Bangalore District Court
Sri. H.S. Ramaprasad vs Mrs. Pushpalatha on 21 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BANGALORE.
:: PRESENT ::
SMT.C.G VISHALAKSHI, B.A., L.L.B.,
XIII A.C.M.M Bangalore.
C.C. NO.17099/2014
Dated: This the 21st day of MAY-2016
COMPLAINANT/S: Sri. H.S. Ramaprasad,
S/o. H.S. Srinivas Murthy,
R/at. No.267, 6th Main,
Arakere, Mico Layout,
1st Stage, Off Banergatta Road
Bangalore-560076
ACCUSED: Mrs. Pushpalatha,
W/o. G.T. Srinivas,
R/at. No. Old No.405,
New No.3509, 2nd Cross,
4th Main, Near Girinagar Police
Stattion, Girinagar 4th Phase,
BSK 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-560085
Offence U/s.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquitted
**********
2
JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014
JUDGEMENT
This complaint filed against the accused under Section.200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The gist of the complaint is as follows:
The accused was known to the complainant as she is his sister's friend. Since, his sister has recommended that the accused is trustworthy person, the complainant had agreed to help the accused, whenever she in need of money for her personal needs. Thus, the complainant gave hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused on 13-08-2013. The accused had promised to repay the said loan within one month with interest on the principal at the rate of 2% per month.
It is further case of the complainant that the accused has given a cheque bearing No.350493, dated:
13-09-2013 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Banashankari III Stage, Bangalore-560085 assuring 3 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 about its honour in favour of the complainant and she also executed promissory note and consideration receipt on 13-08-2013 for having borrowed loan of Rs.4,00,000/- infavour of the complainant and promising to repay the said amount on demand for repayment of the principal amount. The accused had paid interest for the first month by way of cash as he agreed. On 21-10-2013 the complainant by informing the accused, has presented the cheque for encashment through his banker Corporation Bank, Arikerigate Branch, Bangalore on 21-10-2013, but the said cheque was dishonoured for the reason 'Funds Insufficient' vide its memo dated: 23-10-2013. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice against the accused on 21-11-2013 as contemplated under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The notice was sent against her by Speed post and DTDC Courier Service. The notice sent against the accused by speed post was served on the accused on 22-11-2013. Despite of service of notice, the accused did not come forward to settle the cheque 4 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 amount, but she gave reply to the demand notice of the complainant. Hence, having no other go, the complainant approached this court with this complaint against the accused alleging that, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and prays to deal the accused in accordance with law.
3. On presentation of the complaint, this court has taken cognizance of the offence, Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. On perusal of the documents and on hearing the complainant, process was issued against the accused. In pursuance of the process, the accused appeared before this court and enlarged on bail. Copies of the complaint papers supplied to her. Substance of accusation was readover and explained to the accused. Accused did not pleaded guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for evidence of the complainant.
5
JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as PW.1 & one witness as PW.2 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P11 and closed his side evidence. After completion of the complainant's evidence, the accused was examined under Section.313 of Cr.P.C. and her statement was recorded. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence appeared against her and chosen to lead her defence evidence. To substantiate her defence and to falsify the claim of the complainant the accused has examined herself as DW1 and got marked document as Ex.D1 on her behalf.
5. Heard arguments. To strengthen the case of the accused, the counsel for the accused has relied upon the following citation as follow:
AIR 2014 SC 660 Kamalesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar and Anr.
6. Upon reading the entire materials on record and on hearing the arguments, the following points that arise for my consideration:
6
JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014
POINTS
1. Whether the complainant proves
beyond all shadow of doubt that, the
accused has committed an offence
punishable under Section.138 N.I. Act?
2. What order?
7. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order, for the
following.
:: REASONS ::
8. POINT NO.1: As the accused did not pleaded
guilty, the complainant has chosen to examine himself as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P11.
9. As per the decision reported in ILR 2008 KAR PAGE-4629 between Shivamurthy V/s Amruthraj and in another decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court 7 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 in AIR-2008 SC-1325 between Krishna Janardharn Bhat V/s Dattareya G. Hegde, in order to attract Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant has to satisfy three essential ingredients like, 1) there is legally enforceable debt, 2) that the cheque was drawn from the account of the Bank of the accused for discharge of whole or part of any debt or other liability which pre-supposes to be legally enforceable debt, 3) cheque so issued returned unpaid due to Insufficient of funds.
10. Keeping in view the ingredients of Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, I proceed to discuss the documents of this case.
(a) Ex.P1 is cheque i.e., bearing No.350493, dated: 13-
09-2013 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Banashankari III Stage, Bangalore-560085. According to complainant Ex.P1(a) is the signature of the accused. On perusal of the original complaint i.e., 8 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 Ex.P11, it is clear that it buttress the stand taken by the complainant herein.
(b) Ex.P2 and 3 are the cheque return memo and challan which shows that the above said cheque i.e., Ex.P1 was returned unpaid dated: 22-10-2013 because of the reason that 'Funds Insufficient'.
(c) Ex.P4 is copy of the legal notice dated: 21-11-2013, which shows that the complainant made demand in writing calling upon the accused to make repayment of the said cheques amount by issuing notice against her.
(e) Ex.P5 and P6 are the postal receipt and letter issued by postal authorities, reflects that the legal notice was served on accused.
As per Clause (C) proviso to Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused is entitle 15 days time to make payment of money covered under cheque. Further, as per Section.142 (b) of Negotiable 9 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 Instruments Act, complaint has to be filed within 30 days from the date of which the cause of action aroses. Therefore, the complainant had filed this complaint.
11. Keeping these documents in view, let us proceed to discuss that, whether the cheque in question belongs to the accused and whether the signature found on disputed cheque is that of the accused.
12. On looking the materials on record it shows that, there is no dispute so as to the fact that the Ex.P1 cheque is belongs to the bank account of the accused but accused denied the fact that Ex.P1(a) and the Ex.P9(a) and P10(a) are not her signature by taking defence that she does not know about the complainant himself and there was no monitory transaction in between herself and the complainant and she never borrowed any loan from the complainant that too to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- and she had no necessity to borrow such huge amount as loan and she never issued 10 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 Ex.P1 cheque infavour of the complainant towards discharge of any debt or liability. On the other hand she has taken the defence that one Parimala the sister of the complainant was running chit during the year 2006 and she was member of the said chit and when she bid the chit amount the said Parimala had collected her cheque as security and thereafter though she has cleared the chit amount, but the said Parimala without returning her cheque but by misusing the same in-collusion with her brother i.e., complainant by creating documents like on demand pro-note and consideration receipt i.e., Ex.P9 and P10 documents have filed this false case against her, though there exists no debt or liability.
13. Thus, though she admit the fact that Ex.P1 cheque is belongs to the bank account of the accused, but she denied the signature found on Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P9 and P10 on demand pro-note and consideration receipt which are marked at Ex.P9(a) and P10(a) are not her signatures. But having admitted the fact that Ex.P1 11 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 cheque is belongs to her bank account, burden is on her to substantiate the fact that the signature found on Ex.P1 cheque which is marked at Ex.P1(a) is her signature with necessary evidence.
14. To substantiate the defence of the accused, the learned counsel for accused cross-examined P.W.1., but no any single suggestion put to PW.1 during cross- examination that Ex.P1(a) signature is not the signature of the accused and also in respect to the signature found on Ex.P9 and P10 documents i.e., on demand pro-note and consideration receipt. On the other hand, it is just suggested to PW.1 that Ex.P1 cheque so also Ex.P9 and P10 on demand pro-note and consideration receipt were given by the accused in favour of the sister of PW.1 during the year 2006 in relation to the chit transaction, but the said suggestion has been denied by PW.1.
15. No doubt at one stretch the accused made an attempt to elicit that ink used to write Ex.P1(a) signature 12 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 and rest of the writings in Ex.P1 Cheque are different etc., but on that time also they did not put any single suggestions to PW.1 that the signature found on Ex.P1 cheque which is marked at Ex.P1(a) and the signatures found on Ex.P9 and P10 on demand pro-note and consideration receipt are not the signatures of the accused etc. On the other hand at one stretch the accused counsel by referring the revenue stamp allegedly used in Ex.P9 and P10 on demand pro-note and consideration receipt suggested that the signature affixed by the accused on the revenue receipt is not of the year 2013 etc., as he suggested the same in Kannada as follows:
'DgÉÆæ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀAvÀºÀ D£ï rªÀiÁåAqï ¥ÉÇÃæ£ÉÆÃmï gÉ«£ÀÆå ¸ÁÖA¥ï 2013 £É E¸À«AiÀÄzÀÝ®è CAzÀgÉ CzÀÄ 2013 £Éà E¸À«AiÀÄzÀÄÝ×.' That means to say that though accused counsel made an attempt to say that Ex.P9 and P10 documents were also given by the accused infavour of the sister of 13 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 the complainant during the year 2006, but not denied the fact about signature found on such revenue stamp in Ex.P9 and P10 are not the signatures of the accused. With this the accused clearly admitted that Ex.P1(a) signature and also the signature found on Ex.P9 and P10 on demand pro-note and consideration receipt are the signatures of the accused.
16. Further, at one stretch the accused counsel made an attempt to say by referring the signature found on Ex.P1 as per Ex.P1(a) and Ex.P9(a) and P10(a) are different signatures than the signatures found on the postal letter produced by the complainant to show about service of speed post and signature found on Ex.P8 document. Though PW.1 has stated about difference in those signature etc., but offered explanation stating that the accused used to sign differently at different time. This evidence is not falsified by the accused by suggesting any suggestions in that regard. This clearly goes to show that Ex.P1(a) and signature found on Ex.P9 14 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 and P10 on demand promissory note and consideration receipt are the signature of the accused only. Inspite of the same just to overcome the situation the accused has taken such vague defence.
17. If the signature found on Ex.P1(a) is not the signature of the accused, then it is for the accused to substantiate the fact that she never used to sign papers as found in Ex.P1(a) or as forthcoming in the documents like Ex.P9 and P10 documents with necessary evidence and it is the burden on the accused to show fact that she use to sign in different manner by placing necessary documents before this court. Because denial of her signature is not sufficient, but on the other hand as aforesaid it is the duty of the accused to prove the said fact that she never affix her signature as found in Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P9 and P10 documents by placing any of the documents containing her signature which is of the period of undisputed point of time i.e., earlier to the date 15 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 of transaction of this case. But no such documents have been placed by the accused before this court.
18. No doubt, the accused attempted to substantiate the fact that she use to sign the documents as found in vakalath, plea, 313 statement and deposition etc., but those documents are all subsequent to the date of transaction. As aforesaid, the accused might have intentionally changed the style of her signature. Hence, those documents cannot be taken as proof to come to the conclusion that she uses to sign the papers as found in document like vakalath, plea, 313 statement and deposition. On the other hand as aforesaid discussion the accused has to prove the said fact by placing the documents containing her signature pertaining to the period of undisputed point of time. Hence, the defence taken by the accused during the course of her chief- evidence is not acceptable one. Further Ex.P1 cheque was not dishonoured for the reason 'signature differs', on the other hand as per Ex.P2 endorsement, the Ex.P1 16 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 cheque was returned unpaid and dishonoured for the reason 'Insufficient funds'.
19. Further, the accused not opted any mode of proving the fact that Ex.P1(a) is not her signature and she never affixed or sign as like in Ex.P1(a), P9(a) and P10(a) documents and on the other hand, she uses to affix her signature as found in vakalath, plea, 313 statement and deposition etc., either by calling necessary records from the bank authorities i.e., account opening form, specimen signature allegedly given by the accused at the time of opening her bank account or by examining any competent person like Bank Manager in this regard. Further she did not sought for reference of the said disputed document i.e., Ex.P1 cheque to the handwriting experts to ascertain the fact that Ex.P1(a) signature and the contents of the cheque is of the accused or not. Hence, absolutely no iota of evidence placed by the accused to substantiate the fact that Ex.P1(a) is not her signature and she never uses to sign the paper as shown 17 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 in Ex.P1(a) cheque and Ex.P9 and P10 documents. On the other hand, the accused counsel only during cross- examination has admitted indirectly that the signature found on the revenue stamp paper i.e., in Ex.P9 and P10 documents are pertaining to the accused and they tallies to the Ex.P1(a) signature found on Ex.P1 cheque. Further the fact that Ex.P1(a) is the signature of the accused is also proved by the complainant by placing necessary endorsement like Ex.P2 bank endorsement which shows that the Ex.P1 cheque was dishonoured not for the reason 'signature differs', but for the reason 'Insufficient Funds'. This evidence corroborates the evidence of the complainant in proving the fact that Ex.P1 cheque was belongs to the bank account of the accused and Ex.P1(a) is the signature of the accused.
20. Further, the fact of issuance of Ex.P1 cheque by the accused infavour of the complainant towards loan transaction is proved by the complainant by examining the necessary witness like Parimala who happens to be 18 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 the sister of the complainant as PW.2. She clearly deposed in her evidence that the complainant had advanced loan infavour of the accused by way of cash and at the time of issuance of Ex.P1 cheque by the accused, herself and her uncle one Srinivas and her brother and accused were present.. She also deposed that in her presence the accused has given Ex.P9 and P10 on demand pro-note and consideration receipt along with Ex.P1 cheque infavour of complainant. During her cross-examination also the accused counsel not suggested any suggestion that the signature found on Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P9 and P10 documents which are marked at Ex.P1(a), P9(a) and P10(a) signatures are not the signatures of the accused etc. Hence, with all these reasons, this court is of the opinion that the complainant has proved the fact that the signature found on Ex.P1 cheque which is marked at Ex.P1(a) and signature found on Ex.P9 and P10 documents are the signatures of the accused.
19
JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014
21. In view of the decision reported in 2010 SC 1898 between Rangappa V/s Mohan, once the execution of Negotiable Instruments Act is either proved or admitted, then the court shall draw a presumption under Section.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in favour of the complainant to that effect that the said Negotiable Instrument i.e., the disputed cheque has been drawn for valid consideration and it is towards legally recoverable debt and it is drawn for valuable consideration. Having admitted the fact that Ex.P.1 cheque belongs to the bank account of the accused and having proved by the complainant that the Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of the accused, presumption arose in favour of the complainant U/s.139 of N.I Act. Hence, the burden is on the accused to rebut the same with probable evidence
22. To substantiate her defence the learned counsel for the accused lengthily cross-examined PW.1 and suggested that there was no loan transaction between the complainant and accused and Ex.P1 cheque was not 20 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 issued infavour of the complainant towards discharge of any debt or liability and on the other hand it was suggested that the sister of the complainant was running chit business during the year 2006 and accused was one of the member in that chit and when she bid the chit amount the complainant's sister has collected her cheque for security purpose and suggested that the Ex.P1 cheque was not issued infavour of the complainant during the year - 2013 etc., but for all these suggestions PW.1 denied as false. Hence, except bare suggestions and denial nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 nor placed any material documents before this court to substantiate the circumstances how Ex.P1 cheque went to the hand of the complainant.
23. If really the sister of the complainant was running chit business during the year 2006 and accused was one of the member and she had given her blank cheque infavour of the complainant's sister, when she bid the chit amount as security etc., then she would have proved 21 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 the same by placing any documents like Passbook allegedly maintained in the chit transaction for having paid monthly subscription amount or any of the documents to show that the said Parimala was doing chit business. But no such documents have been placed before this court.
24. Further if really the alleged cheque was given by the accused infavour of the sister of the complainant Parimala in connection to chit transaction during the year 2006 etc., then after conclusion of the said chit, certainly the accused would have insisted the said Parimala by writing letter demanding her to return her blank cheque by narrating the circumstances in which she had given the said cheque infavour of the said Parimala and in case if there is no compliance of her demand notice, then she would have taken any legal steps by filing necessary police complaint nor by filing any private complaint against the said Parimala or at least even after filing this complaint against her by 22 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 making use of her blank cheque and for having fraud played by them. But no such legal steps haven been taken by the accused in this regard. Unless, the accused has proved that she has acted as normal prudent women, she could not be rebut the presumption, which arose in favour of the complainant under Section.139 of N.I Act. Because no prudent man will remain silent without taking any legal steps to collect back the documents issued for security purpose, even after completion of the transaction. But no such steps have been taken by the accused. Hence, the defence taken by the accused is not acceptable & convincing one.
25. No doubt the accused had given explanation that since herself and the complainant are belongs to same caste and friends, she did not taken any legal steps etc., but the said reason is not convincing one. Hence, the defence taken by the accused is not acceptable one. 23
JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014
26. Even otherwise, the accused has not taken such defence in her reply notice allegedly issued by the complainant against her on account of dishonour of the Ex.P1 cheque, though he had technically raised objections with regard to issuance of demand notice in respect to the month in which it is allegedly issued by the complainant contending that no Ex.P3 demand notice was served on her etc., but not taken her defence in the reply notice by explaining the circumstances how this disputed cheque went to the possession of the complainant. Hence, whatever the defence taken by the accused during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 or in her evidence is nothing but after thought. Hence, defence taken by the accused is not convincing one.
27. Further, at one stretch the accused attacked the case of complainant by raising the point technically stating that no Ex.P3 demand notice was served on him, as Ex.P3 demand notice contains the date as 21-11- 2013, but the notice allegedly sent against the accused 24 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 was dated: 21-10-2013 etc. To substantiate the said fact though accused has produced the said document like demand notice dated: 21-10-2013 before this court which is marked at Ex.D1, but PW.1 has offered explanation that there is typographical mistake in respect to the month in which Ex.P3 demand notice was issued, wherein the month has wrongly typed as '10'th month instead of '11'th month. To prove the same, he relied on the document Ex.P7 and P7(a), the notice sent against the accused by speed post also. But the said notice was returned unserved as 'door locked'. Further, the document like Ex.P7 envelop was opened before this court with due permission of this court as there is clear evidence recorded by this court at the time of examination of chief-evidence of the complainant. On perusal of the said notice which is in the said Ex.P7 envelop which is marked at Ex.P7(a) it contains the date as 21-11-2013 itself, though there is corrections of month from 10 to 11. Thus, it clearly goes to show that there was typographical error in mentioning month in 25 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 which the alleged notice was given against the accused but later it was corrected and given infavour of the accused. But due to oversight the notice which was served on the accused was not attended corrections.
28. Further to prove the fact that there was typographical error in mentioning month as '10' instead of '11', the complainant has produced some other documents like postal receipt the date on which he had posted the said notice against the accused and also copy of letter to substantiate the said fact that article was booked and delivered infavour of the accused. The said document marked at Ex.P6. Which clearly reflects that the article No.EK458879173IN was posted on 21-11- 2013 and article delivered on 22-11-2013. This clearly reflects the fact that whatever mistake crept in the month in the notice allegedly received by the accused was typographical error. But whatever may the reason, the contents of the notice was well within the knowledge of the accused with regard to the alleged loan transaction 26 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 in between the complainant and the accused and about issuance of the disputed cheque infavour of the complainant and the fact of dishonour of the cheque on its presentation for the reason 'Funds Insufficient. When such being the case if the defence taken by the accused were true, then certainly she would have taken such defence in her reply notice only. But instead of doing so, she has taken the defence only on the technical ground. Hence, the said defence is not acceptable one.
29. Though the complainant has proved the fact that there was existence of debt in between himself and the accused and the accused had issued disputed cheque towards discharge of the alleged loan borrowed by him to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- and the said cheque was dishonoured on its presentation for the reason 'Funds Insufficient' etc., but in order to attract Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant has to full- fill the essential ingredients as contemplated under proviso appended to Section.138(b) of Negotiable 27 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 Instruments Act. Because as per the proviso to Section.138(b) there is time limit of 30 days for issuance of demand notice from the date of receipt of the endorsement of dishonour by the bank authorities. But in this regard as per the Ex.P2 endorsement, the disputed cheque i.e., Ex.P1 cheque returned on 22-10- 2013 and the limitation for issuance of demand notice commences from that date itself that means to say that the period of 30 days reckons from the date on which he receives the bank endorsement about dishonour of the cheque and within 30 days the complainant shall make a demand in writing for payment of the cheque amount. Thus the complainant ought to have issued demand notice on or before 20-11-2013 against the accused from 22-10-2013 the date of receipt of endorsement of dishonour of Ex.P1 cheque. But in the case on hand the complainant had issued the demand notice against the accused on 21-11-2013 i.e., on 31st day from the date of receipt of endorsement by the Bank authorities i.e., one 28 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 day belatedly, he issued demand notice against the accused which is not permissible under law.
30. Though the complainant during course of evidence stated that he had received the endorsement of dishonour of the cheque by the bank on 23-10-2013 and he had affixed his signature to the extent at bank etc., but he has not proved the same by calling those document before this court or by placing any document before this court. Hence, there is no evidence to show that he had received the endorsement for dishonour of the cheque by the bank on 23-10-2013. On the other hand, as per Ex.P2 endorsement, PW.1 had received the said endorsement by the bank for dishonour of the Ex.P1 cheque on 22-10-2013. Hence, though complainant has proved the other essential ingredients of Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act i.e., with regard to existence of debt or liability and about issuance of disputed cheque by the accused towards discharge of the said liability and the said cheque was dishonoured unpaid for the reason 29 JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014 'Insufficient Funds' etc., But the complaint fails for non- issuance of demand notice within statutory time of 30 days as provided under law. Hence, complaint is not maintainable. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in the Negative.
31. POINT NO.2: In view of my discussions on Point No.1 as above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond and the surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced in open court by me on this the 21st day of May-2016) (C.G. Vishalakshi) XIII A.C.M.M., Bangalore.30
JUDGEMENT C.C.17099/2014
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : H.S. Ramaprasad PW.2 : Parimala
Documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P1 : Cheque Ex.P2 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P3 : Bank Challen Ex.P4 : Legal Notice Ex.P5 : Postal receipt Ex.P6 : Delivery status of Speed post article Ex.P7 : Envelop Ex.P8 : Letter Ex.P9 : On demand pro-note Ex.P10 : Consideration receipt Ex.P11 : Complaint
Witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
D.W.1 : Pushpalatha Documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D1 : Portion of the recital marked in Ex.P4 notice and the same notice has been marked as Ex.D1.
Ex.D2 : The date, month and year
Mentioned in Ex.P4 notice
Ex.D3 : It is marked as Ex.D1 instead of
Ex.D3 i.e., notice given to accused
by the complainant.
(C.G. Vishalakshi)
XIII A.C.M.M., Bangalore.