Bangalore District Court
Manjunath vs Sri. Vittal Sambrekar on 21 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF XXXIII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BENGALURU
: PRESENT :
M.Vijay, BA L, LLB.
XXXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
DATED IS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021.
C.C.No.50980/2017
COMPLAINANT : Manjunath
S/o. Veerappa
Aged about 49 years,
R/o. No.39/1, 4th 'I' Cross,
Vrushabhavathi Nagar,
kamakshipalya, Bangalore560079
.Vs.
ACCUSED : Sri. Vittal Sambrekar
No.6, 2nd main, Malleshpalya, New
Thippsandra Post, Bangalore560075,
Working as Deputy Supervisor,
81825146, 'JDH' Stores, Marketing
Division, BEML Limited, New
Thippasandra Post, Bangalore560075.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this private complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2C.C.No.50980/2017
2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows: The complainant averred that, he and accused are working in BEML Ltd., known to each other as friends, based on this acquaintance accused approached him for financial help of Rs.12,00,000/ during the month of february 2015 to meet is housing loan, but, he expressed his inability to lent such heavy amount, however, on persistent request of the accused he advanced rs.3,90,000/ in the month july 2015 and Rs.8,00,000/ in the month september 2015 and Rs.1,50,000/ paid to the accused on november 2015 by receiving from it's teacher Ravi Kumar in all he alleged to have advanced sum of Rs.13,40,000/ to the accused on receipt of it accused assured him to repay it within december 2015, but, failed to keep up his promise, accordingly, in the 2 nd week of january 2015, he demanded the accused to repay the advanced amount, the accused towards discharge of his debt had allegedly issued a post dated cheque bearing no.239386 dated 06.06.2016 drawn on SBI J.B. Nagar branch for sum of Rs.13,40,000/, however, after issuance of the cheque the accused in order to escape from his liability has lodged a false complaint before Police Commissioner Bangalore on 18.02.2016 against him and 3 C.C.No.50980/2017 other employees of BEML, same was closed by the jurisdictional Police after inquiry on 09.05.2016.
3. As per the assurance of the accused, he presented cheque bearing No.239386 for collection through his banker on 06.06.2016, but, it was returned unpaid as "funds insufficient" vide memo dated 06.06.2016, based on it he approached the accused, but, accused did not respond to his demand, accordingly, he was constrained to issue demand notice on 18.06.2016, same was served on the accused on 20.06.2016, even after service, the accused neither replied to notice nor paid the cheque amount accordingly, the complainant alleges that, accused has committed an o/p/u/s 138 of N.I Act.
4. The court took cognizance for an offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act, based on the complaint, sworn statement and documents filed by the complainant and ordered to be registered a criminal case against the accused for an offense punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
4C.C.No.50980/2017
5. In pursuance of summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and he was on court bail. Plea has been recorded, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the case, the complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and relied upon Ex.P1 to P10, on closure of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating materials on record, examined himself as DW, in addition to that he placed reliance on Ex.D1 to 5.
7. Heard, both the sides, the learned counsel for the complainant relied upon decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Kalamani Tex and another's Vs. P. Subramanian, on the other hand, PB Jayaprakash Vs. Samson Tevence and others, Sri. Janardhan Hegde Vs. Anand Kanchan, Ghanshyam Ukirade Vs. Suman Pawan, K. Subramani Vs. Damodara naidu, Basavalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa, Satish Kumar Vs. State Nct of Delhi and another, Jhon. K. Abraham Vs. Simon C. Abraham and others, Suresh V/s Suresh Vs. Narendra Goutham, M/s Cold Spot Vs. M/s Naik hotels and others, Kishor L. Purohit Vs. Prem 5 C.C.No.50980/2017 Saxena and others, H.P Moodalappa Vs. C.A. Chowrappa, B.L. Karunakar Hegade Vs. Shubakara Shetty, Purushotham Nair Vs. Shreekantan nair, Pr. Anna Saheb Coop Bank Ltd., Vs. Narayan panduranga Kargaonkar and another, Venktachala Gounder Arulmigu Vishweshwaraswamy.
8. Perused the materials on record, the following points arise for my determination.
1. Whether the complaint proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused has committed an o/p/u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?"
2. What Order?
9. My findings to the above points are follows;
Point No1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order for forgoing;
REASONS
10. The complainant and accused are admittedly colleagues at BEML and well known to each other, on this acquaintance, the complaint claim to have advanced an 6 C.C.No.50980/2017 hand loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/ in the month of july 2015 out of his savings, further, by borrowing Rs.6,95,000/ from his aunt and sum of Rs.1,05,000/ from out of his savings had advanced another sum of Rs.8,00,000/ in the month september 2015, like wise, further sum of Rs.1,50,000/ advanced to the accused by borrowing from teacher Ravikumar in the month november 2015, in all the complainant claims to have advanced an hand loan of Rs.13,40,000/, towards discharge of hand loan, the accused allegedly issued cheque bearing No. 239386 dated 06.06.2006 for sum of Rs.13,40,000/ in his favour. But, soon after issuance of cheque, the accused allegedly complained against the complaint with an intention to not to produced or not to present the cheque dated 06.06.2016 on due date, but, it was unpaid for "funds insufficient", based on it, he issued legal notice to the accused demanding to pay cheque amount, but, accused not replied to his legal notice, accordingly, the complaint.
11. Per contra, accused admits the complainant is his colleague at BEML and financial transaction with complaint and issuance of cheque bearing No.239386 7 C.C.No.50980/2017 pertaining to his account in favour of complainant and signature, on it is of him, however, the accused specifically denied the alleged transaction held during the month of july, september and november of 2015 i.e., alleged borrowal of Rs.13,40,000/ from the complainant and issuance of cheque 239386, towards discharge of loan claimed by the complainant, however, the accused specifically contended that, he had borrowed sum of Rs.3,70,000/ in the year 2006 april, that has been repaid along with interest amount of Rs.7,02,000/, inspite of that, complainant did not return his cheque, further, he challenges the financial capacity of complainant to lent the claimed amount, since the complainant not returned his cheque issued for security, he approached the City Police Commissioner, the copy of the same sent to the counsel for the complainant, on these grounds, accused claims to be an innocent.
12. Having considering rival contentions of the parties, it is crystal clear that, the accused does not dispute there was financial transaction with complainant and issuance Ex.P1 by the accused infavour of the complainant, however, he disputes the alleged borrowal loan of Rs.
8C.C.No.50980/2017 13,40,000/ during the months of july, september and november 2015 and issuance of Ex.P1 cheque, towards loan of Rs.13,40,000/, so, there is dispute about existence of legally enforceable debt, therefore, it is burden on the complainant to prove the same, however, in view of admission of Ex.P1 cheque and signature i.e., Ex.P1(a) is of the accused, it can be safely held that the complainant has proved the Ex.P1 and Ex.P1(a) is belongs to the accused, so once it is proved, as rightly argued by the complainant by relaying upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Kalamani Tex case, in the presumption U/Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I Act shall be drawn that, accused had issued Ex.P1 cheque to discharge of legally enforceable debt, of Rs.13,40,000/, until contrary is proved, as it is mandatory presumption, however, it is rebuttable presumption, at this stage, it is useful to refer that decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of Rangappa Vs.Mohan, "Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accept and admit the signature on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Sec.139 of N.I. Act has to 9 C.C.No.50980/2017 be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to in Sec.139 of N.I. Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption."
13. Accordingly, the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption that, the claimed debt did not exist and Ex.P1 was not issued towards discharge of claimed debt, further, to rebut the presumption the standard of proofs is preponderance of probability, but not strict proof necessary, at this stage, it is worth to note the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumethi Vij Vs. M/s. Paramount Tech. Fab. Industries, held that, " To disprove the presumption, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt didn't exist or their nonexistence was so probable that a prudent man would under the 10 C.C.No.50980/2017 circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they didn't exist".
14. Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that, the complainant has suppressed material facts and approached this court with uncleaned hands by falsely claiming the advancement of loan Rs.13,40,000/, despite the accused borrowed only Rs.3,70,000/ from the complainant in the year 2006 and part of said borrowed amount has repaid already by depositing in the account pertains to complainant, further, the complainant had no financial capacity to lend such a huge amount, even though the complainant claims to have borrowed an amount of Rs.6,95,000/ from his aunt, Rs.1,05,000/ from Ravi Kumar a teacher and remaining amount of Rs.5,40,000/ out of his savings, has not produced any iota of evidence either to show the complainant had money to advance the loan or examined his aunt and teacher from whom he had borrowed Rs.8,00,000/ amount, that apart, the counsel for the accused urges that, the Ex.P1 cheque is a non CTS cheque, the accused to substantiate his contention that the Ex.P1 cheque was issued in the year 2006 has produced his pass book which 11 C.C.No.50980/2017 reflects the further cheques i.e., 239387 was encahsed or passed in the year 2006 itself, as such, urges to draw an inference infavour of the accused that the Ex.P1 cheque was in custody of the complainant since 2006, as such, the question of issuance of cheque on 15.02.2016, towards alleged transaction is not correct, in addition to that, there are an improvements in the case of the complaint, on these grounds, the accused claims to have rebutted the presumption, in support of his argument the accused placed reliance on decisions Crl.Apl.No.868/2008, Crl.Apl. NO.870/2006, K. Subramani Vs. Damodhara Naidu, Basavalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa, Jhon K. Abrama Vs. Syman C. Abraham and another, H.P Mudalappa Vs. C.A Chowrappa, B.L. Karunakara Hegade Vs. Subhakar Shetty.
15. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant argued by relaying upon Kalamani Tex case that the accused admitted issuance of cheque, though accused contended the cheque was issued in the year 2006, but, not produced any material to substantiate the transaction held in between complainant and the accused in the year 12 C.C.No.50980/2017 2006, Ex.D2 is sufficient for proof of the transaction between the accused and the complainant, on these grounds, the counsel for the complainant argued that, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption, accordingly, he prays to convict the accused.
16. having considering submissions of both the sides I have meticulously examined the materials on records, it clearly transpires, firstly, the accused in order to rebut the presumption taken specific contention that, the Ex.P1 cheque is non CTS cheque and complainant has it's custody since 2006, but, the accused does not disputes the Ex.P2 the bankers memo, i.e., the reason assigned by the banker for returning of cheque not because of non CTS cheque, but, it was returned for "funds insufficient", therefore, the Ex.D5 pass book though reflects on 31.05.2006 itself the subsequent cheques of cheque in question was passed, but, merely based on Ex.D5 does not ipso facto ground to believe the contention that, the cheque in question is non CTS cheque and it was in custody of complainant since 2006, therefore, the said contention of the accused about non CTS and custody of 13 C.C.No.50980/2017 cheque since 2006 by the complainant cannot be acceptable.
17. Secondly, the accused seriously challenges the financial capacity of the complainant to lent huge amount of Rs.13,40,000/, it is true that, the accused as rightly produced the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Basavalingappa Vs. Mudibasavalingappa, Subramani Vs. K. Damodhar naidu, Jhon Abraham vs. Syman C. Abraham and another, in all the above decisions the Apex Court similarly held that, whenever, the accused seriously dispute the financial capacity the complainant must prove his financial capability as on the date of advancement of loan, so, on this settled principle of law, I have examined the materials on record, according to the PW1 he advanced total sum of Rs.13,40,000/ to the accused, but, not at once, but, he paid firstly Rs.3,95,000/ in the month of july 2015 out of his savings, secondly, in the month of september 2015 paid sum of Rs.8,00,000/ by borrowing Rs.6,95,000/ from his aunt and Rs.1,05,000/ out of his savings, thirdly, in the month of november 2015 he paid another sum of Rs.1,50,000/ by borrowing it from Ravi Kumar teacher, in all he totally claims to have 14 C.C.No.50980/2017 paid Rs.13,40,000/ in cash to the accused, however, in cross examination he deposed that, he is an employee of BEML, he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.40,000/ to Rs.45,000/, he is an income tax asesseee, but, accused admitted the salary and occupation of the PW1, however, he specifically challenges to advance the huge of sum of Rs.13,40,000/ in the year 2015, so, it is burden on the complainant to prove that, he had requisite amount to advance the claimed debt to the accused, but, the complainant in his complainant itself clearly stated as follows, "When the accused approached him for a loan of Rs.12,00,000/ in the month of february 2014, he expressed his inability to lent so much of heavy amount".
18. So, the complainant in the complaint itself that, he had no financial capacity to lent huge amount of Rs.12,00,000/, if so the complainant must prove how he could able to mobalise or arranged the claimed amount to advance the accused, for that the accused right from his complaint firmly stated out of his savings he paid Rs.5,40,000/ and by borrowing Rs.6,95,000/ from his 15 C.C.No.50980/2017 aunt and Rs.1,50,000/ from teacher by name Ravikumar, in all he advanced Rs.13,40,000/, the accused specifically denied the borrowal of Rs.8,00,000/ from Ravi Kumar and aunt of the complainant and also savings of Rs.5,40,000/ of the complainant, so, there is specific denial and questions the alleged borrowal of amount by the complainant to advance the loan to the accused, as such, the complainant must produce his statement of account and examine his aunt and one Ravi Kumar teacher, but, despite of his specific assertions the complainant neither produced his account statements to show he had savings amount of Rs.5,40,000/ in between july 2015 to november 2015 nor examined, either his aunt or teacher Ravi Kumar to substantiate his claim that he had borrowed Rs.6,95,000/ from his aunt and Rs.1,50,000/ from Ravikumar, so, the complainant despite denied the financial capacity of him by the accused the complainant not bothered to produce any iota of evidence to prove the requisite amount at the relevant point of time i.e., during the month of july to november 2015 i.e., Rs.13,40,000/ to advance the accused, therefore, as rightly argued by the counsel for the accused, the person who had expressed is inability to lend 16 C.C.No.50980/2017 an amount of Rs.12,00,000/, then how could the very same person had advanced the alleged loan amount of Rs.13,40,000/ is probable defence, because, admittedly PW1 is an employee of BEML drawing Rs.40,000/ to Rs.45,000/ monthly salary and also he is an income tax asesseee, further, admittedly other than his salary complainant had no other sources of money, therefore, he ought to have produce the statement of account to prove that he had savings of Rs.5,00,000/ and borrowal of Rs. 8,40,000/ from his aunt and one Ravi Kumar teacher, he should prove by examining that they paid him the above sum then it was paid to the accused as hand loan, so, non explanation for non examination these prime witnesses and non production of statement of account, pertains to the complainant to prove his savings at the relevant point of time is fatal to the case of the complainant as the complainant himself in the very complaint has categorically stated his inability to lent such huge amount.
19. That apart, the accused during the course of cross examination of PW1 suggested that, Rs.30,000/ on 12.04.2015, sum of Rs.20,000/ on 14.05.2015, 17 C.C.No.50980/2017 Rs.7,500/ 09.09.2015, Rs.30,000/ on 20.03.2015, Rs.3,500/ on 30.09.2015, sum of Rs.25,00,0/ on 08.11.2015, Rs.12,000/ on 21.11.2015, Rs.20,000/ on 23.12.2015, sum of Rs.13,9000/ on 15.02.2015 deposited to the account of the accused bearing No.10461777782, the complainant has admitted the deposit of Rs.30,000/ by the accused to his account, however, he does not disputes the SB account bearing No. 10461777782 is not belongs to him, but, he simply says he did not remember his bank account number, but, even after his cross examination the complainant not choose to produce any documents to show that the above SB accounts No.1046777782 does not belongs to him, even said suggestion has not denied by the complainant during the course of cross examination of accused, so, in absence of specific denial receipt of above amount nearly Rs.1,60,900/ as rightly argued by the counsel for the accused, the complainant has approached this court by suppressing the materials of fact of repayment of amount by the accused through deposit to the account of the complainant, accordingly, the complainant ought to have prove for which transaction the amount deposited by the accused received by him is a material to consider, 18 C.C.No.50980/2017 because, as admitted by the complainant during the course of cross examination he had single financial transaction with the accused, if so, the complainant has received Rs.30,000/ on 12.04.2015, Rs.20,000/ on 14.05.2015, even prior to the date of advancement of the claimed loan, which clearly falsifies the claim of the complainant that, there was only one financial transaction i.e., in the month of july 2015, therefore, the defence of the accused about earlier transaction held in the year 2006 cannot be ruled out as the complainant even though stated he would produce his statement of account i.e., in particularly the SB account bearing No.10461777782.
20. In addition to that, the accused also relied upon the relevant material elicited during the course of cross examination of the DW1 same is extracted here below, I have paid Rs.1,50,000/ through my friends and have paid chit amount of accused, the witness further states that, I was surety for the chit transaction of the accused as the accused has not paid the chit amount to the MSIL, as such, I have paid the said amount. I have not produced any document to show that I have paid the chit amount of 19 C.C.No.50980/2017 the accused to the MSIL, witness volunteers that I can produce document to that effect I have paid around Rs.80,000/ towards the chit amount, "it is true that, I have not stated about the payment chit fund in my complaint, affidavit", so, the above suretyship stood for the accused has been stated for the first time that the complainant also paid the chit amount of the accused in MSIL, if so, it is an improvement and also against to his claim, for that the complainant has not given any explanation, why he has not stated the suretyship for accused and clear the chit amount, therefore, the above admissions of complainant raises reasonable doubt in the claim of complainant.
21. So, considering the entire materials on record, the complainant except producing the cheque and relaying upon only statutory presumption, nothing has produced even though the accused challenges the financial capacity either to prove he had savings of Rs.5,40,000/ and borrowed sum of Rs.8,40,000/ from his aunt and one Ravi Kumar teacher, despite he himself pleaded he was not financially capable to advance or to lent huge sum of Rs.12,00,000/, therefore, at this stage, as rightly relied 20 C.C.No.50980/2017 the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court by the accused in K.Subramani Vs. Damodhar Naidu and Basavalingappa Vs.Mudibasavalingappa, when the accused brought out the materials about the financial incapability of the complainant to lent hand loan the complainant ought to have proved his financial capacity or he had requisite amount to lend the claimed amount, but, herein this case despite of his clear admission in the complaint itself about his financial inability to advance huge sum of Rs.12,00,000/, the complainant must prove how did he mobilize or accumulate the huge sum of Rs.13,40,000/ from whom he borrowed, how much, he borrowed, and who has paid the amount, so, their examination is essential or must in view of his own admission that, he had no financial capacity to lent huge sum of Rs.12,00,000/ as requested by the accused, therefore, even after specific denial of the accused about financial capacity of the complainant, the complainant ought to have prove the financial capacity, but, failed to establish his capacity during the relevant point of time, as such, it is one of the circumstances to believe the defence, that apart, as held supra, the complainant has admitted the receipt of payment nearly Rs.1,60,000/, same has been 21 C.C.No.50980/2017 suppressed by the complainant, that apart, even after admission about receipt of payment by deposit made by the accused to the account of complainant i.e., 10461777782 of SBI J.B. Nagar Branch, the complainant not bothered to produced the statement of account, further, the complainant failed to explain for which transaction he had received the payments through account i.e., 12.04.2015, 14.05.2015 etc., so, in absence of explanation from the complainant about receipt of payment the defence of the accused about earlier transaction cannot be ruled out as the complainant categorically admitted that, in between him and the accused, there was only one financial transaction i.e., the present claimed transaction held during the month of july, september and november 2015, as such, the defence of the accused that, he had borrowed Rs.3,70,000/ from the complainant in the year 2016 is probable, as such, same cannot be ruled out in absence of explanation from the complainant that, for what purpose and which transaction the accused made a deposit nearly Rs.1,60,000/ in his SB account 10461777782.
22C.C.No.50980/2017
22. In addition to that, the PW1 stated that he also paid Rs.80,000/ amount to the chit amount of accused to MSIL as he was stood as a surety for the loan borrowed by the accused in MSIL, but, the said suretyship not at all stated in the complaint and also not produce any document to that effect, even then the complainant claimed that, the amount paid to the chit amount is part and parcel of amount of Rs.1,50,000/ advanced in the month of november 2016, so, in one breath, the complainant says he paid Rs.1,50,000/ to the accused in the month of november 2016, in another breath he claims that, he paid Rs.80,000/ as a surety to MSIL as the accused failed to clear the chit amount, but, the said claim of chit amount includes the claimed advancement of Rs.1,50,0000/ in the month of november 2016 has not been stated, either in legal notice, complaint or in his evidence affidavit, therefore, in absence of proof to that effect the claim i.e., the payment of chit amount by the complainant is not acceptable and also it is contradictory to his claim, as such, considering the entire materials on record, the complainant even after the accused brought out the financial incapability, proof of payments prior to the claimed transaction in support of his defence that, the 23 C.C.No.50980/2017 accused had transaction in the year 2006, but not in the year 2015, and also omission and contradiction brought out in the evidence of the complainant, the complainant has not bothered to produced any iota of evidence to show that, the complainant had requisite amount in his account to pay the claimed amount of the Rs.5,40,000/ out of his savings and borrowal of Rs.8,00,000/ from his aunt and teacher Ravi Kumar, all this grounds raises reasonable doubts about advancement of Rs.13,40,000/ to the accused by the complainant when he himself stated in complaint that, he had no financial capacity to lent huge sum of Rs.13.40.000/ under these fats and circumstances, the defence set up by the accused that, he had transaction with complainant in the year 2006 towards discharge of said loan amount was deposited in the account of the complainant, prior the claimed transaction is probable and acceptable, in view of the admission of the PW1 about reciept of amount deposited by the accused, as such, the accused has brought out the financial incapability of complaint, and proved prior transaction and an improvement in the case of the complaint about suretyship has been clearly probabalise his defence that, the claimed debt did not exit or is not a 24 C.C.No.50980/2017 legally enforceable debt, therefore, the accused has successfully dislodged the presumption that, the claimed debt did not exist, so, once it is discharged the onus shifted on the complainant to prove the alleged transaction independently, but, except producing the Ex.P1 cheque nothing as produced the prove the alleged transaction that, he had savings amount of Rs.5,00,000/ and borrowed Rs.6,95,000/ from his aunt and Rs.1,50,000/ from a teacher Ravi Kumar, even though the accused established the fact of deposit made to SB account of complainant i.e, 10461777782 much prior to alleged transaction, in support of his defence, the complainant has failed to established the amount received by the complainant from the accused through deposit is not related to the transaction claimed by the accused, but, the complainant categorically admitted except this present alleged transaction he had no other financial transaction with the accused prior to this transaction, but, admitted the deposits made by the accused, much prior to the alleged present transaction, as such, the complainant has failed to prove the alleged transaction held in between and the complainant and accused in the months july, september and november 25 C.C.No.50980/2017 2015 respectively, accordingly, the complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused, as such, the accused is not found guilty, accordingly, the accused is entitled for an acquittal, hence, I answered this point in the "Negative".
23. Point No.2: In view of above finding to Point No.1, I proceed to pass following;
ORDER Acting under section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of October, 2021) (M.Vijay), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.
26C.C.No.50980/2017 ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 : Manjunath
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque
Ex.P. 1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.4 & 5 : 2 Postal receipts
Ex.P.6 : Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.P.7 : Complainant lodged by the accused
dated 18022016
Ex.P.8 : Complainant lodged by the accused
dated 18022016
Ex.P.9 : Statement of complainant dated
23.04.2016
Ex.P.10 : Police endorsement dated 09.05.2016
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused:
Ex.D.1 & 2 : Certified copies of 2 complaints dtd 18.02.2016, 08.06.2016 Ex.D.3 : Postal receipt 27 C.C.No.50980/2017 Ex.D.4 : Postal acknowledgment Ex.D.5 : Pass Book (M.Vijay), XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU.