Bangalore District Court
Smt.Anusuya.V.K vs Smt.Bhagya Satish on 14 February, 2023
KABC030585752020
IN THE COURT OF XX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: BHOLA PANDIT,
B.Com.,LL.M.,
XX ADDL. C.M.M.
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 14th day of February 2023
C.C.No.16390/2020
Complainant : Smt.Anusuya.V.K.
W/o Krishnegowda,
Age 45 years,
R/at.No.372, 2nd Main,
2nd Cross, Manjunathnagar,
Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru- 560 073.
{ By Smt.Shobharani.S - Advocate }
Vs.
Accused : Smt.Bhagya Satish,
W/o Satish,
Age 30 years,
R/at.No.450, 2nd Main Road,
7th Cross, Near Banana Mandi,
Manjunathnagar,
2 C.C.16390/2020
Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru- 560 073.
{ By Sri.Venkatesh.M - Advocate }
Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act.,
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is Convicted
Date of Order : 14-02-2023
JUDGMENT
The present complaint is filed under section 2(d) read with section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish her for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act").
3 C.C.16390/2020
02. The alleged facts in the complaint are summarized as under;
It is averred in the complaint that, the accused and complainant are close friends, accordingly in order to clear her personal loans, the accused has borrowed hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on 14.03.2015 and had issued post dated cheque bearing No.754281 dated 31.08.2020 for a sum of Rs.05,00,000/- drawn on INDUSIND Bank, MG Road Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. The complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker, Vijaya Bank, Dasarahalli Branch, Bengaluru, but it returned unpaid with banker's endorsement dated 02.09.2020 as "ACCOUNT DORMANT". On 07.09.2020, demand notice was issued to the accused by RPAD. The demand notice issued by RPAD has been duly served on accused on 11.09.2020. In spite of service of legal notice, the accused neither has paid the cheque amount nor has given any 4 C.C.16390/2020 reply. Thus, it is sought to convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and grant compensation as per section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
03. On presentation of complaint, this court has verified the averments of complaint along with records and thereby had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. Thereby, as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in AIR 2014 SC 1983 in the case of Indian Bank Association and others V/s Union of India and others, the sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded as PW.1 and got exhibited five documents at Ex.P.01 to 05. Having been made out the prima-facie case, the complaint has been registered in Register No. III and issued process against the accused. 5 C.C.16390/2020
04. In response to the summons, the accused put her appearance before the court through her counsel and filed bail application under section 436 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has been enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation has been recorded and read over to the accused, she pleaded not guilty and intends to put forth his defense. On filing application by the complainant under section 145(1) of NI Act, sworn statement of the complainant has been treated as examination in chief. Similarly, on filing application under section 145(2) of NI Act, the accused has been permitted to cross examine PW.1. On completion of the trial of the complainant's side, the statement of accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been recorded and read over to the accused, the incriminating material found in the trial of the case of the complainant. The accused has denied the same in toto and the accused also wants to lead his defense evidence. Similarly, the accused has filed her evidence in the form of 6 C.C.16390/2020 affidavit. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Cr.Pet.No.9331/2017 dated 02.07.2019 in the case of Vittal Sambrekar Vs. Manjunath, the accused is permitted to lead her defense evidence by way of affidavit and got exhibited two documents at Ex.D.01 & Ex.D.2.
05. Heard the oral argument of Learned counsel for the accused. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed written argument. Perused the materials available on record.
In support of his written argument, the Learned counsel for the complainant has relied the following verdicts;
1. Smt. Kiran Uppal Vs. M.S.Chaw Rohatgi
2. Purushothama H.C. Vs. Thotappaji T.S. in CC.6117/2019.
7 C.C.16390/2020In support of his oral arguments, the Learned counsel for the accused has relied the following verdicts;
1. 2020(1)12 SCC 724 Head Note B
2. 2015 AIR SCW 64
3. AIR 2011 (NOC)75 KAR Head Note B
4. 2001(1) KCCR 212
5. 2004 CRI LJ 4107 I have carefully and meticulously gone through the above relied precedents.
06. The following points that arise for my consideration are as under;
POINTS
1. Does the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubts that, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.754281 dated 31.08.2020 for a sum of Rs.05,00,000/- towards the discharge of her lawful liability of the 8 C.C.16390/2020 complainant and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned unpaid due to "ACCOUNT DORMANT" in the account of the drawer as per banker's memo and inspite of issuance of demand notice , the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount, thereby has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act?
2. What Order or sentence ?
07. My findings to the above points is as follows;
1. Point No.1: In the affirmative
2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
08. POINT No.1: It is the specific case of the complainant that, the accused had borrowed hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant to clear her personal loans and towards discharge of the said hand loan amount, the accused has issued the disputed cheque and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, it 9 C.C.16390/2020 returned unpaid due to "ACCOUNT DORMANT". in the account of the drawer and inspite of receipt of demand notice, the accused has failed to make the payment of the cheque amount.
09. To substantiate and establish this fact before the court beyond reasonable doubts as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others V/s Union of India and others , the sworn statement of the complainant has been treated as affidavit evidence. In her affidavit evidence, PW.1 has replicated the averments of the complainant. To corroborate the evidence of PW.1, the complainant has placed on record in all five documents as per Ex.P.01 to 05. Ex.P.1 is the disputed cheque dated 31.08.2020, Ex.P.1 (a) is the signature of accused, Ex.P.2 is the banker's memo dated 02.09.2020, which shows the reasons for the return of the cheque at Ex.P.1 for unpaid is as "ACCOUNT DORMANT", Ex.P.3 is 10 C.C.16390/2020 the legal notice dated 07.09.2020 demanding for payment of cheque amount by replicating the averments of complaint, which was duly served to the accused on 11.09.2020. Ex.P.4 is the the postal receipt about sending legal notice at Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.5 is the postal tracking report. PW.1 has been substantially cross examined by the counsel of accused.
10. To disprove the case of the complainant as well as to rebut the statutory presumption which could be drawn in favour of the complainant and also to prove the probable defense to the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities, the accused adduced her oral evidence before the court by way of filing her affidavit in the form of examination of chief as DW.1. She testified in her affidavit that, she and has denied the entire transactions stated by the complainant in her complaint. Inter alia deposed that, since herself and complainant are good acquaintance with 11 C.C.16390/2020 each other and the complainant had free access to her house and in this regard, the complainant without her notice has taken her cheque bearing No.754281 dated 31.08.2020 drawn in INDUSIND Bank, MG Road, Bengaluru, which never came to her notice. She states that, during the past recent days, the difference of opinion between her and the complainant, therefore in order to wreck vengeance against her. The complainant has filled fancy figure in the cheque and presented the same to the bank and got it dishonored. The signature on the cheque is not of her signature and the same has been forged. In fact, there was no money transaction between herself and the complainant. She being house wife was not in need of any money and she had no necessity of availing a loan from any person including the complainant. On these rival contentions, the accused has sought to dismiss the complaint and acquit her from this case. In support of her oral evidence, she placed before the court the reply notice 12 C.C.16390/2020 and postal receipt, which are marked at Ex.D.1 & 2. The Learned counsel for the complainant has substantially cross examined DW.1 at length.
11. In the written argument it is contended on behalf of the prosecution that, despite knowing the fact that, the account of accused was not in operation and inspite of that, she has issued cheque in question intentionally to defraud the complainant. It is further contended that, in her evidence, the accused deposed that, she is the house wife, but during her cross examination as DW.1 she admitted that, she has been in Kerly factory and the said evidence itself discloses that, the true intention of the accused. It is further stated that, by making comparison of the signature of Ex.P.1(a) and the signature of accused found on her deposition and other admitted records, they are matching with each other. Hence, the legal presumptions shall be drawn in favour of the complainant. 13 C.C.16390/2020 It is further mentioned in the written argument that, in support of the oral evidence of accused no such documentary evidences are being produced, therefore the mere sole testimony of DW.1 is not sufficient to disprove the case of the complainant. Accordingly, it is sought to convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and to award the compensation as pleaded in the complaint.
Inter alia, the Learned Defense Counsel forcefully argued that, inspite of receiving reply notice given by the accused, there is no whisper in the argument of the complainant and also the oral evidence of PW.1 and this fact itself clearly reveals that, just for wrongful gain, the present complaint has been filed against the accused. it is further argued that, the defense put forth by the accused in her reply notice at Ex.D.1 coupled with the oral evidence of DW.1, the accused has raised probable defense and thereby proved the same on preponderance of probabilities. 14 C.C.16390/2020 Accordingly, the Learned Defense Counsel has sought to dismiss the complaint and to acquit the accused. To buttress his contention, the Learned Defense Counsel has relied the judgments as stated above.
12. Before to appreciate the oral and documentary evidences placed on record by the respective parties and also to appreciate the arguments advanced, it is necessary to find out whether the present complaint has been filed in consonance with the provisions of section 138 of NI Act or not?. Looking to the issuance of cheque at Ex.P.1, banker's memo at Ex.P.2, demand notice at Ex.P.3 and so also the postal records at Ex.P. 4 & 5 it can be clearly seen that, the cheque in question has been presented to the bank for encashment within the period of its validity and the said demand notice has been issued to the accused within 30 days from the date of receipt of banker's endorsement. Further, the tack consignment report produced at Ex.P.5 is 15 C.C.16390/2020 not disputed by the defense side either during cross examination of PW.1 or in the examination in chief of DW.1. That apart, giving reply notice at Ex.D.1 itself is suffice to say that, the demand notice sent under Ex.P.3 has been received by the accused as per Ex.P.5 and only thereby she has given reply notice to the said demand notice as per Ex.D.1 through her counsel. The present complaint has been filed on 30.09.2020 within 30 days from the date of accrual of cause of action. Thus, by virtue of the documents at Ex.P.1 to 5 and Ex.D.1, it appears that, the present complaint has been filed only after fulfillment of the requirements of the section 138 of NI Act.
13. As per sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act are two important provisions and they provides for raising mandatory presumptions in favour of the complainant until the contrary is proved by the accused. Even in the catena of decisions i.e., in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported 16 C.C.16390/2020 in 2010(11) SCC 441, in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported in 2019(4) SCC 197, in the case of APS Forex Services (P) Ltd., Vs.Shakthi International Fashion Linkers reported in 2020(12) SCC 724, in the case of Rajeshbai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2020(3) SCC 794, in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde Vs. Sripad reported in Live Law 2021 SC 492 and it is laid down that, " Once the issuance of cheque and the signature thereon is admitted by the accused, the court is required to raise presumption in favour of the complainant stating that, the accused has issued the cheque for some consideration towards discharge of his legal debt or liability of the complainant and that the complainant is the due holder of the said cheque. The burden shifts on the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions under sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act." Now, it is well established law that, the presumption mandated by section 139 of NI Act, thus indeed includes the existence of legally 17 C.C.16390/2020 enforceable debt or liability and it is open for the accused to raise a probable defense wherein the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested and he shall prove before the court on preponderance of probabilities, only thereupon a statutory presumption raised in favour of the complainant stands rebutted.
14. In the well known judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2019 SC 1983 , in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa in para No.19, the top court of the country held that;
"Applying the rule of the word 'proved' under section 3 of Evidence Act, it became evident that in a trial under section 138, a prosecution will have to be made out every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was extended for discharge of debt or liability once the execution of negotiable instrument is either proved or admitted. As soon as the complainant discharges burden to prove that instrument was executed by the accused, the rules of presumptions under section 118 & 139 help him to shift the burden on the accused.18 C.C.16390/2020
The presumptions will live, exists & survive & shall and only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability. A presumption itself is not evidence, but only makes a prima-facie case for a party to whose benefits it exists.
The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insists in every case the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated, but bare denial of the passing of consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is possible has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration & debt did not exists or their non- existence was so probable, that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case act upon the plea that they did not exists."19 C.C.16390/2020
In the instant case on hand, in the reply notice at Ex.D.1 and also in the oral evidence of accused as DW.1, the signature of accused on Ex.P.1(a) has been denied and disputed stating that, her signature has been forged by the complainant. But, whereas during the cross examination of PW.1, on page No.6, the accused has clearly admitted by way of making suggestion to PW.1 stating that, Ex.P.1 only bears the signature of accused, but it was filled up by the complainant herself. Though, this suggestion has been denied by PW.1, but looking to this suggestion made to PW.1 from the defense side, it can be safely held that, the accused is admitting her signature on Ex.P.1(a). For the benefit of discussion, the suggestion made to PW.1 has been reproduced as under;
' ನಪ.1 ರ ಮಮಲ ಆರರಮಪತಳ ಸಹ ಮತ ತ ಇದ ಅದನನ ನ ನವಮ ಬರದನಕರಕಡದವ ಎಕದರ ಸರಯಲಲ.' Furthermore, if at all the accused is truly being her signature on Ex.P.1(a), she could have filed application before the court seeking to refer signature on Ex.P.1 along 20 C.C.16390/2020 with her admitted signatures for making comparison to the hand writing expert. But, no such efforts has been made by the accused in this regard. By this suggestion made to PW.1 during her cross examination, when the signature of accused at Ex.P.1(a) is admitted, as per the above relied judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the legal presumptions under sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act shall lie in favour of the complainant only to the extent that, the cheque in question has been issued from the bank account of the accused towards the discharge of her legal debt or liability and that the complainant being the payee of the said cheque and also the due holder of the same. The legal presumption under sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act are the rebuttable presumptions and the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the statutory presumption under section 118(a) & 139 of NI Act by producing cogent and acceptable evidence to the effect that, cheque in question has been issued in favour of the complainant towards the discharge 21 C.C.16390/2020 of her legal debt or liability of the present case, but it was issued for some other purpose. Further, in order to rebut the said statutory presumption under section 118(a) & 139 of NI Act, the accused shall raise probable defense before the court and to prove the same on preponderance of probabilities. Once the accused has established her defense as a probable defense, the presumptions gets rebutted and the burden again shifts on the complainant to prove before the court, the alleged transaction of hand loan advanced to the accused and also for financial capacity to lend such a huge loan amount if the same is disputed. Undoubtedly, as per Ex.D.1 the accused has given reply notice to the demand notice issued by the complainant and thereby has put forth his defense in the beginning itself and to prove her defense as a probable defense, the accused has entered in the witness box by way filing examination in chief in the form of an affidavit as DW.1. Wherein she has denied the entire case put forth by the 22 C.C.16390/2020 complainant and deposed that, the complainant has taken the disputed cheque from her house without bringing to her notice and later when difference of opinion raised between the accused and the complainant and to take revenge for the same, the complainant herself got filled up her cheque and presented to the bank for encashment, thereby got it dishonored. She has denied her signature on the cheque. The Learned Prosecuting Counsel has cross examined DW.1, similarly the Learned Prosecuting Counsel also cross examined PW.1 at length.
15. After careful scrutinizing the oral evidences of PW.1 , DW.1, the averments of complaint and also the reply notice at Ex.D.1, directly the complainant and accused are close friends and both of them used to visit to the houses of both of them oftenly. It is the defense of the accused that, she had kept signed blank cheque in her house and the complainant has taken away the same without brining to 23 C.C.16390/2020 her knowledge. Whether this defense and evidence of accused can be treated as a probable defense, no man could be excepted to keep signed blank cheque openly in the house. In the reply notice at Ex.D.1 and also in her evidence as DW.1, the accused not stated before the court when the signed blank cheque was kept, where it was kept and when it was stolen by PW.1 is not forth coming. On the other hand DW.1 herself admitted in her cross examination on page No.5 stating that, she used to keep her signed blank cheque in the almera of the house. The relevant portion of the cross examination of the DW.1, is reproduced for the benefit of discussion as under;
' ನಮಮ ಮನಯಲನ ಬಮರನವನಲ ಚಕಬನಕನನ ನ ಇಡನತತಮವ.' In the same line of cross examination it has been further suggested that, do you allow any person who visits to your house for the inspection of her almera, for the said suggestion , DW.1 replied that, on that day she had kept the cheque in question on the table for the purpose of 24 C.C.16390/2020 returning the same to the bank. For the sake of discussion, the relevant portion of the cross examination of the DW.1, is reproduced as under;
' ಆ ದನ ಚಕಕನನ ನ ಬಬಕಕಗ ಹಕತರನಗಸಬಮಕಕದನ ಟಮಬಲಮಮಲ ಇಟಟದ.' Generally, when the cheque being of an account has not been utilized or used for the long time, such cheque book can be returned to the bank. Here in the case on hand, DW.1 stated that, she had kept single cheque on the table for the purpose of returning it to the bank. The signed single blank cheque cannot be taken back by the bank authorities, unless it do not contains the signature of the account holder. So, this evidence of DW.1 do not leads the court to believe her testimony as probable. On further scrutinizing of oral evidence, no police complaint has been lodged by the accused with respect of stealing of cheque in question from her house. On the other hand, DW.1 stated that, she came to know about stealing of cheque in question from her house only she had received demand 25 C.C.16390/2020 notice issued by the complainant. Even then also, she could not have lodged complaint to the concerned police station if genuinely her cheque was taken away by the complainant without her knowledge. Even no notice was issued to the complainant for the return of her cheque, therefore by scrutinizing the entire oral evidence of DW.1 and also the directed to PW.1 during her cross examination, I am of the considered opinion that, the accused has failed to raise probable defense and to prove the same on preponderance of probabilities. There is a typical mistake found in the demand notice at Ex.P.3 mentioning date of advancement of disputed hand loan on 14.03.2016, same has been typed as 14.03.2015 in the complaint as well as in the deposition of PW.1. Therefore, this typographical mistake found on Ex.P.3 do not fatals to the case of the complainant. So also, do not supports the defense put forth by the accused. Since, the accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumption under section 26 C.C.16390/2020 118(a) & 139 of NI Act, the question of shifting onus on the complainant and to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts does not arise at all.
16. As per the banker's endorsement at Ex.P.2, the cheque in question returned unpaid due to "Account Dormant" . Section 138 of NI Act contemplates only two reasons to attract the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act when the cheque was presented and returned as "Funds Insufficient" in the account of the drawer or "Exceeds the amount arranged" to be paid from the account of the drawer. The "Account Dormant" means, as per the banking rules and regulations, when the savings account or current account has not been operated for a long time, the bank authority would list out such accounts and keep them account dormant and once the said account is declared as dormant account, unless some actual transaction or deposit of amount is made by the account 27 C.C.16390/2020 holder, the said account remain an account of inactive. Here, in the case on hand, it cannot be denied that, the accused might have deliberately issued the cheque in question drawn from the invalid account just cheat the complainant, under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, even the reason for the return of cheque with an endorsement as "Account Dormant" also is one of the species of the genus as contemplated under section 138 of NI Act. In this regard, recently the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala was pleased to dealt with the similar situation and held that, the account dormant reason mentioned in the bank endorsement would attract the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. The said judgment is reported in 2022 SCC Online Kerala 677 1, in the case of Premjithilal V.P. Vs. Peter John Aswez & Anr, wherein it is held as under;
" Account Dormant - Literally means, 'account inactive' or 'torpid'.
28 C.C.16390/2020Therefore, when cheque returned unpiad with an endorsement "Account Dormant"
it means account inactive for wants of funds. It is difficult to lay down a proposition that when the account is inactive. There is sufficient amount outstanding in the said account. Therefore, it has to be held that, even dishonour of cheque with endorsement account dormant also is the species of the genus, ' account of money in account is insufficient & in such scenario, it could not be held that when the cheque was dishonored with an endorsement 'Account Dormant' the same would not attract an offence u/s 138 of the NI Act."
The Learned Defense Counsel relied the five judgments in support of his arguments. The judgment at Sl.No.1 as relied above is only helpful to the complainant's case and not the case of accused. In the judgment relied at Sl.No.2 wherein only accused and complainant were lecturers of Government College and there was a dispute with regard to lending of hand loan of Rs.14,00,000/-. The facts and circumstances of the case are not matching with the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the 29 C.C.16390/2020 judgment at Sl.No.2 is not applicable to the case on hand. The judgment at Sl.No.3 relied by the accused wherein, only a short note is found and the entire theme of the judgment is not found, therefore it is difficult to rely upon the head note of the judgment in support of the case of the accused. The judgment relied at Sl.No.4 is the year 2001 delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, but as per the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan in the year 2010, this judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is not applicable to the case on hand. Similarly, the Learned Defense Counsel relied another judgment of the Hon'ble Andra Pradesh High Court at Sl.No.5, in the light of the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan, this ratio of Hon'ble Andra High Court is not applicable to the case on hand. On the other hand, the complainant has relied one judgment of Delhi Metropolitan Magistrate and another judgment of this court in 30 C.C.16390/2020 CC.No.206117/2019. Since, these two judgments are passed by the two equallent courts, the findings of those two judgments shall not be considered to the present case on hand as ratio decidendi. Thus, the accused has miserably failed to raise probable defense and to prove the same on preponderance of probabilities. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the affirmative.
17. 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 It is worth to note that, the offence is of the nature of civil wrong. Hence, it is proper to award sentence of fine, instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under section 255 (2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, accused is
31 C.C.16390/2020
hereby convicted for the offence
punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.6,60,000/-
(Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty Thousand
only). In default, she shall undergo
simple imprisonment for 3 (Three)
months.
Acting under section 357(1) of
code of criminal procedure, it is ordered that an amount of Rs.6,50,000/-
( Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), there from shall be paid to the complainant as a compensation, remaining fine amount of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only) is 32 C.C.16390/2020 defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in the prosecution.
The bail bond of accused and surety stands canceled subject to appeal period.
Supply free copy of judgment to the accused.
{Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this 14 th day of February 2023}.
(BHOLA PANDIT) XX ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1 Smt.Anusuya.V.K. 33 C.C.16390/2020 List of documents produced on behalf of 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. 4 Postal receipt Ex.P. 5 Postal tracking report
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
D.W.1 Smt.Bhagya Satish, List of documents produced on behalf of accused:
Ex.D.1 Reply notice
Ex.D.2 Postal receipt
XX A.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru.