Bangalore District Court
W/O Dr. H.P. Prakash vs Agreed To Pay The Profit On 5 Th To 8Th Of ... on 16 September, 2021
CC no: 1629-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& XXXI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU CITY (SCCH2)
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021.
PRESENT: Smt. Shainey. K.M., BAL.LLB
VI Addl. Small Causes Judge
& XXXI ACMM, Bengaluru.
C.C. NO.1629 OF 2014
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.1973
1. Sl. No. of the case C. C. No.1629 OF 2014
2. Date of commission 19.07.2013
of the offence
3. Name of the Smt. Nirmala Prakash,
Complainant
W/o Dr. H.P. Prakash, No: 181,
Gauri, 13th Main, 7th cross, sector
5, HSR layout, Bangalore560102
(By Sri. KBSK, Advocate)
4. Name of the Accused M/s Akshaya International, Rep
by its Proprietor, Sri B.R. Arun
Kumar, No: 19, 8th Main, central
Excise Layout, Bangalore560040.
(By Sri.JMR, Advocate.)
5. The offence U/ Sec 138 of the Negotiable
complained of or Instruments Act.
proves
SCCH-2 2 CC no: 1629-2014
6. Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty.
and his examination
7. Final order Accused is acquitted
8. Date of such order On 16.9.2021
for the following;
JUDGMENT
This is the complaint filed against the accused under Sec.200 of Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Originally, this complaint was presented before the Hon'ble XVI ACMM, Bengaluru and cognizance was taken by the above court. In view of the notification ADM No.I/19/2017 dated: 20.11.2017 of XIV ACMM, Bengaluru and this case has been withdrawn from the above court and transferred to this Court.
3. The brief facts of the Complainant's case is as follows:
It is the contention of the Complainant that, one Shekharappa, retired Executive Engineer was the patient of complainant's husband. Later on, said Shekharappa SCCH-2 3 CC no: 1629-2014 became close friend of complainant's husband and he is also friend of accused herein. Aforesaid Shekharappa had introduced the accused herein to complainant for the purpose of investment. As per the advice of aforesaid Shekharappa and also assurance given by the accused regarding investment and profit there on, the complainant has paid Rs 40 lakhs to the accused on 4.8.2012. On the very same day, accused and complainant herein have entered into an agreement. Shekharappa, Srinidhi, the Chairman and Managing Director of Montage Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore and also Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Golden Fruit Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, have also affixed their signature to the agreement as witnesses. The accused agreed to pay the profit on 5 th to 8th of every month, irrespective of the amount of profit or loss and return the capital of Rs 40 lakhs on or before 5.7.2013. As per the term and conditions of aforesaid agreement, the complainant has received profit of Rs 4 lakhs from the SCCH-2 4 CC no: 1629-2014 accused only for the months of September, October, November and December 2012. Thereafter, the accused failed pay the amount to complainant. However, with great effort and persuasion, the accused executed an on demand promissory note on 18.3.2013, superseding the 1 st agreement dated 4.8.2012. Aforesaid on demand promissory note was signed by aforesaid Shekharappa and Srinidhi as witnesses. As per promissory note, accused has issued a cheque bearing no: 665548 dtd 30.5.2013 drawn on ICICI bank, Vijayanagar Branch for Rs 56 lakhs towards the profits from January 2013. The issued by the accused has been dishonoured with an endorsement stating "funds insufficient". That on 12.6.2013, the complainant issued legal notice to accused calling upon him to pay the amount mentioned in cheque. The notice was duly served on accused through RPAD, however did not pay the amount to complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable u/sec 138 of NI Act. Hence, this complaint. SCCH-2 5 CC no: 1629-2014
4. On being served the summons, the Accused appeared through his counsel and got released him on bail. Plea of the Accused was recorded by explaining the substances of accusation. Accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. In support of his case, complainant got examined himself as PW1 and produced 26 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26. Sri. Channe Gowda was examined as PW2.
6. After closure of Complainant's evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the Complainant. The Accused has denied the prosecution version in toto. The Accused was examined on oath as DW:1. documents were marked as ExD1 to 3 on behalf of accused.
7. Heard arguments of learned counsel for complainant and accused. The accused has relied on following decision in support of his defence:
SCCH-2 6 CC no: 1629-2014
1. 2009 (2) DCR 519
2. 2008 (1) SCC 258. K Prakashan vs. P.K Surendran
3. 2004 (12) SCC 83. G Pankajkshi Amma & Ors Vs. Mathai Mathew (D) thr. Lrs.
4. 2008 (4) Scc 54. Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G Hegde.
5. 2009 CRL.L.J 3777 (Bombay High court) Sanjay Mishra Vs Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki & anr.
6. AIR 1960 Punjab 573. Bawa singh Vs Jagadish Chand & ors.
7. AIR 1971 Alllahabad 304. Kamla Kunwar vs Ratan Lal & ors.
8. Devinder Kumar Vs Khem Chand. Delhi high court.
9. Yeshwanth Kumar Vs Shanth kumar N, Honble High court of Karnataka in Crl. Appeal no: 939 2019, DD 7.8.2019.SCCH-2 7 CC no: 1629-2014
8. Perused the material placed on record. Now, following points that arise for my consideration;
POINTS
1. Whether Complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. Whether the accused has rebutted presumption as contemplated U/Sec.139 of N.I. Act?
3. What order?
9. My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : In the affirmative.
Point No.3 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1 and 2: To avoid repetition of facts and for sake of convenience, these points are taken up for common discussion as here under.
11. The Complainant-Smt. Nirmala Prakash in proof of SCCH-2 8 CC no: 1629-2014 her contention, got examined herself as P.W.1 and filed affidavit inlieu of examinationinchief. P.W.1 has deposed in consonance with the averments of the complaint. According to P.W.1 the chequeEx.P1 has been issued by the Accused towards payment of capital amount along with profit for the investment made by her.
12. The cheque on presentation returned as "Funds Insufficient" as per the bank endorsement produced at Ex.P2. Hence, she got issued legal notice, which is produced at Ex.P5 through RPAD vide postal receipt marked at Ex.P6 to 13, which was served on the Accused as per Ex.P14 and 15 Registered Postal Acknowledgments. ExP:16 to 21 are the postal cover in respect of witnesses to agreement and promissory note. ExP:3 is Agreement executed by accused at the time of alleged investment made by complainant and ExP:22 is the cheque issued by the accused at the time of execution of aforesaid agreement for the purpose of security. To show her source of income, SCCH-2 9 CC no: 1629-2014 complainant has produced the IT returns at ExP:23 to 26.
13. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the Complainant, it reveals that the complaint is filed well within time in accordance with the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act. Moreover, there is no dispute with regard to taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N I Act.
14. In this case, the accused has examined himself as Dw:1 and no documents were marked in his evidence. Accused BR Arunkumar was examined as Dw:1 and he deposed in evidence, he knows Shekharappa, complainant herein and Prakash, the husband of compaiant. He deposed that complainant was constructing a house with financial aid of bank and she was in need of more money to complete the construction work, as already borrowed housing loan from the bank for construction of house, she requested the accused for an agreement showing investment in his firm. He further deposed that on basis of SCCH-2 10 CC no: 1629-2014 said agreement, the complainant would borrow loan from private parties. On request of said Shekharappa, he executed an agreement in dispute ExP:3 on 4.8.2012 and executed another document i.e., on demand promissory note ExP:4 on 18.3.2013 i.e., after 6 months and cheque ExP:22. In this case, the accused has disputed the financial capacity of the complainant to make investment of such huge amount of Rs 40 lakhs in his firm.
15. It is relevant to point out that in the present nature of cases the court has to determine whether version of Complainant is true or the theory putforth by the Accused is true?.
16. Financial Capacity : The accused has seriously challenged the financial capacity of complainant to make alleged investment of Rs.40,00,000/ in M/s Akshaya International. As accused has challenged the financial capacity of the complainant to invest such a huge amount in accused's company, the burden lies on the complainant SCCH-2 11 CC no: 1629-2014 to prove her financial capacity.
17. Hon'ble apex Court of India had considered Section 118, (a), 138 and 139 of NI Act in case between M.S Narayana Menon Vs State of Keral (2006) 6 SCC 39. It was held that presumption both under sections 118 (a) and 139 of Act are rebuttable in nature. What would be the effect of the expressions "may presume" "shall presume" and "conclusive proof" has been considered by hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1. It was noted in M.S Narayana Menon case, that the expression "shall presume" cannot be held to be Synonymous with conclusive proof. Applying the said definitions of "proved" or "disproved" to the principle behind sec. 118(a) of the NI Act, the court shall presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless and until after considering the matter before it, it either believes that consideration does not exist or considers the non existence of the consideration so probable that a prudent SCCH-2 12 CC no: 1629-2014 man ought, under the circumstance of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that the consideration does not exist.
18. For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable defence. Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon.
19. In Krishna Janardhan Bhat V Dattatraya G Hegde, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 166, the hon'ble Apex court held that an accused for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statue need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden on the basis of the material already brought on record. An accused has a constitutional right to maintain silence. "Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different." The standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is "preponderance of probabilities".
20. In Kumar Exports Vs Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC SCCH-2 13 CC no: 1629-2014 513, hon'ble apex court, again examined as to when the complainant discharges the burden to prove that the instrument was executed and when the burden shall be shifted (In paras 18 to 20).
21. In Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan 2010 (11) SCC 441, hon'ble Apex court held that the presumption mandated by sec. 139 of NI Act, does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, which of course, is in the nature of rebuttable presumption (in para 26). In several decisions, hon'ble apex courts have held that it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.
22. Applying the preposition of law as noted above, in facts of the present case, it is clear that signature on the cheque having been admitted, a presumption shall be raised under sec 139 of Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability. The question to be looked into is as to whether any probable defence was raised by the SCCH-2 14 CC no: 1629-2014 accused.
23. The financial capacity of complainant/Pw:1 to make investment of Rs 40 lakhs in accused's company is seriously disputed by the accused. Pw:1 deposed in evidence she had withdrawn the amount to extent of Rs 30 lakhs from the bank with intention make investiment in accusedcompany. The evidence of Pw:1 is reproduced herein under " £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÉÊzÀågÁVgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt £ÀªÀÄUÉ §gÀĪÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAPï UÉ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 50 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ.UÀ¼ÀµÀÄÖ ºÀt ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÉÝ EgÀÄvÀvÀzÉ. CzÀQÌAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À ºÀt ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DgÉÆæUÉ 40 ®PÀë gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 30 ®PÀëUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DUÁUÀÎ ¨ÁåAPï ¤AzÀ qÁæ ªÀiÁr vÀAzÀÄ EnÖzÉÝãÀÄ. 2011 jAzÀ 2012 gÀªÉgÉUÉ DUÁUÀÎ ºÀt qÁæ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ MlÄÖ 30 ®PÀë gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß qÁæ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ GzÉÝñÀPÉÌ ºÀÆrPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉA§ PÁgÀtPÁÌV ¨ÁåAPï ¤AzÀ ºÀt qÁæ ªÀiÁr ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ElÄÖPÉÆArzÉÝ. Pw:1 deposed in her cross examination SCCH-2 15 CC no: 1629-2014 that nearly about Rs. 30 lakhs has been withdrawn from her bank account between 2011 and 2012 for the purpose of make investment in any financial institution.
24. So it is the burden of the complainant to prove the alleged withdrawal of such amount from her account. Ex.P25 is the statement of account of Pw:1 for the period from 1.3.2012 to 10.4.2015. perusal of ExP:25 reveals that on 30.3.2021, Rs 20,00,000/ and Rs 4,00,000/ was credited to her bank account which is related to housing loan availed by her. Again, housing loan of Rs 4,00,000/ has been credited to her bank account on 21.8.2012 and it is evident from the entries made in ExP:25. Admittedly, Rs. 35,000/ was deposed by the complainant on 12.8.2012, 12.9.2012, and Rs 45,000/ on 30.10.2012, but all these amounts have debited from her account towards repayment of her housing loan.
25. It is an admitted fact that Pw:1 has borrowed housing loan of Rs 30 lakhs for construction of house from Vijaya SCCH-2 16 CC no: 1629-2014 Bank, Adugodi branch, in the year 2012. She further admitted that she has withdrawn the amount sanctioned under housing loan for the construction of the house. It is relevant to reproduce the evidence of Pw:1 hereunder " 30 ®PÀëªÀ£ÀÄß MAzÉà ¢£À qÁæ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄ¢vÀÄÛ, JAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖ¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ CzÀPÀÆÌ ¸ÀºÀ ºÀt ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ qÁæ ªÀiÁrzÉ. 2011 gÀ°è ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ PÁªÀiÁUÁj ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀ ªÀiÁr 2012 gÀ°è PÁªÀiÁUÁj £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛvÀÄÛ. 2013 gÀ M¼ÀUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ PÁªÀiÁUÁj ¥ÀÆtðUÉÆArvÀÄÛ. ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ PÁªÀiÁUÁj ¥ÀÆtðUÉÆÃAqÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ CzÀPÁÌV gÀÆ. 50 ®PÀëUÀ¼À£ÀÄß RZÀÄð ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ qÁæ ªÀiÁrzÀ 30 ®PÀëUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ PÉÊ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ £À£Àß ¸ÉßûvÀ ¹zÉÝUËqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä¬ÄAzÀ PÉÊ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ PÁªÀiÁUÁj ¥ÀÆtðUÉƽ¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ, vÁ¬Ä¬ÄAzÀ gÀÆ 3 ®PÀë, ¹zÉÝÃUËqÀjAzÀ gÀÆ 7 ®PÀë ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G½zÀ 10 ®PÀë gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß UÀAqÀ PÉÊ ¸Á®ªÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£É PÀlÄÖªÁUÀ £À£Àß ¨ÁrUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ CqÁé£Àì PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ". So the burden heavily lies on the complainant to prove the loan borrowed by her from third parties and her relatives and advance amount received by her tenants in the year 2012.
SCCH-2 17 CC no: 1629-2014
26. In cross examination Pw:1 further deposed that she filed IT returns in respect of the assessment year 2012 and she has informed the alleged investment of Rs 40 lakhs in returns submitted by her. ExP:23 is the income tax return verification form for assessment year 201314 wherein her annual gross total income Tax has been shown as Rs 10,31,485/ and total tax amount paid by her was Rs 1,34,080/.
27. Pw:1 has produced the Balance sheet along with the ITR. In Ex.P:23, she has disclosed the investment of Rs 24,00,000/ only in accused company. In balance sheet furnished by the complainant her Liabilities shown as Rs 1,08,92,555/ and asset is shown as Rs 1,08,92,555. It is significant to note that the Statement Of Total Income furnished along with income tax return verification Form is neither signed by concerned Auditor who prepared it nor by the complainant herein. Balance Sheet furnished along with ExP:23 not signed by the Auditor or complainant herein. SCCH-2 18 CC no: 1629-2014 Apartment from the alleged investment of Rs 40 lakhs with accused company, the complainant has spent Rs 39,50,000/ for construction of house and Rs 1,42,089 and 1,67,516/ deposited in Canara bank as per her own Balance sheet.
28. Pw:1 deposed that as per the advice of her Auditor, it is shown as Rs,24,00,000/ has been invested in accused company. She pleaded ignorance about the discussion took place between her husband and auditor regarding investment of Rs. 40,00,000/. Pw:1 is not aware about the information provided in her IT returns and balance sheet.
29. Pw:1 further deposed that investment of Rs40,00,000 with accused company also reflected in IT returns of her husband and she has no difficult to produce her husband's IT return before the court.
30. Pw:1 further deposed that after the alleged investment , she received Rs 4 lakhs per month in total Rs 16 lakhs from the accused towards the profit on investment. Pw:1 clearly SCCH-2 19 CC no: 1629-2014 admitted that receipt of Rs 16 lakhs from the accused not been mentioned in her IT return for the assessment year 201314. Loan amount of Rs 7,00,000/ allegedly borrowed from one Siddegouda also not been mentioned in complainant's IT return or balance sheet. Further , loan amount of Rs. 10 lakhs borrowed by her husband not been mentioned in her IT return and her husband's IT return also not been produced before the court.
31. It is admitted fact that the complainant was constructing house in the year 201112 by availing financial aid from the bank. The alleged investment of Rs 40 lakhs was taken place in year 2012. The alleged loan amount of Rs 7 lakhs borrowed by complainant and Rs 10 lakhs borrowed by her husband took place in the year 2012. Therefore, it is the burden of the complainant to establish that she had sufficient quantum of amount with her to invest Rs 40 lakhs in accused company.
32. There is burden on the complainant to prove her SCCH-2 20 CC no: 1629-2014 financial capacity. There is a probable defence on behalf of the accused, which shifted the burden on the complainant to prove her financial capacity and other facts. No positive evidence is placed on record to prove the financial capacity of the complainant to invest such a huge amount in accused company.
33. Firstly, ExP:23 ITR verification form shows investment of Rs 24 lakhs only with accused company. Therefore, this documents is not sufficient to prove the financial capacity of complainant nor investment of Rs 40 lakhs with accused company.
34. Secondly, Pw:1 did not examined her husband to prove that he borrowed Rs 10 lakhs from 3 rd party in order to accumulate Rs 40 lakhs for the purpose of alleged investment in accused company.
35. Thirdly, complainant deposed that she received RS 3 lakhs from her mother prior to alleged investment, however, no cogent and corroborative evidence is placed on record to SCCH-2 21 CC no: 1629-2014 prove her said contention.
36. Fourthly, Pw:1 deposed that she received some advance amount from her prospective tenants prior to alleged investment. However, to substantiate her contention she has not placed any documentary or oral evidence before the court.
37. Fifthly, ITR form of complainant's husband is not produced before the court to show that if he had reported or informed concerned IT department regarding investment of Rs 16,00,000/ out of RS 40 lakhs.
38. No evidence is placed before the court to believe that accused has paid Rs 16 lakhs to complainant towards the profit on her total deposit. Moreover, she failed to disclose account with regarding to the receipt of profit of Rs 16 lakhs in Income Tax return. Honble High court of Bombay has held in a case between Sanjay Mishra Vs Ms. Kanishka Kappor and Anr (Cr.APP no:
46942018) that "in a given case the amount advanced SCCH-2 22 CC no: 1629-2014 by the complainant to the accused is a large amount and is not repayable within few months, the failure to disclose the account in Income Tax return of the complainant may be sufficient to rebut the presumption u/sec 139 of NI Act".
39. All the facts and circumstance creates doubt regarding financial capacity of complainant to invest huge amount of Rs 40,00,000/ in accusedcompany. My reason is supported by the decision of hon'ble High court of Karnataka reported in a case between 1. Shankara Narayana V/ K. Annappa Prabhu in Crl. Appeal no:9872011 dtd; 2.12.2019. 2) Smt. Shashikala Vs. Sri Nyatappa in Crl.A no: 9012010 dtd: 22.9.2020. 3) Ashok Tatappa Kotiwale Vs. Sevantha Sukumar Bagi in Crl.A no: 1000262015 dtd; 2.12.2020. 4) Yallappa Basappa Hadapad Vs. Nabisab Rajesab Nadaf, in Crl.A no: 1000592014 dtd: 20.11.2010. 5) T. Venkataramaiah Vs. Esha G SCCH-2 23 CC no: 1629-2014 S/o Gangadhar in Crl.A no: 4982011 dtd. 25.9.2020,
40. Based on evidence led by defence, this court is inclined to hold that the accused has raised a probable defence and complainant failed to prove his financial capacity. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed in the case in hand. The material placed on record is not sufficient to prove the case of the complainant.
41. My reasons are supported by the decisions of hon'ble Supreme court of India, in a case between Basalingappa v. Mudibaappa, 2019 (5) SCC 418, AIR 2019 SC 1983. Hence Point no:1 is answered in the negative and point no:2 in the affirmative.
42. Point no:3 : For the reasons discussed above in Point no:1 and 2, I, proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/sec 255 (1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is not found guilty and therefore, acquitted him for the offence punishable SCCH-2 24 CC no: 1629-2014 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
The bail bond of accused and that of surety is hereby stands cancelled. (Dictated to the stenographer through laptop, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 16th day of September 2021).
(SHAINEY K.M.) VI Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXI ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 : Smt. Nirmala Prakash.
PW.2 : Sri. Siddegowda
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of accused.
Ex.P.2 : Bank memo
Ex.P.3 : Agreement
Ex.P.4 : On demand promissory note
Ex.P.5 : Notice
Ex.P.6 to 13 : Postal receipts
Ex.P.14 & 15 : Postal acknowledgment.
Ex.P16 to 21 : Unserved postal covers
SCCH-2 25 CC no: 1629-2014
Ex.P.22 : Cheque
Ex.P.22(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P.23 & 24 : I T returns
Ex,P.25 : Statement of account
Ex.P26 : Complaint
Ex.P.26(a) : Signature of complainant
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:
DW.1 : B.R. Arun Kumar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 & 2 ; Copy of complaint in OS No. 6872/2015 Ex.D.3 : Notice (SHAINEY K.M.) VI Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXI ACMM, Bengaluru.