Bangalore District Court
Padmavathi vs Riyaz on 3 February, 2025
KABC0C0179592023
IN THE COURT OF XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (ACJM-34)
PRESENT: Smt. PARVEEN A BANKAPUR,B.Com.LLB.
XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
Dated : This the 3rd day of February, 2025
C.C.No.55921/2023
COMPLAINANT : Mrs. Padmavathi
W/o Krishnareddy
Aged about 60 years,
No.19, Pns Layout, 80 Feet Road,
Subbayanapalya, Bangalore North,
Maruthi Sevanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 033.
(By Mr. G. Nagaraja &
Nagendrakumar M.K. - Advocates)
V/s
ACCUSED : Mr. Riyaz
S/o. Late Munnavar Beg
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.287, Venkatamma Layout,
Subbayanapalya,
Bengaluru - 43.
(By Mr. M. Ramaswamy - Advocates)
1 Date of Commencement 21.04.2023
of offence
2 Date of report of offence 12.07.2023
3 Presence of accused
3a. Before the Court 05.10.2023
3b. Released on bail 05.10.2023
4 Name of the Complainant Mrs. Padmavathi
5 Date of recording of 12.07.2023
evidence
6 Date of closure of evidence 13.08.2024
7 Offences alleged U/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
8 Opinion of Judge Accused is found guilty.
2
C.C.No.55921/2023
JUDGEMENT
The Private Complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submits that, the Accused having close relationship with her and having acquaintance with her and he is doing lucrative business. Out of acquaintance, the Accused approached in the first week of April 2021 and requested her for a handloan of Rs.6.5 lakhs. Considering the request of the Accused, she paid Rs.6.5 lakhs to the Accused by way of cash.
The Accused promised to repay the same within one year along with interest.
It is further submitted that after expiry of stipulated period of one year, the Accused has not repaid the said loan .
She approached the Accused and requested for the repayment of the said amount. Accordingly, the Accused issued 2 Cheques bearing No.082315 dtd.21.4.2023 for Rs.3,50,000/- and another cheque bearing No.082316 dtd.21.4.2023 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Banaswadi branch, 3 C.C.No.55921/2023 Bengaluru with an assurance the same would be honoured on their presentation for encashment.
It is further submitted by the Complainant that as per the assurance of the Accused, she presented the said cheques through her banker i.e., Karnataka Gramin Bank, Kalyannagar branch, Bengaluru for encashment. However the cheques were dishonoured with an endorsement as "Account closed". on 29.4.2023. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued a legal notice by RPAD on 27.5.2023. The said notice was duly served upon the Accused on 6.7.2023. Despite service of legal notice, the Accused has neither paid the Cheques amount nor replied to the notice. Accordingly, the Complainant has filed present complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit, and documents etc., took cognizance of an offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act by following the guidelines of Apex Court issued in Indian Bank Association case and ordered to be registered a criminal case against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
4
C.C.No.55921/2023
4. After issuance of summons, accused appeared before the court and enlarged himself on bail. Plea was recorded, read over and explained to the accused, who pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for complainant's evidence.
5. The Complainant got examined herself as PW-1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and closed her side.
6. Accused was examined U/S 313 of Cr.P.C.
Incriminating evidence appearing in the complainant's evidence was read over and explained to the accused who denies the same. The Accused got examined himself as DW1 and no documents were marked on behalf of Accused.
7. Heard arguments of both sides at full length. In addition to the oral arguments, both the learned counsels appearing for parties have filed their respective written arguments.
The learned Counsel for Complainant has placed the following citations;
a. 2023 (1) KLR 18 in the case of Gajanan V/s Appasaheb Siddamallappa Kaveri b. 2024 (1) KCCR 693 (SC) in the case of K. Ramesh V/s. K. Kothandaraman 5 C.C.No.55921/2023 The learned Counsel for Accused has placed the following citations;
a. 2014(2) SCC 236 in the case of John K. Abraham V/s. Simon C. Abraham and another b. 2014 (4) KCCR 3661 (SC) in the case of K. Subramani V/s. K. Damodara Naidu
8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the materials placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration.
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused in discharge of legally recoverable debt has issued 2 Cheques No.082315 dtd.21.4.2023 for Rs.3,50,000/- and another cheque bearing No.082316 dtd.21.4.2023 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Banaswadi branch, Bengaluru in favour in favour of the complainant which came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "Account closed" and in spite of receipt of notice accused has not paid the Cheques amount and thereby committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
9. My findings on the above points is:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS Point No.1:-
10. Existence of legally recoverable debt is a sine qua non for prosecuting the case under Section 138 of Negotiable 6 C.C.No.55921/2023 Instruments Act. For convenient purpose the essential ingredients to constitute offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is summarized as below:
(i) That there must be a legally enforceable debt.
(ii) That the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes the legally enforceable debt.
(iii)That the cheque so issued had been returned due to "insufficient funds".
11. It is the core contention of the complainant that, the Accused having close relationship with her and having acquaintance with her and he is doing lucrative business. Out of acquaintance, the Accused approached in the first week of April 2021 and requested her for a handloan of Rs.6.5 lakhs. Considering the request of the Accused, she paid Rs.6.5 lakhs to the Accused by way of cash. The Accused promised to repay the same within one year along with interest. After expiry of stipulated period of one year, the Accused has not repaid the said loan. She approached the Accused and requested for the repayment of the said amount. Accordingly, the Accused issued 2 Cheques bearing No.082315 dtd.21.4.2023 for Rs.3,50,000/- and another cheque bearing No.082316 dtd.21.4.2023 for 7 C.C.No.55921/2023 Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Banaswadi branch, Bengaluru with an assurance the same would be honoured on their presentation for encashment, which were dishonoured with an endorsement as "Account closed". on 29.4.2023. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued a legal notice by RPAD on 27.5.2023. The said notice was duly served upon the Accused on 6.7.2023. Despite service of legal notice, the Accused has neither paid the Cheques amount nor replied to the notice. Accordingly, the Complainant has filed present complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
12. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, Complainant got examined herself as PW1 and reiterated the contents of complaint in her examination-in-chief. She has also placed original No.082315 dtd.21.4.2023 and No.082316 dtd.21.4.2023 at Ex.P1 and 2, bank endorsements at Ex.P3 and 4, office copy of legal notice issued by the Complainant to the Accused on 27.5.2023 at Ex.P5, Ex.P6 is the postal receipt, Ex.P7 is the postal acknowledgement, Ex.P8 is the Karnataka Gramin Bank passbook, Ex.P9 is the electricity bills, Ex.P10 is 8 C.C.No.55921/2023 the water bill., Ex.P11 is the original lease agreement and Ex.P12 is the property tax receipt.
13. The documents produced by the complainant of course established that complainant meets out the procedural requirements of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but it is to be considered whether all these documents establish the offence committed by the accused.
14. The Negotiable Instruments Act raises two presumptions. One contained in Section 118 and the other in Sec. 139 thereof. For the sake of convenience Sec 118(1) of the N.I. Act is extracted here below:
118. Presumptions as to negotiable Instruments--
Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made ;--
(a) of consideration that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
1. To (g) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Provided that where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from an person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence of fraud, 9 C.C.No.55921/2023 or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence of fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him".
15. Further Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under:
"139, Presumption in favour of holder. It shall 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."
Scope and ambit and function of the presumption U/s 118(a) and Sec 139 of NI Act came to be considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court of Indian in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde (2008 AIAR (Criminal 151) The Supreme Court has laid down the law in the following phraseology.
" D Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Secs 139, 138--Presumption under-same arises in regard to second aspect of the matter provided under Sec 138-- Existence of legally enforceable debt is not a matter of presumption under Sec 139- It merely raises presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability - Merely an application of presumption contemplated under Section 139 of N.I.Act should not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction."10
C.C.No.55921/2023
16. Further, said decision was followed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Kempanarasimhaiah Vs P.Rangaraju & Others (2008 (5) KCCR 3371). Relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: -
"12. As to the provisions of Sections 138 of N.I.Act, the following principles emerge from the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court at para Nos 21, 23, 25, 26 and 34 of its Judgment in the above said case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde, AIR 2008 SC 1325.
(i) Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption that the cheque was issued towards discharge in whole or in part in any debt or other liability, which presupposed legally enforceable debt. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability." ( para 21)
(ii) The question as to whether the presumption stood rebutted or not, must be determined keeping in view the other evidences on record. Where the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration. (para 26)
(iii) An accused, for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute, need not examine himself.
He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on records (para 23) 11 C.C.No.55921/2023
(iv) Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different. Further more where as prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is " preponderance of probabilities'" ( para 23 & 25)
(v) Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies ( para 25)
(vi) Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be deliberately balanced (para 34)
17. Thus from the observations extracted above, it is clear that presumption Under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is only to the extent that the cheque was drawn for discharge in full or in part of any debt or other liability and the said presumption do not relate to the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore, before drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act, it is the duty of the Court to see whether or not the complainant has discharged his initial burden as to existence of legally enforceable debt. No doubt, as per Section 118(a) of the Act, there is a rebuttable presumption that every negotiable instrument, is accepted, endorsed, 12 C.C.No.55921/2023 negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."
18. Factual matrix of the case is required to be tested on the anvil of principles emerging from the above-referred decisions.
19. The defence taken by the Accused is that, in the year 2017 he was in need of Rs.1 lakh amount for his urgent requirements and the Complainant residing in the opposite house and agreed to arrange for a loan from her friends and took two blank signed cheques from the Accused towards security and assured that she will arrange to get money from her friends as loan. But, she did not keep up the promise and dragged without payment any amount from her and her friends and when the Accused demanded for return of said cheques, she told that, both cheques are misplaced and she will trace and return to him shortly and misused the cheque by filing of this complaint.
20. To substantiate her claim, the Complainant examined herself as PW1. In the evidence she deposed that, she know the Accused very well and Accused is neighbour from 13 C.C.No.55921/2023 last several years. It is further deposed that, due to close relationship and having acquaintance with her and Accused is doing lucrative business and he is in need of financial assistance in the first week of April 2021 and requested the Complainant to pay sum of Rs.6.5 lakhs as a handloan. It is further deposed that, as per the request the Complainant paid Rs.6.5 lakhs by way of cash and Accused promised to repay the same within one year with interest. It is further deposed that, after lapse of stipulated period, when the Complainant requested and demanded return of handloan, the Accused issued Ex.P1 and 2 cheques in her favour. It is further deposed that, both cheques were dishonoured with reason 'Account closed' on their presentation as per Ex.P3 and 4. It is further deposed that, thereafter the Complainant got issued legal notice to the Accused calling upon him to pay the cheques amount as per Ex.P5 and same is duly served upon the Accused as per Ex.P7. It is further deposed that, inspite of receipt of notice, neither the Accused paid the cheques amount nor replied the notice.
21. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, prima facie it presumed that Ex.P1 and 2 cheques were issued 14 C.C.No.55921/2023 by the Accused towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. To rebut the presumption the learned Counsel for Accused cross examined the PW1 in full length. In the cross examination she stated that, Accused is her neighbour. She further stated that she get Rs.30,000/- rent per month from her houses. She denied that she not having financial capacity to lend Rs.6,50,000/ to the Accused. She further denied that she not lent any loan amount to the Accused. In the cross-examination she stated that by pledging golden ornaments of her daughter and by lease amount, she lent the amount to the Accused. She further stated that she paid loan amount in cash in 500, 100 and 200 denomination notes. She denied that, she assure the Accused to get borrow Rs.1,00,000 loan amount from others and for hat reason, she received two cheques from the Accused. She further denied that, she not getting any loan amount from others and also not returned the cheques to the Accused and told that, both cheques were lost by her. It is further denied that on assurance of her words that, immediately by tracing the cheque, she will return to the Accused, the Accused has not lodged police complaint against her. She further stated that Accused has issued signed cheque and on the day of issuance 15 C.C.No.55921/2023 of cheque, she went to the bank for encashment. She denied that, she misused the cheque issued by the Accused for the security purpose.
22. During the course of cross-examination to prove her financial capacity, she produced her bank passbook at Ex.P8, 5 electricity bills and water bills at Ex.P9 and 10 and also produced lease agreement at Ex.P11.
23. To rebut the presumption, the Accused got examined himself as DW1. He deposed that he Complainant has filed a false complaint against him and he have not borrowed any amount much less sum of Rs.6,50,000/-. It is further deposed that, she has not received any notice from the Complainant. Therefore, he was no opportunity for reply the same. It is further deposed that during the year 2017 he was need of Rs.1 lakh for urgent requirement and since the Accused residing in the opposite house and very well known to him and she agreed to arrange for loan from her friends and took two blank signed cheques from the Accused towards security. It is further deposed that, however, the Complainant did not keep up her promise and not arranged any loan from her friends. It is further deposed that, when the Accused demanded for the 16 C.C.No.55921/2023 return of cheques she told that, cheques are misplaced and she will trace out and return in shortly. Therefore, he did not lodge any police complaint against her. It is further deposed that, after lapse of 6 years, the Complainant misused the blank cheques received from him and fill up the same and presented. It is further deposed that, he is a tractor driver and earning only sum of Rs.15,000/- per month and he do not have any necessity to borrow alleged Rs.6.5 lakhs at any point of time from the Complainant. It is further deposed that, to make wrongful gain and harass the Accused, she filed false complaint against him.
24. In the cross-examination he admits that he know the Complainant since from childhood and also admits that the house of the Complainant is opposite to his house. In the cross-examination he admits the address shown in the complaint, but further stated that number is 139. He denied that signature on Ex.P7 i.e., postal acknowledgement belongs to his wife. In the cross-examination he stated that he was a driver and earlier he was owner of three vehicles. Now all the vehicles are sold out. He denied that, in the month of April 2021 for the necessity of his business and domestic purpose he borrowed 17 C.C.No.55921/2023 Rs.6 lakhs from the Complainant. It is further denied that since the Complainant believe the Accused, she lent lease amount and gold ornaments pledged amount to the Accused. In the cross-examination he admits that, both cheques were belongs to his account and also admits his signatures on Ex.P1 and 2 cheques. He further admits that both cheques were dishonoured with reason account closed. He denied that, towards repayment of the loan amount, he issued two cheques to the Complainant.
25. Considering the oral and documentary evidence it is not denied that, financial transaction between Complainant and Accused. The only defence of the Accused is that, in the year 2017 Accused is in need of urgent requirement and Complainant assured the Accused that, she will arrange for a loan from her friends and took two blank signed cheques from the Accused for the purpose of security and she will not arrange to get the loan from her friends and also not return the said cheques to the Accused and thereafter lapse of 6 years, she misused the cheques and filed this false complaint. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for Accused vehemently argued that, the Complainant has no financial 18 C.C.No.55921/2023 capacity to lend huge amount of Rs.6.5 lakhs and the alleged notice was not served on the Accused and further argued that, the security cheques were misused by the Complainant and filed present complaint again the Accused. Here the issuance of cheque is admitted and also signatures on the cheque also admitted. To prove her financial capacity the Complainant has produced passbook at Ex.P8 wherein in the year 2021 to 2023 in her passbook. There is a huge amount was deposit. Further Ex.P11 lease agreement executed between Complainant and tenant one Mr.Lakkamanine Nagendra wherein the 2 nd floor of her house was lease out by the Complainant to the lessee for Rs.6 lakhs and Complainant received Rs.7 lakhs amount on 10.11.2020. Therefore, at the time of lending amount to the Accused, the Complainant was having more than loan amount. Therefore, the Complainant prove her financial capacity. The learned counsel for Accused relied on for the financial capacity the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.Subramani V/s. Damodara Naidu 2014 (4) KCCR 3661 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that;
"Both Accused and Complainant governed by Government Servants' Conducts Rules which prescribed mode of lending and borrowing - Nothing 19 C.C.No.55921/2023 on record to show that, prescribed mode was followed - The Complainant Complainant alleged to have lent huge amount - Source claimed by him not proved - Trial Court acquitting Accused by holding that Complainant had no source of income to lend such a sum, he failed to prove that there was a legally recoverable debt payable by Accused to him and that in discharge of such liability he issued cheque - Proper - High Court holding that order of acquittal recorded by Trial Court suffer from legal infirmity as prosecution has been undone only on ground that the Complainant had not proved his capacity to lend money - Interfering with judgment of acquittal - Remanding matter - Unsustainable - Hence, set aside - Judgement of acquittal restored."
26. In the present case neither the Complainant nor the Accused were Government employees. Moreover, as above stated that the Complainant proved her financial capacity by producing Ex.P8 to Ex.P11. Therefore, the decision relied by the learned counsel for Accused not applicable to the present case. Further defence is that the notice was not duly served upon the Accused. But in the cross-examination the Accused admits that the Complainant's house situated to his opposite house and also admit the address mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, since the house of the Complainant and Accused are opposite to 20 C.C.No.55921/2023 each other. Therefore, non serving of notice contention is not sustainable. Moreover, Ex.P7 is the postal acknowledgement wherein same address some body has signed and received the notice. Therefore this contention also not sustainable.
27. Further, the defence of the Accused is that, he issued two blank signed cheques to the Complainant in the year 2017 for lending the loan of Rs.1 lakh from the friends of Complainant for the security purpose. Neither the Complainant arrange for the loan to the Accused nor return both cheques to the Accused. It is pertaining to note that the Accused stated that since the Complainant was assured that, he will traced out the cheques and return to him, on that assurance he will not lodged any police complaint against the Complainant. But after non returning of cheques also he did not take any legal action against the Complainant. Further, after dishonour of cheques and after receipt of legal notice also he did not take any legal action against the Complainant. Therefore, its presumed that Ex.P1 cheque was issued by him towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Further the Accused has admitted issuance of cheques and signatures on the cheques. The only contentions that both cheques were issued for security purpose. In this 21 C.C.No.55921/2023 regard, it is useful to refer ratio laid down in 2014 (9) SCC 129 in the case of Dashrath Rathod V/s. State of Maharashtra and also 2019 (4) SCC 197 in the case of Bir Singh V/s. Mukesh Kumar, wherein it is held that;
"a blank undated Cheque i.e., voluntarily issued by the Accused, would not invalidate the Cheque but, would be subject to evidence adduced by the Accused. In the present case, the defence would also not be available to the Accused as the Accused as per its own submission during the course of cross- examination he stated that, the Cheque was handed over to the Complainant company by him towards security purpose.
Further in 2021 SCC Online SC 1002 in the case of Sripathi Singh V/s. State of Jharkhand, wherein it is held that;
"Merely issuing of Cheque towards security purpose would not absolve the Accused of the liability as the same would render the Cheque as nothing more than an on demand promissory Note. Thus the position of law on aspect of Cheques issued towards security is un-ambigious and the said defence also fails to safeguard the malafide intention of the Accused."22
C.C.No.55921/2023
28. As discussed above, it has to be presumed that the cheques in question were issued by the accused to discharge the legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused can place rebuttal evidence so as to show that the cheques were not issued for consideration. As appreciated supra, accused has failed to put acceptable and satisfactory evidence to probabilise the defence. Therefore, there is no question of saying that the cheques were not issued for liability. Therefore, complainant has discharged her initial onus laid on her. When she has discharged her initial onus, it raises presumption U/s 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused has failed to rebut the presumption either in cross-examining PW-1 or in his evidence.
29. So, far as sentence and compensation is concern, an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, is a civil wrong and compensatory in nature, punitive is secondary, considering, the above settled principle of law with facts and circumstances of the case, which clearly reveals that, towards discharge of loan amount, the cheques in question of issued by the accused to the complainant. Therefore, considering the nature of transaction, duration of pendency, litigation expenses, 23 C.C.No.55921/2023 I am opinion that, if sentence of fine of Rs.7,12,400/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twelve Thousand and Four Hundred only) is imposed that would meet the ends of justice, accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.7,12,400/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twelve Thousand and Four Hundred only) out of that, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.7,07,400/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seven Thousand and Four Hundred only) as a compensation as per Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C., remaining amount of Rs.5,000/-, is to be appropriated to the state, in case of default the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered in Affirmative.
30. POINT No.2 : In view of discussion held in Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.7,12,400/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twelve
Thousand and Four Hundred only) in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Further, it is made clear that out of fine amount, Rs.7,07,400/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seven 24 C.C.No.55921/2023 Thousand and Four Hundred only) is to be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be remitted to the State.
Bail bond stands cancelled.
Supply the free copy of this judgement to the Accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 3rd February, 2025) (PARVEEN A BANKAPUR) XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 Mrs. Padmavathi
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 & 2 Cheques Ex.P.3 & 4 Bank endorsements Ex.P.5 Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.6 Postal receipt Ex.P.7 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P.8 Bank statement Ex.P.9 Electricity Bill Ex.P.10 Water bill Ex.P.11 Lease agreement Ex.P.12 Tax paid receipt
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
D.W.1 Mr. Riyaz Baig
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused: NIL (PARVEEN A BANKAPUR) XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.