Bangalore District Court
Mr.Vinay Kumar vs Ravi Kumar.S on 28 March, 2022
KABC020134942019
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
AND A.C.M.M, AT BENGALURU
Present: UMESHA.H.K, B.A., LL.B.,
JUDGE, Court Of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2022
C.C. No:2869/2019
Complainant: Mr.Vinay Kumar,
S/o. Late Ranganatha,
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at No.14,
10th Main, 6th Cross,
T.R.Shamanna Nagar,
PES College, Srinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 050.
(By Sri. A.Rajesh-Advocate)
-Vs-
Accused : Ravi Kumar.S.
S/o.Shivarudraiah,
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at No.290,
1st Main Road, Hrishikesh Nagar,
Near Hirshikesh School,
Hosakerehalli,
Bengaluru - 560 085
Also R/at:
Ravi Kumar.S.,
Smart Fitness Centre,
K.K. Mansion Building,
SCCH-09 2 CC.2869/2019
2nd Floor, Opp.43B Bus Stop,
BSK 3rd Stage, Hosakerehalli,
Bengaluru - 560 085 and also at
Ravi Kumar.S.,
Panthers Cricket Academy,Global
Village, Tech Park Road,
R.V.Vidyaniketan,
Bengaluru - 560 098.
(By Sri. Anil Kumar.D- Advocate)
JUDGMENT
Complainant has filed this private complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C., against accused for an offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is the case of the complainant that, the complainant and the accused are known to each other since several years. The accused brother Chandrashekar was running a Gym in the name and style of "Smart Fitness Centre" and arouse a serious difference between the accused and his brother and therefore the accused agreed to settle his brother's share in the Gym. Hence accused had approached the complainant and requested for hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. Though the SCCH-09 3 CC.2869/2019 complainant did not have cash with him, he had raised personal loan from Axis Bank and accordingly the Axis Bank had sanctioned him loan of Rs.3,50,000/-, however after deduction of processing charges the bank had credited a sum of Rs.3,38,569/- to his bank on 20.05.2017, which was paid to the accused by the complainant by way of cheque bearing No.374333, which was encashed by the accused on 23.05.2017. In fact the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.62,000/- by way of cash and totally the complainant had informed the accused that he could only pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused. Though the accused had agreed and assured the complainant that the accused shall repay the entire amount along with accrued interest to the complainant within a year. The complainant was having deduction every month from his salary and requested the accused to clear the loan amount. Even then, the accused went on evading the repayment of loaf amount on one or the other pretext. Finally, when the complainant demanded the accused for repayment of the loan amount, during November, 2018 the accused had SCCH-09 4 CC.2869/2019 issued a post dated cheque, dt.18.02.2018 bearing No.000001, for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards part payment of the loan amount to the complainant. When the complainant after presented the cheque on 20.02.2018 for collection through his Bankers i.e., ICICI Bank, Srinagar Branch, Bangalore the said cheque returned dishonoured with an endorsement "Account Closed".
3. It is further case of complainant that he issued legal notice, dated 12.03.2019 through RPAD as well as through courier and the said notice was served to the accused on 19.03.2019 and replied to the said notice. However, accused did not paid the aforesaid amount. As such accused committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and prays to convict accused.
4. My Predecessor in Office by taking cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act, registered the case as PCR. Sworn statement of complainant was recorded. Thereafter, by perusing the averments of complaint, documents, this court has registered the case as CC in register SCCH-09 5 CC.2869/2019 No.3 and issued summons to accused. In pursuance of summons accused appeared through his Advocate and he is on bail. Plea read over as per the provisions of U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Complainant in order to prove his case, he himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to 10. Thereafter, statement of accused U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied the incriminating evidence available against him and adduced his defense evidence as DW1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.
6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for complainant and accused.
7. The following points are arise for my consideration:
1. Whether complainant proves that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative; Point No.2 : As per the final order;
for the following:SCCH-09 6 CC.2869/2019
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- Before appreciation of fact and oral, documentary evidence of the present case. It is relevant to mention that under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to establish guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. However, a proceeding U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act is quasi criminal in nature and quasi civil in nature. In this proceeding proof beyond all reasonable doubt is subject to presumption as envisaged U/Sec. 118, 139 of N.I. Act. An essential ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I. Act is that Whether a person issues cheque to be encashed and the cheque so the issued towards payment of debt or liability and if it is returned as unpaid for want of funds, then the person issuing cheque, shall be deemed to have been committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. N.I.Act presupposes conditions for prosecution of an offence which are as under:
1. Existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and issuance of cheque in discharging of said debt or liability.SCCH-09 7 CC.2869/2019
2. Cheque shall be presented for payment within specified time i.e., from the date of issue before expiry of its validity.
3. The holder shall issue a notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer within one month from the date of receipt of information of the bounced cheque and
4. The drawer, inspite of demand notice fails to make payment within 15 days from the date of the receipt of such notice.
10. If the above said ingredients are satisfied by the holder in due course gets cause of action to launch prosecution against the drawer in respect of the bounced cheque and as per Sec. 142 (b) of N.I. Act the complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which the cause of action arise to file complaint.
11. It is also one of the essential ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I. Act that, a cheque in question must have been issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I. Act, envisages certain presumption. U/Sec. 118(a) SCCH-09 8 CC.2869/2019 presumption shall be raised regarding consideration, date, transfer, endorsement and holder, in due course of Negotiable Instrument. Even Sec. 139 of N.I. Act are rebuttable presumption shall be raised that, cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally recoverable or enforceable debt and these presumption are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in case of Negotiable Instrument. But, the said presumption are not conclusive and they are rebuttable one. This preposition of law has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in catena of decisions.
12. It is the case of complainant that accused borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- for his business and agreed to repay the same within short period and for due discharge of said amount with interest, he issued cheque in dispute. On presentation, the cheque in dispute was returned for the reasons "Account Closed". Therefore, he issued notice. Inspite of issuance of notice accused has not repaid the amount and as such he committed the offence.
SCCH-09 9 CC.2869/2019
13. It is the defense of accused that he never borrowed loan from the complainant and he has not issued cheque in dispute to the complainant and complainant has filed false case against him and he denied the signature found in Ex.P1/cheque. Further, it is the defense of the accused that the cheque in dispute was misused by the complainant etc. Both complainant and accused in support of their contentions have led their evidence. Complainant himself examined as PW1 and he has reiterated the complaint averments in detail on oath. The learned counsel for accused has cross-examined him at length but nothing worth has not been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1. To substantiate his oral evidence PW1 has also placed Ex.P1 to 10 documents. Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.000001, dtd.18.02.2019 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Banashankari 1st Stage Branch, Bengaluru. Ex.P2 is the endorsement, dtd.22.02.2019, which discloses cheque in dispute was returned for the reason "Account Closed". Ex.P3 is the copy of legal notice, dtd.12.03.2019. Ex.P4 to 6 are the postal receipts. SCCH-09 10 CC.2869/2019 Ex.P7 & 8 are the postal acknowledgments. Ex.P9 is the RPAD returned cover. Ex.P9(a) is the copy of notice. Ex.P10 is the reply notice.
14. On the contrary, accused himself examined as DW.1 and he has filed his chief examination affidavit but he has not placed any documents. During the course of his chief examination he has stated that he never borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant and he never issued cheque in dispute, in favour of complainant for discharge of alleged loan amount and he denied the signature found in Ex.P1. He further deposed that the complainant has filed false case by misusing his cheque etc. The learned counsel for complainant has cross-examined him at length and during his cross-examination he has specifically admitted that the cheque in dispute belongs to his account but he denied the signature found in Ex.P1. He further admitted he has not lodged the complaint against complainant for misusing his cheque and he has not filed any private complaint. He further SCCH-09 11 CC.2869/2019 denied other material suggestions of learned counsel for complainant.
15. Once again I have carefully scrutinized the evidence placed by both parties. Accused has admitted that the cheque in dispute belongs to his account. But, he specifically denied the signature. Further, accused has admitted that he knows the complainant and they were working in same company and they are college mates. The specific defense of accused is that he never borrowed loan amount and he never issued cheque in dispute. Admittedly, accused has issued reply notice under Ex.P10. In the entire reply notice, he never disputed the signature found in Ex.P1/cheque, he only stated he never taken any loan amount from complainant and he never issued the cheque in favour of complainant. Since accused has denied the signature found in Ex.P1, once again I have carefully perused the documentary evidence placed by complainant. On perusal of Ex.P8 i.e., postal acknowledgment, it discloses the notice issued by complainant was duly served on accused and accused himself SCCH-09 12 CC.2869/2019 has received the said notice and he has put his signature in the said acknowledgment. When the same was confronted during cross-examination to the accused, he denied and stated that the signatures found in Ex.P1 and Ex.P8 are different. But, on careful perusal of signatures found in Ex.P1 and P8, it prima facie appears that the said signatures are made by accused only and only for the sake of defense he has denied his signature before the Court. Further, on perusal of bail bond executed by accused before the court and plea recorded by this court, in which the signatures of accused are available in the said papers. On perusal of signatures found in Ex.P1(a) and in bail bond and in plea, they appears one and the same and they are made by accused only. So, the evidence of the accused that he never issued the cheque and signature found in Ex.P1 doesnot belongs to him is not acceptable one. Accused never denied his signature in his reply at Ex.P10 and he intentionally made his signature on Vakalath, 313 statement and in his evidence affidavit in different manner. It shows the malafdie intention of accused only for the sake of SCCH-09 13 CC.2869/2019 defense he has stated the signature found in Ex.P1 is not pertaining to him etc.
16. In fact, during cross-examination of PW1, no specific suggestion was made with regard to signature found in Ex.P1 regarding forgery or creation of signature in Ex.P1. Further, he never disputed the issuance of cheque in his entire cross-examination of PW.1, only in his evidence he disputed his signature and issuance of cheque.
17. As discussed above, during cross-examination accused has admitted the cheque in dispute is belongs to his account. When such being the case, it is the duty of the accused to explain before the Court how the cheque was travelled to the hands of complainant. Admittedly, no such explanation is offered by accused and no evidence is adduced in this regard. So, it is crystal clear that the said defense of the accused that he never borrowed loan, he never issued cheque and signature found in Ex.P1 doesnot belongs to him etc., is not acceptable one and it only an after thought defense SCCH-09 14 CC.2869/2019 and it has taken only for the sake of defense and nothing is more.
18. Again, this court by using power U/Sec.73 of Evidence Act has carefully scrutinized and verfied the signature found in Ex.P8, bail bond, plea and 313 statement of accused and compared the same with Ex.P1. Prima facie for naked eye it can be seen that the said signatures are made by one and the same person and they appears similar and they are made by the accused only. As discussed above, only with malafide intention accused after recording of plea, just for the sake of defense he has made his signature in 313 statement, in his evidence affidavit in different manner, it shows the criminal intention of accused and his malafide intention, just to cheat the complainant.
19. As discussed above, it is the duty of the accused to explain how the cheque was travelled to the hands of complainant. Admittedly, no such explanation is offered by accused. So, under such circumstances, the evidence of SCCH-09 15 CC.2869/2019 accused that he has not issued cheque and his signature found in Ex.P1 is not belongs to him is not acceptable one.
20. When once signature is pertaining to the accused and cheque belongs to the accused is proved, it is the duty of this court to draw presumption in favour of complainant with regard to existence of debt is contemplated U/Sec.139 unless the contrary is proved. As discussed above, accused has not placed any evidence or explained that how the cheque in dispute was travelled to the hands of complainant and he has not offered any explanation in support of his contention. Mere plausible explanation or denial is not sufficient and the accused is required to place cogent and satisfactory evidence to rebut the presumption available in favour of complainant. As admitted by accused during the course of cross- examination he has not lodged the complaint against complainant for misusing his cheque and he has not taken any legal action against complainant, except issuing reply notice. If really, the complainant has misused the cheque by forging his signature etc., accused immediately after receipt of notice, he SCCH-09 16 CC.2869/2019 would have taken the legal action against complainant for misusing of his cheque. Admittedly, accused is not an illiterate person and he is running gym and he knows the bank transaction and its consequences. The silence on the part of accused in not taking any legal action would clearly establishes the defense taken by accused is only an after thought defense, just to escape from liability and nothing is more. No prudent man would remain silent if really his cheque was misused or forged etc. If really his cheque is misused as contended by accused immediately he would have responded for such illegal act committed by complainant. Mere issuing of reply notice is not enough and accused is required to take legal action against complainant for alleged misusing of his cheque etc. So, the entire defense of accused is that he never borrowed loan, he never issued cheque and his signature is not belongs to him is not acceptable and believable one and it clearly establishes that it is an after thought defense, just to escape from liability if possible.
SCCH-09 17 CC.2869/2019
21. Further, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for accused has drawn the attention of this court with regard to some discrepancies and contradictions available in the evidence of PW1 and submitted that the said discrepancies, admissions and contradictions clearly establishes there is no transaction as stated in the complaint and complainant has misused the cheque of accused and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
22. In support of his argument has relied upon the decision reported as under:
1) ILR 2014 KAR 6572 (Sri.H.Manjunath V/s
Sri.A.M.Basavaraju)
2) 2009 Crl.L.J.455 Bombay High Court (Ramdas Hanumant Palankar V/s N.D.Venerekar & anr.)
3) 2007 (2) 608 Karnataka High Court (M.senguttuvan V/s Mahadevaswamy)
4) 2000 Crl.L.J257 (Narinder Kumar V/s Harnam Singh
5) 2010 (5) KCCR 3397 Karnataka High Court (L.S.Timmappa V/s L.S.Prakash) SCCH-09 18 CC.2869/2019
6) 2008 Crl.L.J2405 Bombay High Court (Vinay Purulekar V/s Pramod Meshram)
23. In the light of above submissions, once again I have carefully perused the evidence of PW1. No doubt, here and there are some discrepancies available in the evidence of PW1. But they will not much affect the case of complainant.
24. At this juncture, I would like to quote the decision reported in - AIR 2003 SC 976 Rizan v/s State of Chattisgarh, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
- there may be discrepancies of truth as well as falsehood. In honest witnesses, discrepancies are due to differences in individual power of observation, recollection, reproduction and recitation and not due to deliberate attempt to suppress or depart from the truth. The broad facts of the case and not minor details have to be considered in weighing evidence. Consideration may be given to the situation in life, status, educational background and way of life of witness. Court must distinguish between minor and SCCH-09 19 CC.2869/2019 material discrepancies. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2007 SC 3228 KULESH MONDAL V/S STATE OF WEST BENGAL., wherein it is held that - normal discrepancies are those, which are due to normal errors of observations, of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such shock and horror, at the time of occurrence, which are always there, however, honest and trustful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those, which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. While normal discrepancies donot corrode the credibility of parties case, material discrepancies may do so. Trifling discrepancies just be ignored as natural discrepancies among the honest witnesses. In view of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision, the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for accused in this regard holds no water and it is not acceptable one.
25. Further, I have carefully perused the decisions relied by learned counsel for accused in support of his SCCH-09 20 CC.2869/2019 arguments. In the decision reported in ILR 2014 KAR 6572 in the said case Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held - since complainant has failed to place evidence with regard to - when the amount was actually given to the accused etc. Considering the said material particulars and discrepancies, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has upheld Acquitall Order passed by the Trail Court. But, here in this case, that is not the situation. The complainant has specifically stated that he has advanced the amount. As admitted by the accused an amount of Rs.3,38,500/- was transferred to his account under cheque bearing No.3743331 dtd:23.05.2017. It has specifically admitted by accused during his cross-examination and there is no explanation by the accused why the said amount was transferred to his account. Complainant has specifically stated when the amount was transferred and the remaining amount was paid in cash to the accused. When such being the case, with great respect to the said decision, the facts and circumstances, of the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
SCCH-09 21 CC.2869/2019
26. Further learned counsel for accused has relied upon the another decision reported in 2009 Crl.L.J 455. I have carefully perused the said decision also, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the said decision considering the false statement of complainant about knowledge of the person, who had taken loan from him and subsequently admitted the said fact etc., and considering the evidence in that case and looking to the evidence on record and admissions given by the complainant has held that the defense taken by the accused was probable and up held the acquittal order. But, herein this case, no such probable defense adduced by the accused and there is no such admissions or material discrepancies to disbelieve the case of complainant. Thus, with great respect to the said decision, this decision is also not applicable to the case on hand.
27. Further, learned counsel for accused has relied upon the decision reported in 2007 (2) DCR 608 and submitted that in the complaint, there is no mention of date regarding advancement of loan amount. So, on that ground only SCCH-09 22 CC.2869/2019 complaint is liable to dismissal and prays to dismiss the complaint.
28. Again in the light of above submissions, I have carefully perused the evidence and also the decision referred by learned for accused. In the said decision, in the complaint, complainant was not mentioned specific date either in the complaint or in the notice and considering the same and other evidence, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka upheld acquittal order passed by the Trail Court. But, herein in this case, an amount of Rs.3,38,500/- was duly transferred to the account of accused and it was encashed on 23.05.2017. When such being the case, the contention of learned counsel for accused that no date is mentioned in the complaint or in the notice etc., is not acceptable one. With great respect to the said decision, the facts and circumstances of the said decision are not applicable to the case on hand.
29. Further, the learned counsel for accused has relied upon the decision reported in 2000 Crl.L.J 257 I have carefully perused the said decision of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High SCCH-09 23 CC.2869/2019 Court since complainant has failed to establish the subsisting debt. By considering the same has accepted the defense of accused by confirming the Trail Court Order upheld the same. But, herein this case, that is not the situation because the complainant has established the subsisting debt and liability of accused. So, with great respect to the said decision, the facts of said decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
30 Further, the learned counsel for accused has also relied upon the decision - 2010 (5) KCCR 3397. I have carefully, perused the said decision, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that since complainant was failed to prove the existence of debt or liability has up held the acquittal order. But, in the present case, complainant as discussed above has proved the existence of liability of accused. So, the said decision is also not applicable to the case on hand.
31. The learned counsel for accused has also relied upon another decision reported in - 2008 Crl.L.J 2405, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court considering the failure of complainant to prove the existence of debt and considering SCCH-09 24 CC.2869/2019 the failure of complainant he has stated that when money in cash was paid by him etc., has upheld the acquittal order of Trail Court. I have carefully perused the said decision, with great respect to the said decision, the facts and circumstance of said decision are not applicable to the case on hand. As stated above, the complainant has placed materials before the Court regarding existence of debt. Admittedly, accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of complainant. Therefore, all the decision relied by learned counsel will not in any way help the accused counsel.
32. Mere, plausible explanation is not sufficient or enough to rebut the presumption available in favour of complainant. Sec.139 of N.I.Act mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to U/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act for the discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated U/Sec.139 of N.I.Act is rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not issued SCCH-09 25 CC.2869/2019 in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused drawer of the cheque.
Sec.139 introduces an exception to the General Rule as to the burden of proof and shifts the onus on the accused. The presumption U/Sec.139 of N.I.Act is presumption of law, as distinguished from presumption of facts. Presumption or rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, which requires the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumption of law and presumption of facts, unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non existence of presumed fact as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of - Hiten P Dalal V/s Bratindranath Banerjee reported in (2001) 6 SCC 16.
SCCH-09 26 CC.2869/2019
33. A meaningful reading of the provision of N.I.Act including, in particular Sec.20, 87, 118, 138 , 139 makes it amply clear that - a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of liability. Further, it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer and it would attract the provisions of Sec.138 of N.I.Act. As discussed above, except some plausible explanation accused has not placed any iota of evidence to accept her contention. Accused has not placed any probable defense in this regard to displace the presumption available in favour of complainant.
34. Therefore, considering all these aspects of the case and totality of the circumstances and on careful and meticulous appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of complainant and accused, the complainant has successfully established beyond all reasonable doubt that accused is due an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- SCCH-09 27 CC.2869/2019 and for due discharge of said amount accused has issued Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of complainant. On the other hand, accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of complainant with regard to the existence of legally recoverable debt under Ex.P1 cheque. Therefore, accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Thus, for the above reasons, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
35. Point No.2: As discussed in point No.1, the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused. It is worth to note that the offence is of the nature of quasi civil and quasi criminal wrong. Hence, it is proper to award sentence of fine only instead of imposing sentence of imprisonment to the accused. At this juncture, it is worth to place the reliance of recent decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2020 (1) SCC 283 Kalamani Text. and another V/s. P Balasubramaniam, Wherein the Hon'ble Apex court at head note D has held that Negotiable Instrument Act 1881- Sec. 138 - compensation under - there needs to be a SCCH-09 28 CC.2869/2019 consistent approach towards awarding it compensation and unless there exist special circumstance, the court should uniformly Levy fine of up to the double of cheque amount along with simple interest at 9%. So considering the pendency of the case from 2019 and the transaction this court, feels an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- can be awarded as compensation to the complainant, which would meet the ends of justice. Thus for the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255[2] of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence Punishable U/s. 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused is sentenced to pay total fine amount of Rs.7,55,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall under go Simple Imprisonment for a period six months.
After deposit of fine amount an
amount of Rs.7,50,000/- shall be paid to
the Complainant as compensation as
provided U/s.357 (1) Cr.P.C. The remaining SCCH-09 29 CC.2869/2019 Rs.5,000/- be appropriated to the state as fine.
The bail bond of the accused is hereby stand cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of this judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of March, 2022.) (Umesha.H.K) Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACMM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
PW -1 : Vinay Kumar List of Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P1 Cheque
Ex.P1(a) Signature of accused
Ex.P2 Bank endorsement
Ex.P3 Notice
Ex.P4 to 6 Postal receipts
Ex.P7 & 8 Postal acknowledgments
Ex.P9 Unserved postal cover
Ex.P9(a) Contents of Ex.P9
SCCH-09 30 CC.2869/2019
Ex.P10 Reply notice
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
D.W.1 Ravikumar List of documents marked on behalf of accused Nil (Umesha.H.K) Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, Bengaluru.