Bangalore District Court
Magesh Shankar C.P vs S/O C.N.Parasmasivan on 30 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 30th day of January 2016
PRESENT:
Sri.Shivaji Anant Nalawade, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.136/2015
APPELLANT/ Magesh Shankar C.P.
ACCUSED : S/o C.N.Parasmasivan,
Aged about 41 years,
Residing at No.33, 1st Main,
7th Cross, Shivan Temple Street,
B. channasandra, Banasawadi,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
Also at
Om Shakthi Travels,
3rd Main, Opp. FMC,
Hoysala Nagar,
Ramamurthy Nagar,
Bengaluru - 16.
(By Sri. Shrihari.K, Advocate)
- Versus -
RESPONDENT/ Shivakumar S.K.
APPELLANT : S/o K.M.Krishnappa,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at No.6,
8th Main, Bandappa Garden,
Muthyalanagar, Gokul Post,
Bengaluru - 560 054.
(By Sri.P.R.S., Advocate)
2 Crl.Appeal.136/2015
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal under Sec.374(3) Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment passed by the XVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, in C.C.3753/2013 dated 05-01-2014, wherein he has been convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.7,25,000/- and in default of payment of fine shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
2. The appellant was the accused and respondent was the complainant before the trial court. For the sake of convenience, rank of parties is referred to as stood before the court below.
3. The brief facts leading for disposal of this appeal are as follows:
It is the case of the complainant that, he and accused are friends. He is doing traveling agency business and accused also doing traveling agency business. Accused approached him several times for asking hand loan and same has been returned within time. It is the case of complainant that, the accused has started the construction of dwelling house which is situated at No.33, 1st Main Road, 7th Cross, 3 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 Shivan Temple Street, Chennasandra, Banasavadi, Bengaluru.
Accused and his wife have taken hand loan of Rs.7,00,000/- for the purpose of construction of the above said house and for improvement of his traveling agency business. On 04-05- 2012 he has arranged the money of Rs.7,00,000/- and given the same to the accused, at the time of advancing the amount accused has promised him that he will return the said amount within 5 months and accused has given post dated cheque for Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Ramamurthynagar Branch, Bengaluru bearing No. 014906 dated 17-10-2012. It is the case of complainant that, accused and the wife of accused Smt.Nethra Magesh has executed the loan agreement in his favour. On 17-10-2012, he called the accused and his wife over phone requesting them to present the said cheque and accused told him to present the said cheque for encashment, he on 17-10-2012 presented the cheque for encashment and the same returned dishonoured with Memo dated 19-12-2012 with endorsement 'funds insufficient' thereafter he has intimated regarding dishonour of the cheque to the accused and called upon him to pay the cheque amount, accused has not paid the cheque amount thereafter he has issued legal notice to the accused within 4 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 limitation and called upon him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice issued by him to the accused to his house address duly served, notice issued by him to his business address returned with post shara as 'not claimed'. Thereafter, accused has not repaid the cheque amount within 15 days from the service of notice, so he has lodged private complaint before the court within limitation and thereby accused has committed the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. After complainant has lodged the private complaint before the trial court, it has taken cognizance of the offence and recorded sworn statement of the complainant. The trial court after finding that there is prima-facie case against the accused, case has been registered against the accused in C.C.3753/2013 for the offence punishable under Sec.138 N.I. Act and accused was summoned to appear before the court. Accused in pursuance of the summons appeared before the trial court through his counsel and he has been enlarged on bail. The copy of the complaint and other documents filed along with the complaint furnished to the accused. Thereafter, the trial court has framed accusation under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under 5 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and read-over the same to accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and thereafter case is posted for complainant's evidence. The complainant in order to prove the guilt of the accused got examined himself as PW.1. Complainant in support of his case produced 9 documents and got them marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and closed its side. Thereafter, the trial court has recorded Sec.313 Cr.P.C. statement of accused to enable him to explain incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the statement and stated that he is having defence evidence. Accused examined himself as DW.1 and closed his side.
]5. The trial court heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant and accused in length and posted the case for judgment. On 05-01-2014 the trial court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay fine of Rs.7,25,000-00 to accused and in default of fine accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
6 Crl.Appeal.136/2015
6. The accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial court in C.C.3753/2013 dated 05-01- 2014 came in appeal on the following among other grounds;
The trial court has not applied its judicial mind to the case. The trial court has ignored the contradictions brought out in the evidence of the complainant. The trial court has ignored the principles of law that initial burden is on the complainant and he has to discharge the same to attract presumption under Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court has ignored the explanation offered by the accused so far as non-serving of legal notice. The observation of the trial court that Ex.P9 is proved is erroneous one. Trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that Ex.P9 is not proved in accordance with law. Neither the Scribe nor the witnesses to the same have been examined and inspite of it the trial court has held that the said document has been proved and relied upon the said document which is erroneous one. The observation of the trial court that admission of PW.1 that cheque was given as security is a stray admission is erroneous one. The trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that the alleged signature of the wife of accused on Ex.P9 and the signature of the accused on postal 7 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 acknowledgment which is at Ex.P6 are different and trial court has concluded that Ex.P9 is proved even though accused has seriously disputed Ex.P9 which is erroneous one. The trial court has not taken into consideration the admissions pointed out by the accused regarding capacity of the complainant to pay the hand loan and observed that cheque is issued for legally recoverable debt which is erroneous one. The trial court has committed error in not considering the admission of PW.1 that the cheque was given for security and when the cheque is given for security, provisions of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act will not attract. On these grounds and among others the appellant/accused prayed for setting aside the judgment and sentence passed by the trial court and prayed for acquitting the accused.
7. This appeal was presented before the Hon'ble City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, it is registered as Criminal Appeal No.136/2015 and made-over to this court for disposal according to law. After the receipt of the records this court has issued notice to the respondent and the respondent appeared through its counsel. Thereafter the LCR's were secured and they are before the court.
8 Crl.Appeal.136/2015
8. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent in length.
9. The points that arise for my determination are as under:
1. Whether the trial court has committed any error in not considering the admissions given by PW.1 in the cross-examination?
2. Whether the trial court has committed any error in holding that Ex.P9 is proved even though the complainant has not examined the Writer or the witnesses on Ex.P9 to prove the same when execution of Ex.P9 is denied by the accused?
3. Whether the trial court has committed any error in holding that the presumption under Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act attracts even though the complainant has not proved the initial burden casted on him?
4. Whether the trial court has committed any error in concluding that the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused has committed the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
5. Whether the interference is necessary in the impugned judgment and sentence under appeal from this court?
6. What Order?
9 Crl.Appeal.136/2015
10. After hearing the arguments and perusal of documents placed before me, my findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 to 5 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.6 : As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
11. POINT No.1 TO 5: The above points are inter-
connected, hence they are taken up for discussion together in order to avoid repetition.
12. It is case of the complainant that he and accused are friends and they are doing traveling agency business. Further it is the case of complainant that, the accused was frequently borrowing the loan from him and he was regularly making repayment. Further it is the case of complainant that, accused for the improvement of his business and for construction of house at Chennasandra had borrowed Rs.7,00,000/- on 04-05-2012 from him and promised to repay the said amount within 5 months. On the date of receiving the loan, the accused has given post dated cheque in his favour in discharge of the aforesaid debt dated 17-10-2012 10 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 drawn on Central Bank of India, Ramamurthynagar Branch. On the date of obtaining the loan, wife of the accused Smt.Nethra Mangesh has executed loan agreement in his favour. The accused has not repaid the loan as agreed and thereafter he has presented the cheque for encashment and the same returned with shara 'funds insufficient'. He has intimated regarding dishonour of the same to the accused and called upon him to repay the cheque amount, accused has not paid the cheque amount thereafter he has lodged the complaint before the trial court within limitation and thereby accused has committed the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
13. It is the case of the accused that, he has not issued Ex.P1-cheque to the complainant in discharge of any debt or liability. He is doing traveling agency business and he is having transaction with the complainant. Complainant was sending his two Innova vehicles to the Traveling Agency belongs to him. Ex.P1-cheque is given as security in connection with the Traveling Agency business. The complainant has missued the cheque given for security purpose and filed the present false case against him.
11 Crl.Appeal.136/2015
14. Initial burden is on the complainant to show that accused has availed loan of Rs.7,00,000/- on 04-05-2012 and for repayment of the same, accused has given the post dated cheque on the date of obtaining the loan. The complainant in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1 and PW.1 has reiterated the averments of the complaint in his examination-in-chief. PW.1 in his evidence stated that, on 04- 05-2012 the accused has availed loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from him and agreed to repay the same within 5 months. On the date of availing the loan, accused has given post dated cheque bearing No.014906 dated 17-10-2012 for repayment of the loan. The wife of accused has executed Loan Agreement in his favour. He has presented the said cheque for encashment, the same was dishonoured, he informed regarding dishonour of the cheque to the accused, accused has not repaid the cheque amount. Thereafter, he has issued legal notice to the accused, notice is duly served and accused has not repaid the amount thereafter he has lodged the complaint before the trial court within limitation and thereby accused has committed the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined PW.1 and in the cross-examination PW.1 has admitted that he is doing 12 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 Traveling Agency business and he is submitting Income Tax returns, he is not having any hurdles to produce the documents regarding his business and accounts. Further PW.1 has stated that he has given Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant by obtaining Rs.1,50,000/- to 2,00,000/- from the Bank and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- were kept by him in his house. Further PW.1 has admitted that, Rs.5,00,000/- is not the income of one or two days belongs to him and Rs.5,00,000/- income is the income for about two years belongs to him. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he has withdrawn Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- from the Bank for giving loan to the accused. Further complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he has kept Rs.5,00,000/- in his house and he has given the same. PW.1 is the business person doing Traveling Agency business and normally business people will not keep such a huge amount of money idle in their house. In the present case, accused has specifically stated that he has not received any loan amount, he has given Ex.P1-cheque for security purpose in respect of Traveling Agency business and complainant has misused the same cheque. The burden is on the complainant to show that he 13 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 has paid Rs.7,00,000/- on the relevant date to the complainant and in order to show the same accused has not produced any Bank documents or his business accounts. Further PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted as under;
DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ºÉAqÀw ¤¦-9 PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ DgÉÆæ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀÝ PÁgÀt ¤¦-9 zÁR¯ÉUÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAr®è, DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ºÉAqÀw ¤¦-9 PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ DgÉÆæ ¸ÉPÀÆåjnUÉ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ.
15. From the above admission of PW.1, PW.1 in unequivocal terms admitted that the wife of accused has executed Ex.P9-Agreement and accused has given Ex.P1 for security purpose. Accused has specifically disputed that his wife has executed Ex.P9-Agreement. PW.1 has admitted that Ex.P1-cheque is given for security purpose. The trial court in its judgment has observed that the said admission of PW.1 is stray admission. In the present case, it is the specific defence of the accused that Ex.P1-cheque was given for security purpose. Further accused has lead defence evidence and wherein it is clearly stated that Ex.P1 was given for security purpose to the accused and PW.1 has admitted that Ex.P1 was given for security purpose. So, the observation of the trial 14 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 court that the said admission of PW.1 is stray admission is erroneous one. The counsel for the accused/appellant has relied upon citation of Hon'ble Apex Court in (2012)8 SCC 516 in (Case: Ahmed Saheb [Dead] by LRs and others Vs. Sayed Ismail), wherein the lordship of Hon'ble Apex Court have held as under;
"Evidence Act - Sec.17 and 58 - Admission
- Made either in pleadings or orally - Is the best evidence - Needs no further corroboration."
16. In the present case, it is the defence of the accused that Ex.P1-cheque was given for security purpose and the complainant has misused the same. Further accused has examined himself as DW.1 and wherein he has also stated that Ex.P1-cheque is given for security purpose. So, the said admission is not stray admission and observation of the trial court that the said admission is a stray admission is erroneous one.
17. Complainant has produced the original cheque dated 17-10-2012 which is at Ex.P1. The accused has not denied his signature on Ex.P1 further accused has not denied that Ex.P1-cheque is from the cheque leaves book given to him. It is the specific case of the accused that, he has given 15 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 Ex.P1-cheque to the complainant for his Traveling Agency business as security and complainant has misused the same. Accused has produced endorsement given by ICICI Bank which is at Ex.P2 and Ex.P2 discloses that Ex.P1-cheque was presented for encashment and the same was dishonoured for 'funds insufficient' in the account of the accused. Complainant has produced the office copy of the legal notice issued by him to the accused dated 09-11-2012 which is at Ex.P3. Complainant has produced the Postal receipts for issue of Ex.P3-Notice by registered post to the two addresses of the accused, they are at Ex.P4 and 5. Complainant has produced Postal acknowledgment which is at Ex.P6.
18. Accused has been examined in this case as DW.1 and DW.1 has admitted that Ex.P6 is received by his wife. In the present case, accused has contended that notice is not duly served in this case. DW.1 in the cross-examination admitted that Ex.P6-Endorsement bears the signature of his wife. DW.1 in his evidence admitted that Ex.P3-Notice is served on his wife and his wife has not intimated regarding the receipt of notice to him, so he has not given any reply to the said notice. Accused has admitted that Ex.P3-Notice is served on his wife and admitted that Ex.P6-Acknowledgment 16 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 bears the signature of his wife. So, the complainant has proved that Ex.P3-Notice is served on the accused. Complainant has produced the Postal article sent to the accused by registered post which is returned is at Ex.P7. Notice kept under Ex.P7 is at Ex.P7(a). Complainant has got marked the private complaint as Ex.P8.
19. Complainant has produced the Loan Agreement alleged to have been executed by the wife of the accused in his favour dated 04-05-2012 which is at Ex.P9. Accused has specifically denied that Ex.P9 is executed by his wife. Further accused has specifically denied the signature alleged on Ex.P9 belongs to his wife. In Ex.P9 there is recital regarding giving of the cheque-Ex.P1 by the accused to the complainant. In the present case, as the accused has denied Ex.P9-Loan Agreement, initial burden is on the accused to prove Ex.P9 to the manner known to law. In the present case accused has not examined the Scribe or the attesting witnesses on Ex.P9 to prove Ex.P9-document. Further complainant has not called the wife of the accused as witness to prove Ex.P9. The trial court in the judgment has observed that accused in order to disprove that his wife has not executed Ex.P9, not examined his wife. The burden is on the complainant to show that Ex.P9 17 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 is executed by the wife of accused. When the initial burden caste upon the complainant to prove Ex.P9, then the burden shifts on the accused to disprove it. The perusal of Ex.P9 discloses that, on front page, alleged signature of the accused is on the contents. Normally signatures will be taken below the contents of the document and no explanation is offered by the complainant why signature is taken on the writings. Further in the present case, it is the case of complainant that Ex.P6-acknowledgment is signed by the wife of the accused. Further accused has also admitted that Ex.P6 bears the signature of his wife and if the alleged signature of the wife of accused on Ex.P9 and admitted signature of the wife of accused on Ex.P6 are compared with naked eyes, both signatures differs. Complainant has not examined the Scribe or attesting witness on Ex.P9 and not proved Ex.P9 as per Sec.67 of the Indian Evidence Act.
20. The trial court in its judgment has observed that Ex.P9 is proved which is erroneous one. The signature on Ex.P6 belongs to the wife of accused is admitted by both the accused and the complainant. Accused has disputed the signature of his wife on Ex.P9 and if the signature of Ex.P9 and Ex.P6 belongs to the wife of the accused are compared, 18 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 the said signature differs and difference can be noted by a prudent man if both signatures are seen with naked eyes. So, the observation of the trial court that Ex.P9 is proved by the complainant is erroneous one. Only marking the Ex.P9 will not prove the contents of it, when the accused has denied Ex.P9 specifically, initial burden is on the complainant to prove Ex.P9 and when the complainant proves the initial burden, then the burden shifts on the accused. In the present case, complainant has failed to prove the initial burden caste on him to prove Ex.P9, so the burden will not shifts on the accused to disprove the same. Accused in order to prove his defence, examined himself as DW.1 and DW.1 in his evidence stated that he has not given Ex.P1-cheque for repayment of hand loan, he is doing Traveling Agency business, he and the complainant were having Traveling Agency business. Ex.P1- cheque is belongs to his account, he has given Ex.P1-cheque for the security for Traveling Agency business, he has not availed any loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant, complainant has misused the cheque given by him for Traveling Agency business for security purpose and lodged the present false case. DW.1 in his evidence has stated that he is not personally known the complainant, he has not personally 19 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 given the cheque to the complainant and the complainant has come to Travels Office and taken the cheque, when he has given the cheque, the complainant was sending vehicles to him and relying on the said evidence the trial court has observed that the accused is not deposing truth accused is entitled to take inconsistent defence. The complainant has to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand accused has to prove his defence on preponderance and probabilities. Further the law is settled that even the accused can rely upon the cross-examination done by him to the complainant's witnesses and shown on the basis of preponderance and probabilities his defence. On the other hand, complainant has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is no bar under the Criminal Jurisprudence for taking inconsistent defence and as the accused has taken inconsistent defence, his defence cannot be rejected when he has proved his one of the defences by preponderance of probabilities. Accused in his evidence clearly stated that, he has given Ex.P1-cheque for Traveling Agency business as security, he has not availed the loan. Further PW.1 has also admitted that Ex.P1-cheque is given for security. So the evidence of DW.1 and the admissions of 20 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 PW.1 is probable that Ex.P1-cheque is given for security purpose, so the burden shifts on the complainant to prove that he has advanced loan of Rs.7,00,000/- to the accused and accused has given Ex.P1-cheque for repayment of the said amount. In the present case, the complainant in his evidence stated that his two years earnings is Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- and he has withdrawn Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- from the Bank and remaining amount was with him and he has paid the same. Rs.7,00,000/- amount is a huge amount and the complainant being a business person has kept Rs.5,00,000/- in his house only is not acceptable. Further complainant has not proved Ex.P9-Agreement as per Sec.67 of the Indian Evidence Act. Complainant has not examined the Scribe of Ex.P9 and not proved Ex.P9 as per Sec.67 or 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. So, the observation of the trial court that Ex.P1-cheque is given for legally recoverable debt is unacceptable one. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon the citation reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3366 in (Case: M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala and another), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under;
21 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 "If the cheque is issued for security of loan, Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is not applicable."
21. Further the counsel for the accused has relied upon the citation of our own Hon'ble High Court in 2009(3) KCCR 2188 in (Case: Matheson Bonsanquet Enterprises Limited, rep. by its Company Secretary S.R. Kalyanam Vs. K.V.Manjunatha), wherein in the said judgment our own Hon'ble High Court in Para-18 of the Judgment held that;
"When the cheque is issued as a security, the lender has to demand repayment by issuing notice in writing or by making oral demands."
22. In the present case in hand, no legal notice is issued by the complainant stating that cheque is issued for security and he is presenting the same for encashment if the amount is not paid. Further the complainant has stated that he has orally demanded the cheque amount, the same has been disputed by the accused. So, the complainant has failed to prove that he has made requests for making payment as a security amount. So, the version of the trial court that the complainant has complied the observations made in Para-18 of the said Judgment is unacceptable one. When the cheque is issued for security purpose, the notice has to be issued to 22 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 the person who has issued the cheque and call upon him to pay the amount and he has to be intimated regarding presentation of the cheque and that has not been done. So, the provisions of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are not be applicable in the present case the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P1 to 9 will not prove that Ex.P1-cheque is issued for legally recoverable debt. So, Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act will not attract in this case.
23. In the present case, trial court has committed error in holding that admissions of PW.1 that cheque is issued for security purpose is stray admission. Further the observation of the trial court that the complainant has proved Ex.P9 is erroneous one. In the present case, the complainant has failed to prove Ex.P9 and also failed to prove his financial capacity to lend Rs.7,00,000/- and not produced cogent evidence to show that on the relevant date he was having the amount, so the observation of the trial court that the complainant has proved the initial burden caste upon him, so the presumption under Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act attracts to Ex.P1-cheque is erroneous. In the present case, the evidence of DW.1 and admissions of PW.1 shows that Ex.P1-cheque is given for security purpose. So, Sec.138 of 23 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 Negotiable Instruments Act will not attract. Further the complainant has failed to prove that he has issued legal notice to the accused stating that the cheque given for the security purpose will be presented for encashment. So, the provisions of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act will not attract in this case, the observation of the trial court that complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused has committed the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is erroneous one. So, interference is necessary to the judgment of the trial court from the hands of this court. Hence, for the above discussions, I answer point No.1 to 5 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
24. POINT No.6: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 to 5 and reasons stated therein, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant/accused is allowed.
The judgment of the trial court under appeal is set aside.
Accused is acquitted for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
24 Crl.Appeal.136/2015 Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled forthwith.
Send back the LCR's along with the copy of judgment to the trial court.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of January 2016).
(SHIVAJI ANANT NALAWADE) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.