Bangalore District Court
Reptd By Its Deputy Manager-Credit ... vs St Floor on 5 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF APRIL, 2022
PRESENT
SRI. K. GURUPRASAD, B.A., LL.B (Spl.)
XIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU
CASE NO C.C. NO.56467/2019
M/s. R.D.C Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
No.37B, Doddanekundi Industrial Area,
1st Phase, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru - 48.
COMPLAINANT Reptd by its Deputy Manager-Credit Control,
Sri. Francis .R
Aged about 39 yrs,
S/o. P. Rayappa
1) M/s. Sukritha Buildmann (P) Ltd.,
No.27, 2nd Floor, Buildmann Devikrupa,
Sathyanarayana Temple Road, Ulsoor,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
Reptd by its Managing Director/Authorized
Signatory - Ashwin Balasubramanian
And also at ;
M/s. Sukritha Buildmann (P) Ltd.,
ACCUSED 1st Floor, Batra Centre, No.27, Ulsoor Road,
Bengaluru - 560 042.
Reptd by its Managing Director/Authorized
Signatory - Ashwin Balasubramanian
And also at ;
M/s. Sukritha Buildmann (P) Ltd.,
Buildmann Aaroha,
Sy. No.136, Kempegowda Circle, Kithaganur,
Behind Garden City College, K.R. Puram,
Bengaluru
Reptd by its Managing Director/Authorized
Signatory - Ashwin Balasubramanian
2) Ashwin Balasubramanian
Managing Director/Authorized Signatory of
M/s. Sukritha Buildmann (P) Ltd.,
No.27, 2nd Floor, Buildmann Devikrupa,
Sathyanarayana Temple Road, Ulsoor,
Bengaluru
And also at ;
Ashwin Balasubramanian
Managing Director/Authorized Signatory of
M/s. Sukritha Buildmann (P) Ltd.,
1st Floor, Batra Centre, No.27, Ulsoor Road,
Bengaluru - 560 042.
And also at ;
Ashwin Balasubramanian
Managing Director/Authorized Signatory of
M/s. Sukritha Buildmann (P) Ltd.,
Buildmann Aaroha,
Sy. No.136, Kempegowda Circle, Kithaganur,
Behind Garden City College, K.R. Puram,
Bengaluru
OFFENCE U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
PLEA OF THE
ACCUSED Pleaded not guilty
FINAL ORDER Accused are convicted
(K. GURUPRASAD)
XIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU
JUDGMENT
The complainant has approached this court with the complaint under Sec.200 Cr.PC against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant company is the registered company under the Indian Companies Act and involved in the business of supplying ready mix concrete for construction and other purposes. The accused No.1 is also Private Limited Company and accused No.2 is the Managing Director thereof. The accused had placed orders for supply of ready mix concrete which was supplied by the complainant to the accused under various invoices and accused has acknowledged receipt of the same. The complainant company is maintaining running account of the accused. Towards part payment of the value of ready mix concrete, the accused issued two cheques bearing No.153635 dtd.11.4.2019 for Rs.7,38,376/- and No.153638 dtd.6.5.2019 for Rs.13,62,127/- drawn on Indian Bank, New Thippasandra branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment through its banker i.e., HDFC Bank, Richmond Road branch, Bengaluru, the said cheques have been returned on 6.7.2019 with bank shara "funds insufficient". Thereafter when the complainant got issued legal notice dtd.29.7.2019 to the accused calling upon the accused to pay the cheques amount, the said notice sent by RPAD to the office address of the accused has been served on 20.7.2019 and the legal notice sent to another address of the accused has returned with endorsement "unclaimed" on 30.7.2019. In spite of service of said notice, the accused have failed to pay cheque amounts and as such the accused are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly on these grounds, the complainant has prayed for punishment to the accused and for grant of compensation in the interest of justice and equity.
3. After filing of the complaint, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. This court was satisfied as to prima facie case made out by the complainant for issuance of the summons and accordingly Criminal Case was registered against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act and summons was ordered to be issued.
4. In pursuance of the court process issued by this court, the accused No.2 has put up his appearance through his counsel and enlarged on bail. The accused has denied the substance of accusation and claimed for trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the Authorized Representative and Deputy Manager, Credit Control of the complainant company himself examined as CW.1 (PW.1) and another Authorized Representative and Officer, Credit Control of the complainant company is examined as PW.2 and got marked as per Ex.P1 to P28. The statement of accused No.2 U/s.313 Cr.PC was recorded. The accused No.2 examined himself as DW.2 and got marked as per Ex.D1 to D15.
6. Heard bothsides. Counsel for the accused has filed written arguments. Perused the complaint, evidence on record, written arguments and court records.
7. The following points arise for my consideration and determination;
1) Whether the complainant proves that the accused have issued two cheques in question in discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability as contended by it?
2) Whether the complainant further proves that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief's as prayed in the complaint?
4) What Order?
8. The above points are answered as under;
Point No.1 to 3 : In affirmative, Point No.4 : As per the final order, for the following.......
REASONS
9. Point Nos. 1 and 2: Since these two points are inter linked and to avoid repetition they are taken together for discussion.
10. As regard to limitation to file this complaint, it is clear from Ex.P2 to P18 that when the complainant presented the two cheques in question within three months from the dates of said cheques, said cheques came to be dishonoured and that when the complainant got issued statutory notice U/s.138 of N.I. Act (within 30 days from the date of intimation of dishonour of said cheques) calling upon the accused to pay the cheques amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice, the said notice sent at four addresses came to be served on the accused while the notice sent by RPAD., at two addresses has returned with postal shara "unclaimed"/"intimation delivered".
11. Even though the accused has disputed the receipt of statutory notice, Ex.D11 and Ex.D12 purchase orders show that the address of the accused company shown in Ex.P13 to P16 postal acknowledgements is same as the address shown in Ex.D11 and D12 purchase orders produced by accused himself. Even the summons issued at the same address by this court by speed post has been served on the accused. Hence, it can be concluded that Ex.P6 notice is sent at the correct address of the accused No.1 company. There is statutory presumption under Sec.27 of General Clauses Act that when notice is issued by registered post at correct address, the said notice is presumed to have been served on the addressee. The burden of rebutting said presumption is on the person who disputes service of said notice. But in the present case on hand, the accused has not adduced any clear and cogent evidence to rebut such presumption and to disprove service of the notice on the accused. In fact DW.1 has not deposed that statutory notice has not been served on him or that the address to which the notice was sent by the complainant is not correct address. Hence it can be concluded that Ex.P6 notice is duly served on the accused. Therefore, the present complaint which is filed after expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice and within one month thereafter is in time.
12. As regard to legally enforceable debt or liability, in 2010 (11) SCC 441 - (Rangappa Vs Sri. Mohan), it is held that;
" The presumption mandated by Sec.139 of the Act includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. This is of course in the nature of a rebutable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, herein, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant"..............."when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the presumption can fail. The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own".
13. If the facts and circumstances of this case are considered in light of above said principle of law, it is clear that the accused has not disputed his signature on Ex.P2 and P3 cheques. Therefore, statutory presumption arises U/s.139 of N.I. Act in favour of the complainant that the cheques in question are issued in discharge of debt or liability. The burden of rebutting the said presumption by probable defence is on the accused.
14. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant company has supplied ready mix concrete to the accused under various invoices and delivery challans including Ex.P19 and that accused has also issued two balance confirmation letters as per Ex.P20 and P21 and issued the cheques in question towards part payment of value of ready mix concrete supplied by the complainant to the accused and that the said cheques came to be dishonoured. On the other hand, it is specific defence of the accused that Ex.P2 and P3 cheques have not been issued by the accused company for payment of any due amount but by way of security cheques in favour of the complainant. It is further defence of the accused that complainant and accused had an arrangement under which complainant would supply ready mix concrete to the accused on credit basis and as such the accused No.1 would verify the quality and quantity of ready mix concrete supplied and accordingly make payments of due amount to the complainant. It is further defence of the accused that in view of said credit arrangement, accused No.1 had issued security cheques to the complainant. It is further defence of the accused that the security cheques were also issued because complainant requested the accused No.1 company that the cheques were required to be retained against current assets on the goods of complainant. It is further defence of the accused that these security cheques were not meant to be presented and same were retained only as security and after expiry of these cheques, new cheques would be issued in their place again as security. It is further defence of the accused that Ex.D1 to D6 are some of the security cheques which are came to be subsequently canceled and that Ex.D8 - email was issued by accused No.1 to the complainant not to deposit one of security cheques. It is further defence of the accused that there have been disputes and issues between complainant and accused No.1 company on account of non supply, delayed supply, defective supply of materials and over billing. It is further defence of the accused that accused No.1 company suffered losses due to such breaches. It is further defence of the accused that the complainant agreed to reconcile its accounts on account of above said breaches and there were discussion and negotiations between two parties in this regard. It is further defence of the accused that during such discussions and negotiations, the complainant misused Ex.P2 and P3-cheques which were only security cheques and deposited the said cheques without any intimation to accused No.1 company and filed the present complaint with an intention to harass the accused and to make illegal gains, though accused is not liable to pay to the extent of amounts covered under Ex.P2 and P3-cheques.
15. On careful perusal of evidence on record, it is clear that the defence of the accused is not probable nor does it inspire confidence of this court. It is because, it is clear from Ex.P6 to P16 that even though the accused has received the statutory notice, the accused has not got issued any reply notice to Ex.P6, denying his liability to pay the cheques amount and contending that the said cheques are only security cheques and are not issued towards payment of any due amount. Any prudent person under similar circumstances would have promptly replied to said statutory notice, denying his liability to pay cheques amount and putting up defence at the earliest that those cheques are security cheques. However the accused has failed to do so and no explanation is given by the accused as to why he has not promptly replied to Ex.P6 notice. This inaction on the part of the accused to reply to Ex.P6 notice raises serious doubt regarding the defence of the accused.
16. Further DW.1 has deposed during his examination- in-chief itself that as an established practice, the accountant of the accused No.1 company would mention behind the cheque that it was a security cheque, not for deposit without confirmation in writing from the company. In other words, the contention of the accused that there would be an endorsement on the back side of any security cheque (given by the accused to the complainant) that it was only security cheque and not to be deposited without written confirmation from the accused company. There was such endorsement on the back side of Ex.D1 to D6 cheques which were alleged to be given by the accused as security cheques and subsequently taken back and canceled. However, it is pertinent to note that there is no such endorsement on the back side of Ex.P2 and P3 cheques that those cheques are only security cheques and are not to be deposited without written confirmation. Hence this conspicuous absence of such endorsement on the back side of Ex.P2 and P3 cheques raises serious doubt regarding the defence of the accused that Ex.P2 and P3 cheques are issued only by way of security cheques and not towards payment of any due amount. If really Ex.P2 and P3 cheques had been issued by way of security cheques and not for payment of due amount, there would have been similar endorsement on the back side of Ex.P2 and P3 cheques . Further Ex.D7 which is statement of payments made by accused to the complainant company shows that most of the payments made by accused to the complainant are through cheques. This clearly indicates that the accused company also used to make payments to the complainant company through cheques. Therefore, it can be concluded that Ex.P2 and P3 cheques have been issued by accused No.1 company towards part payment of value of goods supplied by the complainant to the accused and not by way of security cheques.
17. Furthermore, Ex.P22 is certified copy of order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench. Ex.P23 is certified copy of joint memo filed by the complainant and accused on 25.10.2019 before said Tribunal. It is clear from Ex.P22 and P23 that complainant company had initiated proceedings U/s.9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against accused No.1 company and that both complainant and accused had filed joint memo before said Tribunal on 25.10.2019 under which the accused agreed to pay outstanding amount of Rs.21,00,500/- to the complainant in six installments i.e., Rs.50,000/- on or before 25.10.2019, Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 30.11.2019, Rs.2,50,000/- on 30.12.2019, Rs.5 lakhs on 31.1.2020, Rs.5 lakhs on 20.2.2020 and Rs.6,50,000/- on 28.2.2020. It is also clear from Ex.P23 that accused company had issued five post dated cheques in favour of complainant towards payment second to sixth installment. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P25 to P28 are the same cheques which have been issued towards payment of third installment to sixth installment. DW.1 has admitted during cross-examination that complainant has filed such proceedings before accused company before NCLT and that accused has filed objection statement in the said proceedings. When it is suggested to DW.1 during cross-examination that he has agreed to pay Rs.21,00,500/- to the complainant company in Ex.P23 joint memo, DW.1 has replied that the accused company has agreed to pay the said amount subject to settlement of dispute regarding quality of supplied goods out side the court. DW.1 has further admitted that there is no reference in Ex.P23 joint memo that such dispute has to be settled out side the court. DW.1 has deposed that there is only oral understanding between the parties to do so. When it is asked to DW.1 during cross-examination as to whether the accused company has disputed and denied the outstanding amount before NCLT, DW.1 has replied that since said outstanding amount is subject to reconciliation, accused company neither admitted said outstanding amount nor denied disputed said amount. DW.1 has further admitted that there is no reference in Ex.P23 joint memo that payment of the said outstanding amount is subject to reconciliation. DW.1 volunteers to state that the accused company and the complainant intended to get the dispute settled out of court. DW.1 has deposed that Ex.P25 to P28 cheques given by the accused to the complainant before NCLT have been dishonoured. DW.1 has voluntered to state that since reconciliation of the accounts is still pending, the said cheques came to be dishonoured. DW.1 has deposed that dispute and issues relating to quality and quantity and delay in supply of goods are within the knowledge of the accused company at the time of filing joint memo before NCLT.
18. Thus on careful perusal of documentary evidence of Ex.P22, P23 and P25 to P28 and above said oral admissions of DW.1, it is clear that the accused company has admitted the outstanding amount of Rs.21,00,500/- before NCLT by filing joint memo and by issuing D.D of Rs.50,000/- and by issuing five cheques including Ex.P25 to P28. It is further clear that the accused company agreed to pay the said outstanding amount in six installments and issued five cheques out of which one cheque towards payment of first installment came to be encashed while other cheques came to be dishonoured. If at all accused had not been liable to pay said outstanding amount of Rs.21,00,500/- to the complainant , the accused would have never agreed before NCLT to pay the said amount in six installments nor would have issued five cheques for the repayment of said amount. No doubt, accused has contended that the understanding to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.21,00,500/- was subject to reconciliation of accounts and also subject to settlement of issues and disputes regarding quality and quantity and delay of supplied goods etc., out side the court. However, if really the accused had agreed to pay the said outstanding amount subject to reconciliation of the accounts and subject to settlement of said disputes and issues out side the court, there was no difficulty to include said condition specifically in Ex.P23 joint memo. The absence of such terms and conditions in the joint memo clearly indicates that the liability of the accused to pay the said outstanding amount was absolute and unconditional and not subject to any terms and conditions contended by accused. Except self- serving oral evidence of DW.1, there is no other evidence or circumstance to indicate that the settlement in Ex.P23 joint memo is subject to reconciliation of accounts and settlement of disputes and issues out side the court. Moreover, if there had been any issues and disputes regarding quality, quantity and delay in supplied goods, the accused company would have taken up such contention in its objection statement filed before NCLT. However accused has not produced copy of objections statement filed before NCLT to show that accused company had taken such contentions in its objection statement before NCLT. DW.1 has also admitted during cross- examination that there is no reference to supply of defective goods in test reports produced by accused himself. This circumstance of accused agreeing to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.21,00,500/- by filing joint memo before NCLT clearly goes against defence of the accused that accused is not liable to pay the amounts covered under Ex.P2 and P3- cheques. In view of admissions of liability by the accused in the joint memo filed by the accused and complainant before NCLT, documentary evidence of Ex.D1 to D15 cannot be accepted in proof of defence of the accused.
19. Moreover, Ex.P20 and P21 are the balance confirmation letters dated 31.5.2018 and 18.7.2018 issued by accused company. It is clear from Ex.P20 that accused company has confirmed that there was outstanding amount of Rs.21,50,503/- from accused to the complainant as on 31.5.2018. Similarly it is clear from Ex.P21 that the accused company confirmed that there is outstanding balance Rs.21,50,500/- from the accused to the complainant as on 30.6.2018. It is further clear that Ex.P20 and P21 balance confirmation letters have been signed and issued by one Arun Kumar, Sr. Accountant of the accused company along with seal of accused company. The accused has seriously disputed these documents on the ground that accused No.2 is the only authorized person to issue balance confirmation letters and he has not signed and issued any balance confirmation letters like Ex.P20 and P21. It is further contended by the accused that Ex.P20 and P21 are created and fabricated by the complainant company. However except self-serving oral evidence of DW.1, there is no clear and cogent evidence on record that it is accused No.2 (DW.1) alone who is competent and authorized to issue balance confirmation letters and no other person much less Sr. Accountant of the accused company is competent and authorized to issue balance confirmation letters. In fact when it is asked to DW.1 during cross-examination that whether he has taken any action against the said employee of accused No.1 company who has signed and sealed Ex.P20 and P21 without having any authority, DW.1 replies that since the said employee has left the job of accused No.1 company, no such action is taken against him. However, this explanation offered by DW.1 for not taking any legal action against said Arun Kumar, Sr. Accountant is not satisfactory because even after the said empoyee left the job of accused No.1 company, there is no difficulty and impediment to take legal action against him such as lodging police complaint against him or filing criminal complaint aginast him etc. Therefore, contention of accused that said Sr. Accountant of the accused No.1 company is not authorized and competent to issue Ex.P20 and P21 cannot be accepted. Consequently, the contention of the accused that said balance confirmation letters are fabricated and created documents also cannot be accepted.
20. Counsel for the accused has argued and contended in the written arguments that Ex.P2 and P3-cheques were issued as security cheques and not towards payment of any due amount. It is further argued that the said cheques were not issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. It is further argued that the complainant did not perform its obligations and as such the cheque amounts were not payable by accused No.1 company. It is further argued that there was non supply of goods as per invoices, delivery challans produced by the complainant. It is further argued that security personnel do not have competence to ascertain quantity or quality of goods supplied. It is further argued that delay in supply within the stipulated time on cetain occasions, as result of which the accused incurred substantial cost to remove old concrete and replacing them with fresh concrete. It is further argued that there is also deficit in supply and overbilling by complainant company. It is further argued that the invoices raised by the complainant were disputed by accused No.1 company and this necessitated reconciliation of amounts of both the complainant and accused No.1. However, before reconciliation the complainant had fraudulently presented the security cheques and filed this false complaint. It is further argued that there is supply of defective goods by the complainant. It is further argued that PW.2 is not a competent witness and is not aware regarding when the purchase orders were issued or regarding the quality and quantity of the order and whether accused No.1 company was intimated regarding dishonour of the cheques etc. It is further argued that the accused No.2 is also not liable as accused No.2 was not proved to be involved or responsible for day today operations or affairs of accused No.1 company.
21. However above said arguments advanced by counsel for the accused do not hold any water and cannot be accepted. It is because the evidence on record and the circumstances clearly indicate that Ex.P2 and P3 cheques are not issued by way of security cheques but towards payment of due amount (as discussed earlier in this judgment). It is also sufficiently proved by the complainant by producing oral and documentary evidence, particularly Ex.P23 joint memo and Ex.P20 and P21 balance confirmation letters that the accused is liable to pay outstanding amount of Rs.21,00,500/- to the complainant. Therefore contentions of the accused regarding disputes of quality and quantity and delay in supply of goods etc., cannot be accepted. Even it cannot be said that PW.2 is not competent witness only because he has pleaded ignorance regarding certain facts during cross-examination. Moreover, DW.1 (accused No.2) himself admitted in his examination-in- chief itself that he is Joint Managing Director of accused No.1 company. Further it is not disputed that the cheques of accused No.1 company have been issued by none other than accused No.2. Therefore, contention of the accused No.2 that even though he is Joint Managing Director of accused No.1 company, he is not involved day-today affairs of accused No.1 company cannot be accepted. Therefore, accused No.2 being Joint Managing Director of accused No.1 company is vacariously liable to pay the cheques amount to the complainant. The accused has not produced any evidence to show that he is not involved in day today affairs of accused No.1 company. Under such circumstances, mere self-serving oral evidence of DW.1 cannot be accepted.
22. In view of my above discussion, I am of considered opinion that the accused have utterly failed to prove or probabalize their defence and thereby to rebut statutory presumption in favour of the complainant. It clearly appears from the evidence on record that defence of the accused is only an afterthought without any basis. Unless and until the accused rebuts the statutory presumption with convincing and cogent evidence, burden cannot be shifted on the complainant. As discussed above, the complainant has placed sufficient materials on record to establish his contention as put by the complainant. The evidence on record is sufficient to accept the case of the complainant that accused have issued cheques in question towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability and the complainant has proved all the requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act, so as to constitute the offence against the accused. Therefore, Point Nos.1 & 2 are in affirmative and answered accordingly.
23. Point No.3: As discussed in connection with Point Nos.1 & 2, the complainant has proved its case as to commission of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act by the accused. The punishment prescribed for the said offence is imprisonment for a period which may extend to two years or with fine. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, nature, year of the transaction, nature of the instrument involved, provisions of Sec.117 of N.I. Act, cost of litigation and the rate of interest proposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (1) SCC 260 (R.Vijayan Vs Baby), etc., this court is of the considered view that it is just and desirable to impose fine of Rs.26,70,000/- and out of the said amount a sum of Rs.5,000/- has to be remitted to the State and the remaining amount of Rs.26,65,000/- is to be given to the complainant as compensation as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.PC and accordingly Point No.3 is answered in Affirmative.
24. Point No.4: For the reasons discussed in connection with Point Nos.1 to 3 this court proceed to pass the following......
ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.PC accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused Nos.1 and 2 shall pay a fine of Rs.26,70,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused No.2 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of ten months.
By exercising the power conferred U/s.357(1) of Cr.PC., out of total fine amount of Rs.26,70,000/-, a sum of Rs.26,65,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be remitted to the State.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled. The cash security deposited by the accused is ordered to be continued till expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the free copy of this judgment to the accused forth with.
(Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in chamber on this the 5th day of April, 2022) (K. GURUPRASAD) XIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the complainant:
PW.1 : Sri. Francis .R PW.2 : Sri. Jagadeesan Witnesses examined for the defence: DW.1 : Sri. Ashwin Balasubramanian Documents marked for the complainant: Ex.P1 : Board Resolution Ex.P2 and P3 : Two Cheques Ex.P2(a) & 3(a) : Signatures of the accused Ex.P4 and P5 : Bank endorsements Ex.P6 : Legal Notice Ex.P7 to P12 : Postal receipts Ex.P13 to P16 : Postal acknowledgements Ex.P17 & P18 : Returned postal covers Ex.P19 : Tax Invoice Ex.P20 & P21 : Balance confirmation letters Ex.P22 : Cerified copy of order issued by NCLT Ex.P23 : Cerified copy of joint memo Ex.P24 : Board resolution Ex.P25 to P28 : Four Cheques Documents marked for the defence: Ex.D1 to D6 : Six cheques Ex.D7 : Statement of payments Ex.D8 : Copy of e-mail Ex.D9 : Certificate U/s.65B (4) of Evidence Act Ex.D10 : Tax Invoice Ex.D11 & 12 : Purchase orders Ex.D13 : Tax Invoice Ex.D14 : Test Report Ex.D15 : Certificate U/s.65B (4) of Evidence Act (K. GURUPRASAD) XIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU