Bangalore District Court
Has Filed Complaint Against The Accused ... vs Has Given Reply Notice On.19.04.04 on 30 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XVIII ACMM & XX ASCJ, BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY 2016
Present: Sri.N.Subramanya, M.Com., LLB.,
Member, MACT & XX ASCJ, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C.1973
1. Sl. No. of the case : C.C. No.12033/2004
2. The date of commission of
the offence : 25.05.2002
3. Name of the Complainant : Sri.V.R.Nagendra Gupta.
Proprietor,
M/s. Rajgopal & Company,
No.80, Aruna Market,
C.T.Street,
Bangalore-560 002
Represented by his GPA
Holder Sri.V.Sandeep
(By Sri.C.S.Shankar Rao.
Advocate)
-VS-
4. Name of the Accused : Sri.G.K.Chandrashekar
Kabadi, Proprietor,
King Bar & Restaurant,
No.496 & 497, Sampige
Road, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore-560 03.
(By Sri H.S.Somnath,
Advocate)
5. The offence complained : Under Sec.138 of the
2 C.C. No.12033/2004
SCCH-22
of or proves Negotiable Instruments Act
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
his examination
7. Final order : Accused is acquitted
8. Date of such order : 30.01.2016
for the following :
JUDGMENT
Complainant has filed complaint against the accused alleging commission of offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complainant's case are that:
The accused had borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant, assuring to repay the same within twelve months with interest at 2% and executed cheque discount/indemnity Form along with Smt. Kiran and issued a cheque bearing No.223906 dated 10.03.2002, drawn on Vysya Bank Ltd., Kempegowda Road, Bangalore, in favour of the complainant. Trusting the accused, that on presentation of the cheque for payment through his banker:
Canara Bank, Avenue Road branch, Bangalore, the said cheque was dishonoured on the ground "account closed" vide accused banker advice dt.11.03.2004 and the complainant banker advice 3 C.C. No.12033/2004 SCCH-22 dt.12.03.04. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a Legal notice dated 10.04.2004 to the accused by UCP and RPAD, demanding payment of dishonoured cheque amount within stipulated period as required under law. The legal notice sent by UCP is received by the accused and the legal notice sent by RPAD returned with postal shara on 12.04.04 as 'not claimed'. Hence, there is deemed service. Accused has given reply notice on.19.04.04, but he failed to make the payment of the dishonoured cheque amount within stipulated period. Hence, the present complaint.
3. On presentation of the complaint by the complainant represented by his GPA holder, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act and sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. As there was prima facie material placed against the accused, the case was registered as C.C. and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, he was released on bail. Accusation was read over to the accused and his plea was recorded, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, prosecution was given an opportunity to establish the guilt of the accused.
4 C.C. No.12033/2004
SCCH-22
4. In support of the case, complainant examined its GPA holder -V.Sandeep as PW1 and the Associate Vice President and branch head of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. Venkatesh Babu Ragnti as PW2 and has got marked 14 documents and closed its side. After complainant closed his side evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and his answers were recorded. Accused denied incriminating circumstances against him and choose to lead his defence evidence. In support of the defence, the accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D6.
5. As there was dispute regarding the signature on the cheque and the admitted signature of the accused, signatures of the accused and Smt.Kiran were sent for Handwriting expert Smt.C.V.Jayadevi and she has submitted her report and she has been examined as CW1 and her report is marked as Ex.C1 and enclosures as Exs.C7 to C8.
6. The Complainant, in support of his case, has submitted his arguments and filed a Memo relying on the following citations:
1. ILR 2005 Kar 4370 between Devi and another vs. H.S. Rudrappa alias Rudy and others
2. 2006(1) DCR 229 between K. Ramachandra Rao and ors.
Vs. State of A.P. by public prosecutor and anr. 5 C.C. No.12033/2004
SCCH-22
3. 2007 (2) DCR 678 between C. Murugesan vs. Vijayalakshmi
4. 2007(2) DCR 8 between H. Narasimha Rao vs. Venkataram R.
5. 2007(2) DCR 263 between S. Parameshwarappa and anr. Vs. S. Choodappa
6. 2007(2) DCR 394 between S.T.P. Limited, Bangalore vs. Usha paints and Decorators, Bangalore and anr.
7. 2013 CRL.L.J.(NOC) 284 (BOM) between Vishal Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Koradi vs. Damodar Rajeram Thakre
8. 2006(2) DCR 705 between H.S. Srinivasa vs. Girijamma and others
9. 2006 (2) DCR 665
10. I (2007) CCR 203 (SC) between Kalyan Baskar vs. M.S. Sampoornam
7. The accused has submitted his arguments and has relied upon the following citations:
1. AIR 2005 Supreme Court 439(Janaki Vashdeo Bhojwani -vs- Indusdin Banl Ltd.
2. (Vol.111-2002) Company Case 492 by Andhra Pradesh High Court
3. 2010 Cri.L.J. 1217 (Bombay High Court)
4. 2006 SRPL (LE) 36912 SC= AIR 2006 SC 3366 - M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani -vs- State of Kerala & another
5. 2008 STPL (LE) 39599 SC= AIR 2008 SC 1325-Krishna Janardhan Bhat -vs- Dattatraya G.Hegde
6. 2007 STPL (LE-CRIM) 28589 Kar High Court-Nagaraja Upadhya -vs- M.Sanjeevan.6 C.C. No.12033/2004
SCCH-22
7. ILR 2007 KAR 2709 between M. Senguttuvan vs. Mahadevaswamy
8. AIR 2007 SCW 6736
9. SCC 2008 Page 54
10. ILR 2008 KAR 4629 between Shiva Murthy vs. Amruthraj
11. ILR 2008 KAR 4651 between Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and another vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others
12. ILR 2009 KAR 172 between A. Viswantha Pai vs. Sri. Vivekananda S. Bhat
13. SCC 2010 P 441 between Rangappa vs. Sri. Mohan
14. 2011 (1) Kar 2 J 444 between Chandrashekarappa vs. Sharanabasappa
8. For disposal of the case, the following points arises for my consideration:
1) Whether the complainant proves, that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act beyond reasonable doubts?
2) What order?
9. My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following: 7 C.C. No.12033/2004
SCCH-22 REASONS
10. POINT NO.1:
After remand of the case, the PW-1 was further cross examined. The accused lead his oral evidence and he was cross examined and both sides have not produced any additional documents and closed their side. The counsel for complainant argued that the accused has issued reply notice and not stated specific defense. The handwriting expert has given the opinion that accused has signed the cheque Ex.P.2. The accused has not returned unused cheques to the bank after closing his account. But, subsequently after closing account he has issued the present cheque. In the earlier judgment, all the defense of the accused and also the citations are clearly discussed and accused was convicted. Only on the ground that accused has filed affidavit evidence, the matter has been remanded. But, even after accused adducing oral evidence, he has failed to prove his defense. Complainant clearly proved his case and hence prays to convict the accused.
11. In the present case, the complainant has not examined before court. Complainant is the proper, competent and best witness to prove his case. PW-1 GPA holder does not know anything about the transaction between the complainant and 8 C.C. No.12033/2004 SCCH-22 accused. He is not competent to depose on behalf of the complainant and to give evidence. The PW-1 cannot depose about the facts which are not within his knowledge. He can only depose based on the documents and also based on the information obtained by the complainant. In the present case under the NI act, the details of the transaction, the fact of lending amount, execution of the cheque, capacity to lend the loan, source of income, proof of having sufficient funds and all other material facts needs to be deposed and to be proved both by oral and documentary evidence. But, in the present case, absolutely both the complainant and PW- 1 have totally failed to prove all the above material facts of the case.
12. Accused counsel has argued that there is no transaction between the complainant and the accused and the GPA holder was not at all authorized to file the complainant on behalf of the principal and also he cannot depose for the acts done by the principal and not by him, which he has no personal knowledge in which the principal is entitled to be cross examined. In this regard, he has relied upon citation reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 439 In the case between Janki Vasudeo Bhojwani and another - vs- Indusind Bank Ltd. And another and also citation reported in Company Case (Vol.III-2002) of Andhra Pradesh High Court, in 9 C.C. No.12033/2004 SCCH-22 the case between S.P.Sampathy -vs- Smt.Manju Gupta wherein, the Hon'ble Lord ship held that "If the Power of attorney holder has rendered some acts in pursuance to power of attorney he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. He cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which, the principal is entitled to be cross examined and as per the citation of Andhra Pradesh High Court, that "a power of attorney holder not to be a holder in due course of the cheque, not competent to file complaint under Negotiable Instruct Act". This citation very much applicable to the present case.
13. There are absolutely no grounds or reasons for restraining the complainant from appearing before the court and to depose about his case. Hence, his non examination and also not producing any material documents goes to show that complainant has not lent any such amount and there was no existence of legally recoverable debt. An adverse inference has to be drawn against the complainant and PW-1 in this regard. The complainant has not at all disclosed the material particulars regarding the exact date of giving the loan and other material factors in the complaint, notice 10 C.C. No.12033/2004 SCCH-22 and also evidence of PW-1. On perusal of the entire cross examination of PW-1, it is crystal clear that absolutely complainant failed to prove his case and PW-1 has no knowledge at all about the entire transaction and about the case of the complainant.
14. In this regard, PW-1 in his cross examination at page No.8, deposes that he does not know anything about the terms between complainant and accused. Further, he deposed that complainant advanced loan to the accused on 08.02.2003 a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. But, he was not present at that time and he cannot say who are all present at that time. But strangely in the further cross examination of PW-1 on 07.12.2015, he has stated that his father, himself and one Sandeep were present when the complainant advanced Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused. Hence, there is major contradiction in the evidence of PW-1. Further, in the cross examination at page No.10 for a specific suggestion that on 08.02.2003, the complainant has not lent Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused for which PW-1 has answered that complainant has informed him about lending of the loan of Rs.10,00,000/-. This admission clearly goes to show that the PW-1 was not at all present at the time of transaction and he has falsely deposed in his cross examination on 07.12.2015 that he along with others was present 11 C.C. No.12033/2004 SCCH-22 at the time of giving the loan. Hence, his entire evidence is highly suspicious. He is not a trust worthy witness and hence, his evidence cannot be believed. Further, in the cross examination of PW-1 at page No.12, he admits that he do not know any other particulars about filing of civil and criminal and NI Act cases, except the present case. It is also material to note that there is civil dispute between the PW-1 and accused. PW-1 clearly admits in this regard, at page No.13. The accused was tenant under the father of PW-1 from 1998 to 2006 and accused paid Rs.3,50,000/- advance to the father of PW-1. Further, it is admitted that father of PW-1 filed eviction case in O.S. No.15274/04 against wife of accused and wife of accused also filed counter case and they were entered in the compromise and there was agreement executed to that effect. It is a specific defense of the accused that at the time of entering compromise of above cases, the father of P.W.1 has obtained a blank cheque and now they have misused the said cheque and filed present case. The way in which the present case is prosecuted through GPA holder PW-1 and also in view of the fact of PW-1 does know anything about entire transaction between the complainant and accused, the defense of accused is acceptable and it is clearly proved. In all, probabilities it has to be held that the 12 C.C. No.12033/2004 SCCH-22 complainant absolutely has not lent any amount to the accused and accused also not executed any cheque in question to the complainant and absolutely no transaction between the complainant and accused. The father of PW-1 has obtained the blank cheque for settling above civil disputes and complainant misusing the said cheque P. W.1 has got filed the present false case.
15. In this regard, the accused has clearly deposed in his evidence and clearly proved that he has executed the blank cheque to the father of PW-1 and he has vacated the tenant shop in the year 2006. He has also disputed his signature in the Ex.P.2. Absolutely there is nothing in the entire cross examination of DW-1 to disprove his defense and to disbelieve the evidence of the accused. Though the complainant has produced Ex.P.10 discount/indemnity bond, the complainant totally failed to prove that it is executed with respect to the Ex.P.2 - Cheque. Ex.P.10 cannot be treated as an indemnity bond. It is only a discount form and it cannot be said that it is executed in support of Ex.P.2 - Cheque.
16. The accused has also disputed the signature in the cheque in Ex.P.2. It is the contention of the complainant that the 13 C.C. No.12033/2004 SCCH-22 accused had issued cheque Ex.P2 towards consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- received from the complainant and had executed Discount/Indemnity Bond as per Ex.P10. The accused has also disputed the execution of the said document and his signature on Ex.P10. It was sent for hand writing expert's opinion along with Ex.P.10. There is a contradictory opinion by the hand writing expert with respect to signatures in Ex.P.2 and P.10 by the accused and his wife. Hand writing expert was examined before the court as CW-1 has deposed that the signature on Ex.P2 marked as Ex.D1 and the signature on Ex.P10 of the accused marked as Ex.D2 compared with the admitted signatures of the accused on Postal Acknowledgement marked as Ex.C 5 and Vakalath dt.30.08.07, Vakalath dt.04.08.07, Bail Bond dt.04.08.07, Accused statement under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., Statement under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C., Agreement dt.06.01.06 , two signatures in the affidavit, Specimen signature card marked by the Expert as S.1 to S.13 respectively , compared with the disputed Exs.D1 and D2, has opined that the disputed signatures Exs.D1 and D2 and the admitted signatures of the accused marked as S1 to S13 are made by the same persons. The signatures of accused on Photographs are marked as Ex.C2 14 C.C. No.12033/2004 SCCH-22 to C6 and on the Postal acknowledgement as Ex.C5 and CD marked as Ex.C7 and the expert report cover marked as Ex.C8. Though CW-1 has given the opinion and deposed that accused has signed in the cheque Ex.P.2, but she has given the opinion that wife of accused has not signed in Ex.P.10. In the cross examination, this witness has clearly admits that she has not obtained any specialized qualification and not got permission from the Government and not got prepared the report by scientific analysis and she specifically admits that disputed signature at Q1 does not tally to admitted signature of S1 to S6. Hence, evidence of this witness cannot believe and complainant failed to prove that accused has signed Ex.P.2 Cheque and Ex.P.10.
17. As per the citations relied on by the complainant reported in 2006(1) DCR 229 in the case between K.Ramachandra Rao and others -vs- State of A.P. rep by Public prosecutor and another, it has been specifically held that:" A power of Attorney can file a complaint after obtaining permission from the court, since the act to be performed (i) it is not personal in its character,
(ii) is not annexed to any public office, and (iii) does not involve any fiduciary obligations". In the present case, PW1 as a power of attorney holder of the complainant, has filed the present complaint 15 C.C. No.12033/2004 SCCH-22 on the basis of the documents and the information supplied to him by the complainant. As such, the complaint filed by him is maintainable. But he cannot depose on behalf of complaint about the entire facts which are not within his knowledge and he was deposing only through the documents. Hence, this citations relied upon by him is not helpful to the facts of the present case.
18. Complainant has relied citation reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 4370, in the case between Kaju Devi and another -vs- H.S.Rudrappa @ Rudy and others, wherein it has been held that:
" A GPA holder, spoken to the necessary and relevant required material facts of the case which are in his personal knowledge by acting as an agent on behalf of the plaintiffs, which is permissible under the provisions of the Power of Attorney Act, Order 3 rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure R/w Section 120 of Evidence Act, Sections 181 and 182 of the Indian Contract Act." It is also not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
19. The cheque in question was not at all issued to the complainant and there was no financial transaction between him and the complainant. The father of the complainant-GPA holder being the landlord of their shop premises, in order to vacate them, 16 C.C. No.12033/2004 SCCH-22 has misused the cheque and has filed false complaint against him. In this regard, the accused has produced Rent Agreement marked as Ex.D1, closing of OD Account No.123044000422 marked as Ex.D2, Computerized Loan account extract of the accused Kings Bar and Restaurant account number CC 50668 marked as Ex.D3, another Agreement dated 06.01.2006 marked as Ex.D4. The said cheque was issued to the father of the complainant's GPA holder as security towards the shop premises taken on rent by his wife to run Bar and Restaurant in the name and style of "Kings Bar and Restaurant".
20. Complainant counsel has relied upon citation reported in 2013 Crl.L.J.(NOC) 284 (Bom) in the case between Vishal Nagari Shankari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Koradi -vs- Damodar Rajeram Thakre, wherein, it has been held that "Defence of the accused that cheque was not issued by him for any liability-Burden to prove the said defence would be on accused-Mere alleging a particular thing would not be sufficient proof for accepting his defence-Failure by accused to prove his defence-Conviction proper".
21. He has also relied upon decision reported in 2007 (2) DCR 394, in the case between S.T.P.Limited, Bangalore -vs- 17 C.C. No.12033/2004
SCCH-22 Usha Paints and Decorators, Bangalore and another, wherein it has been held that "Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 of Sec.138- Issuance of cheque for repayment of debt and "issuance of cheque as security for repayment of debt"-Distinction under-Assessment of liability be annexed to provisions of Sec.138 of N.I. Act". these are also not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case
22. The accused has clearly proved by proper and cogent evidence that the cheque in question had been issued as security to one R.Venkatesh, the landlord of the shop premises where his wife runs bar and restaurant in the name and style of Kings Bar and Restaurant.
23. The complaint, relied the citation reported in 2006 (2) DCR 665, in the case between Dr.B.V.Sampath Kumar -vs- Ms.Dr.K.G.U.Lakshmi, it has been held that "Issue of blank cheque or as security , a cheque whether issued for repayment of loan or as security makes no difference under Sec.138 of the Act. In the event of dishonour, legal consequences are same without distinction. If once issue of cheque is proved, a presumption under Sec.139 of the Act would arise with regard to consideration and the 18 C.C. No.12033/2004 SCCH-22 accused has to lead evidence to rebut the said presumption. In case, accused fails to rebut the evidence, the complainant successfully proves the guilt of the accused under Sec.138 of the Act and he is liable to be convicted." But in the present case complainant has not proved the issuance of the cheque by the accused.
24. The complainant relied the citation reported in 2006(2) DCR 705 in the case between H.S.Srinivasa -vs- Girijamma and others, As per Sec.20 of the N.I. Act, it has been held that:
"20. Inchoate Stamped Instruments - Where one person sings and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which, he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount"19 C.C. No.12033/2004
SCCH-22
25. An essential ingredient of Sec.138 of the N.I. Act is that, cheque in question must have been issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. If there was no legally enforceable debt such as debts of wagers or liability of an illegal contract, same are not enforceable. The presumptions are not conclusive presumptions, but are rebuttable. The accused has clearly rebutted the presumption and proved that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability. The complainant has not discharged initial burden that was cast upon him. Hence above citation also not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case
26. Accused has contended that as the cheque in question was for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, any amount borrowed more than Rs.20,000/- is to be transacted through cheque, as the complainant has not shown his account that the said amount was transferred. It is to be held that no consideration has been transferred. In this regard, he has relied upon citation reported in 2006 STPL 36912 SC in M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani -vs- State of Kerala and another, wherein it is stated that:
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 118(a), 138 and 139.- Dishonour of cheque-Burden of proof-
Adverse inference- Onus on an accused not as heavy as that of a prosecution-Case of respondent that the cheque was issued for discharge of debt- Which arose in terms of 20 C.C. No.12033/2004 SCCH-22 transactions-Account books maintained by the respondent not reflecting correct state of affair-Adverse inference drawn-Respondents had not been maintaining statutory books of accounts and other registers in terms of accounts by law of stock exchange-Deliberately not producing account books- Defence of appellant probable that cheque was issued by way of security-Cannot be held to have been issued discharge of debt- Would not come within the purview of section 138 of the Act."
27. The principles laid down in the said citations are applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the fact that the accused has proved that the cheque in question had been issued as security to his landlord for the shop premises taken by his wife on lease for running bar and restaurant in the name and style of Kings Bank and Restaurant. The complainant has not produced its accounts books wherein the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is given. The accused has adduced evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non existence of the presumed fact and the indemnity discount form marked as Ex.P10 clearly shows that the accused has not executed it and it was the cheque which has been issued for discharge of the amount borrowed.
28. The accused has relied upon the citation reported in 2008 STPL(LE) 39599 SC in the case between Krishna 21 C.C. No.12033/2004 SCCH-22 Janardhan Bhat -vs- Dattatraya G.Hegde, and contended that :
"Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Sec.139 of the Act- It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability". He has argued that since the amount of transaction was Rs.10,0,000/- as per Sec.269(ss) of Income Tax Act, the said loan was to be advanced by way of cheque, as such the said transaction cannot be accepted. Hence, the advancing amount by way of cash disentitled the complainant to file complaint or claim it because the provisions of Sec.266(ss) of the income tax Act are not complied.
29. The Accused has relied upon the citation reported in 2007 STPL (LE-Crim) 28589, in the case between Nagaraja Upadhya -vs- M.Sanjeevan, wherein it has been held that: "
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881-Sec.138-Dishonour of cheque- Account closed-offence not made out-Account of accused was closed as per the rules of Banks and without intimation to accused- On the data of issue of cheque, the accused did not have any account in the Bank in respect of which cheque issued-Evidence showing that the contents of the cheque were written by employee 22 C.C. No.12033/2004 SCCH-22 of complainant and not by accused-Provisions of sec.138 of the Act, is not attracted".
30. The facts and circumstances of the said case are also applicable to the present case as the accused closed the account as per the letter dated 30.05.01 marked as Ex.D2. The accused has placed materials before the court to show that the cheque in question which he alleged to have been given as security to R.Venkatesh was given in the year 1999.
31. On perusal of the entire materials on record, the complainant has totally failed to prove the existence of legally recoverable debt, the issuance of cheque, the source of income, capacity to lend such a huge amount and all other necessary facts to prove the guilt of the accused. On the other hand, the accused has successfully proved his defense as it is discussed at above. The all other citations relied by the complainant as above are not applicable to the present case on hand. Therefore, it is to be held that the accused has not committed any offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the negative.
23 C.C. No.12033/2004
SCCH-22
32. Point No.2: According, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail and surety bonds of the accused stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court, dated this the 30th day of January 2016).
(N. SUBRAMANYA) XVIII ACMM, & XX ASCJ., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
PW1 V.Sandeep
PW2 Venkatesh Babu Regnti
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT
Ex.P1 Authorisation Letter
Ex.P2 Cheque
Ex.P2 (a) Signature of the accused
Ex.P3 Bank Endorsement
Ex.P4 Debit Advice
Ex.P5 Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P6 Postal Receipt
24 C.C. No.12033/2004
SCCH-22
Ex.P7 UCP
Ex.P8 Reply notice
Ex.P8(a) Reply notice cover
Ex.P9 Returned Postal cover
Ex.P10 Discount'Indemnity Cover
Ex.P11 Complaint.
Ex.P12 Specimen Card of Chandrashekar
Ex.P13 Specimen Card of Kiran Kabadi
Ex.P14 Xerox copy of authorization letter
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE;
DW1 G.K.Chandra Shekar Kabadi LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 Lease Agreement Ex.D2 Account closing letter Ex.D3 Account extract Ex.D4 Agreement dt.06.01.06 Ex.D4(a) Signature Ex.D5 Vakalath Ex.D5(a) Signature Ex.D6 Vakalath Ex.D6(a) Signature
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COURT;
CW1 C.V.Jayadevi LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COURT:
Ex.C1 Report
Ex.C2-6 Photographs
Ex.C7 one CD
Ex.C8 Covering letter
XVIII ACMM, & XX ASCJ.,
BANGALORE.
**