Bangalore District Court
M/S. Reddys Chits Pvt. Ltd vs Prasanna .C on 5 June, 2025
1
CC No.24399/2024
KABC030426972024
IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Present: Sri. Maruthi.K B.A., LL.B.,
XXVII A.C.J.M Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 05th day of June, 2025
C.C. NO.24399/2024
Complainant : M/s Reddy's Chits Private Limited,
Office at No.19, 2nd floor,
BKM Plaza, 5th B main,
Tata Silk farm, K R road,
Bangalore-560070.
Represented by its Manager
Sri.V.Rajeev Reddy,
S/o Late.G.Venkatarama Reddy,
Aged about 46 years.
(Rep by Sri.C.N.R., Adv.)
V/s.
Accused : PRASANNA.C,
S/o Chinnaswamy Seenappa,
Major in age,
R/at 224, Shree Krupa,
Ground floor, Judicial layout,
2nd Phase, 7th main,
Thalaghattapura,
Off Kanakapura Road,
Bangalore-560062.
Mob-9845474474.
(Reptd by Sri.K.B.Y., Adv.,)
Offence : U/s.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
2
CC No.24399/2024
Final Order : Convicted
Judgment Date : 05.06.2025
*****
JUDGMENT
The complainant company has filed complaint U/Sec.200 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:-
It is the case of the Complainant Company that the accused is a prize bidder and one Kavitha Prasanna and Srikantewshwara.S are the sureties for the chit of the complainant chit fund firm bearing No.25L12023, ticket No.18 having chit value of Rs.25,00,000/- with a installment of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The accused along with sureties has in all paid a sum of Rs.6,55,000/- to date. Further the complainant submitted that principal prize bidder and sureties had participated in the chit auction held on 15.09.2023 and was declared a prize bidder in the said auction and received in all a prize sum of Rs.14,75,000/- from the complainant by way of cheque bearing No.004169 dated 3 CC No.24399/2024
03.10.2023 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Bangalore and other adjustment have been made. Further in the complaint it is submitted that subsequent to the receipt of the chit bid amount the accused principal prize bidder had not been regularly paying the installments to the complainant company and time and again the complainant has been requesting the accused and surety's to repay the installments upto date. In view of the same the accused/principal prize bidder had approached the complainant firm and had given a cheque bearing No.684413 for an amount of Rs.8,30,000/- dated 23.05.2024 drawn on Axis Bank, Bangalore in favour of complainant for clearing part dues to the complainant firm.
3. It is stated that, the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through its banker Punjab and Sind Bank(PSB) Bank, J.C.Road at Bangalore and the same got dishonored and returned with memo dated:
23.05.2024 stating "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice dated: 01.06.2024 to the accused through RPAD calling upon him to repay the 4 CC No.24399/2024 amount covered under the aforesaid cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. But, the accused has not repaid the amount covered under the said cheque. Hence, this complaint.
4. Sworn statement of the Proprietor of complainant company recorded as PW-1 and got marked 7 documents as Ex.P.1 to 7 and ordered summons to the accused. The accused was appeared through his advocate and was enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation read over to the accused and he pleaded the case of the complainant as false. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, in the case Indian Bank Association & Ors V/s. Union of India & Ors, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590, the sworn statement of the complainant is treated as chief examination of the complainant. Then the case was posted for recording the Statement of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. In the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused has denied all the incriminating evidences appearing against him. Application u/s 145(2) filed by the accused was allowed. PW-1 was cross examined by defence counsel. Accused examined himself as DW-1 and got marked 3 5 CC No.24399/2024 documents. The counsel for the complainant cross examined accused. Then, the matter was posted for Arguments.
5. Heard the counsel for complainant on merits. Counsel for accused not chosen to canvas his arguments. Hence arguments of accused taken as nil. Perused the records.
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the cheques bearing No.684413 for a sum of Rs.8,30,000/- dated: 23.05.2024 drawn on Axis Bank, Banashankari, Bangalore issued by the accused has been dishonored on the ground of "Funds Insufficient" and the accused even after receiving the intimation regarding the dishonor of cheque failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period and thereby accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
8. Point No.1 : It is the case of the complainant that the accused is a prize bidder and one Kavitha Prasanna and Srikanteshwara.S are the sureties for the 6 CC No.24399/2024 chit of the complainant chit fund firm bearing Chit No.25L12023, ticket No.18 having chit value of Rs.25,00,000/- with an installment of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The accused along with sureties in all paid a sum of Rs.6,55,000/- to date. Further the complainant submitted that principal prize bidder and sureties had participated in the chit auction held on 15.09.2023 and was declared a prize bidder in the said auction and received in all a prize sum of Rs.14,75,000/- from the complainant by way of cheque bearing No.004169 dated 03.10.2023, drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Bangalore and other adjustments have been made. Subsequent to the receipt of chit bid amount the accused had not been regularly paid the installments to the complainant company and upon request of complainant, accused issued a cheque bearing No.684413 dated 23.05.2024 for an amount of Rs.8,30,000/- drawn on Axis Bank, Bangalore in favour of complainant firm for clearing part dues to the complainant firm. When the complainant presented the said cheque through its banker the said cheque has been returned with a shara 'Funds 7 CC No.24399/2024 Insufficient'. The legal notice was issued calling upon to repayment of the said cheque amount but the accused had not repaid the amount.
9. To establish the case of the complainant, Sri.Rajeev Reddy, Proprietor of the complainant company got examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Ex.P1 & Ex.P1(a) are Cheque & Signature of the accused. Ex.P2 is bank endorsement. Ex.P3 is copy of legal notice. Ex.P4 is postal receipt. Ex.P5 is track consignment. Ex.P6 is minutes of meeting of Board Extract. Ex.P7 is Authorization letter.
10. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted the arguments contending that the accused has admitted the transaction and the issuance of cheque in question during his evidence. Before filing the complaint accused had paid Rs.6,55,000/- and Subsequent to the filing of case the accused has paid Rs.5,00,000/- totally the accused had paid Rs.11,55,000/-. Further at the time of argument argued that another case registered against the surety in CC No.24398, in the said case accused has not been 8 CC No.24399/2024 examined. Hence, the accused is liable 50% for the total due amount and 50% from the guarantor/wife of the accused. Further argued that if the cheque in question is misutilized, the accused could have taken any criminal action against the complainant for alleged misutilization of cheque in question. But in present case the accused has not taken any action as alleged. Hence, prays to convict the accused.
11. On the other side accused himself examined as DW-1 and got marked documents as per Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 are the 3 receipts for having paid amount towards installments after filing of complaint. As the sufficient opportunity was given to the accused to canvas his arguments, the accused without proper reasons prayed time. Therefore, prayer of counsel for the accused was rejected and defence argument taken as nil.
12. Now, on the basis of the materials available on record, it is required to examine whether the complainant has complied with the provisions of Section 138 of N.I Act to get cause of action to file this complaint. The complainant besides his oral testimony has relied on the 9 CC No.24399/2024 documents at Ex.P1 to 5 in support of his contentions. Ex.P1 is the cheque alleged to have been issued by the accused, Ex.P.2 is the Return memo issued by the Banker of the accused with the endorsements "Funds Insufficient" in the account of the accused, Ex.P3 is the copy of legal notice issued by the complainant, Ex.P4 is the postal receipt for having sent the said notice to the accused, Ex.P5 is the postal track consignment as to service of said notice. All these documents corroborate the version of the complainant in his complaint as well as affidavit in lieu of chief examination and more over these documents are not at all disputed by the accused except issuance of the cheque and service of notice which would be discussed in detail later. Thus, complainant with the help of Ex.P.1 to 5 has conveniently proved to have complied the provisions of Section 138 i.e. presentation of cheque within the statutory period for encashment, issue of legal notice within prescribed period to the Accused and filing of complaint within limitation period as per section 142 of the Act.
10
CC No.24399/2024
13. The second aspect of the case is whether the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption available in favour of the complainant with probable and convincing evidences? It is well settled principle of law that, once the cheque is admitted there will be a statutory presumption in favour of the holder or holder in due course U/Ss 118 and 139 of the Act. However, as held by our Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Court in a catena of decisions, the presumptions under the said sections are in the nature of rebuttable presumptions and hence, the accused can very well rebut the said presumptions by leading reasonable and probable defence. Let us examine the same on the basis of the materials available on record.
14. During the cross examination of PW-1, he deposed that there are two directors in the complainant company and also furnished the authorization letter given by the two Directors of the complainant company. During cross examination of PW-1, the accused contention was letter of authorization must be issued by Board resolution passed by all the directors and only one Director 11 CC No.24399/2024 signature is there at Ex.P6. Further complainant has denied the suggestion of accused that as the another Director of the complainant company has not made signature on Board resolution her consent is not there to the authorization letter. It is to be noted that in order to establish his authority, he has produced Ex.P6 minutes of meeting and Ex.P7 Authorization letter. On careful perusal of Ex.P6, Minutes of meeting held on 11.03.2024 at Bangalore contains only signature of Managing Director/present complainant wherein the said letter authorized to take any action and to file suits to sign vakalats, plaints and petitions etc.,. It is admitted by the PW-1 that the letter of authorization must be issued by Board resolution passed by all the Directors, on careful scrutiny of the said document there is no signature of another Director in the said document at Ex.P6 in the minutes of meeting but it contains the signature of present complainant/one of the Director of the company. It is true that only one Director signature is there at Ex.P6 as contended by the accused but PW-1 in order to establish his authorization not only produced Ex.P6, he 12 CC No.24399/2024 has produced the authorization letter at Ex.P7 dated 11.03.2024 wherein Mr.Rajeev Reddy.V/PW-1 Managing Director of the complainant company has authorized to file the suit cases under sec.138 of NI act etc., wherein the said document is duly signed by PW-1/V.Rajeev Reddy as he is the one of the Director and also signed by Mrs.Suma Reddy, Director of the complainant company. The said document is not disputed by the accused. That apart, PW-1 is the proprietor of the complainant company, there is no impediment him to file the instant complaint against the accused and depose on behalf of the complainant company and this court is of the view that authority by the another director in favour of PW-1 in board resolution to depose on behalf of the complainant company is not required as the complainant furnished Ex.P7/authorization letter which is duly signed by both the Directors of the company. Moreover the said document is not disputed by the accused. Therefore, issuance of authority letter at Ex.P6 issued in Board meeting not signed by all the directors in favour of PW-1 13 CC No.24399/2024 to depose on behalf of complainant company is not fatal to the case of the complainant company.
15. It is the another contention of the accused is that the details of the chit members should be sent to Registrar of Chits and the accused has not furnished the chit agreement. For the said suggestion, PW-1 denied the suggestion of accused during his cross examination that he had not furnished the chit agreement. On careful perusal of the entire records, it is true that the complainant has not produced the chit agreement as contended by the accused but if the said documents are necessary to prove the case of the accused, what prevented the accused to summon those documents from the complainant company but accused has not made any effort to get those documents. Moreover, the complainant has produced copy of chit agreement, ledger statement of accused, promissory note and other documents at the time of filling complaint but those documents are not certified or original. Hence, they are not exhibited. The accused tried to take the benefit of non production of the said documents. Moreover, the accused himself admitted 14 CC No.24399/2024 that he is the subscriber to the chit in question and also received the prized amount. Therefore, the contention of the accused does not holds water.
16. Another contention of the accused that there is no notice issued to accused on 01.06.2024 and the said notice was not served upon the accused. During the cross examination of PW-1, he denied the suggestion that on 01.06.2024, not issued notice to accused and not served upon the accused. During further cross examination of PW-1 dated 16.01.2025, the PW-1 admitted that the legal notice which was given to accused is dated on 30.05.2024 and also denied the suggestion that he had not produced the said legal notice. On perusal of Ex.P3 & Ex.P4 they clearly discloses that notice was prepared on 30.05.2024 but the same was sent through registered post on 01.06.2024 with regard to present cheque in question. Therefore, the contention of accused that the present complaint is not filed on the basis of alleged notice issued on 01.06.2024 not tenable in the eye of law. During cross examination of DW-1, the accused has admitted the fact that he got the message from the bank 15 CC No.24399/2024 about cheque bounce. Further admitted his address at house no.224, judicial layout, 2nd phase, Talaghattpura, Bengaluru and also pleads his ignorance about the service of notice and also admitted that he got the summon to the same address. Further accused denied that the suggestion of complainant that notice given to the above said address is served to him. The complainant has produced legal notice at Ex.P3 dated 30.05.2024 and postal receipt at Ex.P4 and Postal track consignment at Ex.P5. On perusal of the said documents the legal notice issued to the accused at the address at No.224, Shreekrupa, Ground floor, Judicial layout, 2nd phase, 7th Main, Talaghattapura, Off Kanakapura Road, Bangalore on 30.05.2024 and also delivered to the said address on 03.06.2024 at Ex.P5. The accused has not denied nor disputed the address of the accused and simply pleads ignorance about the service of notice. The accused lead defence evidence but he did not lead any evidence to show that the notice was not served except his ignorance and address mentioned on the notice is also not disputed. However, during his cross examination admitted that his 16 CC No.24399/2024 address. The admission leads to draw presumption as per section 27 of General Clauses Act, which states that notice sent through post shall be deemed to be served, if it properly addressed to a person to whom it is sent. Even otherwise as per Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl. Appeal No.767 of 2007 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3910 of 2006 between CC Alavi Haji Vs.Palapetty Muhammed and another decided on 18th May 2007, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India at para No.17
17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving notice is a clear departure from rule of criminal law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint u/s 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court along with the copy of the complaint u/s 138 of NI Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required u/s 138 of NI Act by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary u/s 27 of the G.C Act and section 114 of the Evidence Act.
17
CC No.24399/2024 In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As observed in Bhaskar's case(supra)if the giving of notice in the context of clause(b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to a avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of section 138 of the Act. It can be said that the statutory notice is an opportunity given to the accused to make payment and avoid the consequences of 138 of N.I.Act. In the case on hand, the summons duly served on accused as the accused himself admitted during his cross examination and appeared before the court and contested the case by taking all probable defence. Therefore, he cannot take the shelter of statutory requirement of service of notice to avoid the consequences of section 138 of NI Act.
17. On careful perusal of entire materials on record, during the chief examination of DW-1, he admitted his membership in the chit fund of the complainant company in the month of October. Further he too admitted participation in the bid process and receipt of bid amount 18 CC No.24399/2024 of Rs.14,75,000/- out of bid amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. Further he admitted that he had paid Rs.6,55,000/- during the month of October and contended that totally he has to pay Rs.11,60,000/- but the complainant company has presented the cheque in question for Rs.16,60,000/-. Furthermore, he had also got marked the exhibits showing that he had paid Rs.5,00,000/- on 20.07.2024 as per Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. Further during the cross examination of DW-1, the accused deposed that he had paid Rs.16,00,000/- in respect of the present case in the month of October and he pleads his ignorance about the credit of prize amount to his account. He admitted that he has paid Rs.6,55,000/- before filing the complaint towards the chit and Rs.5,00,000/- paid after filing the complaint and also admitted that totally he had paid Rs.11,60,000/- and denied that apart from Rs.11,60,000/- he has not paid any amount in respect of the chit. Further during the cross of DW-1, he deposed that he was not remember how much amount and on what date he has paid the amount to the said chit by cash and also deposed that the sometime the receipt was 19 CC No.24399/2024 given by complainant and sometimes not given the receipt.
18. On careful perusal of the entire oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant and accused, it reveals that the accused has duly admitted that he is the subscriber to the chit bearing No.25L12023, ticket No.18 having chit value of Rs.25,00,000/- with an installment of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. He paid the chit installment of Rs.6,55,000/- and he has been prized for Rs.14,75,000/-. After receipt of above said prized amount, he became a defaulter and not paid agreed monthly installment regularly. During the cross examination of DW-1, accused deposed that he has paid Rs.16,00,000/- but in order to prove the same the accused has not produced his account statement or any receipt. If he paid the said amount what prevented him to produce the said document. Further he deposed in his cross examination that sometime he was getting receipt for payment from the complainant and sometime not getting the receipt. What prevented the accused to take the receipt, if he has paid the amount regularly to the 20 CC No.24399/2024 complainant. In this regard, no action was taken by the accused. As per the records, the accused has paid Rs.6,55,000/- which is upto 6.5 installments towards the chit amount. Out of Rs.25,00,000/-, the accused has been received a sum of Rs.14,75,000/- after foregoing the bid amount. Later he became defaulter, as per the records it clearly goes to show that out of 25 installments accused has paid only 6.5 installments of Rs.6,55,000/-. After the filing of present complaint, the accused has paid installments of Rs.1,80,000/- on 20.07.2024 for the month of Oct-Nov-2023, Rs.1,40,000/- dated 20.07.2024 for the month of March-2024 and Rs.1,80,000/- on 20.07.2024 for the month of December-February-2024. Totally he has paid Rs.5,00,000/-. As such, the accused has paid Rs.6,55,000/- +Rs.5,00,000/- totally Rs.11,55,000/-. Out of Rs.25,00,000/- the accused has only paid Rs.11,55,000/- as per the records and oral admissions available in the case on hand. The accused has not whispered anything about the remaining amount except saying he has paid Rs.16,00,000/- before filing the complaint but not produced any documentary evidence to 21 CC No.24399/2024 prove the same. It is clear that before filing the case the balance amount due by the accused was of Rs.18,45,000/- which excludes interest and the accused has given the cheque in question for Rs.8,30,000/- towards the part payment. Later he has repaid upto Rs.5,00,000/- on 20.07.2024. But to show payment of entire installment he has not produced reliable documents. Apart from the present complaint, another case is registered against the surety claiming of Rs.8,30,000/-. In this case the amount due of Rs.18,45,000/- in respect of the chit amount as admitted by complainant they got settled the said matter for an amount of Rs.16,60,000/- and complainant claimed Rs.8,30,000/- from the present accused and Rs.8,30,000/- from the surety/guarantor. As per the complaint averments the chit value is for Rs.25,00,000/-, in that accused paid Rs.6,55,000/- before filing the complaint and accused has paid Rs.5,00,000/-after filing the complaint. It is borne out from the cross of PW-1 that, both the parties agreed for Rs.16,60,000/- as against Rs.18,45,000/-. Therefore, the remaining balance of 22 CC No.24399/2024 Rs.11,60,000/- after deducting Rs.5,00,000/- out of Rs.16,60,000/- which is paid after filing the complaint has to be paid by the accused. In this case complainant is claiming 50% of chit value from the present accused. Hence, the present accused is due of Rs.5,80,000/- along with interest. Further it is observed that after becoming defaulter, as per the RBI guidelines, the accused is liable for overdue interest rate. Therefore, along with interest, the complainant has claimed cheque amount which is due against the present accused.
19. During cross of PW-1, accused suggested that did complainant company deposited the dividend into the account's of accused after subscription to chit fund, PW1 deposed that not deposited the dividend as he was the defaulter of the said chit. Now as per above said definition of chit fund act, after becoming defaulter the accused who being irregular subscriber is deprived from seeking dividend on the above paid chit subscriptions which have been paid earlier. In chit fund Act, if a subscriber defaults on payments, the dividend is still credited to them. However, there may be penalties or consequences 23 CC No.24399/2024 for the default, such an interest charges or the withholding of the dividend for a specific period. The dividend is typically paid out once the subscriber's defaulted installments are brought up to date.
20. Further, it is alleged that the accused issued blank signed cheque in his house during the month of October-2023 . When the complainant became holder of the cheque in due course , then very act itself empowers him to fill the cheque to make it a complete instrument by complying Sec.20 of N.I.Act. On the other hand he admits the cheque along with the signature by saying that he had issued a cheque in his house. Further during the cross examination of accused, he admitted that he has not taken any legal action with regard to the collecting of blank cheque by the complainant. As per the accused evidence, the accused has not whispered anything that to whom he has given the cheque and why he has given the cheque in his house except stating that he had issued signed blank cheque in question at his house. Nothing is elicited from the mouth of the accused with regard to the issuance of cheque. Therefore, the 24 CC No.24399/2024 defence of the accused that he has issued cheque in the month of October 2023 does not itself rebut the presumption, the accused has not lead any evidence to show that the amount of the cheque was not due upon him on the date of the presentation of the said cheque in question. it is well settled principle of law that "even a blank cheque leaf signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption u/s.139 of N.I.Act in absence of cogent evidence to show that cheque was not issued in discharge of debt". Thus no discrepancy had emerged out of the cross examination which may demolish complainant version even on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. Hence, amount mentioned under the cheque is legally recoverable debt.
21. The complainant has placed sufficient oral and documentary evidence to prove that the accused issued the cheque in discharge of legal liability. Therefore , the court can raise presumption as per Sec.139 of N.I.Act. The complainant has proved the complaint averments by placing oral and documentary evidence. On the other 25 CC No.24399/2024 hand, the accused failed to prove his defence. The complainant has proved that the cheque in question is issued by the accused towards discharge of legal liability. Therefore, the court can raise presumption mandated under Sec.139 of N.I.Act as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2010(11) SCC 441 (Rangappa V/s Mohan). Once the cheque relates to the account of accused and he/she accepts and admits the signature on said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Sec.139 of N.I.Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. On the other hand, the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption.
22. In the light of the above discussion and the material placed on record, the court is of the opinion that the complainant has proved existence of legal liability and also proved that the accused issued the cheque in question towards discharge of legal liability. The complainant has proved the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Therefore considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the available evidence on 26 CC No.24399/2024 record, the court comes to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Therefore, the complainant has proved point Nos.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
23. POINT NO.2 :- In view of my findings to the Points No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER In exercise of power conferred U/sec. 255(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.6,15,000/-.
In default of payment of the said fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six month.
Out of the fine amount Rs.6,14,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as contemplated U/sec. 357(1)
(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and the remaining fine amount of Rs.1,000/- shall be paid to the state towards defraying expenses.
Supply free copy of judgment to the accused free of cost.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced in open court by me on this the 05Digitally th day of June, 2025) signed by MARUTHI MARUTHI K K Date: 2025.07.03 11:18:28 +0530 (Maruthi.K) XXVII A.C.J.M., Bengaluru.
27
CC No.24399/2024 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW1 : Sri.V.Rajeev Reddy Documents marked on behalf of the complainant Ex.P1 & 1(a) : Cheque & Signature of the accused Ex.P2 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P3 : Legal Notice Ex.P4 : Postal receipt Ex.P5 : Track Consignment Ex.P6 : Minutes of meeting of Board Extract Ex.P7 : Authorization letter Witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
DW-1 : Prasanna.C Documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D1 to 3 : Receipts Digitally signed by MARUTHI MARUTHI K K Date: 2025.07.03 11:18:33 +0530 XXVII A.C.J.M Bengaluru.