Bangalore District Court
M/S Ninjacart Services Pvt Ltd vs Afz Fruits on 6 October, 2025
KABC030481802024
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 6th day of October 2025
Present : SRI. GOKULA. K
B.A.LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore City.
C.C.No.27863/2024
Complainant : M/s.Ninjacart Services Private Limited
R/of Helios Business Park, E Block
2nd floor, Opp New Horizon College Bus
Stop
Service Road, Kadabeesanahalli
Bengaluru 560 103.
Rep by its Manager
Mr.Kiran Kashinathan.
(By GHR Advocate )
V/s
Accused : AFZ Fruits
Rep by its Proprietor
Asgar Pasha
No.34, Kodichikkanahalli Main Road
9th cross, Kaverinagar, Bommanahalli
Bangalore South ,
Bangalore 560 068.
(By CGY - Advocate )
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
Final Order: Accused is convicted
Date of Judgment 06.10.2025
2
C.C.No.27863/2024
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 and tied up with Non Banking Financial Institutions to enable the service of credit facility to borrowers as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. The accused is engaged in the business of wholesale trade of agricultural products and commission agency. The accused approached the complainant for loan through M/s Trillion Loans Fin tech Private Limited in loan application No.8306. After considering the same, the M/s.Trillion Loans Fin-tech Private Limited sanctioned loan to the sum of Rs.23,78,077/- on 26-10-2023. The accused has agreed to repay the loan as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The accused approached for loan on online platform and he has digitally signed the loan documents. The complainant is acting as an assignee of M/s Trillion Loans Fin- 3
C.C.No.27863/2024 tech Private Limited. It is pleaded that during the process of loan transaction the accused has issued a signed NACH( National Automated Clearing House) mandate towards part payment bearing No.ICIC7021603241001422 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., for a sum of Rs.23,78,077/- towards due discharge of debt/liability. After availing loan, initially, the accused made regular payments and later the accused failed to make payment as per the agreement. The accused on repeated demands of the complainant, instructed to present the NACH mandate which is given for outstanding amount. As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant has processed E- NACH mandate through his banker Yes Bank, Koramangala for an outstanding sum of Rs.17,30,000/- and on processing said E NACH Mandate, it is returned dishonored with remarks "Balance Insufficient" in the account of the accused to honor the same on 11-07-2024 bearing sequence No.6134656649. On receipt of said intimation, the complainant got issued legal notice on 12-07-2024 through registered post and demanded to pay the amount dishonoured under E-NACH Mandate. The notice returned with shara 'Insufficient Address' on 22.07.2024. It is stated that notice is issued to the correct address of the accused furnished in loan documents. Inspite of issuance of notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant within the statutory time. Therefore, the 4 C.C.No.27863/2024 accused has committed the offence punishable under 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.11309/2024 and recorded sworn statement of the representative of the 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 he 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 his plea is recorded. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5
C.C.No.27863/2024
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 2014SCW3463, 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. On the application of the accused PW1 is recalled and he is examined in full. After closure of evidence of the complainant the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the complainant is read over to the accused and his statement under Section 351 of BNSS is recorded. The accused has denied the same as false. The accused is examined as DW 1 and produced documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3. In the cross examination the complainant got marked Ex.P.11 by confronting to DW1.
6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the accused and perused the material on record.
7. On the basis of the material on record the following points arise for the consideration of this court :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has issued NACH Mandate bearing No. ICIC7021603241001422 dated 14-03-2024 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., for a sum of Rs.6
C.C.No.27863/2024 23,78,077/- for discharge of liability and it is dishonoured on processing for collection for a outstanding sum of Rs.17,30,000/- on 11-07-2024 in sequence no.6134656649 for the reason Balance Insufficient and inspite of service of demand notice dated 12-07-2024 the accused failed to repay the amount within 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 ?
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 authorised representative of the complainant examined as PW-1 and in his evidence affidavit he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The complainant is a company registered under the Companies Act and tied up with Non Banking Financial Institution i.e. Trillions Loan Fintech Private Limited and providing service of credit facility to the borrowers. To prove incorporation of the company the PW 1 has produced the certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation as Ex.P 1. The PW 1 has produced the Certified Copy of resolution of Board of Directors of the company as 7 C.C.No.27863/2024 Ex.P2. As per Ex.P 2 the PW1 is authorized to represent the complainant company and prosecute the accused. The accused has not disputed the status of the complainant company and also not disputed the authority of PW 1 to depose on behalf of the complainant company.
10. The PW 1 has deposed that the accused approached the complainant for credit facility through online and the complainant has facilitated the credit facility to the accused through Trillion Loans fine-tech Pvt Ltd for a sum of Rs.23,78,077/-. The accused has executed the loan agreement agreeing to repay the loan as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The PW 1 has deposed that towards repayment of liability, the accused issued E-NACH Mandate for monthly installments bearing No. ICIC7021603241001422 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., for a sum of 23,78,077/-. The PW 1 has deposed that they have processed the E NACH mandate to the outstanding amount in the loan account for Rs.17,30,000/- and it is dishonored for the reason balance insufficient. It is stated that inspite of issuance of demand notice, the accused has not complied the demands made in the notice and not paid the due amount.
8
C.C.No.27863/2024
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;
(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.9
C.C.No.27863/2024 (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.
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 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 10 C.C.No.27863/2024 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.
12. Therefore it is proper to consider whether the statutory requirements for constituting the 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. The PW 1 has deposed that towards repayment of liability, the accused issued E NACH Mandate bearing No. ICIC7021603241001422 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., for a sum of 23,78,077/-. The PW 1 has produced the NACH mandate copy as Ex.P 6. He has deposed that the accused has defaulted to repay the loan availed regularly as agreed upon and he become defaulter in repayment. He has deposed that they have processed said NACH Mandate issued by the accused for realization of outstanding sum of Rs.17,30,000/- through sequence no.613656649 through their banker ie Yes Bank, Koramangala Branch, Bengaluru and said NACH Mandate returned dishonored on 11-07-2024 for the reason "Balance 11 C.C.No.27863/2024 Insufficient" in the account of the accused. 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. The accused has not disputed the dishonour of NACH mandate. The PW 1 has produced the debit transaction return memo as Ex.P.7. The PW1 has deposed that they have got issued legal notice dated 12-07-2024 calling upon the accused to pay the due amount as per Ex.P8. The PW 1 has deposed that said notice issued through RPAD returned with postal shara "insufficient address" on 22.07.2024. It is stated that the notice is issued to the address of the accused as furnished in the loan agreement. The accused has also not disputed the address mentioned in the legal notice. Therefore issuance of notice to the address furnished by the accused is deemed service of notice. The complainant has produced the postal receipt and returned postal envelopes as Ex.P 9 and Ex.P10. The PW 1 deposed that inspite of issuance of notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant with in the statutory time. The cause of action arose on 06-08-2024, The complaint is filed before this court on 29-08-2024. The 12 C.C.No.27863/2024 NACH is processed for collection through the account of the complainant with Yes Bank Koramangala, situated with in the jurisdiction of this court. 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 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.
13. 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 13 C.C.No.27863/2024 reverse onus clauses and the defendant caused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high slandered or proof.
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 these decisions the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption. The accused has not issued any reply at the initial stage at the time of service of the legal notice.
14. The accused has taken his defence in the cross examination of PW1. In the cross examination the accused has denied that he has executed the loan documents as claimed by the complainant through online process. He has also denied that he has executed E NACH mandate through online. The PW 1 has denied the suggestions of learned counsel for the accused. But in the cross examination of PW 1 itself the accused has admitted the availment of loan from Trillions Loan Private Limited and taken contention that he has repaid entire loan amount. The accused has also admitted in evidence that he has repaid the loan through the online platform of the complainant Ninja App. He has contended that there is no due from the accused to the complainant or to Trillions Loan Private Limited. 14
C.C.No.27863/2024
15. In the evidence DW 1 has deposed that he has availed loan from M/s Trillion Loans Fintech Private Limited for a sum of Rs.17 Lakhs and odd and Rs.8 Lakhs and odd and Rs.7,17,000/- and odd. In this regard he has produced the statement of account of his bank account with ICICI bank as Ex.D.2 for the period from 01-04-2024 to 30-04-2024. The accused has stated that as per Ex.D 2 on 02.04.2024, a sum of Rs.49,500/-, Rs.7,95,000/- and Rs.2,10,000/- is credited to his account and on 03.04.2024 a sum of Rs.7,06,000/- and on 25.04.2024 a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.7,83,000/- is credited to his bank account. The accused has taken the defence that he has repaid all such amount to M/s Trillion Loans Pvt Ltd as per Ex.D 1 printouts of Ninja App. The complainant has also not denied the said fact of repayment of the loan by the accused as per Ex.D 1. But it is the contention of the complainant in the said loan account the accused has availed loan in the month of may 2025, after repayment as per Ex.D1 and it is not disclosed by the accused and suppressed while filing Ex.D 2 statement of accounts.
16. The PW 1 in the cross examination has deposed that "out of sanctioned amount, accused availed a sum of Rs.4,65,000/- on 28.05.2024 to his account and a sum of Rs.5,95,000/- on 28.05.2024 to the account of the supplier of the goods and a 15 C.C.No.27863/2024 sum of Rs.4,64,000/- on 29.05.2024 and a sum of Rs.3,64,000/- on 30.05.2024 to his account". The PW 1 has deposed that the accused has repaid earlier credit facility availed from the complainant in the said loan account but the due amount from the accused is in respect of the credit facility availed in the month of May 2024. To substantiate disbursement of amount to the account of the accused, the complainant has produced the statement of account as Ex.P.11. As per Ex.P.11, sum of Rs.4,63,882/- is transferred to the account of the accused on 29.05.2024 , a sum of Rs.3,53,888/- is transferred to the account of the accused on 30.05.2024, a sum of Rs.4,64,882/- is transferred to the account of the accused on 28.05.2024 and a sum of Rs.5,88,060/- is transferred to the account of RR Traders on 28.05.2024. With regard to the transactions with RR Traders the accused in his evidence as DW 1 has deposed that "I know RR Traders. I am having business transactions with RR Traders". Thus RR Traders is not stranger to the accused. The PW 1 has stated that as per the OTP authentication given by the accused they have transferred said amount to RR Traders. When Ex.P11 and the entries therein is confronted to the accused, he has not denied credit of said amount to his account from Trillion Loans Private Limited, but, he has stated that he has to verify his bank statement. The Bank statement produced by the accused as per 16 C.C.No.27863/2024 Ex.D.2 is for the period from 01.04.2024 to 30.04.2024. Thus, the accused conveniently avoided production of his bank statement for the month of May 2024. This clearly establishes that said amount as per Ex.P.11 is credited to the account of the accused. Therefore he has not produced his bank statement for the month of May 2024 and if produced it will show credit of amount to his account as per Ex.P11. The complainant has not disputed that the accused has repaid the loan availed by him till end of April 2024. The amount due from the accused is the loan amount availed in the month of May 2024. The accused in the cross examination has agreed to produce the statement of account for the period from 01.05.2024 to 31.05.2024. But he has not produced the same. Hence, adverse inference can be drawn against the accused. It is not the case of the accused that he has repaid the loan availed from the complainant in the month of May 2024 as evident in the statement of accounts Ex.P 11. Therefore, the defence of the accused that he has repaid entire loan amount availed from the complainant and he has discharged his liability cannot be accepted. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the accused has not repaid the loan availed from the complainant in the month of May 2024 as seen in Ex.P.11, the Statement of Accounts. 17
C.C.No.27863/2024
17. The accused has taken another defence that he has availed loan from Trillion Loan Fintech Private Limited and there is no financial transaction with the complainant. Therefore there is no legal liability to repay the loan to the complainant. But as per the loan sanction letter Ex.P.4, there is specific condition that "repayment shall be made by using Ninjacart services and its affiliates or partner entity app. On behalf of us, Ninjacart services Private Limited and its affiliates entity facilitate the national automate clearing house (NACH) mandate are similar payment mandates provided by you for the payment / repayment of dues". Further Ex.D1 document produced by the accused also shows that the accused has made repayment by using Ninja Trade Credit One app. Therefore from this evidence on record, the contention of the accused that he has not availed any loan from the complainant and he is not having any legal liability to pay any amount to the complainant cannot be accepted. In the sanction letter itself there is averment about repayment of the loan by using Ninja App of the complainant and also authority given to the complainant to process ENACH mandate. The accused has signed the Sanction letter in the digital platform and also made repayments by using the services of Ninja APP. Therefore the contention that there is no legal liability to the complainant cannot be accepted. 18
C.C.No.27863/2024
18. Therefore for the above discussion this court concludes that the defence put forward by the accused that he has repaid entire loan or there is no transaction with the complainant is not probabalized with prima facie evidence. Therefore the defence of the accused is not convincing to believe that existence of legal liability is doubtful and it is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 25 (2) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 25 (2) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this court concludes that 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. Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this court answers the above point No.1 in the Affirmative.
19. POINT NO. 2 : While answering the point no. 1 this court has 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 processed for collection through NACH is Rs.17,30,000/-. The NACH mandate is processed for collection on 11-07-2024. The money involved 19 C.C.No.27863/2024 in the case is used in commercial transactions. Therefore considering all these aspects the amount of fine calculated for a sum of Rs.19,29,500/-.
20. The Ho'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 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 20 C.C.No.27863/2024 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 refereed 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 he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.19,29,500/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand and Five 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 6 months.
21
C.C.No.27863/2024 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.19,24,500/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand and Five Hundred only), with interest out of the fine amount on recovery shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused . [[ (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of October 2025).
(GOKULA.K) XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW1 : Kiran Kashinathan.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of Incorporation Certificate Ex.P2 : Certified Copy of the Board Resolution Ex.P3 : Web copy Loan application Ex.P4 : Web copy of Sanction Letter Ex.P5 : Web copy of Loan Agreement Ex.P6 : NACH 22 C.C.No.27863/2024 Ex.P7 : Return Memo Ex.P8 : Office copy of Legal Notice Ex.P9 : Postal Receipt Ex.P10 : Postal envelope Ex.P11 : Statement of account.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
DW1 : Asgar Pasha LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
Ex.D1 : 8 Transaction Details
Digitally
Ex.D2 : Bank Statement signed by
Ex.D3 : Certificate U/s.63 of BSA GOKULA K
GOKULA
Date:
K 2025.10.06
17:43:43
+0530
(GOKULA.K.)
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.