Bangalore District Court
Sri G. Rajashekar vs Sri V. Venkatappa on 14 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2016
PRESENT: SMT. ISHRATH JAHAN ARA, B.A.L., L.L.B.,
XIX ADDL.C.M.M.BANGALORE.
Case No: CC No.9157/2014
Complainant: Sri G. Rajashekar
S/o. Late G. Ramanna
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No.157, 4th Cross,
S.G. Palya, Venkateshwara Layout,
Bengaluru -560 029.
Accused: Sri V. Venkatappa
Also called himself as
V. Krishanappa,
S/o. Venkateshappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.145, 2nd Main Road,
Chikkaadugodi,
Near Lakshmi Venkateshawara Temple,
Bengaluru -560 029.
Offence complained of: U/s.138 of N.I. Act
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
Opinion of the Judge Accused found guilty
Date of order: 14th September 2016
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this complaint u/Sec..200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. 2 C.C.No.9157/2014
2. The brief facts of the complaint that;
The Complainant stated that the Complainant and accused are friends and they are known to each other and out of friendship, the accused had approached the Complainant for the hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/- to meet his family necessities and urgent legal commitments and also for repair of his vehicle and by considering the request of the accused, the Complainant had advanced a sum of Rs.3,42,000/- on 5.10.2012 by way of cash. The accused after receipt of the loan amount, promised to repay the entire loan amount within three months and subsequently, after repeated requests and demand made by the Complainant, the accused in order to repay the loan amount, had issued his post-dated cheque bearing No.654732 dtd. 26.3.2013 for Rs.3,42,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, BTM Layout branch, Bengaluru with a request to present the said cheque for encashment on its presentation and it will be honoured on its presentation.
3. It is further submitted that the Complainant on assurance of the accused, presented the said cheque before his banker in the third week of May 2013 for encashment but the said cheque returned dishonoured and accordingly, on 27.5.2013 the Complainant once again presented the said cheque on the request of the accused before his banker M/s. Bank of Baroda, Johnanagar branch, Bengaluru but 3 C.C.No.9157/2014 the said cheque returned with an endorsement "funds insufficient"
on 28.5.2013 and the same was informed to this Accused.
4. He further stated that as the Accused has failed to make payment of the cheque amount, the Complainant got issued the Legal Notice on 19.6.2013 through RPAD, calling upon the Accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and the same was returned with a postal shara "refused to receive the notice" on 22.6.2013. The Accused in spite of knowledge of the notice, has neither chosen to make payment of the cheque amount nor he has sent his reply by denying the transaction. The Accused knowing fully well that he has no sufficient funds in his bank account, had issued a bogus cheque with an intention to cheat this Complainant and thereby the Accused has committed an offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
5. After recording of sworn statement of the complainant, the Private Complaint lodged by the complainant was registered as a Criminal Case, summons was issued as against the accused. The accused appeared through his Counsel and he was enlarged on bail. Plea of accusation was read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4 C.C.No.9157/2014
6. The complainant himself got examined as PW1 and he got produced 5 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and closed his side of evidence.
7. After closure of the complainant side evidence, accused Statement u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. recorded and read over to the accused. The accused denied the incriminating evidence in toto. The accused has not led any evidence from his side.
8. I have heard the arguments appearing for both the parties. I have perused the entire records. Both the learned Counsels appearing for the parties have also filed their written arguments.
9. The only point arise for my consideration is:
1. Whether the Complainant has proved the guilt of the accused u/s 138 of N.I. Act beyond all reasonable doubts?
2. What order?
10. My findings to the above point are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS:
11. Point No.1: The entire burden is on the complainant to prove his case and also to prove the above point. In order to prove the same, the complainant stepped into the witness box, got examined as 5 C.C.No.9157/2014 PW-1 and he filed his affidavit in lieu of the oral evidence by reiterating the complaint averments.
12. PW1 deposed that that the accused is his friend and out friendship, the accused had approached him for the hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/- to meet his family necessities and urgent legal commitments and also for repair of his vehicle and he by considering the request of the accused, had advanced a sum of Rs.3,42,000/- on 5.10.2012 by way of cash. He deposed that after his repeated requests and demand, the accused in order to repay the loan amount, had issued his postdated cheque bearing No.654732 dtd. 26.3.2013 for Rs.3,42,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank., BTM Layout branch, Bengaluru with a request to present the said cheque for encashment on its presentation and it will be honoured on its presentation.
13. He further deposed that on assurance of the accused, he presented the said cheque before his banker in the third week of May 2013 for encashment but the said cheque returned dishonoured and accordingly, on 27.5.2013 he once again presented the said cheque on the request of the accused before his banker but even on second time, the said cheque returned with an endorsement "funds insufficient" on 28.5.2013 and the same was informed to this Accused.
6 C.C.No.9157/2014
14. He further deposed that as the Accused has failed to make payment of the cheque amount, he got issued the Legal Notice on 19.6.2013 through RPAD, calling upon the Accused to pay the cheque amount and the same was returned with a postal shara "refused to receive the notice" on 22.6.2013. He deposed that the Accused in spite of knowledge of the notice, has neither chosen to make payment of the cheque amount nor he has sent his reply by denying the transaction. He deposed that the Accused knowing fully well that he has no sufficient funds in his bank account, had issued a bogus cheque with an intention to cheat him and thereby the Accused has committed an offence.
15. PW1 in order to prove his case got produced the original cheque issued by this accused marked as Ex.P1. He deposed that the signature found on Ex.P1 is that of this accused and he got identified the signature found on the cheque marked as Ex.P1(a). He got produced the bank endorsement marked as Ex.P2. He got produced copy of the legal notice along with RPAD receipt marked as Ex.P3 and Ex.P3(a) respectively. He got produced the unserved Postal Cover marked as Ex.P.4 and the notice kept in the said cover is marked as Ex.P.4(a). He got produced his income tax returns submitted before the concerned Authority for the assessment year 2013-14 marked as 7 C.C.No.9157/2014 Ex.P.5 to prove that in his income tax returns he has disclosed the advancement of the loan to this accused amounting to Rs.3,42,000/-.
16. The accused has denied the entire case of the Complainant and denied the very fact that he had borrowed the hand loan of Rs.3,42,000/- from this Complainant and he in order to repay the said loan amount, had issued his post-dated Ex.P1 Cheque and the same was bounced. The learned Counsel for the accused subjected PW1 for cross-examination and he extensively cross-examined PW1.
17. The PW1 in his cross-examination categorically stated that he is earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month. He has stated that the accused approached him for the hand loan on 1.10.2012 and accordingly, he advanced the loan amount of Rs.3,42,000/- on 5.10.2012 by way of cash. PW1 stated that he without interest advanced the loan amount by way of cash to this accused on his request as this accused is his close friend. He further stated the accused issued his Ex.P1 cheque on 26.3.2013. PW1 further stated that there were no other witnesses were present at the time of loan transaction except his wife and even he has not obtained any documents from this accused for the security of the loan amount.
18. The accused during the cross-examination of PW1 denied his liability to pay the cheque amount of Rs.3,42,000/-. PW1 denied 8 C.C.No.9157/2014 the suggestion that he has no financial capacity to advance the huge loan amount of Rs.3,42,000/- to this accused and even he has not advanced any kind of loan to this accused. He further denied the suggestion that the accused has not issued his Ex.P1 cheque towards repayment of the loan amount. He denied the suggestion that he himself for his convenience, written all the contents of the cheque and presented the cheque for encashment even though the accused has not instructed him to present the cheque for encashment. He denied the suggestion that this accused was a member to the chit transaction with him and towards security of the chit transaction, he had collected a duly signed blank cheque from this accused. He denied the suggestion that there was no any loan transaction in between him with this accused.
19. The accused except putting some suggestion to PW1 during his cross-examination that he is not liable to pay cheque amount, nothing has been elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his testimony or to discard his evidence. Though the accused has taken up the defence that this Complainant is doing chit transaction business and this accused was one of the subscribers and towards the chit transaction, he had collected a duly signed blank cheque from this accused for the security of the chit amount. However, the said defence was categorically denied by PW1 in his cross-examination and denied 9 C.C.No.9157/2014 that the Ex.P1 duly signed blank cheque was issued by this accused towards the security of the chit transaction.
20. Even though the accused has denied the issuance of cheque towards repayment of the loan amount, however, the accused has not chosen to deny a fact that Ex.P1 is belong to him. The accused even admitted his signature found on Ex.P1 - Cheque marked as Ex.P.1(a). The accused even did not chosen to deny a fact that his Ex.P1 - cheque was bounced with a specific reason "funds insufficient". The accused did not chosen to deny a fact that he himself has issued his Ex.P1 cheque in favour of this Complainant and the same was produced before this court by PW1. No doubt, the accused during the cross- examination of PW1 put a suggestion that he had issued a duly signed blank cheque in favour of PW1 towards the security of the chit transaction and this PW1 has misused his cheque and created the same as Ex.P1 for Rs.3,42,000/- and filed this false complaint. However, the defence of the accused was categorically denied by PW1 in his cross-examination.
21. However, the accused has not chosen to deny the documentary evidence adduced by the PW1 before this court marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P5. The accused has not chosen to deny a fact that immediately after the receipt of Ex.P2 bank endorsement, the 10 C.C.No.9157/2014 Complainant got issued Ex.P3 notice. Though the accused has denied the fact that he personally received the notice issued as per Ex.P3. On the contrary, PW1 has categorically deposed that immediately after receipt of the Bank Endorsement marked as Ex.P.2, he has sent notice as per Ex.P3, calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount and also by intimating the dishonour of the cheque and the same was returned with a postal shara "refused to receive the notice by the addressee" as per Ex.P4. The accused during the cross-examination of PW1, except putting some suggestions that no notice is served on him, which has been categorically denied by PW1, nothing has been elicited from his mouth to prove that the address disclosed in Ex.P3 was not the correct address of the address and even he has not suggested what is his correct address and where exactly he is residing.
22. The accused except putting suggestions to PW1 in his cross- examination that no notice is not served on him, has failed to prove his correct address and also failed to elicit any fruitful information from the mouth of PW1 with respect to his correct address. Without any proof for his correct address and even without suggesting his correct address to PW1 in his cross-examination, mere a suggestion to PW1 that he has not sent the notice to his correct address and as such, no notice is served on him, which has been categorically denied by PW1 that itself is not sufficient to hold that the address disclosed in Ex.P3 11 C.C.No.9157/2014 notice is incorrect address and this PW1 has intentionally sent the notice to the wrong address of this accused and as such, the notice is not served on him.
23. Admittedly, the Ex.P4 document proves that the notice issued u/Sec.138(b) of N.I. Act was served on this accused and he intentionally refused to receive the notice and even after knowledge of the Legal Notice, the accused neither chosen to make payment of the cheque amount nor he has sent his reply by denying the transaction. In such situation, an adverse inference has to be drawn against this accused that he after knowledge of the Legal Notice, by admitting the contents of the notice and also by admitting his liability to pay the cheque amount, did not resisted the claim of the Complainant
24. As I have discussed supra, the accused except denying the transaction and also by denying the issuance of cheque towards the repayment of the loan amount, has failed to convince the court what is impediment on him to send a reply to Ex.P3 - Notice immediately after knowledge of the Ex.P3 - Notice. However, PW1 has deposed that the accused even after knowledge of the Legal Notice as per Ex.P3, has neither chosen to make payment of the cheque amount nor 12 C.C.No.9157/2014 he has sent his reply by denying the transaction and also by denying the contents of the notice.
25. The oral and documentary evidence adduced before this court by the Complainant clearly proves that the accused even inspite of receipt of Legal Notice, has failed to make payment of the cheque amount. The Ex.P5 document also proves that for the assessment year 2013-14 the PW1 in his income tax returns submitted before the concerned authority has declared the loan transaction and disclosed that he advanced the loan amount of Rs.3,42,000/- to this accused and the said amount is due from the accused. This fact was not denied by the accused. No suggestion was put to PW1 either denying the contents of Ex.P5 or by denying the filing of Ex.P5 document before Income Tax Authority. The Ex.P5 document clearly proves that the loan amount advanced by this Complainant is an accounted money and he has declared this amount in his income tax returns.
26. The PW1 by adducing oral and documentary evidence before this court, proved that the notice issued u/Sec.138 (b) of N.I. Act was served on this accused and even after completion of statutory period of limitation, the accused has failed to make payment of the cheque amount. Admittedly, the entire burden is on this accused to rebut the case of the Complainant and also to rebut the presumption available to this Complainant u/Sec.139 of N.I Act. 13 C.C.No.9157/2014
27. The accused in order to prove his defence and to rebut the presumption available to this Complainant u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act, has not chosen to lead his evidence from his side. As I have discussed supra, even after knowledge of Legal Notice as per Ex.P3, the accused has not even sent his reply by denying the contents of the notice. These facts clearly prove that the accused only for the sake of defence during the stage of trial, has taken up the false defence before this court that this Complainant was doing chit transaction business and he was one of the subscribers to the chit and towards the chit transaction for the security of the chit amount, he had given his duly signed blank cheque and the same was misused by this Complainant and created the same as Ex.P1 for Rs.3,42,000/-.
28. As I have discussed supra, the accused except taking the defence during the cross-examination of PW1, has not chosen to prove his defence by adducing evidence before this court. As I have discussed supra, PW1 in his cross-examination categorically denied the entire suggestions put to him and denied that the accused is not liable to pay the cheque amount. The accused has utterly failed to prove his defence by adducing cogent and convincing evidence before this court. The accused has utterly failed to rebut the presumption available to this available to the Complainant u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act 14 C.C.No.9157/2014
29. The entire burden is on this accused to prove that his duly signed cheque was misused by this Complainant and created the same as Ex.P1 for Rs.3,42,000/-. The accused has utterly failed to prove his defence to the satisfaction of the court by adducing cogent and convincing evidence before this court.
30. The accused has utterly failed to prove that this Complainant was doing chit transaction business and he was one of the members to the chit transaction and towards security of the chit amount, issued his duly signed Ex.P1 blank cheque in favour of this Complainant. In such situation, the defence taken by the accused during the course of trial, cannot be believable and acceptable. Likewise, the Accused has utterly failed to rebut the presumption available to this Complainant u/Sec.118 and also u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act it reads thus respectively.
31. As per the provisions of Sec.118, which reads thus:
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;
b. As to date - that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date; c. As to time of acceptance - that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;15 C.C.No.9157/2014
d. As to time of transfer - that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;
e. As to order of endorsements - that the endorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon;
f. As to stamps - that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped;
g. That holder is a holder in due course - that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course;
32. Likewise, the accused also failed to rebut the presumption available to this Complainant u/s.139 of N.I. Act which reads:
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.
33. The learned Counsel for the Complainant has vehemently argued in his written arguments that the Complainant before filing of this complaint, has followed all the procedures prescribed u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act and this Accused even after receipt of the Legal Notice, has neither chosen to make payment of the cheque amount nor he has sent his reply by denying the transaction and therefore, by drawing an adverse inference against this Accused, the Accused has to be convicted in accordance with law, is fully convinced this court. He has arguments that the notice issued as per Ex.P3 was duly served on this accused however, the accused has failed to receive the notice and 16 C.C.No.9157/2014 he sent back the notice with a shara "refused by the addressee". His arguments is fully convinced this court. Likewise, his arguments that the accused only with an intention to ran away from his liability to make payment of the cheque amount, has taken up the false defence during the cross-examination of PW1 that he had issued his Ex.P1 cheque towards security of the said chit amount, he had given his duly signed blank cheque and subsequently, the Complainant by misusing the duly signed blank cheque, created the same as Ex.P1 and filed this false complaint. The arguments canvassed by the learned Counsel for the Complainant, is fully convinced this court.
34. Likewise, his further arguments that the accused only for the sake of the defence, during the cross-examination of PW1, has taken up the defence that the Complainant has not sent the notice to his correct address and therefore, no notice is served on him. He has argued that the accused has not furnished his correct address and even he has not produced any documents before this court to prove his correct address. He has argued that there is no documents before this court for the correct address of this accused and in such situation, mere a suggestion to PW1 during his cross-examination that no notice is served on him and even the address disclosed in Ex.P3 is incorrect address that itself is not sufficient to hold that this Complainant has not issued the notice to the correct address of this accused and the 17 C.C.No.9157/2014 address disclosed in Ex.P3 is an incorrect address. He has argued that the accused to escape from his liability to pay the cheque amount and once he admits the receipt of the notice, he will be held liable to the cheque amount, has taken up the false defence during the course of trial. The arguments canvassed by the learned Counsel for the Complainant, is fully convinced this court.
35. He has further argued that this the entire loan amount of Rs.3,42,000/- is an accounted amount and this Complainant has disclosed the loan transaction in his income tax returns as disclosed in Ex.P5. He has argued that the Complainant had the financial capacity to advance the huge loan amount of Rs.3,42,000/- and this Complainant by prodding and marking Ex.P5 document before this court, proved his financial capacity. His arguments is also fully convinced this court.
36. The learned Counsel for the Complainant in support of his written arguments has also relied upon the judgements reported in ILR 2001 Kar 4127 between S.R. Muralidar Vs. Ashok G.Y. wherein it is held that;
"In a cheque Bounce case Complainant has challenged the order of acquittal accepting the defence of the drawer of the cheque that the Complainant who is his business associate and was allowed to deal with the accounts and bank transactions has mis-used a cheque signed by him and the same is mis- utilized to fasten the false liability. High Court set-aside the acquittal on the ground that there is no positive version of 18 C.C.No.9157/2014 defence and the accused has not examined himself and from pleas taken up by picking out of context the statements made in the cross-examination and from the statements made in reply of the accused, a hazy defence theory is sought to be built up. "
AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1898 between Rangappa Vs. Mohan wherein it is held that;
"Existence of legally recoverable debt or other liability is a matter of presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act - when the Accused has failed to discharge his burden and to rebut the presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act that leads to inference that there was merit in the complainant's version of spending his own money."
The law laid down in these judgment are amply applicable to the facts of the present case on hand and it will helpful to the case of the Complainant.
37. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the accused has also filed his written arguments by stating that the Complainant has not proved his financial capacity to advance the huge loan amount of Rs.3,42,000/- to the accused and even he has not produced any documents to prove the loan transaction. He further stated that the Complainant neither chosen to examine any witnesses before this court to prove the loan transaction nor he has produced his bank statements to prove his financial capacity to advance the loan amount to the accused. He has stated that the Complainant has no financial capacity to advance the huge loan amount of Rs.3,42,000/- to the accused. He has argued the Complainant was doing chit transaction business and towards the said transaction, taken the duly signed blank 19 C.C.No.9157/2014 cheque of this accused for the security of the chit amount and subsequently misused the said cheque and created the same for Rs.3,42,000/- and filed this false complaint, even though there was no any loan transaction in-between them for Rs.3,42,000/- and this accused has not issued his Ex.P1 cheque in favour of this Complainant towards repayment of the loan amount of Rs.3,42,000/-. His arguments is not convinced this court and it cannot be acceptable.
38. Likewise, his arguments that the Complainant himself has written the contents of the cheque for his convenience, by misusing the blank cheque relating to this accused collected for the security of the chit amount and subsequently, created the same as Ex.P1 and presented the said cheque for encashment and by considering all these facts, the complaint has to be dismissed, is also not convinced this court.
39. Likewise, his further arguments that there is no burden on this accused to prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubts and this accused can very well discharge his burden by preponderance of probabilities and even by cross-examining PW1 and this accused by cross-examining PW1, has successfully rebutted the presumption available to this Complainant u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act and by considering all these facts, the complaint has to be dismissed, is also not convinced this court and it holds no merit.
20 C.C.No.9157/2014
40. The learned Counsel for the accused in support of his arguments has also relied upon the judgment reported in IV (1996) CCR 616 between Goa Plast Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Chico Ursula D'Souza wherein it is held that;
(i) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Sections 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque , presumption in favour of holder - Defalcation by employee - Post-dated cheques issued in favour of appellant, employer - To satisfy liability - cheque dishonoured by bank - No evidence traced to show relationship between Complainant and respondent /accused - No commercial or mercantile relation between appellant and respondent - Failure to prove liability to attract provisions of SEc.138, N.I.Act."
2012 (3) KCCR 2057 between Veerayya Vs. G.K. Madivalar wherein it is held that;
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Sec.138 - Offence under - Revision against conviction and sentence u.SEc.397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. - Complainant's case that he had lent Rs.2,00,000/- to accused and that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt - Except cheque no other document - Complainant running a Tailoring shop on footpath with a tin shed - At no point of time had a bank balance of more than Rs.50,000/- - No proof as to other source of income from land - No evidence that he had a bank balance of Rs.2lakhs on the day he has alleged to have advanced the loan."
2008 AIR SCW 738 between Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Datttraya G. Hegde wherein it is held that;
"Accused not required to step into witness-box to prove his defence. He may discharge his burden on the basis of materials already brought on record - Question whether statutory presumption rebutted or not - Must be determined in view of other evidences on record."21 C.C.No.9157/2014
The law laid down in these judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand and it will nowhere helpful to the defence taken by the accused in this case.
41. The complainant by adducing oral and documentary evidence before this court, has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no whatsoever doubt in the mind of court about the case of the complainant. The oral and documentary evidence adduced before this court by the complainant, is fully corroborating with each other and convinced this court about his case. The complainant by adducing oral and documentary evidence before this court bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record, I answer this Point No.1 in affirmative.
42. Point No.2. In view of my findings on the above point and the reasons stated therein, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only). In any default to pay fine amount shall under go simple imprisonment for 6 months.22 C.C.No.9157/2014
Out of fine amount recovered under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.3,95,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Ninety-five Thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant which includes the cheque amount and also cost of the proceedings. Remaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be forfeited to State.
The bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
Office to furnish free copy of the judgement to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 14th day of September 2016) (ISHRATH JAHAN ARA) XIX ADDL.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE:
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
PW.1 Mr. G. Rajashekar Witnesses examined on behalf of the Accused: Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of the accused
Ex.P.2 Bank endorsement
Ex.P.3 Copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.3(a) RPAD Receipt
Ex.P.4 Unserved postal cover
Ex.P.4(a) Notice kept in the cover
Ex.P.5 Income tax returns
Documents marked on behalf of the Accused:
Nil
XIX ACMM, B'lore.
23 C.C.No.9157/2014
24 C.C.No.9157/2014