Bangalore District Court
M/S. Eshwar Traders vs M/S. G.S & Company on 18 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND XXVI A.C.M.M, AT BENGALURU
Present: Abdul Khadar, B.A., LL.B.,
JUDGE, Court Of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 18th day of January 2020
C.C. No:3794/2018
Complainant: M/s. Eshwar Traders
Reptd. By its proprietor
N. Kumar,
Having its place of Principal
business at No. 20/1,
Sapthagiri Mansion,
Krumbigal Road, Mavalli,
Bengaluru-04.
(By Sri.H.E. Gundegowda-
Advocate)
-Vs-
Accused : M/s. G.S & company,
Reptd. By its Proprietor
Ganesh N, No. 472,
Cross Cut Road, Ponnaiah Street,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641012.
(By Sri.Praveen C-Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The complainant filed the private complaint under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for having committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2 CC.3794/18SCCH-9
2. According to the complainant, that the complainant is one of the reputed firms in Bengaluru dealing in supplying hardware items such as inches, handles, door locks, tower bolts, screws, cutoff wheels, grinding wheels blades, kitchen stainless steel boskets and other allied items, which has been duly registered as a dealer U/Sec.22 of the Karnataka Value added Tax Act 2003. The accused is aware of the complainant firms business dealings and had several business transactions with the complainant and accused had approached the complainant for supply of inches, handles, door locks, tower bolts, screws, stainless steel boskets etc., The complainant submits that, upon believing the accused words and assurance and also for better business prospects and healthier business relationship, agreed to supply the goods and delivered the goods to the accused company on several dates, which was estimated at Rs.5,00,000/- and agreed to remit the said amount by way of cheques with a short period of time. The accused issued three cheques bearing No.727332, dated 05.05.2018 for Rs.2,00,000/- , cheque bearing No. 727333, dated 10.05.2018 for Rs.2,00,000/-, cheque bearing No. 727334, dated 15.05.2018 for Rs.1,00,000/-. All cheques were drawn on TMP Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Coimbatore Main Branch, Coimbatore. The complainant presented 3 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 the said cheques for encashment through his banker, HDFC Bank Ltd., V.V.Puram Branch, Bengaluru and the said cheques came to be dishonoured for the reason as "Insufficient Funds" on 30.06.2018. Immediately the complainant intimated regarding the dishonor of cheques to the accused, but he failed to pay the amount covered under the cheques. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused through RPAD on 10.07.2018 demanding him to pay the cheques amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The notice sent to the accused, was duly served on him on 12.07.2018. Despite service of notice, the accused neither sent any reply nor paid the amount under the cheque. Accordingly, he has filed the present complaint to take action against the accused in accordance with law.
3. Being satisfied with the complaint averments, this Court has taken cognizance and after recording sworn statement being satisfied with the prima-facie case, issued summons to the accused compelling his appearance. Accused appeared through his counsel before this Court and got enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation was read over to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.138 of NI Act. Hence, this Court called upon the complainant to prove his case.
4 CC.3794/18SCCH-9
4. In support of the case, the complainant himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked 13 documents as per Ex.P1 to P13. After closure of evidence of Complainant, the accused was examined as contemplated u/s.313 Cr.P.C and his statement was recorded. The accused, categorically admits the case of the complainant and sought some more time to repay the amount covered under the alleged cheque in question from the complainant. The accused examined himself as D.W.1, but no documents has been got marked on his behalf and the case was posted for arguments.
5. I have heard the arguments canvassed by both counsels and perused the materials available on record.
6. The points that would arise for my determinations are:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the cheques bearing No.727332, dated 05.05.2018 for Rs.2,00,000, cheque bearing No. 727333, dated 10.05.2018 for Rs.2,00,000/-, cheque bearing No. 727334, dated 15.05.2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- all cheques were drawn on TMP Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Coimbatore Main Branch, Coimbatore, were issued by the accused towards discharge of his legal liability and failed to make good to the Complainant after its dishonor and issue of legal notice within the stipulated period and thereby accused has committed the offence Punishable U/s. 138 of the NI Act?5 CC.3794/18
SCCH-9
2. What order?
7. My findings to the above points is as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order below
For the following:
REASONS
Point No.1 :
8. It is pertinent to note that, whenever a private complainant is filed seeking prosecution of the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, if the issuance of cheques and the signature on the cheque is accepted and admitted by the accused, an initial presumption has to be raised by the Court in favour of the complainant, that the cheque in question was issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Of course, this presumption is rebuttable presumption. Such rebuttable evidence has to be placed before the Court by the accused. It is well known that, the accused can rebut the said legal presumption either by cross-examination of complainant or by leading evidence. The complainant himself examined as PW.1 filed affidavit by way of chief examination has reiterated the versions of complaint. I would not like to reproduce the same to avoid repetition of facts since the complainant has explained the details 6 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 of complaint averments in chief examination. The complainant produced 13 documents at Ex.P1 to P.13.
9. So far as the document is concerned Ex.P.1,3, 5 are the cheques bearing No.727332, dated 05.05.2018 for Rs.2,00,000/-, cheque bearing No. 727333, dated 10.05.2018 for Rs.2,00,000/-, cheque bearing No. 727334, dated 15.05.2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- and all cheques were drawn on TMP Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Coimbatore Main Branch, Coimbatore. Ex.P1(a), 3(a) and 5(a) are the signature of the accused. Ex.P2, 4, 6 are the Bank endorsements issued by the HDFC Bank, V.V.Puram Branch, Bengaluru on 30.06.2018, wherein the said cheques were dishonoured with a shara as "Funds Insufficient". Ex.P7 is the legal notice dated 10.07.2018, wherein the complainant demanded for repayment of money of Rs.5,00,000/-from the accused within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Ex.P8 is the postal receipt, in which the notice has been sent by RPAD to the address of accused, shown in cause title. Ex.P9 is the postal acknowledgement which shows that the notice was duly served on the accused. Ex.P10 and 11 are the ledger account extracts. Ex.P12 is the Quotation. Ex.P13 is the Tax invoice. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, when the issuance of cheque and his signature are admitted, then the 7 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 presumption as required under Section 139 of N.I. Act comes to the aid of the complainant and it is the turn of the accused to explain or rebut the said presumption by raising a probable defence.
10. In this regard, the court has to see whether the accused has been successful in rebutting the presumption through cross-examination of PW-1 and his evidence. In support of his defence, the accused cross examined PW-1 in length, but nothing has been elicited from his mouth to show that the consideration does not exist as alleged by the complainant under Ex.P1. During the course of cross examination of PW-1, he deposed that he is running Eshwar Traders since 1995 under proprietorship. He knows the accused since 15years and was doing transaction with him. He was doing transaction under Eshwar Traders as well as personally. He admits that from Eshwar Traders, the items/goods were supplied to the accused and for that he was receiving cash as well as cheques from him with an instructions to present the cheques after 15dyas of issuance of cheques. PW-1 deposes that except these alleged cheques, the accused has not issued any cheques to him. He denied that after supply of goods to the accused, the accused used to issued empty cheques and by adding the VAT in the empty cheques and presenting the same for encashment. He denied 8 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 that the goods sent under Vat and after issuance of C' Forms the account will close. If they put the bills under VAT, they will issued Sales Tax receipt and to close the bill, the accused has to issue C' form. He admits that he has disclosed when the accused gave cheques to him. PW-1 deposes that the Eshwar Traders done the business with the accused about 1½ years back. He admits that he ordered Modular kitchen with the accused which has not yet closed. In that connection, he has transferred Rs.5,26,000/- to the accused, which is not yet come to Bengaluru. PW-1 deposes that he supplied the goods to the accused which he has ordered and he received commission from the said transaction. He deposes that in the complaint he has stated the transaction which belongs to Eshwar Traders and Hanayan Gambier's & Company, Delhi. He denied that, out of Rs.5,00,000/- the Hanayan Gambier's & Company also has one part . PW-1 deposes that he has already paid the amount to the Hanayan Gambier's & Company.
11. PW-1 deposes that he ahs produced the quotation before the court to show that he has supplied the materials to the accused. He has also done transaction with the Hanayan Gambier's & Company and there is no connection with this case. He denied that he misused the empty cheques given by the accused to file 9 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 this false case against him. He admits that as per Ex.P.10 and P.11-ledger extracts, the accused is due to him. as per Ex.P.13, the transaction is of eight years old, in which he has sent materials to the accused. He denied that GS& Company is not due to him any amount.
12. Admittedly, in the cross examination of complainant, the accused has not elicited from his mouth that there is no existence of legally recoverable debt payable by the accused to the complainant. It is the defence of the accused that, he was not supplied any materials worth Rs.5,00,000/- to him and in that connection he has not issued any invoice and he is not due to him.Ex.P.1 was issued in the 2014 for security. He has no transaction with the complainant since 2014 onwards. The evidence of PW.1 and the documents itself shows that, complainant has supplied the materials to the accused and he issued the cheques in question to him towards discharge of his liability. On careful appreciation of the evidence of the complainant and accused there is no disputes with regard to the cheques and signatures belongs to the accused and the signature are marked as Ex.P1(a), 3(a) & 5(a). Hence it can be held that the complainant has proved the provision of section 118 & 139 of the N.I. Act. As per Section 118 of N.I. Act, the presumption available 10 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 regarding consideration, as to the, date and also holder or holder-in-due course of cheque. When the Complainant presented the cheques it implies that which were given to him by the accused. This presumption has to be rebutted by the accused by adducing the defense evidence. So the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption.
13. The accused has specifically deposed that he is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. He was doing transaction and after 2014 onwards he is not doing any transaction with the complainant. He admits the cheques but denies the contents of cheques were written by him and the accused issued the cheques in question to the complainant in the year 2014 for security.
14. So, it is an admitted fact of issuance of cheques by the accused. The cheques contain the signatures of accused. It is the main contention of the accused that the transaction has taken place between Complainant and accused. Then, in my opinion question arises that as it is a matter of the year 2018, why the accused has not lodged complaint against Complainant for misusing of cheques by the Complainant. Even, after receipt of demand notice, the accused has not taken any legal action against the complainant for misuse of cheques.
11 CC.3794/18SCCH-9
15. The learned Counsel for the Complainant has argued that the accused has admitted that he issued the cheques in question to the complainant with regard to the materials supplied to the accused which were ordered by the accused. Further argued that during the course of cross examination, the accused admitted that he has issued the cheques in question, which were subject matter of the supply of materials to him. The accused admitted the fact that the above cheques belonging to his account. Hence the complainant has proved that the accused has issued the cheques towards discharge of liability. The said cheques were presented for encashment within 6months from the date of issuance and the said cheques were bounced for funds insufficient and the notice was issued on him but he failed to clear the cheques amount. Hence prayed that the accused is liable for punishment and for payment cheques amount. Now, the question is whether Exs.P.1, P.3 and P.5 cheques were issued towards discharge of liability. In the present case on hand the accused himself has admitted for the discharge of the due, he issued cheques in question for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of complainant. Admitted facts need not be proved under section 58 of Indian Evidence Act.
16. The D.W.1 during the course of cross- examination admits the address shown in Ex.P.7 is 12 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 correct. He admits his cheques and signatures on cheques as Ex.P.1(a), 3(a) & 5(a). DW-1 admits that when the complainant presented Exs.P.1, P.3 and P.5 to the bank for encashment, that time, there was no sufficient amount in his account. He admits the contents of affidavit and according to his information, the advocate prepared. He has not taken any action against the complainant and police as Exs.P.1, P.3 and P.5 were misused by the complainant to file this case. He denied that, in order to escape from the liability, he is deposing falsely before the court. The conduct of the parties has to be considered in the back ground and circumstances of the case from the admitted fact from the mouth of accused it can be held that, the accused issued the cheques in question for legally recoverable debt. As I above discussed the conduct of the parties has to be considered if really the accused has not issued the cheques for legally recoverable debt he could have lodged/launched criminal proceedings against the complainant till today.
17. It is settled law that a cheque whether issued for repayment of a loan or as security makes little difference u/s 138 of the act in the event of dishonor legal consequence will be same without distinction when once issue of cheque is proved a presumption u/s 139 of the act would arise with regard to the considerations.
13 CC.3794/18SCCH-9
18. In the present case it is admitted both the complainant and accused that the amount was due supply of goods/hardware materials and issued cheques in question for the repayment of amount. In view of the dictum laid by the apex court and High court the accused is under obligation to pay the amount to complainant and he can held liable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
19. On perusal of appreciation of the oral testimony of the accused it can be held that entire defense taken by the accused regarding issuance of cheques is admitted. Therefore, when there is a evidence of complainant regarding issuance of cheques and its dishonor on presentation, when there is no defence evidence to rebut the presumption available u/s.118 & 139 of the Act.
20. The statutory presumption under Sec.139 of N.I. Act explains initial presumption infavour of the producer of an instrument. It says court shall presume that one instrument is handed over infavour of another person only for the purpose of recover of existed debt. Therefore, the statutory presumption explained under Sec.139 of N.I. Act always provides presumption infavour of the complainant. But, it does not mean that the statutory presumption cannot be rebutted. The said presumption can be rebutted at the strength of strong 14 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 oral and documentary evidence. Let us see the attempt of the accused to-rebut the evidence of complainant.
21. To defeat the case of the complainant, accused himself examined as DW-1, wherein he deposed that, he knows the complainant since 10years. Since 12years, he is doing hardware business. DW-1 deposes that the complainant is ding booking agent to the Hanay Company, Delhi. He is not doing any transaction since 2014 with the complainant. Due to demonetization in the year 2016, his business was affected and the complainant was supplying hardware items to him till 2014. The complainant not supplied any materials worth Rs.5,00,000/- to him and in that connection he has not issued any invoice and he is not due to him. Exs.P.1, P.3 and P.5 were issued in the year 2014 for security. He has not done transaction with the complainant since 2014 onwards and he is not due to him. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complainant.
22. This witness cross examined by counsel for the complainant wherein he categorically admits that the notice was served on him and he knows the contents of notice. He has not replied to the notice of complainant. He admits his signature on Exs.P.1, P.3 and P.5. He had transactions with the complainant company. He denied that, the cheques in question were issued with regard to the April 2018 payment 15 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 transactions. He denied that, in order to escape from the liability, he is deposing falsely before the court. The conduct of the parties has to be considered in the back ground and circumstances of the case from the admitted fact from the mouth of accused it can be held that, the accused issued cheques in question to the complainant for legally recoverable debt. This evidence of DW-1 is clearly shows that except denying suggestion he has not produced any contra documents to show that, he is not in due to the complainant.
23. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied on the following decisions:
1. AIR 2018 SC 3173 in the case of Krishna Rao Vs. Shankargouda wherein it is held that complainant proving issuance of cheque having signature of accused-accused failed to rebut presumption raised against him and on evidence led by him in his support-acquittal of accused by High court in revisional jurisdiction on ground of doubt in mind of court with regard to existence of loan improper .
2. AIR 2018 SC 3601 in the case of T.P Murugan(dead)Thr.Lrs. Vs. Bojan Posa Nandhi wherein it is held that Behaviour of accused in allegedly issuing 10 blank cheques back in 1995 and never asking their return for 7 years, unnatural - accused admitting his signature on cheques and pronote, presumption 16 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 u/S.139 would operate against him- complainant proving existence of legally enforceable debt and issuance of cheques towards discharge of such debt- conviction, proper.
3. 2006 CRI.L.J. 1 in the case of Gorantla Venkateswara Rao V. Vs. Kolla Veera Raghava Rao and Anr. wherein it is held that, Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Failure of accused in giving reply to legal notice issued by complainant - Is one of strong circumstances to draw an inference that accused borrowed amount from complainant and cheque was issued towards part payment of legally enforceable debt. Evidence Act (1 of 1872, S.114.
4. 2019 (1) Kar.L.R. 364 in the case of V.V.Chari Vs. M/s. Meenakshi Developers, wherein it is held that Denial of legally dischargeable debt -
Mere denial of legally dischargeable debt or other liability on requesting the bank to stop payment would not be construed as rebuttable evidence - Explanation appended to Section 138 of the Act comprehends "the debt or other liability" meaning a legally enforceable debt or other liability - Even dishonour of cheque on account of stop payment instruction sent by the accused to his bank in respect of post dated undated cheque, irrespective of insufficiency of the funds in the account towards which a demand is made by 17 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 issuing a statutory notice would attract provisions of Section 138 of the Act. On bare reading of the above principles relied on the above decisions by the complainant are aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand and the same were delivered on same context.
24. In this regard I would like to relay the decisions reported in AIR 2019 SC 1876 in the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlaa Patel V/s State of Gujarat and another It is in held that once presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt drawn in favour of complainant, onus is shifted on accused-Unless onus is discharges by accused that preponderance of probabilities are tilting in his favour. Doubt on case of complainant cannot be raised for want of evidence regarding source of funds for advancing loan to accused.
2. AIR 2015 SC 2240 in the case of T.Vasantha Kumar v. Vijayakumari (LAWS(SC) 2015 4 79 in the case of T.Vasantha Kumar v. Vijayakumari ) wherein is held that Dishonour of cheque-Appeal against acquittal-cheque-As well a signature on it not disputed by accused respondent-presumption under S.139 would be attracted-Story brought out by accused that cheque was given to complainant long back in 1999 as a security to a loan; the loan was repaid but 18 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 complainant did not return security cheque - is unworthy of credit, apart from being unsupported by any evidence-Mere printed date on cheque by itself cannot be conclusive of fact that cheque was issued in 1999-Order of High in acquitting accused is erroneous and set aside.
25. No doubt the accused has clearly admitted his cheques and his signatures on Exs.P1, P.3 and P.5 but he disputed that, he has not written the contents of cheques and he is not due of cheques amount. The evidence of DW-1 clearly shows that no legal action has been taken by the accused against complainant to show that cheques in question were issued by him to the complainant for security for the transaction of 2014 and the same were misused. There, itself the accused has failed to raise the probable defence. The document at Exs.P.11&P.12 shows that the complainant had supplied the hardware materials to the accused and the accused issued the cheques to the complainant to discharge the amount owed by him.
26. However the claim of the accused is that, he is not due to the complainant, but he issued the cheques in dispute to the complainant for Rs.5,00,000/- for security in the year 2014. The say of accused is presumed to be true and then there was no impediment to the accused to issue stop payment instructions at the 19 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 earlier point of time to his banker. Further what impediment was there to the accused to take legal action against the complainant. Therefore the contradiction in the version of the accused with regard to the issuance of the cheques in dispute by him to the complainant also gives raise to series doubts with regard to his defence. Accused has not made out any probable defence so as to shift the burden on the complainant. Accused has failed to establish his defence that, cheques were misused by the complainant which were given by him as security in the year 2014. It is well settled law that, rule of presumption of innocence of accused cannot be applied with same rigour to offence U/s 138, particularly where presumption is drawn that holder received the cheque for discharge, the debt or liability. Thus, accused has failed to rebut the presumption arise in favour of the complainant under Sections 118(a) and 139 of N.I. Act.
27. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it reveals that, cheques were presented to the bank for encashment which came to be dishonored as "Funds insufficient" and notice was issued to the accused was duly served on accused. The accused has admitted cheques belongs to his account and his signatures on Exs.P1, P.3 and P.5 is sufficient to hold that the complainant has proved the existence of debt under 20 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 Exs.P1,P.3 and P.5 by the accused. Thus it clearly goes to show that since the accused had issued the cheques in question to the complainant towards repayment/ discharge of amount owed to the complainant.
28. Now, the question that arises that whether the issuance of cheques in question by the accused to discharge the liability of him to the complainant comes under the purview of Sec.138 of N.I. Act or not. It is settled law that in order to draw the presumption under Sec.118 read along with 139 of N.I. Act, the burden was heavily upon the complainant to have shown that she had lent lease amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused, that the issuance of the cheques in support of the said repayment was true and that the accused was bound to make the payment as had been agreed while issuing the cheque infavour of the complainant.
29. It is well settled law that mere raising a doubt without cogent evidence with respect to the circumstances will not discharge presumption under section 139. Issuer of the cheque can rebut that presumption by adducing credible evidence that the cheque was issued for some other purpose like security for loan. In the present case by the examining himself as PW.1, the complainant has discharged the initial burden cast upon him, that the cheques were issued for discharge of amount due to the complainant, which was 21 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 not repaid by the accused at the time of supply of hardware materials to him. With the examination of PW.1, the statutory presumption under Sec. 139 of the Act arises that the cheques were issued by the accused for the discharge of any debt or other liability in whole or in part. It is for the accused to adduce evidence to prove that the cheques were not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. The defence relied upon by the accused do not create doubt about the advancement of loan and the existence of a legally enforceable debt for which the cheques were issued. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant are sufficient to prove that, it was a legally enforceable debt and that the cheques were issued to discharge the legally enforceable debt. The evidence adduced by the accused is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the Act. Thus, the story brought by the accused is unworthy of credit. Apart from being unsupported by any evidence.
30. The oral and documentary evidence available on record are clear and categorically established all the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act and also proved the fact that the accused had issued the cheques in question in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of due of hardware materials supplied to him 22 CC.3794/18 SCCH-9 and the said cheques were dishonoured and then the accused failed to pay the amount of cheques within 15 days from the date of service of the demand notice. Hence, the dishonor of the cheques in question is clearly attracts the penal provision of Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the complainant has proved the guilt leveled against the accused for the offence P/u/s Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused has utterly failed to rebut the presumption under Sec.138 of N.I. Act infavour of the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled for benefit of statutory presumption as contemplated under Sec.139 of the Act. I did not find any informalities or contradictions elicited to render her evidence incredible. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 inspires confidence to believe and to act upon the evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P13 are consistence, corroborative and supporting to each other and in accordance with the case of the complainant and which leads me to conclude that the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for the alleged offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
Point No.2:
31. In view of my above discussions and findings on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
23 CC.3794/18SCCH-9 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 shall pay fine of Rs.6,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall under go Simple Imprisonment for six months.
Out of the amount so realized, the accused shall pay a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- to the Complainant as compensation, as provided U/s.357 Cr.P.C. The remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall go to the State. The bail bond and surety bond of the accused is hereby stand cancelled. Office is directed to furnish free copy of this judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly over computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18th day of January 2020.) (Abdul Khadar) Judge , Court of Small Causes, & XXVI ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
PW -1 N. Kumar List of Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P1,3 &5 Cheques
Ex.P1(a),3(a)& 5(a) Signatures of accused
Ex.P2, 4 & 6 Bank Endorsements
24 CC.3794/18
SCCH-9
Ex.P7 Legal Notice
Ex.P8 Postal receipt
Ex.P9 Postal acknowledgement
Ex.P10&11 Ledger account
Ex.P12 Quotation
Ex.P13 Tax Invoice
List of Witnesses examined on bephalf of accused:
DW -1 N. Ganesh List of documents marked on behalf of accused:
- NIL -
(Abdul Khadar) Judge , Court of Small Causes, & XXVI ACMM, Bengaluru.