Bangalore District Court
Mr.Madeva.N vs Mr.Krishnamurthy on 5 January, 2023
KABC030079142021
IN THE COURT OF XX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: BHOLA PANDIT,
B.Com.,LL.M.,
XX ADDL. C.M.M.
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 5th day of January 2023
C.C.No.2357/2021
Complainant : Mr.Madeva.N
S/o narayanappa,
Age 58 years,
R/at.No.25/2,
A T Halli, Circular Street,
Bhimanna Garden, Shanthi nagar,
Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru- 560 027.
{ By KRS LAW Associates - Advocate }
Vs.
Accused : Mr.Krishnamurthy,
S/o Venkataramanappa,
Age 51 years,
R/at.No.4/7, Eas Street,
A T Halli,
Shanthi nagar,
2 C.C.2357/2021
Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru- 560 027.
{ By Sri.Mahesha.P - Advocate }
Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act.,
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is Convicted
Date of Order : 05-01-2023
JUDGMENT
The present complaint is filed under section 2(d) read with section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish him for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act").
3 C.C.2357/2021
02. The factual matrix of the complaint is summarized as under;
It is averred in the complaint that, the accused being known to the complainant from many years and also both residing in the same locality had approached the complainant to advance loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for the construction of his house with a promise to repay the same within 2-3 months. Accordingly, the complainant has paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused. Thereafter, since the accused could not repay the hand loan amount, the complainant has lodged complaint before the Ashoknagar police, in the said police station, the accused has appeared and admitted to pay the hand loan of the complainant within four months and has given his statement before the said police. After expiry of four months, when the complainant had requested to pay the hand loan amount, but the accused started giving reasons of Covid-19 and thereby the accused has taken back old cheques and issued a cheque bearing No.900964 dated 01.09.2020 4 C.C.2357/2021 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Shanthinagar Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. The complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker, but it returned unpaid with banker's endorsement dated 22.10.2020 as "Funds Insufficient". On 03.11.2020, demand notice was issued to the accused by RPAD calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount, but the said RPAD corver returned with postal shara as " Insufficient address". Infact, the accused has intentionally evaded the service of legal notice. On these grounds, it is sought to convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and grant compensation as per section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
03. On presentation of complaint, this court has verified the averments of complaint along with records and thereby had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. Thereby, as per the verdict of the 5 C.C.2357/2021 Hon'ble Apex court reported in AIR 2014 SC 1983 in the case of Indian Bank Association and others V/s Union of India and others, the sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded as PW.1 and got exhibited six documents at Ex.P.01 to 06. Having been made out the prima-facie case, the complaint has been registered in Register No. III and issued process against the accused.
04. In response to the summons, the accused put his appearance before the court through his counsel and filed bail application under section 436 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has been enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation has been recorded and read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and intends to put forth his defense. On filing application by the complainant under section 145(1) of NI Act, sworn statement of the complainant has been treated as examination in chief. Similarly, on filing application under section 145(2) of NI Act, the accused has been permitted to cross examine PW.1. 6 C.C.2357/2021 On completion of the trial of the complainant's side, the statement of accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been recorded and read over to the accused, the incriminating material found in the trial of the case of the complainant. The accused has denied the same in toto and gave explanation stating that, he had issued statement in writing and produced before the court. The accused not adduced his side oral evidence, but during cross examination of PW.1 got marked four documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 by confrontation.
05. Heard the oral argument of Learned counsel for the complainant. The Learned Defense Counsel has filed written argument. Perused the materials available on record.
In support of his oral argument, the Learned counsel for the complainant has relied the following verdicts; 7 C.C.2357/2021
1. Crl.Appeal No.362/2022 and SLP No.1963/2019 in the Supreme Court of India.
2. Ct.Case.No.81/2018 & CNR No.DLNEO2- 008668-2016 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (NE) Karkodooma Court, Delhi.
In support of his written arguments, the Learned counsel for the accused relied the following verdicts;
1. VIJAY Vs. LAXMAN AIR Online 2013 SC 423
2. Prakashan Vs. P.K.Surendran (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 258
3. Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa Crl.A.636 of 2019
4. Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatreya G.Hegde (2008)4 Supreme Court Cases 54 8 C.C.2357/2021
5. Sanjay Mishra Vs. Kanishkakapoor @ Nikki and Another.
2009 Cri.L.J.3777 Bombay High Court
6. John K.Abraham Vs. Simon C. Abraham AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 761
7. K.Subramani Vs. K.Damodara Naidu Crl.A.No.2402 of 2014 I have carefully and meticulously gone through the above relied precedents.
06. The following points that arise for my consideration are as under;
POINTS
1. Does the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubts that, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.900964 dated 01.09.2020 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the discharge of his lawful liability of the complainant and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned unpaid due to "Funds Insufficient" in the account of the drawer as per 9 C.C.2357/2021 banker's memo and inspite of issuance of demand notice , the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount, thereby has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act?
2. What Order or sentence ?
07. My findings to the above points is as follows;
1. Point No.1: In the affirmative
2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
08. POINT No.1: It is the specific case of the complainant that, the accused had borrowed hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant for construction of house and towards discharge of the said hand loan amount, the accused has issued the disputed cheque and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, it returned unpaid due to "Funds Insufficient" in the account of the drawer and inspite of receipt of demand notice, the accused has failed to make the payment of the cheque amount.
10 C.C.2357/2021
09. To substantiate and establish this fact before the court beyond reasonable doubts as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others V/s Union of India and others , the sworn statement of the complainant has been treated as affidavit evidence. In his affidavit evidence, PW.1 has replicated the averments of the complainant. To corroborate the evidence of PW.1, the complainant has placed on record in all six documents as per Ex.P.01 to 06. Ex.P.1 is the disputed cheque dated 900964, Ex.P.1 (a) is the signature of accused, Ex.P.2 is the banker's memo dated 22.10.2020, which shows the reasons for the return of the cheque at Ex.P.1 for unpaid is as "Funds Insufficient" , Ex.P.3 is the legal notice dated 03.11.2020 demanding for payment of cheque amount by replicating the averments of complaint, which was returned to sender with postal shara as "Insufficient address" dated 07.11.2020. Ex.P.4 is the the postal receipt about sending legal notice at Ex.P.3, Ex.P.5 is the returned postal cover, Ex.P.5(a) is the notice inside 11 C.C.2357/2021 the postal cover and Ex.P.6 is the endorsement issued by Ashok Nagar police. PW.1 has been substantially cross examined by the counsel of accused.
10. To disprove the case of the complainant and also to rebut the mandatory presumptions which could be drawn under section 139 of NI Act, the accused did not adduced his side oral evidence. But, during cross examination of PW.1 got marked four documents at Ex.D.1 to 4 by confrontation. Ex.D.1 to 4 are the certified copies of order sheet, complaint, evidence by way of affidavit of complainant and cheque in CC.2356/2021. As per the verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in catena of decisions, now it is well settled law that, in order to rebut the statutory presumption under section 118(a) & 139 of NI Act, the accused may enter into the witness box or he may rely upon the evidence of PW.1.
12 C.C.2357/2021
11. On behalf of the complainant, the Learned Prosecuting Counsel vehemently argued that, since the accused has admitted his signature on cheque and also the cheque belongs to him, the legal presumption shall go in favour of the complainant. Further argued that, the accused did not stepped into the witness box to establish his defense and also no such material evidence has been elicited during the cross examination of PW.1. Further contended that, the documents produced at Ex.D.1 to 4 do not come to the aid of accused to establish his defense. Hence, it sought to convict the accused and award the maximum compensation. In support of his argument, the Learned Prosecuting Counsel has relied the judgments as listed above.
Per contra, the Learned Defense Counsel has submitted written argument. It is argued from the accused side that, the complainant has failed to prove the service of demand notice, therefore the complaint itself is not maintainable. It is further argued that, there is no specific 13 C.C.2357/2021 averments in the complaint with regard to the date, month or year for the advancement of alleged hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/-. Further argued that, the complainant has failed to prove before the court when the accused has borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant for the construction of his house. By referring to the documents at Ex.D.1 to 4, it is further argued that, the complainant has also filed one more complaint against one more person and the same is pending before this court and stated that, the complainant used to cheat the public by filing false cases. It if further argued that, NC case is registered against the accused before the Ashoknagara police by the complainant, which is the false case. On these assertions, the Learned counsel has sought to acquit the accused. In support of his defense argument, the Learned counsel has relied the verdicts as listed above.
12. Before to venture to discuss and appreciate the oral and documentary evidences and also arguments advanced 14 C.C.2357/2021 by both the Learned counsels, it is necessary to find out whether the present complaint has been filed in consonance with the provisions of section 138 of NI Act or not?. On perusal of the cheque at Ex.P.1, banker's memo at Ex.P.2, it appears that, within the period of validity, the cheque has been presented for encashment . On perusal of demand notice at Ex.P.3 and return memo at Ex.P.2 it appears that, within 30 days from the date of receipt of return memo, the demand notice has been sent and thereby have complied the provisions of section 138(a) & (b) of NI Act. The demand notice sent to the accused by RPAD and the same has returned to the complainant with postal shara as "Insufficient address", hence returned to sender. Section 138(c) of NI Act contemplates that, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount to the payee or to the holder in due of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, which means the service of demand notice to the accused is necessary to attract the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. Therefore, it 15 C.C.2357/2021 is imperative on the complainant to prove the service of legal notice on the accused. In his affidavit evidence, the complainant has replicated the averments of complaint in para No.5 stating that, notice sent through RPAD returned with a shara " Insufficient address" on 07.11.2020, but the accused has intentionally evaded the service of legal notice. The Learned Defense Counsel has cross examined PW.1 in para No.2 of page No.7 just a suggestion has been made that, the notice sent to accused was not served upon him and deliberately the notice was sent by showing "Insufficient address", for the said suggestion, the witness has denied. When the postal authority has made this shara on Ex.P.5 as "Insufficient address", hence returned to sender has got presumptive value and in order to rebut this presumption, the complainant has no other mode of evidence except to cross examine the accused and to elicitate the truth before the court with regard to the address shown on postal cover at Ex.P.5 belongs to the address of the accused or not?. In the cause title of the complaint, the residential area of 16 C.C.2357/2021 complainant and accused has been shown as same residential area of Shanthinagar, Bengaluru- 027 and even in para No.2 of the complaint, it is specifically pleaded that, the accused and complainant are living in the same area since many years and this fact has been re-iterated by complainant in his sworn affidavit of para No.3 and this evidence is remain un- challenged during cross examination of PW.1. Further, this evidence of PW.1 is not denied by the accused by leading evidence on his behalf. Thus, there is no oath against oath. Of course, it is well settled law that, in order to rebut the legal presumption, the accused may rely upon the evidence of complainant without adducing his evidence before the court, but the clever accused did not enter into the witness box only with an intention to avoid for facing the cross examination from the complainant side. Mere denial of evidence of PW.1 during cross examination about the service of demand notice is not enough and sufficient from the accused side. If the postal shara on Ex.P.5 is "Insufficient address", then 17 C.C.2357/2021 the accused should have come forward and depose before the court about his actual address. Even in the vakalath nama executed with his Advocate, the accused only shown his name as Krishnamurthy, but he did not disclosed his complete address in the vakalathnama of his Advocate. When the correct address of the accused is within his knowledge, then the burden of proving that his address shown in the cause title of the complaint and also in the demand notice at Ex.P.3 are not correct and his correct address is at some other place, then he should have entered in the witness box and deposed about that fact which is within his knowledge. For not entering into the witness box by the accused and to disclose his true and correct address which is within his knowledge, under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused as per section 106 of Evidence Act about his with helding intentionally the true address before the court. On the other hand, only on the basis of the address shown in the cause title of the 18 C.C.2357/2021 complaint, the summons has been issued and only after service of summons, this court has issued NBW against the accused for his non appearance and only on the issuance of NBW, he appeared before the court and got enlarged on bail. By this fact of service of summons issued by the court, the shara of postal authority made on Ex.P.5 shall not be accepted. Therefore, I held that, as per section 27 of General Clauses Act, notice has been issued to the correct and proper address of the accused and it is held to be deemed service. Accordingly, it can be held that, the present complaint has been filed in compliance of requirements of section 138 of NI Act, the.
13. As per sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act are two important provisions and they provides for raising mandatory presumptions in favour of the complainant until the contrary is proved by the accused. Even in the catena of decisions i.e., in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2010(11) SCC 441, in the case of Bir Singh Vs. 19 C.C.2357/2021 Mukesh Kumar reported in 2019(4) SCC 197, in the case of APS Forex Services (P) Ltd., Vs.Shakthi International Fashion Linkers reported in 2020(12) SCC 724, in the case of Rajeshbai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2020(3) SCC 794, in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde Vs. Sripad reported in Live Law 2021 SC 492 and it is laid down that, " Once the issuance of cheque and the signature thereon is admitted by the accused, the court is required to raise presumption in favour of the complainant stating that, the accused has issued the cheque for some consideration towards discharge of his legal debt or liability of the complainant and that the complainant is the due holder of the said cheque. The burden shifts on the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions under sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act." Now, it is well established law that, the presumption mandated by section 139 of NI Act, thus indeed includes the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and it is open for the accused to raise a probable defense wherein the existence of legally 20 C.C.2357/2021 enforceable debt or liability can be contested and he shall prove before the court on preponderance of probabilities, only thereupon a statutory presumption raised in favour of the complainant stands rebutted.
14. In the well known judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2019 SC 1983 , in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa in para No.19, the top court of the country held that;
"Applying the rule of the word 'proved' under section 3 of Evidence Act, it became evident that in a trial under section 138, a prosecution will have to be made out every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was extended for discharge of debt or liability once the execution of negotiable instrument is either proved or admitted. As soon as the complainant discharges burden to prove that instrument was executed by the accused, the rules of presumptions under section 118 & 139 help him to shift the burden on the accused.
The presumptions will live, exists & survive & shall and only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability. A presumption itself is not 21 C.C.2357/2021 evidence, but only makes a prima-facie case for a party to whose benefits it exists.
The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insists in every case the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated, but bare denial of the passing of consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is possible has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration & debt did not exists or their non- existence was so probable, that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case act upon the plea that they did not exists."
In the instant case on hand, on consideration of entire cross examination of PW.1 in para No.1 of page No.5, wherein it is suggested that, colluding with Ashokanagara police, forcibly took signed blank cheque from the accused. By this suggestion of the defense side, it is very clear that, 22 C.C.2357/2021 the accused is admitting the issuance of cheque at Ex.P.1 from his account and his signature thereon. Therefore, the legal presumption shall go in favour of the complainant. Now, the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the said statutory presumption. As per the aforesaid cited judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, now it is well settled law that, in order to rebut the statutory presumption under section 118(a) & 139 of NI Act, the accused shall raise probable defense and to prove the same. The standard of proof of his defense shall be to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. That apart, now it is also well settled law that, in order to rebut the statutory presumption under section 118(a) & 139 of NI Act, the accused may adduce his defense or he can rely upon of the evidence of complainant available on record. In this regard, the defense counsel has also relied one of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 258. In the instant case on hand, the accused side submitted that, they have no oral evidence. Further, during cross examination 23 C.C.2357/2021 of PW.1 got marked four documents at Ex.D.1 to 4 by confrontation. Ex.D.1 to 4 are the certified copies of order sheet, complaint, evidence by way of affidavit of complainant and cheque in CC.2356/2021. The documents at Ex.D.1 to 4 discloses that, the present complainant Madeva.N has filed another case against one Bharathi.S for the dishonor of cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- and the same is pending before this court for adjudication. NI Act 1881 do not contemplates any such provision which bars the person for filing more than one cheque bounce case. These documents at Ex.D.1 to 4 admitted by the accused, but in order to prove the said defense, he did not stepped into the witness box before the court. However, these documents at Ex.D.1 to 4 can be reliable, if the complainant is the money lender and this contention would held to the accused only when he has successfully established his defense and rebut the statutory presumption under section 118(a) & 139 of NI Act. On further scrutinizing of documents produced on record at Ex.P.6, it is the NC case acknowledgement issued 24 C.C.2357/2021 by the Ashok Nagar police dated 23.11.2019 and on perusal of the contents of complaint annexed with Ex.P.6 discloses that, the present complainant by name Madeva. N has filed complaint against the present accused Murthy stating that, he had paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused part by part and the accused has issued cheque towards the repayment of the said loan, later when he had requested for the payment of the said amount, the accused has abused in vulgar words. Further, the statement dated 23.11.2019 annexed with Ex.P.6 discloses that, the statement given by the accused Krishna Murthy before the Ashok Nagara Police and he stated that, accused had borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the Mehadeva.N and he had agreed to repay the said amount within four months. To disprove this police record at Ex.P.6, the accused did not enter into the witness box. On the other hand, during the cross examination of PW.1 on page No.5 & 6 it is suggested that, he has filed false complaint before the Ashok Nagara police and colluding with them has snatched signed blank 25 C.C.2357/2021 cheques from him and for this suggestion, PW.1 has denied. That apart, during the cross examination of PW.1, no such material evidence has been elicited to disprove and disbelieve the case of the complainant. Another suggestion has been made to PW.1 during his cross examination that, PW.1has advanced loan amount to one Subbu, Shanthi Nagar, and obtained cheque from him, but later the son of the said person committed suicide, because of his un -ability to repay the said loan amount, for the said suggestion, PW.1 has denied. This fact also do not help the accused to support his defense, therefore I am of the considered opinion that, the accused has failed to raise probable defense and to prove the same on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the question of shifting onus on the complainant does not arise at all.
15. The Learned Defense Counsel has relied the judgments at Sl.No.1. I have carefully gone through the relied judgment, wherein the defense evidence of witness 26 C.C.2357/2021 has been examined, whereas in the present case, the accused not lead his side evidence. Hence, the judgment relied at Sl.No.1 is not acceptable to the case on hand.
The judgment relied at Sl.No.3, Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa , wherein the law laid down is applicable to all the proceedings under section 138 of NI Act. The ratio of this judgment that, " Once the accused rebutted the legal presumption, the burden shifts on the complainant to prove his financial capacity beyond all reasonable doubts". This ratio is not applicable to the case on hand, as such the accused has failed to establish his defense.
The ratio of the judgment at Sl.No.4 to the extent of drawing presumption with regard to issuance of cheque towards the discharge of legal debt has been held proper presumption in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan and the ratio of Krishna Janardhana Bhat case is held has not correct law to the extent of not raising presumption. 27 C.C.2357/2021
The judgment at Sl.No5 relied by the defense side is applicable to only those cases where the legal presumption has been rebutted.
In the judgment relied at Sl.No.6, the Hon'ble Apex Court though held that, the complainant shall establish that, he had funds for having advanced the money to the accused before drawing legal presumption. But, as per the larger bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan, now it is well settled law that, "Once the cheque and signature is admitted, the presumption shall extends to the extent that, the cheque has been issued towards the discharge of legally recoverable debt." Hence, the judgment of John K Abraham do not come to the aid of accused. The facts of the present case and facts of the judgment relied at Sl.No.7 are not one and the same. Therefore, the law laid down in the relied judgment is not applicable to the case on hand. 28 C.C.2357/2021
16. On the other hand, the Learned Prosecuting Counsel has also relied recent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thedi Singh Vs. Narayan Dasss Mahant, wherein all the previous judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been discussed and considered and in the said judgment also, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, " Once the issuance of cheque and signature thereon is admitted, the presumption shall go in favour of the complainant." Thus, this verdict is applicable to the case on hand. Since, the accused has failed to raise probable defense and to prove the same on preponderance of probabilities. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the affirmative.
17. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasons stated and discussed above, the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act It is worth to note that, the offence is of the nature of civil wrong. Hence, it is proper to award sentence of fine, 29 C.C.2357/2021 instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under section 255 (2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, accused is
hereby convicted for the offence
punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and
sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.11,10,000/- (Rupees Eleven
Lakhs Ten Thousand only). In
default, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for 3 (Three) months.
Acting under section 357(1) of
code of criminal procedure, it is ordered that an amount of Rs.11,00,000/-
( Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thousand only), there from shall be paid to the 30 C.C.2357/2021 complainant as a compensation, remaining fine amount of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only) is defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in the prosecution.
The bail bond of accused and surety stands canceled subject to appeal period.
Supply free copy of judgment to the accused.
{Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this 5 th day of January 2023}.
(BHOLA PANDIT) XX ACMM, Bengaluru.
31 C.C.2357/2021ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1 Mahadeva.N List of documents produced on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque
Ex.P. 1(a) Signature of the accused
Ex.P. 2 Bank endorsement
Ex.P. 3 Copy of the legal notice
Ex.P. 4 Postal receipt
Ex.P. 5 Returned postal cover
Ex.P.5(a) Notice inside the returned
postal cover.
Ex.P.6 Endorsement issued by Ashok
Nagar police.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
D.W.1 Mr.Krishnamurthy 32 C.C.2357/2021 List of documents produced on behalf of accused:
Ex.D.1 The certified copies of order
sheet, complaint, evidence by
way of affidavit of complainant
and cheque in CC.2356/2021.
XX A.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru.