Bangalore District Court
M S Rukmaji Rao vs Tharakesh Patel on 7 December, 2024
1 CC.No.55860/2023
KABC0C0177772023
IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2024.
Present : SANTHOSH S.KUNDER., B.A., LLM,
XIV Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 of Cr.P.C
C.C.No.55860/2023
Complainant Sri.M.S Rukmaji Rao,
S/o Sri.Seshagiri Rao,
Aged about 76 years,
R/at No.5, Marthru Krupa,
2nd Main, 2nd Cross,
Bhairaveshwara Layout,
Hennur Bande, Bengaluru-560043.
(By S.N.N Associates, Advocate)
V/s
Accused Nos. 1 Sri.Tharakesh Patel,
Aged about 56 years,
S/o Sri.Lakshman Swamy,
Proprietorship Concern,
GSTIN:29AHEPP5417H1Z5
Sy No.123/3, Rajanna Layout,
Horamavu, Horamavu Post,
Bengaluru-560043.
Also at:
No.155, Patel Building Main Road,
Jeevanahalli, Cox Town,
Bengaluru-560005.
(By Sri.Rameshchandra, Advocate)
2 CC.No.55860/2023
Offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the Pleaded not guilty
accused
Final Order Accused is held guilty & convicted
This Complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Complaint averments in brief:-
The complainant and the accused are know each
other for several years. In the month of August 2020, the
accused approached the complainant and requested to
lend hand loan of ₹2,60,000/- for his necessities.
Considering the urgent need of money and acquaintance,
the complainant agreed for the same and on 02.09.2020,
advanced ₹2,60,000/- to the accused by pledging his gold
ornaments. The accused had promised to repay the loan
within one year without fail. But, he failed to repay the debt
within the agreed period and after repeated persuasion, he
has issued a cheque bearing No.218570, dated 19.12.2022,
drawn on Indus Ind Bank, HBR Layout Branch, Bengaluru
for a sum of ₹2,60,000/- in favour of the complainant.
When the complainant presented said cheque for
encashment to his banker, viz. State Bank of India, Hennur
Road Branch, Bengaluru, it was returned unpaid with an
endorsement 'account closed', dated 21.12.2022.
Thereafter, the complainant issued a demand notice dated
28.12.2022 (sent on 29.12.2022) to the accused through
RPAD and speed post demanding the payment of
3 CC.No.55860/2023
dishonored cheque amount. Notice sent through RPAD was
returned unserved with an endorsement 'insufficient
address', whereas notice sent through speed post served on
him on 07.01.2023. In spite of service of notice, he has
failed to pay the cheque amount. Therefore, this complaint
is filed.
3. There is delay of 02 days in filing complaint. After
hearing both side, this court by order dated 14.06.2023
condoned delay. Thereafter, sworn statement of the
complainant was recorded by examining him on oath as
PW.1. He has got marked Ex.P1 to 8 during pre-summoning
stage.
4. This court took cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and issued process
to the accused.
5. Pursuant to the summons, accused appeared
before the court and got enlarged on bail. After compliance
of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, this court recorded his plea. He has
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He has filed
application under Section 145(2) of NI Act, seeking
permission to cross examine the complainant/P.W-1.
Accordingly, his application was allowed and he was
permitted to cross-examine.
6. In addition to the documents marked during
pre-summoning stage, the complainant got marked Ex.P9
and 10 on 24.11.2023. Ex.P11 marked for the complainant
through DW-1.
4 CC.No.55860/2023
7. After the closure of evidence of complainant, the
accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. He has
denied the incriminating evidence.
8. By way of defence, the accused examined himself
as DW-1. Ex.D1 to 6 marked for accused.
9. Heard argument on both sides.
10. Points for consideration:-
1.Whether the complainant proved that the
accused has drawn cheque bearing
No.218570, dtd.19.12.2022 for ₹2,60,000/-
on Indus Ind Bank, HBR Layout Branch,
Bengaluru towards payment of legally
enforceable debt and on presentation, it was
dishonored for the reason "account closed"
as per memo dated 21.12.2022 and despite
service of legal notice dated 28.12.2022, he
has failed to pay the cheque amount and
thereby he has committed the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2. What order?
11. The above points are answered as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
12. Point No.1:- To prove the case, the complainant
has examined himself as PW-1. He has reiterated the
complaint averments in his affidavit, filed in lieu of oral
examination-in-chief.
5 CC.No.55860/2023
13. Ex.P-1 is the cheque in question; Ex.P.1(a) is
signature of the accused; Ex.P-2 is the bank endorsement;
Ex.P-3 is copy of legal notice; Ex.P-4 and 5 are the postal
receipts; Ex.P-6 is unserved postal cover; Ex.P-7 is speed
postal acknowledgment card; Ex.P-8 & 10 are bank
statement of the complainant; Ex.P9- is reply notice; and
Ex.P.11 is bank statement of accused.
14. During the course of final argument, learned
counsel for the accused submitted that the complainant
advanced hand loan of ₹2,60,000/- to the accused by way
of cash by pledging gold ornaments. To substantiate
averment of gold loan, the complainant has produced his
bank statement at Ex.P10. Towards the repayment of the
said hand loan, the accused has issued the cheque which
was dishonored for the reason 'account closed'. Thereafter,
the complainant sent legal notice to the accused calling
upon him to pay the cheque amount and the same was
served. But, he has not complied with demand made in the
legal notice. He has submitted that the accused led defence
evidence by way of affidavit and his defence is that cheque
was stolen by one Shashikala. However, his defence in reply
notice at Ex.P9/Ex.D2 is altogether different. His other
defence is that the complainant had no financial capacity to
lend money. In the cross-examination of PW-1, the accused
has not elicited his admission. The defence documents at
Ex.D1 is nothing to do with the present complaint. There is
no reference at Ex.D1 about the transaction pertaining to
this case. He has further argued that in the complaint filed
6 CC.No.55860/2023
by the accused, police filed charge sheet by omitting
Section 379 of IPC in backdrop of statement given by the
accused himself to the effects that his cheques were not
stolen and same were found in his company. Therefore,
very defence that the cheque was stolen does not have legs
to stand. Therefore, defence setup by the accused is false
and he has failed to rebut the statutory presumption.
Hence, he has prayed for convicting the accused.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
accused argued that the accused had no financial capacity
to lend hand loan of ₹2,60,000/- to the complainant. The
accused has issued reply to the demand notice by denying
the financial capacity of the complainant. In the complaint,
nothing is pleaded about the reply notice. He has submitted
that in the present case crucial fact to be proved is,
advancement of loan by the complainant to the accused in
September 2020. As per the elicitation made in the cross-
examination of PW-1, he has lent money to the accused 2-3
times. However, there is no averments in the complaint.
Learned counsel has argued that no person would lend
money to another person if previous loan is not repaid. By
pointing out Ex.D1, which was admitted by the
complainant in his cross-examination, the learned counsel
has argued that Ex.D1 was issued by the complainant after
receiving the money from accused. Under the said
document, the complainant has stated that he has received
money from the accused towards full and final settlement.
7 CC.No.55860/2023
Therefore, he has submitted that Ex.D1 falsifies the case of
the complainant. Therefore, he has prayed for acquittal.
16. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate
to discuss, that as per Section 138 of the N.I.Act, following
ingredients have to be proved by the complainant:
1.The accused issued a cheque on
account maintained by him with a
bank.
2. The said cheque has been issued in
discharge, in whole or in part, of any
legal debt or other liability.
3. The said cheque has been presented
to the bank within a period of three
months from the date of cheque or
within the period of its validity.
4. The aforesaid cheque, when
presented for encashment, was
returned unpaid/dishonoured.
5. The payee of the cheque issued a
legal notice of demand to the drawer
within 30 days from the receipt of
information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque.
6. The drawer of the cheque failed to
make the payment within 15 days of the
receipt of aforesaid legal notice of
demand.
8 CC.No.55860/2023
17. It is also apt to discuss that a negotiable
instrument including a cheque carries following
presumptions in terms of Section 118(a) and Section 139 of
the N.I.Act.
(i) Section 118 of the N.I.Act provides;
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:"
(ii) Section 139 of the N.I.Act further
provides as follows:
'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".
Thus, the combined effect of Section 118(a) and
Section 139 of N.I.Act raises a presumption in favour of the
holder of the cheque that he has received the same for
discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability.
9 CC.No.55860/2023
18. During cross-examination dated 25.10.2023,
following elicitation made through PW-1:-
"XXXXX ನಿಮ್ಮ ಬಳಿ ಸಾಲ ಕೊಡುವಷ್ಟು ಯಾವುದೇ ಹಣ
ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಚಿನ್ನವನ್ನು ಪ್ಲೆಡ್ಜ ಮಾಡಿ ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೇನೆ.
2 ನೇ ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ 2020 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ಲೆಡ್ಜ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ. 2 ಲಕ್ಷದ 24
ಸಾವಿರ ಹಣ ಪ್ಲೆಡ್ಜ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ಬಂತು. ನನ್ನ ಪೆನ್ಶನ್ ಹಣ ಸೇರಿಸಿ 2
ಲಕ್ಷದ 60 ಸಾವಿರ ಹಣ ನಗದಾಗಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ನಗದಾಗಿ ಹಣ
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಲು ದಾಖಲೆ ಏನಾದರೂ ಇದೆಯಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ಇಲ್ಲ, ಚಕ್ಕು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಹಣ ಕೊಡುವಾಗಲೇ ಚಕ್ಕು
ಕೊಟ್ಟರಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಹೌದು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ದಿನ
ಆದ ನಂತರ ಚಕ್ಕು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. 1 ವರ್ಷದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಣ ವಾಪಸ್
ಕೊಡುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದರು. 18 ಪರ್ಸೆಂಟ್ ಬಡ್ಡಿ ಕೊಡುವುದಾಗಿ
ಹೇಳಿದ್ದರು. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ದಾಖಲೆ ಏನೂ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಮಾರ್ಚ-2020 ರ
ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸುಮಾರು 1 ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಕಾಲ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಇಂಡಸ್ಟ್ರೀ ಗಳನ್ನು
ಮುಚ್ಚಲಾಗಿತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ, ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದವು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ಚಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಯಾವ ದಿನಾಂಕ ಅಥ್ಠವಾ ತಿಂಗಳಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ ಮತ್ತು ತಿಂಗಳು ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ, 2020 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ
ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ.
XXXXX
ಚಕ್ಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ, ಮೊತ್ತ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ನೀವೇ ಬರೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೀರಿ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಹೌದು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಂತರ ಚಲನ್ನನ್ನು ನಾನು ತುಂಬಿದ್ದೇನೆ,
ಚಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಆರೋಪಿಯೇ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದರು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಚಕ್ಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ಇರುವ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ ಆರೋಪಿ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ ಅಲ್ಲಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೆ
ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ, ಅವರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದರು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ.
XXXXX
ಈಗ ತೋರಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆ ನೀವೇ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟುಟ ಸಹಿ
ಮಾಡಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆಯಾುಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ದಾಖಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿಇರುವ ಸಹಿ
ನನ್ನದೇ, ಆದರೆ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಬರವಣಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಸಹೋದರ
ಬರೆದಿದ್ದಾಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ನಿಡಿ.1 ಎಂದು
ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ತನ್ನದು ಎಂದು ಒಪ್ಪಿ ಕೊಂಡು ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು
ನಿಡಿ.1(ಎ) ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ನಿಡಿ.1 ನ್ನು ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದರು ಎಂದರೆ
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ವಿಜಯಾ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್, ಕಾಕ್ಸ್ಟೌನ್
ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ, ಯಾವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ನಾನು ಹಿಂದೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಸಾಲದ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ನಿಡಿ.1 ರ ಅಡಿ ಎಷ್ಟು ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟರುವ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ 2 ಲಕ್ಷ
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅರೋಪಿಯ ಸಹೋದರ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು
ತಾರಕೇಶ್ಪಟೇಲ್ರವರ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ಹೌದು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ 2 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ದಿ.20.12.2021 ರಲ್ಲಿ
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಹೌದು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ನಿಡಿ.1 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಪುಲ್
10 CC.No.55860/2023
ಆ್ಯಂಡ್ ಪೈನಲ್ ಸೆಟ್ಲಮೆಂಟ್ ಎಂದು ಬರೆಯಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಹೌದು
ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ.
XXXXX
ದಿ.02.02.2022 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿ ಬಳಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದ
ಶಶಿಕಲಾ ರವರು ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಇಂಡಸ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಚಕ್ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ.218566
ರಿಂದ 218574 ಒಟ್ಟು 9 ಚಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಕಳವು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು
ಹೋಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಆರೋಪಿ ಶಶಿಕಲಾ ರವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಹೆಣ್ಣೂರು
ಪೋಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದೂರೊಂದನ್ನು ದಾಖಲಿಸಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನೀವು ಮತ್ತು ಶಶಿಕಲಾ ಇಬ್ಬರೂ ಸೇರಿಕೊಂಡು
ಕಳ್ಳತನ ಆಗಿರುವ ಚಕ್ಕನ್ನು ದುರುಪಯೋಗ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಈ ಸುಳ್ಳು
ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಹೂಡಿದ್ದೀರಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಹಣ್ಣೂರು
ಪೋಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯ ಪೋಲೀಸರು ತನಿಖೆ ಕೈಗೊಂಡು ಶಶಿಕಲಾ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ
ಸಹೋದರಿ ಸಾವಿತ್ರಿಯ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಚಾರ್ಜಶೀಟ್ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಿಡಿ.1 ರ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ಸದರಿ ಸಾಲದ
ವಿಚಾರವಾಗಿಯೇ ನೀವು ಬರೆದುಕೊಟುಟ ಯಾವುದೇ ಬಾಕಿ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು
ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೀರಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ, ಅದೇ ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕವಾದ ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಆಗಿದೆ
ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ XXXXX"
19. In order to substantiate the contention that the
loan was advanced by pledging gold ornaments, the
complainant has produced his bank statement at Ex.P10.
Learned counsel for the complainant pointed out the entries
dated 01.09.2020 and 02.09.2020 to submit that the
proceeds of gold loan availed by the complainant was
credited to his account on 01.09.2020 and he has
withdrawn ₹2,40,000/- on 02.09.2020.
20. Entries pointed out by the counsel for the
complainant substantiates the contention that on
01.09.2020 the complainant pledged his gold ornaments
with Lalitha Jewelers and a sum of ₹2,93,650/- was
credited to his account. On the very next day, i.e., on
02.09.2020, he has withdrawn cash of ₹2,40,000/- by
using cheque bearing No.582752. To his extent Ex.P10 can
be relied upon.
11 CC.No.55860/2023
21. The accused is denying the contention of the
complainant that he has borrowed hand loan of
₹2,60,000/-. However, he has stated in his examination-in-
chief that he had borrowed money from the complainant
and all the money there was borrowed was repaid under
acknowledgment. To substantiate the same, the accused
has placed heavy reliance on Ex.D1. The said document
reads as under:-
"To
Tharakesh Patel
I Rukmajji Rao M.S received full and final
settlement and returned Back two cheques
No.345055 and 345058 at 10 and 20th Nov-2021.
Bangalore
20-12-21
Sd/-
Rukmajji Rao M.S"
22. Said document was marked through PW-1
during his cross-examination dated 25.10.2023. PW-1 has
admitted his signature on Ex.D1 which is marked at
Ex.D1(a). He has stated that Ex.D1 is in the handwriting of
his brother. When questioned, for what purpose Ex.D1 was
issued, PW-1 has stated that it was issued by the accused
in respect of previous loan(s). Relevant portion of the cross-
examination of P.W-1 dated 25.10.2023 is extracted as
under:-
" XXXXXX ಈಗ ತೋರಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆ ನೀವೇ
ಬರೆದುಕೊಟುಟ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆಯಾುಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ದಾಖಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿಇರುವ ಸಹಿ ನನ್ನದೇ, ಆದರೆ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಬರವಣಿಗೆಯನ್ನು
12 CC.No.55860/2023
ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಸಹೋದರ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದಾಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು
ನಿಡಿ.1 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ತನ್ನದು ಎಂದು ಒಪ್ಪಿ ಕೊಂಡು
ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ನಿಡಿ.1(ಎ) ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ನಿಡಿ.1 ನ್ನು ಎಲ್ಲಿ
ಬರೆದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ವಿಜಯಾ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್, ಕಾಕ್ಸ್ಟೌನ್
ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ, ಯಾವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ನಾನು ಹಿಂದೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಸಾಲದ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ನಿಡಿ.1 ರ ಅಡಿ ಎಷ್ಟು ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟರುವ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ 2 ಲಕ್ಷ
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅರೋಪಿಯ ಸಹೋದರ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು
ತಾರಕೇಶ್ಪಟೇಲ್ರವರ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ಹೌದು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ 2 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ದಿ.20.12.2021 ರಲ್ಲಿ
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಹೌದು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ನಿಡಿ.1 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಪುಲ್
ಆ್ಯಂಡ್ ಪೈನಲ್ ಸೆಟ್ಲಮೆಂಟ್ ಎಂದು ಬರೆಯಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಹೌದು
ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. XXXXXX"
23. PW-1 has categorically stated that under Ex.D1,
₹2,00,000/- was paid by the brother of the accused in
respect of money transaction. He has also admitted that in
Ex.D1, there is phrase 'full and final settlement'.
24. It is true that Ex.D1 reveals that the
complainant has received money (amount not specified)
from the accused on 20.12.2021. There is also recital to the
effect that the complainant has issued the said receipt
towards 'full and final settlement'. At the same time, it is
pertinent to point out that under the said receipt the
complainant has returned two cheques, i.e. cheque bearing
No.345055 and No.345058 dated 10.11.2020 and
20.11.2020 respectively, to the accused. Since there is
mention of two cheque numbers, it appears the said receipt
was passed by the complainant in respect of some other
money transaction as because had really the said receipt
was passed in respect of the loan transaction on hand,
there would have been mention of cheque pertaining to this
case i.e. cheque bearing No.218570. Admittedly, at the time
13 CC.No.55860/2023
of issuing the receipt, the accused was not present. This
has been admitted by DW-1 in his cross-examination dated
16.02.2024 which reads as under:-
"ನಿ.ಡಿ.1 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ ಯಾರದು ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನನ್ನ
ಸಹೋದರ ಧರ್ಮೇಂದ್ರ ರವರ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದ್ರಿ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು
ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆಯಲಾಯಿತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಕಾಕ್ಸ್ ಟೌನಿನ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಆಫ್
ಬರೋಡಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆಯಲಾಯಿತು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅದನ್ನು ಬರೆಯುವಾಗ
ನಾನು ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ".
25. Further in his cross-examination dated
02.02.2024, DW-1 has conceded that in Ex.D1, there is no
reference of the amount and that it pertains to cheque
bearing No.345055 and No.345058. Relevant portion of
evidence of DW-1 dated 02.02.2024 reads as under:-
"XXXXXX ನಿ.ಡಿ.1 ರ ರಶೀದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಎಷ್ಟು ಮೆಾತ್ತ ಎಂದು
ನಮೂದು ಆಗಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಹೌದು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದ್ರಿ ರಶೀದಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕು
ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 345055 ಮತ್ತು 345058 ರ ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ರಶೀದಿ
ಆಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಹೌದು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಾನು ಎರಡು ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು
ತಿಂಗಳಿಗೆ 6 ಪರ್ಸೆಂಟ್ ಇಂಟ್ರಸ್ಟ್ ನಂತೆ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೆ ವಾಪಸ್ಸು
ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ . XXXXXX "
26. Thus, elicitation made the cross-examination of
DW-1 clearly points out that DW-1 was issued towards
repayment of loan of ₹2,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
In the present case, the loan alleged by the complainant is
₹2,60,000/-. Therefore, this court holds that Ex.D1 does
not pertain to the loan transaction of ₹2,60,000/-. The
complainant has contended that he had more than one loan
transaction with the complainant. Therefore, the defence of
the accused in this regard is not substantiated.
14 CC.No.55860/2023
27. Yet another defence of the accused is that cheque
pertaining to this case and other cheques were stolen by
one Shashikala. Relevant portion of chief-examination of
DW-1 at para No.4 extracted as under:-
"I submit that one Shasikala was working in
my factory and I removed her for mis-appropriation
of funds. I submit that while leaving she had stolen
several cheques. I had complained to the Hennur
Police Station police about the stealing of cheques
on 02.02.2022 against Shashikala and
Savitramma. I submit that subject cheque bearing
No.218570 is also the subject matter of complaint.
The police after investigation filed charge sheet
against them in CC No.50578 of 2023. I submit
that the subject cheque is also stolen cheque. The
complainant and Shashikala joined together to
make wrongful loss to me and for wrongful gain to
them. I am not due any money to the complainant."
28. To substantiate the said defence, the accused has
produced certified copy of charge sheet at Ex.D5, where it is
evident that accused herein lodged a written complaint
dated 02.02.2022 to Hennur Police Station against one
Shashikala and Savithramma making several allegations
including theft of about 18 cheques. As per the said
complaint, Ex.P1 is also one of the cheques allegedly stolen
by Shashikala. Based on the said complaint, police
registered FIR against Shashikala and Savithramma in
Crime.No.42/2022 for the offences punishable under
Section 380, 420, 504, 506 and 120(B) R/w Section 34 of
IPC. During the course of investigation, I.O. recorded the
further statement of the accused herein on 10.06.2022
where, he has specifically stated that cheques belong to
15 CC.No.55860/2023
him were not stolen. In the context of the present case, it
would be material to extract the portion of further
statement of the accused which is marked in this case as
Ex.D5(a), which reads as under:-
"ಈ ದಿನ ಮುಂದುವರೆದ ನನ್ನ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಏನೆಂದರೆ, ನಾನು ದೂರು ನೀಡಿದ
15 ದಿನಗಳ ನಂತರ ನಮ್ಮ ಕಂಪನಿಯನ್ನು ಹುಡುಕಲಾಗಿ ನಾನು ನನ್ನ
ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿರುವ ಕೆನರಾ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಅಕೌಂಟ್ ನಂಬರ್
2408261001361 ಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಚೆಕ್ ನಂಬರ್ ಗಳಾದ 269921
ರಿಂದ 269926 ರವರೆಗೆ 6 ಚೆಕ್ ಗಳು, ಕೆನರಾ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಅಕೌಂಟ್ ನಂಬರ್
3043101006571 ಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಚೆಕ್ ನಂಬರ್ ಗಳಾದ 669773
ರಿಂದ 669775 ರವರೆಗೆ 3 ಚೆಕ್ ಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಇಂಡಸ್ ಲ್ಯಾಂಡ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್
ಅಕೌಂಟ್ ನಂಬರ್ 259880010047 ಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಚೆಕ್ ನಂಬರ್
ಗಳಾದ 218566 ರಿಂದ 218574 ರವರೆಗೆ 9 ಚೆಕ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಶಶಿಕಲಾ
ರವರು ಕಳ್ಳತನ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆಂದು ನನ್ನ ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಆದರೆ
ಈ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಚೆಕ್ ಗಳು ನನ್ನ ಕಂಪನಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿದ್ದು,
ಕಳ್ಳತನವಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ".
29. Based on the said further statement, police filed
charge sheet against the said Shashikala and Savithramma
for the offences punishable under Section 420 and 506 R/w
34 of IPC by omitting the penal Sections of 380, 504 and
120(B) of IPC. However, during cross-examination dated
16.02.2024, the accused (DW-1) conveniently pleaded
ignorance to the suggestion given to the effect that the
police dropped penal Sections of 380, 504 and 120(B) of IPC
although he has admitted that he has given further
statement to police as per Ex.D5(a) in his cross-
examination dated 02.02.2024. Thus, very defence of the
accused that the cheque pertaining to present case i.e.,
cheque bearing No.218570(Ex.P1) was stolen by Shashikala
has not been substantiated by the accused.
30. The accused has contended that the complainant
had no financial capacity to lend money. In his reply at
16 CC.No.55860/2023
Ex.P9/Ex.D2, he has taken a stand that the complainant
himself was financial difficulty during August/September
2021 and that he (accused) himself has lent a sum of
₹2,50,000/- through Geeetha Janardhan by way of RTGS
on 18.10.2021. In order to substantiate this stand, accused
has not examined said Geetha Janardhan, who allegedly
advanced ₹2,50,000/- to the complainant. This contention
of the accused is again not substantiated.
31. On the other hand, the complainant has
produced his bank statement at Ex.P10 to show that as on
01.09.2020, he had sufficient balance in his account to
advance loan to the accused. Therefore, defence of the
accused in this regard also has not been substantiated.
32. Learned counsel for the accused has placed
reliance on the following judgments:-
1. Basalingappa V/s Mudibasappa; AIR 2019
SC 1983 [On the proposition of financial
capacity of the complainant]
2. K.Subramani V/s K.Damodara Naidu;
2015 AIR SCW 64 [On the proposition of
financial capacity of the complainant]
3. Sri.H.Manjunath V/s Sri.A.M Basavaraju;
ILR 2014 KAR 6572
"10. Perusal of the cheque at Ex.P1 makes
it manifest that except signature all other
entries are in different handwriting, different
ink and undoubtedly made at different time.
In this view it is difficult to accept the version
of the Complainant. Even if we accept
accused had issued the cheque it is proved
accused had already deposited Rs.1 lakh in
17 CC.No.55860/2023
the account of the Complainant but
Complainant, has failed account for it. The
learned trial Judge has examined the
evidence in the correct perspective and
arrived at a right conclusion. No case is
made out against the respondent. On
reappraisal also I find reasoning of trial
Court is fully justified and finds support from
the evidence on record. It needs no
interference."
4. Narasimha Murthy V/s Janakrirama; ILR
2003 KAR 773
"SECTION 115 - Dismissal of the suit filed
for recovery of money is challenged by the
plaintiff. In the absence of any proof by
plaintiff that he had money to lend to
defendant and failed to establish his case.
The dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court
does not give scope for any interference.
Hence the CRP is dismissed"
5. Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing
Company V/s Amin Chand Payrelal; AIR
1999 SC 1008 [On the proposition that the
defendant can not be called upon to prove the
negative by insisting him to disprove the
existence of consideration]
6. C.T Joseph V/s I.V Phillips; II (2001) BC
498 (DB) [On the proposition that presumption
under Section 118 arises only if the execution
of document (cheque) is proved as true]
7. S.Timmappa V/s L.S Prakash; 2010 (5)
KCCR 3397 [On the proposition of financial
capacity of the complainant]
8. Nagappa Vs. Durgappa Alias Dyamappa H
Durgad; 2022 (1) KCCR 294 [On the
proposition of financial capacity of the
18 CC.No.55860/2023
complainant and violation of Section 269 (ss) of
Income Tax Act]
9. B.Krishna Reddy V/s Syed Hafeez (Died)
per Lr.Smt.Naseema Begum and Anr; AIR
2019 Supreme Court 5123 SC
"Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881),
S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Legally
enforceable debt - Cheque in question
allegedly given to complainant towards
consideration for purchase of property -
Neither any document produced nor evidence
showing that any conveyance was executed
in favour of accused"
10. B.P Venkatesulu Petioner V.s K.P Mani
Nayar; 2001 CRI .L.J 745 (KAR)
["S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Revision
against acquittal - Case of complainant that
post -dated cheque was given to him by
accused on date of agreement is self
contradictory - Issuance of cheque for actual
loan amount and not including amount of
interest on loan payable - Is a strong
intrinsic circumstances of suspicious
character - Material legal infirmities in
complainant's story effectively displaces and
successfully rebuts the presumption under
S.139 available in favour of existence of debt
or liability against accused - No other
evidence brought on record by complainant in
independent proof of the fact of the said loan
transaction between him and accused -
Acquittal of accused, proper"].
33. I have gone through the judgments cited by the
learned counsel for the accused. Judgment at Sl.No.10 was
relied by the learned counsel for the accused to submit that
issuance for cheque for actual loan amount and not
19 CC.No.55860/2023
including amount of interest on the loan is a suspicious
circumstance to displace the presumption under Section
139 of N.I Act. By pointing out that in the present case the
cheque was drawn for the actual alleged loan without
including interest on the principal, learned counsel
submitted that it is a suspicious circumstance and the case
of the complainant can not be believed.
34. For appreciating legal position of the cases under
Section 138 of N.I Act, it is useful to refer the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hiten P.Dalal
V.Bratindranath Banerjee: (2001) 6 SCC 16, wherein it
was held that:
"22. Because both Sections 138 and
139 require that the Court "shall
presume" the liability of the drawer of
the cheques for the amounts for which
the cheques are drawn, as noted in
State of Madras vs.A.Vaidyanatha Iyer
AIR 1958 SC 61, it is obligatory on the
Court to raise this presumption in every
case where the factual basis for the
raising of the presumption had been
established. "It introduces an exception
to the general rule as to the burden of
proof in criminal cases and shifts the
onus on to the accused" (ibid). Such a
presumption is a presumption of law,
as distinguished from a presumption of
fact which describes provisions by
which the court 'may presume" a
certain state of affairs. Presumptions
are rules of evidence and do not conflict
with the presumption of innocence,
because by the latter all that is meant
is that the prosecution is obliged to
20 CC.No.55860/2023
prove the case against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. The
obligation on the prosecution may be
discharged with the help of
presumptions of law or fact unless the
accused adduces evidence showing the
reasonable possibility of the
nonexistence of the presumed fact."
35. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases titled as K.N.Beena vs.
Munyappan and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 289.
36. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled
as Kalamani Tex and Anr. Balasubramanian, 2021 SCC
Online SC 75 held that:
14. Adverting to the case in hand, we
find on a plain reading of its judgment
that the trial Court completely
overlooked the provisions and failed to
appreciate the statutory presumption
drawn under Section 118 and Section
139 of NIA. The Statute mandates that
once the signature (s) of an accused on
the cheque/negotiable instrument are
established, then these 'reverse onus'
clauses become operative. In such a
situation, the obligation shifts upon the
accused to discharge the presumption
imposed upon him."
37. From the above judgments, it is clear that for the
offence under Section 138 of the Act, the presumptions
under Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of N.I.Act have to be
mandatorily raised as soon as execution of cheque by
accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and
thereafter, burden shifts on the accused to prove otherwise.
21 CC.No.55860/2023
A presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a
prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists.
Presumptions, both under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I.Act
are rebuttable in nature. In the present case, the accused
has admitted his signature on the cheque in issue.
38. It is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Kumar Exports Vs.
Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513, wherein it was held
that:
"20. The accused in a trial under
Section 138 of the Act has two options.
He can either show that consideration
and debt did not exist or that under the
particular circumstances of the case the
non existence of consideration and debt
is so probable that a prudent man
ought to suppose that no consideration
and debt existed. To rebut the statutory
presumptions an accused is not
expected to prove his defence beyond
reasonable doubt as is expected of the
complainant in a criminal trial. The
accused may adduce direct evidence to
prove that the note in question was not
supported by consideration and that
there was no debt or liability to be
discharged by him. However, the Court
need not insist in every case that the
accused should disprove the
nonexistence of consideration and debt
by leading direct evidence because the
existence of negative evidence is neither
possible nor contemplated. At the same
time, it is clear that bare denial of the
passing of the consideration and
existence of debt, apparently would not
22 CC.No.55860/2023
serve the purpose of the accused.
Something which is probable has to be
brought on record for getting the
burden of proof shifted to the
complainant. To disprove the
presumptions, the accused should bring
on record such facts and
circumstances, upon consideration of
which, the Court may either believe that
the consideration and debt did not exist
or their nonexistence was so probable
that a prudent man would under the
circumstances of the case, act upon the
plea that they did not exist. Apart from
adducing direct evidence to prove that
the note in question was not supported
by consideration or that he had not
incurred any debt or liability, the
accused may also rely upon
circumstantial evidence and if the
circumstances so relied upon are
compelling, the burden may likewise
shift again on the complainant. The
accused may also rely upon
presumptions of fact, for instance, those
mentioned in Section 114 of the
Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions
arising under Sections 118 and 139 of
the Act."
39. Further, the above said principles have also been
crystallized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418, where
it was observed that:
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid
down by this Court in above cases on
Sections 118(a) and 139, we now
summarise the principles enumerated
by this Court in following manner:
23 CC.No.55860/2023
(i) Once the execution of cheque is
admitted Section 139 of the Act
mandates a presumption that the
cheque was for the discharge of any
debt or other liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139
is a rebuttable presumption and the
onus is on the accused to raise the
probable defence. The standard of proof
for rebutting the presumption is that of
preponderance of probablities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open
for the accused to rely on evidence led
by him or accused can also rely on the
materials submitted by the complainant
in order to raise a probable defence.
Inference of preponderance of
probabilities can be drawn not only
from the materials brought on record by
the parties but also by reference to the
circumstances upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the
accused to come in the witness box in
support of his defence, Section 139
imposed an evidentiary burden and not
a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to
come in the witness box to support his
defence."
40. It was argued on behalf of the accused that the
complainant himself filled the cheque amount and date and
as such, the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act will not
attract. For appreciating the said argument, reliance is
placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
24 CC.No.55860/2023
Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, wherein,
it has been held as follows:
"37. A meaningful reading of the
provisions of the Negotiable
Instruments Act including, in
particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139,
makes it amply clear that a person who
signs a cheque and makes it over to the
payee remains liable unless he adduces
evidence to rebut the presumption that
the cheque had been issued for
payment of a debt or in discharge of a
liability. It is immaterial that the cheque
may have been filled in by any person
other than the drawer, if the cheque is
duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque
is otherwise valid, the penal provisions
of Section 138 would be attracted.
38. If a signed blank cheque is
voluntarily presented to a payee,
towards some payment, the payee may
fill up the amount and other
particulars. This in itself would not
invalidate the cheque. The onus would
still be on the accused to prove that the
cheque was not in discharge of a debt
or liability by adducing evidence."
(underlined for emphasis)
41. In view of the observations in above stated
judgment, it can be held that even if it is taken that the
cheque amount and date filled by the complainant, such
defence will not come to the rescue of the accused, as the
same would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still
be upon the accused to prove that the cheques were not
issued in discharge of a debt or liability. The accused has
failed to establish that it was not drawn for consideration
25 CC.No.55860/2023
and that it was stolen by one Shashikala and given to the
complainant for making wrongful gain. At the cost of
reputation it is reiterated that the accused does not dispute
his signature on the cheque.
42. After appreciating the evidence on record, this
court opinions that the accused has failed to probabilise
any of his defences to rebut the presumption under Section
118(a) and 139 of NI Act. Indisputably, the cheque was
presented well within its validity period and it was
dishonored, vide endorsement dated 21.12.2022, marked at
Ex.P2. Thereafter, on 28.12.2022, the complainant had
issued a demand notice to the accused as per Ex.P3
through registered post. Speed post acknowledgment card
at Ex.P7 proves service of demand notice on the accused.
Instead of complying the demand, he has sent a reply dated
28.01.2023, marked at Ex.P9/Ex.D2, denying the liability.
Thus, all the prerequisites of the offence under Section 138
of N.I.Act have been fulfilled. Therefore, he is held guilty.
Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
43. Point No.2:-Punishment prescribed for the
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is
imprisonment for a period which may extend to two years
or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the
cheque or with both. Considering the facts and
circumstances of this case and keeping in view
Section 80 of N.I Act governing the rate of interest, this
court is of the considered opinion that it is just and proper
to impose fine of ₹3,60,000/- to the accused with default
26 CC.No.55860/2023
sentence and out of the said amount, it just and proper to
award a sum of ₹3,55,000/- as compensation to the
complainant as provided U/s 357(1) (b) of Cr.P.C and the
remaining sum of ₹5,000/- shall go to the State. In view of
the discussions made while answering Point No.1, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
He is sentenced to pay a fine of ₹3,60,000/-. In default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Out of the realized fine amount, a sum of ₹3,55,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and the remaining sum of ₹5,000/- shall be remitted to State.
Bail bonds executed by accused stands cancelled.
Accused is entitled for a copy of this judgment free of cost which shall be supplied to him forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7 th day of December, 2024) ( SANTHOSH S.KUNDER ) XIV Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
27 CC.No.55860/2023ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 M.S Rukmaji Rao List of documents marked for the Complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque Ex.P.2 Bank endorsement Ex.P.3 Copy of legal notice Ex.P.4 & 5 Postal receipts-2 Ex.P.6 Unserved postal cover Ex.P.7 Speed Post acknowledgment card Ex.P.8 & 10 Bank statements of complainant Ex.P.9 Reply notice dated 28.01.2023 Ex.P.11 Account Statement of accused
List of witness examined for defence DW.1 Tharakesh Patel List of witness documents for defense:
Ex.D.1 Receipt
Ex.D.2 Copy of reply notice dated 28.01.2023
Ex.D.3 Postal receipt
Ex.D.4 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.D.5 Certified copy of charge sheet in Crime
No.42/2022
Ex.D.5(a) C.C of further statement of accused
dated 10.06.2022 recorded in Crime No.42/2022 Ex.D.6 C.C of sworn statement/deposition of Shashikala H., recorded in PCR No.5190/2022 (C.C.No.37788/2022) XIV Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru.