Bangalore District Court
S/O. Lakshmikanth vs Office At Aquarelle India Pvt. Ltd on 4 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JULY, 2018
PRESENT
Sri. Shridhar Gopalakrishna Bhat, LL.B
XIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU
CASE NO C.C. NO.55347/2017
Sri. Murali Mohan
COMPLAINANT S/o. Lakshmikanth
Aged about 33 years, R/at No.14, 1st Cross,
Sampangiramaiah Nagar, K.G. Halli,
Bengaluru - 560 025.
Smt. Nethravathi
R/at No.88, Kushalnagar, N.R. Arabic
College Post, Bengaluru - 560 045.
ACCUSED
Office At Aquarelle India Pvt. Ltd.,
No.89/159, House List No.1877/3, Katha
No.2697, Kacharakanahalli, H.B.R Layout,
2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 560 043.
OFFENCE U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
PLEA OF THE
ACCUSED Pleaded not guilty
FINAL ORDER Accused is acquitted
(SHRIDHAR GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT)
XIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU
2 C.C. No.55347/2017
JUDGMENT
The complainant has approached this court with this complaint under Sec.200 Cr.PC against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w Sec.142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (herein after referred as N.I. Act)
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant and accused are well known to each other for the past several years. Due to said acquaintance, the accused had approached the complainant on 20.08.2016 requesting for hand loan of Rs.6 lakhs to meet her family legal necessities, business purpose and also other purposes, agreeing to repay the said amount within six months. As per the request of the accused, the complainant was obliged and paid hand loan of Rs.6 lakhs to the accused on 03.08.2016 by way of cash. It is further case of the complainant that after the stipulated period, the complainant had approached the accused and demanded for repayment of the loan amount. After several request and demands made by the complainant, the accused had issued cheque baring No.592363 dated 05.04.2017 for Rs.6 lakhs drawn on Corporation Bank, M.G. Road branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant towards discharge of the hand loan amount.
3. It is further case of the complainant that as per the assurance of the accused, the complainant had presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker - State Bank of Mysuru, Thanisandra branch, Bengaluru, but the said cheque 3 C.C. No.55347/2017 was returned dishonoured for the reason "drawer's signature differs" by endorsement dated 11.05.2017. Thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice on 05.06.2017 to the accused by RPAD calling upon her to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice. Though the said notice was served on the accused on 07.06.2017, the accused neither complied with the demand made in the said notice nor issued any reply to the said notice and thereby intentionally committed the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act. Under these attending circumstances, the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint and accordingly prayed for conviction of the accused and for grant of such other relief's as this court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.
4. After filing of this complaint, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. This court was satisfied as to prima facie case made out by the complainant for issuance of the summons to the accused and accordingly Criminal Case was registered against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act and summons was ordered to be issued to the accused.
5. In pursuance of the summons issued by this court, the accused has put up her appearance through her counsel and enlarged on bail. Thereafter plea was recorded. The accused has denied the substance of accusation and claimed for trial.
4 C.C. No.55347/20176. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as CW.1 and got marked as many as five documents as per Ex.P1 to P5 and closed his evidence. After closure of the complainant's side evidence, statement of the accused as provided U/s.313 of Cr.PC was recorded. The accused had denied the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the complainant. The accused herself examined as DW.1 and got marked four documents as per Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 and closed her evidence and thereby evidence of the parties concluded.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for respective parties.
8. On perusal of the entire material available on file and also on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels, the points that would arise for consideration are:-
1) Whether the complainant proves that the accused had issued cheque in question in discharge of the legally recoverable debt as contended?
2) Whether the complainant further proves that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?
4) What Order?
5 C.C. No.55347/20179. The above points are answered as under;
Point Nos.1 to 3 : In negative,
Point No.4 : As per the final order,
for the following.......
REASONS
10. Point Nos. 1 to 3 : Since these points are inter
linked and to avoid repetition they are taken together for discussion. Before peeping into the disputed facts, it is appropriate to refer the undisputed facts at this stage itself, which can be gathered from the material placed before this court. On going through the rival contention of the parties, oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the complainant and the husband of the accused were friends, they were having financial transaction and the husband of the accused filed police petition against the complainant in Banasawadi Police Station in connection with financial transaction. Further, it is clear that the brother of the complainant is also working in the same factory in which the husband of the accused was working. It is admitted fact that the accused was working in the Aquarelle India Private Ltd., Company. It is not in dispute that cheque in question belonged to the account of the accused and the accused was having her account in Corporation Bank, M.G. Road branch, Bengaluru. It is also clear after dishonour of the cheque, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused in that regard.
6 C.C. No.55347/201711. With the above admitted facts, now the facts in issue are analyzed, as already stated the accused has denied the entire case of the complainant as to commission of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act while recording her plea for the said offence and also denied the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the complainant at the time of recording her statement U/s.313 of Cr.PC. The accused has specifically denied the monitory transaction, issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant, service of notice on her as put up by the complainant. Further the accused has also denied the acquaintance of the complainant contending that she has seen him only before the court. On going through the cross- examination of the complainant and also evidence of the accused, it is found to be a specific defence of the accused that the brother of the complainant was working in the factory in which the husband of the accused was working and the complainant and his brother colluding together stolen the cheque of the accused and thereafter by misusing the same, the complainant has filed the false case. The accused has also contended that the handwriting and signature found in the cheque is not her handwriting and signature and accordingly prayed for her acquittal in the interest of justice and equity.
12. Relying on the oral and documentary evidence, the learned counsel for the respective parties vehemently argued as to the contention of the parties. It is needless to say that the proceeding U/s.138 of N.I. Act is an exception to the general 7 C.C. No.55347/2017 principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In the proceedings initiated U/s.138 of N.I. Act, proof beyond all reasonable doubt is subjected to presumption envisaged U/s.139 of N.I. Act. Once the requirement of section 138 of N.I. Act is fulfilled, then it has to be presumed that the cheque was issued for discharge of the legally recoverable debt or liability. The presumption envisaged U/s.139 of N.I. Act is mandatory in nature and it has to be raised in all the cases on fulfillment of the requirements of Sec.138 of the said Act. In the ruling rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in AIR 2010 (SC) 1898 by relying on several rulings rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattathraya G. Hegde reported in AIR 2008 (SC) 1325, it was held that "Existence of legally recoverable debt or liability is a matter of presumption U/s.139 of N.I. Act". The Hon'ble Apex Court disapproved the principle laid down in Krishna Janardhan Bhat's case that "Initial burden of proving existence of the liability lies upon the complainant". In the case of Sri.B.H.Lakshminarayana Vs. Smt.Girijamma reported in 2010 (4) KCCR 2637, it is held that "the presumption that the cheque was issued for legally recoverable debt is to be presumed". Further as provided U/s.118 of N.I. Act, it is to be presumed that the cheque in question was issued for consideration on the date as found therein.
8 C.C. No.55347/201713. In the light of the rival contention of the parties at the out set it is to be determined as to whether the complainant had complied with the requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act as contended. In this regard the complainant being CW.1 reiterated the complaint averments in his sworn statement which itself treated as examination-in-chief of the complainant in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590
- Indian Bank Association and others Vs Union of India and others - [W.P.(civil) No.18/2013]. In addition to that the complainant has produced cheque dated 05.04.2017, bank endorsement dated 11.05.2017, legal notice dated 05.06.2017, postal receipt dated 05.06.2017 for having sent the notice by RPAD and postal acknowledgment dated 07.06.2017 as per Ex.P1 to P5 respectively to substantiate his contention. Now the contents of Ex.P1 to P5 are analyzed, it is clear that the complainant had presented Ex.P1-cheque for encashment through State Bank of Mysuru, Thanisandra branch, Bengaluru and the same was dishonoured on 11.05.2017 for the reason "drawers signature differ". Thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice dated 05.06.2017 by RPAD and the same was stated to be served on 07.06.2017 as put up by the complainant. Therefore it is clear that the complainant had presented the cheque in question for encashment within its validity and issued legal notice within 30 days from the date of receipt of information as to dishonour of the cheque as required under law. The complainant had presented this complaint on 9 C.C. No.55347/2017 12.07.2017 i.e after lapse of 15 days from the date of service of notice on the accused and within 30 days thereafter. Therefore prima facie the complainant had complied with all the technical requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act in filing the complaint.
14. As already stated the accused has denied the service of notice on her as put up by the complainant. In this regard the learned counsel for the complainant has relied on Ex.P5 postal acknowledgment to show the service of notice on the accused on her office address. As argued by the learned counsel for the complainant it is also noticed that the summons issued by this court to the official address of the accused is found to be served. However as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, it is noticed that though in the legal notice, the complainant had shown the residential as well as official address of the accused, it appears that the notice was only sent to the official address of the accused and not to the residential address. No document is produced to show that the notice sent to the residential address of the accused as shown in the notice. Even the complainant has not stated anything as to sending of the notice to the residential address of the accused in his complaint or in his examination-in-chief. It is not understood why the complainant had not sent the legal notice to the residential address of the accused, though the complainant has stated the residential address of the accused in the legal notice. There is no explanation in that regard.
10 C.C. No.55347/201715. Relying on Ex.P4 and P5 the learned counsel for the accused forcefully argued as to non-sending of notice even to the official address of the accused and creation of Ex.P5. In this regard the learned counsel for the accused has also taken notice of this court as to postal acknowledgement available in the file in pursuance of the summons issued by this court by RPAD. In the light of the argument address now the contents of Ex.P4 - postal receipt, Ex.P5- postal acknowledgement and also the postal acknowledgement available on file as to service of summons are analyzed, it is found that Ex.P4 and P5 are not at all tallying with each other. In Ex.P4-postal receipt it is found that the registered post was sent to the totally different address than the address shown in Ex.P5. In Ex.P4 PIN Code was shown as 560001, whereas the PIN Code of the official address of the accused is shown as 560043 in the legal notice as well as in the complaint. In this angle Ex.P4 cannot be connected with Ex.P5- postal acknowledgement. Further it is also noticed that in the postal acknowledgement the seal of the addressee post is also not clear. At this stage, the postal acknowledgement in connection with service of summons available in the file is analyzed, it is clear that the PIN Code is shown as 560043 and the said PIN Code is found in the seal of the post office also. In this view of the matter it is very difficult to accept the contention of the complainant that he had sent the notice to the official address of the accused as shown in the legal notice. No doubt in the postal acknowledgement there is address of the 11 C.C. No.55347/2017 accused as shown in the legal notice, but only on that ground it cannot be held that it was sent to the correct address of the accused. Further in the postal acknowledgement even there is no register number and date on which the registered post was sent. Further it is also noticed from Ex.P5 that it was not served on the accused, but found to be taken by some other person on behalf of the addressee. Therefore their arises serious doubt as to sending of statutory notice to the correct address of the accused and also as to the very credibility of Ex.P5 as to service of notice on the accused as put up by the complainant. No doubt as argued by the learned counsel for the complainant, the contents of Ex.D2 i.e pay slips of the accused are analyzed, it is clear that as on the date of service of notice as stated by the complainant, the accused was working in the Aquarelle India Pvt. Ltd., itself. The pay slips are produced by the accused reveal that she had worked in the said company till end of June 2017. But on that basis, it cannot be held that the notice was served on the accused on her official address as contended by the complainant unless it is proved that the notice was sent to the said address of the accused. As already discussed Ex.P4 does not reveal as to sending of the notice by registered post to the office address of the accused. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that the notice was actually sent to the official address of the accused except Ex.P4 which is found to be not inconsonance with the official address of the accused. Under these attending circumstances, this court found 12 C.C. No.55347/2017 substance in the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the accused and their arises serious doubt as to the very sending of the notice to the correct address of the accused, and the benefit of which goes to the accused. Therefore it cannot be held that the complainant had sent the statutory notice to the accused as required under law and the same was served on the accused and thereby the complainant had complied with necessary requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act in filing the complaint.
16. As already stated in this case the accused has denied the very monitory transaction as well as execution and issuance of the cheque as per Ex.P1 in favour of the complainant. Admittedly, the cheque in question was returned dishonoured for the reason "signature differs". It is well settled law that the dishonour of the cheque for the reason "signature differs" comes within the purview of Sec.138 of N.I. Act. But it is pertinent to note that when the accused has specifically denies the monitory transaction, her signature, execution and issuance of cheque in question and when the cheque was returned dishonoured for the reason "signature differs", then initial burden lies upon the complainant to prove the execution and issuance of cheque by the accused in his favour. It is admitted fact that the cheque in question belonged to the account of the accused. But only on that fact it cannot be presumed that the cheque in question was signed and issued by the accused herself. Therefore unless the complainant proves the execution and issuance of cheque by the 13 C.C. No.55347/2017 accused as contended by him, he cannot take shelter under the presumption available U/s.139 and 118 of N.I. Act.
17. In the light of the above aspects, now the material available on file is analyzed, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, it is found that there is inconsistency in the averments made in the notice, complaint and in his evidence and suggestion put to the mouth of the accused during cross- examination as to the monitory transaction and issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant. In the legal notice as well as in the complaint, it is stated by the complainant that the accused had approached him on 20.08.2016 requesting hand loan of Rs.6 lakhs to meet his family legal necessities, business purposes and also other purposes. But contrary to this fact, in the legal notice as well as in the complaint, the complainant claims lending of Rs.6 lakhs to the complainant by way of cash on 03.08.2016 itself i.e much earlier to the approach of the accused seeking the alleged financial assistance as stated by himself. The same fact even found in the affidavit of the complainant which is treated as his examination-in-chief. The learned counsel for the complainant in this regard contended that that it is only clerical error. But it is not understood why the said alleged error was not rectified at the very initial stage itself at least by issuing corrigendum to the notice. Therefore this aspect creates doubt as to the very alleged transaction itself.
14 C.C. No.55347/201718. In addition to the above aspect, it is further notice that as already stated in the legal notice, complaint as well as in the examination-in-chief the complainant has specifically contended that to meet the family legal necessities, business purpose and other purpose, the accused had sought for hand loan. But the evidence of the complainant during cross-examination and suggestion put to the mouth of the accused during cross- examination are analyzed, the complainant contends that the accused had sought for loan of Rs.6 lakhs for the purpose of starting garment factory which is contrary to the purpose of the loan stated by the complainant in the legal notice as well as in the complaint as aforesaid. Further during cross-examination the complainant deposed that even he had made enquiry as to in which place the accused will start garment factory whether the labourers are available and thereafter only he had lent the amount to the accused. But the said fact is not found either in the notice or in complaint. Further the suggestion put to the mouth of the accused during her cross-examination reveals that the accused and her husband intended to start garment factory and for that purpose they had taken hand loan of Rs.6 lakhs and the complainant had paid the said amount to the accused in the presence of her husband. But this fact is nowhere found either in the notice or in the complaint. Therefore in this regard also the case of the complainant is found to be shabby and appears that the complainant has suppressed the real fact.
15 C.C. No.55347/201719. At this juncture, it is also noticed that the complainant in his legal notice, complaint as well as in his affidavit evidence stated that after stipulated period when he approached the accused and demanded for repayment of loan amount and after several request and demands made by him, the accused had issued Ex.P1-cheque towards discharge of her liability. This version makes it very clear that after stipulated period and after making several demands, the accused had issued Ex.P1-cheque in favour of the complainant. But in this regard, the evidence of the complainant during cross-examination is analyzed, he has specifically stated that " £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ ¸Á® PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è D PÀÄjvÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀ°®è. ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ ºÀt PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝ JAzÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß vÀÄA© PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀ°®è. ¸ÁQë ¸ÀéEZÉѬÄAzÀ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ DgÉÆæAiÉÄà ¸Á®zÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¢zÀÝ°è ZÉQÌ£À ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÁåAQUÉ ºÁQ JAzÀÄ w¼À¹zÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ." This version of the complainant during cross-examination reveals that at the time of lending the loan itself he had taken undated cheque from the accused and the accused herself instructed him to fill up the cheque and present the same for encashment in case of non-payment of the loan amount. But this version of the complainant is totally contrary to his own contention as to issuance of cheque. Further during cross- examination the complainant further deposed that " £Á£ÀÄ DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæUÉ £À£Àß ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÉýPÉÆArzÉÝ. DUÀ 16 C.C. No.55347/2017 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ CªÀgÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¤ÃrzÀ ZÉQÌ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É CªÀgÉà ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄ D ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ ºÁQ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ £À£ÀUÉ w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ." This is another version found from the mouth of the complainant as to filling up the date in the cheque and again the same is contrary to the complaint averments. Nowhere the complainant has come up with this kind of version either in the legal notice or in the complaint. The version found in the legal notice, complaint and affidavit evidence is totally contrary to this version.
20. In addition to the above aspects, the suggestion put to the mouth of the accused during the cross-examination is analyzed, the suggestion put to the mouth of the accused reveals that the accused had issued cheque in question on the date of availment of loan itself towards repayment of the loan borrowed. This is another version found in the cross- examination of DW.1 as to issuance of cheque in question. Therefore these aspects are analyzed, it is crystal clear that the complainant himself not aware as to the when exactly the cheque in question was issued. Further absolutely there is no evidence to show the monitory transaction as put up by the complainant. The evidence of the complainant during cross- examination reveals that as on the date of alleged loan transaction, he had no money to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs and he had lent Rs.6 lakhs to the accused by availing the said amount from his friend Anand. But this fact is not found either in the notice or in the complaint. Further the accused has specifically 17 C.C. No.55347/2017 denied monitory transaction and if at all the complainant had taken Rs.6 lakhs from his friend as stated by him and lent the said amount to the accused, the complainant could have examined the said Anand in support of his contention. It is very difficult to accept that huge amount of Rs.6 lakhs was given to the accused without any security documents. Even there is no convincing and acceptable evidence to show that the complainant and accused are well known to each other and the complainant had such trust with the accused so as to lend huge amount of Rs.6 lakhs without any document that to availing amount from his friend. This aspect again creates serious doubt as to the contention of the complainant.
21. Therefore on going through the entire evidence available on file, their arises serious doubt as to the very loan transaction itself and so also issuance of cheque by the accused in favour of the complainant towards the alleged loan amount. The complainant has not produced any convincing and acceptable evidence to accept the execution and delivery of the cheque in question by the accused as put up by him. The case of the complainant in this regard found to be totally inconsistent, vague and the same is not inspiring the confidence of the court so as to accept his contention. Hence in the light of the available evidence this court is of the considered view that the complainant has failed to discharge his initial burden as to loan transaction as well as execution and issuance of the cheque by the accused as contended. Under these attending 18 C.C. No.55347/2017 circumstances, the statutory presumption cannot be attracted in favour of the complainant.
22. As discussed in detail, it is found that the complainant has failed to prove that he had sent the notice to the correct address of the accused, the very monitory transaction and so also execution and issuance of the cheque in his favour by the accused as contended by him. At this juncture it is also to be noted that though the accused has contended that the complainant and his brother colluding together had stolen her cheque and the complainant had misused the said cheque in filing the present complaint, absolutely there is no convincing and acceptable evidence in that regard. Though during the course of cross-examination of the complainant, the accused has come up with such defence, the same is not found in her examination-in-chief. Therefore the said defence of the accused is found to be without any basis and that cannot be accepted in any angle. Though the accused has produced four documents as per Ex.D1 to D4, they are no way helpful to the accused to establish her defence in any angle and even the complainant has not disputed the said documents. On going through the evidence of both parties available on file, it is not clear as to how did the complainant possess the cheque as per Ex.D1 which belonged to the account of the accused.
23. Thus for the reason discussed above in detail, this court is of the considered view that the complainant has failed to 19 C.C. No.55347/2017 prove the compliance of requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act in filing the complaint and so also the monitory transaction and issuance of the cheque in question by the accused as put up by him. The case of the complainant is found to be very uncertain and surrounded with suspicion. Under these attending circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove point Nos.1 and 2 in his favour as contended and as such point nos.1 & 2 are required to be answered in negative. It is needless to say that when the complainant failed to prove point nos.1 & 2 in his favour, it goes without saying that he is not entitled for the relief sought for. Hence Point Nos.1 to 3 are required to be answered in negative and answered accordingly.
24. Point No.4: For the reasons discussed in connection with Point Nos.1 to 3 this court proceed to pass the following....
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.PC accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
The bail bond of the accused and that of her surety stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by him, transcript corrected by me and pronounced in the open court on this the 4th Day of July, 2018) (SHRIDHAR GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT) XIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU 20 C.C. No.55347/2017 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the complainant:
CW.1 : Sri. Murali Mohan
Witnesses examined for the defence:
DW.1 : Smt. Netravathi
Documents marked for the complainant:
Ex.P1 : Cheque
Ex.P2 : Bank endorsement
Ex.P3 : Legal notice
Ex.P4 : Postal receipt
Ex.P5 : Postal acknowledgement
Documents marked for the defence:
Ex.D1 : Letter of confirmation
Ex.D2 : Salary slip
Ex.D3 : Xerox copy of I.D. Card
Ex.D4 : Salary slip
(SHRIDHAR GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT)
XIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU