Bangalore District Court
Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Private ... vs Kaveri Gowda B on 30 April, 2026
1
C.C.No.55405/2022
KABC0B0157552023
XV ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES &
23rd ACJM(SCCH-19), MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
PRESENT:-
SRI. MOHAN SADASHIV POL,
B.A., L.L.B(Spl)
XV ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small
Causes & 23rd ACJM, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 30th day of April 2026
C.C.No.55405/2022
1) Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
at No.304 & 306, III Floor, Gold Tower,
No.50, Residency Road,
Bengaluru-560 025.
R/by its Authorized Representative
Sri. Rakesh Tayal,
S/o. Chetan Tayal ...... Complainant
(By Sri. N.R.K. Adv.,
V/s.
1) Sri. Kaveri Gowda B.
No.207, 5th Cross,
2
C.C.No.55405/2022
Near Prerna Kinder Garden,
Next to Siddappaji Temple,
I Stage, Hebbal,
Mysuru-570 016. ......... Accused
(By Sri.U.K.G. Adv.,)
LIST OF DATES
01 Date of Cheque 18-12-2018
02 Date of Dishonour 19-12-2018
03 Date of issuance of 05-01-2019
Statutory Notice
04 Date of Service of Notice 12-01-2019
05 Date of Complaint 28-03-2019
06 Offences Charged with U/Sec.138 of NI Act.
07 Date of Judgment 30-04-2026
08 Whether Acquitted or Convicted
Convicted
09 Sentence imposed Fine of Rs.14,40,000/- and in
default S.I. of 6 (Six) months.
JUDGMENT
This case is arising out of a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused alleging commission of offense punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case in a nutshell that, the Complainant and the accused are known to each other and the accused approached the complainant in the 3 C.C.No.55405/2022 month of January, 2015 for hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- in order to meet his family commitments, the complainant has lent sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 10-02-2015 through cheque No.000509 drawn on Karoor Vysya Bank, Mysuru Branch. The accused towards discharge of the said debt, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.397048 dtd:18-12- 2018 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, Main Branch, Bangalore and assured for realization of the said cheque. As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant had presented the said cheque through his banker for collection on 19-12-2018, but it was dishonoured on 19-12-2018 with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Therefore, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 05-01-2019, which is received by the accused on 12-01-2019, but he has not repaid the said debt and thereby filed a complaint before the Court.
3. Initially the complaint was registered as P.C.No.52014/2019 before Hon'ble 14 th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru Court. The Court by its order dated 12/12/2019 has condoned the delay of 31 days in filing the complaint. Acting upon the complaint, the Court took the cognizance of the offence P/U/Sec.138 of NI Act. Sworn statement of the complainant 4 C.C.No.55405/2022 was recorded and got marked Ex.P.1 to 6. Being satisfied that there are prima-facie materials to proceed against the accused, Private Complaint was converted to Criminal Case and issued summons to the accused.
4. As per notification No.ADM-I(A)08/23 dtd:24-05-2023 of Hon'ble CMM, Bengaluru this case is transferred to this Court.
5. After receipt of the case, the accused appeared before this Court and enlarged on bail. Plea was recorded as per Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. The accused has not pleaded guilty and submitted that he has defense to make.
6. As per the guidelines and direction of Hon'ble Supreme court in Indian Bank Association and others Vs. Union of India Bank Association and others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590, this Court treated the sworn statement of the complainant as complainant evidence and the complainant further got marked additional documents as Ex.P.7 to P.10. The accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating circumstances. The accused has examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1.
5C.C.No.55405/2022
7. Heard both the counsel for the complainant and the accused. Ld. Counsel for the complainant filed memo with citation. Matter is reserved for judgment.
8. On the basis of the above said materials, evidence and pleadings the points that would arises for my determinations are;
Point No.1:- Whether the Complainant proves that the cheque drawn on the account of the accused is issued for the discharge of legally enforceable liability/debt and it has been dishonoured with an endorsement as "Funds Insufficient" and inspite of service of legal notice and demand, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within stipulated period as such he has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
Point No.2:- What order?
9. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : As per the final order, for the following:
:R E A S O N S:
10. Point No.1:- The complainant in order to prove its case, examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the entire complaint averments. In support of his oral testimony he 6 C.C.No.55405/2022 relied upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. Ex.P.1 is the cheque, Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of the accused, Ex.P.2 is the Bank Endorsement, Ex.P.3 is the copy of Legal Notice, Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt, Ex.P.5 is the Postal acknowledgment, Ex.P.6 is the copy of Board Resolution, Ex.P.7 is the Bank Statement, Ex.P.8 is the Directors details, Ex.P.9 is the Letter Issued by Karoor Vysya Bank and Ex.P.10 is the copy of Requisition.
11. In cross-examination PW.1 has stated that, he is the authorized person of the company, earlier he was one of the Director, he know about the affairs of the company. The nature of the complainant company is a Real Estate and Land Development business. The accused approached his father and his father has lent the loan to the accused through the company cheques. Further he has stated that, in the month of November 2014 and January 2015 the accused has issued two post dated cheques.
12. Further PW.1 has denied that, the accused has borrowed the loan of Rs.60,000/- from one Isaque Shariff B. Rashid and the accused has issued cheque in favour of the said and the said cheque has been misused by 7 C.C.No.55405/2022 complainant company. Further stated that, in Ex.P.7 the name of the accused is wrongly spelled.
13. Ld. Counsel for complainant has submitted his arguments by contending that, the complainant company and the accused are known to each other. The accused has issued the post dated cheque at Ex.P.1 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards re-payment of the loan. It is further argued that the said cheque got dishonoured. Despite of service of notice. The accused has not paid the cheque amount. Therefore, committed the offence U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act and prayed to convict the accused. The counsel for the complainant relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in (2002) 2 SCC 642, between A.V. Murthy Vs. B.S. Nagabasavanna.
14. Ld. counsel for the accused has submitted his arguments by contending that, the complainant has not proved his case, the accused is not due to the complainant. PW.1 is not authorized person of the company. The accused has issued the alleged cheque in favour one Isaque Shariff B. Rashid and same is misused by the complainant company. The debt is time barred one. Therefore prayed to acquit the accused.
8C.C.No.55405/2022
15. On perusal of Ex.P.1 the cheque, it appears that, it bears the signature of the accused and issued by him. On perusal of Ex.P.2 the bank endorsement, it appears that the cheque got bounced and dishonored for the reason of "Funds insufficient" and Bank intimation was issued on 19-12-2018. On perusal of Ex.P.3 the notice, Ex.P.4 and 5 the postal receipt and postal acknowledgment, it appears that, the complainant has issued a notice to the accused on 05-01- 2019 informing about the dishonor and demanded the cheque amount and the notice was duly served on the accused on 12.01.2019.
16. On the basis of facts of the case and evidence led by the complainant, it appears that, the cheque has been presented within time as required, further within 30 days the notice was issued after receipt of Bank intimation with respect to the dishonour of the cheque. The notice was served on the accused on 12-01-2019 and after lapse of 15 days statutory period the complaint has been filed (the delay of 31 days is condoned). Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the complainant has fulfilled the mandatory requirements under Sec.138 of N.I Act. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the cheque has been issued by the accused to discharge the legal liability.
9C.C.No.55405/2022
17. The accused to prove his defence examined himself as DW.1 and deposed that, he do not know the complainant company and has not taken any loan from it. The alleged cheque in this case has been given to his friend Mr. Ishaque Sharif for the security of loan taken by him. Ex.P1 bears his signature. After receiving of the notice from the complainant company, he along with his friend Ishaque Sharif approached the complainant company and complainant has assured for not taking any action. Ex.P7 has been created and filed. In support of his case, he has produced the document marked as Ex.D.1 which is the Bank Statement. In his cross examination he has stated, he received Rs.1,00,000/- from the Ishaque Sharif, further denied that he has issued Ex.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant to return the loan amount. Further, admitted that, he has not issued reply to the notice of the complainant. There was no impediment to take legal action against the Ishaque Sharif for misusing the cheque.
18. The learned counsel for accused argued that authorization/resolution executed by the complainant company in favour of it's representative is not properly executed and the resolution/authorization at Ex.P6 is also not executed by the proper authority or all the directors.
10C.C.No.55405/2022 Therefore, representative of complainant company is not duly authorized person and he is not competent person to represent and depose on behalf of the complainant company. PW.1 has no personal knowledge about the transaction, hence the evidence of PW.1 is not believable. Per contra, the counsel for complainant argued that, the resolution cum authorization at Ex.P.6 is executed by the chairman/managing director of the company in favour of it's representative. The representative of the complainant has been examined as PW1. The transaction between the parties is purely based on the documents. Therefore, PW1 is competent person to depose.
19. On perusal of Ex.P.6 the resolution cum authorization letter, it appears that, it has been duly executed on the letter pad of the complainant company and signed by the Chairman/ managing director of the company.
20. PW.1 in his cross examination has clearly stated that earlier he was also the director of the company and aware about the affairs of the company. Admittedly, the complainant is a company established under the companies Act for running real estate business. It is running by it's employees/ board members and directors. It runs through 11 C.C.No.55405/2022 it's chairman, secretory, body members and employees. Since complainant is a company, it ought to have been represented through some leaving person. Representatives of the company may get appointed by the competent authority of the company. On perusal of Ex.P.6, it appears that, the chairman/managing director of the company has duly executed the authorization in favour of PW1. Therefore, PW1 being the authorized person of the complainant company is competent to depose on behalf of the complainant company and his evidence holds good. Therefore, the said argument that, Ex.P.6 not duly executed and evidence of PW1 is not acceptable is not sustainable.
21. The accused has contended that, he has not obtained any loan from the complainant company. But, he has taken the loan from one Ishaque Sharif and the cheque issued to him as a security is misused by the complainant company. The accused has admitted that, the cheque at Ex.P.1 is belonging to his account it bears the signature. The accused has alleged that his friend Ishaque Sharif has given the cheque to the complainant. But, the accused has not taken any pain to prove the loan transaction between himself and Ishaque Sharif. During the cross examination of PW.1, the accused suggested that, the accused received loan of 12 C.C.No.55405/2022 Rs.60,000/- from the Ishaque Sharif, but DW.1 in his chief examination has stated that he has received loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from him. It shows the conduct of the accused. In cross examination, the accused has suggested that, the accused has issued the cheque drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, which clearly depicts that the accused has clearly admitted the issuance of the cheque to the complainant company during cross examination of PW.1. The accused/DW.1 in his cross examination has clearly admitted that he has not taken any legal action against the said Ishaque Sharif for misusing the cheque. Therefore this court is of the opinion that, the defence of the accused that, his cheque issued to Ishaque Sharif was misused by the complainant is only an afterthought story to avoid the liability and holds no significance.
22. On perusal of Ex.P7 it appears that on 28.11.2014 Rs.8,00,000/- and 12.02.2015 Rs.10,00,000/- have been lent to the accused. The accused produced his bank statement at Ex.D1 to show that, he has not received the loan from the complainant company. The complainant has produced Ex.P9 the Karoor Vyshya Bank letter, on perusal of the same, it appears that, the same amount has been withdrawn by the cheques and said cheques were not 13 C.C.No.55405/2022 crossed cheques. Hence, on perusal of Ex.P7 it is clear that, the said amount has been withdrawn by the accused. Therefore, it appears that, the complainant company has lent the loan to the accused.
23. The accused has failed to prove that, he has not issued the cheque to the complainant, but the cheque issued to the Ishaque Sharif was misused by the complainant. If really the accused has not issued the cheque to the complainant and it was misused as contended by him, then what prevented him to take legal action against the complainant and said Ishaque Sharif. On perusal of the defence story of the accused that, the cheque is misused is all nothing but an afterthought story. The accused has not replied to the notice issued by the complainant, which leads to the inference that there was merit in the complainant's version. Hence, it is evident that the accused has not rebutted the presumption available in favour of the complainant. In the present case, the accused has not placed any material to persuade this court to believe that the cheque was misused and not issued for any liability. Hence, complainant succeeds in proving his case.
14C.C.No.55405/2022
24. Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that, the alleged loan has been issued in the month of November 2014 and the alleged cheque has been issued on 18-12- 2018 which is after lapse of 3 years from the date of alleged loan. Further Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted his arguments by contending that, the accused has issued post dated cheque in the month of November 2014 and January 2015. Therefore, the cheque has been issued within limitation. PW.1 in cross-examination has clearly stated that, in the month of November 2014 and 2015 the accused has issued post dated cheque. The accused has not denied the said fact during the cross- examination.
25. With respect of time barred debt, the learned counsel for Complainant relied on Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in (2002) 2 SCC 642, between A.V. Murthy Vs. B.S. Nagabasavanna wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that; Revisional Court has erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that, the debt or liability was barred by limitation.
26. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Cri.L.P. No. 212 of 2021 and Cri.M.A. 20429/2021 has held that;
15C.C.No.55405/2022 "The furnishing of a cheque of a time barred debt effectively resurrects the debt itself by a fresh agreement through deeming provision u/Sec.25 (3) of ICA. The original debt, therefore, through Sec.25 (3) of the ICA, becomes legally enforceable to the extent of the amount the cheque has been given. This reasons also with practical considerations. Persons who have chosen to escape liability, can draw a cheque, in order to clear an earlier debt upon persuasion by the creditor. By the act of drawing a cheque, the promissor i.e, the drawer, is effectively stating that, he has a liability to pay the drawee. Drawing of the cheque in itself is acknowledgement of debt or liability. It is the resurrection or revival of the prior debt which would trigger the provision u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. To deny a complaint drawee of invoking the penal provisions u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act, despite the categorical promise of Sec.25 (3) of the ICA recognizing a fresh agreement to pay would be an unfortunate dis-entitlement."
27. Further, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in 2008(1) RCR (Crl.) 530 between Vijay Ganesh Gondhelkar V/s. Indranil Jayaraj Damale it is held that, "7. Assuming for the sake of argument that there was no acknowledgement before the expiry of period of limitation and the cheque is issued after a period of expiry of limitation, still whether there is an enforceable liability or not will have to be considered. I have already observed above that the cheque is issued under the signature of the debtor after putting sum payable. The cheque directs the bank to pay the bearer sum mentioned in the cheque. As such it becomes the promise in favour of the payee within the meaning of Sec.25 (3) of The Indian Contract Act. Once it becomes a fresh promise, fresh period of limitation of 3 years would begin to run from the date of cheque. Hence, the liability would certainly be a legally enforceable debt."
16C.C.No.55405/2022
28. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Crl.R.P.No.256/2022 between Sri. Sudhakar Reddy C.B. Vs. Smt. Pushpa has held that,
39. Thus, when the questions formulated by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Bombay was referred to the Division Bench, it took pains in considering the matter from various facets and answered both the questions in the Affirmative. Thereby, holding that issuance of cheque is a promise in writing within the meaning of sub section (3) of Section 25 of the Contract Act and it is an exception to the general rule that the agreement without consideration is void. Thus, issuance of a cheque satisfies the ingredients of sub section (3) of Section 25, i.e., promise made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith to pay wholly or in part a dent of which the creditor might have enforced payment, but for the law for the limitation of suits and as such, the cheque becomes a cheque drawn towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt as contemplated by the explanation to Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, the position of law is laid down by the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay and there is no reason for not accepting the same.
40. In view of the settled position of law, even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cheques were issued towards a time barred debt is to be accepted, by applying the above principle of law to the present case, issuance of cheques in question amount to written promise to pay the said debt, as provided under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act and it creates legally enforceable debt. Hence, it squarely attracts Section 138 of NI Act.
17C.C.No.55405/2022 Therefore, on perusal of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts, it is clear that, though the cheques have been issued for time barred debt the penal provision U/Sec.138 is applicable. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the cheque in question was issued by the accused to discharge the legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused can place rebuttal evidence so as to show that the cheque was not issued for consideration. As appreciated supra, accused has failed to put acceptable and satisfactory evidence to probabilise the defence. Therefore, there is no question of saying that the cheque was not issued for liability. Therefore, complainant has discharged its initial onus laid. When it has discharged the initial onus, it raises presumption U/s 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Accused has failed to rebut the presumption either in cross-examining PW-1 or in his evidence.
29. The accused has further stated that, he has sufficient income and funds with him. There was no necessity to avail the loan from the complainant. Further stated that, he has stated that he has taken loan from Ishaque Sharif. Therefore, it is clear that, the accused has taken financial assistance and loan facilities from the private individuals. Therefore, the contention of the accused that, he had 18 C.C.No.55405/2022 sufficient income and not in the need of the loan holds no significance.
30. Further Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that, the business of the complainant company is real estate and not money lending. But, PW1 has clearly stated that, his father knows the accused and on demand of the accused he has issued the company cheque. Therefore, the defence of the accused that, complainant company can lent the loan holds no water.
31. Further, as already discussed accused himself has suggested to PW1 regarding issuance of Ex.P.1 cheque. Further, accused has not taken any legal steps against the complainant for alleged misuse of the cheque. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 with respect to the issuance of the debt. Therefore, this Court held that, the complainant has proved that, the complainant company has lent the loan to the accused and the accused has failed to rebut the presumption.
32. Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa V/s Sri Mohan, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 & (2010)11 SCC 441 has held that:
19C.C.No.55405/2022
14) ... "It is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities'.
Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability,"...
Further it is held that:
15) ......"Furthermore, the very fact that the accused had failed to reply to the statutory notice under section 138 of the Act leads to the inference that there was merit in the complainant's version.
In the light of above ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court, the accused can rebut the presumption by preponderance of probabilities by raising probable defense. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if accused has not taken proper defence, the failure to reply the statutory notice leads to the inference that there is a merit in complainant's case. Therefore, this court by considering the material of this case, ascertain that, the accused has not rebutted the presumption as he has not taken proper defence and proved the same and not replied to the notice of the complainant. Hence, the above said judgment doesn't come to aid the case of the accused, but instead it came to aid the case of the complainant.
20C.C.No.55405/2022
33. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the cheque in question is issued by the accused to discharge the legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused can place rebuttal evidence so as to show that the cheque was not issued for consideration. As appreciated supra, accused has failed to put acceptable and satisfactory evidence to probability the defense. Therefore, the accused has failed to prove that the cheque was not issued for liability.
34. The accused has admitted the signature on the cheque and it is belonging to his bank account. It is proved that on the Cheque the accused was signed. Therefore, complainant has discharged his initial onus laid on him. When he has discharged his initial onus, it raises presumption U/Sec.118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused has failed to rebut the presumption either in cross- examining PW-1 or on his evidence.
35. The accused has not denied his signature on the cheque. Once the foundational facts that the cheque in question bears the signature of the accused and the same has been drawn on account maintained by him are established, a factual base is established to invoke the presumption of cheque having been issued in discharge of a 21 C.C.No.55405/2022 legally recoverable debt and drawn for good consideration by virtue of Sec.118(a) r/w Sec.139 of NI Act. It is a mandatory presumption, though the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Sec.139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
36. Since, Sec.138 of NI Act is a technical offence, all ingredients as mentioned in above including the necessary compliance in terms of Sec.138 of N.I.Act must be established for the accrual of cause of action in favour of the Complainant. In view of the above detailed discussion, this court hold that the Complainant has establish the essential ingredients of Sec.138 of NI Act.
37. Since, the complainant has complied with the statutory requirement, when presumptions U/Sec.139 and 118 of NI Act is raised, it is for the accused to rebut such presumption by placing cogent evidence. It can be either by leading evidence or by denting the case of complainant.
38. It would be relevant to note that in case of trial of cheque dishonor cases, the act of issuance of cheque would subsume within itself the fact of an existing liability. The liability need not be proved independently. That is the 22 C.C.No.55405/2022 purpose of presumption under Sec.139 NI Act. The complainant has furnished sufficient documents in his support to establish that there was transaction between the accused and himself in relation to the cheque. The complainant has succeeded in establishing legally enforceable liability and hence attracted the provision of Sec.139 of N.I.Act. Hence, complainant succeeds in proving his case. Accordingly, accused is entitled for conviction. Hence, this court proceed to answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.
39. Point No.2:- For the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to be compensated with the entire cheque amount. Since, the liability is of year 2018, the accused shall along with entire cheque amount also pay an interest of 6% p.a. from date of issuance of cheque on principle amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along with the interest of Rs.4,40,000/-. Thus, this court proceed to pass following....
-: ORDER :-
Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973, I hereby convict the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act, 1881.
23
C.C.No.55405/2022
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.14,40,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (Six) months. Out of the fine amount Rs.14,35,000/-
shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and rest Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State.
Bail bond of the accused and surety stands cancelled.
Issue free copy of Judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, and then corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of April, 2026) Digitally signed MOHAN by MOHAN SADASHIV POL (Mohan Sadashiv Pol) SADASHIV Date:
POL 2026.05.04 XV ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small 10:58:37 +0530 Causes & XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1 : Mr. C. Rakesh Tayal.
2. List of documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
24
C.C.No.55405/2022
Ex.P.2 : Bank Endorsement.
Ex.P.3 : Legal Notice.
Ex.P.4 : Postal Receipt.
Ex.P.5 : Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.P.6 : Copy of Board Resolution.
Ex.P.7 : Bank Statement.
Ex.P.8 : Directors Details.
Ex.P.9 : Letter of Karoor Vysya Bank.
Ex.P.10 : Copy of Requisition.
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
D.W.1 : Mr. B. Kaverigowda.
4. List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:' Ex.D.1 : Bank Statement.Digitally signed
MOHAN by MOHAN (Mohan Sadashiv Pol)
SADASHIV POL
SADASHIV Date: XV ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small
POL 2026.05.04
10:58:45 +0530 Causes & XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.