Bangalore District Court
Sri. C.B. Madappa vs Mr. T.R. Prasad on 23 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2016
PRESENT: SMT. ISHRATH JAHAN ARA, B.A.L., L.L.B.,
XIX ADDL.C.M.M.BANGALORE.
Case No: C.C.No.11143/2012
Complainant: Sri. C.B. Madappa
S/o Late C. Bopaiah,
Aged about 77 years,
R/at No.629, 6th Main, 12th Cross,
Mico Layout, BTM 2nd stage,
Bangalore 560076
Accused: Mr. T.R. Prasad,
S/o Sri. T.N. Rangaswamy
Aged about 45 years
R/a No.107, 2nd Cross,
5th Block, Nagarbhavi II Stage,
Bangalore 560072
Offence complained of: U/s.138 of N.I.Act
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
Date of order: 23rd March 2016
JUDGMENT
The complaint has filed this complaint under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2 C.C.11143/20122. The brief facts are as here in. The Complainant stated that the accused was a tenant under him in respect of the property bearing No.1260, Magadi Road Housing Board Colony, Bangalore on a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only). The Accused has paid the rent till March 2002 and subsequently he became willful defaulter. In spite of repeated request the Accused failed to pay the rent. Hence, with out any alternative the Complainant had filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against this Accused in O.S. No.591/2005 on the file of the Hon'ble City Civil Judge, (CCH-27) at Bangalore. The Accused had filed a suit in OS No.8279/2005 for the relief of specific performance of contract. Both the suits were clubbed together for the purpose of common trial.
3. After contest the suit filed in O.S. No.591/2005 came to be decreed and suit filed in O.S. No.8279/2005 came to be dismissed. In the Judgment the Accused was directed to vacate the suit scheduled premises with in two months from the date of Judgment and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,64,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and Sixty four thousand only)towards the arrears of rent from the date of suit till delivery delivery of the vacant possession of the premises. As the Accused has failed to comply the Judgment and vacated the premises, the Complainant filed an Execution Petition No.1149/2010 before Hon'ble City Civil Judge Bangalore to execute the decree passed in O.S. No.591/2005 and for the arrears of agreed rate of rent 3 C.C.11143/2012 against the Accused for a sum of Rs.8,56,988/- (Rupees Eight lakhs fifty six thousand nine hundred and eighty eight only).
4. During the pendency of the execution petition the Accused had paid a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and twenty thousand only)out of total Rs.8,56,988/- (Rupees Eight lakhs fifty six thousand nine hundred and eighty eight only) and subsequently when the Complainant came to the Accused house to execute the delivery warrant along with the court amen, the Accused in order to pay the arrears of rent had issued two Cheques bearing No.144484 dated 30.11.11 for a sum of Rs.36,988/-(Rupees Thirty six thousand nine hundred and eighty eight only) and another Cheque bearing No.144486 dated 15.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) both drawn on Corporation Bank, RMV Extension Branch, Sadashiva Nagar, Bangalore 560080 in favour of this Complainant.
5. Subsequently, the Accused had paid the Cheque amount of Rs.36,988/-(Rupees Thirty six thousand nine hundred and eighty eight only) on 01.12.2011, accordingly the Complainant returned the Original Cheque. With respect to the another Cheque bearing No.144486 dated 15.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) the Accused requested the Complainant to present the said Cheque for encashment.
4 C.C.11143/20126. Accordingly the Complainant presented the said Cheque before his banker, State Bank of India Mico Layout Branch, Bangalore for encashment. The said Cheque returned dishonoured with an endorsement "Insufficient Funds" on 27.01.2012 and the same was intimated to this Complainant on 28.01.2012. The same was intimated to this Accused.
7. The Complainant got issued the Legal Notice through his counsel on 03.02.2012 to this accused under RPAD as well as Courier calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. The said notices were duly served upon accused. Even inspite of receipt of legal notice the accused neither replied the notice nor he has complied the demand made in the notice. The Accused knowing fully well that he has no sufficient funds in his bank account deliberately with an intention to cheat the complainant had issued the bogus cheque and there by accused has committed an offence punishable u/s.138 of NI Act.
8. After recording of sworn statement of the complainant, the private complaint lodged by the complainant was registered as criminal case, and summons were issued against the accused. The accused was appeared through his counsel and he was enlarged on bail. Plea of accusation was read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5 C.C.11143/20129. The Complainant got examined as PW1 and he got produced 9 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and closed his side of evidence
10. After closure of the Complainant side evidence accused statement u/s 313 was recorded. The accused denied the entire incriminating evidence made against him and he intended to lead his evidence. After the orders passed by the Hon'ble Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No.551/2014 the accused has led his oral evidence before this court as DW1 and he got produced 2 documents marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.
11. I have heard the arguments of both the counsels and perused the documents.
12. The only point arise for my consideration is:
1. Whether the Complainant has proved the guilt of the accused u/s 138 of NI Act beyond all reasonable doubts?
2. What order?
13. My findings to the above point is as under:
i. Point No.1: In the Affirmative ii. Point No.2: As per final order for the following:6 C.C.11143/2012
REASONS:
14. Point No.1: The entire burden is on the complainant to prove his case and also to prove the above point. In order to prove the same, Complainant stepped into the witness box and got examined as PW1 and filed his affidavit in lieu of the oral evidence by reiterating the complaint averments.
15. He deposed that the Accused is his tenant, in respect of the property bearing No.1260, Magadi Road Housing Board Colony, Bangalore on a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only). He deposed that he was chronic defaulter in paying he rent. He deposed that he had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the Accused and also for ejectment in O.S. No.591/2005 on the file of the Hon'ble City Civil Judge, (CCH-27) at Bangalore.
16. He deposed that after contest the suit filed in O.S. No.591/2005 came to be decreed in his favour by directing this Accused to pay the arrears of rent a sum of Rs.2,64,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and Sixty four thousand only) from the date of suit till delivery of the vacant possession of the premises. He deposed that he had filed an Execution Petition to execute the decree in E.P. No.1149/2010 for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.8,56,988/- (Rupees Eight lakhs fifty six thousand nine hundred and eighty eight only) and during the pendency of the execution 7 C.C.11143/2012 petition the Accused had paid a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and twenty thousand only) by retaining the balance of Rs.6,36,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs and Thirty six thousand only).
17. He deposed that when he went to the Accused house to execute the delivery warrant along with the court ameen the Accused in order to pay the arrears of rent had issued two Cheques bearing No.144484 dated 30.11.11 for a sum of Rs.36,988/-(Rupees Thirty six thousand nine hundred and eighty eight only) and another Cheque bearing No.144486 dated 15.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) both drawn on Corporation Bank, RMV Extension Branch, Sadashiva Nagar, Bangalore 560080. He further deposed that subsequently, the Accused had paid the Cheque amount of Rs.36,988/-(Rupees Thirty six thousand nine hundred and eighty eight only) on 01.12.2011 in connection with the Cheque bearing No.144484 dated 30.11.2011 by way of cash and subsequently after receipt of the same he had returned the Original Cheque to the Accused and with respect to the another Cheque bearing No.144486 dated 15.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) the Accused requested him to present the said Cheque for encashment.
18. He further deposed that he presented the said Cheque before his banker, State Bank of India Mico Layout Branch, Bangalore for encashment. The said Cheque returned dishonoured with an 8 C.C.11143/2012 endorsement "Insufficient Funds" on 27.01.2012 and the same was intimated to him on 28.01.2012. The same was intimated to this Accused.
19. He further deposed that he got issued the Legal Notice through his counsel on 03.02.2012 to this accused under RPAD as well as Courier calling upon him to pay the cheque amount and the said notice was duly served upon accused. He deposed that even inspite of receipt of legal notice the accused neither replied the notice nor he has complied the demand made in the notice. He deposed that the Accused knowing fully well that he has no sufficient funds in his bank account deliberately with an intention to cheat him, had issued the bogus cheque and thereby accused has committed an offence.
20. He got produced the original cheque issued by this accused marked as Ex.P1, he deposed that the Signature found on Ex.P1 is that of this accused and he got identified Signatures marked as Ex.P1a, he got produced 2 Bank Endorsements marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P.3, he got produced copy of Legal Notice along with Postal receipts, Certified copy of the Judgment and decree in O.S. No.591/2005 marked as Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6 respectively, He got identified complaint marked as Ex.P7 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.7a. He got produced the interim orders passed in E.P. No.1149/2010 on application marked as Ex.P.8. He got produced the 9 C.C.11143/2012 certified copy of the delivery warrant issued in the said execution petition marked as Ex.P.9.
21. Though the Accused has admitted that he was an tenant under this Complainant in his premises on a monthly rent, on the contrary he has denied the fact that he was a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and he issued Ex.P.1 Cheque towards payment of the arrears of rent. The Learned Counsel of the Accused subjected PW1 for cross examination.
22. No doubt much has been put to PW1 by denying the issuance of Ex.P.1 Cheque towards the payment of arrears of rent in E.P. No.1149/2010 and during that proceedings had issued the Cheque marked as Ex.P.1. On the contrary it is an admitted fact that the Complainant had filed a suit against this Accused for Ejectment of tenant from the premises and for also recovery of arrears of rent in O.S. No.591/2005 before Hon'ble City Civil Judge, (CCH-27) at Bangalore. It is also an admitted fact that the said suit came to be decreed in favour of this Complainant as per Ex.P.6. the Accused even admitted that based on the said Judgment and decree the Complainant had filed an Execution Petition in E.P. No.1149/2010.
23. PW1 in his cross examination stated that he did not returned the advance rent amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty thousand only) to this Accused at the time when this Accused 10 C.C.11143/2012 was vacated the premises. PW1 stated that the Accused has not properly maintained the house as per the terms of the lease agreement and even he has not repaired the house periodically as per the terms of lease agreement and therefore he did not returned the advance amount. PW1 has categorically denied the suggestion that he had executed an agreement of sale in favour of this Accused by agreeing to sell the property for the sale consideration amount of Rs.40,00,000/- and under the sale agreement he had received a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs only). It is an admitted fact that the Accused here in had filed a suit in O.S. No.8279/05 for specific performance of contract based on the agreement of sale and both the suits filed in O.S. No.591/2005 and O.S. No.8279/05 were clubbed together for the purpose of common trial and in the said suits the suit filed by this Accused bearing No. O.S. No.8279/05 came to be dismissed as per Ex.P.6.
24. PW1 got produced Ex.P.8 document before this Court to prove that in Execution Petition No.1149/2010 after the court has issued delivery warrant, the Accused towards the arrears of rent had issued 2 Cheques for a total amount of Rs.6,36,988/-(Rupees Six lakhs Thirty six thousand nine hundred and eighty eight only) and after the receipt of the said Cheques the warrant was returned. This fact was not denied by this accused. No suggestion was put to PW1 by denying the contents of Ex.P.9.
11 C.C.11143/201225. The Accused even did not chosen to deny the orders passed in E.P. No.1149/2010 where in the Complainant has demanded a sum of Rs.6,36,988/-(Rupees Six lakhs Thirty six thousand nine hundred and eighty eight only) from this Accused towards the arrears of rent. No doubt a suggestion was put to PW1 that the E.P. No.1149/2010 is still pending adjudication and as such the present Complaint is not maintainable. On the contrary PW1 has denied the entire suggestion put to him and denied that the Accused has not issued Ex.P.1 Cheque towards the payment of the arrears of rent. The Accused during the stage of cross examination of PW1, except putting some suggestion that he has not at all issued the Ex.P.1 Cheque towards the payment of arrears of rent and he not liable to pay any arrears of rent, has not chosen to elicit any fruitful information from the mouth of PW1. PW1 denied the entire suggestion put to him.
26. On the contrary as I have discussed supra as per Ex.P.6 the Accused was directed to pay arrears of rent along with interest by the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction. The Accused has not produced any document before this Court to convince the court that the judgment and decree passed as per Ex.P.6 was set aside in an appeal. In such situation the contention of the Accused that he is not liable to pay any arrears of rent and he has no dues in favour of this Complainant towards the arrears of rent can not be acceptable and believable. It is an admitted fact that Ex.P.1 Cheque is belong to this 12 C.C.11143/2012 Accused. The Accused even admitted the fact that the signature found on Ex.P.1 marked as Ex.P.1a is that of him. The Accused has not chosen to deny the other contents to Ex.P.1.
27. The Accused even did not chosen to deny a fact that the Ex.P.1 Cheque was bounced with a shara "Funds Insufficient". The Accused even did not chosen to deny a fact that before filing the Complaint the Complainant had issued Ex.P.4 notice and the same was served on him as per Ex.P.5. It is also not the defense of the Accused that immediately after the receipt of notice he resisted the claim of the Complainant disclosed in Ex.P.4 and he has also denied the issuance of Ex.P.1 Cheque towards the payment of the arrears of rent by sending his reply notice. Admittedly, he has taken any defense that he has sent his reply notice by denying the claim of the Complainant. The Accused even did not chosen to deny a fact that the address disclosed in the Ex.P.4 notice is not that of him and the same is not pertaining to him.
28. No suggestion was put to PW1 about Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.7 documents. The Accused has failed to convince this court that how his Cheque came to the custody of this Complainant. The burden is on the Accused to rebut the case of the Complainant and to rebut the presumption available to this Complainant u/s.139 of NI Act. The Accused except putting some suggestion to PW1, which has been 13 C.C.11143/2012 categorically denied by PW1 nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW1 to disbelieve his evidence or to discard his testimony.
29. The burden is on the Accused to convince the court that how his Cheque came to the custody of this Complainant. In order to prove the same, Accused stepped into the witness box and got examined as DW1. After the orders passed by the Hon'ble Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No.551/2014 the accused led his oral evidence before this court as DW1 and he deposed that he had taken the house property of this Complainant on lease in the year 2001 for a period of 11 months under a Lease Agreement and under the Lease Agreement he paid an advance rent amount of Rs.1,50,000/-and he agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- per month and accordingly, he was regularly paying monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- to the Complainant. He deposed that even though the Complainant was received the rent amount, he was not issuing the receipts for having received the rent. He further deposed that subsequently, the Complainant came forward to sell the said house property in his favour for the total sale consideration amount of Rs.40,00,000/- and accordingly he had received a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- as an advance sale consideration amount and as per the terms of the Sale Agreement the Complainant has to execute Registered Sale Deed within a period of one month. He deposed that whenever he demanded the Complainant to execute Registered Sale Deed as per the terms of the Sale Agreement, the 14 C.C.11143/2012 Complainant went on postpone to perform his part of the contract by saying that his son is at America and only after due consultation to his son, he will execute the Sale Deed. He deposed that he had also filed a Civil Suit in O.S. 8279/2005 for the Specific performance of the contract and this Complainant in order to avoid to perform his part of contract, had a Criminal Case in C.C. NO.4338/2005 before the I Addl. C.M.M. Court and the said Case came to be dismissed on merits. He further deposed that the Complainant ahs also filed a suit for ejectment in O.S. 591/2005.
30. He further deposed that the suit filed by him for he specific performance, came to be dismissed on merits and the suit filed by this Complainant for ejectment came to be decreed in his favour and even the first Appeal filed by him before the Hon'ble High Court was also came to be dismissed. He deposed that he filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the said appeal is pending adjudication. He deposed that the Complainant had filed an execution Petition in E.P.No.1149/2010 to execute the decree and even the said Petition is still pending adjudication. He deposed that that he has paid the entire decretal amount to the Complainant and even though the Complainant has received the decretal amount, the Complainant executed the Decree for Rs.6,36,000/- and with a Warrant along with the Court Ameen came to his house and as per the direction of the Court Ameen, he had issued Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.6,00,000/- and 15 C.C.11143/2012 issued one more cheque for Rs.36,000/- as per the instruction of the court Ameen. He deposed that the court Ameen informed him that if he fails to issue those cheques he has to vacate the premises and therefore, as per the instruction of the Court Ameen, he got issued Ex.P1 cheque. He further deposed that the signature found on Ex.P5 is not that of him and he has not received any notice from this Complainant prior to filing of this Complaint. He got produced the certified copy of the Rent Agreement entered in-between them marked as Ex.D.1 and got produced the certified copy of the Judgement passed in C.4338/2005 marked as Ex.D.2.
31. The Complainant has denied the testimony of DW1 and his Learned Counsel subjected DW1 for cross examination. DW1 has categorically admitted that he was the tenant under this Complainant and even the agreement was executed as per Ex.D1. Though DW1 has categorically denied the suggestion that he became chronic defaulter in paying the rent amount and he was in arrears of rent. On the contrary he admitted the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.591/2005. DW1 even did not chosen to deny a suggestion that as he is not complied the judgment and decree the Complainant had filed an Execution petition in E.P. No.1149/2010 on the contrary, DW1 has stated that he was not due of arrears of rent payable to this Complainant.
16 C.C.11143/201232. He denied the suggestion that he was due towards arrears of rent amounting to Rs.6,36,988/- (Rupees Six lakhs thirty six thousand nine hundred and eighty eight only) and after this Complainant has taken delivery warrant in the Execution Petition, he in order to pay the arrears of rent had issued two Cheques bearing No.14448 and Ex.P.1. He denied the suggestion that he has settled the claim disclosed in Cheque No.14448 amounting to Rs.36,988/- (Rupees Thirty six thousand nine hundred and eighty eight only) but he has failed to pay the amount disclosed in Ex.P.1 Cheque.
33. DW1 has categorically admitted that Ex.P.1 Cheque belong to him though he denied the suggestion that he has issued Ex.P.1 Cheque towards payment of arrears of rent. On the contrary DW1 has unable is unable explain how his duly signed cheque came in to the hands of this Complainant and under what circumstance he had issued Ex.P.1 Cheque. As I have discussed supra even in the oral evidence adduced by DW1 he neither chosen to explain how his Cheque came in to the custody of this Complainant and why he did not chosen to deny the claim of the Complainant even after the receipt of Ex.P.4 notice. As I have discussed supra the Ex.P.4 notice was duly served upon the Accused. The Accused even after receipt of notice did not raised his objection by sending his reply notice with respect to the amount claimed by this Complainant.
17 C.C.11143/201234. The DW1 after receipt of Ex.P.4 notice neither chosen to deny the contents of the notice nor he has comply the notice by paying Cheque amount. In such situation an adverse inference can not be drawn that the Accused after admitting the contents of Ex.P.4 notice did not chosen to resist the claim of the Complainant by resisting issuance of Ex.P.1 Cheque towards payment of arrears of rent. The Accused has not chosen to prove his defence by adducing documentary evidence before this Court.
35. On perusal of Ex.P.1 document it does not make out that the contents of the documents were subsequently inserted by this Complainant. Even on perusal of Ex.P.1 it clearly make out that the contents of Ex.P.1 and the signature marked as Ex.P.1a are written by some person in his own hand writing. In such situation the defense of the DW1 that he has not issued Ex.P.1 Cheque towards payment of the arrears of rent in favour of this Complainant can not be acceptable and believable. More over the Ex.P.9 document falsify defense taken by the Accused and his testimony. As I have discussed supra the entire burden is on the Accused to rebut the case of the Complainant and to rebut the presumption available to this Complainant u/s.139 of NI Act. Here in this case the Accused Except taking defense that he has not issued Ex.P.1 Cheque towards payment of the arrears of rent in favour of this Complainant, has not chosen to disprove the case of the Complainant. Even though the 18 C.C.11143/2012 Accused questioned u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. by this court the Accused except denying the incriminating evidence against him he has not chosen to state when exactly he has issued Ex.P.1 Cheque and what made him to issued Ex.P.1 Cheque and under what circumstances he has issued Ex.P.1 Cheque.
36. The Accused except denying the incriminating evidence available against him has failed to convince this court about his case. In such situation the testimony of DW1 that he has not at all committed any offence punishable u/s. 138 of NI Act can not acceptable and believable. The Accused has failed to rebut the presumption available to this complainant u/s.118 of NI Act which reads as:
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 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 maturity;19 C.C.11143/2012
e. As to order of endorsements - that the endorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon;
f. As to stamps - 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;
37. Likewise, the Accused also failed rebut the presumption available to this complainant u/s. 139 of NI Act. Which reads:
It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
38. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption available to complainant as per the provisions of law.
39. There is nothing on record to believe the testimony of DW1 and to discard the evidence of PW1. The written arguments filed by the Accused that the E.P. No.1149/2010 is still pending adjudication and as such the very Complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable can not acceptable and believable. And it holds no merit.
20 C.C.11143/201240. On the contrary the complainant by adducing oral and documentary evidence before the court has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no doubt in the mind of the court about the case of the complainant. Therefore, by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record, I answer this point No.1 in affirmative.
41. Point No.2: In view of my findings on the above point and the reasons stated therein, and I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/s.255 (2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of NI Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs and Fifty thousand only) in any default to pay fine amount with in one months from the date of this order shall under go simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Out of fine amount recovered under section 357 of Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.6,45,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs and forty five thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant which includes the cheque amount and also cost of the 21 C.C.11143/2012 proceedings. Remaining fine amount shall be forfeited to State.
The bail bond and surety bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
Office to supply free copy of this judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of March, 2016) (ISHRATH JAHAN ARA), XIX ADDL.CMM, Bangaloge.
ANNEXURE:
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
PW1 C.B. Madappa
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Accused:
DW1 T.R. Prasad
Documents marked on behalf of Complainant
Ex.P.1 Original cheque
Ex.P.1a Signature of Accused
Ex.P.2 & Ex.P.3 2 Bank Endorsements
Ex.P.4 Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P.5 Postal receipts
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of the Judgment and decree in O.S.
No.591/2005
22 C.C.11143/2012
Ex.P.7 Complaint
Ex.P.7a Signature
Ex.P.8 Interim orders passed in E.P. No.1149/2010 on
application
Ex.P.9 The certified copy of the delivery warrant issued
on the said execution petition
Documents marked on behalf of the Accused:
Ex.D1 The certified copy of the rent agreement entered in
between this Complainant and Accused
Ex.D2 Certified copy of the judgment passed in CC
No.4338/2005
XIX ACMM, B'lore