Bangalore District Court
Smt. Sandhya. S vs Sri Sukumaran Nair on 8 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 8th day of May, 2018
PRESENT: SRI MADHVESH DABER,
B.COM., L.L.B(SPL).,
XIX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Case No: C.C.No.14271/2016
Complainant: Smt. Sandhya. S
W/o. Manjunath Gowda,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.71, Gruhalakshmi Colony,
1st Stage, BSK,
Bengaluru - 79.
Accused: Sri Sukumaran Nair,
S/o. Madhavan Nair. K.N,
Aged about 62 years
"Santhinivas", No.34,
K. Muniswamyappa Road, R. S. Palya,
Bengaluru -560 033.
Working at:
Assistant Manager Chit Funds &
Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Indiranagar, Bengaluru - 560 096.
Offence complained of: U/s.138 of N.I.Act
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
Opinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty
Date of order: 8th May 2018
JUDGEMENT
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. 2 C.C.No.14271/2016
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that;
The Complainant contends that she is working in Korea Trading Office as Assistant Manager at Bengaluru. She intended to invest money in any of the chit funds and intended to invest in Indiranagar Chit funds and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. wherein the Accused was working as Assistant Manager of said firm. Accordingly, she became a subscriber for chit amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- in December 2013 and Rs.25,00,000/- group in March 2016. In the meantime the Accused befriended with Complainant and promised to release payment in her favour and sought financial help of Rs.7,00,000/- for making payments in his branch. The Accused received Rs.7,00,000/- in cash in first week of October 2015 and issued two cheques bearing No.228371 and 228372 for Rs.3,50,000/- each dtd.30.1.2016 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. On presentation the cheque bearing No.228372 was dishonoured for the reason "payment stopped by drawer" . Though Complainant contacted the Accused, the Accused has not cared for the same. It is also contended that though the Accused treated and behaved with the Complainant cordially at the initial stage, but gradually he 3 C.C.No.14271/2016 started misbehaving with the Complainant. He used to send vulgar messages from his mobile during the period 1.9.2015 to 12.1.2016, inviting her for sexual activities. The Complainant was shocked. She had not informed the same to anyone as her money was with the Accused and the Accused has promised her to help in raising chit amount. Since she was working in Korean Embassy and due to her social respect and for the reason of losing her money, she did not inform anyone. However, once she warned the Accused and Accused wrote an apology letter seeking apology. However, he continued the same tendency thereafter also. As such Complainant lodged a complaint with police, which was registered in Crime No.23/16. Same is still pending. She has not taken strict action for the reason that she would loose her money which she lent to the Accused.
3. After dishonour of the cheque the Complainant issued a Legal Notice to the Accused on 16.3.2016 which was duly served upon the Accused. For that he gave a vague reply. So by not making payment of cheque amount, the Accused committed offence u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. Hence, this complaint. 4 C.C.No.14271/2016
4. Soon after filing of the complaint, cognizance of the offence was taken. Matter was registered as P.C. After recording of sworn statement of the complainant, the Private Complaint lodged by the complainant was registered as a Criminal Case. Summons was issued as against the accused. The accused appeared through his Counsel and he was enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation was read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The complainant got examined herself as PW1 and she got produced 6 documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and closed her side.
6. After closure of the complainant side evidence, Statement of the accused u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.. The accused denied the incriminating evidence in toto. The accused has not led any evidence from his side. But along with the 313 statement the Accused filed detailed written statement and copy of documents.
7. Arguments heard. I have perused the entire records. Both the learned Counsels appearing for the parties have filed written arguments, which are part and parcel of the records. 5 C.C.No.14271/2016
8. Now, the points that arise for my consideration are as under:
i) Whether the Complainant proves that the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt, issued a cheque for Rs.3,50,000/-
which on presentation came to be dishonoured and he has failed to honour the notice and not paid the amount and thereby, committed offence u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
ii) What order?
9. My findings to the above points for consideration are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
:R E A S O N S:
10. Point No.1 :- In order to prove her case, the Complainant namely Smt. Sandhya. S entered into the witness- box and filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and reiterated the complaint averments and got examined herself as PW-1 and also got marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Per contra, the accused has not led any evidence from his side.
11. During arguments the learned Counsel for the Complainant filed written arguments and reiterated the complaint averments. It is argued that the Accused has not 6 C.C.No.14271/2016 entered into the witness-box for the reason best known to him. The documents produced along with the complaint make it clear that the Complainant gave Rs.7,00,000/- to the Accused and the Accused issued the cheque Ex.P.1 which on presentation came to be dishonoured for the reason "payment stopped by drawer". It is argued that the Accused has not taken probable defence and not rebutted the presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act. The learned Counsel for the Complainant further argued that nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 to discard her valuable evidence. The learned Counsel for the Complainant argued that though the Accused has taken a defence, but same is not supported by valid and acceptable evidence. So same cannot be accepted. Hence, the learned Counsel for the Complainant prayed to convict the Accused.
12. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Accused filed a detailed written arguments of 81 pages. He has taken different contentions as detailed in written arguments. It is contended that for the reason mentioned in written arguments, the presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act is rebutted and onus is shifted 7 C.C.No.14271/2016 on Complainant to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt. But the Complainant has failed to prove her case. The Accused even though not entered the witness-box, but by eliciting facts from the cross-examination of PW1, rebutted the presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act. There are so many infirmities in cross-examination of PW1 which render her version doubtful. It is also contended that while recording 313 statement Accused has filed written arguments, which may be considered along with the documents produced with it. Hence, learned Counsel for the Accused prayed to acquit the Accused.
13. In support of his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Accused relied upon the following 14 rulings;
i) AIR 2008 SC 1325 Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde
ii) AIR 2009 SC 1518 M/s. Kumar Exports V/s.
Sharma Carpets
iii) 1996(6) SCC 369 K.K. Sidharthan V/s. T.P. Praveena Chandran and another
iv) I (2008) CCR 199 SC Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde
v) 2016 (1) DCR 147 Devender Kumar V/s. Khem Chand 8 C.C.No.14271/2016
vi) 2009 (1) DCR 622 Bombay High Court Sayeeda Iqbal Vakil V/s. Javed Abdul Latif Shaikh
vii) 2011 Cri.L.J. 552 Amzad Pasha Vs. H.N. Lakshmana
viii) AIR 2008 SC 278 John K.John V/s. Tom Varghese & another
ix) 2014 (2)SCC 236 John K. Abraham V/s. Simon C. Abraham and another
x) ILR 2003 KAR 173 Narasimha Murthy V/s.
Janakirama
xi) 2009(1) DCR 622 Sayeeda Iqbal Vakil V/s. Javed Abdul Latif Shaikh
xii) 2014(2) SCC 236 John K. Abraham V/s. Simon C. Abraham and another
xiii) AIR 2011 (NOC) 77 (KAR) S. Thimmappa V/s. L.S. Prakash
xiv) AIR 1997 KAR 275 V.R. Kamath V/s. Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road transport Corporation and others
14. I have carefully gone through the principles of above rulings relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Complainant. Keeping in mind the principles of above rulings, I have examined the evidence on record.
15. It is trite principles of law that the presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act is initially in favour of the Complainant that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally recoverable 9 C.C.No.14271/2016 debt or liability. However, the said presumption is rebuttable presumption. The Accused has to rebut the said presumption by taking a probable defence. The presumption can be rebutted even by eliciting facts from the cross-examination of PW1 or by leading defence evidence. For that Accused need not enter into the witness-box. Even the question of legally recoverable debt or liability can also be contested. Whether the presumption is rebutted or not? depends on facts and circumstances of each case. This principle is laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2010 SC 1898 Rangappa V/s. V. Mohan. In the light of above principles of law now I have to see whether the presumption is rebutted or not? and Complainant has proved his case or not?
16. On perusal of complaint averments it goes to show that the Complainant intended to invest money in Indiranagar Chit Funds Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. So as per the advise of Accused who was the Assistant Manager of the said Company she enrolled herself for Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- chits. It is important to note that the Complainant alleged that the Accused promised her that the Complainant would allot Rs.10,00,000/- group in December and Rs.25,00,000/- group in 10 C.C.No.14271/2016 March 2016. In the meantime the Accused befriended and promising to release the payments of the above chits, obtained a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- for making payments in the branch wherein he was working and promising to repay the chit price amount along with the amounts borrowed by Accused in monthly installments. Though he received the said amount in cash, but did not make payment as assured. He issued two cheques bearing No.228371 and 228372 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- each. Out of which, the cheque bearing No.228372 dtd.30.1.2016 was dishonoured for the reason "payment stopped by drawer". Hence, after complying all the legal formalities, the Complainant has filed this complaint.
17. Admittedly, the Accused has not led defence evidence. He has not entered into witness-box and not produced any document in support of his defence. However at the time of recording statement u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. the Accused filed written statement along with several documents, which are part and parcel of the records. Those documents have been marked as exhibits Ex.D1 to Ex.D7 in C.C.No.14270/2016 which is connected case.
11 C.C.No.14271/2016
18. Be it as it may the defence of the Accused is disclosed in the rely notice as per Ex.P.6. Even though the Accused has not entered in to the witness-box to give evidence for the purpose of rebutting the presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act, but the Accused has raised his defence in the reply notice which is marked as Ex.P.6. On perusal of the reply notice it goes to show that the Accused has raised defence at the initial stage itself and contended that the Complainant became a member of chit group of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- in his company. He has given detail description of the chit groups. But it is contended that though she became the member to the chit group but she was defaulter in payment of the chit subscription amount. However, the Complainant was very much interested in raising the chit amount. So during the month of 2016 January the Complainant and her husband visited the office of company of Accused at Malleswaram and requested the Accused to favour him in giving the chit amount which will be auctioned on 15th of every month. The Accused expressed his inability stating that if there were more than one member, lottery would be put and it would be decided by lucky dip and the amount in question would be paid accordingly. It is contended that being annoyed 12 C.C.No.14271/2016 by the same on 12.1.2016 the husband of the Complainant namely Manjunath Gowda @ Abhay Gowda came to the office of the Accused took him in a car along with his accomplices and threatened him forcibly obtained signature on cheque bearing No.228371 and 228372 of Axis Bank Ltd., Hyderabad. Even they have given serious life threat to the Accused. Since the Accused was aged person he could not resist the forcible obtaining of cheque by husband of Complainant and others. So it is contended that the Complainant, her husband and his accomplices forcibly obtained the cheques from the Accused. In this regard on 25.1.2016 a complaint was lodged in Malleswaram police station.
19. So it is the case of the Accused as per reply notice that since the Accused did not help them in receiving the chit amount being annoyed with him, they kidnapped him and took the signatures of Accused over the cheques forcibly and misused the same. However the Complainant herself filed a complaint against the Accused in Crime No.23/2016 wherein the Accused was arrested and release on bail and the said case is still pending in 7th ACMM Court, Bengaluru. So the Accused by filing a detailed 13 C.C.No.14271/2016 reply contended that there was no transaction of Rs.7,00,000/- in between Complainant and Accused as alleged by the Complainant.
20. Even though the Accused has not entered into the witness-box to rebut the case of the Complainant, but the Accused has produced certain documents along with 313 statement. Those documents are marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D7 in C.C.No.14270/2016 which is connected case with the present case. The document produced along with 313 statement goes to show that on 25.1.2016 the Accused lodged a complaint to the Inspector, Malleswaram Police Station alleging that on 12.1.2016 the husband of Complainant and others forcibly kidnapped him and took two cheques pertaining to Axis Bank Ltd. by forcibly getting signed from the Accused. The said document was marked as Ex.D1 in connected matter C.C. 14270/2016. Similarly, Certified Copy of Ex.D2 therein which is stop payment direction dtd.2.2.2016 is also produced. The Accused has also produced the application forms pertaining to the Complainant wherein she has become member for chit value for Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs10,00,000/-. Those documents at Ex.D3 and Ex.D4. The 14 C.C.No.14271/2016 brochure of Indiranagar Chits Funds & Trading Company is also produced at Ex.D5. The account copy of Complainant with regard to the chit amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- are produced at Ex.D6 and Ex.D7 in the connected matter. The Certified Copy of those documents are also produced. Similarly, the Accused has produced the certified copy of order sheet in P.C.R.No.3425/2016 on the file of 7th ACMM, Bengaluru Bengaluru wherein the Accused has filed a complaint against the Complainant and others alleging the kidnapping and other threatened acts as alleged in the reply notice. The certified copy of complaint is also produced. The detailed account of what had happened on 12.1.2016 is described. It is clearly mentioned therein that the Complainant's husband and others had abducted and forcibly taken the signed cheques from the Accused. So the Accused has produced all these documents along with 313 statement to prove that the case of the Complainant is false.
21. On perusal of the documents produced along with the 313 statement it clearly goes to show that whatever the contention raised by the Accused is a probable defence. Because on perusal of the cross-examination of the PW1 it clearly goes to show that 15 C.C.No.14271/2016 she has admitted the filing of complaint by Accused as per Ex.D1 in C.C.No.14270/2016 which is produced along with 313 statement. Similarly, the Complainant has admitted regarding the stop payment direction given by Accused and also she has admitted that she is the subscriber of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- chits. The prospectus of the said Company and receipts for having paid the subscription amount also admitted. The commencement date of chit amount and also the closure date of chit amount is admitted. Further subscription amount is also admitted. So the Complainant admitted all the documents produced along with 313 statement.
22. It is important to note that the Complainant has admitted that she is defaulter in payment of the subscription amount. Further she has admitted that a cheque for Rs.62,500/- issued by her for payment of subscription amount is dishonoured. She clearly admitted that she is a defaulter in payment of a subscription amount. Further she has got refund from the company as she remained defaulter. Under such circumstances, when she is unable to pay subscription amount and when she is remained defaulter a doubt arises as to how 16 C.C.No.14271/2016 could she pay Rs.7,00,000/- to the Accused. In this regard except producing seven documents the Complainant has not produced any document. She has not produced the bank passbook to show that as on the date of alleged advancement she was having Rs.7,00,000/- with her. It is clearly stated by her that the Accused received Rs.7,00,000/- in October 2015. But in this regard no document is produced and no witness is examined. She has not produced any document to show that as on the said date she was having Rs.7,00,000/- with her.
23. It is pertinent to note that though she contends that she is working as Assistant Manager in South Korean Embassy and earns Rs.50,000/- per month , but she has not produced any document in this regard. It is clear cut case of the Complainant that she has received Rs.6,00,000/- from her mother and Rs.3,00,000/- from the friend of her husband and lent Rs.7,00,000/- to Accused. In this regard no document is produced. Even her mother and friends of her husband are not examined. Surprisingly she has not informed her husband and her mother regarding the payment of Rs.7,00,000/- to the Accused. That apart there is no pleading in the complaint and 17 C.C.No.14271/2016 notice that she obtained Rs.6,00,000/- from her mother and Rs.3,00,000/- from the friend of her husband and paid same to the Accused. Though she has contended that her mother pledged the golden ornaments and obtained some money from others and paid the amount in July 2015, but in this regard no document is produced. Though she has stated to be an Income Tax Assessee, but she has not mentioned the payment of Rs.7,00,000/- to the Accused in Income Tax Returns. The reason is best known to her. In this regard Income Tax Returns are also not produced.
24. It is to be noticed that the Complainant has admitted in her cross-examination that she has seen the Accused in his Malleswaram Chit Funds office, Bengaluru during September 2015 only. If this evidence is taken into consideration, when he was not familiar to Complainant before September 2015, a doubt arises as to how could Complainant lend Rs.7,00,000/- within one month. No prudent man would lend such a huge amount within one month of being acquainted with any person. Further it is to be noticed that the Complainant alleged that the Accused had sent vulgar messages from 1.9.2015 to 12.1.2016. When the Accused came to known to Complainant in September 2015 a 18 C.C.No.14271/2016 doubt arises as to how could he immediately start issuing vulgar messages to Complainant. Moreover, there is no document produced to show that the Accused used to send vulgar messages to Complainant. A doubt arises as to how within one month the Complainant could lend Rs.7,00,000/- without enquiry of financial status of Accused. Further the Complainant has stated before this court that she is in the habit of paying amount and receiving money by way of cash alone, which seems to be unnatural. The Complainant being an educated and aware of banking transaction and working in Korean Embassy it cannot be accepted that she does her financial business by cash only and not through cheque. So her version that she paid the amount to Accused by cash only cannot be believed.
25. It is also to be noticed that the Complainant asserted that the Accused is working as Assistant Manager in Indiranagar Chit Fund Company. Admittedly, he is not the owner of the chit fund company. He works for salary. The foreman and Managing Director administrates the said chit fund company. Under such circumstances, a doubt arises as to without enquiry how could the Complainant lend to the Accused on the say of the Accused 19 C.C.No.14271/2016 that it was required for company, whereas such requisition was not made by foreman of the company. It is not clear as to on what basis the Complainant lent such a huge amount to the Accused without enquiring the company. This fact also creates doubt about the case of the Complainant. Moreover, she has not collected any document from the Accused to show that he is having capacity to repay the amount, which also creates doubt in the version of Complainant.
26. The Complainant has taken contradictory stand with regard to for which purpose she has lent alleged loan to the Accused. At one stretch she claims that the Accused was in need of money as such, she paid alleged money to him. At another stretch the Complainant claimed that the Accused required money to pay the chit fund company members. So it is clear that the Complainant ahs taken a contradictory stand with regard to purpose for which the loan was sought by Accused. That apart, she has not collected any document from the company to know that the amount was required for company. So in my opinion the statement of Complainant is altogether different and conflicting, which is not credible.
20 C.C.No.14271/2016
27. Another aspect of the case is that the Complainant being an educated lady and student of BBM pleaded ignorance that any cash transaction above Rs.20,000/- was to be made in any dealings by any persons, such dealing shall be done by either account payee cheque or through DD, which seems to be unnatural. She denies that there was no any hindrance for her to pay loan amount either by way of cheque/DD. But unnaturally speaks that she was not in the practice of using the cheque and DD which cannot be accepted. Further the Complainant has stated that she borrowed money from her mother and friend of her husband, which goes to show that she herself was not having money. Under such circumstances, when Complainant herself was not having money, a doubt arises as to how could she borrow money from others and lend it to others that too without interest. So this aspect of the case creates doubt in the version of the Complainant. That apart if her evidence is perused, it goes to show that she has conducted love marriage and her relatives and friends had not attended the marriage. That apart there was property dispute in regard to her mother's property. Under such circumstances, her evidence that she borrowed money from her mother and friend of her husband that too in the absence of 21 C.C.No.14271/2016 documentary evidence, cannot be believed. So a doubt arises as to how could she mobilize funds to pay the amount to the Accused interest free.
28. Another aspect of the case is that the Complainant has stated in her evidence that in the cheque the name and date are written in ball point pen whereas the amount in words and figures is written in ink pen. She has admitted that both inks are different in colours. That apart the Accused has not given any consent to her to write and fill up her name and date. Under such circumstances, the learned Counsel for the Accused has put a suggestion that Ex.P.1 cheque was materially altered, for which she categorically and unconditionally admitted that it was materially altered by her. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that this admission itself is enough to come to the conclusion that the case of the Complainant is doubtful and unacceptable one.
29. It is to be noticed that with regard a single transaction two cheques are allegedly issued by Accused. It is rightly argued that a prudent man would not give two separate cheques for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- for two different amounts, but same 22 C.C.No.14271/2016 date. It is common knowledge that he would give a single cheque for the amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. Further the cross-examination of PW1 reveals that she did not enquire with the Accused why he had given two cheques and why he had not given one cheque. Under such circumstances, it creates a great uncertainty and doubt in the case of the Complainant. Another aspect is that on perusal of complaint it is abundantly clear that the Complainant has not stated the actual date of advancement of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Complainant has stated that she had lent Rs.7,00,000/- in first week of October 2015 and received Ex.P.1 in first week of October. But on perusal of the documents it is clear that actual date of advancement is not given. So in the absence of documentary evidence it cannot be accepted that she had paid the money to the Accused. It creates doubt that the cheque is not supported by consideration and it was not issued for discharge of legally recoverable debt or liability.
30. It is rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the Accused that the Complainant has taken uncalled for and unwarranted pleadings in the complaint. She has unnecessary pleaded the pleadings which are not necessary for deciding the 23 C.C.No.14271/2016 merits of the case. It is to be noticed that at one stage she contended that the Accused had taken loan and issued cheque. At another stage she contended that Accused sent vulgar messages, inspite of the fact that she paid Rs.7,00,000/- to him. Further the Complainant has averred regarding the chit transaction with which she allegedly had transaction with the chit fund company. So it is rightly argued that the Complainant has pleaded uncalled for and unwarranted pleadings which does not inspire confidence in her version.
31. Another legal issue involved in this case is that the affidavit of the Complainant bears official seal of notary and the endorsement that affidavit was sworn to or solemnly affirm in his presence was made giving only date of attestation and name of notary date. The serial number of the transaction and place of attestation is not mentioned and under such circumstances the requirements of law are not fulfilled. Further the Complainant has stated that she signed affidavit in her advocate office and she has not appeared before any Oath Commissioner and Notary to put signature. It is also admitted that the registration number, volume number and page number are not mentioned in the 24 C.C.No.14271/2016 affidavit. Further she does not know who has identified the affidavit evidence and she could not identity the signature of that person. Further it is admitted that there is no verification clause in the affidavit. In view of above circumstances I am of the opinion that the learned Counsel for the Accused was right in arguing that there is a defective affidavit which cannot be accepted and credential value cannot be attached to the affidavit. So under such circumstances, the legal requirements are not fulfilled for proving the case of the Complainant.
32. Having regard to the above circumstances and facts elicited from the cross-examination of Complainant and the documents produced along with 313 statement of the Accused, I am of the opinion that, even though the Accused has not entered into the witness-box but he has rebutted the presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act by eliciting facts from the cross- examination of Complainant. So by eliciting favourable facts he has made his defence probable. So it goes to show that the case of the Complainant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It goes to show that the cheque was not issued for discharge of legally recoverable debt or liability and it was not issued for the amount 25 C.C.No.14271/2016 mentioned over it. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly by considering all these facts I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
33. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on the above point and the reasons stated therein, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
The bail bond and surety bonds of the accused stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 8th day of May, 2018) (MADHVESH DABER) XIX ADDL.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE:
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant: PW.1 Smt. Sandhya. S Witnesses examined on behalf of the Accused: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque
26 C.C.No.14271/2016
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of the Accused
Ex.P.2 Bank endorsement
Ex.P.3 Copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.3(a) & Ex.P.3(b) Postal receipts
Ex.P.4 Ex.P.5 Postal Acknowledgement Due Cards
Ex.P.6 Reply notice
Documents marked on behalf of the Accused:
Nil
XIX ADDL.C.M.M., Bengaluru.