Bangalore District Court
Got Issued A Legal Notice Through Rpad ... vs As Required Under Law. As There Is ... on 23 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALURU CITY
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2018
PRESENT: A. V. Patil., B.Com, LLB (Spl)
XLII A.C.M.M.,
Bangaluru City.
CC.No. 25724/2016
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.
1. Sl.No. of the case : CC.No. 25724/2016
2. The date of commence of evidence: 29.01.2017
3. The date of Institution : 21.09.2016
4. Name of the Complainant : M/s Mahindra Rural Housing
Finance
Limited, A Registered Company is
Having its Regd Office at Mahindra
Towers, P.K Kurne Chowk, Worli,
Mumbai-400 018,
Maharashtra-India,
And Regional Office at No.62,
2nd Floor, High Street,
11th Main road, 4th Block,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560011.
Rept by its litigation Manager,
Mr. Eshwarappa. H.K.
5. Name of the Accused : Veerangouda
C/o Malleshappa,
2 CC.No.25724/2016
No.33, Manvi, Shakapur,
Raichur- 584136.
6. The offence complained
of or proved : U/s.138 of N.I. Act
7. Plea of the accused on
his examination : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Order : Accused is acquitted
9. Date of such order : 23.03.2018
JUDGMENT
1. This case has been registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The gist of the complainant's case is that:
The complainant is a public limited Company engaged in the business of extending financial facility. Accused had applied for Home Loan Finance Facilities and the same was issued to him under Loan agreement No.XRESRUR00096700 and the accused had agreed to abide by the terms and conditions. The accused had availed the said facility, utilized the same and towards full and final discharge of payment of liability towards the loan borrowed by him issued cheque bearing No.356895 dated 25.06.2016 for on amount of Rs.1,56,610/- drawn on State Bank of India. The said 3 CC.No.25724/2016 cheque was presented for encashment through its banker, however, it was returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' with a memo dated 19.07.2016. Thereafter on 05.08.2016 complainant got issued a legal notice through RPAD and it was returned with an endorsement 'Refused' on 11.08.2016. Inspite of receipt of legal notice, accused failed and neglected to settle the amount even after expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. According to the complainant, the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly the complainant filed the complaint on 21.09.2016.
3. In pursuance of the summons, the accused has appeared through Counsel and got enlarged on bail by executing necessary documents. The copy of the complaint was furnished to the accused, as required under law. As there is sufficient material, plea was recorded against the accused on 11.09.2017 and explained to the accused in his vernacular, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. In order to prove the case, the General Power of Attorney of the complainant Company Nagaraj K Pujar examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8 and closed the side. Then the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C came to be recorded on 05.02.2018, wherein the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was read 4 CC.No.25724/2016 over and explained. Accused denied the incriminating evidence readover to him. Accused neither adduced any evidence nor got marked any documents on his behalf.
5. The learned Counsel for complainant argued that accused has not disputed the borrowing of loan, the cheque in question pertains to his account and his signature on it. That apart accused has not issued reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant. Therefore, the presumption is in favour of the complainant to the effect that the accused has issued the disputed cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt. Moreover, accused has not adduced any defence evidence. The material placed on record by the complainant is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. All the ingredients of Sec.138 and 142 are duly complied with. Hence, prayed to convict the accused. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the following citations:
1. Criminal Revision Petition No. 263/2002 (Mohan V/s Mohan Naidu)
2. Kerala High Court (Lillykutty v/s Lawrance) on 29 August,2003.
6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for accused argued that the complainant while lending the money to the accused had taken signed blank cheques towards security. Even though the accused is not due to pay the amount covered under the disputed cheque. 5 CC.No.25724/2016 The complainant by misusing the cheque collected towards security filled up as per his whims and fancies and filed this false complaint. The complainant has not produced any resolution to show that the Board of Directors of the complainant company has authorized PW1 to conduct the case. Even the complainant company has not produced memorandum of association and article of association to establish that the PW1 has proper authorization and has no personal knowledge of the loan transaction. Ex.P1/letter of authorization has not issued in pursuance of the resolution of Board of directors. Therefore, Ex.P1 is no way helpful to the complainant. Since the complainant has not issued proper authorization in favour of PW1 as required under law the evidence given by PW1 cannot be taken into consideration. The evidence of PW1 is excluded from consideration absolutely nothing has been produced by the complainant to prove the complainant allegations. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed by acquitting the accused. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the following citations:
1. ILR 2007 KAR 3155 (Director Maruti Feeds & Farms Pvt Ltd v/s Basanna Pattekar)
2. ILR 2014 KAR 2168 (CREF Finance Limited, Kolkata v/s Sree Shanthi Homes Private Limited, Bangalore and Another) 6 CC.No.25724/2016
3. 2015(2) KCCR 1476(George Joseph and Another V/s HMT(International) Limited, Bangalore and Another)
7. Perused the material placed on record.
8. On the basis of the above facts, the following points arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the PW1 proves that he has proper authorization to give evidence and has personal knowledge of the transaction took place between the complainant and accused
2) Whether the complainant proves that the accused towards discharge legal recoverable debt issued cheque No.356895 dated 25.06.2016 for Rs.1,56.610/- drawn on State Bank of India, Bengaluru in favour of complainant, on presentation for encashment it was returned as 'Funds Insufficient' and in spite of receipt of legal notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act?
3) What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as under :
Point No.1: In the negative Point No.2: In the affirmative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. In order to prove the case, the General Power of Attorney of the complainant Company Sri. Nagaraj Pujar filed affidavit in lieu of 7 CC.No.25724/2016 examination-in-chief and has examined as PW1. He has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint on oath. He also got marked documents Ex.P1 to P8. Ex.P1 is the cc of power of attorney, Ex.P2 is the cheque, Ex.P2(a) is the signature of the accused, Ex.P3 is the bank memo, Ex.P4 is the office copy of the legal notice, Ex.P4(a) is the postal receipt, Ex.P4(b) returned postal cover, Ex.P4(bb) is the legal notice found in the returned postal cover, Ex.P5 is the certificate, Ex.P6 is the statement of account, Ex.P7 is the complaint and Ex.P8 is the certified copy of the power of attorney. In the cross examination accused has put up the specific defence that PW1 has not joined the service with the complainant when the accused borrowed the loan. At the time of lending the money the complainant collected blank signed cheque. No legal notice served upon the accused and the accused is not due to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque. PW1 has no proper authorization to conduct this case.
11. Accused has neither adduced any oral evidence nor got marked any documents on his behalf.
12. This is all oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the parties to the case in support of their respective contentions.
8 CC.No.25724/2016
13. I have gone through the citations relied on by the learned Counsel for the complainant and accused and kept in mind the views taken in the said citations while appreciating the material on record and coming to the final conclusion. I respectfully agree with the view taken in the said citations. In the light of arguments let me consider the point in detail.
14. Point No.1:-In No.1 the case on hand PW1/Nagaraj Pujar, Assistant Manager of complainant Company claims to be the authority holder of the complainant Company and is properly authorized to conduct the case. As against this it is the definite case of the accused that there is no proper authorization in favour of PW1 to conduct the case as prescribed under Companies Act.
15. Before considering the arguments let me note view taken by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the citations relied on by the learned Counsel for accused. In a first citation reported in ILR 2007 Kar 3155 in para No.3 held that:
". . . . . . The resolution of the company is not produced and he has pleaded his ignorance in the cross examination about the the resolution passed by the Board of Directors. Since the company is a juristic person, any person on behalf of the company has to be authorized by the company under the Articles of Association or by a separate resolution to depose on behalf of the company and therefore, finding of the Trial Court is justified and it is unnecessary to go into the other 9 CC.No.25724/2016 reasons recorded by the Trail Court in dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused. I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial court. . . . . ."
16. In second citation relied on by the learned Counsel for accused reported in ILR 2014 Kar 2168, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in para No.7 has held:
"The The board of Directors of the Company collectively entitled to exercise the powers and to do the acts on behalf of the Company. Section 291 of the Companies Act confers the authority to the Board of directors collectively. Therefore, if a complaint is to be filed, it is necessary for the Board of Directors Directors to authorize any person to file a complaint or depose to the facts in a case and such an authority could be granted by the Board of Directors only under a resolution. . . . . ."
Keeping in mind the views taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above referred decisions, let me see the present facts of the case.
17. Sec.291 of Companies Act confirms the authority to the Board of Directors of a Company collectively would be entitled to exercise such power and to do such Act and things as the Company is authorized and exercise to do. In this regard the learned Counsel of accused cross examined the PW1. The answers elicited from the mouth of PW1 go to the root of the defence taken by the accused. 10 CC.No.25724/2016 Hence, relevant portion found at page No.3 PW1 has stated as under:-
" ¤¦-8 ¥ÀªÀgï D¥sï CmÁ¤ðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢B22.01.2018 gÀAzÀÄ JQìPÀÄåmï ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¤¦-8£ÀÄß ºÁdj¸À®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ EvÉÛà JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CzÀÄ EwÛÃZÉUÉ £À£Àß ¥ÀgÀªÁV PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt CzÀ£ÀÄß D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ºÁdj¹®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ....... "
It is evident from the above evidence that the Ex.P8/power of attorney has executed on 22.01.2018. As the said power of attorney was given recently it was not submitted along with the complainant.
18. In the light of the decisions referred above board of Directors of the Complainant Company has to give authorization by passing a separate resolution in the Board of Directors meeting. In the present case, no where either in the complaint or in the examination in chief PW1 has stated that Directors of Complainant Company have passed the resolution and given authorization in favour of PW1. Initially basing on Ex.P1/letter of authority PW1 disposed in this case. On perusal of the said document it is noticed that nothing has been whispered in the said document about the Board Resolution.
19. When the matter posted for final arguments PW1 recalled himself and filed the power of attorney and got it marked as Ex.P8. Now the question is whether Ex.P8/power of attorney is sufficient to hold that PW1 has proper authorization to give evidence in this case. In the instant case it is noticed that the complainant has not 11 CC.No.25724/2016 produced Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association of the complainant Company. Nothing has been produced to show that the Articles and Memorandum of Association of the Company did confirm the power on the PW1 to conduct proceedings on behalf of the Company. A delegation of such power can only by the association of Board of Directors. In order to prove the authorization given to PW1 by the board of Directors of the Complainant Company, he has produced Ex.P8/copy of the Power of Attorney.
20. First of all it is necessary to note that Ex.P8/power of attorney is executed on 22.01.2018. Nagaraj Pujar examined in this case as PW1 on 29.01.2018. The Evidence of PW1 is recorded subsequent to execution of Ex.P8/power of attorney in his favour by the complainant Company. In other words much prior to the evidence of PW1, Ex.P8/Power of attorney was executed in his favour. But in his entire evidence PW1 has not at all whispered about the execution of the Ex.P8/power of attorney by the complainant Company in his favour. Interestingly the complainant placed the reliance on Ex.P1/letter of authority. If really Ex.P8/power of authority was executed on 22.01.2018 nothing was prevented the PW1 to produce the same when he first time adduced his evidence in this case on 29.01.2018. If really complainant Company executed Ex.P8/power of attorney on 22.01.2018 in that case PW1 certainly would have 12 CC.No.25724/2016 produced and deposed in that regard at the time of adducing his evidence first time on 29.1.2018. There was not need to produce Ex.P1/letter of authority. Even no explanation offered by the PW1 as to why power of attorney was not produced or deposed in his evidence on 29.01.2018. Since nothing has been whispered by the PW1 in his evidence with regard to execution of Ex.P8/power of attorney in his favour by the complainant Company, it creates serious doubt about the existence of alleged power of attorney as on that date.
21. Even otherwise also if we read the evidence given by PW1 as a whole it is evident that Ex.P8/power of attorney executed in his favour on the basis of resolution dated 30.03.2015. At this juncture it is worth to note that it has come in the evidence of PW1 that he was joined the complainant Company on 03.07.2016 and the resolution in pursuance of which the present power of attorney was given is dated 30.03.2015. It means the said resolution is passed much prior to the joining the PW1 to the complainant Company. In the absence of production of resolution dated 30.03.2015 it is difficult to ascertain who all are empowered to execute the power of attorney and in whose favour. If really the resolution was passed by the complainant company in this regard on 30.03.2015, nothing was prevented the PW1 to produce the said resolution in this case. Non 13 CC.No.25724/2016 production of the resolution copy is sufficient to draw the adverse inference against the complainant to the effect that no resolution is passed. In the light of the citations relied on learned Counsel for accused board of Directors of the complainant Company has to give authorization by passing a separate resolution in the Board of Directors meeting. In the present case, no where either in the complaint or in the examination in chief has stated that Complainant Company has passed the resolution and given authorization in favour of PW1. Initially PW1 basing on Ex.P1/letter of authority disposed in this case. On perusal of the said document it is noticed that nothing has been whispered in the said document about the Board Resolution. Even the name of the person who issued that document and what authority he has to issue Ex.P1 has not been mentioned. Having regards to the contents of Ex.P8 in the opinion of this Court said document is no way helpful to the complainant to prove that he has got proper authorization. Therefore, it cannot be said that PW1 has got proper authorization on the basis of Ex.P8/power of attorney and said power of attorney is in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act.
22. At the same time it equally important to note that PW1 has placed entire reliance Ex.P8/power of attorney. On perusal of said power of attorney it is noticed that it is executed in favour of the PW1 14 CC.No.25724/2016 by Mr. Anuj Mehra, Managing Director and Mr. Ramesh .G Iyer, Chairman. First of all the PW1 has not produced any iota of evidence to show that the said Managing Director and Chairman have got power to execute the power of attorney in his favour. In the absence of any positive material in that regard it cannot not be said that the Managing Director and Chairman of complainant Company have got any power to execute the Power of Attorney in favour of the PW1 on behalf of the complainant Company as required u/s 291 of the Companies Act.
23. In the absence of delegation of power to PW1 by the Board of Directors, it cannot be said that, PW1 deposed with collective decision of Board of Directors. On appreciation of oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.P1 & 8 without resolution copy dated 30.03.2015, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that PW1 who has not been properly authorized by the Directors of the Board as per the ratio lay down in the decisions referred above. Therefore, it could be said that the evidence given by him is without the authority. For the above said reasons in the instant case, PW1 has fails to establish by placing cogent evidence that he has proper authorization to participate in the proceedings as required under law.
24. Now the next question is whether complainant pleaded in the complaint about personal knowledge of the transaction took place 15 CC.No.25724/2016 between the complainant and accused and whether PW1 has personal knowledge about the said transaction. To ascertain the said fact we must go through the allegations made in the complainant and the evidence given by PW1. On perusal of the complaint it is noticed that complainant has not pleaded in the complaint about personal knowledge of the transaction said to have took place between the complainant. The answers elicited from the mouth of PW1 go to the root of the defence taken by the accused. Hence, relevant portion found at page No.1 is extracted and reproduced as under:
"¢B03.07.2017 gÀAzÀÄ ¦gÁå¢ PÀA¥À¤UÉ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DgÉÆæ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉzÀ£ÉAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¦gÁå¢ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj....... "
It is evident from the above evidence that PW1 has joined the complainant Company on 03.07.2016 and he was not working in the Company when the accused borrowed the loan from the complainant. It other words it is evident that PW1 does not have any personal knowledge with regard to the transaction said to have taken place between the complainant and accused. It is material to note that complainant/PW1 fails to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder about the alleged transaction explicitly in the compliant. The authorization letter and the evidence on record clearly disclose that power of attorney holder has no personal knowledge regarding the transaction in question. Hence, it 16 CC.No.25724/2016 cannot be said that PW1 is proper witness to give evidence. On appreciation of the evidence on record I have no hesitation to hold that the complainant miserably fails to prove that PW1 has personal knowledge of the transaction alleged in the complaint. If we exclude the evidence of PW1, there is no material on record to prove the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the PW1 has miserably fails to prove his authorization as required u/s 291 of Companies Act and the views taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above referred decisions. Further PW1 has also miserably fails to prove has personal knowledge of the loan transaction alleged in the complaint. For the foregoing reasons I answer this point in the negative.
25. Point No.2:-
No.2 In fact in view of my finding on Point No.1 this point does not survive for consideration. Since the full pledged trial is over, I feel it just and proper to give finding on this point. In this case accused has not disputed the cheque in question pertains to his account and his signature on it. By virtue of section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in view of the principle lay down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts in catena of decisions the complainant discharged his initial burden and the presumption is in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e., complainant. Now the burden lies on accused to lead the rebuttal 17 CC.No.25724/2016 evidence to disprove the fact that he has not issued Ex.P2/cheque to the complainant for discharge of debt or liability.
26. Now whether the said presumption is rebutted by the accused is to be seen. To substantiate his contention accused has not entered the witness box nor got marked any documents.
27. At the outset it is necessary to note that the allegations made in the complaint with regard to the loan transaction is not disputed by the accused. According to complainant towards the payment said loan dues accused issued cheque in question. In the light of these admitted fact let me consider the case on merits.
28. It is the definite case of the accused that he is not due to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque. Therefore, the only question remains for consideration is whether the accused is able to place admissible evidence to prove that he is not due to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque. Even though PW1 is subjected to cross examination, nothing has been elicited to prove the said defence. The suggestions made in that regard to PW1 have been denied. It is settled law that mere making suggestions and denied by the witness is no evidence at all. Moreover the accused has not entered the witness box. Under these circumstances in the considered opinion of this Court the defence taken by the accused to the effect that he has paid entire loan amount remains intact without any proof. 18 CC.No.25724/2016
29. At the same time it is necessary to note that if really the complainant misused the cheque as stated by the accused, as a prudent man he could have initiated legal against the complainant. But no legal action initiated against the complainant.
30. Further if really the accused given the cheque in question as claimed by him, as a prudent man the he is expected to intimate his banker to stop the payment in case of presentation of cheque for encashment. But in the instant case the accused has not intimated his banker and this conduct show the falsity of the case of the accused.
31. It is necessary to note that prior to filing of the complaint, the complainant got issued legal notice as per Ex.P4. Accused has not disputed the address mentioned in the legal notice is not his address and has not entered the witness box to dispute the same. It is useful to note that in a citation of Hon'ble Apex Court in a citation reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3578 (C.C Alavi Haji v/s Palapetty Muhammed & Anr) has held that the presumption is to be drawn about the service of notice when the notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of clause (b) of proviso to Sec.138 of the N I Act stands complied. The evidence placed on record by the accused is sufficient to hold that the 19 CC.No.25724/2016 complainant issued Ex.P4/legal notice to the correct address of the accused. For the foregoing reasons, the accused miserably fails to prove that legal notice not issued to his correct address as required under law. In the light of the said citation in the opinion of this Court the evidence on record clearly establishes that the complainant sent the notice to the accused to the correct address through RPAD. Therefore, sending legal notice to the correct address of the accused is in compliance with u/s 138(b) of N.I. Act. In the instant case admittedly accused has not issued any reply notice for the best reasons known to him.
32. Non initiating the legal action, non issuing reply and non intimating to his banker are the strongest circumstances to draw inference against the accused. As noted supra it is settled that the presumption has to be rebutted by cogent proof and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. On appreciation of material on record in the considered opinion of this court, the evidence placed on record by the accused is not sufficient to rebut presumption. Hence, it cannot be said that the accused has rebutted the presumption.
33. The word 'unless contrary is proved' is discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2011 Crl.L.J 4647 (SC). It is observed that "the accused is under the obligation to 20 CC.No.25724/2016 prove his case in trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability to the satisfaction of the Court". 'Unless contrary is proved' means the presumption has to be rebutted by proof and not by a bare explanation which is mere plausible. The said fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that the reasonable man could act on the supposition that is exist. Therefore, unless explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provisions cannot be said to be rebutted. On appreciation of evidence on record the explanation of accused is not supported by proof. Hence, I have no hesitation to say that the accused fails to rebut presumption. Hence, it cannot be said that the accused has rebutted the presumption.
34. In this case, the court has to peruse whether mandatory requirements of Sec.138 and 142 of N.I. Act are complied with or not to take cognizance of complaint for the commission of crime punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. It should be ascertained from the date of issuance of cheque, presentation of cheque, communication of Bank endorsement, issuance of legal notice for payment of cheque amount, service of notice and date of institution of complaint. Ex.P2/cheque is dated 25.06.2016 presented to the bank for encashment and received the intimation 21 CC.No.25724/2016 of dishonour of cheque for the reason 'Funds Insufficient' as per Ex.P3 dated 19.07.2016, complainant got issued notice as per Ex.P4 dated 05.08.2016. Complaint is filed on 21.09.2016. It is evident from the available material that the cheque presented for encashment within the validity time, notice demanding the cheque amount and filing of complaint before the court after service of notice are within the period of specified by law.
35. On appreciation of entire evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the accused has miserably failed to prove the fact that he has not issued cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt. On the contrary, the complainant has proved that the accused has issued cheque/Ex.P2 for a sum of Rs.1,56,610/- towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and on presentation of the cheque, it was dishonored for the reasons 'Funds Insufficient'. Even after service of legal notice, the accused has not paid the cheques amount. Hence, in the considered view of this Court, the complainant has proved that the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, I answer the above point No.2 in the affirmative.
36. Point No.3:-
No.3 The complainant able to establish that the accused has issued Ex.P2/cheque towards the legally enforceable debt. However, in view of finding on point No.1 the complainant 22 CC.No.25724/2016 has no proper authorization as required under law, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/s 264 of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
The Bail bond executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed Under Sec.437 (a) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, taken print out corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the open court this the 23rd day of March, 2018) (A. A. V. Patil) Patil XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:-
COMPLAINANT
PW1 : Sri. Nagaraj Pujar
LIST OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:
DEFENCE:- -Nil-
COMPLAINANT:-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT Ex.P1 : Notarized copy of authorization letter Ex.P2 : Cheque Ex.P2(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P3 : Bank Memo Ex.P4 : Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P4(a) : Postal receipt Ex.P4(b) : Returned postal cover Ex.P4(bb) : Legal notice found in the returned postal cover 23 CC.No.25724/2016 Ex.P5 : Certificate Ex.P6 : Statement of account Ex.P7 : Complaint Ex.P8 : C/c of Power of attorney LIST OF OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:-
DEFENCE Nil XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.24 CC.No.25724/2016
Judgment pronounced in the open Court vide separate order.
ORDER XLII A.C.C.M, Bangaluru.