Bangalore District Court
Sri. Vishwaprakash vs Smt.Siddamma on 11 April, 2022
KABC020128702017
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
AND A.C.M.M, AT BENGALURU
Present: UMESHA.H.K, B.A., LL.B.,
JUDGE, Court Of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2022
C.C. No: 23129/2017
Complainant: Sri. Vishwaprakash,
S/o.Late M.Narayanappa,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at No.153/70,
Shivanahalli,
Surabhi Layout,
Yelahanka,
Bangalore North,
Bangalore-560 064.
(By Sri.H.M.Chandu- Adv.)
-Vs-
Accused: Smt.Siddamma,
W/o.Sri.Prasappa,
Aged about 45 years,
3rd Main, Janta Gokul Layout,
6th Cross, Near Water Tank,
Baddihalli,
Tumkur.
(By Sri. Shivanna- Adv.)
SCCH-09 2 CC.23129/2017
JUDGMENT
Complainant has filed this private complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C., against accused for an offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is the case of the complainant that, accused and complainant are well known to each other from past several years. The accused approached the complainant for financial assistance of Rs.4,00,000/- as hand loan assuring to repay the same within three months and for due discharge of the same, accused issued cheque bearing No.026832, dated.07.07.2017 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Tumkur Branch, in favour of complainant. On presentation of said cheque through his banker i.e.,Corporation Bank, Yelahanka Branch, Bangalore, and said cheque was returned with an endorsement "Cheque irregularly drawn - amount in words and figures differs".
3. It is further case of complainant that he issued legal notice, dated 28.07.2017 through RPAD, the said notice was duly served to the accused. However, accused did not repaid SCCH-09 3 CC.23129/2017 the aforesaid amount. As such accused committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and prays to convict accused.
4. My Predecessor in Office by taking cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act, registered the case as PCR. Sworn statement of complainant was recorded. Thereafter, by perusing the averments of complaint, documents, this court has registered the case as CC in register No.3 and issued summons to accused. In pursuance of summons accused appeared through his Advocate and he is on bail. Plea read over as per the provisions of U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Complainant in order to prove his case, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to 5. Thereafter, statement of accused U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied the incriminating evidence available against him and adduced his defense evidence as DW1 and no documents are marked.
SCCH-09 4 CC.23129/2017
6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for complainant and accused. In addition to oral arguments learned counsels for accused submitted written argument.
7. The following points are arise for my consideration:
1. Whether complainant proves that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative; Point No.2 : As per the final order;
for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- Before appreciation of fact and oral, documentary evidence of the present case. It is relevant to mention that under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to establish guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. However, a proceeding U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act is quasi criminal in nature and quasi civil in nature. In this proceeding proof beyond all reasonable doubt is subject to SCCH-09 5 CC.23129/2017 presumption as envisaged U/Sec. 118, 139 of N.I. Act. An essential ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I. Act is that Whether a person issues cheque to be encashed and the cheque so the issued towards payment of debt or liability and if it is returned as unpaid for want of funds, then the person issuing cheque, shall be deemed to have been committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
10. Section U/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act presupposes conditions for prosecution of an offence which are as under:
1. Existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and issuance of cheque in discharging of said debt or liability.
2. Cheque shall be presented for payment within specified time i.e., from the date of issue before expiry of its validity.
3. The holder shall issue a notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer within one month from the date of receipt of information of the bounced cheque and
4. The drawer, inspite of demand notice fails to make payment within 15 days from the date of the receipt of such notice.SCCH-09 6 CC.23129/2017
11. If the above said ingredients are satisfied by the holder in due course gets cause of action to launch prosecution against the drawer in respect of the bounced cheque and as per Sec. 142 (b) of N.I. Act the complainant has to be filed within one month from the date on which the cause of action arise to file complaint.
12. It is also one of the essential ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I. Act that, a cheque in question must have been issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I. Act, envisages certain presumption. U/Sec. 118(a) presumption shall be raised regarding consideration, date, transfer, endorsement and holder, in due course of Negotiable Instrument. Even Sec. 139 of N.I. Act are rebuttable presumption shall be raised that, cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally recoverable or enforceable debt and these presumption are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in case of Negotiable Instrument. But, the said presumption are not conclusive and they are rebuttable one. This preposition of law SCCH-09 7 CC.23129/2017 has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in catena of decisions.
13. In the light of above, let me discuss the case of complainant and accused in this case. It is the case of complainant that accused had borrowed hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- and assured to repay the same within three months and for due discharge of the same, accused issued cheque bearing No.026832, dated.07.07.2017 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Tumkur Branch, in favour of complainant. On presentation of said cheque through his banker i.e.,Corporation Bank, Yelahanka Branch, Bangalore said cheque was returned with an endorsement "Cheque irregularly drawn - amount in words and figures differs"
and inspite of issuance of notice accused did not repaid the said amount. As such committed offence punishable . U/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act
14. It is the defense of accused that she never borrowed any loan from the complainant and she never issued cheque for alleged loan she has not received any notice and SCCH-09 8 CC.23129/2017 complainant has filed false case. Further during the course of cross examination of PW-1 learned counsel for accused suggested that husband of accused has issued her cheque to the complainant. These are the main defence of accused.
15. I have perused oral and documentary evidence placed by both parties. In order to prove his case, complainant himself examined as PW1 and during the course of his chief examination he has reiterated the complaint averments in detail on oath and in support of his oral evidence he also placed Ex.P1 to 5 documents. Ex.P1 is the cheque, No.026832, dated.07.07.2017 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Axis bank, Tumkur Branch, and Ex.P2 is the endorsement dated 07.11.2017, which discloses that the cheque in dispute were returned unpaid for the reasons "Cheque irregularly drawn
- amount in words and figures differs" ". Ex.P3 is the copy of legal notice dated 28.07.2017. Ex.P4 is the postal receipts. Ex.P5 is the postal acknowledgment. On perusal and careful scrutiny of documents relied by the complainant prima-facie it goes to show that statutory requirement of SCCH-09 9 CC.23129/2017 U/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act is complied with and this complaint is filed within limitation. Thus, the complainant relied on the statutory presumption enshrined U/Sec. 118 & U/Sec.139 of N.I.Act.
16. No doubt, the said presumption of laws are rebuttable in nature. The accused can take probable defence and rebut the presumption available to the complainant. In this scenario, let me examine whether accused has successfully rebutted the presumption of law. It is the specific defence of the accused that she never borrowed loan and issued the cheque in dispute to the alleged loan and she never received any notice and her husband issued her cheque to the complainant and complainant misused her cheque and filed false complaint.
17. She was throughly cross examined by learned counsel for complainant and during course of cross examination she has specifically admitted Ex.P1 cheque belong to her account and Ex.P1(a) signature belongs to her. For better appreciation the said admitted portion of evidence is culled out as here under:
SCCH-09 10 CC.23129/2017
"ನ.ಪ.1 ನನನ ಖಖತತಗತ ಸತಸರದ ಚತಕಕಕ ಎಎದರತ ಸರ ಅದರಲಲರಕವ ಸಹ ನನನದತಸ ಎಎದರತ ಸರ."
So from the above portion of evidence it is crystal clear Ex.P1 belong to accused and signature found in Ex.P1 is belongs to accused, there is no dispute in this regard. Since the accused has admitted the issuance of cheque and signature, this court is required to draw initial presumption in favour of complainant as provided U/Sec.118 and U/Sec.139 of N.I.Act.
18. At this juncture, I would like to quote decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510 K.Bhaskaran V/s Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 Rangappa V/s. Mohan, (2020) 12 SCC 724 APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd., - Versus - Shakti International Fashion linkers and ors." by reiterating the principles laid down in K.Bhaskaran V/s Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan's case and "Rangappa Vs. Mohan's" case. The Hon'ble Apex in APS Forex case has held that: "The fact that the accused SCCH-09 11 CC.23129/2017 has admitted the issuance of cheque and his signature on the cheque and that the cheque in question pertaining to the account, there is a presumption u/Sec. 139 of NI Act, that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability." Even our Hon'ble High Court relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court decision recently in Criminal Appeal No.140/2011, dtd. 20th November-2020 - Muralidhar Rao Vs. P. Nageshwar Rao" has held that "a person who signs a cheque and make it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces the evidence and rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of debt or in discharge of a liability and the onus shifts on the accused to establish a probable defence." Further recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in Triyambaka S Hedge v/s S.Sripad Cr.L.Appeal No.849-850/2011, dated 23.09.2021 reported in L.L (Live Law) 2021 SC 492 by reiterating the same principles as held - that applying the proposition of law that when once signature is admitted to be that of accused, the SCCH-09 12 CC.23129/2017 presumption envisaged in Sec.118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Sec.139 of the Act enjoins on the court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for discharge of any debt or liability. The question to be looked into is as to - whether any probable defense was raised by accused.
19. In the light of above dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, once signature and issuance of cheque is admitted the heavy burden is on accused to place rebuttable evidence to displace the statutory presumption available in favour of complainant. So, in the light of above let me discuss, whether accused is able to displace the presumption available in favour of complainant and able to prove her defence.
20. The defence of accused is that, is that she never borrowed any loan and she never issued the cheque to the complainant and her husband has issued the cheque to the SCCH-09 13 CC.23129/2017 complainant. Admittedly, except her self serving statement she has not placed any documentary evidence to substantiate said defence. Further there is no explanation by the accused why her cheque was given by her husband to the complainant and there is no explanation for what reasons the cheque in dispute was given to the complainant by her husband without her knowledge. As discussed above except her oral evidence she has not placed any documentary evidence to substantiate the said contention. So in the absence of material evidence it is difficult to believe the self serving testimony of accused.
21. Assuming that the cheque in dispute was issued by her husband to the complainant without her knowledge what prevented her to take legal action for misusing of her cheque by complainant and her husband. Admittedly accused has not examined her husband before the court to substantiate her contention. So the defence of accused the accused is an after thought defence and there is no truth in it. If really her cheque was issued she would have issued stop payment mandate to the bank authority. Admittedly no such SCCH-09 14 CC.23129/2017 legal action is taken by the accused. As stated above except her oral evidence she has not placed any evidence to substantiate her defence and there is no explanation by the accused why the cheque was issued to the complainant by her husband and for what reason it was issued to the complainant, So the entire defence of accused that she never borrowed loan from the complainant and she never issued the cheque in dispute for discharge of said loan amount etc., is absolutely an after thought defence and there is no substance in the said defence.
22. Further defence of the accused is that she never received the notice from the complainant and as such complaint is liable for dismissal. In the light of above specific defence, I have carefully perused the evidence. No doubt during the course of chief examination accused has specifically stated she never received notice from the complainant and she came to know about this case only after she appeared before this court. But, the said defence of the accused is also not acceptable one, because the SCCH-09 15 CC.23129/2017 documentary evidence placed by complainant i.e., Ex.P5 clearly establishes accused herself personally received the notice and put her signature on the said Ex.P5. She never denied the signature found in Ex.P5 either in her evidence or during the course of cross examination of PW-1. So under such circumstance the said defence of the accused that she never received notice from the complainant is absolutely false. Further during the course of cross examination she has specifically admitted that she is residing in the address shown in Ex.P3 and she has not placed any contrary evidence to show that she was not residing at the time of delivery of notice in the given address. As discussed above, she herself has received the notice and put her signature on Ex.P5. Therefore, the defence of the accused is an after thought defence and it is taken only for the sake of defence just escape from liability if possible.
23. As per Sec.27 of General Classes Act, if the notice is sent through registered post or any post to the correct address, it is the duty of the court to presume that the notice SCCH-09 16 CC.23129/2017 was duly served to the addressee. Therefore, the drawer i.e., the accused is the competent person to rebut the presumption about non service of notice and show that she had no knowledge that the notice was brought to her address or that the address mentioned in the cover was incorrect or that the letter was never tender or that the report was incorrect etc., Unless and until, the contrary is proved by the addressee/accused service of notice is deemed to have been effected, at the time of which the letter could have delivered in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, in view of the said presumption when stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of accused, it is mandatory on the part of court to raise the presumption regarding service of notice. As already stated above except some denial in the evidence and in the cross-examination by accused she has not placed any contrary evidence to the evidence placed by complainant to show that, the notice which was issued under Ex.P-3 was not duly served on her etc. Therefore, the defense SCCH-09 17 CC.23129/2017 of the accused that she was not served with the mandatory notice is not acceptable one.
24. At this juncture I would like to rely upon a decision reported in; 2007 (5) Supreme 277 C.C Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court as held in para 17 as under:
PARA 17 - It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving notice is a clear departure from the rule of criminal law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer, who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of complaint under Section 138 of N.I.Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving the copy of complaint with the summons) and therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person, who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of summons from the SCCH-09 18 CC.23129/2017 Court along with copy of complaint U/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act., cannot obviosly contend that there was no proper service of notice as required U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act., by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary U/Sec.27 of General Clause Act and Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As observed in Bhaskaran's case (Supra), if the 'giving of notice' in the context of clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the 'receipt of notice' a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Sec.138 of N.I.Act.
25. So in view of above principal laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the absence of any contrary evidence, a person, who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of summons from the Court along with copy of complaint U/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act., cannot obviosly contend that there was no SCCH-09 19 CC.23129/2017 proper service of notice as required U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. Thus, the defence taken by accused that she was not served with mandatory notice etc., is not acceptable one.
26. Further during the course of argument learned counsel for accused has argued that the cheque in dispute was returned for the reasons cheque irregularly drawn amount in words and figure differs and said endorsement clearly establishes cheque was not issued by accused and it is misused by the complainant and the reasons for return of cheque would not attract the provisions of U/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act and prays to acquit the accused. In the light of above submission once again I have perused the document no doubt the cheque in dispute was return for the reason cheque irregularly drawn and amount in words and figures differs. But the arguments of learned counsel for accused is not sustainable one. Because, accused has neither stated nor placed evidence before the court to show that as on the date of presentation of cheque there was sufficient amount to honour the cheque. Admittedly, dishonour of cheque notice SCCH-09 20 CC.23129/2017 has been issued to the accused inviting at attention to the fact that the cheque has been dishonour for the reasons stated in the bank memo and that she is liable for penal consequences under the provisions of Sec.138 of N.I. Act. When the reason for return of cheque has been mentioned in the bank return memo, then it is primary duty of accused to make payment of the said amount of the money to the complainant within 15 days of receipt of notice and she failed to comply the same. Notice has been given to the accused as a conditions precedent that means accused has got an opportunity to know in advance before filing of complaint the cheque was dishonour for a particular reasons. When that information already available with her and when she has not made any attempt to pay the same it cannot be said that the cheque was returned not for insufficiency of funds. Accused is answerable for the dishonour of cheque. Therefore in the absence of such evidence it cannot be said that for the cheque in question which was returned by the bank as dishonoured, the provisions of U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act are not attracted at all. SCCH-09 21 CC.23129/2017 Thus the arguments canvased by the accused in this regard is not acceptable one.
27. Further accused has not made any attempt to summon the bank manager and to examine the bank manager on her behalf to show that as on the date of presentation there was sufficient fund in her account to honour the cheque. In fact, no single suggestion was made in this regard to the PW-1. The non mentioning of reasons in the legal notice will not affect the case of complainant. The purpose of issuance of notice is only to intimate the accused with regard to dishonour and there is no rule that each and every thing should be mentioned in the notice. Infact mere telegram or E-mail is enough to comply the ingredients of Sec. 138 (b) of N.I. Act. Therefore, the arguments canvassed by learned counsel for accused that no specific reason is mentioned in the notice, etc., hold no water.
28. Further during the course recording 313 statement accused has stated that the cheque was taken by complainant assuring that he will arrange for loan to her. Admittedly, there SCCH-09 22 CC.23129/2017 is no suggestion with regard to said defence in entire cross examination of PW-1. The only defence of the accused is that her husband has issued her cheque to the complainant and it was specifically denied by PW-1. As discussed above, there is no explanation by the accused why her cheque was given to the complainant by her husband and for what reason it was issued. So, in the absence of such material evidence the defence of the accused cannot be accepted.
29. Mere, plausible explanation is not sufficient or enough to rebut the presumption available in favour of complainant. Sec.139 of N.I.Act mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to U/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act for the discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated U/Sec.139 of N.I.Act is rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused drawer of the cheque.
SCCH-09 23 CC.23129/2017
30. Sec.139 introduces an exception to the General Rule as to the burden of proof and shifts the onus on the accused. The presumption U/Sec.139 of N.I.Act is presumption of law, as distinguished from presumption of facts. Presumption or rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, which requires the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumption of law and presumption of facts, unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non existence of presumed fact as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of - Hiten P Dalal V/s Bratindranath Banerjee reported in (2001) 6 SCC 16.
31. A meaningful reading of the provision of N.I.Act including, in particular Sec.20, 87, 118, 138 , 139 makes it amply clear that - a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence SCCH-09 24 CC.23129/2017 to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of liability. Further, it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer and it would attract the provisions of Sec.138 of N.I.Act. As discussed above, except some plausible explanation accused has not placed any iota of evidence to accept her contention. Accused has not placed any probable defense in this regard to displace the presumption available in favour of complainant.
32. During the course of arguments learned counsel for accused has drawn the attention of this court with regard to souce of income complainant and submitted complainant has not placed any documents to prove his income and there is ambiguity in the evidence of complainant and prays to dismiss the complainant. In the light of above submission once again I have perused the evidence. No doubt complainant has not placed the documents to show his income. Merely, because complainant has not placed any SCCH-09 25 CC.23129/2017 document his case cannot be doubted. In this regard, I would like to quote the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in - AIR 2019 SC 1876 Rohit Bhai Jivan Lal Patel V/s State of Gujarat, has held that - Dishonour of cheque - Principles of Presumption - Once presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt drawn in favour of complainant, onus is shifted on accused - unless onus is discharged by accused that preponderance of probabilities are tilting in his favour, doubt on case of complainant cannot be raised for want of evidence regarding source of funds for advancing loan to the accused. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court by accepting the above principles and reiterating the above principles of Rohit Bhai Jivan Lal Patel's case in the case of Kalamani reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283 Kalamani Text. and anr. V/s P.Balasubramanaian has further held that - the statute mandates that once the signatures of accused on the cheque/N.I. are established, then these reverse onus clauses become operative.
SCCH-09 26 CC.23129/2017
33. So, in view of above dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court accused cannot question the source of income and lending capacity of complainant. Even in the Rohit Bhai Jivan Lal Patel's case the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that - Examining of witnesses, who are present at the time of lending amount is not required. So, the arguments of learned counsel for accused that the complainant had no source of income and he has not examined the witnesses to prove the transaction etc., holds no water and not sustainable one.
34. Therefore, considering all these aspects of the case and totality of the circumstances and on careful and meticulous appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of complainant and accused, the complainant has successfully established his case and proved that he had had advanced loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused and accused is due a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant and for due discharge of amount Rs.4,00,000/- accused has issued Ex.P1 cheque in favour of complainant. On the other hand, accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of SCCH-09 27 CC.23129/2017 complainant with regard to the existence of legally recoverable debt under Ex.P1 cheque. Therefore, accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Thus, for the above reasons, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
35. Point No.2: As discussed in point No.1, the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused. It is worth to note that the offence is of the nature of quasi civil and quasi criminal wrong. Hence, it is proper to award sentence of fine only instead of imposing sentence of imprisonment to the accused. At this juncture, it is worth to place the reliance of recent decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2020 (1) SCC 283 Kalamani Text. and another V/s. P Balasubramaniam, Wherein the Hon'ble Apex court at head note D has held that Negotiable Instrument Act 1881- Sec. 138 - compensation under - there needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding it compensation and unless there exist special circumstance, the court should uniformly Levy fine of up to the double of cheque amount along with simple interest at 9%. So SCCH-09 28 CC.23129/2017 considering the pendency of the case from 2017 and the loan transaction. So, this court feels an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- can be awarded as compensation to the complainant, which would meet the ends of justice. Thus for the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255[2] of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence Punishable U/s. 138 of the N.I. Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay total fine amount of Rs.6,05,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, accused shall under go Simple Imprisonment for a period six months.
After deposit of fine amount an amount
of Rs.6,00,000/- shall be paid to the
Complainant as compensation as provided
U/s.357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The remaining amount Rs.5,000/- be appropriated to the state as fine.
The bail bond of accused is hereby stand cancelled.SCCH-09 29 CC.23129/2017
Office is directed to furnish free copy of this judgment to accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of April, 2022.) (Umesha.H.K) Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACMM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
PW1 Vishwaprakash List of Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P1 Cheque Ex.P1(a) Signature of accused Ex.P2 Bank endorsement Ex.P3 Notice Ex.P4 Postal receipt Ex.P5 Acknowledgment
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
DW-1 Siddamma List of documents marked on behalf of accused NIL (Umesha.H.K) Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, Bengaluru.