Bangalore District Court
New H.R. Trading vs Soumya .A on 3 October, 2024
KABC030274072022
Presented on : 06-04-2022
Registered on : 06-04-2022
Decided on : 03-10-2024
Duration : 2 years, 5 months, 27 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXI ACJM, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 03rd day of October, 2024
Present:
SRI.GIRISH CHATNI, B.A.,LL.B.,(Spl)
XXI ACJM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.10672/2022
Complainant : New H R Trading,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Mr.Jog Singh,
Shop No.1024,
M.H.1000 Plaza,
Ground Floor, Mamulpet,
Bangalore - 560053.
(By Sri.B.J, Adv)
V/s
Accused : Mrs.Soumya.A,
Proprietor,
Mannu Garments & Sarees,
2 C.C. No.10672/2022
Jain Temple Road,
Vivekanand Nagar,
Bangarpet - 563114
And Also at
Soumya.A,
Annu Manu Nilaya,
Avanthakar, K.Rajkumar,
Shanti Nagar Housing Board Quarters,
Bangarpet - 563114.
(By Sri.K.K.R., Adv.)
JUDGMENT
This case emanates from a private complaint filed by the complainant alleging that the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. THE ESSENTIAL FACTS IN BRIEF.
It is the case of the complainant that, it is a Manufacturer and wholesale Dealer Readymade Garments and the accused had approached the complainant for supply of Readymade Garments for the store of the accused i.e., Mannu Garments & Sarees. It is further contended that, the complainant had supplied Readymade Garments to the accused's store totaling to a sum of Rs.3,46,521/-, vide Invoice numbers as mentioned below;
3 C.C. No.10672/2022
Date Invoice No. Amount
01.01.2021 549 Rs.47,806.00
30.12.2021 563 Rs.1,03,906.00
07.01.2022 564 Rs.97,161.00
08.01.2022 565 Rs.97,648.00
Total Rs.3,46,521.00
The complainant has further contended that, as against the above mentioned amount due, the accused has issued post dated cheques totaling to the amount of Rs.3,36,525/- i.e., cheque bearing No.252012 dated 16.11.2021 for a sum of Rs.37,810/- and cheque bearing No.252013 dated 11.01.2022 for a sum of Rs.2,98,715/- drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Bangarpet branch in favour of complainant.
2(i). It is further contended that, the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment on 14.02.2022 through his banker at IDBI Bank, Gandhinagar Branch, Bangalore and the same was dishonored by the Bank and returned with banker's memo with an endorsement as and "Instrument Out dated" and "Funds Insufficient" dated:18.02.2022. It is further contended that, the complainant informed the accused about the dishonour of the said 4 C.C. No.10672/2022 cheques, but the accused was very evasive in her replies. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated:25.02.2022 through his counsel calling upon the accused to pay an amount of Rs.2,98,715/- under cheque and the same was served on the accused on 28.02.2022. Despite of service of notice, the accused neither paid the amount covered under the cheques nor replied to the notice. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint against the accused alleging the commission of offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
3. The Proprietor of the complainant company has led his pre summoning evidence. He has filed his affidavit by way of sworn statement in lieu of oral evidence, in which, he has reiterated the complaint averments. In support of his oral evidence, PW.1 has produced 09 documents, which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and closed his side.
4. Prima-facie case has been made out against the accused and has been summoned vide order of the same date. Accused appeared before the court and has been enlarged on bail. The 5 C.C. No.10672/2022 substance of accusation was read over to her, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In view of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in (2014) 5 SCC 510 (Indian Bank Association & Others V/s Union of India), the affidavit filed in lieu of sworn statement was treated as evidence of complainant. Thereafter, the accused was examined as provided under section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available against her. Her defence is of total denial one. She did not choose to lead evidence on her behalf.
6. Heard learned counsel for the complainant. The counsel for the accused filed written notes of arguments. Perused the materials available on record.
7. The following points would arise for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued Cheque bearing No.252013 dated:11.01.2022 for a sum of Rs.2,98,715/-, in favour of complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and same was returned unpaid on account of "Funds 6 C.C. No.10672/2022 Insufficient" and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument 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 orders for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has been enacted to lend credibility to the financial transactions.
The main ingredients of the offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act are;
(I) Drawing up of a cheque by the accused towards payment of an amount of money, for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or any other liability.
(ii) Return of the cheque by the Bank as unpaid.
(iii) The drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount within 15 days of the receipt of notice under the proviso (b) to Section 138.
7 C.C. No.10672/2022The explanation appended to the section provides, that the debt or other liability, for the purpose of this section means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
10. Apart from this Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act lays down a presumption in favour of the holder of cheque in the following terms;
"It shall be presume unless the contrary is proved, that - the holder of the cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to him section 138, for the discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."
11. Also, Section 118 of the N.I.Act states - Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:--
(a) of consideration:--that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;
(b) as to date:--that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;
(c) as to time of acceptance:--that every accepted 8 C.C. No.10672/2022 bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;
(d) as to time of transfer:--that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its naturity;
(e) as to order of endorsements:--that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear then on;
(f) as to stamp:--that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped;
(g) that holder is a holder in due course:--that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course: provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him."
12. Thus the Act clearly lays down presumption in favour of the complainant with regard to the issuance of the cheque by the accused towards the discharge of his/her liability in favour of the complainant.
9 C.C. No.10672/2022
13. Under the scheme of the Act, the onus is upon the accused to rebut the presumptions, which are in favour of the complainant by raising a probable defence.
14. It is a well settled position of law that, the defence of the accused, if is in the nature of a mere denial of the case of the complainant will not be sufficient to hold it as a probable defence. The bare denial of the passing of consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable must be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proof to the complainant.
15. It is also a well settled position of law that once the cheque is proved relating to the account of the accused and if he /she accepts and admits the signature on the said cheuqe, then the initial presumption as contemplated under section 139 of the N.I.Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant.
16. The presumption referred to in section 139 of N.I.Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the 10 C.C. No.10672/2022 accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption. What is required to be established by the accused in order to rebut the presumption is different from each case under given circumstances. However, the fact remains that a mere plausible explanation is not expected from the accused and it must be more than a plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. The defence raised by the accused by way of rebuttal evidence, must be probable and capable of being accepted by the court.
17. No doubt the initial mandatory statutory presumption as provided under sections 118 and 139 of N.I.Act are in favour of the complainant. However, they are rebuttable presumptions and the accused expected to rebut the presumption by raising a probable defence.
18. Such being the legal position, it would be pertinent to refer the defence raised by the accused to rebut the presumptions, which are in favour of the complainant. On perusal of the cross examination of PW.1 and examination of the accused U/s 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has raised the following grounds as her defence; 11 C.C. No.10672/2022
i) The accused has not purchased any goods (Readymade garments) from the complainant.
ii) The accused has not issued the cheque in question to the complainant.
iii) The accused has not received the notice.
19. Having gone through the defence raised by the accused, now let me consider the evidence on record as to whether the accused has successfully rebutted the presumptions, which are in favour of the complainant. The Proprietor of the complainant company has got examined himself as PW.1 by filing sworn statement by way of affidavit in lieu of oral evidence, wherein, he has reiterated the entire averments made in the complaint.
20. In support of his oral evidence, PW.1 has produced Cheque as per Ex.P.1, the signature on the said cheque was identified by PW.1 as that of accused as per Ex.P.1(a), the Bank Memo as per Ex.P.2, the office copy of the Legal notice as per Ex.P.3, Postal Receipts as per Ex.P.4 & Ex.P.5, Postal Acknowlegment as per Ex.P.6, Returned RPAD cover as per Ex.P.7 and copy of Legal notice in Ex.P.7 as per Ex.P.7(a), Two Tax Invoice Books as per Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 and the 12 C.C. No.10672/2022 related portions marked as per Ex.P.8(a), 9(a) to 9(c). On perusal of the Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3, it appears that the complainant had complied with the mandatory requirements of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, a presumption can be drawn in his favour as contemplated U/s 118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
21. On perusal of the materials on record, the accused has not disputed with regard to her signature in Ex.P.1. With regard to the issuance of the cheque is concerned, the accused has contended that, she has not issued the cheque in favour of the complainant. The counsel for the accused by pointing to the relevant portion of the cross examination of PW.1 has argued that, the cheque in question has been given by the father-in-law of the accused. I would like to rely on the cross examination part of PW.1, wherien, he has admitted that at the time of making of final bill, the Father-in-law of the accused has given the cheque in question and another cheque. Therefore, the counsel for the accused would argue that the complainant has misused the cheque in question by obtaining the same from the Father-in-law of the accused. If such being so, then what prevented 13 C.C. No.10672/2022 the accused to keep silent without initiating any legal action against the complainant or her Father-in-law. Moreover, the accused has not explained by providing sufficient evidence as to how the cheque in question went in possession of the complainant.
22. On perusal of Ex.P.6, which is the postal acknowledgment reveals that the accused has received the notice. The signature appearing in the Vakalath of the accused is in consonance with the signature appearing in Ex.P.6. The statutory notice U/s 138 of N.I.Act leads to an inference that there was merit in the complainants version, apart from raising a probable defence by the accused issuing the reply to the complainant was the first opportunity to the accused to set up his defence. Not replying to the notice, which is duly served is fatal to the defence of the accused. Any version taken during the course of the trial amounts to an after thought and the same requires to be considered with a pinch of salt. It is also found from the records that the accused had no impediment to give reply to the notice sent under the provisions of N.I.Act. A ordinary prudent man would immediately issue a reply to the notice alleging his grievances, if the 14 C.C. No.10672/2022 demand notice contains false statement. The said position is settled and fortified in a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in cases of Rangappa V/s Mohan reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1898, Muralidhar Rao V/s P.Nagesh reported in 2021(2) KLJ 647 and in case of Jayalakshmma V/s Shashikala reported in 2021(2) KCCR 1511.
23. On perusal of Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 and with relevant entries in the said documents, it further reveals that the complainant has supplied readymade garments to the store of the accused totaling a sum of Rs.3,46,521/-, which are detailed as follows;
Date Invoice No. Amount
01.01.2021 549 Rs.47,806.00
30.12.2021 563 Rs.1,03,906.00
07.01.2022 564 Rs.97,161.00
08.01.2022 565 Rs.97,648.00
Total Rs.3,46,521.00
On perusal of the cross examination of PW.1 and also on going through the written notes of arguments filed by the accused, she has contended that, the Tax Invoice, Register/ Books have been created 15 C.C. No.10672/2022 for the purpose of the complainant. If such being so, then why the accused has remained silent in not taking any legal action against the complainant for creating the documents for the purpose of the case. In such circumstances, the said line of defence that the invoices have been created holds no water.
24. On perusal of the cross examination of PW.1, the accused herself has suggested that the complainant has misused the cheque in question, which was given in blank. By the said suggestion further reveals that the accused is admitting the issuance of the cheque. I do not find that the accused has disputed the signature in the cheque in question. Therefore, it would be suffice to conclude that the cheque in question has been issued in favour of the complainant with regard to the legally enforceable debt. In this context of matter, it is useful to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in APS FOREX SERVICES PRIVATE LTD., V/S SHAKTHI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 945, wherein, it has been observed and held that once the issuance and the signatures of the cheque/s is admitted, there is always presumption in 16 C.C. No.10672/2022 favour of complainant that there exists legally enforceable debt or liability.
25. It is also profitable to refer another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.RASIYA V/S ABDUL NAZEER AND ANOTHER reported in 2022 SCC Online Supreme Court 1131, wherein, it has been observed and held that once the initial burden is discharged, by the complainant, that the cheque was issued by the accused and signatures of the accused on the cheque is not disputed, then in that case, the onus will shift upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not for discharge or any debt or other liability.
26. It is well settled that, the accused need not enter into witness box in order to prove his / her defence, it would be sufficient for the accused to rebut the presumption by utilizing the materials made available on the record by the complainant. In the case on hand, no doubt, the accused has not entered into witness box, at the same time, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption, which are in favour of the complainant by raising probable defence. 17 C.C. No.10672/2022
27. During the course of the arguments, the counsel for the accused has filed written notes of arguments by reiterating the averments made in the complaint. The counsel for the accused has also argued that, the accused has not approached the complainant, she never purchased any goods (Readymade garments) from the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant filed a false case against the accused created documents with an intention to extract money from the accused. The counsel for the accused has also argued that, there are no documents placed on record relating to the transaction and the documents, which are placed before the court are contradictory and created doubtful. The counsel for the accused has also argued that the complainant has not examined any independent witnesses i.e., the husband and father-in-law of the accused, who are the purchasers from the shop of the complainant as per the complainant version.
28. The counsel for the complainant while arguing the matter pointed out that the complainant in her complaint, legal notice and in the sworn statement has averred that the complainant has supplied readymade garments to the accused for a sum of 18 C.C. No.10672/2022 Rs.3,46,521/-, but contradictorily the complainant received cheques for sum of Rs.3,36,525/-, but no where mentioned about the difference amount of Rs.10,000/-, which he received by way of cash or other mode. Therefore, the difference amount has not been mentioned either in complaint or legal notice or the sworn statement filed by way of affidavit. The counsel for the accused by pointing to the relevant portions of the cross examination of PW.1 pointed out that the complainant has given contradictory statement. Therefore, inference cannot be drawn against the accused.
29. The counsel for the accused has also argued that, the complainant has given contradictory statement stating that cheque bearing No.252012 has not been presented for encashment, but again deposed that he has presented cheque for encashment. The complainant has not produced the said cheque before the court. Counsel for the accused has also argued that, the complainant has not mentioned the date, when the cheque bearing No.252012 was presented. On perusal of the averments made in the complaint, the said cheque number has been returned unpaid for the reason 19 C.C. No.10672/2022 'Instrument outdated' with acknowledgment dated 18.02.2022. No doubt, the said cheque and the related document have not been produced. However, the complainant has produced the cheque in question and its related document. The counsel for the accused has also argued that, when the cheque bearing No.252012 was dishonored, why the complainant has given credit to the extent of Rs.2,98,875/-. The counsel for the accused has also argued that, the complainant in his cross examination has admitted that the cheques were issued by the father-in-law of the accused, even the accused was not present at the time of purchasing and issuance of the cheque.
30. During the course of the argument, the counsel for the accused has argued that the Invoice bills are created documents for the purpose of the case. The complainant has not produced any cogent or direct evidence in support of his statement. The counsel for the accused has relied on section 118, 139 of N.I.Act and its ingredients.
31. The counsel for the accused during his arguments has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2019 (3) 20 C.C. No.10672/2022 SCCR 2473 Supreme Court between Basalingappa and Mudibassappa. I have gone through para No.23 of the said decision, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the principals with regard to section 118a and 139 of N.I.Act.
32. The counsel for the accused has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1898 between Rangappa V/s Mohan, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the presumption mandated by section 139 of N.I.Act, does not indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that there is an initial presumption, which favours the complainant. Section 139 of the N.I.Act, is an example of a revers onus clause.
33. During the course of the arguments, the counsel for the accused has relied on the relevant portions of cross examination of PW.1 on dated 30.12.2023 and argued that, no evidence has been adduced by the complainant to prove the transaction, which had been categorically denied by the accused. The complainant has not 21 C.C. No.10672/2022 produced Income Tax Returns, GST filing to show that the complainant has delivered the cloth materials on credit basis.
34. The counsel for the accused has argued that, the complainant has not examined any third person, who would have knowledge of the creditable transaction. The counsel for the accused has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2008) 2 SCC 321 between Rahul Builders V/s Rihanth Fertilizers and Chemicals and another. Wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the Negotiable Instrument Act envisages the application of the Penal Provisions, which needs to be construed strictly. Therefore, even if two views in the matter are possible, the court should lean in favour of the view, which is beneficial to the accused.
35. The counsel for the accused has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CA.No.830/2014 between M/s Indus Airways Private Limited and Others V/s M/s Magnum Aviation Private Limited and Another. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the complainant has failed in proving his case beyond 22 C.C. No.10672/2022 the shadow of reasonable doubts and exonerated the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I.Act.
36. The counsel for the accused has also argued that, mere production of the cheque will not prove either of the above facts. Therefore, the counsel for the accused prayed for acquitting the accused.
37. I have carefully gone through the cross examination of PW.1, wherein, he has deposed that the cheque in question has been given by the father-in-law of the accused, at the time of making final bill. PW.1 has deposed that, the cheque in question has been given by the father-in-law of the accused. Pointing to the said suggestion, the counsel for the accused would argue that the cheque in question has not been given by the accused. Therefore, she is not guilty of the offence alleged. In the case on hand, the accused herself has suggested PW.1 that on 01.01.2021, the complainant has obtained two blank cheques. Even though PW.1 has deposed that the cheque in question has been given by the father-in-law of the accused, by suggesting that two blank cheques were obtained by the complainant 23 C.C. No.10672/2022 will nullify the contention of the accused that she is not liable to be prosecuted for the offence alleged. Moreover, no positive action has been taken by the accused either by filing complaint or by giving notice to the complainant or her father-in-law with regard to the misuse of the cheque by the father-in-law of the accused. On referring invoices, it becomes clear that either it may be accused or her husband or her father-in-law have purchased Readymade Garments from the complainant in the name of 'Mannu Garments and Sarees'. Invoice No.563 is in the name of 'Mannu Garments' and also mentioned the GST number and the Goods have been delivered by hand. On referring the invoices number 549, 563, 564 and 565, the said Mannu Garments has purchased readymade garments from the complainant on credit basis to an amount of Rs.3,46,521/-.
38. On perusal of the materials on record, the accused has failed to show that she has probablized in rebutting the presumption, which are in favour of the complainant by raising probable defence. Even the accused has not replied to the notice issued by the complainant and has put forth her defence at the earliest.
24 C.C. No.10672/2022
39. The accused has contended that, she has purchased readymade garments for Rs.3,46,521/- as per the averments made in the complaint and the cheques have been issued for an amount of Rs.3,36,525/- and there is no mention with regard to the difference of amount of Rs.10,000/-. On referring Invoice No.549, the bill has been raised for Rs.47,806/-. On perusal of the cross examination of PW.1, he has admitted that receipt for an amount of Rs.10,000/- was given to the accused and at that time cheque was received from the accused. Basing on the said admission, the counsel for the accused has argued that, the complainant has not mentioned with regard to receipt of Rs.10,000/- either in notice, complaint or in sworn statement.
40. The argument of the accused that no transaction has taken place in between the complainant and the accused holds no water as if it there were no transaction, what necessitated the accused to issue cheque in favour of the complainant. As discussed above, no positive action has been taken by the accused either against the complainant or against her father-in-law.
25 C.C. No.10672/2022
41. On perusal of the entire cross examination of PW.1, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 so as to prove the defence of the accused and also to rebut the presumptions as available U/s 118 and 139 of N.I.Act, which are in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the accused has failed to prove her defence by producing sufficient cogent materials.
42. It is well settled that once the cheque is signed and given to the complainant, it shall be presumed that it has been issued towards the legally enforceable debt. As discussed above, the accused has failed to rebut the presumptions, which are in favour of the complainant as contemplated U/s 139 and 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
43. On over all perusal of the materials on record, in the absence of cogent, reliable oral and documentary evidence by the accused, she has failed to prove her defence as stated above. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to the benefit of the presumptions available U/s 118 and 139 26 C.C. No.10672/2022 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In view of the discussions made above, I answer point No.1 in the "Affirmative".
44. Point NO.2:- In the light of discussions made at point No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
By invoking the power conferred under
section 278(2) of B.N.S.S -2023 (Old
Corresponding Section - 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code), the accused is hereby convicted of the offence punishable U/S.138 of N.I. Act.
The accused is liable to pay a fine of Rs.3,08,715/- (Three Lakhs Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifteen Rupees Only) If the fine amount is so realized, Rs.2,98,715/- ( Two Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifteen Rupees Only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and balance of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be adjusted towards cost to the State Exchequer.
In default of payment of such compensation amount, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 01 (One) year.
27 C.C. No.10672/2022
Bail bond of the accused shall stands canceled.
Supply a free copy of this judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected by me, signed then pronounced in the open court on this the 03rd day of October, 2024.) GIRISH CHATNI Digitally signed by GIRISH SHIVANAND SHIVANAND CHATNI Date: 2024.10.04 17:44:50 +0530 Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH SHIVANAND SHIVANAND CHATNI Date: 2024.10.04 CHATNI 17:44:56 +0530 (SRI.GIRISH CHATNI) XXI ACJM, BENGALURU ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW-1 : Jog Singh
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
- NIL -
3. List of documents marked on behalf the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P.2 : Return Memo
Ex.P.3 : Legal Notice
Ex.P.4 & 5 : Postal Receipts
Ex.P.7 : Returned RPAD cover
Ex.P.7(a) : Copy of Legal notice in Ex.P.7
Ex.P.8 & 9 : Two Tax Invoice Books
28 C.C. No.10672/2022
Ex.P.8(a), : Related portions in Tax Invoice books
9(a) to 9(c)
4. List of documents marked on behalf of the
accused:
- NIL -
Digitally signed by
GIRISH GIRISH
SHIVANAND
SHIVANAND CHATNI
CHATNI Date: 2024.10.04
17:45:02 +0530
(SRI.GIRISH CHATNI)
XXI ACJM, BENGALURU