025 is Rs.28,33,753/-. The PW 1 has produced the debit transaction return memo as 8 C.C.No.25162/2025 Ex.P 6. The PW1 has deposed that they have got issued legal notice dated 27.05.2025 calling upon the accused to pay the due amount as per Ex.P7. The PW 1 has deposed that said notice is duly served on the accused on 30.05.2025. Evidencing the same, PW 1 has also produced the postal receipt and the postal track consignment as Ex.P 8 and Ex.P 9. He has deposed that inspite of service of demand notice the accused has not paid the amount and thus committed the offence.
11. The offence alleged is primarily under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007, which reads as under.
Section 25. Dishonour of electronic funds transfer for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.
(1) Where an electronic funds transfer initiated by a person from an account maintained by him cannot be executed on the ground that the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the transfer instruction or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with a bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the electronic funds transfer, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless--
(a) the electronic funds transfer was initiated for payment of any amount of money to another person for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability; 9
C.C.No.25162/2025
(b) the electronic funds transfer was initiated in accordance with the relevant procedural guidelines issued by the system provider;
(c) the beneficiary makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the person initiating the electronic funds transfer within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank concerned regarding the dishonour of the electronic funds transfer; and
(d) the person initiating the electronic funds transfer fails to make the payment of the said money to the beneficiary within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. (2) It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the electronic funds transfer was initiated for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
(3) It shall not be a defence in a prosecution for an offence under sub-section (1) that the person, who initiated the electronic funds transfer through an instruction, authorisation, order or agreement, did not have reason to believe at the time of such instruction, authorisation, order or agreement that the credit of his account is insufficient to effect the electronic funds transfer. (4) The Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this section, on production of a communication from the bank denoting the dishonour of electronic funds transfer, presume the fact of dishonour of such electronic funds transfer, unless and until such fact is disproved.
(5) The provisions of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881) shall apply to the dishonour of electronic funds transfer to the extent the circumstances admit. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability, as the case may be.
12. This provision also specify that the provisions of chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the extent the circumstances admit is applicable. The essential ingredients of section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 to be complied are i) An electronic fund transfer initiated by the 10 C.C.No.25162/2025 person from his account ii) Processing of the NACH Mandate by the beneficiary, iii) it returning unexecuted for the reason insufficiency of funds to honour transfer instructions. iv) electronic fund transfer was initiated in discharge of any debt or liability v) it is initiated in accordance with the relevant procedural guidelines issued by the service provider vi) Beneficiary making demand with in 30 days of receipt of information of dishonour by giving notice in writing, vii) failure of the person initiating electronic fund transfer to make payment within the period of 15 days after receipt of the demand notice. The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 does not prescribe any time limit to file the complaint. Therefore it is necessary to apply provisions of Section 142 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the complainant shall present the complaint within a month after expiry of 15 days of service of notice to the accused. Therefore it is proper to consider whether the statutory requirements for constituting offence under Section 25 of he Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied by the complainant.
13. The NACH mandate is dishonoured on 03-05-2025, the legal notice is issued on 27-05-2025. It is duly served on 30.05.2025. Therefore cause of action arise for prosecution of the accused on expiry of 15 days of service of notice on 14-06-2025. The 11 C.C.No.25162/2025 complaint is filed before this court on 08-07.2025. Thus the complainant has complied all the statutory requirements under Section 25 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act. As provided under Section 25(4) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act and also under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act law presumes that on production of banker slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque/ electronic fund transfer has been dishonored, presume the fact of dishonor of such said cheque, unless and until same is disproved. In the cross examination the accused has not denied execution of E-NACH mandate or dishonour of the same as per Ex.P5. The accused has not disputed service of demand notice and also not issued any reply notice. Inspite of service of notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant with in the statutory time. Thus the complainant has complied all the statutory requirements for constitution of offence under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for presumption under Section 25 (2) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007. Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act also there is similar presumption. The provisions of Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act reads as under:-
139- Presumption in favour of holder - It should be presumed, unless the contrary is 12 C.C.No.25162/2025 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.
14. Hon'ble Supreme court in a decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 411 between Rangappa V/s Sri Mohan has held that -
The presumption mandated by Section 139 of the act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. It is also observed that Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instrument. It is also held that in such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant caused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high slandered or proof.
15. Therefore the principles laid down in this decision can also be made applicable to the proceedings for the offence under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007. In view of the principles laid down in the decision onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption. The accused has not issued any reply at the initial stage after service of the legal notice.
16. The accused put forward her defence in the cross examination of PW 1. The accused in the cross examination of PW 1 has not denied availment of the loan facility from the 13 C.C.No.25162/2025 complainant company. The accused has initially taken the contention that the complainant has not provided the statement of accounts. Later after production of Ex.P 11 statement of accounts the accused has suggested to PW 1 that she has repaid entire loan availed by her. On perusal of Ex.P 11 and Ex.P 13 loan account, and the facts elicited in the cross examination of PW 1, it appears that the complainant has provided credit facility of the accused for the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-. The accused is availing the credit facility from the complainant from time to time as per her business requirements. Such amount of loan availed from the credit limit, is required to be repaid by the accused within 15 days of availment. After repayment of said loan account, the accused again availed the loan from the credit facility and used to repay the same. As such the accused has availed loan for 96 times from the credit facility and she has repaid the loan amount. It is detailed in Ex.P 11 and P 13 statement of accounts. As per the statement of accounts the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- is transferred to the account of the accused with ICICI Bank on 20-01-2025. This is mentioned by the complainant as 97 the loan. In the cross examination the accused has suggested that she has repaid all the loan facility including 97 th loan disbursed on 20- 01-2025. Thus the accused has admitted that the complainant has disbursed as sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on 20-01-2025. But to 14 C.C.No.25162/2025 substantiate that she has repaid said amount to the complainant has not produced any document before the court. In the cross examination of PW 1 the accused has also made contradictory statement that she has not availed 97 th loan on 20-01-2025. The accused is examined as DW 1 and her husband is examined as DW 2. In their evidence, they have not deposed any thing about the disbursal of loan amount of Rs.20,00,000/- on 20-01-2025. They have neither denied or admitted about the same. In the cross examination they have denied the suggestion of the complainant about this aspect. Thus the complainant by producing statement of accounts and by furnishing details of disbursal of amount to the account of the accused has established disbursal of said amount to the accused. But the accused has not produced her bank statement to prove that said amount allegedly disbursed is not credited to her bank account or she has not produced any documents to show that she has repaid said amount to the complainant or to Trillion Loans FinTech Pvt Ltd. Therefore this defence is not established with probable evidence before this court. Therefore this defence of the accused is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act/ Section 25 (2) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007.
15
C.C.No.25162/2025
17. The accused has examined as DW 1. In her evidence she has deposed that she is the proprietor of SPS trading company. But she has deposed that her husband Ashwin Kumar is handling the financial affairs of the said firm. Even in the cross examination she has deposed her ignorance about the transactions with the complainant company and deposed that her husband is doing business in her name and she is only signatory to the documents as per the instructions of her husband. Thus the evidence of DW 1 is not having relevance to appreciate the defence as she is not having any personal knowledge about the transactions and it is handled by her husband.
18. The accused has examined her husband as DW 2, In his evidence he has deposed that SPS trading company is proprietor ship concern of his wife and it is involved in the business of Copra trading. He has stated that the complainant is a platform for selling and buying various agricultural products. He has stated that the complainant has done business transactions with accused through 63 Ideas Infolabs Pvt Ltd and used to make payment through Trillion Loans Fine Tect Pvt Ltd. He has stated that as there is market fluctuations there is loss in the business of Copra, Therefore the complainant has created story of loan transactions. He has denied the loan liability of Rs.21,92,000/- But he has deposed that they have deposited a 16 C.C.No.25162/2025 sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with 63 Ideas Info labs Pvt Ltd as security deposit for the business transactions. But they have not utilized said amount for payment adjustments as assured by them. This defence is taken for the first time in the evidence of DW 2. The DW 1 in her evidence not deposed about these aspects. In the cross examination of PW 1 also the accused has not made suggestions to the PW 1 about these aspects deposed by DW2.
19. In the cross examination of DW 2 he has admitted that accused entered into loan agreement and executed other loan documents as per Ex.P 4 through digital platform and affixed digital signature to the agreement. But he has denied availement of loan and deposed that he do not know any thing about loan transactions. The accused has produced EX.D 1 and 2 whatsup chat about deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- and Ex.D 3 for deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- with 63 Ideas Info labs Pvt Ltd. The DW 2 is linking this deposit with the complainant that the deputy manager of complainant has made the whats up conversation as per Ex.D 1, 2 and 4 for deposit of amount. But the complainant has stated that said transactions with 63 Ideas Info labs Pvt Ltd is no way connected to the loan transactions with trillion loans. The accused has also produced the Invoice raised by 63 Ideas Infolabs Pvt Ltd as Ex.D 5. As discussed above the accused has not taken this defence co-relating the 17 C.C.No.25162/2025 transactions with 63 Ideas Infolabs Pvt Ltd with the loan transactions with complainant and Trillion Loans Pvt Ltd. Therefore without taking such defence at the earliest point of time and without giving opportunity to PW 1 to have his say about these contentions, the defence taken in the defence evidence will not get any weightage, while appreciating the evidence. The complainant has specifically contended that the transactions with 63 Ideas Infolabs Pvt Ltd is no way concerned to the loan transactions. Therefore this defence of the accused also cannot be held to be a believable defence to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act/ Section 25 (2) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007.
20. The accused in the arguments has stated that all the business transactions is held through Ninja Cart App. The Deputy Regional Head of Ninja Cart as per Ex.D 1 and 2 have demanded to deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- security deposit. It is pure business transactions and there is no loan transactions as alleged by the complainant. It is also stated that the complainant Ninja Cart is not NBFC and it is not having licence to do financial transactions. Therefore the contention of the complainant that the accused has availed loan cannot be believable. But this argument of the accused cannot be sustained. The DW 2 husband of the accused has admitted 18 C.C.No.25162/2025 execution of loan agreement as per Ex.P 2. The accused has also not been able to prove that she has not received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- transferred to her account on 20-01-2025 from trillion loans as per the statement of account produced by the complainant as Ex.P 11 and 13. The contentions raised by the accused in the arguments is not taken in the initial stage of cross examination of PW1 and the PW 1 not had opportunity to respond to such contentions of the accused. It is taken at the end of the trial in the evidence of DW 2. The complainant in the complaint itself stated that the complainant is doing business of wholesale trade of agricultural products. The complainant has also not stated that they are NBFC or having licence for RBI to do financial transactions. It is stated in the loan agreement itself that loan is lent by Trillion Loans Pvt Ltd and the complainant is only the assignee or facilitator to the loan and he is authorized under the loan agreement itself to recover the loan on behalf of Trillion Loans. Therefore this contentions of the accused will not help the accused to rebut the presumption under law.
21. Therefore this court concludes that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption of existence of debt with probable evidence and the complainant has successfully proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w 19 C.C.No.25162/2025 Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this court answers the above point No.1 in the Affirmative.
22. POINT NO. 2 : While answering the point no. 1 this court concluded that the complainant proved that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Amount covered under the NACH is Rs.21,92,000/- . The NACH mandate is processed for collection on 03-05-2025. The money involved in the case is used in commercial transactions. Therefore considering all these aspects the amount of fine calculated for a sum of Rs.23,69,400/-
23. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the reportable decision in CRL.RP No. 996 of 2016 dated 09-07-2025 between M/s Banavathy and Company VS Mahaveer Electro Mech (P) Ltd at para 21 has held that -
21. In case lesser interest is awarded and only default sentence is imposed, the rigor of offence under Section 138 will be diluted and thereby the object of the Statute will be defeated. If recovery and compensatory part is not taken care of while determining the quantum of sentence and appropriate interest is not awarded, until the date of recovery of the entire amount, the complainant will be forced to file civil suit on the same subject matter. In view of Section 143(3) the trial for offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act has to be completed within six months. If the said provision is not adhered to and the trial for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act 20 C.C.No.25162/2025 takes 4 to 5 years, in the mean time, the claim of the complainant for recovery of the cheque amount by filing civil suit becomes barred by limitation. Not only that the accused who is convicted for offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act challenges the same before the Sessions Court wherein the matter takes 2 to 3 years. The accused unsuccessful in the said appeal prefers revision petition before the High Court and it is seen that the disposal of revision takes more than 5 years. After all this if the complainant has to receive the fine/compensation as awarded by the trial Court, if it is cheque amount or little higher than the cheque amount, he will be at loss and put to injustice. Therefore, while passing the order of sentence after determining the fine/compensation, the Court shall also pass an order to pay future interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation amount payable to the complainant by fixing time of one/two months to deposit compensation amount so that even if the matter is challenged before the Sessions Court in appeal and High Court in revision the interest of the complainant will be protected.
Therefore considering directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court issued in the above referred judgment, it is also proper to direct the accused to pay future interest on the fine amount at the rate of 9 % P.A. till payment. Therefore considering all these aspects this court proceed to pass the following -
ORDER By exercising powers conferred under Section 278(2) of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 R/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and she is sentenced to pay a fine of 21 C.C.No.25162/2025 Rs.23,69,400/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand and Four Hundred only) which shall be deposited with in a month and in default pay interest at the rate of 9% from this day till payment of fine amount.
In default to pay the fine with interest, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of six months.
Further acting Section 395(1)(a) of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
Further acting Section 395(1)(a) of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha a sum of Rs.23,64,400/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Sixty Four Thousand and Four Hundred only) with interest out of the fine amount on recovery shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. The complainant shall credit the compensation amount to the loan account of the accused with Trillion Loans Fine Tech Pvt Ltd.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused.
(Partly dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, partially dictated to Adalath Ai computer application, transcribed by it, corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of April 2026).
(GOKULA.K) XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
22
C.C.No.25162/2025 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW1 : Adarsh.R LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Notarized copy of Incorporation
Certificate
Ex.P2 : Notarized Copy of the Board Resolution
Ex.P3 : Authorization Letter
Ex.P4 : Copies of key fact, statement, sanction
letter, loan agreement, mandate
Ex.P5 : NACH Mandate
Ex.P6 : Dishonour Memo
Ex.P7 : Office copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P8 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P9 : Postal Track Consignment
Ex.P10 : Certificate U/s.63 of BSA.
Ex.P11 : Statement of accounts of the loan account
Ex.P12 : Certificate U/s.63 of BSA.
Ex.P13 : Statement of accounts of the loan account
Ex.P14 : Certificate U/s.63 of BSA.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
DW1 : Krishnan Pavithra DW2 : Ashwin Kumar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
Ex.D1 : Print out of Whats app communication Ex.D2 : Print out of email request by Tirumugam Ex.D3 : Vanghee Transaction Receipt Ex.D4 : Screenshot of e-mail Ex.D5 : 6 Invoices of 63 Ideas Infolabs pvt Ltd Ex.D6 : Screen shot of contact number of Deputy General Manger of the complainant Ex.D7 : Certificate U/s.65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
(GOKULA.K.) XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
23 C.C.No.25162/2025