Bangalore District Court
Sri. B.R. Nagesh vs Sri.P.Venu Gopal on 23 August, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
AND A.C.M.M, AT BENGALURU
Present: UMESHA.H.K, B.A., LL.B.,
JUDGE, Court Of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2021
C.C. No: 1826/2016
Complainant: Sri. B.R. Nagesh
S/o Late Rajappa
Aged about 48 years,
B.R. Enterprises,
No.32, Rajiva Gandhi Road,
Jaraganahalli, J.P. Nagara,
Kanakapura Kariyappa Road,
Bangalore-560078.
(By Sri. M.V.Revanasiddaiah-
Advocate.)
-Vs-
Accused: Sri.P.Venu Gopal,
S/o Not known,
aged about 52 years,
Proprietor Varalaxmi Enterprises,
"Sri Ram Nilaya",
#757, 1st Floor,
5th "A" Cross Road,
BSK 1st Stage, II Block,
Bangalore-560050.
(By Sri. S.Manjunatha-Advocate)
SCH-09 2 CC.1826/2016
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C., against accused for an offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is the case of the complainant that accused and complainant are well known to each each other. Accused visited the complainant's house and requested to lend hand loan. Considering the request complainant has lent total sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus accused became due a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant. To discharge said liability, accused issued cheque bearing No.972251, dated 23.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, drawn on Andhra Bank, Vidyapeetha Circle Branch, Bengaluru. When complainant presented said cheque twice for encashment through his banker i.e., Vijaya Bank, Gandhi Bazar Branch, but the said cheque was returned for the reason "Funds Insufficient" . Immediately, the complainant informed accused about dishonoring of cheque, but he has not come forward to pay the dishonoured cheque amount. Hence, the complainant SCH-09 3 CC.1826/2016 issued legal notice, dated 26.09.2015. The notice issued by RPAD was duly served on 29.09.2015. Despite service of notice, accused didnot repaid the amount under the cheque. Hence he filed this complaint.
3. By taking cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act, registered the case as PCR. Sworn statement of complainant was recorded. Thereafter, by perusing the averments of complaint, documents, and sworn statement of complainant, this court has ordered to register the case as CC in Register No.3 and issued summons to accused. In pursuance of summons accused appeared through his Advocate and he is on bail. Plea read over accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of his case, complainant himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked 8 documents as per Ex.P1 to P.9. and one witness by name S.Seethalakshmi examined as PW-2 and got marked one document as per Ex.P9. After closure of evidence of Complainant, accused was examined as contemplated U/s.313 Cr.P.C and his statement was recorded. SCH-09 4 CC.1826/2016 Accused, totally denied the case of the complainant and he has adduced his defense evidence as DW1 and also examined two witnesses i.e., Balaji and Pasha as DW-2 and DW-3 and got marked 2 documents as per Ex.D1 to D2, on his behalf.
5. Heard arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the complainant and accused.
6. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the No.972251, dated 23.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, cheque was drawn on Andhra Bank, Vidyapeetha Circle Branch, Bengaluru, issued by the accused towards discharge of his legal liability and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, which came to dishonoured with an endorsement as "Funds Insufficient" after issuance of legal notice, he fails to repay dishonoured cheque amount within the stipulated period and thereby 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 Partly Affirmative Point No.2 : As per the final order below for the following:SCH-09 5 CC.1826/2016
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- Complainant has filed this complaint against accused for the offence punishable Under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. It is the case of the complainant that accused for his necessity had borrowed totally a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as loan on various dates agreeing to repay the same on or before 03.04.2015. But, he has not repaid the said amount as agreed by him. Then he issued the cheque in dispute, dated 23.04.2015 for Rs.5,00,000/- for due discharge of loan amount and on presentation of the said cheque, it was returned unpaid. Thereafter, complainant approached him and explained the facts, then he requested to present the cheque once again. Accordingly, the said cheque was presented on 07.09.2015, again the same was dishonoured. Inspite of service of notice, he has not repaid the amount, nor replied to the said notice. Hence without alternative complainant has filed this complaint. After appearance, accused adduced his defense evidence and taken specific contention that he has discharged the loan amount.
SCH-09 6 CC.1826/2016
9. Learned counsel for complainant has vehemently argued that accused has not disputed the issuance of cheque and signature found in Ex.P1. The defense of accused is not sustainable or acceptable one, because accused has not discharged the loan amount borrowed by him and the entire burden is on accused. When once issuance of cheque and signature is admitted, the statutory presumption has to be drawn in favour of complainant. If really accused has discharged the amount he could have stated the same while recording his plea and he has not stated anything about his defence or alleged discharge of amount in the plea. So, it is crystal clear that accused is due an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant. The said plea of discharge or liability under the said cheque is not acceptable and believable one. When accused has taken plea of discharge of said cheque amount as stated above heavy burden lies on him to prove before the Court. But, accused has not proved his plea, by placing cogent and satisfactory evidence.
SCH-09 7 CC.1826/2016
10. He further argued that the plea of discharge of accused is not justifiable one or acceptable one and for the first time on 03.10.2018 when he filed original cheque marked as Ex.D1 before this court. Later on 12.07.2019 in the cross- examination he came out by way of suggestions and the learned counsel for accused in the cross-examination of PW.1 at para No.10 has made some suggestions that -
"ದ:25.05.2016 ರರದದ ನಪ1 ರ ಮಮಲಕ ಚಚಕಕನದನ ಆರಚಮರಪಗಚ ಕಚಮಟದಟ, ಆರಚಮರಪಯರದ ರಮ.4,50,000/- ಅಕಕರಟಟ ಮಮಲಕ ಪಡಚದದಚದ ಎರದರಚ ಸರಯಲಲ.
ಉಳದ ರಮ.50,000/- ಹಣವನದನ ಪಪಷ ಎನದನವವರ ಖಪತಚಗಚ ಆರಚಮರಪಯರದ ಜಮಪ ಮಪಡಸದಚದ ಎರದರಚ ಸರಯಲಲ."
" ಹಣ ಪಡಚದ ನರತರ ಚಚಕಕನದನ ಹರದದಪ ಹಪಕಸದಚದ ಅರದರಚ ಸರಯಲಲ. ಸಪಕಕಗಚ ಮಮಲ ಚಚಕಕನದನ ತಚಮರರಸಲಪಗ ನಪ1 ರ ಮಮಲ ಚಚಕದಕ ಎರದದ ಒಪಪಕಚಮರಡದದರರದ ನಡ1 ಎರದದ ಗದರದತಸಲಪಯತದ. ನಪ1 ನಡ1 ರ ಕಲರಟ ಜಚರಪಕಕ ಎರದರಚ ಸರ. ಹಣ ಪಡಚದದ ಚಚಕಕನದನ ವಪಪಸದ ಕಚಮಟದಟ ಕಳಚದದ ಹಚಮರಗದಚ ಎರದದ ದಮರದ ಕಚಮಟಟದಚದ ಎರದರಚ ಸರಯಲಲ."
11. So, the total sum and substance of the above said suggestions is nothing but cooked up story and by this false story and plea of accused put forth in his defence is not acceptable one and sustainable one. The plea of said SCH-09 8 CC.1826/2016 discharge taken first time on 12.07.2019 through cross- examination of PW.1 was true then, why the accused did not answer it or state so in his plea recorded by this Court on 26.05.2017. He further argued in addition to that accused could have produced said original cheque/Ex.D1 before the court on the date of plea i.e., on 26.05.2017 itself, to fortify his contention of discharge. If really he has discharged the amount, the said defence is an after thought and prays to convict the accused by rejecting the defense of accused. In addition to his oral argument he has also submitted written arguments.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused has vehemently argued that accused has admitted the issuance of cheque and signature found on Ex.P1 and D1. It is the specific defense of accused that he has discharged the loan in the year 2016 itself. So the question of due of amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by accused does not arise at all. There is no legally recoverable debt. As per the advise of panchayatdars and his friends he has discharged the amount in the year 2016 itself, SCH-09 9 CC.1826/2016 when he has discharged the amount complainant returned the half torn cheque. Now he has filed false complaint. He further argued Ex.D2 placed by accused clearly establishes accused has discharged his liability. As such accused has displaced the presumption available in favour of complainant and defense evidence placed by the accused is probably believable and acceptable one and his oral evidence is supported or corroborated by documentary evidence. Considering, all these evidence prays to dismiss the complaint and acquit accused.
13. In the light of above arguments and defense taken by the learned counsel for accused, I have carefully scrutinized entire material available on record. On perusal of all the evidence placed by both parties, it is an admitted fact that accused has borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further admitted fact that issuance of cheque and signature is not disputed by the accused. The only defence of accused is that he has discharged the entire loan amount due under the above said cheque. Since accused has admitted the issuance of SCH-09 10 CC.1826/2016 cheque and signature found in Ex.P1/cheque. The initial presumption has to be drawn in favour of complainant as provided Under Sec. 139 of N.I.Act.
14. In this regard, I would like to rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa Vs. Mohan's case, the full bench of Hon'ble apex Court has held that, once the cheque relates to the account of accused and he accepts and admits the signature on the said cheque, then the initial presumption as contemplated u/Sec. 139 of N.I. Act, has to be raised by the Court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to in Sec. 139 of N.I. Act, is mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but, the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption. So in view of the above decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court, since the accused has admitted the signature and issuance of cheque, the initial presumption has drawn in favour of complainant.
15. Very recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Criminal Appeal No.271/2020 dtd. 14th February-2020 in APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd., - Versus - Shakti International SCH-09 11 CC.1826/2016 Fashion linkers and ors." by reiterating the principles laid down in "Rangappa Vs. Mohan" case has held that: "The fact that the accused has admitted the issuance of cheque and his signature on the cheque and that the cheque in question pertaining to the account, there is a presumption u/Sec. 139 of NI Act, that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability." Even our Hon'ble High Court relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court decision recently in Criminal Appeal No.140/2011, dtd. 20th November-2020 - Muralidhar Rao Vs. P. Nageshwar Rao" has held that "a person who signs a cheque and make it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces the evidence and rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of debt or in discharge of a liability and the onus shifts on the accused to establish a probable defence." So in view of above principals of Law it is crystal clear that accused has to place cogent and satisfactory evidence to displace the presumption.
SCH-09 12 CC.1826/2016
16. Let me discuss whether accused is able to discharge the burden casted on him. As per the contention of accused he has discharged the loan, which was borrowed by him from the complainant as per Ex.D2 and there is no due, after discharge of said amount, complainant has returned half torn cheque etc. To substantiate his contention as stated above, he has adduced his oral evidence and in his oral evidence he has reiterated his defence in detail on oath and stated that he has borrowed loan amount from the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and thereafter, he has discharged the said loan amount on 25.05.2016 as per Ex.D2. He further deposed complainant misused the said cheque and filed false complaint etc. He was thoroughly cross-examined by learned counsel for complainant and during cross-examination he has admitted regarding borrowing of loan and issuance of cheque. But, he denied regarding non discharge of loan amount.
17. In support of his evidence he also examined witnesses as DW.2 & DW.3 and they also supported the contention of accused and they stated accused has discharged the loan, SCH-09 13 CC.1826/2016 which was borrowed by him from the complainant. They were also thoroughly cross-examined by learned counsel for complainant and during their cross-examination they denied the material suggestions of learned counsel for complainant. The total sum and substance of the evidence placed by accused is that he borrowed loan from the complainant and discharged the said loan. The same defence was put forth and suggested to PW.1 during the cross-examination by leaned counsel for accused and he also admitted the friendship between complainant and accused. He further admitted they were doing contract business under BBMP and they are good friends etc. During the cross-examination learned counsel for accused has suggested panchayath was convened in connection with payment of amount and he admitted the same. But, he denied as per the advice of panchayathdars accused has repaid the amount under Ex.D2. He also denied other material suggestions of learned counsel for accused.
18. So, on perusal of evidence of both complainant and accused, it is crystal clear that accused has discharged loan SCH-09 14 CC.1826/2016 amount of Rs.4,50,000/- under cheque No.976061, dt:
26.05.2016. But, unfortunately learned counsel for accused has not suggested anything with regard to discharge of loan under said cheque to the complainant during his cross-
examination. But during the cross-examination of PW.2 learned counsel for accused has confronted Ex.D2 document to the said witness and said witness has admitted. Accordingly, the said document was marked as Ex.D2 and further admitted as per the contents of said document an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was encashed by complainant on 26.05.2016 and further admitted an amount of Rs.50,000/- was encashed by one Pasha on 26.05.2016 under cheque No.976062. So, from the contents of this Ex.D2 document in the year 2016 accused has paid an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant and it was encashed by him. Admittedly, there is no explanation given by the complainant with regard to this document. If really, the said amount was not encashed by the complainant he could have explained with regard to said amount or said documents and there is no explanation given by the complainant. So, it is SCH-09 15 CC.1826/2016 crystal clear the said amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was encashed by him and to the extent of Rs.4,50,000/- accused has discharged his liability.
19. Even during cross-examination of accused by learned counsel for complainant there is no single suggestion was put forth by the learned counsel for complainant to DW.1/accused with regard to Ex.D2. If really the complainant has not received the said amount under Ex.D2 document, there should have been some sort of suggestion with regard to Ex.D2. The non- explanation of complainant and his counsel with regard to Ex.D2, it clearly fortifies the contention of accused that he has discharged the loan of Rs.4,50,000/- through cheque, dt:25.05.2016.
20. As per the contention of accused he has discharged the entire amount to the complainant as per the advice of panchayathdars and he has paid an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to one Pasha. But, the said explanation or contention of accused is not acceptable one, because why he has paid the said SCH-09 16 CC.1826/2016 amount Rs.50,000/- to said Pasha, instead of paying the same to the complainant. There is no explanation given by accused in this regard and what was the necessity for him to pay the said amount to said Pasha, under what circumstances he has paid the said amount instead of paying the said amount to the complainant. In the absence of such explanation, it cannot be said that accused has paid entire amount to the complainant. As per the evidence available on record accused has paid only Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant and with regard to remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- there is no proper explanation given by accused. So, it is crystal clear that accused is due an amount of Rs.50,000/-.
21. As per the contention of accused after repayment of loan amount and as per advice of panchayathdars complainant has returned half torn cheque . When such being the case, how the complainant can present the said cheque before the bank. It is established fact that the bank authorities will not allow or accept the color xerox or copy of the cheque, except the original document. Only on presentation of original cheque, SCH-09 17 CC.1826/2016 the bank authority will consider the same and pay the amount if the amount is available or issued the endorsement regarding non payment of amount. Admittedly, as per the evidence available on record, the said cheque in dispute was presented by the complainant twice on 24.06.2015 and on 07.09.2015 and endorsement was issued by bank authority under Ex.P4 &
5. If really, original cheque was not presented before the bank, the bank authority would not have issued Ex.P4 & 5 document. So, the story narrated by accused that after repayment of amount, complainant returned the half torn cheque is not acceptable one.
22. Further, if really the cheque was returned as contended by accused, he could have stated the same thing while recording the plea by this court. Admittedly, he has not stated anything about the said torn cheque and return of the said cheque by complainant. Further, if really the cheque was returned as contended by him, he could have replied the notice issued by complainant under Ex.P6. As per Ex.P7 the notice was duly served on him. If the entire amount was paid SCH-09 18 CC.1826/2016 by him. Immediately after receipt of notice. He could have responded to it. But, he has not issued reply notice.
23. At this juncture, I would like to quote a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 1 Gorantla Venkateshwara Rao V/s Kollaveera Ragav Rao and another, wherein it is held the " failure of accused in giving reply notice to legal notice issued by complainant is one of strong circumstances to draw an inference that accused borrowed amount from the complainant and cheque was issued towards part payment or full payment of legally enforceable debt."
24. So, no prudent man would keep quite, if really he has discharged the amount. Only in the year 2019 during cross- examination he put forth such defense and produced the said cheque before Court. So it creates doubt regarding the contention of accused with regard to return of said half torn cheque by the complainant. As discussed above, if the original cheque was not presented before the bank authority, bank authority would not have allowed or issued the endorsement SCH-09 19 CC.1826/2016 as per Ex.P4 & 5. Thus the contention of accused that complainant returned the half torn cheque after repayment etc., is not acceptable one.
25. No doubt, as per Ex.D2 document he has discharged an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant. But as admitted by him, he has borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and he is due an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and it shows for due discharge of remaining amount, he might have issued the present cheque in dispute in favour of complainant. So, the evidence put forth by accused is not acceptable one and believable with regard to alleged returning of half torn cheque by the complainant.
26. On the other hand, contention of complainant is that after filing of complaint when case was posted for evidence, the cheque in dispute was lost and in this regard he has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P8 and thereafter, the coloured xerox copy said cheque marked before the Court as per the order passed by this court on application filed Under Sec. 65
(b)of Evidence Act, dt:07.01.2019 and complainant was SCH-09 20 CC.1826/2016 permitted to adduce secondary evidence. Thereafter, accused produced the said original cheque before the Court, which shows accused might have stolen the cheque and taken such defense. If really, the original cheque in dispute was not presented before the bank, the bank authority would not have issued endorsement stating that "Funds Insufficient" and only on presentation of original cheque, bank authorities have given such endorsement and during pendency of this case, cheque was lost and complaint was also lodged. Accused in order to escape from his liability he has taken such a defense, complainant has not at all received any amount and not returned the torn cheque as stated by accused and as such defense of accused is an after thought defense and the complainant has proved the liability of accused under Ex.P1 and prays to convict accused.
27. As rightly contended by learned counsel for complainant, if really the original cheque was not presented before the court, the bank authorities would not have issued the endorsement and they would have rejected the coloured SCH-09 21 CC.1826/2016 xerox copy. Only after presentation of original cheque, they have issued endorsement as per Ex.P4 & 5 stating that "Funds Insufficient". Further the court while taking cognizance as perused the original document and there after returned the same to the complainant and complainant advocate for having received original documents has endorsed in the order sheet on 18.01.2016. So it is crystal clear that the original cheque was with complainant at the time of filing this complaint. During pendency of this case, cheque was lost and the complaint was lodged by the complainant as per Ex.P8. It means the original cheque was with the complainant and he himself was presented the same before the Bank Authority and got the endorsement and thereafter filed this complaint. So, the defense of accused that after return of amount, complainant has returned the half torn cheque is not acceptable one. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for complainant, if really that was the case, accused could have stated the same before the court, while recording the plea immediately after his appearance to the Court and only in SCH-09 22 CC.1826/2016 the year 2019, he came with such a defense and produced Ex.D1 i.e., original cheque. It is shows it is only an after though defense and some how accused has managed to got the said Ex.D1/original cheque. On perusal of evidence placed by complainant and submission of learned counsel for complainant, it appears that the said original cheque might have stolen or taken away by accused or some other persons during pendency of this suit from the custody of complainant. As stated above, atleast he could have placed the said cheque. If really the said original cheque was with his possession immediately, after his appearance when plea was recorded. So, the said defense of accused is an after thought defense and it is not acceptable one.
28. Any how on perusal of Ex.D2, it is crystal clear an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was received by the complainant in the year 2016, after filing of this complaint and there is no explanation by the complainant why he has received the said amount from the accused through cheque, whether it is pertaining to other transaction or this transaction etc. In the SCH-09 23 CC.1826/2016 absence of any such explanation, this court has to accept the defense of accused and accept the documents placed by accused under Ex.D2 and it clearly establishes an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid by accused. So accused is only due an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Though accused has stated he has cleared entire amount as per the advise of panchyathdars and Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant and another Rs.50,000/- to the one Pasha. The said payment of Rs.50,000/- to one Pasha is not acceptable one and there is no explanation by accused why he has paid the said amount to one Pasha instead of paying entire amount to the complainant. Under such circumstances, the contention of accused that he has paid entire amount is not acceptable one. However, the documents at Ex.D2 establishes the part payment to the complainant. Thus, the defense taken by accused regarding payment of amount is probably and acceptable one to the extent refund of an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and he has discharged his liability to the extent of Rs.4,50,000/-. Remaining Rs.50,000/- he has not established or placed any SCH-09 24 CC.1826/2016 cogent evidence before the Court. As such this Court is of the opinion that accused is due an amount of Rs.50,000/- as he admitted the borrowing of loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant.
29. On perusal of entire evidence and as discussed supra, it is crystal clear accused borrowed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and for due discharge of legally recoverable debt, he has received the cheque in dispute and out of Rs.5,00,000/- he has discharged Rs.4,50,000/- as per Ex.D2 entry and he is due an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and defense evidence placed by accused is acceptable, justifiable and more probable to the extent of discharging an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and he has placed satisfactory evidence to such an extent. On the other hand complainant has failed to show before the court that the accused is due an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, for the above reasons, I answer Point No.1 in the Partly Affirmative.
SCH-09 25 CC.1826/2016
30. Point No.2: As discussed in point no.1, it is crystal clear accused has not discharged the loan amount of Rs.50,000/-, which is due under the cheque in dispute. As per the evidence available on record the transaction had taken place in the year 2014. As per the provisions of Sec. 138 of N.I. Act the accused can be punish with imprisonment for a period of 2 years or with fine, which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. Considering the duration of the case, this court feels an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- can be imposed as fine, which would meet the ends of justice. Thus for the above reasons and in view of my above discussions and findings on Points No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255[2] of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence Punishable U/s. 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused is sentenced to pay total fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall under go Simple Imprisonment for a period three months.SCH-09 26 CC.1826/2016
After deposit of fine amount, an amount of Rs.90,000/- shall be paid to the Complainant as compensation as provided U/s.357 Cr.P.C. The remaining Rs.10,000/- be appropriated to the state as fine. Accused shall deposit fine amount within one month from the date of judgment.
The bail bond of the accused is hereby stand cancelled.
Cash security amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited by accused is confiscated to state.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of this judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day of August, 2021.) (Umesha.H.K) Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACMM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of omplainant:
PW-1 B.R. Nagesh
PW-2 S.Seethalakshmi
SCH-09 27 CC.1826/2016
List of Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P1 Colour Xerox Cheque Ex.P2 &3 2 Challans Ex.P4 &5 Bank endorsements Ex.P6 Notice Ex.P7 Postal acknowledgment Ex.P8 Police endorsement Ex.P9 Account opening form Ex.P9(a) Specimen signature
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
D.W.1 P.Veenugopal D.W.2 Balaji D.W.3 Pasha
List of documents marked on behalf of accused:
Ex.D1 Cheque
Ex.D2 Statement of account
(Umesha.H.K)
Judge, Court of Small Causes
& ACMM, Bengaluru.