Bangalore District Court
M. Narasimha Murthy vs Umashankar on 14 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE & M.A.C.T.,
BENGALURU (SCCH-22).
Sri. B. Venkatappa,
PRESENT: B.A.L.L.B.,
XX Addl.Small Causes Judge & XVIII
A.C.M.M. & Member M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
Dated This the 14th Day of September 2018.
CRIMINAL CASE NO.1900/2018
Complainant - M. Narasimha Murthy,
Aged about 66 years,
S/o Muninarasappa,
R/at No.99, Sasuveghatta Village,
Chikkabanavara Post,
Bengaluru - 560 090.
(Rept: By Sri. C.R. Srinivas,
Advocates, Bengaluru)
-Versus-
Accused Umashankar,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o Venkatappa.H.P.,
R/at No.55, 3rd Floor,
'A' Block, No.203,
Sukruthi Simhadri Layout,
Varadarajanagar,
Singasandra Village,
Bengaluru - 560 097.
(Rept: By Sri. D.K. Mallikarjuna,
Advocates, Bengaluru)
2 SCCH-22
C.C.1900/2018
Date of Institution. : 11.04.2018
The offence complied : Under Sec.138 of the
off or proved. Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the accused. Pleaded not guilty.
Date of : 11.04.2018.
commencement of
recording evidence.
Final Order : Accused is Convicted.
Date of such order : 14.09.2018
(B. VENKATAPPA)
XX A.S.C.J. & XVIII A.C.M.M.,
& MEMBER, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
3 SCCH-22
C.C.1900/2018
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case are as follows:
The accused being the friend of complainant had approached him and asked the hand loan of Rs.7,00,000/-.
The complainant has paid the same in the 1st week of August 2016 as Rs.7,00,000/- i.e., the withdrawing amount on 25.07.2016 from his Vijaya Bank account and paid as a hand loan for the purpose of meeting commitments and family necessities of the accused. The accused has agreeing to repay the same within sixteen months or whenever demanded.
When the complainant made several remainders and oral requests the accused had failed to repay the borrowed hand loan amount. When the complainant demanded the accused to make the payment in the 1st Week of January 2018, the accused had issued a Cheque bearing No.546191 dated 4 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 19.01.2018 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Gangamma Circle, Jalahalli, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. The complainant presented the said cheque through his banker Vijaya Bank, Chikkabanavara Branch, Bengaluru but it was returned as 'Payment Stopped by Drawer' on 25.01.2018 with the Memo and he had received the information from his banker on 25.01.2018. After dishonour of the cheque, the complainant got issued legal notice on 24.02.2018 to the accused calling upon him to pay the borrowed loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and the notice was sent to the Accused through RPAD was returned as intimation delivered on 01.03.2018. Hence, this Complaint.
3. The accused has appeared before this Court through his counsel and enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation read over and explained to the accused.
He has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018
4. To prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked five documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and closed his side evidence.
5. After closure of the complainant's side evidence, statement of the accused recorded as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence against him, which appears in the complainant side evidence. The Accused himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked nine documents as per Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9 and closed his side evidence.
6. Heard the arguments from both sides.
7. The points that would arise for my consideration are as follows :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused issued a cheque bearing Nos.546191 dated 19.01.2018 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Gangamma Circle, Jalahalli, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- in order to discharge legally enforceable debt?
6 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018
2. Whether the complainant proves that, after dishonor of the cheque, he has issued notice to the accused in compliance to Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act?
3. What order ?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 - In the Affirmative
Point No.2 - In the Affirmative
Point No.3 - As per final order for
the following
:: R E A S O N S ::
POINT No.1 and 2 :
9. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
10. In this case the burden of proving the ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is heavily on the complainant. The complainant, in order to prove these points examined himself as P.W.1 and also got marked as many as 7 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 five documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and closed his side evidence.
11. In this case the burden of proving the point No.1 and 2 is heavily on the complainant. For the purpose of appreciating the evidence, firstly I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant side. The complainant in his evidence before this Court has almost reiterated whatever the allegations made in the complaint. Further he has stated that, the accused being the friend of complainant had approached him and asked the hand loan of Rs.7,00,000/-. The complainant has paid the same in the 1st week of August 2016 as Rs.7,00,000/- i.e., the withdrawing amount on 25.07.2016 from his Vijaya Bank account and paid as a hand loan for the purpose of meeting commitments and family necessities of the accused. The accused has agreeing to repay the same within sixteen months or whenever demanded. When the complainant made several remainders and oral requests the accused had failed to repay the borrowed hand loan amount. When the complainant demanded the accused to make the payment in the 1st Week 8 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 of January 2018, the accused had issued a Cheque bearing No.546191 dated 19.01.2018 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Gangamma Circle, Jalahalli, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. The complainant presented the said cheque through his banker Vijaya Bank, Chikkabanavara Branch, Bengaluru but it was returned as 'Payment Stopped by Drawer' on 25.01.2018 with the Memo and he had received the information from his banker on 25.01.2018. After dishonour of the cheque, the complainant got issued legal notice on 24.02.2018 to the accused calling upon him to pay the borrowed loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and the notice was sent to the Accused through RPAD was returned as intimation delivered on 01.03.2018. Hence, P.W.1 prayed for convict the accused.
12. In addition to his oral evidence, P.W.1 has also got marked as many as five documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. I have gone through the same. Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing No.546191 dated:19.12.2018 for Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on 9 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 Syndicate Bank, Gangamma Circle, Jalahalli, Bengaluru given by the accused in the name of complainant and Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of accused on Ex.P.1 cheque. Ex.P.2 Endorsement issued by the Syndicate Bank on 25.01.2018. It shows that, the cheque at Ex.P.1 was returned for the reason "Payment Stopped by Drawer". Ex.P.3 is Legal notice dated:24.02.2018 issued by complainant to the accused calling upon the accused to repay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice. Ex.P.4 is the Postal receipt, Ex.P.5 is the Returned Postal Cover and Ex.P.5(a) is the returned legal notice. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 to disbelieve the case of the complainant.
13. On the other hand, the accused himself examined as D.W.1 and he has deposed before this court that, he is running Sri. Rajalakshmi Enterprises, No.27, Srinivasa Nagar, behind Sankranthi Dhaba, Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru. He has lodged the complaint before Syndicate Bank towards his cheque lost. At the time of his cheque lost, he is having 10 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 sufficient balance in his account. The filing of the said complaint is came to his knowledge, when the police have arrested him. Later on he lodged the complaint before Vidyaranyapura Police Station. But they refused to receive his complaint. Then he send the complaint to the Police Commissioner through registered post regarding the said cheque was lost. When he going to give the said cheque to BNP Carry Bag Home Finance Limited it was lost. The hand writing on Ex.P.1 is belong to him, but he has not overwritten in the cheque. The complainant has misused his cheque by filing this complaint to grab the money from him. Hence, the accused prayed for dismiss the complaint. In support of his defence, he has produced Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9. Out of which, Ex.D.1 is the gas bill. It shows that, the address mentioned in the complaint and Ex.D.1 is fully different. Ex.D.2 is the Form GST REG-06. It shows that, the accused has transferred some amount to Sri. Tirumala Enterprises. Ex.D.3 is the copy of Complaint. It shows that, the accused has given complaint to the Manager, Syndicate Bank, Jalahalli Branch, Bengaluru for stop the payment of the 11 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 cheque. It shows that, the accused has given complaint on 23.12.2016 to the Manager, Syndicate Bank towards lost his cheque. Ex.D.4 is the Statement of Account. Ex.D.5 is the Postal Receipt. It shows that, the accused has lodged the complaint before the Commissioner, Infantry Road, Bengaluru regarding lost his cheque. But he has not produced the copy of complaint. The accused has produced Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.9 i.e., the Bank Receipts. They shows that, the complainant has transferred some amount to Sundaram BNP Carry Bag Home Finance Ltd.
14. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that, the complaint has proved her case by placing sufficient oral and documentary evidence before this Court. Further the learned counsel for the complainant argued that, the complainant sufficiently proved necessary ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence, the learned counsel for the complainant prayed for convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
12 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018
15. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that, the complainant has failed to prove the necessary ingredients under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The complainant has no capacity to lend the money to the accused and there is no legally enforceable debt existing in between the complainant and accused. Hence, the learned counsel for the accused prayed for dismiss the complaint.
16. The oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant and accused shows that, according to the complainant, the accused has approached him and asked him to hand loan of Rs.7,00,000/-. He paid the said amount to the accused in the month of 1st week of August 2016 by withdrawing from his account on 25.07.2016. Towards repayment of the said loan the accused has issued Ex.P.1 i.e., cheque. He has presented the said cheque for encashment, but it was returned with shara stating that, 'payment stopped by drawer' on 25.01.2018. Finally he got issued a legal notice to the accused, but he did not repay the said amount. On the other hand, the accused has denied the same. According to 13 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 him, he has not borrowed any loan from the complainant. When he was going to give cheque to Sri. BNP Carry Bag Home Finance Limited, it was lost, due to which he lodged the complaint before Syndicate Bank and after filing of this complaint, he lodged the complaint before Vidyaranyapura Police station, but they refused to receive his complaint. Finally he send the complaint to the Police Commissioner, Infantry Road, Bengaluru through post. The complainant has misused his cheque by filing of this complaint. In support of his contention the accused has produced Ex.D.3, i.e., copy of the complaint given to the Manager, Syndicate Bank. It shows that, the accused has given the complaint to the Manager, Syndicate Bank towards stop payment of the said cheque on 23.012.2016. On careful perusal of Ex.D.3, there is no where it is stated about which date, which place and at what time the said cheque was lost and it is not mentioned in the complaint. It is further shows that, the cheque number mentioned in Ex.D.3 is also overwritten. It is not properly explained by the accused. He has stated that, when he was going to give cheque in favour of the BNP Carry Bag Home 14 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 Finance Limited, the said cheque was lost. But he has not stated that, for what purpose he has intended to give cheque in favour of the BNP Carry Bag Home Finance Limited, which is not properly explained by the complainant. It shows that, the accused has filed complaint before Manager, Syndicate Bank to avoid the repayment of loan to the complainant.
17. The further defence of the accused is that, after filing this complaint, he going to file complaint before the Vidyaranyapura Police Station, but they refused to receive the same, due to this he send the complaint to the Police Commissioner through R.P.A.D., regarding lost his cheque. In support of his contention, he has produced Ex.D.5, the postal receipt and Xerox copy of the complaint. They show that, the accused has sent the complaint to the Police Commissioner, wherein also which place and on what date his cheque was lost is properly explained by the accused. It further shows that, after lapse of two years complaint given to the Manager, Syndicate Bank, he has lodged the complaint before Police Commissioner. But the accused has not 15 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 produced any documents before this Court to show that, he lodged the complaint before Jurisdictional Police Station on the same day and he has not properly explained for non-filing of the complaint before the police station on the same day. He only simply stated that, the police have rejected his complaint. But he has not produced any document before this Court that, the police have refused to take his complaint. If the police have refused to receive his complaint, he may approach before the higher authority or he may file private complaint before competent court. But the accused has not made any efforts to take any steps against the police or complainant. He has not examined the bank manager or any police officials to prove that, he has lost his cheque. Therefore, the accused has failed to prove that, his cheque was lost. Therefore, the defence taken by the accused is not helpful to him.
18. The complainant has produced sufficient documents before this Court to show that, he has lent the money to the accused by withdrawing the same from his bank 16 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 account. In support of his contention he has produced the copy of Bank Statement. It shows that, the complainant has withdraw the money from his account and is having sufficient means to pay the loan amount to the accused. Therefore, the accused has issued a cheque in favour of the complainant to discharge his legally enforceable debt of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has proved necessary ingredients under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
19. After going through the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant and after going through the arguments of the complainant, now let me see whether the complainant has proved ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act or not. For that purpose I have completely gone through Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act which deals with "Dishonour of Cheques".
20. In order to constitute an office under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the complainant has to fulfill the following requirements, which are as follows:
17 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018
1. Cheque who have been issued for the discharge in whole or part of any debt or any other liability.
2. The cheque should have been presented before the bank within the period of six months or within the period of its validity which ever is earlier.
3. The payee should have issued a legal notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within of 30 days from the date of information from the bank.
4. After receipt of the notice, the drawer should have failed to pay cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.
5. On payment of the amount due, on the dishonored cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice by the drawer, the complaint should have been fi`led by the complainant within one month from the date of expiry of grace time of 15 days before a metropolitan Magistrate or not below the rank of JMFC.
21. For that purpose, I have gone through the documentary evidence placed by the complainant side. In this case Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing No.546191 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- dated:19.12.2018 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Gangamma Circle, Jalahalli, Bangalore. Ex.P.2 is the Endorsement dated:25.01.2018 issued by Syndicate Bank, it 18 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 endorsed that, "Payment Stopped by Drawer". Ex.P.3 is the legal notice dated:24.02.2018 the same was served to the accused and he has not repay the cheque amount and given reply to the said notice by alleging the amount due by him, that means within the six months from the date mentioned in Ex.P.1 it was produced before the bank for encashment, the same were dishonored by the bank endorsement at Ex.P.2. The legal notice dated:24.02.2018 was served to the accused, then this complaint filed within one month from the date of expiry of grace period. Therefore in this case, the complaint has been filed within time. Hence, the mandatory provision laid down under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act has been complied by the complainant in this case.
22. In this case, the accused has denied the oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant, but he has not produced any oral and document evidence to prove his defence taken in the defence evidence. I have completely gone through the Section 139 of N.I Act, which reads as under:
19 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 "Sec.139: Presumption in favour of holder, It shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred in Section 138 for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability."
Therefore as per Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the presumption arises in favour of payee or holder of the cheque that the cheque was issued for discharge of debt or liability legally enforceable. The important ruling about this Section are:
1. ILR- 2000 KARNATAKA Page 1750;
2. AIR 2001 S.C. Page- 2895;
3. AIR 2002 S.C. Page-182;
In this case the accused has not denied Ex.P.1 cheque and also not denied the signature at Ex.P.1(a). Therefore, I am of the opinion that, indirectly the accused has admitted the case of the complainant. Therefore the admitted facts need not be proved as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. Once the signature of the accused is admitted on the disputed cheque, what may be consequence? Regarding this point, I have gone 20 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 through the ruling reported in AIR-2000 S.C. Page- 145, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "Presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act is to be drawn when the drawer has admitted his signature on the cheuqe".
23. Therefore, in the instance case, accused has not at all denied the Ex.P.1 and his signature on the said cheque. In this case the accused is indirectly admitted the case of the complainant. Therefore much discussion regarding the same is not required. Further regarding the same point, I have also reported the ruling reported in 2004 part 3 KCCR 1816. Both these ruling are very much applicable for the present case on hand. In the above said ruling the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court held that:
" (Sec. 118 and 138) of Negotiable Instrument Act: Presumption as to:
when once the issuance of cheque and signature on it is admitted, the Court has to presume that, the cheque has been issued for discharge of debt or liability. The burden on the proof shifted on the accused to prove that, there was no liability or debt or that the cheque was issued to different 21 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 person. Therefore the cheque is not issued infavour of the complainant".
In this case the complainant has proved the necessary ingredients under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
24. I have also gone through the ruling reported in AIR 2000 Kar. 169, which reads as follows:
"AIR. 2000 Kar. 169, (H. Marigowda Vs. Tippamma and Others).
As per Section 20 of Negotiable Instrument Act, even if the blank cheque is given, the holder has authority to make or complete the instrument as a negotiable one. It means the accused has impliedly given permission to the holder of the cheque to fill up blanks in the cheque, once all these things are established, Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act states that, "the cheque has been issued for the discharge of debt or liability unless the contrary is proved".
25. Therefore after going through the above said ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, it is very clear that, as per Section 20 of Negotiable Instrument Act, even if the 22 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 blank cheque is given, the holder of the cheque has authority to complete the instrument as negotiable one as the accused has impliedly given permission to holder of the cheque to fill up the blanks in the cheque. Therefore, since to rebut the presumption infavour of the complainant. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the cheque in question, which is Ex.P.1 has been issued by the accused infavour of the complainant for discharge of a legally enforceable debt.
26. Now the question arise before the Court is whether this Court is having power to impose fine of Rs.5,000/-. The punishment provide for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is the offences punishable with imprisonment, which may extend for two years or with fine, which may extent to twice the amount of the cheque or both. Regarding this point, I have relied upon the following rulings:
1. Criminal Law Journal 1999 page 4606 S.C.
2. AIR 1999 S.C. 3762.
3. 2000 (2 ) Karnataka Law Journal page
621.
4. AIR 2001 SC page 537.
23 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 In the above rulings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "in view of provision of Section 29 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate cannot impose a fine not exceed Rs.5,000/- for an offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but however the Magistrage can take report under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C., where no limit is prescribed on the amount of compensation which could be awarded".
As per the principles laid down in the above said ruling, it is very clear that, the Court is having power to impose amount as compensation amount. As per the amended act of Negotiable Instrument Act, now the Court can impose any amount of fine. Which may extent to twice the amount of cheque or both. Further as per Section 80 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the Court may also grant interest.
27. Therefore, in this case looking into any angle, I am of the opinion that, the oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant clearly goes to show that, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence, it is fit case for conviction.
24 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 Further it is to be noted that, the cheque in dispute produced at Ex.P.1 is the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) and this Court is having ample power to impose fine, which may extent to twice the amount of cheque and also having a power to imprisonment to accused apart from the fine, which may extent to 2 years or with fine. Further as per amended Negotiable Instrument Act and also the recent rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is having ample power to impose fine amount to the accused on double the cheque amount under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. and this Court is having power to give compensation to the complainant. Further looking into any angle, the complainant has sufficiently proved ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. On the other hand the oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant is material, consistent, believable and acceptable. Hence, I will accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and the accused has not produced any relevant documentary evidence and I will not accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused.
25 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 So for as principles laid down in the rulings are very much applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
28. Looking into the any angle, in this case the complainant has sufficiently proved necessary ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant as above are believable, acceptable, cogent and considerable. Therefore, under such circumstances, this Court has no other option except accepting the case of the complainant. In this case, the complainant has sufficiently proved the case by placing sufficient, believable, consistent, acceptable and material evidence before the Court. Therefore, the complainant has sufficiently prove the ingredients under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and as per the amended Negotiable Instrument Act and also the recent rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is having power to impose interest on cheque amount. Therefore, the accused is liable to pay cheque amount to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to the cheque amount of 26 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only). Accordingly I answer Point No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative. POINT NO.3:
29. In the light of above discussed facts and circumstance of the case, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and hence, he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code.
The accused is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also liable to pay fine of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) for the above said offence, in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of another two months.
Further, it is also held that, out of the fine deposited by the accused, the accused is also liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.6,90,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Thousand only) to the complainant within three months from the date of this order and the remaining fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is to be confiscated to the state.
27 SCCH-22 C.C.1900/2018 The bail bond of the accused and surety stands cancelled.
Furnish the free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 14th day of September, 2018).
(B. Venkatappa) XX A.S.C.J. & XVIII A.C.M.M., & MEMBER, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant :
P.W.1 - Sri. M.Narasimha Murthy List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the Accused :
D.W.1 - Sri. Umashankar List of Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant :
Ex.P.1 - Original Cheque. Ex.P.1(a) - Signature of Accused on Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 - Bank Endorsement. Ex.P.3 - Legal Notice. Ex.P.4 - Postal Receipt. Ex.P.5 - Returned Postal Cover. Ex.P.5(a) - Copy of Legal Notice.
List of Documents marked on behalf of the Accused :
Ex.D.1 - Domestic Gas Bill.
Ex.D.2 - Notarized copy of Registration Certificate.
28 SCCH-22
C.C.1900/2018
Ex.D.3 - Letter issued by Accused of the Syndicate
Bank to stop payment of cheque.
Ex.D.4 - Bank Statement of the Accused.
Ex.D.5 - Postal Receipt.
Ex.D.6 to - Bank R.T.G.S. Receipts
Ex.D.9
(B. Venkatappa)
XX A.S.C.J. & XVIII A.C.M.M.,
& MEMBER, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.