Bangalore District Court
Siddhesh. U vs Shashikumari B.S on 22 December, 2025
KABC0C0337552023
IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2025
Present : SANTHOSH S.KUNDER, B.A.,LLM,
XIV Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 of Cr.P.C
C.C.No.61767/2023
Complainant Mr.Siddesh.U.,
S/o Umapathy.C.,
Age: 41 years,
No.426, 6th Cross, 7th Main,
Bhuvaneshwaringar,
T.Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru-560057
(By Sri.M.Sharass Chandra, Advocate)
V/s
Accused Shashikumari.B.S.,
W/o Manjegowda,
No.28, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross,
Suggappa Layout,
Peenya Small Industrial Area,
Laggere, Bengaluru-560058
(By Sri.K.Vijaya Kumar, Smt.Sunitha.R,
K.M Manjunath, Umesh.V &
Smt.Sandhya.N, Advocates)
2 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
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:
2.1. Complainant and husband of the accused by
name, Manjegowda are friends since 18 years.
Complainant knows the accused since she married
Manjegowda. By reposing faith on the accused and her
husband, the complainant had entrusted his insurance ID
as well as insurance ID's of his family members to the
accused and her husband on an understanding that the
accused shall collect the premium amount of insurance
policies from the customers through the account of Smart
Cover Services, owned by the accused. It was also agreed
that the complainant has to transfer IRDA commission and
other commission amount received from the insurance
companies to the account of Smart Cover Services.
Initially, the payments were collected smoothly from the
policy holders and insurance companies. Thereafter, upon
analyzing monthly and daily report, it has come to the
notice of the complainant that the insurance policy amount
3 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
was misused by the accused for her personal use. After
approaching the insurance companies, complainant had
come to know that the payments were not made to the
complainant's insurance ID and his family members ID's
which was collected from the customers/policy holders.
Accused had misused funds around ₹60,00,000/-. Since
the complainant and his family were receiving the
calls/notices from the insurance companies, there was no
option for the complainant but to clear the entire
outstanding amount to the insurance companies by
borrowing the loans from bank, friends and relatives.
2.2. Thereafter, the complainant approached the
accused and demanded her to make payment of the
misappropriate money. After much persuasion, she has
issued a cheque bearing No.001105 drawn from her
account maintained in ICICI Bank, Prashanth Nagar
Branch vide, account bearing No.736305000097, which
came to be dishonored.
2.3. Thereafter, on the intervention of elders and
well wishers of both parties, they came to a mutual
agreement, which was reduced into writing on 21.04.2022
under which, the accused has agreed for the following:-
"A) Accused and her husband have agreed to
give the complainant the Property
bearing/Assessment Register Number 196,
Property no 179/2 and 10/1 situated at
Dabbahalli village, Netkal Post, B.G Pura Hobli,
4 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District measuring 18
guntas on behalf of the amount and the market
value of the property is Rs. 45,00,000/-
(Rupees Forty Five Lakh Rupees) with the
Easementary rights.
B) Accused and her husband also
agreed to pay the balance amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) in
the form of Cash/RTGS/IMPS/NEFT. The first
instalment of Rupees Seven lakhs fifty
thousand will be paid within two months from
the date of signing the Mutual Agreement and
the remaining seven lakhs fifty thousand shall
be paid within the next two months of paying
the first instalment and still it has not taken
place."
2.4. Pursuant to the agreement, on 03.12.2022 the
accused and her husband have registered property bearing
No.10/1 and 10/1/A measuring 386.29 meter (3.81
guntas) and 751.12 meter (7.42 guntas) respectively,
situated in B.G.Pura Hobli, Malavalli, Taluk, Dabbahalli,
Netkallu, Mandya, for a market value of ₹25,00,000/-. As
per mutual agreement, the accused has agreed to transfer
land measuring 0-18 guntas, but it was found that the
land that was transferred under the registered sale deed
was around 0-10 guntas only.
2.5. Accused and her husband have requested
three months time to clear the outstanding. But, both have
started to evade the complainant. After much followup and
demand, they have asked the complainant to deposit the
5 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
cheques by filling the amount. It is averred that the cheque
bearing No.000258 dated 06.07.2023, for ₹20,00,000/-
drawn on HDFC Bank, Shiva Nagar Branch belongs to the
accused and another cheque bearing No.216413 drawn on
Axis Bank, Banashankari branch from the account of the
husband of the accused were dishonored on 07.07.2023 for
the reason 'funds insufficient'. In this regard, the
complainant has caused a legal notice to accused and her
husband. But, they have neither complied with the
demand made in the notice nor issued reply.
2.6. When things should thus, accused and her
husband have telephoned the complainant to request him
to meet them. Accordingly, both met the complainant near
bus stop in 18th Cross, Malleshwaram and requested him
to not to proceed with prosecution and issued cheque
bearing No.028551 dated 19.09.2023 drawn on
Veerashaiva Sahakari Bank Limited for ₹35,00,000/-
promising that the cheque will be honored this time.
Believing their words, complainant has presented the
cheque for encashment in IndusInd Bank Limited,
Malleshwaram branch. But to his stock and surprise,
cheque was dishonored on 21.09.2023 for the reason
'funds insufficient'. After the receipt of intimation of
dishonor from the bank, the complainant issued a legal
notice dated 16.10.2023 calling upon the accused to pay
the amount covered under the dishonored cheque within
6 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The said
notice served on the accused on 09.10.2023. But, she has
failed to comply with the demand made in the notice.
Therefore, this complaint is filed.
3. This court took cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Complainant was
examined on oath. As prima facie, case made out, criminal
case was registered and accused was summoned.
4. Pursuant to the summons, accused has
appeared before the court and admitted to bail. After
compliance of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, this court recorded her
plea. She has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Sworn statement affidavit of complainant
treated as evidence post-cognizance stage. Documents at
Ex.P-1 to 17 marked.
6. Accused was examined under Section Sec.313
of Cr.P.C. She has denied incriminating evidence. She has
not led defence evidence. Documents at Ex.D1 to 15
marked for accused in the cross-examination of PW-1.
7. Heard argument on both side.
8. In addition to oral argument, learned defence
counsel has filed notes of argument.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant at the out
set argued that execution of Ex.P9/mutual agreement and
signatures of accused appearing on the document are not
7 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
in dispute. He has submitted that the cheque at Ex.P1
belongs to the accused and signature on the cheque is
admitted. While pointing out that the accused has not
submitted reply to the legal notice, learned counsel has
argued that the defence put forth by the accused during
trial is afterthought. He has submitted that before
executing Ex.P9, draft of the same was shared with the
complainant by one of the advocates for the accused which
is evident from e-mails at Ex.P10/P11. It was the advocate
who has drafted MOU. Under these circumstances the
defence that the document was got executed by putting the
accused under fear/thereat cannot be believed. It was
submitted that the complainant resigned from the Smart
Cover Services way back on 14.10.2020 which can be seen
from resignation letter/e-mail at Ex.D1 whereas, the
accused has opened her account in Veershaiva Sahakari
Bank Limited on 30.04.2021. Therefore, the defence that
the cheque was issued in the year 2021 cannot be believed.
It was submitted that the documents produced by the
accused disprove her defence. On the other hand,
complainant has produced sufficient documents to prove
the guilt of the accused. Therefore, learned counsel for the
complainant has prayed for convicting the accused.
10. On the other hand, learned defence counsel has
argued that:-
8 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
Cheque was not issued in discharge legally
recoverable debt. It was issued along with other
cheques for payment of insurance premium;
Cheque in question was very much in
possession of the complainant since August
2021 which is admitted by him in his cross-
examination;
Accused has neither the recipient nor the
author of e-mails at Ex.P10 and 11. This is also
admitted by the complainant during his cross-
examination;
Certificate under Section 65(B) of Indian
Evidence Act which is at Ex.P12 does not meet
the requirements of the provision so as to
believe the e-mail;
Documents at Ex.P13 is of no relevant to the
case on hand;
Printout/copies of excel sheets at Ex.P14
indicating bank transactions is also not proved
in accordance with law;
Printout of WhatsApp chats at Ex.P16 has
no relevance to the present case. Accused is not
a member of WhatsApp group. The said
document is inadmissible in evidence as the
same is not accompanied by certificate under
Section 65(B) of Evidence Act which sine qua
non for admissibility of electronic records.
There is no pleading and evidence on the said
WhatsApp chats; and
9 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
Accused has substantiated the defence that
the cheque was delivered long back for the
purpose of paying insurance premium.
With these submissions, learned defence counsel has
prayed for acquitting the accused.
11. I have perused the records.
12. Points for consideration:
1.Whether the complainant has proved
that accused has issued cheque
bearing No.028551 dated 19.09.2023
for ₹35,00,000/-, drawn on
Veerashaiva Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
Rajajinagar branch, towards discharge
legally recoverable debt/liability and
the said cheque was dishonored for the
reason 'funds insufficient' and in spite
of service of statutory notice dated
06.10.2023, she has failed to pay the
amount covered under the cheque and
thereby committed the offence
punishable under Section 138 of
N.I.Act?
2. What order?
13. The above points are answered as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 : As per final order; for the following:
REASONS
14. Point No.1: Gist of the case of the complainant is
that, he had entrusted his insurance ID and that of his
family members to the accused and her husband who are
10 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
running Smart Cover Services, with an understanding that
they should collect insurance premium from the policy
holders and to remit the same to respective insurance
companies and to collect IRDA commission and other
commission from the insurance companies. The
complainant alleges that accused and her husband
misused fund approximately to the tune of ₹60,00,000/-
and that the accused has executed mutual agreement,
agreeing to pay the said sum of ₹60,00,000/- and it is
pursuant to the said agreement, accused and her husband
transferred certain extent of land in the name of
complainant worth ₹25,00,000/- and for the balance, the
accused has drawn the cheque in question which was
dishonored.
15. In order to prove the case, the complainant has
offered his evidence by way of sworn statement affidavit
which is treated as evidence post-cognizance stage. He has
got marked Ex.P1 to 17. Ex.P-1 is subject cheque; Ex.P.2
and 8 are bank endorsements; Ex.P-3 is copy of legal
notice dated 06.10.2023; Ex.P.4 is certified copy of postal
receipt (Note: original document is lost and the same is
reconstructed); Ex.P-5 is postal acknowledgment card;
Ex.P6 is postal track consignment report; Ex.P7 is bank
statement of complainant; Ex.P9 is original mutual
agreement dated 21.04.2022; Ex.P10 and 11 are e-mails
dated 21.04.2022; Ex.P12 is Section 65(B) certificate;
11 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
Ex.P13 is e-mails; Ex.P14 is copy of appointment letter
dated 03.10.2020; Ex.P15 and 16 are transaction details;
Ex.P17 is WhatsApp chats of 'Manje Group'. (Note: Ex.P12
to 16 are renumbered as Ex.P13 to P17 as per order dated
02.05.2025)
16. Ex.D1 is e-mail dated 14.10.2020 sent by the
complainant to the accused; Ex.D2 is draft of mutual
agreement dated 21.04.2022; Ex.D2(a) is certificate under
Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act; Ex.D3 is bank
statement of accused; Ex.D4 is cheque book containing
record slip; Ex.D5 is legal notice dated 17.02.2022 (with
postal cover) sent by the complainant to the mother of the
accused by name, Smt.Soubhaghya; Ex.D6 is copy of
notice dated 18.01.2023 (with postal cover) sent by the
complainant to the accused; Ex.D7 is copy of registered
sale deed dated 03.12.2022; Ex.D8 is copy of notice dated
01.06.2023 (with postal cover) sent by the complainant to
the accused; Ex.D9 is copy of power of attorney dated
04.07.2020 executed by the accused in favour of the
complainant; Ex.D10 and 11 are copies of notices dated
21.08.2024 (with postal covers) sent by the complainant to
accused and her husband; Ex.D12 is notice dated
17.07.2023 sent by complainant to accused; Ex.D13 is
bank statement of Smart Cover Services; Ex.D14 is reply
notice to Ex.D5 dated 15.03.2022; Ex.D14(a) is postal
12 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
receipt; and Ex.D15 is printout of attendance register with
google map timeline.
17. Learned defence counsel has cross-examined
PW-1 at great length. I have perused the entire cross-
examination. Upon going through entire cross-examination
it is forthcoming that the accused is not disputing the
issuance of cheque to the complainant. She is also not
disputing her signature on the cheque. During the course
of cross-examination dated 25.07.2024 at page No.13, it
was suggested that the complainant is in possession of six
cheques of the accused commencing from cheque
No.028551. Relevant portion of deposition of PW-1
appearing page No.13 is extracted as under:-
"ಚೆಕ್ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ.028551 ರಿಂದ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭವಾಗುವ ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯ
ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಬಳಿ ಎಷ್ಟು ಇವೆ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿದಾಗ, ನಿಪಿ.1 ಚೆಕ್ಕು
ಮಾತ್ರ ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಇತ್ತು ಎಂದು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಿಪಿ.1 ನ್ನು
ಒಳಗೊಂಡಂತೆ ಚೆಕ್ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ.028551 ರಿಂದ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭವಾಗುವ
ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯ ಒಟ್ಟು 6 ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳು ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಅದರ ನಂತರದ ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯ ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನುಾ ಸಹ
ನಾನೇ ತುಂಬಿ ಇನ್ಸುರೆನ್ಸ್ ಕಂಪನಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಹಣ ಪಾವತಿ
ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.XXXXX"
18. In the case on hand, since the parting of
cheque by the accused and her signature is not under
dispute, the limited question to be considered, is whether
the accused has discharged 'evidential burden' casted
upon her to arrive at the conclusion that the presumption
of law supplied by Section 139 has been rebutted.
13 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
19. During cross-examination of PW-1, it was
suggested that since February 2021, accused had
completely stopped transacting with the complainant and
that as on August 2021 she had no liability. PW-1 has
denied these suggestions. Counterfoil of Ex.P1 was
confronted to PW-1 and upon admission, the said
document is marked at Ex.D4. Bank statement of the
accused is confronted and it is marked at Ex.D3.
20. Placing reliance on Ex.D3 and 4, learned
defence counsel has submitted that the subject cheque
was given by the accused to the complainant for paying
premium to the insurance company in the year 2021 itself.
He has also submitted that all the cheques of subsequent
serial numbers were got encashed which is evident from
the bank statement of accused at Ex.D3. Therefore, he has
submitted that the subject cheque was issued to the
accused is not in discharge of any liability, but to pay
premium to the insurance company. He has also submitted
that accused has stopped business transaction with the
complainant from February 2021 itself. Therefore, question
of issuing the cheque on 19.09.2023 does not arise at all. It
was argued that the cheque that was taken from the
accused for paying premium to the insurance company
has been misused to file the present complaint.
21. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
complainant argued that the cheque at Ex.P1 is not issued
14 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
to pay insurance premium. It was argued that the cheque
was issued pursuant to settlement arrived under mutual
agreement at Ex.P9. He has also argued that before
executing Ex.P9, one of the advocate for the accused
shared the draft of Ex.P9 which is at Ex.D2. In this regard,
he has drawn the attention of the court to e-mails at
Ex.P10/P11. It was argued that the accused has not
disputed her signature and that of her husband on Ex.P9.
Therefore, Ex.P9 is proved. While pointing out the e-mail at
Ex.D1, learned counsel for the complainant argued that
the complainant tendered resignation to 'Smart Cover
Services' way back on 14.10.2020. Therefore, it was argued
that question of issuing cheque to complainant on
26.08.2021 does not arise at all.
22. Coming back to the evidence where, during the
course of cross-examination of PW-1 dated 04.07.2024 it
was elicited that it was the complainant who was looking
after the entire transaction of 'Smart Cover Services'. Apart
from that he was also running 'Siri Group' which is evident
from the answers elicited in his cross-examination. It was
also elicited that business relationship between the
complainant and the accused was cordial till
October/November 2020.
23. It is relevant to note that the accused got
marked e-mail at Ex.D1 by confronting the same to PW-1.
As evident from Ex.D1, complainant has tendered
15 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
resignation to 'Smart Cover Services' on 14.10.2020. It is
also evident from Ex.D1 that it is the accused who is the
Proprietrix of 'Smart Cover Services'. Complainant is
contending that the accused and her husband have
misappropriated the money at the time when she was
using the insurance ID's of complainant and his family
members. During cross-examination of PW-1, it is elicited
that he came to know about the misappropriation during
February 2021 after he started receiving calls from
insurance companies. It is subsequent to February 2021
complainant, accused and her husband have entered into
mutual agreement-Ex.P9. It is pertinent to note that legal
minds were involved in drafting in Ex.P9 which is evident
from e-mail at Ex.P10 and 11. It is seen that advocates by
name, Pavithra.A Rao and Sunitha.R, have shared the
draft of final agreement with the complainant. It was on
21.04.2022, after approval of draft, Ex.P9 was executed. As
already pointed out, the accused does not dispute the
execution of Ex.P9. As her signatures on the document
remained undisputed and its contents, this court holds
that Ex.P9 is proved.
24. In the context of the case, the recital in Ex.P9
are relevant which is extracted as under:-
"XXXXX
WHEREAS the Second Parties started a
business in the name of Shashikumari.B.S.
16 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
and style of "SMART COVER SERVICES'',
registered office 3rd Floor, No 28, Suggappa
Layout, Bengaluru (Bangalore) Urban,
Karnataka, 560058 and working office at
Smart Cover Services Address - # 37/12,
Nagarabhavi Main Road, Govindarajanagar,
Vijayanagar, and Bangalore - 560040. After
some time the first party joined the business
as a Financial Consultant. First party
continued and further invested some amount
in the business.
WHEREAS, the First Parties were running
a business in the name and style of " SIRI
GROUP " and there were certain transactions
with the second parties.
AND WHEREAS both the parties realized
that the business is not running successfully
as planned, and during the full and final
settlement, it is mutually agreed by both the
parties as follows:-
AND WHEREAS the parties hereto are
desirous of recording the terms and conditions
of this understanding in writing.
NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH and it
is hereby agreed by and between the parties
hereto as under:-
1. Amount agreed to pay the Second
Parties to the First Party is
Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Only)
in the following manner:-
The Second Parties has agreed to transfer
the land bearing Assessment Register
Number 196, Property no 179/2 and 10/1
situated at Dabbahalli village, Netkal Post,
B.G Pura Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya
District measuring 18 guntas along with
17 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
easementary rights to property and the
market value of the property is
Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs
Only). The afore mentioned property has been
visited and the market value has been
confirmed by the both the Parties. This
transfer shall happen immediately once the
Khata which is now in the name of the first of
the second party's paternal grandfather and
the same shall be transferred to the name of
the father of the first of the second party not
later than three months from the date of
signing of this Mutual Agreement.
The Second Parties also agrees to pay the
balance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Lakhs only) in the form of
Cash/RTGS/IMPS/NEFT in the following
manner. The first instalment of seven lakhs
fifty thousand will be paid within two months
from the date of signing this mutual
agreement and the remaining seven lakhs
fifty thousand shall be paid within the next
two months of paying the first instalment.
XXXX "
25. Admittedly, under Ex.P9 complainant herein is
the first party and accused and her husband Manjegowda
are the second parties. Extracted recitals in the agreement
clearly indicate that the accused and her husband started
a business under the name and style 'Smart Cover
Services', to which, the complainant herein has joined as a
financial Consultant. It is also recited in the agreement
since the business is not running successfully as planned,
18 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
complainant on the hand and accused and her husband on
the other, have entered into a final settlement under
which, they have agreed to pay a sum of ₹60,00,000/- to
the complainant herein. Pursuant to Ex.P9, indisputably
accused, her husband and her father-in-law executed a
registered sale deed dated 03.12.2022, marked at Ex.D7, in
favour of the complainant. Ex.D7 is an undisputed
document. In fact, the accused herself got the said
document marked in the cross-examination of PW-1 dated
25.07.2024.
26. As could be seen from recitals of Ex.P9, accused
and her husband have agreed to pay ₹60,00,000/- to the
complainant. According to the complainant, it is towards
reimbursement of misappropriated money, the accused
and her husband have executed Ex.P9. On the other hand,
accused have not whispered anything about the
circumstances under which Ex.P9 was entered into. It is
pertinent to note that as agreed under Ex.P9, accused, her
husband and her father-in-law have executed registered
sale deed dated 03.12.2022 in favour of the complainant.
Accused has also not explained circumstances under
Ex.D7 came to be executed. Execution of Ex.P9 and
subsequent execution of sale deed at Ex.D7 by the
accused, her husband and her father-in-law, strengthens
the case of the complainant. Assuming for argument sake
that the accused did not owe money to the complainant,
19 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
there was no necessity for her to execute Ex.P9 and as per
the terms agreed therein, execute sale deed at Ex.D7.
Thus, evidence on record strengthens the contention of the
complainant that there was regally enforceable debt on the
part of the accused which she owes to the complainant.
27. It is pertinent to note that after the subject
cheque was dishonored, complainant has sent a legal
notice dated 06.10.2023 which is at Ex.P3 narrating in
detail about the circumstances under which the subject
cheque was drawn and a demand was made to pay the
dishonored cheque amount. Indisputably, the said notice
served on the accused which is also evident from Ex.P5
and 6. Accused has not issued reply to the said notice.
28. In MMTC Ltd., and Another V/s Medchl
Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. And Another, (2002) 1
SCC 234, Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that
when a statutory notice is not replied, it has to be
presumed that the cheque was issued towards the
discharge of liability.
29. It is significant to note that before issuing the
subject cheque, accused had issued cheque bearing
No.001105 dated 21.01.2022 drawn on ICICI Bank,
Prashanthnagar branch, for ₹60,00,000/- which was
dishonored twice. This is not in dispute. In respect
dishonor of said cheque, complainant has issued notice
dated 18.01.2023 to the accused which is at Ex.D6, there
20 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
is categorical allegation of misappropriation of money to
the tune of ₹60,00,000/- and that the said cheque is
issued towards payment of said money. For better
understanding, Paragraph Nos.2 to 12 of Ex.D6 is
extracted hereunder:-
"2. My client informs me that Smart Cover
Services have the registered office 3 rd Floor,
No 28, Suggappa Layout, Bengaluru,
(Bangalore) Urban, Karnataka, 560058 and
working office at Smart Cover Services
Address - # 37/12, Nagarabhavi Main Road,
Govindarajanagar, Vijayanagar, and
Bangalore - 560040 since May 2020, the
business transaction happened under you
and your husband (Manjegowda) looking
after Insurance Business since May 2020.
3. My client by imposing faith on you
believing your words has entrusted to work
on my client - Insurance ID and other
Insurance ID pertaining to their family
members, and have agreed to collect the
commission amount from the subagents and
Insurance Companies for the policies issued
to the customers to Smart Cover Services
company account. All the amount transaction
was made through Smart Cover Services
account and my client also agreed to transfer
the received from the Insurance Companies to
Smart Cover Services.
4. My client further informs me that initially,
the payment were collecting smoothly from
the subagents/Insurance Companies and
functioning with good understanding.
21 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
My client further informs me that on a
monthly and daily report was analyzed,
came to notice that the commission amount
was misused and utilized that amount for
your personal use.
5. Later on my client had approached the
Insurance Companies came to know that the
payments were not made to my client
Insurance ID and his followers ID's which
was amount collected from the
subagents/Insurance Companies, My client
informs me that they have misused the funds
appx around 60 Lakh (Sixty Lakh) -
including credit card payment and their
interest.
6. My client inform me that his followers
Insurance ID's received the calls/notices from
company, hence without any other option my
client has to clear all the outstanding amount
to the insurance companies borrowing the
loans from Bank, friends and relatives.
7. My clients states that you started
evading my client thereafter as and when my
client demanded the misused amount appx of
Rs 60,00,000/- (sixty lakh only). As you
started to avoid my client by making yourself
absent whenever my client use to visit your
office. After much approaches and demands
made by client you had issued cheque for the
amount withdrawal for Cheque bearing no.
001105 payable at ICICI BANK,
PRASHANTH NAGAR BRANCH (IFSC Code
ICIC0007363) from your account number
736305000097.
22 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
8. Cheque bearing no. 001105 dated
21/01/2022 for Rs.60,00,000/-(Sixty Lakh
Only)/- payable at ICICI BANK, PRASHANTH
NAGAR BRANCH (IFSC Code ICIC0007363)
from your account number 736305000097
and was dishonored with reason "PAYMENT
STOPPED BY DRAWER" on 25/01/2022,
which my client has submitted the above
cheque in his IndusInd Bank Limited,
T.Dasarahalli Branch A/C.
9. My client approached you for payment
and intimated the dishonor of the instrument.
Took some time and you had voluntarily told
and you have agreed to issue the amount
and further you had assured to my client to
re-submit the cheque would be duly honored
but same came to be dishonored and you
failed to keep up promise. Cheque bearing no.
001105 dated 21/01/2022 for Rs.
60,00,000/-(Sixty Lakh Only)/- payable at
ICICI Bank, PRASHANTH NAGAR BRANCH
(IFSC Code ICIC0007363) from your account
number 736305000097 and was dishonored
with reason "Account Closed" on
14/04/2022. Thus my client is liable to
recover the same as legally enforceable
misused amount from you.
10. Unfortunately, your bankers have
returned twice the above said cheque of
yours dishonored for the PAYMENT
STOPPED BY DRAWER" on 25/01/2022
and dishonored with reason "Account
Closed" on 14/04/2022. My client states
that, you have issued the above mentioned
cheque knowing full well that said cheque
will not be honored and hence you have
deliberately requested my client to represent
23 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
the cheque through my client Bank with a
malafide intention to deceive and defraud my
client.
11. Whereas per the Mutual Agreement
dated 21st April 2022, Certificate No -
KA99825627922763U has agreed to return
the amount to my client in the form of
property and amount. Whereas you have
registered the property bearing No 10/1 and
10/1/A for the measurement of 386.29 Meter
and 751.12 Meter for the Market worth of
amount Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five
Lakh) property situated B.G.Pura Hobli,
Malavalli Taluk, Dabbahalli, Netkallu,
Mandya.
12. Whereas my client states that there is
outstanding amount of Rs 35,00,000/-
(Rupees Thirty five Lakh) which you need
to be cleared, Due to delay he has sustaining
huge loss and liable to compensate losses
done by you to my client."
30. It is pertinent to note that the accused has also
not issued reply to the said notice. It is also to be noted
that subsequent to Ex.D6, complainant has also issued
notices at Ex.D8 dated 01.06.2023, Ex.D10/D11 dated
21.08.2024 and Ex.D12 dated 17.07.2023 with similar
allegation. None of those notices were replied by the
accused. Silence on the part of the accused to earlier
notices at Ex.D6, 8, 10 to 12 and the statutory notice
pertaining to this case, makes the complainant's case that
the accused owes money to him makes more probable.
24 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
31. As per Ex.D4, subject cheque and other five
cheques were shown to have given on 26.08.2021.
However, in so far as, cheque on hand is concerned, there
is a specific note on 'record slip' to the effect that 'blank
cheque issued to Siddesh'. In so far as, other cheques are
concerned, the note is, 'Siddesh to pay insurance company'.
As evident from Ex.D3, except the subject cheque and
another cheque, remaining cheques were cleared in favour
of insurance companies viz., Tata AIG GIC Limited and
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited. If
really, the cheque at Ex.P1 was given to the complainant to
pay premium to insurance company as contended by the
accused, it could have been issued in favour of insurance
company itself. There is nothing to indicate from Ex.D3
that the cheques were presented to the bank by the
complainant himself. As could be seen from Ex.D1,
complainant has resigned from "Smart Cover Services" way
back on 14.10.2020. Therefore, the defence that the
subject cheque was given to the complainant on
26.08.2021 cannot be believed. Assuming that the cheque
was with the complainant since 2021, it does not prevent
him to present it for encashment by filling it in order to get
it encashed for realization of money which the accused is
liable to pay pursuant to mutual agreement at Ex.P9.
During cross-examination of PW-1, except minor
contradiction, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the case set
25 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
up by him. He has categorically denied the suggestion that
the subject cheque and another cheques of same series
were with him since 2021. Except the self-serving entry in
Ex.D4, nothing is produced to show that the cheques were
indeed handed over to the complainant in the year 2021
itself. In so far as place of handing over of cheque is
concerned, it is immaterial in a prosecution under Section
138 of NI Act. Therefore, attendance register at Ex.D15 and
google map timeline annexed to it are not of much
relevance to the case on hand.
32. There can be no dispute that in matters relating
to offence under Section 138 of the Act, the complainant
has only to establish that the cheque is genuine, presented
within time and upon it being dishonoured, due notice was
sent within 30 days of such dishonour, to which
repayment must be received within 15 days, failing which a
complaint can be preferred by the complainant within one
month as contemplated under Section 142(1)(b) of the Act.
33. In Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel,
[(2022) 11 SCC 705], Hon'ble Supreme Court has
highlighted the ingredients forming the basis of the offence
under Section 138 of the NI Act in the following structure:
"(i) The drawing of a cheque by person on do
account maintained by him with the banker
for the payment of any amount of money to
another from that account;
26 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
(ii) The cheque being drawn for the
discharge in whole or in part of any debt or
other liability;
(iii) Presentation of the cheque to the bank
arranged to be paid from that account;
(iv) The return of the cheque by the drawee
bank as unpaid either because the amount
of money standing to the credit of that
account is insufficient to honour the cheque
or that it exceeds the amount;
(v) A notice by the payee or the holder in due
course making a demand for the payment of
the amount to the drawer of the cheque
within 30 days of the receipt of information
from the bank in regard to the return of the
cheque; and;
(vi) The drawer of the cheque failing to make
payment of the amount of money to the
payee or the holder in due course within 15
days of the receipt of the notice."
34. The NI Act provides for two presumptions:-
Section 118 and Section 139. Section 118 of the Act inter
alia directs that it shall be presumed, until the contrary is
proved, that every negotiable instrument was made or
drawn for consideration. Section 139 of the Act stipulates
that "unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed,
that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, for the
discharge of, whole or part of any debt or liability".
Because Section 139 requires that the court "shall
27 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
presume" the fact stated therein, it is obligatory on the
court to raise this presumption in every case where the
factual basis for the raising of the presumption has been
establish. Therefore, the court will necessarily presume
that the cheque is issued towards discharge of a legally
enforceable debt/liability in two circumstances. Firstly,
when the drawer of the cheque admits issuance/execution
of the cheque and secondly, in the event where the
complainant proves that the cheque was issued/executed
in his favour by the drawer. The circumstances set out
above form the fact(s) which bring about the activation of
the presumptive Clause. [Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg.Co.
V/s Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35].
35. In P.Rasiya V/s Abdul Nazer and another;
(AIR Online 2022 SC 1373), the Hon'ble Apex Court
reiterated the position of law that once the complainant
discharges his initial burden of proving issuance of cheque
by the accused with his signature, the presumption under
Section 139 of NI Act would arise and burden shifts on the
accused to rebut the same. Of course, the degree of proof
required to be proved by the accused is not as high as the
burden on the complainant to prove the guilt of the
accused, but he is required to probabilize his defence.
Hon'ble Supreme Court also made it clear that once the
initial burden of proving the issuance of cheque by the
accused with his signature is proved by the complainant,
28 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
the burden shifts on the accused to prove the contrary and
to rebut the presumption.
36. Discussing the burden of proof and
presumptions, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Jain V/s
Ajay Singh, [(2023) 10 SCC 148] held as under:-
"28. There are two senses in which the
phrase 'burden of proof' is used in the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("Evidence Act,
hereinafter"). One is the burden of proof
arising as a matter of pleading and the
other is the one which deals with the
question as to who has first to prove a
particular fact. The former is called the
"legal burden" and it never shifts, the latter
is called the 'evidential burden' and it shifts
from one side to the other. [See Kundanlal v.
Custodian (Evacuee Property); AIR 1961 SC
1316.]
29. The legal burden is the burden of proof
which remains constant throughout a trial.
It is the burden of establishing the facts
and contentions which will support a
party's case. If, at the conclusion of the
trial a party has failed to establish these to
the appropriate standards, he would lose
to stand. The incidence of the burden is
usually clear from the pleadings and
usually, it is incumbent on the plaintiff or
complainant to prove what he pleaded or
contends. On the other hand, the evidential
burden may shift from one party to another
as the trial progresses according to the
balance of evidence given at any particular
stage; the burden rests upon the party who
would fail if no evidence at all, or no
29 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
further evidence, as the case may be is
adduced by either side (See Halsbury's
Laws of England, 4th Edition para 13).
While the former, the legal burden arising
on the pleadings is mentioned in Section
101 of the Evidence Act, the latter, the
evidential burden, is referred to in Section
102 thereof. [G.Vasu V. Syed Yaseen
Sifuddin Quadri; AIR 1987 AP 139.
affirmed in Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg.Co.
Vs. Amin Chand Payrelal; (1999) 3 SCC 35]
30. Presumption, on the other hand,
literally means "taking as true without
examination or proof". In Kumar Exports v.
Sharma Exports; (2009) 2 SCC 513, this
Court referred to presumption as "devices
by use of which courts are enabled and
entitled to pronounce on an issue
notwithstanding that there is no evidence
or insufficient evidence."
31. Broadly speaking, presumptions are of
two kinds, presumptions of fact and of law.
Presumptions of fact are inferences
logically drawn from one fact as to the
existence of other facts. Presumptions of
fact are rebuttable by evidence to the
contrary. Presumptions of law may be
either irrebuttable (conclusive
presumptions), so that no evidence to the
contrary may be given or rebuttable. A
rebuttable presumption of law is a legal
rule to be applied by the Court in the
absence of conflicting (Halsbury, 4th
Edition paras 111, 112). Among the class
of rebuttable presumptions, a further
distinction can be made between
discretionary presumptions ("may
30 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
presume") and compulsive or compulsory
presumptions ("shall presume").
XXXXX
55. As rightly contended by the appellant,
there is a fundamental flaw in the way both
the Courts below have proceeded to
appreciate the evidence on record. Once the
presumption under Section 139 was given
effect to, the Courts ought to have
proceeded on the premise that the cheque
was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/
liability. The entire focus would then
necessarily have to shift on the case set up
by the accused, since the activation of the
presumption has the effect of shifting the
evidential burden on the accused. The
nature of inquiry would then be to see
whether the accused has discharged his
onus of rebutting the presumption. If he
fails to do so, the Court can straightaway
proceed to convict him, subject to
satisfaction of the other ingredients of
Section 138. If the Court finds that the
evidential burden placed on the accused
has been discharged, the complainant
would be expected to prove the said fact
independently, without taking aid of the
presumption. The Court would then take an
overall view based on the evidence on
record and decide accordingly."
56. At the stage when the courts concluded
that the signature had been admitted, the
Court ought to have inquired into either of
the two questions (depending on the method
in which accused has chosen to rebut the
31 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
presumption): Has the accused led any
defense evidence to prove and conclusively
establish that there existed no debt/liability
at the time of issuance of cheque? In the
absence of rebuttal evidence being led the
inquiry would entail: Has the accused
proved the nonexistence of debt/liability by
a preponderance of probabilities by
referring to the 'particular circumstances of
the case'?"
37. In Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel V/s State of
Gujarath [(2019) 18 SCC 106], the Hon'ble Apex Court
reiterated the legal position that once the complainant is
successful in discharging his initial burden to prove
issuance of cheque by the accused with his signature, the
presumption under Section 139 of NI Act would arise and
the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the legal
presumption. The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the degree
of proof to rebut the presumption on the part of the
accused and held in paragraph 18 as under:
"18. In the case at hand, even after
purportedly drawing the presumption
under Section 139 of the NI Act, the trial
court proceeded to question the want of
evidence on the part of the complainant as
regards the source of funds for advancing
loan to the accused and want of
examination of relevant witnesses who
allegedly extended him money for
advancing it to the accused. This approach
of the trial court had been at variance with
the principles of presumption in law. After
32 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
such presumption, the onus shifted to the
accused and unless the accused had
discharged the onus by bringing on record
such facts and circumstances as to show
the preponderance of probabilities tilting in
his favour, any doubt on the complainant's
case could not have been raised for want
of evidence regarding the source of funds
for advancing loan to the appellant-
accused....."
38. The Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance on its
earlier decision in Kumar Exports V/s Sharma Carpets
(AIR 2009 SC 1518) and extracted paragraphs No.20 and
21, which read as under:
"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
33 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
should disprove the non-existence 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 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 non- existence 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 to 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.
34 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
21. The accused has also an option to
prove the non-existence of
consideration and debt or liability
either by letting in evidence or in
some clear and exceptional cases,
from the case set out by the
complainant, that is, the averments in
the complaint, the case set out in the
statutory notice and evidence
adduced by the complainant during
the trial. Once such rebuttal evidence
is adduced and accepted by the
court, having regard to all the
circumstances of the case and the
preponderance of probabilities, the
evidential burden shifts back to the
complainant and, thereafter, the
presumptions under Sections 118 and
139 of the Act will not again come to
the complainant's rescue."
39. Very recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjabij
Tari V/s Kishore S.Borcar & Another; (2025) SCC
OnLine SC 2069, held as under:-
"15. In the present case, the cheque in question
has admittedly been signed by the Respondent
No.1-Accused. This Court is of the view that
once the execution of the cheque is admitted,
the presumption under Section 118 of the NI
Act that the cheque in question was drawn for
consideration and the presumption under
Section 139 of the NI Act that the holder of the
cheque received the said cheque in discharge of
a legally enforceable debt or liability arises
against the accused. It is pertinent to mention
that observations to the contrary by a two
Judges Bench in Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs.
35 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54 have
been set aside by a three Judges Bench in
Rangappa (supra).
16. This Court is further of the view that by
creating this presumption, the law reinforces
the reliability of cheques as a mode of payment
in commercial transactions.
17. Needless to mention that the presumption
contemplated under Section 139 of the NI Act,
is a rebuttable presumption. However, the
initial onus of proving that the cheque is not in
discharge of any debt or other liability is on the
accused/drawer of the cheque [See: Bir Singh
vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197].
XXXXX
21. This Court also takes judicial notice of the
fact that some District Courts and some High
Courts are not giving effect to the presumptions
incorporated in Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act
and are treating the proceedings under the NI
Act as another civil recovery proceedings and
are directing the complainant to prove the
antecedent debt or liability. This Court is of the
view that such an approach is not only
prolonging the trial but is also contrary to the
mandate of Parliament, namely, that the
drawer and the bank must honour the cheque,
otherwise, trust in cheques would be
irreparably damaged."
40. Thus, it is settled proposition of law that the
complainant is required to discharge his initial burden of
issuance of cheque by the accused with his/her signature
36 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
to raise the legal presumption under Section 139 of NI Act.
When the legal presumption arises, the burden shifts on
the accused to rebut the same by probabilizing his/her
defence.
41. Prima facie, cheques at Ex.P-1 drawn from the
bank account of the accused. Indisputably, cheque was
presented for encashment well within its validity and
dishonoured for the reason 'insufficient funds' which is
appearing from bank endorsement at Ex.P2 dated
21.09.2023. Thereafter, complainant has issued notice
dated 06.10.2023, copy of which is at Ex.P3 calling upon
the accused to pay the amount covered under the
dishonored cheques. Service of notice on accused is
proved. Therefore, all the essential requirements of the
offence have been fulfilled. Accused has failed to
substantiate her defence. Therefore, she has to be held
guilty. In the result, I answer Point No.1 in the
Affirmative.
42. 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. Object of Chapter-XVII of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, which prescribes punishment
for the dishonour of the cheque is both punitive as well as
compensatory and restitutive. In R.Vijayan V/s Baby and
37 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
another (AIR 2012 SC 528), Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that Chapter-XVII of the N.I. Act is an unique
exercise which blurs the dividing line between civil and
criminal jurisdictions and it provides a single forum and
single proceeding for enforcement of criminal liability and
also for the enforcement of the civil liability i.e., for
realization of the cheque amount and thereby obviating the
need for the creditor to move to different forums for the
relief. Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that the apparent
intention is to ensure that not only the offender is
punished, but also ensure that the complainant invariably
receives the amount of cheque along with compensation.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that a stage
has reached when most of the complainants in particular
the financial institutions view the proceedings under
Section 138 of N.I. Act as a proceeding for recovery of the
cheque amount and therefore, the punishment of the
drawer of the cheque for the offence of dishonour become
secondary. The said judgment is relied by Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in M/s. Banavathy & Company V.s
Mahaeer Electro Mech (P) Ltd., and others, (NC:
2025:KHC:25140).
43. Keeping in mind the principles laid down in the
aforesaid judgments, sentence has to be passed. In the
present case, mutual agreement at Ex.P9 was executed on
21.04.2022. Cheque in question is dated 19.09.2023 which
38 CC.No.61767/2023
KABC0C0337552023
is issued pursuant to the mutual agreement. Since then,
complainant is deprived of the amount covered under the
cheque which is rightfully due to him. Having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case and rate of interest
stipulated under Section 80 of NI Act, this court is of the
opinion that it is a fit case to impose sentence of fine which
is quntified at ₹48,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs
Only) and out of the fine amount, it is just and proper to
award a sum of ₹47,90,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs
and Ninety Thousand Only) as compensation to the
complainant as provided under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C
and the remaining sum of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand Only) shall be defrayed to State. In view of the
findings recorded above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of ₹48,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Only). In default to pay fine, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months.
Out of the realized fine amount, a sum of ₹47,90,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs and Ninety Thousand Only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and 39 CC.No.61767/2023 KABC0C0337552023 the remaining sum of ₹10,000/- shall be defrayed to State.
Bail bonds executed by accused shall stand cancelled.
Office to supply a free copy of this judgment to accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of December, 2025) Digitally signed by SANTHOSH S SANTHOSH KUNDER S KUNDER Date: 2025.12.22 17:45:54 +0530 ( SANTHOSH S.KUNDER ) XIV Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witness examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 Mr.Siddesh.U List of documents marked for the Complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque Ex.P.2 & 8 Bank endorsements Ex.P.3 Copy of legal notice dated 06.10.2023 Ex.P.4 Postal receipt (reconstructed document) Ex.P.5 Postal acknowledgment card Ex.P.6 Postal track consignment report Ex.P.7 Bank statement of complainant (IndusInd Bank) Ex.P.9 Original mutual agreement dated 21.04.2022 Ex.P.10 &E-mails dated 21.04.2022 11 Ex.P.12 Section 65(B) certificate Ex.P.13 E-mails 40 CC.No.61767/2023 KABC0C0337552023 Ex.P.14 Copy of appointment letter dated 03.10.2020 Ex.P.15 Transaction details (shown as Annexure-9) Ex.P.16 Printout of transaction details showing payment of premium Ex.P.17 WhatsApp chats of 'Manje Group' Note: Ex.P4 is reconstructed document as original is lost and the same was reported to Hon'ble Principal and District and Sessions Judge.
List of witness examined for the defence Nil List of documents marked for the defence:
Ex.D1 E-mail dated 14.10.2020 sent by the complainant to the accused Ex.D2 Draft of mutual agreement dated 21.04.2022 Ex.D2(a) Certificate under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.D3 Bank statement of accused Ex.D4 Cheque book containing record slip Ex.D5 Legal notice dated 17.02.2022 (with postal cover) sent by the complainant to the mother of the accused by name, Smt.Soubhaghya Ex.D6 Copy of notice dated 18.01.2023 (with postal cover) sent by the complainant to the accused Ex.D7 Copy of registered sale deed dated 03.12.2022 Ex.D8 Copy of notice dated 01.06.2023 (with postal cover) sent by the complainant to the accused Ex.D9 Copy of power of attorney dated 04.07.2020 executed by the accused in favour of the complainant Ex.D10 & Copies of notices dated 21.08.2024 (with 11 postal covers) sent by the complainant to accused and her husband 41 CC.No.61767/2023 KABC0C0337552023 Ex.D12 Notice dated 17.07.2023 sent by complainant to accused Ex.D13 Bank statement of Smart Cover Services Ex.D14 Reply notice to Ex.D5 dated 15.03.2022 Ex.D14(a) Postal receipt Ex.D15 Printout of attendance register with google map timeline Digitally signed by SANTHOSH SANTHOSH S KUNDER S KUNDER Date: 2025.12.22 17:45:44 +0530 XIV Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru.