Bangalore District Court
M/S Srivaari Hp Gas vs Sri. R.Kumaraswamy on 4 March, 2023
KABC030120442020
Presented on : 15-02-2020
Registered on : 15-02-2020
Decided on : 04-03-2023
Duration : 3 years, 0 months, 18 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: MANJUNATHA M.S. B.A., LL.B.
XVIII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 04 th DAY OF MARCH 2023
Criminal Case No.3202/2020
COMPLAINANT: M/s SRIVAARI HP GAS.,
No.16A/2, Khata No.242,
Sy.No.192, Anis Archies Ero Zone,
Kurudusonnenahalli,
Bidarahalli, Bengaluru
Rep.by its proprietor
Mrs.Pavithra.N.V.
W/o Maheshwarappa.E
(By Sri.D.L.S- Advocate)
// Versus //
ACCUSED: Sri. R.KUMARASWAMY,
Proprietor,
Annapurana Enterprises,
No.4, Saravana Complex,
Opp.Govt Middle School,
New Airport Road,
Hunasamarahanahalli,
Bangalore-560 057.
Also at
Sri.R.Kumaraswamy,
R/o No.104, 7th main,
2 Judgment C.C.3202/2020
Behind Andhra Bank,
Defence colony,
Begur Main Road,
Vinayakanagara, IAF Postk
Bengaluru
(By Sri.R.S.- Advocate)
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Name of the complaint : M/s SRIVAARI HP GAS.,
Rep.by its proprietor
Mrs.Pavithra.N.V.
Date of commencement
of evidence : 08.04.2021
Date of closing evidence : 28.11.2022
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty.
(MANJUNATHA M.S.)
XVIII A.C.M.M.,BANGALORE
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this complaint under section 200 of code of criminal procedure read with section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short referred as "N.I. Act") against the accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act.
3 Judgment C.C.3202/2020
02. The sum and substance of the complaint is as follows; The complainant is a dealer of HP gas and accused is regular customer of the complainant and complainant has supplied the gas to the accused on various dates from 2 years back on credit and cash pay basis. The accused is in due of Rs.6,32,855/- to the complainant. The complainant has made repeated demand and request to clear the dues the accused has entered into an debt settlement agreement dated 15.7.2019 agreeing to pay the balance amount within short period of time and issued two cheques bearing No. 198259 for Rs.3,59,155/- and No. 196260 for Rs.2,73,700/- both dated 15.9.2019 drawn on Bank of India, Bettahalasuru Branch, Bengaluru and also assured the cheques will be honoured on their presentation. As per the assurance of the accused, the complainant has presented the said two cheques for encashment through her banker i.e., State Bank of India, Yelahanaka New Town Branch, Bengaluru. But the said cheques were dishonored for " Funds Insufficient" on 04.11.2019. Therefore, the complainant has got issued demand notice on 13-11-2019 to the accused by demanding the payment of cheque amount. The notice sent to the second address of the accused was duly served and notice sent to the 1 st 4 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 address of the accused was returned 'Addressee not found/hence returned to sender". Despite of service of legal notice, the accused has not paid the cheque amount, thereby he has committed offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act.
03. After filing of complaint, this court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Being satisfied that there are prima-facie materials to proceed against accused, summons was issued. After appearance, the accused was enlarged on bail and his plea was recorded as per section 251 of Cr.P.C. The accused has not pleaded guilty and submitted that he has defense to make.
04. As per the direction of Hon'ble supreme court in "Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590, the sworn statement of the proprietor of complainant treated as complainant evidence. The proprietor of complainant has examined herself as PW1 by filing affidavit of chief-examination and got marked Ex.P.1 to 16. The accused has filed application under section 145(2) of NI Act for recall of PW1 for the purpose of cross-examination. The said application came to 5 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 be allowed and defence counsel has fully cross-examined PW1. The statement of accused as contemplated under section 313 of code of criminal procedure was recorded. The accused has denied all the incriminating material appears against him in the complainant's evidence. To prove his defence the accused has stepped into witness box and examined as DW1. The accuased has produced 6 documenst and got marked as Ex.D.1 to 6. The complainant counsel has fully cross-examined DW1.
05. Heard the arguments of learned counsels for complainant and accused. The defence counsel has also filed written arguments . I have perused the materials available on record.
06. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows;
1. Whether the complainant has proves that the accused has issued cheque bearing No. 198259 for Rs.3,59,155/- and No. 196260 for Rs.2,73,700/- both dated 15.9.2019 towards discharge of his liability, which was returned unpaid on presentation for the reason "Funds Insufficient " and despite of notice he has not paid the cheque amount and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What Order?
6 Judgment C.C.3202/2020
07. My answer to the above points is as follows;
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
08. POINT No.1: The Complainant has filed this complaint alleging that the accused has committed offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. The complainant has pleads and asserts that the accused is in due of Rs.6,32,855/- in respect of filled Gas cylinders and Empty Gas Cylinders price. Towards discharge of said liability he has issued two cheques bearing No.198259 for Rs.3,59,155/- and No.196260 for Rs.2,73,700/- both dated 15.9.2019. The complainant has presented the said cheques for encashment through its banker. The said cheques were returned unpaid with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient" on 04.11.2019. Thereafter, he got issued demand notice on 13.11.2019 to the accused by demanding the payment of cheques amount. Despite of service of notice the accused has not paid the amount within 15 days, which gave raise cause of action to file this complaint.
09. To substantiate its case, the proprietor of complainant herself stepped into witness box and examined as PW.1 and got marked 7 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 Ex.P-1 to 16 documents. The complainant has reiterated the contents of the complaint in her affidavit evidence about due of Rs.6,32,855/- to the accused, issuance of cheque by the accused towards repayment of loan amount and their dishonour for "Funds Insufficient", issuance of legal notice to the accused calling upon him to pay the amount covered under cheque and his failure to comply the same.
10. In this scenario, let me scrutinize the documents relied by complainant in order to examine the compliance of statutory requirements envisaged under section 138 of N.I. Act. Ex.P.1 & 2 are cheques dated 15.09.2019. The said cheques were returned unpaid with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient" as per Ex.P.3 & 4 bank endorsements dated 04.11.2019, Ex.P.5 is legal notice dated 13-11-2019 under which the complainant has demanded the payment of cheque amount, Ex.P.6 is Postal Receipt, Ex.P.7 is unserved postal cover , Ex.P.8 is letter to Post Master, Ex.P.9 is Postal track consignment details, Ex.P.10 is Debt settlement agreement, Ex.P.11 is statement, Ex.P.12 is Registration certificate, Ex.P.13 is Agreement for supply of LPG and Ex.P.14 to 16 are photos . This complaint came to be filed on 17-12-2019. A careful 8 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 scrutiny of the documents relied by the complainant goes to show that, statutory requirements of section 138 of N.I. Act have been complied with and this complaint is filed within time. The complainant proprietor of complainant examining herself as PW1 and by producing aforesaid documents has discharged her initial burden.
11. The accused has specifically denied the issuance of cheques in question for repayment of due amount of Rs.6,32,855/- to the complainant firm. He has putforth his defence that from 2017 he used to purchase gas cylinders from the complainant as sub- dealer in order to supply the same to his customers. But the complainant has started to supply cylinder to his customer without his knowledge therefore, he has stopped the business with the complainant firm from July 2019. Thereafter, in respect of due amount of Rs.52,000/-, the husband of the PW1 has obtained his signatures in blank stamp paper and other blank paper and also obtained two blank signed cheques for security towards payment of due amount of Rs.52,000/- and for return of 161 empty cylinders. Thereafter he has returned all 161 empty cylinders to the 9 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 complainant and paid all due amount of Rs.52,000/- by way of account transfer and by cash. Therefore, there is no due on his behalf. After clearing at the due amount and after returning of all empty cylinders, he has demanded to return the blank stamp paper and blank paper and also signed cheques. But the complainant has not return the same and by misusing the same has filed present false case. As such the cheques in question are not supported by any consideration, hence section 138 of NI Act is not attracted to the same. On these grounds he prays to acquit him from the charges.
12. In the back drop of aforesaid rival contentions, this court has given anxious consideration to the material on record and the submissions of the learned counsels for both side. At the outset, it is pertinent to state that the accused in his cross examination has clearly admitted that the cheques in question belongs to his account and they bears his signatures. From the said admissions it goes without saying that the accused has not disputed the cheques in question and his signatures thereon. The only contention of the accused so far as the cheques in question is concerned he has issued said cheques as a security for repayment of due amount of Rs.52,000/- and for return of 161 empty cylinders. When the drawer 10 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 has admitted the issuance of cheque as well as the signature present thereon, the presumption envisage under section 118 read with section 139 of NI Act would operate in favour of the complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S Kalamani Tex and another V/s P. Balasubramanian (2021) 5 SCC 283 has held that the Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these 'reverse onus' clauses become operative, such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him. Therefore once the drawer has admitted the issuance of cheque as well as on the signature present therein or it is established that signature in cheque belongs to accused, then the presumption envisaged under section 118 and 139 of NI Act, would operate in favour of the complainant. The said provision lays down a special rule of evidence applicable to negotiable instrument. The presumption is one of law and thereunder court shall presume that the Negotiable instrument was endorsed for consideration. So, also in the absence of contrary evidence on behalf of the accused, the presumption under section 118 and 139 of NI Act goes in favour of the complainant. In the present case also the accused has admitted 11 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 his signature in the cheques. As such presumption under section 118 and 139 of NI Act has to be drawn in favour of the complainant. Section 118 reads as here:- "That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration". Further Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for presumption in favour of a holder. It reads as here: - "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, or any debt or other liability." A combined reading of above said sections raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability.
13. No doubt, the said statutory presumptions are rebuttable in nature. It is for the accused to place cogent and probable defence to rebut presumption raised in favour of the complainant. As discussed above when the complainant has relied upon the statutory presumption enshrined under section 118 read with section 139 of 12 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 NI Act. It is for the accused to rebut the said presumption with cogent and convincing evidence. To put it other way, the burden lies upon the accused to prove that Ex.P.1 and 2 cheques were not issued for discharge of any debt or liability. It is worth to note that section 106 of Indian Evidence Act postulates that, the burden is on the accused to establish the fact which is especially within his special knowledge. This provision is exception to the General Rule that, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to establish their case beyond all reasonable doubt. In that view of the matter the burden is on the accused to prove that he has issued cheques in question as a security for repayment of due amount of Rs.52,000/- and for return of empty cylinders.
14. To rebut the aforesaid presumption and to prove his defence the accused himself has stepped into witness box and examined as DW1 and also cross examined PW1. In support of his oral testimony the accused has produced Ex.D.1 to D4 delivery receipts, Ex.D.5 Registration certificate and insurance policy. During the chief examination the accused has deposed that he used to purchase gas cylinders from the complainant since 2017 as sub-dealer, but the complainant has started to supply the gas cylinders directly to his 13 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 customer without his knowledge. Once he has read handedly caught the servants of complainant while supplying the cylinder directly to his customer without his knowledge. As such from July 2019 he has stopped business relationship with the complainant. The husband of PW1 by name Mahesh has obtained his signatures on blank stamp paper, three blank papers and one blank letter head and also obtained two blank signed cheques as a security for repayment of due amount of Rs.52,000/- and for return of 161 empty cylinders. Thereafter, he has transfer Rs.2000/- each per month for Rs.16,000/- and paid remaining amount by way of cash to the complainant. He further deposed that he has returned all the empty cylinders, but the complainant has issued receipts only for 90 cylinders and for receipt of remaining cylinders the complainant has not issued any receipt. After return of empty cylinders and repayment of entire due amount the complainant has failed to return the cheques and blank stamp paper and by misusing the same has filed false case. In support of his contention the accused has produced four receipts, registration certificate and insurance policy and got marked the same as Ex.D.1 to 6 .
14 Judgment C.C.3202/2020
15. The complainant contended that the accused was in due of Rs.3,59,155/- towards supply of filled gas cylinders and Rs.2,73,700/- towards the value of 161 empty cylinders. To that effect the accused has executed debt settlement agreement dated 15.07.2019 by admitting his liability to pay a sum of Rs.6,23,855/ and issued Ex.P.1 & 2 cheques for payment of the said due amount. In support of said contention the complainant has produced Ex.P.10 debt settlement agreement along with letter dated 15.07.2019 and Ex.P11 ledger account extract. The accused during his cross
-examination has admitted the signatures in Ex.P.10 and 11 belongs to him. However he has contended that the husband of PW1 has took his signatures on blank stamp paper, letter head and blank papers and by using the said blank stamp paper, letter head blank and blank papers has created Ex.P.10 and 11 alleged debt settlement agreement and ledger account extract. The General Rule is that the person who signed the document has signed the same by knowing the contention of the said document. Under such circumstance the accused has to prove that his signatures were obtained by fraud or misleading or coercion, otherwise it has to be presume that he has duly executed the said document. In the present case also the 15 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 accused has contended that the husband of PW1 has took his signatures on blank stamp paper, blank paper and letter head. To prove the said fact except the oral testimony of the accused nothing is on record to say that the husband of PW1 has obtained the signatures from the accused by misleading him.
16. The accused further contended that after signing the blank stamp paper and letter head as well a blank paper he has paid Rs.16,000/- by way of account transfer and remaining amount of Rs.36,000/- by way of cash to the complainant, thereby he has cleared entire due amount of Rs.52,000/- to the complainant. But the accused has not produced any materials to prove payment of Rs.52,000/-. Even he has not produced his bank statement to prove the account transfer of Rs.16,000/-. Therefore, absolute nothing is on record to prove that he was in due of Rs.52,000/- only and paid the said entire due amount.
17. Ex.P.11 ledger account extract proves that the accused was in due of Rs.3,59, 155/- towards supply of gas cylinders. He has signed the said ledger account. This fact shows that he has admitted the correctness of said ledger account. Further by executing Ex.P.10 16 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 debt settlement agreement the accused has admitted his liability to pay Rs.3,59,155/- towards supply of gas cylinder and Rs.2,73,700/- towards value of 161 empty cylinders.During the cross examination the accused admitted that ನಿಪ.10 ಕರರಾರಿನ ಪಪ್ರಕರಾರ ನರಾನನು ದದೂರನುದರಾರರ ಸಸಂಸಸಸ್ಥೆಗಸ 161 ಖರಾಲ ಸಿಲಸಂಡರ್ ಗಳನನುನ್ನು ವರಾಪಸ್ ಕಸದೂಡಬಸಬೇಕರಾಗಿತನುತ್ತು ಎಸಂದರಸ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಖರಾಲ ಸಿಲಸಂಡರ್ ಗಳ ಆಗಿನ ಬಸಲಸ ರದೂ.2,73,700/- ಆಗಿತನುತ್ತು ಎಸಂದನು ನರಾನನು ಕರರಾರಿನಲಲ್ಲಿ ಒಪಪ್ಪಿ ಬರಸದನುಕಸದೂಟಟ್ಟಿರನುತಸತ್ತುಬೇನಸ ಎಸಂದರಸ ಸರಿ. The accused contended that he has returned entire 161 empty cylinders to the complainant firm and obtained receipts for return of cylinders. In support of his contention he has produced Ex.D.1 to 4 receipts. The complainant has specifically denied the execution of said receipts and contended that the accused has obtained blank receipts from the complainant firm by illegally means and created Ex.D.1 to 4 receipts. If the accused really returned all the empty cylinders then what presented him to take back all his documents or to make necessary endorsement in the Ex.P.10 agreement. But the accused has not made any effort to that effect. Even the accused has not taken any action to take back his blank signed cheques either by lodging police complaint or by issue notice. Ordinarily no prudent man will sit quite without taking any action to take back signed 17 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 cheques. In the present case, the accused claims that he has demanded for return of the cheques but the complainant has not return the same. The said contention of the accused appears to be unacceptable one in view of the strained relationship between the accused and complainant.
18. The next contention of the accused is that no notice was served on him as per section 138 (b) NI Act. During the cross examination the accused admitted that ನಿಪ.13 ರಲಲ್ಲಿ ನನನ್ನು ವಿಳರಾಸ ಮತನುತ್ತು ದದೂರಿನಲಲ್ಲಿ ಹಸಬೇಳಿರನುವ ನನನ್ನು ವಿಳರಾಸ ಎರಡನು ಒಸಂದಸಬೇ ಆಗಿರನುತತ್ತುದಸ ಎಸಂದರಸ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪ.7 ಅಸಂಚಸ ಕವರ್ ನಲಲ್ಲಿರನುವ ನನನ್ನು ವಿಳರಾಸ ಮತನುತ್ತು ನಿಪ.13 ರಲಲ್ಲಿ ಹಸಬೇಳಿರನುವ ನನನ್ನು ವಿಳರಾಸ ಎರಡನು ಒಸಂದಸಬೇ ಆಗಿರನುತತ್ತುದಸ ಎಸಂದರಸ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪ.14 ರಿಸಂದ 16 ಪಬೇಟಸದೂಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ಎಲಲ್ಲಿಯದೂ ಸಹ ಬಿಬಿ ರಸದೂಬೇಡ್ ಎಸಂದನು ಇರನುವವುದಿಲಲ್ಲಿ ಎಸಂದರಸ ಸರಿ. ಆ ರಸಸತ್ತುಯನನುನ್ನು ನದೂನ ಏರ್ ಪಬೇರರ್ಟ್ ಎಸಂದನು ಕರಸಯನುತರಾತ್ತುರಸ ಎಸಂದರಸ ಸರಿ. ದಸಬೇವನಹಳಿಳ್ಳಿ ಏರ್ ಪಬೇರರ್ಟ್ ಬರನುವವುದಕಕಸಂತ ಮೊದಲನು ಆ ರಸಸತ್ತುಯನನುನ್ನು ಬಿ ಬಿ ರಸದೂಬೇಡ್ (ಬಸಸಂಗಳದೂರನು - ಬಳರಾಳ್ಳಿರಿ ರಸದೂಬೇಡ್) ಎಸಂದನು ಕರಸಯನುತತ್ತುದದ್ದರನು ಎಸಂದರಸ ಸರಿ. ದಸಬೇವನಹಳಿಳ್ಳಿ ಏರ್ ಪಬೇರರ್ಟ್ ಆದ ನಸಂತರ ಅದನನುನ್ನು ನದೂನ ಏರ್ ಪಬೇರರ್ಟ್ ಎಸಂದನು ಕರಸಯನುತರಾತ್ತುರಸ ಎಸಂದರಸ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪ.10 ರ ಜಸದೂತಸ ಇರನುವ ನನನ್ನು ಸಸಂಸಸಸ್ಥೆಯ ಲಸಬೇಟರ್ ಹಸಡ್ ನಲಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿ ಬಿ ರಸದೂಬೇಡ್ ಎಸಂದನು ಕರಾಣಿಸಿರನುತಸತ್ತುಬೇನಸ ಎಸಂದರಸ ಸರಿ. ಅದನು ಹಳಸಯ ಲಸಬೇಟರ್ ಹಸಡ್ ಆಗಿರನುತತ್ತುದಸ ಎಸಂದರಸ ಸರಿ. From the above admissions of the accused, it is clear that the complainant has sent demand notice as per section 138(b) of NI Act 18 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 to the proper address of the accused, which is sufficient complaint of section 138(b) of NI Act.
19. From the discussion made supra, it is clear that, the accused neither taken probable defence nor taken steps to prove the same. To put it other way, the accused has not taken and proved probable defence to rebut the presumption of law available in favour of the complainant, envisaged under section 118 read with section 139 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, the case of the complainant is acceptable. The complainant has proved that, for discharge of her liability the accused has issued Ex.P.1 and 2 cheque and he has intentionally not maintained sufficient amount in his account to honour the said cheques. Hence, this point No.1 under consideration is answered in the Affirmative.
20. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasons stated and discussed above, the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a decision reported in, (2015) 17 SCC 368, in a case of H.Pukhraj Vs. D.Parasmal, observed that, having regard to the length of trial and date of issuance of the cheque, it is necessary to 19 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 award reasonable interest on the cheque amount along with cost of litigation. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent decision in M/s. Meters & instrument Pvt Ltd. Vs. Kanchana Mehta reported in (2018)1 SCC-560 held at para 18 that "The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the court. " The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs Vijay.D Salvi reported in (2015) 9 SCC 622 held that as the provision of chapter XVII of the Act strongly lean towards grant of reimbursement of the loss by way of compensation, the courts should unless there are special circumstance, in all cases of conviction, uniformly exercise the power to levy fine upto to twice the cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss) and direct payment of such amount as compensation. Therefore, keeping in mind the time when the transaction has taken place and primary object of the provision, this 20 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 court is of the opinion that, rather than imposing punitive sentence, if sentence of fine is imposed with a direction to compensate the complainant for its monitory loss, by awarding compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C, would meet the ends of justice. The date of cheques is 15-09-2019 and amount covered under both cheque is Rs. 6,32,855/-. By considering all these aspects, this court is of the opinion that, it is just and proper to imposed fine amount of Rs.7,25,000/-, which includes interest and cost of litigation, out of which compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- has to be awarded to the complainant U/s 357 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under section 255 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, accused is here by convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and accused has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.7,25,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only). In default thereof accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for the term of six (6) months.
21 Judgment C.C.3202/2020 Acting under section 357(1) (b) of code of criminal procedure, it is ordered that, Rs.7,20,000/- ( Rupees Seven lakhs and Twenty Thousand only), therefrom shall be paid to the complainant as a compensation, remaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in the prosecution. Office is directed to supply free copy of the judgment to the accused.
(Directly dictated to the Stenographer on computer, typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment pronounced in the open court on this the 4 th day of March 2023 ).
(MANJUNATHA M.S.) XVIII A.C.M.M.,BANGALORE ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1: Mrs.Pavithra II. List of documents on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P-1 &2 : Two Original Cheques.
Ex.P-3 & 4 : Bank memos.
Ex.P-5 : Legal notice.
22 Judgment C.C.3202/2020
Ex.P-6 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P-7 : Unserved Postal cover
Ex.P-8 : Letter,
Ex.P-9 : Postal track consignment details
Ex.P-10 : Debt settlement agreement
Ex.P-11 : Statement,
Ex.P-12 : Registration certificate
Ex.P.-13 : Agreement for supply of LPG
Ex.P-14 to 16 : Photos
III. List of witnesses for the accused:
D.W.1: Sri.Kumarswamy
IV. List of documents for accused:
Ex.D-1 to 4 : Bills
Ex.D-5 : Registration certificate
Ex.D-6 : Insurance policy
Ex.D-6 : Bank Statement
Ex.D-7 : Death Certificate
(MANJUNATHA M.S.)
XVIII A.C.M.M.,BANGALORE