Bangalore District Court
Avanti Finance Pvt. Ltd. Rep By Its Auth. ... vs Yogesh Babasaheb Burate on 3 October, 2025
KABC030294282024
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 3rd day of October 2025
Present : SRI. GOKULA. K
B.A.LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore City.
C.C.No.17053/2024
Complainant : Avanti Finance Private Limited
(CIN No.U65929KA2016PTC38355)
Registered office at No.2727,
2nd floor, 1st main road
HAL 3rd stage, Ward No.58 (Old No.83)
New Thippasandra
Bengaluru 560 075.
Rep by its Authorized Signatory
Ms.Raksha.
(By Sri.M.S.M- Advocate )
V/s
Accused : Mr.Yogesh Babasaheb Burate
Plot No.466, R K Nagar
Society No.6, Pachgaon Road
Kolhapur, Maharashtra 416 013.
(By Sri GP - Advocate )
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
Final Order: Accused is Convicted
Date of judgment : 03.10.2025
2
C.C.No.17053/2024
JUDGMENT
The complainant filed the complaint under under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief case of the complainant is as under:
That the complainant is Non Banking Financial Company incorporated under the Companies Act providing credit facility to the borrowers involved in agricultural and agricultural allied activities. It is stated that Golden Curve, a Partnership Firm, set up with primary objective of trading the agri related commodities including bananas. That Golden Curve, has availed term loan vide loan agreement dated 18.03.2023 for a sum of INR 2,00,00,000/- repayable with interest @ 18% as per the terms of loan agreement. The accused stood as guarantor towards the credit facility of INR 2,00,00,000/- extended to Golden Curve and executed a Deed of Guarantee on 18.03.2023 in terms of which the accused agreed to repay the amount covered under the loan agreement. It is stated that due to default in repayment of loan by the Firm, the complainant initiated guarantee invocation process by issuing the notice dated 14.02.2024 through email. It is stated that the accused towards repayment of the credit availed by the said Partnership 3 C.C.No.17053/2024 Firm, has issued 3 cheques i.e. cheque bearing No.367003, 367004 and 367005 dated 22-02-2024 drawn on ICICI Bank, Vasavi Sector, Mumbai for a sum of INR 40,00,000/- each totally amounting to INR 1,20,00,000/-. The complainant presented said cheque through its banker i.e. The Federal Bank Ltd, Wipro Park, Koramangala, Bangalore for encashment and said cheque returned dishonored for the reason "Account is closed". Therefore the complainant got issued legal notice dated 12.03.2024 calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered in the cheques. The notice issued to the accused returned as "unclaimed" on 27.03.2024. Inspite of issuance of notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant within the statutory time. Therefore, the accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Therefore the complainant has filed the complaint.
3. On the basis of Private complaint filed by the complainant, this court has taken cognizance of offence and registered the case in PCR No.5543/2024 and recorded sworn statement of the authorised officer of the complainant as PW 1 and got marked 17 documents as Ex.P 1 to P 17. This court by considering the material on record issued process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C by registering the criminal case. The presence of 4 C.C.No.17053/2024 the accused is secured by issuing NBW and arrest of the accused and on production of the accused through concerned police, he is released on bail. The copy of the complaint is served to the accused along with the summons as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.
4. The substance of the acquisition as provided Section 251 of Cr.PC is read over to the accused and his plea is recorded. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others reported in AIR 2014SCW3463, the affidavit filed by the complainant at the stage of taking cognizance and documents marked is treated as evidence under section 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The PW 1 in her further evidence produced Ex. P 18 to 26 documents and is subjected to cross examination. After closure of evidence of the complainant the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution is read over to the accused and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC recorded. The accused has denied the the incriminating circumstances as false. The accused himself is examined as DW 1 and got marked documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D5. But inspite of 5 C.C.No.17053/2024 providing sufficient opportunity the accused not tendered for cross examination. Therefore the evidence of DW 1 is expunged.
6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the accused and perused the material on record and the written arguments of the accused.
7. On the basis of the material on record the following points arise for the consideration of this court :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has issued three cheques i.e. cheque bearing Nos.367003, 367004 and 367005 dated 22-02-2024 drawn on ICICI Bank, Vasavi Sector, Mumbai for a sum of INR 40,00,000/- each totally amounting to INR 1,20,00,000/- towards discharge of legally recoverable debt and on presentation of the said cheques, they are dishonoured for the reason 'account closed' on 26-02-2022 and inspite of issuance of of demand notice dated 12-
03-2023 the accused has not complied the demands in the notice and thus the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ?
6
C.C.No.17053/2024
2. What Order of Sentence?
8. The findings of this court to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 As per final order
for the following :
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1: To prove the case the authorized representative of the complainant is examined as PW-1. The PW1 in her evidence has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The PW 1 has deposed that complainant is the non banking financial company doing its business of providing credit facility to borrowers involved in agricultural and allied activities. To prove incorporation of the company, PW 1 has produced the web copies of the Incorporation Certificate and the Registration Certificate for change of registered office from Maharastra to Karnataka as Ex.P.1 and and Ex.P2. These documents proves the legal status of the complainant company. The PW 1 has produced the Letter of Authority as Ex.P.3. As per Ex.P3, PW1 is authorized to file the complaint and to represent the complainant company. In the cross examination the accused has not denied the legal status of the complainant. In the cross examination it is elicited that PW 1 is not participated in the process of loan sanctioning, but she has deposed that she is 7 C.C.No.17053/2024 deposing on the basis of documentary information. It is also elicited that the complainant has not produced the board resolution meeting minutes to support letter of authority at Ex.P
3. But Ex.P 3 letter of authority refers to the board resolution passed on 22-06-2022. Therefore mere non production of board resolution by the complainant, is not a reason to hold that the PW 1 is not having authority to represent the complainant. The letter of authority clearly shows that as per the board resolution PW 1 is authorized to represent the complainant company.
10. The PW 1 has deposed that the Golden Curve, a partnership firm set up with primary objective of trading the agri related commodities including bananas. The accused is also one of the partner of the said firm Golden Curve. It is the case of the complainant that vide loan agreement dated 18.03.2023 a term loan of INR 2,00,00,000/- with interest @ 18% has been availed by Golden Curve (Partnership Firm). The complainant has produced the e-signed copy of the loan agreement as Ex.P 4. The complainant has also produced the Audit Trial substantiating the process of execution of loan agreement by affixing e-signatures by the parties with Hash value and it is marked as Ex.P 5. As per the terms of loan agreement, accused, who is also the partner of the Golden Curve, stood as Guarantor in his personal capacity, towards 8 C.C.No.17053/2024 said credit facility and executed a Deed of Guarantee on 18-03- 2023 in terms of which the accused agreed to repay the amount covered under the terms of loan agreement to the complainant. The complainant has produced the e-signed copy of the Guarantee agreement as Ex.P 6. In the schedule 1 of the Guarantee agreement the details of Guarantors is given and the name of accused found place in Guarantor 3 in the schedule 1 of Guarantee agreement and the accused has also affixed his digital signature to the Guarantee agreement. The complainant has also produced the Audit Trial substantiating the process of execution of loan agreement by affixing e-signatures by the parties with Hash value and it is marked as Ex.P 7. As per the terms an agreement 4.6 the partners shall give personal guarantee to the loan of the firm. It is the case of the complainant that Golden Curve has failed to repay the loan in terms of the loan agreement and committed default. As per the Deed of Guarantee the the guarantors are jointly, severally liable to pay the due amount on demand by the complainant. As per the terms of Guarantee agreement 2.1 the Guarantors shall pay the due amount with in 7 days of demand notice. It is stated that following default in loan repayments the complainant initiated guarantee invocation process by issuing the notice dated 14.02.2024 to the accused through e mail. 9
C.C.No.17053/2024 The complainant has produced the same as Ex.P 8. The PW 1 has deposed that accused towards repayment of the credit availed by the said Partnership Firm issued 3 cheques i.e. cheque bearing No. 367003, 367004 and 367005 dated 22-02- 2024 drawn on ICICI Bank,Vasavi Sector, Mumbai for a sum of INR 40,00,000/- each totally amounting to INR 1,20,00,000/ - and it is dishonoured on its presentation and inspite of issuance of demand notice the accused has not complied the same with in the statutory period and thus committed the offence.
11. It is now proper to examine whether the complainant has complied statutory requirements for constitution offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The essential ingredients of section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act to be complied are i) drawing of the cheque by the accused
ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank with in the period of three months, iii) returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank iv) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding of the payment of cheque amount with in the period of 30 days, v) failure of the drawer to make payment within the period of 15 days after receipt of the demand notice and
v)Presentation of the complaint within a month by the complainant after expiry of 15 days of service of notice to the 10 C.C.No.17053/2024 accused. Therefore it is proper to consider whether the complainant has complied with all the statutory requirements for constitution of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
12. The PW 1 has deposed that the accused towards repayment of the credit availed by the said Partnership Firm issued 3 cheques i.e. cheque bearing No. 367003, 367004 and 367005 dated 22-02-2024 drawn on ICICI Bank, Mumbai for a sum of INR 40,00,000/- each totally amounting to INR 1,20,00,000/ - Said cheques are marked as Ex.P.9, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.13. She has deposed that they have presented said cheques for collection through their banker i.e. Federal Bank, Wipro Park, Koramangala Branch, Bengaluru and said cheques returned dishonored on 26.02.2024 for the reason "Account closed " The complainant has produced the memo of dishonour of said said three cheques as Ex.P 10, Ex.P 12 and Ex.P 14. The The EX.P 10, Ex.P 12 and Ex.P 14 does not bear the seal and signature of the Banker authenticating the document. Therefore the complainant has produced the letters of the Federal bank and signed copy of memo of dishonour as per EX.P 21 to Ex.P
26. The EX.P 22, Ex.P 24 and Ex.P 26 are memo of dishonour authenticating the information in Ex.P 10, Ex.P 12 and Ex.P 13 memo of dishonour. As provided under Section 146 of 11 C.C.No.17053/2024 Negotiable Instruments Act, law presumes that on production of banker slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonored, presume the fact of dishonor of such said cheque, unless and until same is disproved. The accused has not denied the fact of dishonour of the cheques as per Ex.P9, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.13.
13. The PW1 has deposed that they have got issued legal notice dated 12.03.2024 calling upon the accused to pay the amount involved in the cheque as per Ex. 15. The notice returned on 27.03.2024 as 'unclaimed'. The notice is issued to the last known address of the accused as stated in the Guarantee agreement. The accused has also not denied the address mentioned in the legal notice. The endorsement is made by the postal authority in normal course of transactions. To dispute the same the accused has not examined the postal authority. Hence, notice is deemed to be served on the accused. The complainant has produced the postal receipt and the postal envelope as Ex.P.16 & Ex.P.17. The PW1 has deposed that inspite of service of notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant with in the statutory time. Therefore cause of action for prosecution is arose on 13-04- 2024. The complaint is filed before this court on 18.04.2024. 12
C.C.No.17053/2024 Thus the complainant has complied all the statutory requirements for constitution of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused has not denied that the cheque is drawn from his account and also issuance of cheque to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for presumption under 118 and under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The provisions of Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act reads as under:-
139- Presumption in favour of holder - It should be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
14. Hon'ble Supreme court in a decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 411 between Rangappa V/s Sri Mohan has held that -
The presumption mandated by Section 139 of the act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. It is also observed that Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instrument. It is also held that in such a 13 C.C.No.17053/2024 scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant caused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high slandered or proof.
15. Therefore in view of the principles laid down in these decisions the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption existing in favour of the complainant. The accused has not issued any reply at the initial stage at the time of service of the legal notice. The defence of the accused is first disclosed in the cross examination of PW 1.
16. The defence of the accused is brought on record by way of cross examination of PW 1. In the cross examination of PW 1 the accused denied proper execution of loan documents and Guarantee agreement. He has taken the contention that without following provisions of section 35 of Information Technology Act the loan documents were executed. As discussed above the complainant has produced e-signed loan agreement and Guarantee agreement with Adit trial as per Ex.P 4 to 7. The complainant by producing Audit Trial providing details of process of execution of e-document with Hash value as per Ex.P 5 and P 7, has prima-facie established due execution of the documents. In the cross examination of PW 1 also at one stretch 14 C.C.No.17053/2024 accused has admitted availment of the loan by Golden Curve and he stood as surety to the loan availed and he issued the cheques at the time of loan transactions for security and at another stretch has contended that he has not signed guarantee agreement. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C has admitted that Golden Curve has availed loan of Rs.2,00,00,000/- and he stood as Guarantor to the said loan by executing Guarantee agreement. Thus he has admitted the loan transaction. The PW 1 has denied all such suggestions of accused. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW 1 to to doubt the fact of availment of the loan by Golden Curve and the accused has stood as Guarantee to the loan by execution Guarantee agreement. In the evidence of accused as DW 1 he has produced the judgment of Hon'ble City Civil Court in Com.O.S 712/2024, wherein the Hon'ble City Civil court has dismissed the suit of the complainant for recovery of money in respect of the loan availed by Golden Curve on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved execution of Loan documents in the Digital mode and not produced documents for disbursement of loan and not produced the statement of accounts ect. With regard to this judgment the complainant during arguments submitted that the accused who examined as DW 1 is not appeared for cross examination to question him about the 15 C.C.No.17053/2024 document and the evidence of DW1 is discarded for his non appearance. Therefore said document cannot be considered. He has also submitted that he has challenged said judgment before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Appeal and it is not attained finality. To question about said aspect he has not got opportunity to cross examine DW 1 and elicit said facts. In the cross examination of PW 1 the accused has not asked about said judgment to the PW1. Therefore, in view of above facts, the Ex.D I Judgment in Com.OS 712/2024 cannot be considered as evidence as this document is not tested by cross examination.
17. The accused further taken the contention that the complainant has misused the blank signed cheque issued by the accused towards security at the time of availment of the loan. It is the defence of the accused that as per clause 4.5 and 4.7 of the agreement the complainant has obtained 5 undated blank cheques from the accused. The PW 1 has also admitted the said fact. Now it is proper to examine the legal position about applicability of provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to the Security cheques. In this aspect it is proper to place on record the reliance to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court reported in (2022) 18 SCC 614 between Sripati 16 C.C.No.17053/2024 Singh(since Dead) through his son Vs State of Jharkhand and another. Wherein it is held that -
21. A Cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. "security" is something given as a pledge of payment. It is given, deposited or pledged to make certain the fulfillment of an obligation to which the parties to the transaction are bound. If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified time frame and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 17 C.C.No.17053/2024 and the other provisions of the NI Act would flow.
Therefore in view of the principles laid down in this decision, the cheque issued for security may also mature for presentation and on dishonour of the same the consequences under NI Act will follow. Therefore only for the reason that the Ex.P 9, Ex. P 11 and Ex.P 13 cheques were issued by the accused for security purpose itself does not disentitle the complainant to present it for securing legal liability.
18. In this case the accused is not the principal borrower. He is the Guarantor to the loan availed by partnership firm Golden Curve. The accused has also taken the contention that he is not the principal borrower and there is no legally recovarable debt from the accused. As per the clause 3(i) of Guarantee Agreement Ex.P 6, liability of the Guarantor is to the extent of outstanding amount in the loan account. Therefore, the accused as a guarantor is liable to repay the out standing loan amount in the loan account of the principal borrower Golden Curve. In this regard the complainant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in ICDS Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer, (2002) 6 SCC 426 has held that -
18
C.C.No.17053/2024
11. The issue as regards the coextensive liability of the guarantor and the principal debtor, in our view, is totally out of the purview of Section 138 of the Act, neither the same calls for any discussion therein. The language of the statute depicts the intent of the law-makers to the effect that wherever there is a default on the part of one in favour of another and in the event a cheque is issued in discharge of any debt or other liability there cannot be any restriction or embargo in the matter of application of the provisions of Section 138 of the Act. "Any cheque" and "other liability" are the two key expressions which stand as clarifying the legislative intent so as to bring the factual context within the ambit of the provisions of the statute. Any contra-interpretation would defeat the intent of the legislature.
Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in this decision, the accused once issued the cheque towards discharge of liability of principal borrower, and he has failed to honour the 19 C.C.No.17053/2024 cheque, he is liable for prosecution under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act.
19. The complainant, to prove the existence of liability, has produced the loan agreement, Guarantee agreement as per Ex.P 4 and Ex.P 6. The complainant has also produced statement of accounts as on 22-02-2024, i.e. as on the date of the cheque and it is marked as Ex.P 19. The complainant has also produced the statement of account as on the date of evidence as on 09-06-2025 and it is marked as Ex.P 18. As per Ex.P 19 the outstanding loan amount as on 22-02-2024 is Rs.1,68,44,732.33/-. The complainant has also submitted that as per the terms of Loan agreement clause 4.8 the Firm has lien marked a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- by depositing in FD account and said amount is adjusted to the loan account on 31-01-2024 and it is shown in Ex.P 18 and P19 statement of accounts. The accused has not denied these documents except suggesting it does not bear signature of authorised officer and said suggestion has been denied by the PW1. Therefore there is no reason to doubt correctness of the statement of accounts produced by the complainant, which shows that there is existence of loan dues to the extent of the cheque amount. 20
C.C.No.17053/2024
20. The Accused in the written arguments has stated that the complainant has filed the case against Golden Curve and its partners in CC 8691/2024 before this court and the accused have challenged the order of issuance of process in the said case before the Hon'ble court of Sessions and in the said case there is stay of proceedings against accused no. 4 therein. Said case is filed in respect of the dishonor of cheque of partnership firm. This case is inrespect of dishonour of the cheque drawn from the personal account of the accused. Therefore pendency of said case against partnership firm is not having any relavence in deciding this case on hand.
21. The accused in the notes of arguments has also taken the contention that Golden Curve has initially paid the loan installments from time to time, but due to DRI Investigation subsequent market rumors, the reputation of the firm is damaged and it caused damage to the business of the complainant. It is also stated that the complainant has not given chance to explain the difficulties and filed the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act and also commercial suit. But these aspects are not having relavence in deciding the case on hand. 21
C.C.No.17053/2024
22. Therefore, from the the aforesaid discussion this court concludes that the complainant has proved availment of the loan by Golden Curve and that the accused being the partner of Golden Curve, stood as guarantor to the loan and there is default in repayment of the loan and as on the date of cheques there is outstanding amount in the loan account larger than the cheque amount and the accused has issued the cheques for discharge of said liability of the partnership firm. The defence taken by the accused is not probable to rebut the statutory presumption about existence of legally recoverable debt. Therefore this court concludes that the complainant has successfully proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this court answers the above point No.1 in the Affirmative.
23. POINT NO. 2 : While answering the point no. 1 this court concluded that the complainant proved that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Amount covered under the cheque is INR 1,20,00,000/-. The cheques are dated 22-02- 2024. The money involved in the case is used in commercial transactions. Therefore considering these aspects the fine amount is calculated for a sum of Rs.1,37,20,000/-. The 22 C.C.No.17053/2024 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the reportable decision in CRL.RP No. 996 of 2016 dated 09-07-2025 between M/s Banavathy and Company VS Mahaveer Electro Mech (P) Ltd at para 21 has held that -
21. In case lesser interest is awarded and only default sentence is imposed, the rigor of offence under Section 138 will be diluted and thereby the object of the Statute will be defeated. If recovery and compensatory part is not taken care of while determining the quantum of sentence and appropriate interest is not awarded, until the date of recovery of the entire amount, the complainant will be forced to file civil suit on the same subject matter. In view of Section 143(3) the trial for offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act has to be completed within six months. If the said provision is not adhered to and the trial for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act takes 4 to 5 years, in the mean time, the claim of the complainant for recovery of the cheque amount by filing civil suit becomes barred by limitation. Not only that the accused who is convicted for offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act challenges the same before the Sessions Court wherein the matter takes 2 to 3 years. The accused unsuccessful in the said appeal prefers revision petition before the High Court and it is seen that the disposal of revision takes more than 5 years. After all this if the complainant has to receive the fine/compensation as awarded by the trial Court, if it is cheque amount or little higher than the cheque amount, he will be at loss and put to injustice. Therefore, while passing the order of sentence after determining the fine/compensation, the Court shall also pass an order to pay future interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation amount payable to the complainant by fixing time of one/two months to deposit compensation amount so that even if the matter is 23 C.C.No.17053/2024 challenged before the Sessions Court in appeal and High Court in revision the interest of the complainant will be protected.
In view of the directions issued in the above refereed judgment, it is also proper to direct the accused to pay future interest on the fine amount at the rate of 9 % P.A. till payment. Therefore considering all these aspects this court proceed to pass the following -
ORDER By exercising powers conferred U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,37,20,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Seven Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) with in a month and in default pay interest at the rate of 9% from this day till payment of fine amount, In default to pay the fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of one year Further acting U/s 357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
Further acting U/s 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.1,37,10,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Seven Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) and interest out of the fine amount on recovery shall be paid as compensation to the complainant and the 24 C.C.No.17053/2024 complainant shall credit the compensation amount to the loan account of Golden Curve.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused. ` [ (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of October 2025).
(GOKULA.K) XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 : Raksha LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Web copy of Certificate of Incorporation Ex.P2 : Web copy of the Registration Certificate Ex.P3 : Letter of Authority Ex.P4 : Web copy of Loan Agreement Ex.P5 : Web copy of Audit Trial document Ex.P6 : Web copy of Deed of Guarantee Ex.P7 : Web copy of Another Audit Trial document Ex.P8 : Web copy of Guarantee invocation notice Ex.P9 : Cheque Ex.P10 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P11 : Cheque Ex.P12 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P13 : Cheque Ex.P14 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P15 : Legal Notice 25 C.C.No.17053/2024 Ex.P16 : Postal receipt Ex.P17 : Postal envelope Ex.P18 : Certificate U/s.65 B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.P18&19 : Statement of Accounts Ex.P20 : Certificate U/s.63 of BSA Ex.P21 : Letter issued by Federal Bank Ex.P22 : Cheque dishonor memo Ex.P23 : Letter issued by Federal Bank Ex.P24 : Cheque dishonor memo Ex.P25 : Letter issued by Federal Bank Ex.P26 : Cheque dishonor memo LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
DW.1 : Yogesh Babasaheb Burate (Expunged) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
Ex.D1&2 : Certified Copy of the Judgment & Decree in Com.O.S.No.712/2024 Ex.D3 : Certified Copy of the Plaint Ex.D4 : Print out of email Digitally Ex.D5 : Certificate U/s.63 of BSA signed by GOKULA K GOKULA Date:
K 2025.10.04
13:14:06
(GOKULA.K.) +0530
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.