Bangalore District Court
M/S.Rajesh Export Ltd vs Sri D.K.Kaushik on 17 February, 2023
KABC030576762015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2023
Present:
SMT SUJATA SIDAGOUDA PATIL,
B.SC.,LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore.
CC NO. 20678/2015
Complainant : M/s.Rajesh Export Ltd,
Company incorporated under Company's
Act
And having its office at No.4, Batavia
Chambers,
Kumara Krupa Road , Kumara Park East
Bangalore 560001.
Represented by its Authorized
Representative
Mr.B.G.Mallikarjun.
(By Sri SKK Advocate )
V/s
Accused : Sri D.K.Kaushik
S/o.D.N.Krishnamurthy
Aged 28 years
R/at.No.135/3,
Jewelers Street,
Bangalore 560001.
(By Sri RRDG Advocate)
2
CC NO.20678/2015
1. Date of Commencement 09.06.2015
of offence
2. Date of report of offence 17.08.2015
3. Name of the M/s. Rajesh Exports Limited.
Complainant
4. Date of recording of 15.12.2016
evidence
5. Date of closing of 28.10.2021
evidence
6. Offence Complained of 138 N.I.Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge Accused is acquitted.
8. Complainant Sri.SKK Advocate
Represented by
9. Accused defence by Sri.RRDG Advocate
JUDGMENT
The complainant filed the complaint under Sec.200 Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act (For short N.I.Act).
2. The brief facts of the complainant case is as under:
That M/s.Sai Krishna Jewellers was due to the complainant company of a sum of Rs.4,84,00,000/ . The accused has undertaken to pay the debt/liability of M/s.Sai Krishna Jewellers due to the complainant, accordingly, provided a declaration and issued a cheque bearing No.018909 dt.09.06.2015 for Rs.4,84,00,000/ in favour of the complainant company drawn 3 CC NO.20678/2015 on ING Vysya Bank Limited, I.B.Street Branch, Bangalore 560
001. The accused had issued the cheque towards the discharge of debt/liability of the complainant and a declaration to that effect.
As per the promise and assurance given by the accused, the cheque bearing No.018909 dt.09.06.2015 for Rs.4,84,00,000/ was presented for realization through the complainant's banker ie Canara Bank, Overseas Branch, Bangalore 560001. The said cheque returned unrealised for the reason "Account Closed". Consequently, the complainant issued a demand notice dt.04.07.2015 to the accused for payment of outstanding due amount covered under the cheque. The accused inspite of receipt of legal notice has not replied to the same nor complied the demand made therein. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the complaint against the accused. Hence, this complaint.
3. After filing of the complaint, cognizance taken and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant. The complainant has complied all the statutory requirements under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Thereafter, the case is registered against the accused and summons issued. The accused appeared with the Advocate and released on bail. Copy of the complaint furnished 4 CC NO.20678/2015 to the accused. Plea recorded and read out to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of the complainant's case, the Authorized Representative of the complainant company got examined as PW1 got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. After closure of the evidence of the complainant, 313 Cr.P.C statement of the accused has been recorded. The accused denied the incriminating evidence placed by the complainant. The accused has not lead any oral or documentary evidence. But, relied upon the documents produced in CC No.20673/2015 as per Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.11.
Heard arguments and perused the material on record.
5. On the basis of the contents of the complaint the following points arise for my consideration. :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused issued a cheque bearing No.018909 dt.09.06.2015 for Rs.4,84,00,000/ drawn on ING Vysya Bank Limited, I.B.Street Branch, Bangalore 560 001 in favour of the complainant towards discharge of legal liability ?
2. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act?
3. What order ?
6. My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1&2 In the Negative.
5
CC NO.20678/2015
Point.No.3 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
7. Point Nos.1 & 2: Both these points are interconnected with each other. In order to avoid repetition of facts, both the points have been taken up together for consideration.
8. That M/s.Sai Krishna Jewellers was due to the complainant company of a sum of Rs.4,84,00,000/ . The accused has undertaken to pay the debt/liability of M/s.Sai Krishna Jewellers due to the complainant, accordingly, provided a declaration and issued a cheque bearing No.018909 dt.09.06.2015 for Rs.4,84,00,000/ in favour of the complainant company drawn on ING Vysya Bank Limited, I.B.Street Branch, Bangalore 560
001. The accused had issued the cheque towards the discharge of debt/liability of the complainant and a declaration to that effect.
As per the promise and assurance given by the accused, the cheque bearing No.018909 dt.09.06.2015 for Rs.4,84,00,000/ was presented for realization through the complainant's banker ie Canara Bank, Overseas Branch, Bangalore 560001. The said cheque returned unrealised for the reason "Account Closed". Consequently, the complainant issued a demand notice 6 CC NO.20678/2015 dt.04.07.2015 to the accused for payment of outstanding due amount covered under the cheque. The accused inspite of receipt of legal notice has not replied to the same nor complied the demand made therein. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the complaint against the accused
9. In order to create the legal presumption as per Sec.139 of N.I.Act, the complainant company examined its authorized representative as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the Incorporation Certificate. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the Board Resolution. Ex.P3is the Declaratiion. Ex.P.4 is the Cheque. Ex.P.5 is the Bank Endorsement. Ex.P.6 is the copy of the Legal Notice. Ex.P.7 is the Cheque Return Memo. Thereafter accused counsel has filed application requesting the court to record the clubbed evidence in CC NO.20673/2015 and the evidence in the present case . Accordingly, court has passed order dt.09.10.2017 same has been challenged by the complainant in Crl.R.P No.777/2017 before the Honble Sessions Court CCH 64 , Bangalore and the said order is set aside by directing the parties to lead independent evidence in each case. Despite the order passed by the Honble Sessions Court, the parties in both the cases have not choosen to 7 CC NO.20678/2015 lead independent evidence. The cross examination of PW 1 in CC No.20673/2015 has been entirely adopted in the present case. Further it is observed that defence counsel has confronted ExD1 and Ex.D2 to PW 1 during his cross examination, but, not produced independent documents Ex.D.1 and D2 in this case. Further it is observed that the accused of present case nor produced any documentary evidence not stepped into the witness box by getting examined himself as DW1. But during cross examination of PW 1 defence counsel has suggested that at the time of entering of franchisee agreement, accused have made preparation to open the show room at Koramangala , Bangalore at the option of the complainant by investing more than 50 Lakhs towards premises deposit and towards refundable security amount. But, witness has ignored the above said suggestion and not responded to alleged investment of the accused. But he has agreed that the cheques in question of both the cases have been taken at the time of execution of franchisee agreement for security purpose. Further he admits of obtaining independent declaration from all the partners including blank signed cheques.
8
CC NO.20678/2015
10. During further cross examination the defence counsel has suggested his specific defence that after entering the franchisee agreement with the complainant accused along with his family members issued two cheques towards security purpose for a sum of Rs.4,84,00,000/ each on 9.6.2015. bearing Nos.018909 & 081267. Out of these cheques, the present accused has issued cheque bearing No.018909. Apart it the accused has given declaration statement in favour of the complainant company. Complainant company is engaged in business of gold jewellery and gold bullion and accused firm agreed to store and sell the gold jewellery and gold bullion, accordingly executed agreement on 20.4.2011 and its duration was of 3 years period. Krishna Jewelers is a Partnership firm in which the accused was working as a partner. The accused has reputed business of gold jewellery from his forefathers time with more than 150 years experience. Looking to the well reputed business of the accused firm, the complainant company who runs their jewellery business under the name and style of Shubh Jewellers satisfied the business reputation of accused and entered into said franchisee agreement and taken six cheques from present accused for amount of Rs.4,84,00,000/ for valuation of 23 kgs 22 carrat gold 9 CC NO.20678/2015 jewellery for security purpose. Apart from above said six cheques, the complainant company took original title deeds along with registered mortgage deeds from the accused and his family members. In order to run the jewellery business as per the terms and conditions mentioned under the franchisee agreement, the accused has taken show room at Koramangala area at the option of the complainant company by investing huge amount towards alteration of the show room conveniently. The accused and his other partners of Krishna Jewellers have invested Rs.18 lakhs towards deposit concerned in favour of the premises owner apart it they have given deposit of Rs.23 Lakhs in favour of the complainant company for security purpose. Since the date of agreement till month of December, 2014, they have regularly transferred the sale amounts in favour of the complainant company's account regularly. Some of the golden jewellery have been returned to the complainant as per the customers complaint. In those events accused have returned such ornaments in favour of the complainant company but the complainant company has not made payment of the valuation amount which was paid by the customers. Under such situation in order to maintain good reputation in the society, the accused 10 CC NO.20678/2015 made payment from his pocket. But all these suggestion have been straight away denied by the witness.
11. Further it is suggested that at the end of agreement period accused was due to pay sum of Rs.95 Lakhs as per statement of account. At that time the accused requested to set right the premises deposit amount and security deposit amount including the margin amount to be paid by the complainant company to the accused. They were ready to pay the balance amount, but the complainant company has not agreed to deduct the same and made claim of entire Rs.95 Lakhs amount. Same suggestion has been denied by the witness.
12. Apart from present cases, the complainant company has filed another two complaints bearing CC NO.4261/2016 and CC.NO.4262/2016 against the mother of the accused Smt.Shobha Bhawani and her husband Daulath Krishna wherein the accused has been acquitted. Further it is defended that in the month of December, 2014 when the accused approached the complainant company by stating that the business is not well running and wish to terminate the franchise agreement at that time the complainant company has blocked the transaction account of the accused. Immediately, they made claim of entire 11 CC NO.20678/2015 security amount . Thereafter they presented two cheques out of above said cheques which were given towards security. Thereafter filed present two cases.
13. It is observed that during the pendency of the case when accused insisted to produce ledger books of account of franchisee business from commencement of the agreement till the date available, at that time the complainant company successfully avoided. Thereafter court passed an order in CC NO.20673/2015 to produce the same and on 27.01.2021 they produced the Ledger of the books of accounts along with 65 (b) Certificate which have been duly marked as Ex.P.22 to P.25 in CC NO.20673/2015. But during cross examination in the present case PW 1 has deposed that they have taken Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.24 in CC No.20673/2015 account extracts with the help of technician by name Sabarjith Mukherjee residing at Calcutta. But, after issuance of summons no such person has been traced out. Therefore, in absence of compliance of Sec.65(b) of Evidence Act, the documents marked as Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.25 of that case cannot be taken into consideration in the present case.
14. As per the pleading and evidence placed by both the parties it discloses that on 20.4.2011 the franchisee agreement 12 CC NO.20678/2015 has been executed. Accordingly, accused agreed to sell gold ornaments and services of the complainant exclusively and not of other company's products. The show room was fixed at the option of the complainant company at Koramanagala. Further it is observed that as per the agreement complainant company was at liberty to withdraw all or any part of the products at any time . From 20.4.2011 for 3 years period was stated to be "Lock In Period" during which either party is not suppose to terminate the agreement. Apart it the accused shall allow any official of the complainant company to check and verify the products and services by entering the show room which was run under the name "Shubh Jewellers". At the time of agreement, the accused shall pay the refundable deposit for Rs.23 Lakhs and every sale proceed ie cash collection shall be deposited to the complainant company's account within 24 hrs period. Party shall maintain stock register including repair process and to return the particular samples after repairs to the customer by the complainant company.
15. Further the present accused including the other accused in CC NO.20673/2015 are responsible for up keeping replacement and maintenance of furniture, fixtures and all the 13 CC NO.20678/2015 assets in the show room by keeping updated required strength of labours. Necessary modification can be done with prior permission of the complainant company. Despite it they should not engage directly or indirectly in similar type of bullion business of products of other companies. As per the agreement complainant company shall pay 2.5% commission on sale of 22 carat gold jewellery. If attempts exceeds weight of 43 gms sold per day then commission will be Rs.43 per gram sale. Apart it 5% commission shall be paid on diamond jewellry. 50% commission to be paid on sale of gold and silver coins after excluding vat and sale returns with respect to all above commissions.
16. After entering of above said agreement, the complainant company has not paid sale tax and the accused and other accused in CC NO.20673/2015 have made to face sale tax default process before the concerned authority. To that effect the accused have produced the authorised copy of the order passed u/s.62(6) of KVAT Act, 2003 by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Authority through which the accused persons have been acquitted and the impugned re assessment order including consequential penalty and interest levied by the Sales 14 CC NO.20678/2015 Tax Authority has been set aside. Accordingly the defence counsel has produced authorized copy of the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes which was marked as Ex.D.11 in CC NO.20673/2015.
17. It is agreed facts that after filing of the present cases, the franchisee business was running and the complainant company has supplied the golden jewellery and bullion to the accused firm and the accused have updated their payment with respect to the sold items in favour of the complainant company as per Ex.D.5. in CC NO.20673/2015 The account statement Ex.D.5 maintained by the complainant company upto December, 2014, same has been taken out by the present accused in CC No.20673/2015. Thereafter, the very account has been blocked by the complainant company. Apart it the witness has duly complied with the Sec.65 (b) of Evidence Act by stating that he is in possession of the computer monitor along with the printer through which he took the print of ExD.5 in CC no.20673/2015 . Therefore, by comparing the same with Ex.P.22 and Ex.D.5 of CC NO.20673/2015 the account statement taken by the present accused is more reliable because Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.25 have been taken out with the assistance of one cyber expert by name 15 CC NO.20678/2015 Sabarjith Mukherjee and PW 1 has tried to comply with Sec.65(b) of Evidence Act by affixing his certificate which is not tenable under law. Further it is observed that the contents of above said certificate has not been duly complied with necessary ingredients of Sec.65(b) of Evidence Act resulting of which the Ex.P.22 - P25 in CC NO.20673/2015 cannot be made base for conviction. I have gone through the contents of Ex.P25 in CC no.20673/2015 in which they have shown net cash to be payable of Rs.5,22,87,490/ . Further I have gone through the contents of Ex.P.22 with respect to due amount recoverable for sold gold items of 22 carrat in which it has been mentioned that Rs.3,95,88,606/. The amount shown in that document is consolidated amount with respect to sold gold items of 22 and 24 carrats. Therefore, there is material variation in pleadings, oral evidence and the contents of documentary evidence produced by Pw 1 to support his case. It is admitted fact that the amount mentioned under the cheque is valued amount for 23 kgs gold. But, as per Ex.P.25 in CCNo.20673/2015 accused have to return gold item weighing 573.4gms of 22 carat golden ornaments and 11 gms of 24 carats ornaments including 60 gms of silver items. On what basis the above said valuation is made is not duly explained 16 CC NO.20678/2015 by PW1. Further it is observed that deposition of security amount of Rs.23 Lakhs by the accused persons is asked several times, but, PW 1 has denied this suggestion. PW 1 failed to give proper explanation regarding acceptance of above said security amount . But as per the Franchise Agreement, there is specific contention of taking security amount of Rs.23 Lakhs from the accused. Further I have gone through the franchisee gold ledger account extract in which no column is there to show payment of commission on 22 carat gold jewellery as mentioned in Anexure 1 including commission on sale of diamond jewellery , gold bullion or gold coins. Hence, in absence of any such payments it shows that the complainant company by entering into franchisee agreement, has not acted upon fairly and not given agreed commission and margin in favour of the accused. On failure of fair payment and maintenance of franchisee gold ledger statement and debtors cash ledger accounts properly, the dispute arose among the parties. Further it is observed that as per accused he communicated to the complainant company through e mail by calling upon to terminate the franchisee agreement and to settle the balance amount of Rs.95 Lakhs on 25.7.2014 , as per Ex.D7 in CC No.20673/2015 and also on 31.03.2014 they have 17 CC NO.20678/2015 intimated the balance amount of Rs.85,49,876/. Further more I have gone through Ex.D8 in CC No.20673/2015 which is nothing but the consignment note produced by the accused persons which runs from 13.6.2011 to 01.07.2015 which shows that the accused have transferred sale amount to Rajesh Exports company regularly as per Ex.D.5 in CC no.20673/2015. Further it is observed that with respect to Ex.D.5 to Ex.D9, the present accused has duly complied with the Sec.65(b) of the Evidence Act. On the contrary the complainant company has failed to place fair statement of accounts including franchisee gold ledger account statement. Only they have approached the court by claiming the amount mentioned under the cheque. Further it is observed that at the time of entering into franchisee agreement the complainant company has taken declaration from the present accused including other accused in CC NO.20673/2015 and 6 blank signed cheques . Apart it, they have taken mortgage deeds which have been executed by the accused and their family members with respect to their immovable properties. Out of them, Ex.D.1 and D2 of CC NO.20673/2015 have been duly confronted by the defence counsel and same is admitted by PW 1. 18
CC NO.20678/2015
18. On careful perusal of entire documentary evidence placed by either parties it shows that the complainant company has failed to prove that the amount mentioned under the cheque is legally recoverable debt as the complainant company has failed to prove that as per Franchisee agreement the company has performed its part performance legally by giving of commissions and margin in favour of the accused persons as agreed in Franchisee Agreement. Further it is observed that as per Ex.P.25, of CC No.20673/2015 the total returnable gold was of 573.4 gms of 22 carat golden ornaments, 11 gms of 24 carat golden ornaments including 60 gms of silver items. Therefore it is observed that as per pleading of the complainant and the contents of the franchisee agreement, the cheque in dispute was issued by the present accused and the other accused persons of CC NO.20673/2015 towards security as the complainant company has handed over 23 kgs of golden ornaments for sale purpose and the amount mentioned under the cheque was entire valuation of 23 Kgs gold ornaments. But looking to Ex.P.25, the items to be returned by the accused is very less compared to the 23 Kgs golden ornaments. Therefore the amount mentioned under the cheque is too exorbitant compared to the valuation of 19 CC NO.20678/2015 the golden ornaments to be returned by the accused as per Ex.P.25 in CC NO.20673/2015 . Apart it, the sale amount of sold gold items have been duly transferred as per the statement of the accused ExD.5 in CC No.20673/2015. The contents of Ex.P.22 & Ex.P23 differs from the contents of Ex.D.5 in CC No.20673/2015.
19. After concluding trial of the present case, it is observed that the transactions described under both the cases are one and the same and very fact has been duly admitted by the complainant as well as both the counsel and during cross examination also Pw1 has admitted that based on single franchisee agreement, the complainant company has taken six blank signed cheques from the accused of both the cases for security purpose along with declarations. Out of them two cheques have been utilized. But claim made by the complainant company in both the case is a single claim. Therefore on observing all these facts it reveals that the accused of present case is one of the the accused in C.C.No.20673/2015. Therefore the present accused has faced successive prosecution for the same offence resulting of which the jeopardy prohibited the second trial and second punishment for the same offence arising out of same transaction. Thus, assuming the validity of the underlined policy 20 CC NO.20678/2015 of the constitution guarantee against double jeopardy a fair application of the double jeopardy doctrine should secure criminal defendants from two types of abuses: Procedurally, the prevention of more than one trial for the same acts:
Substantively the prohibition of multiple convictions for the same criminal acts. Therefore as per Article 20 (2) of Indian Constitution "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once".
20. Further I have gone through the guidelines of Sec.300 of Cr.PC which reads :
"A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge ..."
21. After going through the above said both the provisions, it is observed that the complainant company has made accusation in CC No. 20673/2015 by involving the present accused and the other partners and separetly filed the present case against the accused. Therefore after concluding the trial it reveals that Sec.219 of Cr.P.C. will not be made applicable to the present case because these two cases are not of similar nature of offences , 21 CC NO.20678/2015 but, they have been filed for the same offences arising from same transaction. The complainant company has made the present accused to face trials twice for the same offence which is not tenable under the law.
22. I have gone through the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment reorted in 2022 Live Law (SC) 1039 (T.P.Gopalkrishnan V/s State of Kerala ) . It is held in CC no.24&25 of 2003 trial court passed conviction judgments. The alleged offences are punishable under Sec.13(1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act and 409 of IPC. Charge sheets were filed for two audit periods. Accused has been convicted for an offence punishable under Sec.409 of IPC. The accused challenged both the above said judgments before the Honble Kerala High Court through Criminal Appeal Nos.947 & 948 of 2009. Same have been dismissed. The move before the Honble Apex Court which held that:
23. As per (2) of Sec.300 of Cr.P.C states that charge of second trial is for distinct offence is not barred and those offence of similar nature can be tried off under same trial by invoking process of sec 220(1) of Cr.P.C. But in the present case there is no material on record to demonstrate that CC No.24/2003 and CC No.25/2003 have been initiated pursuant to consent of state 22 CC NO.20678/2015 government. It is also not brought on record that in those cases charge is framed for distinct offence for which separate charge had been framed. In absence of material evidence Honble Apex Court has considered that the offences charged in those cases based on single incident which is continued for the period of two cases and the offences were committed in the same transaction as the one for which he was prosecuted in the year 1999 under CC No.1214/1999. Therefore, by considering entire period as single incident, based on this concept the judgment passed by the Spl.Judge in CC NO.24/2003 and CC No.25/2003 have been set aside including the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court in Crl.A.Nos.947/2009 & 948/2009 by allowing the Appeals preferred by the accused. The series of above said acts alleged against the accused are so connected to one another arising from the same transaction.
24. Further it is observed mere production of the cheque is not sufficient to prove the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I.Act. There must be a existing legally recoverable debt on the part of the accused.
The complainant has not discharged the initial burden which lies on him. The accused has successfully rebutted the presumption available under Sec.139 of N.I.Act. On the other hand the 23 CC NO.20678/2015 complainant has not produced sufficient evidence or materials to prove the complaint averment and ingredients of section 138 of N.I.Act. In this regard, it is necessary to refer the following decision :
(2010) 11 SCC 441Rangappa V/s Sri.Mohan 'N.I.Act, 1881 S.139 Presumption under Scope of
- Held , presumption mandated by S.139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability However, such presumption is rebuttable in nature - Criminal Trial - Proof Presumption - Generally'.
25. The principles of the above case are amply applicable to the case on hand. In view of the principles laid down in the above cases and materials on record, the court comes to the conclusion that the complainant has utterly failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and has not placed sufficient oral and documentary evidence for convincing the court in order to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act . Hence, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
26. Point No.3 : In the light of the above findings on point Nos.1 & 2 I proceed to pass the following :
24
CC NO.20678/2015 ORDER Exercising the powers conferred upon this court u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby Acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instrument Act.
The bail bond of the accused and his surety if any stand cancelled.
[ (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of February, 2023).
(SUJATA SIDAGOUDA PATIL) XXV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : B.G.Mallikarjun.
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : C.C. of the Incorporation Certificate Ex.P2 : C.C. of the Board Resolution Ex.P3 : Declaration Ex.P4 : Cheque Ex.P5 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P6 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P7 : Cheque Return Memo.
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED: Nil
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED: SUJATA Nil SIDAGOUDA PATIL Digitally signed by SUJATA (SUJATA SIDAGOUDA PATIL) SIDAGOUDA PATIL Date: 2023.02.20 XXV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE. 17:09:53 +0530 25 CC NO.20678/2015 26 CC NO.20678/2015 27 CC NO.20678/2015