Bangalore District Court
B. Srinivas vs Sri. G. Ram Mohan on 6 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Sri. V. NAGARAJA, B.A., LL.B.,
XXI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2019
C.C. No.15598/2017
COMPLAINANT: B. SRINIVAS
S/o. P. Balappa,
R/at. No.515/1,
TCH College Road,
Nagavara Post,
Bengaluru - 560 045.
(Reptd. By: BSR., Advocate)
V/s.
ACCUSED: Sri. G. RAM MOHAN
No.A/2, W No.15 PL, No.8,
Agadi Marappa Compound,
Srilakshmi Apartments,
Bellary - 583 101.
(Reptd. By: MR., Advocate)
:JUDGMENT:
Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 138 of N.I. Act, seeking for penalizing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and also for awarding compensation to him.
2 C.C.No.15598/2017
2. Case of the complainant in a nutshell is that:
He and accused are well acquainted with each other.
During the month of February 2013, accused represented him by stating that he owned property bearing Sy.No.8, measuring 1 acre 30 guntas of land in Sarjapura Village, Anekal Taluk and expressed his intention to sell the said property for valuable consideration of Rs.75,00,000/- per acre. So, on considering his representation, the complainant intended to purchase the said property and asked the accused to produce original documents, whereas accused told him that he had kept original deeds in his residence at Bellary. However, he had shown RTC pertaining to the said property in the website called "Bhoomi". In the said RTC, name of the accused was mentioned. So, believing the words of the accused, the complainant agreed to purchase the said property, whereas the accused insisted him for advance amount in order to assure that complainant would definitely purchase the said property and restraining the accused from selling the said property to others. So, the complainant in order to ensure that he is going to purchase the property, he paid Rs.8,00,000/- to accused 3 C.C.No.15598/2017 as token advance and requested him to execute agreement of sale by receiving remaining amount.
3. It is further averred that after sometime the complainant demanded the accused to execute sale agreement or sale deed by receiving remaining balance amount, but accused evaded to execute either sale agreement or regular sale deed, but accused failed to do so. So, on enquiry, the complainant came to know that said property was not belonged to accused, whereas accused is having habit of cheating the persons by stating that he is the owner of said property. So, complainant demanded for refund of said earnest money of Rs.8,00,000/-. So, in order to discharge the above said liability, on 13.06.2013, he has issued him cheque bearing No.329155 dated 13.06.2013 for Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Parvathinagara Branch, Bellary and assured to honour the said cheque. So, believing the words of accused, on 14.06.2013, he presented the above said cheque through his banker i.e., Syndicate Bank, Lingarajapuram, Bengaluru. But said cheque was dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient" in the account of accused. So, the bank authorities issued 4 C.C.No.15598/2017 endorsement dated 14.06.2013. So, he got issued legal notice dated 09.07.2013 through RPAD to accused regarding dishonour of cheque and calling upon the accused to pay cheque amount, whereas said notice has been duly served on accused on 12.07.2013, but accused has failed to pay the cheque amount. Hence, accused has committed offence punishable U/s.138 of NI Act. Hence, he is constrained to file this complaint seeking for penalizing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act., and also seeking for awarding of compensation to him.
4. In pursuance of summons issued by this court, accused made appearance through his counsel and obtained bail and now he is on bail.
5. As these proceedings are summary in nature, substance of accusation read over and explained to accused in language known to him whereas, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he has been examined as PW-1 and got documents marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8. After completion of evidence of 5 C.C.No.15598/2017 complainant, statement of accused as specified U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., has been recorded and he has been examined as DW-1.
7. I have heard arguments of both learned counsels.
8. Perused the records.
9. After perusal of records, the points arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused in order to discharge his legally enforceable debt, he has issued him a cheque bearing No.329155 dated 13.06.2013 for Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Parvathinagara Branch, Bellary?
2) Whether complainant further proves that he has complied with mandatory requirements as specified under Section 138 of N.I. Act?
3) What Order?
10. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1: As I have already stated, in order to prove the case of the complainant, he has been examined as PW-1 and he filed his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit by reiterating entire complaint averments as 6 C.C.No.15598/2017 stated above. In support of his oral testimony, he relied upon Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8.
12. On the other hand, accused has been examined as DW-1.
13. Before appreciation of evidence of both parties, I am of the opinion, it is worth to note presumptions envisaged in N.I. Act as well as ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Three Judges Bench Judgment reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 (Rangappa V/s. Sri Mohan) wherein it is held:
"The presumption mandated by Section 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. This is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, herein, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the respondent /complainant."
It is further held:
Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to Section 139 of the NI Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption.7 C.C.No.15598/2017
14. So in the light of above presumptions and ratio decidendi laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, if the present facts and situations are analyzed, it is obvious that according to complainant, accused has issued cheques for discharging of his loan liability. On the other hand, on considering the stand taken by the accused in his evidence, it is obvious that though he disputes his liability as claimed by complainant, but he is not disputing the facts that cheque is belonged to his account and it bears his signature. So, as I have already stated in view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in the Judgments stated supra, that as soon as accused admits the facts that cheque is belonged to his account and it bears his signature, then the mandatory presumption u/S 139 of N.I. Act comes to the aid of complainant and he can rest upon said presumption.
15. Whereas, learned counsel for defence argued that in order to raise presumption U/s.138 of NI Act, the condition precedent is that complainant must prove the existence of legally recoverable debt or liability, if he is able to prove the same, then only presumption can be raised otherwise not.
8 C.C.No.15598/2017
16. Having regard to the arguments of learned counsel for accused, it is important to note as I have already pointed out Hon'ble Three-Judges Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa's case stated supra, it is clearly held:
"The presumption mandated by Section 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally recoverable debt or liability"
17. So when above ratio clearly states that presumption includes existence of legally enforceable debt or liability then further proof of that fact is not required that too in summary proceedings. Because Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2009)2 SCC 513 (Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets) has clearly observed that:
Presumption literally means "taking as true without examination or proof"
18. At this juncture, it is also worth to note ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2014)5 SCC 590 (Indian Bank Association and others V/s. Union of India and others) wherein it is held by reiterating Section 143 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 264 of Cr.P.C., that:
9 C.C.No.15598/2017
"Section 264, Judgments in cases tried summarily - In every case tried summarily in which the accused does not plead guilty, the Magistrate shall record the substance of the evidence and a judgment containing a brief statement of the reasons for the finding"
"Thus, the Magistrate is not expected to record full evidence which he would have been, otherwise required to record in a regular trial and his judgment should also contain a brief statement of the reasons for the finding and not elaborate reasons which otherwise he would have been required to record in regular trials"
19. So, in the light of above ratio decidendi and in view of Section 143 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 264 of Cr.P.C., as this case is summary case, I am of the opinion it is not necessary to discuss elaborately with respect to legally enforceable debt when presumption includes existence of legally recoverable debt as held in the above said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. So, the mandatory presumptions will live, exist and survive and shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is to say the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability, in other words, onus shifts on the accused to rebut the said mandatory 10 C.C.No.15598/2017 presumption raised in favour of complainant as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment reported in (2009)2 SCC 513 (Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets).
Now the crucial question arises as to whether accused is able to rebut the said presumption or not?
20. It is significant to note on considering the defence of the accused, he has taken contrary versions which are mutually destructive in nature that is to say at one stretch i.e., in the cross-examination of PW-1, he has taken a stand that complainant has obtained his signed blank cheques for the purpose of security by assuring that he would get loan to accused from somebody else, but complainant failed to do so and misused his one of signed blank cheque. At another stretch, he contended that one Pandey resident of Bellary had obtained 10 signed blank cheques of accused and gave it to complainant and one Srinivasa Reddy and got filed false complaints through them.
21. It is further significant to note interestingly in his examination-in-chief, he contended that he and complainant and others i.e., 1. Srinivasa Reddy,
2. Raghurishi, 3. Vinjam Sharath Channa, 4. Muralidhar 11 C.C.No.15598/2017 were friends and they were jointly doing real estate business. In their business transactions, he had given his signed blank cheques to complainant for business use, but due to some problems, the said business did not continue. So, the complainant without returning his signed blank cheques, complainant and others colluded together and filed false complaints. So, said complaints are liable to be dismissed and he may be acquitted.
22. Having regard to the defence of the accused and arguments of his learned counsel, it is worth to note ratio decidendi laid down Hon'ble Apex Court in very Rangappa V/s. Sri. Mohan's case, it is clearly observed that:
"A mere plausible explanation is not expected from the accused and it must be more than a plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. In other words, the defence raised by way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and capable of being accepted by the court"
23. At this juncture, it is worth to note ratio decidendi laid down by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC 575 (Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai V/s. State of Maharashtra) which has been followed in the subsequent judgment 12 C.C.No.15598/2017 reported in (2001)6 SCC 16 (Hiten P.Dalal V/s. Brathindranath Banerjee) wherein it is held that:
"That the distinction between the two kinds of presumption lay not only in the mandate to the court, but also in the nature of evidence required to rebut the two. In the case of a discretionary presumption the presumption if drawn may be rebutted by an explanation which "might reasonably be true and which is consistent with the innocence" of the accused. On the other hand in the case of a mandatory presumption "The burden resting on the accused person in such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation is offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must further be shown that the explanation is a true one. The words unless the contrary is proved' which occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof' and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible"
24. At this juncture, it also worth to note in another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2010)8 SCC 383 (Meghmala and others V/s. Narasimha Reddy and others) wherein it is held that:
13 C.C.No.15598/2017
"It is not like any other criminal case where the accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right, however, subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence. For this purpose, the nature of offence, its seriousness and gravity thereof has to be taken into consideration. Statutes like the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998; and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, provide for presumption of guilt if the circumstances provided in those statutes are found to be fulfilled and shift the burden of proof of innocence on the accused. Thus, the legislature has adopted a deviating course from ordinary criminal law shifting the burden on the accused to prove that he was not guilt"
25. At this juncture, it is worth to note, view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments reported in AIR 2008 SC 3601 (T.P. Murugan V/s. Bojan Posa Nandi) wherein it is observed that:
"Defence of accused that 10 cheques issued towards repayment of loan back in 1995 - Behaviour of accused in allegedly issuing 10 14 C.C.No.15598/2017 blank cheques bank in 1995 and never asking their return for 7 years, unnatural"
26. In another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2015 SC 2240 (T. Vasanthkumar V/s. Vijayakumari) wherein it is held that:
"Story brought out by accused that cheque was given to complainant long bank in 1999 as a security to a loan; the loan was repaid but complainant did not return security cheque- Is unworthy of credit, apart from being unsupported by any evidence"
27. So from the above ratio, it is crystal clear that proceedings U/s.138 of NI Act is not like any other criminal case where the accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved. On the other hand the legislature has adopted a deviating course from ordinary criminal law by shifting the burden on the accused to prove that he is not guilty. So, the accused must rebut the mandatory presumption by raising probable and acceptable defence to the satisfaction of the court, because the presumption raised in favour of complainant is mandatory presumption, but not general presumption.
28. In the light of above ratio decedendi, if the present facts and situations are analyzed, as I have 15 C.C.No.15598/2017 already pointed out accused has taken contrary contentions which are mutually destructive in nature. Even otherwise, though he has taken such contentions, but he has not placed any cogent and convincing evidence to prove atleast one of his contentions that is to say the complainant has misused his signed blank cheque. So, in absence of such cogent and convincing evidence, contention of the accused cannot be believable and acceptable.
29. At this juncture, it is also worth to take note of the conduct of the accused as specified U/s.114 of Indian Evidence Act that as per his contention, complainant has misused his signed blank cheque. If that is the case, a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the court as to why accused has kept quite for along time without lodging any police complaint or taking any legal action against complainant regarding alleged misuse of his signed blank cheque. So, I am of the opinion, if at all accused had not issued present cheque for discharging of his legally enforceable debt, then definitely accused would have lodged police complaint or initiated legal proceedings against the complainant, even he could have immediately given instructions to his banker for stop payment regarding 16 C.C.No.15598/2017 the present cheque, because no prudent man will keep quite, when his cheque is misused by somebody else that too for huge amount. So, non-taking any of these actions by the accused at appropriate time, it creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court regarding acceptance of his version that complainant has misused his signed blank cheque. So, I come to clear conclusion that the defence raised by the accused is not probable and acceptable.
30. Coming to arguments of learned counsel for accused that the complainant has filled up the contents of the cheque for his convenience. So, said cheque is not valid etc.
31. Having regard to the arguments of learned counsel for accused at this juncture, it is worth to note ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment reported in 2019 SCC On line SC 138 = Crl. Appeal No.230-231/2019 2019 (@SLP(Crl) No.9334- 35/2018) dated 06.02.2019 (Bir Singh V/s. Mukesh Kumar) wherein it is held that:
"A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and 17 C.C.No.15598/2017 makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had not been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted"
"If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence"
"It may reasonably be presumed that the cheque was filled in by the appellant- complainant being the payee in the presence of the respondent-accused being the drawer, at his request and/or with his acquiescence. The subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration"
32. It is also worth to note ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2002)7 SCC 150 (P.K. Manmadhan Kartha V/s. Sanjeev Raj and another) wherein it is held that:
18 C.C.No.15598/2017
"Difference of handwriting and ink on the cheque did not rebut the statutory presumption U/s.139 and 118 of NI Act"
33. At this juncture it is also worth to note that view taken by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2001 KAR 4127 (S.R. Muralidhar V/s. Ashok G.Y.) wherein it is held that:
Section 20 of NI Act - Inchoate stamped instruments "No law provides that in case of any negotiable instrument entire body has to be written by maker or drawer only. What is material is signature of drawer or maker and not the body writing hence question of body writing has no significance"
"It is not objectionable or illegal in law to receive a inchoate negotiate instrument duly singed by the maker despite the material particulars are kept blank if done with an understanding and giving full authority to the payee to fill up the material contents as agreed upon. Such a course of action in law cannot vitiate the transaction nor can invalidate the negotiable instrument issued and such transaction fully binds the maker of the Negotiable Instrument"
34. So, in the light of above principle if the present facts and situations are analyzed, as I have already 19 C.C.No.15598/2017 pointed out, accused is not disputing the facts that cheque is belonged to his account and it bears his signature. Under such circumstances, filling up contents of the cheque by complainant or somebody else is immaterial and it will not invalidate the cheque. Moreover, that itself will not rebut the mandatory presumption raised in favour of complainant as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment stated supra. Hence, I don't find any force in the arguments of learned counsel for accused.
35. Coming to another argument of learned counsel for accused that complainant has no financial capacity to lend such a huge amount etc.
36. Having regard to the arguments of learned counsel for accused, at this juncture, it is worth to note ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment reported in (2019) SCC Online SC 389 = Criminal Appeal No.508 of 2019 (Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel V/s. State of Gujarat and another) wherein it is held:
"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 20 C.C.No.15598/2017 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 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 accused-appellant"
"Presumption existing in favour of the complainant by virtue of Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. Needless to reiterate that the result of such presumption is that existence of a legally enforceable debt is to be presumed in favour of the complainant. When such a presumption is drawn, the factors relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not relevant"21 C.C.No.15598/2017
37. So, from the above ratio decedendi, it is crystal clear that when mandatory presumption has been raised in favour of complainant, which includes existence of legally enforceable debt, then court cannot expect evidence regarding the source of funds of the complainant for advancing loan to the accused, whereas expecting such evidence is contrary to presumption envisaged under Section 138 of N.I. Act. So, source of funds of the complainant is totally immaterial. Hence, I am of the opinion, it is not relevant factor in rebutting the mandatory presumption raised in favour of complainant. Hence, I do not find any force in the arguments of learned counsel for accused.
38. Coming to another argument of learned counsel for accused that according to complainant, he advanced entire amount of Rs.8,00,000/- by way of cash which cannot be believable, because a loan more than Rs.20,000/- cannot be advanced in cash etc.
39. Having regard to the arguments of learned counsel for accused, at this juncture, it is worth to note principle laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay reported in 2013 Crl.L.J. (NOC) 572 (BOM.) 22 C.C.No.15598/2017 (Krishna P. Morajkar V/s. Joe Ferrao and another) (relied by learned counsel for accused) wherein it is held that:
"A plain reading of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act shows that no person can accept any loan or deposit of sum of Rs.20,000/- or more otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. It does not say that a person cannot advance more than Rs.20,000/- in cash to another person. It is clear that the restriction on cash advances was in fact on the taker and not the person who makes the advance. The penalty for taking such advance or deposit in contravention of provisions of Section 269SS was to be suffered by one who takes the advance. Therefore, it was obviously impermissible to invoke these provisions for preventing a person from recovering the advance which he has made"
40. So, from the above view taken by Hon'ble High Court and on reading of Section 269SS of I.T. Act, it is crystal clear that it does not say that a person cannot advance more than Rs.20,000/- in cash to another person. It is clear that the restriction on cash advances was in fact on the taker/to accept said amount in cash and not the person who makes the advance. So, under such 23 C.C.No.15598/2017 circumstances, I am of the opinion that this provision is against to borrower but not to lender. So, this provision will not helpful to the accused to rebut the presumption. Hence, I do not find any force in the arguments of learned counsel for accused.
41. As I have already pointed that Hon'ble Apex Court in the Constitution Bench and Larger Bench Judgments stated supra, it is clearly held that presumption envisaged U/s.138 of NI Act is not general presumption but it is mandatory presumption, so the said presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof' and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible". So, I come to clear conclusion that accused has utterly failed to rebut the mandatory presumption raised in favour of complainant. Hence, I hold this point in Affirmative.
42. Point No.2: As I have already discussed in point No.1 that accused has issued cheque for discharging of his legally recoverable debt. Whereas, on perusal of bank endorsement given by bank authority clearly reveal that complainant had presented the said cheque within validity period, but said cheque was dishonoured with endorsement "Funds Insufficient" in the account of 24 C.C.No.15598/2017 accused. On perusal of Ex.P-3 which is legal notice issued to accused clearly reveal that the complainant got issued said demand notice to accused within specified time of 30 days from the date of receiving of endorsement from bank. On perusal of returned postal acknowledgement Ex.P-5, clearly reveals that the demand notice has been duly served on correct address of the accused.
43. So on considering the oral coupled with the documentary evidence of the complainant, they clearly proved that complainant has complied with mandatory requirements as specified U/s.138(a) and (b) of N.I. Act. Whereas, accused has not paid the cheques amount within specified time, inspite of service of demand notice. Hence, accused has committed offence punishable U/s.138 of NI Act. Hence, I hold point No.2 in Affirmative.
44. Point No.3: For the foregoing reasons discussed on points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) r/w 264 of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
(V. NAGARAJA) XXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.25 C.C.No.15598/2017
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, accused is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.8,05,000/- (Eight Lakhs and Five Thousand only). In default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 (Five) months.
In view of Section 357 of Cr.P.C., complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight Lakhs only) out of above said fine amount.
After collecting the above fine amount, office is directed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight Lakhs only) to complainant as compensation and defray remaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand only) to state, after appeal period is over.
However, accused shall execute personal bond of Rs.8,05,000/- in view of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The office is hereby directed to supply the copy of this Judgment to the accused on free of cost.
(Directly dictated to Stenographer on computer, computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of June, 2019) (V. NAGARAJA) XXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW-1 : B. Srinivas LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P-1 : Cheque
Ex.P-2 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P-3 : Copy of Legal Notice
26 C.C.No.15598/2017
Ex.P-4 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P-5 : Postal Acknowledgement
Ex.P-6 : C.C. of Judgment in C.C.9214/2017
Ex.P-7 : C.C. of Judgment in C.C.9215/2017
Ex.P-8 : C.C. of Judgment in C.C.9213/2017
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
DW-1 : G. Ram Mohan LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
- Nil -
(V. NAGARAJA) XXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.