Bangalore District Court
Goutham Shetty Sirigeri vs Kape E Commerce Pvt Ltd on 9 September, 2024
KABC020169302022
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH24).
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated: On this 9th day of September 2024,
CC NO.4797/2022
1. Sl.No. of the Case : C.C.No.4797 of 2022
2. The date of : 29032022
commission of the
offence
3. Name of the : Mr.Goutham Shetty Sirigeri
Complainant S/o. Gururaj Shetty
Aged about 38 years,
R/at. No.02, Old No.13,
Manju Nilaya, 15th 'F' Cross,
Muthyalanagara,
Bandappa Garden,
Near JP Park West Gate,
Mathikere,
Bengaluru560054
(By Sri.B. Raghavendra Advocate)
SCCH-24 2 C.C.4797/2022
4. Name of the KAPE ECOMMERCE PVT. LTD.,
Accused No.672, 7th Main, 6th Cross,
B.D.A Land, APMC,
Yeshwanthapura,
Bengaluru560 022
Represented by its
Proprietor & Authorized signatory
Sri Arjun Shetty
(By Sri Siddanooru Vishwanatha,
Advocate)
5. The offence complained : Under Section 138 of the
of or proves Negotiable Instrument Act.
6. Plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination
7. Final Order : Accused is found guilty
8. Date of such order for : 09082024
the following
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed under Sec. 200 of Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is contended by the complainant that: The accused is running a business under the name and style of KAPE ECommerce Private Limited which is Grocery factory of brand products. On 28012018, an agreement of franchisee was made between accused i.e., KAPE e SCCH-24 3 C.C.4797/2022 commerce Pvt. Ltd and the complainant, the duration of the agreement was for three years. The Franchisee fee of Rs.3,50,000/ was paid by the complainant in full through cheque bearing No.551017 of State Bank of India, Bengaluru Gokula Branch, dated 29012018. Out of Rs.3,50,000/, sum of Rs.1,50,000/ was towards nonrefundable charges like Franchise Royalty, administration cost and licensing fee and the remaining Rs.2,00,000/was taken towards security deposit by the accused and it is agreed that the security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/ will be refundable within 30 days after the end of agreement period.
3. During this agreement period, KAPE e commerce was liable to pay a minimum franchise commission of Rs.10,000/ per month for 36 months to the complainant. But the accused paid commission to the complainant only for a period of 10 months and till today there is due of 26 months commission and the said balance commission amount sum up to Rs.2,60,000/. As per the franchise agreement between the complainant and accused, the complainant in the end of franchise agreement period, issued 'Franchise Termination notice' to the accused through Email on 08032021 and requested the accused to return the refundable security SCCH-24 4 C.C.4797/2022 deposit of Rs.2,00,000/ within 30 days. The notice of termination sent by the complainant was acknowledged by Mr. Arjun Shetty on 10032021. After completion of 30 days period, the accused made no contact with the complainant and he neither paid the money nor issued any cheque or made any online deposit. After six months of constant efforts, on 14082021 the accused issued a post dated cheque bearing No.521028 on 30102021 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Malleshwaram Branch for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/. When complainant presented the said cheque for collection through his banker I.e., HDFC Bank, Richmond Road Branch, Bengaluru, same was returned with an endorsement 'FUNDS INSUFFICIENT' on 04112021. On assurance of accused, the complainant represents the said cheque for encashment after two months, it was once again returned on 07012022 because of insufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 05022022 and same was returned with a shara "I/D not claimed" on 09022022. Accordingly, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I Act, hence, the complaint.
4. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and also verifying the documents, SCCH-24 5 C.C.4797/2022 cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. The accused on receiving the summons appeared before this Court through his counsel and was enlarged on bail and his plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for evidence of the complainant.
5. The complainant got examined its proprietor and authorized signatory as PW.1, and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to 10. During the cross examination of DW.1 the learned counsel for complainant confronted the Certified copy of complaint in CC No.4606/2022, Certified copy of Judgment in CC No.55194/2021, Certified copy of complaint in CC No.4553/2022, document of Email ID pertaining to accused, color photos of vehicle, certified copy of FIR and got marked as Ex.P11 to 16. Then, the case was posted for recording the statement of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. In the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and claimed to be tried, The accused has examined himself as DW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.D2 to D4 and closed their side. In the cross examination of PW1, Ex.D1 was marked. Hence, the SCCH-24 6 C.C.4797/2022 case was posted for arguments.
6. Heard the arguments of both side and perused the records.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that 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 final order, for the following:
: R E A S O N S :
9. POINT NO.1: This is a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
It is the case of complainant that he has entered in to franchisee agreement with the accused and has paid Franchisee fee of Rs.3,50,000/ through cheque dated 29012018. Out of Rs.3,50,000/, sum of Rs.1,50,000/ SCCH-24 7 C.C.4797/2022 was towards nonrefundable charges and remaining Rs.2,00,000/was taken towards security deposit and for the repayment of said security deposit of Rs 2,00,000 the accused has issued post dated cheque dated 30102021 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/. When the cheque was presented for encashment, same was returned with endorsement "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT". Though the said fact was brought to the notice of the accused by issuing legal notice the accused has failed to repay the cheque amount.
10. In order to substantiate the said contention, the complainant got examined its proprietor as Pw1 and given evidence in consonance with the averments of the complaint. If the documents produced by the complainant is perused, ExP1 is the cheque which bears the signature of accused. The accused nowhere has disputed the cheque relates to his account so also his signature in the ExP1. It is deposed by Pw1 that cheque in question was issued by the accused for discharge of liability. The cheque in question was presented by the complainant through his banker which was returned with two memo as per ExP2 and Ex.P.3 stating 'funds insufficient'. Hence he got issued legal notice to the accused through RPAD, which is at Ex.P.4. The postal SCCH-24 8 C.C.4797/2022 receipt is marked at Ex.P.5. The Postal cover is marked at Ex.P.6, Franchisee Agreement dated 29012018 is marked at Ex.P.7, SBI Bank account statement is marked at Ex.P.8, copy of Email message is marked at Ex.P.9, The Certificate u/Sec.65 B of Indian Evidence Act is marked at Ex.P.10, Certified copy of complaint in CC No.4606/2022, Certified copy of Judgment in CC No.55194/2021, Certified copy of complaint in CC No.4553/2022, document of Email ID pertaining to accused, color photos of vehicle, certified copy of FIR are marked at Ex.P11 to 16.
11. The accused while admitting the Franchisee Agreement entered in to between the complainant and them and while admitting the terms and conditions of the Franchisee Agreement has taken the defence that the complainant has not properly terminated the Franchisee Agreement. The goods/products along with the vehicle worth Rs.10,00,000/ is still with the complainant and he has not returned the same and thereby the complainant has violated the terms of agreement and he has not terminated the agreement in agreed manner.
SCCH-24 9 C.C.4797/202212. It is further submitted by the accused that the cheque in question was issued not on termination of the agreement but issued at the time of agreement as security for the transaction, the complainant now misused the said cheque and filed false complaint against him.
13. It is further submitted that the complainant simply claims to have sent E mail notice for termination of the Franchisee Agreement and claims that it was acknowledged by the accused, but has failed to produce any single evidence in support of the claim.
14. If the contention taken by the complainant and accused is carefully perused, the admitted fact which emerges is that: Accused is running business under the name and style KAPE E COMMERCE PVT LTD. The complainant and accused have entered into Franchisee Agreement dated 28012018 as per Ex.P7. As Franchise fee, the complainant has deposited sum of Rs.3,50,000/ through cheque bearing No.551017 of State Bank of India, Bengaluru, Gokul dated 2901 2018. Ex.P8 is the statement of account which clearly reveals sum of Rs.3,50,000/ paid by the complainant towards franchise fee.
SCCH-24 10 C.C.4797/202215. It is further an admitted fact that, out of Rs.3,50,000/, sum of Rs.1,50,000/ was towards non refundable charges and remaining Rs.2,00,000/ was towards security deposit. As per Article 12 of Franchisee Agreement, the security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/ will be refundable within 30 days after the end of agreement period and the duration of the said agreement is for three years. It is also not in dispute that as per the terms of agreement, the accused was liable to pay minimum Franchise commission of Rs.10,000/ per month for 36 months.
16. At the cost of repetition, the accused while admitting the cheque as per Ex.P1 issued by him for Rs.2,00,000/ has contended that the said cheque was issued at the time of entering into Franchisee Agreement as security for the transaction and that the complainant has not complied the terms of the Franchisee Agreement by not giving termination notice in proper manner and that the complainant has not returned the articles mentioned in the Ex.D1 which worth's about Rs.10,00,000/, hence he is not liable to pay the cheque amount.
SCCH-24 11 C.C.4797/202217. As accused has admitted the cheque as per Ex.P1 issued by him for Rs.2,00,000/, presumption shall be drawn that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt. It is well settled that "The Statutory presumption mandated by sec.139 of the Act, does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. However, the presumption U/S 139 of the Act is in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open for the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested".
18. In (2009) 2 SCC 513 it was held that "Standard of Proof required for rebuttal does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt Something probable has to be brought on record. Burden of proof can be shifted back to the complaint by producing convincing circumstantial evidence.
19. In the light of the defence taken by the accused, if the crossexamination of PW.1 is perused, it is the suggestion posed to the PW.1 by the learned defence counsel that the cheque in question was issued as security at the time of entering into a Franchisee Agreement. The PW.1 has out rightly denied the said SCCH-24 12 C.C.4797/2022 suggestion and deposed that it is after the termination of agreement and after handing over the articles mentioned in the Ex.D1, the accused has issued Ex.P1 for the repayment of security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/.
20. So for as the defence taken by the accused regarding issuance of disputed cheque as security at the time of entering into a Franchisee Agreement is concerned, admittedly at the time of entering into an agreement as per ExP7, the complainant had given sum of Rs.2,00,000/ towards security deposit. When accused has received Rs.2,00,000/ from the complainant as security deposit at the time of Ex.P7, the question of accused again giving disputed cheque for Rs.2,00,000/ as security does not arise. Further so far as the security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/ along with sum of Rs.1,50,000/ i.e., non refundable charges paid by the complainant is concerned, same is mentioned in the Ex.P7. If really accused has given the disputed cheque as security at the time of entering into Ex.P7, then same would also have been mentioned in the Ex.P7. But there is no recital in the Ex.P7 regarding the cheque in question issued by the accused at the time of Franchisee Agreement as security for the said transaction. Hence, there is no reason to believe the defence taken by the SCCH-24 13 C.C.4797/2022 accused regarding the issuance of disputed cheque as security at the time of entering into a Franchisee Agreement.
21. The learned counsel for accused during the course of cross examination of PW.1 has posed suggestion to the effect that "since the complainant has not validly terminated the agreement and has not returned the articles mentioned in the Ex.D1, they are not liable to repay the security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/". By posing suggestion to the aforesaid effect, the accused has admitted that he has not returned the security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/ given by the complainant which is refundable amount as per the terms of Ex.P7.
22. It is relevant to state here that the PW.1 during his cross examination has admitted the Ex.D1 and admitted that Ex.D1 was prepared at the time of taking Franchise pin. The PW.1 even has admitted that he has taken delivery of the items mentioned in the Ex.D1 from the accused but categorically stated that at the time of termination of agreement he has returned all the items to the accused and it is only after the return of articles in Ex.D1, the accused has issued disputed SCCH-24 14 C.C.4797/2022 cheque. It is admitted by PW.1 that the value of the articles mentioned in the Ex.D1 is about Rs.10,00,000/.
23. If Ex.D1 is perused, along with the documents, the vehicle bearing No.KA01AH6918 was handed over to the complainant on 15062018. It is true that the complainant has not produced any receipt for having handed over the articles in Ex.D1 to the accused. But complainant has confronted Ex.P15 to the accused and through accused Ex.P15 was marked. Ex.P15 is the photograph of the above referred vehicle. During the cross examination of DW.1 suggestion was posed by the learned counsel for the complainant to the effect that "the vehicle in question is being used in Idli Guru Restaurant" , the accused has not denied the said suggestion but pleaded ignorance. It is not in dispute that Idli Guru Restaurant is being run by the accused and his brother Karathik Shetty is working in the said restaurant. It is admitted by Dw.1 that the registration number of the three wheeler auto depicted in Ex.P15 and Ex.D1 are the one and same. Though the accused has stated that the complainant has not returned the articles mentioned in the Ex.D1 but admittedly till this date he has not issued any notice to the complainant calling SCCH-24 15 C.C.4797/2022 upon the complainant to return the articles. If really the complainant has not returned the articles mentioned in the Ex.D1, then definitely the accused would have taken legal action against the complainant because the value of the said articles is nearly Rs.10,00,000/. Further the Dw.1 during his crossexamination has admitted that the persons who was standing nearby the vehicle in Ex.P15 and Ex.D2 is one and the same and in both the vehicles the word "Guru" is mentioned. It is true that if vehicle in Ex.D2 and Ex.P15 is carefully perused, the registration number of the vehicle in Ex.P15 is KA01AH6918 where as the registration number of the vehicle in Ex.D2 is KA 01AH6918 hence, they are different vehicles, but from the evidence of DW.1 itself it can be said that the articles in Ex.D1 are already returned to the accused. If articles of the value of Rs.10,00,000/ are not returned definitely the accused would not have issued cheque as per Ex.P1 the value of which is only Rs.2,00,000/.
24. So far as the termination of agreement is concerned, the accused during his crossexamination has seriously disputed the termination notice given by the complainant. In order to prove the termination notice given by the complainant thorough E mail, he has produced Email copy at Ex.P14 wherein the SCCH-24 16 C.C.4797/2022 complainant has clearly stated that he will terminate the agreement and requested the accused to make the full refund of the refundable security deposit within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. Admittedly, Ex.P14 was issued to the Email of the accused, for which reply was given acknowledging the receipt of termination of the agreement. Further if the crossexamination of PW1 is perused, wherein the learned defence counsel themselves have posed suggestion to the PW.1 to the effect that "ಫಫಫಚಚಸ ವವವಹರದ ಕರರಗ ಸಫಬಫಧ ಪಟಟಫತ ಕರರರ ರದದತ ಮಡಕಕಫಡದ ಎಫದರ ಸರ". Further the Dw.1 during his cross examination has deposed that "ಫರರದರದರರರ ಮಮಲಮಕಲಕ ದ ಆದರ ನರಮದ ಪ ಫಕರ ಖರದಗ ಅವರರ ಟರಮರನಮಶನ ಮಡರವಫತ ಕಮಳದರ ಸಫಸದಗ ಹಜರಗ ಲಖತ ರಕಪದಲ ಫಫನನಯಸ ಟರಮರನಮಶನ ಮಡರವ ಬಗಗ ಕಮಳಕಕಳಳಬಮಕಗತರತ ಎಫದರ ನರಡರರತತರ" and thereby admitted that the complainant has issued termination notice through email. The Dw.1 having admitted the termination notice issued by the complainant through email, contends that the complainant ought to have issued termination notice by personally appearing before the office of the accused.
24. If Article 12 of the Ex.P7 is perused, wherein it is stated that " if Franchise wishes to withdraw from the offer before three years, a Franchise can give written SCCH-24 17 C.C.4797/2022 letter on which company agrees to refund Rs.2,00,000/ within 30 days".
25. On bare reading of article 12 of Ex.P7, there is no mandatory requirement to issue termination notice even if Franchise withdraws from the offer earlier to the locking period of three years. In the Article 12 regarding issuance of termination notice , the word "can" is used but not the word "shall" . Hence, there is no obligation on the part of the franchise to issue termination notice even if Franchise withdraws the offer earlier to the three years.
26. In the present case, agreement as per Ex.P7 was entered in to on 29012018 and termination notice was issued as per Ex.P14 on 08032021 i.e., after lapse of three years from the date of agreement. Hence, there is no need to issue termination notice to the accused.
27. At the cost of repetition the accused having admitted the security deposit of Rs.2, 00,000/ given by the complainant and having admitted that he has not returned the said security deposit, contends that since complainant has not returned the articles of the worth Rs.10,00,000/ and that the complainant has not issued termination notice he is not liable to return the security SCCH-24 18 C.C.4797/2022 amount. But from the discussion above it can be said that the complainant has already returned the articles in Ex.D1,. Further even though there was no mandatory requirement, the complainant has issued termination notice as per Ex.P14. It is also proved by the complainant that the accused has issued disputed cheque not at the time of Ex.P7 but was issued on 14082021 after termination of agreement. As complainant has complied all the terms of the franchise agreement, the accused is liable to pay the cheque amount to the complainant.
28. It is relevant to state here that though the PW.1 during his crossexamination has categorically admitted the Ex.D1 and also admitted about the receipt of articles mentioned in the Ex.D1 but the learned counsel for complainant during the cross examination of Dw.1 has posed many more questions on Ex.D1 and seriously disputed the genuineness of Ex.D1. But as observed supra, when Ex.D1 is admitted by Pw1 any amount of crossexamination done by the counsel for complainant on Ex.D1 has no value.
29. So far as the service of legal notice is concerned, though the accused in his statement SCCH-24 19 C.C.4797/2022 u/Sec.313 Cr.PC and in his cross examination has denied the service of legal notice but nowhere during the cross examination of PW.1 has posed single suggestion regarding non service of legal notice to him so also nowhere in the evidence in chief of DW.1 he has denied the service of legal notice to him. Further the accused nowhere has disputed the correctness of the address mentioned either in the legal notice or in the complaint. It is further relevant to state here that admittedly against the accused herein and his brother, complaint was lodged u/Sec.138 of NI Act in CC No.4606/2022 as per Ex.P11, CC No.55194/2023 as per Ex.P12, CC No.4553/2022 as per Ex.P13 and FIR was registered against him in CR No.48/2024 as per Ex.P16 for the offence p/ u/Sec.420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC. In all the aforesaid documents the address of the accused is mentioned which tallies with the address of accused mentioned in the legal notice and complaint in the present case. Further in the Franchisee Agreement as per ExP7 also the address of the accused is mentioned which is similar to the address mentioned in the legal notice and complaint. The legal notice issued to the accused is returned as "not claimed". When legal notice is issued to the accused through RPAD to the last known correct SCCH-24 20 C.C.4797/2022 address of the accused, presumption shall be drawn u/Sec.27 of General Clauses Act regarding due service of legal notice. Even though legal notice is duly served to the accused but he has not opted to give reply to the said notice. If really complainant has not returned the articles in Ex.D1, the accused could have given reply to the legal notice by raising the said defense.
30. The learned counsel for complainant has produced Ex.P11 to Ex.P16 to prove the conduct of the accused to say that accused is a habitual offender and much number of criminal cases is registered against with regard to Franchisee Agreement. But this court has to decide the case independently on the merit of the case; hence much reliance is not placed to the Ex.P11 to Ex.P16, except to the extent of knowing the correctness of the address of the accused mentioned in the said documents and in the ExP4.
31. So far as the defence taken by the accused regarding the disputed cheque issued by him as security is concerned, at first the accused has failed to prove the said defence. Even if it is taken for a while for the sake of discussion that the accused has issued disputed cheque as security, then also when accused has admitted that SCCH-24 21 C.C.4797/2022 he has not returned the security deposit amount of Rs.2,00,000/ to the complainant and also admitted that he has not given cheque amount to the complainant, under such circumstances in view of the settled principle that even if the cheque issued as security towards repayment of a loan is dishonored a offence under section 138 of N.I Act would be made out.
32. Now at this juncture, it would be relevant to refer here the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.1269 1270/2021 between Sripati Singh (Since deceased) Through his son Gaurav Singh Vs., The State of Jharkhand & Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "a cheque issued as a security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance, 'Security' in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment. It is given, deposited or pledged to make certain the fulfillment of an obligation to which the parties to the transaction are bound. If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified time frame and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment. If the loan amount to SCCH-24 22 C.C.4797/2022 not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I.Act would flow".
"When a cheque is issued and is treated as 'security' towards repayment of an amount with a time period being stipulated for repayment, all that it ensures is that such cheque which is issued as 'security' cannot be presented prior to the loan or the installment maturing for repayment towards which such cheque is issued as security. Further, the borrower would have the option of repaying the loan amount or such financial liability in any other form and in that manner if the amount of loan due and payable has been discharged within the agreed period, the cheque issued as security cannot thereafter be presented. Therefore, the prior discharge of the loan or there being an altered situation due to which there would be understanding between the parties is a sine qua non to not present the cheque which was issued as security. These are only the defences that SCCH-24 23 C.C.4797/2022 would be available to the drawer of the cheque in a proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Therefore, there cannot be a hard and fast rule that a cheque which is issued as security can never be presented by the drawee of the cheque".
33. In the back ground of aforesaid observation, when complainant has proved that accused has issued cheque as per ExP1 then presumption under section 139 of NI Act can be raised. Though presumption under section 139 NI Act is rebuttable presumption but accused for the reason stated above failed to rebut the presumption and there by failed to prove how the cheque relating to his account signed by him reached the hands of the complainant. In the light of the discussion herein above, this court is of the considered opinion that complainant has proved that accused has committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
34. POINT No.2 : The Negotiable Instruments Act is a special enactment, and the provisions of the Act prevail over the general provisions contained in Code of SCCH-24 24 C.C.4797/2022 Criminal Procedure. Therefore, keeping the relevant provisions of the Act in mind the sentence is to be passed. In the light of the reasons on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Sec. 255 (2) of Cr.PC, the accused is found guilty of the of the ofence punishable under section 138 read with section 142 of NI Act and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,10,000/ (Rupees Two Lakh Ten Thousand only) out of which Rs.2,05,000/ shall be paid as compensation to the complainant under Sec.357 of CRPC and Rs.5,000/ shall be payable to the State.
In the event of default in payment within a period of 3 months, the accused shall be convicted to simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
The bail bond of accused and that of surety stands cancelled.
SCCH-24 25 C.C.4797/2022Office to furnish the copy of this judgment, free of cost to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 9th day of September 2024.) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
:ANNEXTURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF THE COMPLAINANT P.W.1 : Mr. Goutham Shetty Sirigeri LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque given by accused
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P.2 & 3 : Bank endorsements
Ex.P.4 : Copy of legal notice
Ex.P.5 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P.6 : Postal cover
Ex.P.7 : Franchise agreement dated 29
012018
Ex.P.8 SBI Bank account statement
Ex.P.9 Copy of Email message
Ex.P.10 Compliance certificate u/sec 65
B of Indian Evidence Act
Ex.P.11 Certified copy of complaint in
CC No.4606/2022
SCCH-24 26 C.C.4797/2022
Ex.P.12 Certified copy of Judgment in
CC No.55194/2021,
Ex.P.13 Certified copy of complaint in
CC No.4553/2022,
Ex.P.14 Document of Email ID
pertaining to accused
Ex.P.15 Color photos of vehicle,
Ex.P.16 Certified copy of FIR
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED Dw.1 Sri Arjun B. Shetty LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 : Acknowledgment dated 15062018 Ex.D.2 : Copies of color print of photographs 5 in nos. along with IP details and CD Ex.D.3 : Copy of "Standard of Business Operations and Asset Management" signed by the complainant Ex.D.4 : Certificate u/Sec.65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.