Bangalore District Court
Rallis India Limited vs Sri Manikantha Agro Agency on 8 January, 2026
SCCH-17 1 C.C. No. 4167/2023
KABC020141072023
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL. JUDGE COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L., LL.M.,
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & ACJM,
BENGALURU
Dated: This the 8th day of January - 2026
C.C. No. 4167/2023
Complainant : M/s Rallis India Limited,
Having its office at
Plot No.3, KIADB 4th Phase,
Bommasandra,
Bengaluru - 560099.
Represented by its Authority Letter
Holder Mr. Probal Dutta
Assistant Counsel
(By Sri. Jayaramaiah, Advocate)
V/s.
Accused : 1. M/s. Sri. Manikantha Agro
Agency, Nagnoor Building,
B.B. Road, Shahapur,
Yadgiri District - 585 223.
2. Mr. Linganagouda Patil,
Proprietor,
SCCH-17 2 C.C. No. 4167/2023
M/s. Sri. Manikantha Agro
Agency, Nagnoor Building,
B.B. Road, Shahapur,
Yadgiri District - 585 223.
(By Sri. M.Muddayya, Advt)
1. The offence Under Sec. 138 of NI Act
2. Plea of accused Pleaded guilty
3. Final order Conviction
4. Date of judgment 08.01.2026
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complainant's case are as follows:
In the complaint it is alleged that the complainant is is a company registered under the companies Act and it is engaged primarily in the business of manufacture and marketing of Agro inputs comprising crop protection SCCH-17 3 C.C. No. 4167/2023 products, plants growth nutrients and seeeds and provides agri-solutions. The Metahelix Life Sciences Limited was merged into complainant Rallis India Limited vide order dated 11.11.2019 of the National Company Law Tribunal.
The complainant alleged that the accused No.1 is a proprietory based agency managed by its proprietor accused No.2. The complainant stated that as per the orders placed by the accused No.1 and 2, the complainant had supplied the Hybrid seeds to the accused No.1 on various dates. It is further stated that as per the statement of accounts maintained by them the accused No.1 and 2 were due to the complainant in a sum of Rs. 6,14,568/-.
It is further alleged that the accused No.1 and 2 to discharge the liability, the accused No.2 being the proprietor of the accused No.1 issued a cheque bearing No. 003683 dated 12.07.2021 for Rs.6,14,568/-drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Shahapur branch. As per the SCCH-17 4 C.C. No. 4167/2023 assurance of the accused No.1 and 2, the complainant presented the said cheque through its banker i.e., HDFC Bank, Richmond road branch, Bangalore, but the said cheque has been returned unpaid with an endorsement "Exceed Arrangements" through memo dated 14.07.2021.
After the intimation, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 05.08.2021 and the said legal notice duly received to the accused No.1 and 2 on 10.08.2021. After issuance of notice also the accused has neither repaid the loan amount nor replied to the said notice. Hence, the complainant having no other option has filed the present case by alleging that the accused No.1 and 2 with an intention to cheat them has issued the said cheque.
3. Upon taking cognizance and after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the summons was issued against the accused. Accused No.2 being the proprietor of the accused No.1 company appeared through his counsel and released on bail. The plea of the accused No.1 and 2 recorded by this court. The accused SCCH-17 5 C.C. No. 4167/2023 No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed that they have defence to make. The accused No.1 and 2 also filed application under Sec. 145 (2) of NI Act which came to be allowed by providing the opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the PW.1.
4. In order to discharge the burden cast upon the complainant, the complainant examined its official as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to P16 were produced. The PW.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused. The accused No.1 and 2 also explained about all the incriminating circumstances available against them by framing the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied all the incriminatory materials found against them as false and also submitted that they have evidence to lead. On the other hand, accused No.2 has examined himself as DW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The DW.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. Heard the arguments of complainant. SCCH-17 6 C.C. No. 4167/2023
6. On the basis of above contentions and documents, the following points that arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused No.2 being the proprietor of the accused No.1 company has issued cheque bearing No. 003683, dated 12.07.2021 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Sahapur branch for a sum of Rs.6,14,568/-
towards the discharge of legally recoverable debt, which came to be dishonoured as "Exceeds Arrangements"
and further the accused No.1 and 2 have failed to clear the cheque amount within the statutory period in spite of issuance of legal notice by the complainant and thereby the accused No.1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2) What order?
7. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No. 1 : In the affirmative.
Point No. 2 : As per the final order for the following reasons.
REASONS
8. Point No. 1 :- It is much relevant to discuss about the ingredients of section 138 of N.I. Act to SCCH-17 7 C.C. No. 4167/2023 constitute the offence under this Act. In this regard, the complainant has to show:
i) That the cheque and the signature was belongs to the accused;
ii) Such cheque was issued towards legally recoverable debt;
iii) The said cheque came to be dishonoured;
iv) The accused has not paid the amount covered under the cheque even after receipt of notice within stipulated time;
9. To substantiate its case, the complainant company examined its official as PW1 and Ex.P1 to P16 are produced in support of their case.
10. First, for the purpose of establishing the prima facie case, if we perused the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which are marked as Ex.P1 to P16, the Ex.P1 is a cheque, dated 12.07.2021 and the said cheque was presented and returned unpaid on 14.07.2021. As per Ex.P2 bank endorsement the cheque was presented within its validity period. As such, The SCCH-17 8 C.C. No. 4167/2023 requirement under section 138(a) of N.I. Act is fulfilled. Further, upon presentation of the said cheque Ex.P1, the drawee bank has given endorsement that the said cheque Ex.P2 was returned unpaid for the reason of " Exceeds Arrangements". The said endorsement of the bank is marked as Ex.P2. Thereafter, the complainant has issued legal notice, which is marked as Ex.P3. Ex.P3 is a written legal notice, dated 05.08.2021. The cheque was dishonored and returned as per Ex.P2 dated 14.07.2021. The Ex.P3 legal notice was posted on 05.08.2021 as per Ex.P4 - postal receipt which is within 30 days of the receipt of information of cheque being unpaid. As such, the requirement under section 138(b) of N.I. Act is also fulfilled. The said Ex.P3 legal notice was served on the accused on 10.08.2021. Thereafter the accused has neither given any reply nor made any payment as such the complaint was filed on 17.09.2021, which is within the period of limitation. As such, the requirement under section 138(c) of N.I. Act are also fulfilled. SCCH-17 9 C.C. No. 4167/2023
11. By considering these ingredients of documentary evidence, it can be held that the components of section 138 of N.I. Act are fulfilled. Keeping this in view let us proceed to examine the oral evidence available on the record.
12. I am of the opinion that there is no need of repeating the entire case of the complainant as it is already narrated in the inception of the judgment.
13. By considering this and also on the evidence available on the record, it is admitted by the accused No.1 and 2 that, accused No.2 is the proprietor of the accused No.1 and the Ex.P1 cheque belongs to the accused No.1 and the signature on Ex.P.1 which is marked as Ex.P.1(a) belongs to the accused No.2 who is the Proprietor of the accused No.1 agency. Further the accused No.1 and 2 also not denied the allegation of signing and issuing the Ex.P.1 cheque to the complainant company. The accused No.1 and 2 has cross-examined the PW1 and also led defence evidence by examining the SCCH-17 10 C.C. No. 4167/2023 accused No.2 as DW1 to disprove the case of the complainant and to rebut the statutory presumption available in favour of the complainant. But interestingly even though the Ex.P3 legal notice was served on the accused No.1 and 2 as per Ex.P6 and 7 Postal Acknowledgments, the accused No.1 and 2 have not given any reply. The accused No.2 while answering the statements recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. has only answered by denying the case of the complainant. By considering the evidence of DW1 and the suggestions made to the PW.1 at the time of cross-examination, it is the defence of the accused No.1 and 2 is that, the complainant company supplied duplicate seeds to the accused and even though the accused has paid the entire amount to the complainant, the complainant has filed the false case. In this regard the chief-examination of DW1 is hereby quoted for the better appreciation the defence of the accused.
SCCH-17 11 C.C. No. 4167/2023CHIEF EXAMINATION OF DW1/ACCUSED NO.2:
"ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಧೆಯವರೊಂದಿಗೆ ನಾನು ಸುಮಾರು 22 ಲಕ್ಷಕ್ಕೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ವಹಿವಾಟನ್ನು ನಡೆಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಧೆಯವರಿಗೆ ನಾನು ಪ್ರತಿಯೆಾಂದು ಪಾವತಿಯನ್ನು ಸಹಾ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ನ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ನಾನು ಸಮಾರು 17 ಲಕ್ಷಕ್ಕೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಮೊತ್ತದ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಧೆಗೆ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
ದಿ.15.06.2021 ರಂದು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಧೆಗೆ 50 ಸಾವಿರ ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಆರ್ ಟಿ ಜಿ ಎಸ್ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ದಿ.29.06.2021 ರಂದು ಮತ್ತೊ ಮ್ಮೆ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಧೆಗೆ 50 ಸಾವಿರ ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಆರ್ ಟಿ ಜಿ ಎಸ್ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ದಿ.14.07.2021 ರಂದು ಮತ್ತೊ ಮ್ಮೆ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಧೆಗೆ 50 ಸಾವಿರ ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಆರ್ ಟಿ ಜಿ ಎಸ್ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ದಿ.31.08.2021 ರಂದು ಸಹಾ ಮತ್ತೊ ಮ್ಮೆ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಧೆಗೆ 30 ಸಾವಿರ ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಆರ್.ಟಿ ಜಿ ಎಸ್ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ದಿ.31.12.2021 ರಂದು ಮತ್ತೊ ಮ್ಮೆ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಧೆಗೆ 25 ಸಾವಿರ ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಆರ್ ಟಿ ಜಿ ಎಸ್ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಈ ಕುರಿತಂತೆ ನಾನು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಸ್ಟೇಟ್ ಮೆಂಟ್ ಅನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದು , ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಶಾನೆಯಾಗಿ ಗುರುತಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕೆಂದು ಕೇಳಿಕೊಳ್ಳು ತ್ತೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ನಿ.ಡಿ 1 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು".
The accused No.2 being the proprietor of the accused No.1 company admitted that he was purchasing the seeds from the complainant company as alleged by the complainant company. Thereby, the accused No.1 and 2 admitted the alleged business transaction with the complainant company. But the defence of the accused No.1 and 2 that they have paid the entire due amount. SCCH-17 12 C.C. No. 4167/2023
14. The complainant to discharge its initial burden by examining its official filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination by deposing that the accused has issued Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant company for the repayment of the amount due towards the orders placed by them. In this regard the complainant also produced the Ex.P.13 sales order 7 in nos, Ex.P14 Invoices 7 in nos, Ex.P15 LR receipts 11 in nos and Ex.P16 statement of accounts. These documents prima-facie establishes that on the basis of orders placed by the accused No.1 and 2 the goods/hybrid seeds were delivered to accused No.1. The documents produced by the complainant along with the Ex.P.1 cheque supported the case of the complainant in respect of the amount due by the accused No.1 and 2. Even at the time of cross-examination of PW1 the learned counsel for accused suggested that as on 11.07.2021 the balance was shown as Rs.6,14,568/-. The said outstanding balance shown in the Ex.P.16 is not disputed by the accused.
SCCH-17 13 C.C. No. 4167/2023
15. It is the defence of the accused No.1 and 2 that the complainant company has filed the false complaint even though they have cleared the entire due amount. In this regard the accused No.1 and 2 produced Ex.D1 and D2 accounts statements by showing the payments made to the complainant company.
16. The Ex.P.16 is the customer account statement of the complainant company. Ex.D1 and D2 are the account statement of the accused No.1 and 2. On perusal of the account statement marked at Ex.D.1 it reflects the payment made by the accused in favour of the complainant. The Ex.D.1 is account statement of 01.06.2021 to 31.12.2021. The payments made under Ex.D.1 are very much reflecting in the account statement of the complainant which is produced at Ex.P16. Ex.P.16 contains the payments made by the accused for period from 01.02.2020 to 19.03.2025. Thereby all the payments shown in the Ex.D1 and D2 are reflecting in SCCH-17 14 C.C. No. 4167/2023 the Ex.P.16 customer account statement of the complainant company.
17. The complainant established the alleged transaction and also the alleged due amount as mentioned in the Ex.P1 cheque. It is very important to note that the accused No.1 and 2 not disputed the issuance of cheque to the complainant. If the due amount was entirely paid by the accused No.1 and 2, why the accused No.1 and 2 issued the Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant is not explained by the accused No.1 and 2. In other words, there is no explanation is offered by the accused No.1 and 2 by showing that how the Ex.P1 cheque reached the hands of the complainant company. Thereby if the entire amount was paid by the accused No.1 and 2 towards the purchase of seeds made by them why they have issued Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant. No probable defence or explanation is offered by the accused persons by showing the reason for issuance of Ex.P1 cheque even after the clearance of SCCH-17 15 C.C. No. 4167/2023 outstanding amount. Except denying the outstanding the accused has not placed any probable defence in support of his contentions.
18. The accused No.1 and 2 have admitted the cheque and the signature on the Ex.P1 cheque. Further the another contention is urged by the accused persons by stating that the hybrid seeds supplied by the complainant were duplicate seeds as such the public faced huge problem. Except suggesting that the supplied seeds were of duplicate seeds, no probable evidence or documents were produced by showing that the seeds supplied by the complainant were duplicate seeds. At this point it is very important to note that the legal notice issued as per Ex.P3 was duly served on the accused No.1 and 2 as per Ex.P.6 and 7 postal acknowledgment. When the legal notice was served why the accused No.1 and 2 not replied to the complainant company by saying that the seeds which were supplied are of duplicate as such they are not going to pay the amount for duplicate seeds. SCCH-17 16 C.C. No. 4167/2023 Non issuance of reply shows that the defence of duplicate seeds is taken as an afterthought defence before this court. If the duplicate seeds were supplied by the complainant why the same was not complained by the accused persons before the competent authority at that time only is not explained by the accused No.1 and 2. Hence, without probable supporting evidence the said contention also cannot be accepted.
19. Further the present case was filed by the complainant in the form of PCR on 17.09.2021. Thereafter the accused transferred Rs.25,000/- to the account of the complainant on 31.12.2021. The said transaction is visible in the account statement produced by the accused at Ex.D.2. The said amount was transferred by the accused without the knowledge of the complainant after the filing of present case. This shows that the accused is well aware about the due amount payable by him to the complainant. The said amount of Rs.25,000/- is also reflecting in Ex.P16 account SCCH-17 17 C.C. No. 4167/2023 statement. Merely because Rs.25,000/- was transferred by the accused without the knowledge of the complainant to the account of the complainant it will not absolve the entire liability of the accused.
20. As discussed above the issuance of Ex.P1 cheque by the accused for the payment of their due amount stands proved.
21. Once the case of the complainant is proved, now it is the burden of the accused to disprove the case of the complainant by the probabalized evidence. To disprove the case, the accused No.1 and 2 not raised any probable defence. Mere suggesting by denying the amount will not help the accused to disprove the case of the complainant. Hence, there is no hesitation for this court to hold that the accused failed to disprove the case of the complainant and rebut the presumption.
22. Once the issuance and signature is proved it is the burden of the accused to rebut the presumptions under section 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act, which is SCCH-17 18 C.C. No. 4167/2023 available in favour of the complainant. The same was observed in the following judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
K.L.J. 2000(3) Page 481 Dr.K.G. Ramachandra Gupta & Another V/S Dr. G. Adinarayana.
"NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881, Sections 138 and 139 - Cheque - Presumption about drawing of -
Signature on cheque, admitted to be that of accused - Held, presumption envisaged in Section 139 that cheque was issued for discharging antecedent liability existing on date which cheque bears, can be legally drawn."
23. Under the presumption available under section 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, if the accused is taking up the defence of non- existence of legally enforcible debt as mentioned in any Negotiable Instrument, it is his/accused burden to rebut the presumption. But in this case, the except mere denial no probable defence is raised by the accused No.1 and 2 by showing that they have cleared the entire due amount even after the issuance of cheque.
SCCH-17 19 C.C. No. 4167/2023
24. The trial of cases under N.I. Act is supported with the presumption available under section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act. For the proper adjudication of the matter the accused has to rebut the above said presumption provided under the N.I. Act in favour of complainant through other evidence. Mere denial at the time of recording statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not enough to rebut the presumption to the extent that the Ex.P1 cheque was not issued to the complainant for the payment of the due amount. No evidence is placed by the accused by showing that he has never issued cheques towards the payment of due amount. Hence, the said contention of the accused No.1 and 2 cannot be acceptable. Further, in this case the accused not raised any proable doubt on the case of the complainant about the alleged transaction. Hence, without any hesitation it can be held that the presumption available under section 138 of N.I. Act in favour of the complainant stands unrebutted.
SCCH-17 20 C.C. No. 4167/2023
25. Thereby, further, the transaction and issuance of cheque is proved before this court. Section 139 and 118 of N.I. Act has favourable presumptions in favour of the complainant. The accused No.1 and 2 failed to rebut these presumptions. When the presumptions are not rebutted and defence not proved by the evidence placed by the complainant, the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the presumption. The accused No.1 and 2 not placed any probable defence evidence to disprove the case of the complainant. Hence, the answer of the accused No.1 and 2 is not acceptable in the absence of proper evidence. Thereby, it can be conclude that the Ex.P1 cheque was issued in the nature provided under section 138 of N.I. Act. Mere denial is not sufficient to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant. In this regard, it is very incumbent to quote the following judgments of the Apex Court.
A.I.R. 2010 SC 1898 Rangappa V/S Mohan "The presumption mandate by Sec.
139 of the Act does indeed including SCCH-17 21 C.C. No. 4167/2023 the existence of the legally enforceable debt or liability."
Further, in the judgement quoted supra it is also held that "The burden of the drawer of the instrument is not just to create a doubt or offer explanation, but such explanations has to be proved satisfactorily".
A.I.R. 2001 SC 2895 K.N. Beena V/S Muniyappan and Another:
"The burden to prove the consideration for the cheque lies on the accused if not rebutted, the presumption is that the cheque was issued for consideration. It is for the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued towards a debt or liability. He has to lead credible evidence for the rebuttal of this presumption. Mere denial of averments will be suffice to shift this burden on to the complainant."
The above quoted citations are squarely applicable to this case as there is no probable defence evidence on the allegations of the complainant company.
26. The accused No.1 and 2 not made out any sufficient grounds to disprove the complainant's case. In SCCH-17 22 C.C. No. 4167/2023 the trial of the cases under the N.I. Act if the accused taken the defence of non-existence of the legally recoverable debt as mentioned in the Ex.P.1 cheque, it is the burden of the accused to rebut and to prove that he is not liable to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque. But, the accused has not made any grounds by showing that the cheque which were produced in this case were not backed with consideration. On the other hand, the complainant successfully proved his case beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
27. Point No.2: In this case, both the parties have taken sufficient opportunity for the adjudication of the case. Even after the service of notice accused not made any efforts to clear the due amount. The PCR was filed on 17.09.2021 but the complainant led his sworn statement on 15.05.2023. this shows that the complainant also took nearly 2 years for sworn statement. By keeping the time in which the complainant and accused has spent in SCCH-17 23 C.C. No. 4167/2023 trial of this case the compensation amount has to be decided. Further after filing of the PCR on 17.09.2021 the accused transferred Rs.25,000/- to the account of the complainant on 31.12.2021. Hence the accused is at liberty to deduct the said amount of Rs.25,000/- in the total amount of compensation going to be awarded under this judgment. In view of the above findings on point No. 1, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER The accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty of an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
In exercise of powers vested under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973, the accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Further, the accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.7,35,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs thirty five thousand only). In default, the accused No.2 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for the period of six months. It is clarified that the serving on default sentence will not absolve the accused No.1 and 2 on payment of the fine amount.
SCCH-17 24 C.C. No. 4167/2023
The liability of the accused No.1 and 2 to pay the fine amount is joint and several. Further it is held that after realizing the fine amount from the accused No.1 and 2, a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- (Rupees Seven lakh twenty five thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the remaining Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) shall be adjusted towards the expense of the State.
The accused No.1 and 2 are at liberty to deduct Rs.25,000/- which was paid by them on 31.12.2021 i.e., after the filing of this case in the total amount of compensation payable by them.
The bail bonds of the accused No.2 stands cancelled.
The office is directed to furnish the free copy of judgment to the accused No.2.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 8th day of January, 2026) (KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM) XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM, BANGALORE..
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the complainant:
PW 1 : Probal Dutta SCCH-17 25 C.C. No. 4167/2023 List of witnesses examined for the accused :
DW.1 : Linganagouda Patil List of documents marked for the complainant:
Ex.P1 Cheque
Ex.P1(a) Signature of accused
Ex.P2 Bank return memo
Ex.P3 Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P4 & 5 Postal receipts
Ex.P6 & 7 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P8 Notarized copy of Authorization letter
Ex.P9 Notarized copy Board Resolution
Ex.P10 Order copy of Company Tribunal Mumbai
Ex.P11 Order copy of Scheme of merger
Ex.P12 Order copy of Company Law Tribunal
Bengaluru
Ex.P13 Sales order 7 in nos collectively marked
Ex.P14 Invoices 7 in nos collectively marked
Ex.P15 LR receipts 11 in nos collectively marked
Ex.P16 Statement of account along with certificate
U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act
List of documents marked for the accused :
Ex.D1 & D2 Bank statements (KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM) XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM, BANGALORE..