Bangalore District Court
Nagamma N vs B. Meenakshi on 20 January, 2026
1
Cri Appeal No.597/2023
KABC010122402023
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56)
DATED: THIS THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY 2026
PRESENT
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU, M.A., LL.M.
LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.597 / 2023
Appellant/ NAGAMMA N.
accused W/O NAGENDRA P.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.189/5, THIRUPALYA,
HEBBAGODI, BOMMASANDRA,
ANEKAL, BENGALURU - 560 099.
[R/by M/S S.S.N. ASSOCIATES., Advs.]
Vs
Respondent/ B.MEENAKSHI
Complainant W/O VENKATESH B.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.29/1,
4TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
RANGANATHAPURA,
KAMAKSHIPALYA,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
[R/by Sri S.R.S., Adv.]
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed U/s.374[4] of Cr.P.C., by the 2 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 accused against the judgment of conviction dated:
06.04.2023 passed in C.C. No.4817/2021 by learned XXIII ACMM, Bengaluru for the offence under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act [for short 'N.I. Act''].
The parties are referred to their rank before the trial court.
The case of the complainant is briefly stated as follows:
The complainant and the accused well acquainted with each other from past several years and are close relatives. The accused had approached the complainant for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.9.50 lakhs as hand loan for the purpose of garment business. The accused also assured the complainant that she will repay the same within one year. Hence, at the request of the accused between the year 2017-2018 the complainant had paid total sum of Rs.9.50 lakhs to the accused i.e., Rs.7.63 lakhs by way of cash in 10 installments by pledging ornaments in Axis Bank and Manapuram Gold Finance and by raising loan amount further amount of Rs.1,82,000/- through NEFT (son Ramesh account) in the month of April 2018 as hand loan. After borrowing amount of Rs.9.50 lakhs. The accused has not repaid 3 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 the amount. After several requests and demands made by the complainant the accused paid sum of Rs.10,000/- and for remaining amount she issued cheque baring No. 863971 dated 06.11.2020 for sum of Rs.9.40 lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, Bommasandra Branch, Bengaluru and she executed a loan agreement on 06.08.2019 by assuring to clear the amount within one year. As per the instructions of the accused on 06.11.2020 the complainant presented the cheque for realization to the SBI, Bommasandra branch, Bengaluru. But to her utter shock and surprise the cheque came to be dishonoured and returned unpaid on 10.11.2020 with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Immediately after the dishonour of the cheque, the complainant approached the accused and informed about dishonour of the cheque and demanded the amount, but the accused refused to pay the amount. Hence, the complainant got issued statutory notice to the accused on 09.12.2020. The notice sent by RPAD duly served to the accused on 21.12.2020. The accused has not paid the cheque amount. Hence, the complaint.
(2) After filing the complaint, the XXIII ACMM, Bengaluru had taken cognizance of the offence 4 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 punishable u/S.138 of NI Act and registered a case as PCR No.2356/2021. Thereafter recorded sworn statement of the complainant as the complainant filed affidavit in lieu of sworn statement and examined as PW1. The documents Ex.P1 to P6 are marked. On perusal of the complaint averments, the sworn statement of the complainant and the documents, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 02.03.2021 to register the case against the accused u/S.138 of NI Act in Register - III and issued summons to the accused. Accordingly case in C.C.No.4817/2021 came to be registered against the accused. The accused entered appearance before the trial court on 14.07.2022 and engaged her counsel and released on bail. The accusation read over to the accused for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. On the very same day the learned counsel for the accused moved application u/S.145(2) of NI Act, which came to be allowed and the case posted for cross examination of PW1. Thereafter the cross examination of PW 1 taken as nil. The defence evidence is taken as nil. The 313 statement was dispensed with.
The learned Magistrate pronounced the judgment on 06.04.2023 and acting u/S.255(2) of CrPC, the accused 5 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 convicted for the offences punishable u/S.138 of NI Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.9.60 lakhs, out of the said fine amount, a sum of Rs.9.55 lakhs shall be payable to the complainant as compensation u/S.357 of CrPC and the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be payable to the State as fine amount. In default of payment of fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
(3) Aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction, the accused has preferred this appeal on following grounds. The allegations made by the respondent / complainant against the accused are totally false and frivolous. The allegations made in the private complaint are completely false and imaginary. The learned Magistrate has committed grave error in answering point No.1 against the appellant by holding that the appellant has not placed any evidence nor has brought any circumstances to rebut the presumption u/S.118 & 139 of NI Act, regarding debt. The learned Magistrate has failed to notice that as per Ex.P3 legal notice, the respondent has stated that she has paid amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the appellant, but has not mentioned what was the mode of payment. Hence, there is lot of discrepancies in her 6 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 statement pertaining to the payment and mode of payment. The learned Magistrate has failed to notice fact that the complainant has mentioned that she had transferred money through bank transfer. But the complainant has not at all produced any supportive evidence. The appellant is an illiterate and poor person. Th appellant should not be made to suffer due to gross negligence on the part of her counsel for defending before the trial court. PW1 not at all cross examined on the side of the accused. The appellant is entitled for fair and reasonable opportunity to defend herself. The accused should have given an opportunity to cross examine the complainant and to lead defence evidence. Hence, for that purpose the case must be remanded back to the trial court. There is grave miscarriage of justice and an opportunity is not provided to the appellant. It is well settled principle of law is that the statement u/S.313 of CrPC is mandatory. But the trial court has dispensed with recoding of 313 statement. The trial court without providing fair opportunity to the appellant concluded the entire proceedings within 9 months and passed judgment on 06.04.2023. The trial court did not follow principle of law and procedure and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble 7 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 High Court and Hon'ble supreme Court. The learned Magistrate allowed the complaint only on the ground that the appellant has failed to cross examine PW 1 and not led any defence evidence. The appellant being law abiding citizen and having good name in the society an fair opportunity has to be given as per principle of natural justice. The appellant could not appear and tender herself for cross examination before the trial court. It was not intentional one. It was beyond her control. The entire judgment of learned Magistrate is based on assumptions and presumptions, rather than the true facts on record. Hence, on these grounds, the appellant prayed to set aside the judgment in C.C.No.4817/2021 and prays to remand back the matter to the trial court for disposal on merits according to law.
(4) The trial court records received.
(5) The respondent / complainant entered appearance by engaging her counsel.
(6) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent filed their written arguments. The learned 8 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 counsel for the appellant in the written arguments relied on several judgments. He produced the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.D. SUKUR ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM, arising out of Crl. Appeal No.546/2011. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Crl. Revision Petition No.664/2020 decided on 07.02.2025.
(7) I have perused the entire record.
(8) The following points would arise for my consideration:-
Point No.1:- Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.04.2023 passed in C.C.No.4817/2021 by the learned XXIII ACMM, Bengaluru is illegal, and unsustainable?
Point No.2:- Whether the interference of this court is required in the impugned judgment?
Point No.3:- What order?
(9) My findings to the above points are as below:-
Point No.1:- In the AFFIRMATIVE
Point No.2:- In the AFFIRMATIVE
Point No.3:- As per the final order,
for the following
9
Cri Appeal No.597/2023
REASONS
(10) POINT NO.1&2:- These points are taken
up together for discussion to avoid repetition in
discussion of evidence and for the sake of convenience.
(11) The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court without giving an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine PW 1 and without giving an opportunity to the appellant to lead defence evidence hurriedly pronounced the judgment and convicted the accused for the offence punishable u/S.138 of NI Act. He submitted that the trial court even not examined the accused u/S.313 of CrPC. The trial court dispensed with recording of 313 statement which is incorrect. He argued that it is the specific contention of the complainant is that she has lent amount by way of cash to the accused on different dates by pledging her gold ornaments in Axis Bank and Mannapuram Finance and she has also paid some amount by way of cash as well as NEFT during the year 2017-18. But in order to substantiate this contention, the complainant has not produced any documents. He submitted that due to fault of the advocate who representing the accused, the accused should not be suffered. He submitted that even if the 10 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 advocate appearing for the accused was not vigilant in conducting the case, then also it is the duty of the trial court to protect the interest of the accused by providing counsel under legal aid. He argued that on perusal of the trial court records i.e. order sheet no sufficient opportunity was given to the accused either to cross examine PW1 or to lead defence evidence. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 1222 (MD SUKUR ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM), wherein also referred several earlier judgment reported in AIR 2011 SC 308, 2008 (9) SCC 542, 2005 (11) SCC 412, AIR 1978 SC 597. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 1 SCC 101 STATE OF KERALA VS. RASHEED, wherein it is held that the denial of right to cross examine material witness constitute a serious violation of principle of natural justice and thereby vitiating the trial proceedings. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2023 KAR 781 (NANDISH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, wherein it is held that right to be heard is an essential element of the principle of natural justice and any adjudication made in violation thereof is null and void. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 11 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 (2021) 3 SCC 174 (RAVINDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB) regarding sentence. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 (8) SCC 740 (BASAVARAJ R. PATIL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS), wherein it is held that circumstances about which the accused was not asked to explain cannot be used against him. He relied on the judgment in Crl.
Appeal No.1628/2018 (BHUSITH B. AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS), wherein it is held that it is the duty of the court to ensure that an opportunity is given to the accused to engage service of counsel or to ensure free legal assistance to the accused by appointing advocate from Legal Services Authority in order to provide fair trial.
(12) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appellant borrowed sum of Rs.9.50 lakhs from the complainant between 2017 - 2018. The complainant paid amount of Rs.7.63 lakhs by way of cash in 10 installments by pledging ornaments in Axis Bank and Manapuram Finance and also paid a sum of R.1.87 lakhs through NEFT. Thus, in all paid Rs.9.50 lakhs. He argued that for repayment of the hand loan 12 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 amount the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.9.40 lakhs. When the complainant presented the same for encashment the cheque came to be dishonoured as per Ex.P2 bank endorsement as 'Funds Insufficient'. He argued that the oral evidence of PW1 is supported by the documents Ex.P1 to P6. He argued that despite giving sufficient opportunity to the accused to cross examine PW 1 and to lead defence evidence she has failed to cross examine PW1 and to lead defence evidence. Even though the trial court has given sufficient opportunity to the accused to present before the court in order to record 313 statement was remained absent. Hence, the trial court dispensed of recording 313 statement. He argued that there is presumption u/S/139 & 118 of NI Act that holder of the cheque presumed to be holding cheque for legally enforceable debt. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of SUNIL YADAV VS. Y.C. MANJU in Cr.R.P. No.664/2020, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that 313 statement can be waived if the accused deliberately neglects to participate in the trial. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal by confirming the judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial court.
13
Cri Appeal No.597/2023 (13) I have appreciated rival contentions and perused the entire records. Prior to proceed further it is pertinent to note the procedure followed by the trial court in conducting the trial. In order to note how many dates have given by the trial court to both side, the order sheet maintained by the learned Magistrate would go to show that the accused entered appearance by engaging counsel on 14.07.2022. On that day the learned Magistrate read over the substance of accusation to the accused, for which the accused not pleaded guilty and claimed for trial. By virtue of S.145(1) of NI Act, the sworn statement of the complainant considered as her evidence. On the same day the learned counsel for the accused moved application u/S.145(2) of NI Act. Hence, the case posted for cross examination of PW 1, as per order dated 16.07.2022 and case posted for cross examination on 06.08.2022. On 06.08.2022 PW1 remained absent, hence, the case posted on 05.09.2022. On 05.09.2022 PW 1 present and accused absent. The counsel prayed time for cross examination, hence, the case posted for cross examination of PW1 on 28.09.2022. On 28.09.2022 PW1 present, accused absent. Hence, NBW came to be issued against the accused. Thereafter, 14 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 NBW reissued on 04.01.2023, PW1 present accused absent. Hence, cross examination of PW1 taken as nil and NBW reissued against the accused and case is posted for recording of 313 statement. On 03.02.2023 the accused and the counsel absent. Hence, the learned Magistrate dispensed with recording of 313 statement and accused side evidence is also closed. The case posted for arguments. NBW reissued against the accused. That on 27.02.2023 accused appeared before the trial court. On that day, application filed u/S.70(2) of CrPC came to be allowed and NBW of accused recalled by imposing penalty of Rs.100/-. The case posted for arguments. Thereafter on 07.03.2023 the complainant and the accused both remained absent. On that day the learned Magistrate issued NBW against the accused and case also posted for arguments. Thereafter on 24.03.2023 the learned Magistrate posted the case for judgment by taking that arguments are not addressed. Why this court has mentioned the proceedings in the order sheet, because the learned Magistrate issued NBW against the accused on 07.03.2023, thereafter NBW issued against the accused not recalled. When the NBW pending against the accused, the learned Magistrate 15 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 pronounced the judgment on 06.04.2023. It is now settled principle of law is that, once NBW is issued against the accused, without recalling NBW further proceedings cannot be held. In other words, during the pendency of NBW, unless and until NBW is recalled, further proceedings cannot be held.
(14) On perusal of the order sheet maintained by the learned XXIII ACMM, Bengaluru it would go to show that the proceedings were held in the absence of the accused. Even as on the date of judgment also the accused and his counsel absent. The learned Magistrate in the order sheet mentioned that the judgment is passed as per S.353(6) of CrPC. Sec.353 of CrPC in Chapter- XXVII deals with judgment. Provision u/S.353 of CrPC is very clear that the criminal court shall pronounce the judgment in the open court after termination of trial with due notice to the parties or their pleaders. So preliminary requirement is that the trial should be completed or terminated, then it is obligatory for the court to give notice of its decision to pass judgment on subsequent date to both the parties or their pleaders. Therefore, in the absence of the accused, the judgment of conviction cannot be passed. However, there is 16 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 provision u/S.353(7) of CrPC that merely because the judgment passed in the absence of the accused entire proceedings does not vitiate. On perusal of the trial court records, it would go to show that the trial court proceeded the matter as if the case is exparte case.
(15) As I already noted that after the case posted for the cross examination of PW1 on 06.08.2022 PW 1 remained absent. Hence, cross examination deferred to 05.09.2022. but on 05.09.2022 the learned counsel for the accused prayed for time for cross examination. Hence, case posted for cross examination of PW1 on 28.09.2022. On that day the accused remained absent. Hence, NBW issued against him. It is pertinent to note that as on 04.01.2023 the date on which cross examination of PW1 taken as nil. NBW issued against the accused still pending. Without recalling NBW issued against the accused, the learned Magistrate taken cross examination of PW1 as nil. Thereafter case posted for recording 313 statement. NBW also reissued and case posted on 03.02.2023. That on 03.02.2023 the learned Magistrate by noting absence of accused passed an order holding that the statement u/S.313 is ready, but the accused did not utilize an opportunity available u/S.313 17 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 of CrPC. Hence, the accused side evidence is taken as closed. It is important to note here is that the trial court not at all posted the case for defence evidence. The case was posted for examination of accused u/S.313 of CrPC, but on the date fixed for 313 statement the trial court not only dispensed the recording of 313 statement, but also taken the defence evidence of the accused as closed and posted the case for arguments. Thereafter the case goes on posted for arguments, even though the NBW of accused recalled on 27.02.2023. Then at the stage of arguments, again the learned Magistrate issued NBW against the accused as per order dated 07.03.2023. NBW was pending against the accused, and at this stage the arguments on the side of the accused is taken as heard and posted for judgment as per order dated 24.03.2023. Thus, on perusal of the order sheet maintained by the learned Magistrate one-thing is clear that the case was not at all posted for defence evidence.
(16) The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 1222 (MD SUKUR ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the 18 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 absent of the counsel for whatever reason case should not be decided forthwith against the accused, but in such situation the court should appoint counsel who is practicing on the criminal side as amicus curie and decide the case after fixing another date and hearing him. If on the next date of hearing the counsel who ought to have appeared on the previous date, but did no appear, now appear but cannot show sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the earlier date, then he will be precluded from appearing and arguing the case on behalf of the accused, but in such situation it is opened to the accused to either engage another counsel or court may proceed with hearing of the case by the counsel appointed as Amicus Curie. In my humble view, this cited decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to the present case. Due to fault of the counsel for the accused, we cannot made the accused to suffer. It was counsel who appeared for the accused failed to cross examine PW1. Hence, the learned Magistrate taken cross examination of PW1 as nil as per order dated 04.01.2023. On perusal of the trial court records, as I already noted, no hearing dates fixed by the trial court to lead defence evidence from the side of the accused. The trial court by 19 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 dispensing with recording of 313 statement, on the same date held that the accused side evidence also closed. In the cheque bounce case filed u/S.138 of NI Act as there is presumption available to the complainant u/S/118 & 139 of NI Act, opportunity should be given to the accused in order to rebut the presumption. I have gone through the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in CRP No. 664/2020, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that it is for the accused to co-operate for trial and to take opportunity to cross examine witnesses and in spite of several opportunity was given for cross examination and lead its defence evidence, but did not do so. The Hon'ble High Court also held that the matter need not be remanded on the ground that 313 statement was not recorded and the same is the discretion of the Magistrate to dispenses the same having considered the factual aspect of the case. There is no dispute regarding principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in this cited decision. In the present case, on perusal of the trial court records, the case was not at all posted for defence evidence. Hence, no opportunity was given to the accused in order to lead defence evidence. As the accused remained absent, NBW issued against the 20 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 accused, but without recalling NBW the trial court proceeded further and taken cross examination of PW 1 as nil, dispensed of recording of 313 statement and also taken the accused side evidence as closed and then without hearing the main arguments pronounced the judgment. The trial court proceeded with the matter and pronounced the judgment, as if case is exparte case. The learned counsel for the appellant in his written arguments relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court reported in (2019) 1 SCC 101 STATE OF KERALA VS. RASHEED, wherein it is held that the denial of right to cross examine material witness constitute a serious violation of principle of natural justice and thereby vitiating the trial proceedings. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2023 KAR 781 (NANDISH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, wherein it is held that right to be heard is an essential element of the principle of natural justice and any adjudication made in violation thereof is null and void. In my humble view the principle of these cited decisions are aptly applicable to the present case.
(17) It is the case of the complainant is that the 21 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 accused availed hand loan of Rs.9.50 lakhs from her between 2017 to 2018 and she paid sum of Rs.7.63 lakhs to the accused by way of cash in 10 installments by pledging ornaments in Axis Bank and Manapuram Finance and by releasing the lease amount further she has paid sum of Rs.1.87 lakhs through NEFT to Ramesh bank account in the month of April 2018. The complainant in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW1 and documents Ex.P1 to P6 are marked through her. Ex.P1 is the cheque dated 06.11.2020 for Rs.9.40 lakhs. Ex.P2 is the bank endorsement dated 11.11.2020 to show the cheque returned with an endorsement. Ex.P3 is legal notice dated 09.12.2020, wherein the complainant called the accused to pay cheque amount of Rs.9.40 lakhs within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Ex.P4 is the postal receipt for having sent legal notice. Ex.P5 is the postal acknowledgment for having served notice to the accused. Ex.P6 is the agreement dated 06.08.2019. No doubt, there is mention regarding Ex.P1 cheque in Ex.P6 agreement. According to the complainant she has lend amount to the accused by pledging her gold ornaments in Axis Bank and Manapuram Finance and by releasing lease amount. But 22 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 in order to substantiate this contention she has not produced the bank statement and the relevant documents. No doubt this court as it is found necessary to remand this matter by giving opportunity to the accused to cross examine PW1 and to lead evidence this court not wish to touch upon the merits of the case. As the oral evidence of PW1 so also documents Ex.P1 to P6 are remained unchallenged, hence, the trial court by drawing presumption available u/S.139 & 118 of NI Act held that Ex.P1 cheque issued for repayment of debt or liability. I have already referred regarding proceedings held before the trial court. On perusal of the order sheet maintained by the trial court, it would go to show that no sufficient opportunity was given to the accused to cross examine PW1 and to lead defence evidence. The statement of the accused u/S.313 of CrPC was not recorded. The trial court during the pendency of the NBW issued against the accused proceeded further and taken cross examination of PW1 as nil and by dispensing 313 statement and taken defence evidence of the accused as closed and then without hearing the arguments on the side of the accused, posted the case for judgment and pronounced the judgment and convicted the accused for 23 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 the offence punishable u/S.138 of NI Act. Such procedure held by the trial court is not legal. This appellate court is of the opinion that in order to prove the defence of the accused by preponderance of probabilities an opportunity is to be given to the accused to cross examine PW1 and to lead defence evidence. Hence, this court does not wish to touch upon the merits of the case. In order to give an opportunity to the accused / appellant to cross examine PW1 and to lead defence evidence, there is no option to this court but to remand the case to the trial court with a direction to proceed afresh from the stage of cross examine of PW 1. In view of the above finding this court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment has to be set aside. Hence, I answer point No.1 &2 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
(18) POINT NO.3:- In view of my findings on point No.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant / accused U/s.374 [4] of Cr.P.C. is hereby ALLOWED.
The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned XXIII ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C. No.4817/2021 24 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 dated 06.04.2023 is hereby SET ASIDE.
The matter is returned to the trial court with a direction to restore the case in C.C.No.4817/2021 on its file and proceed from the stage of cross examination of PW1.
Both the appellant and the respondent ar hereby directed to appear before the XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru without notice on 16.02.2026.
This appeal is allowed with cost with a direction to the appellant to pay cost of Rs.6,000/- to the respondent before the trial court within 15 days from 16.02.2026. It is also directed to the appellant / accused and learned counsel for the appellant and complainant to co- operate with the trial court for speedy disposal of the case.
The office is directed to send back TCR forthwith to learned XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru, along with a copy of this judgment.
[Dictated to the SG-I, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of JANUARY 2026] (MOHAN PRABHU), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-56)