Bangalore District Court
N Somashekar vs Sujitha Patapati on 17 April, 2026
KABC020501502024
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
(SCCH-24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated: On this day of 17th day of April 2026
CC NO.12617/2024
1. Sl.No. of the Case : 12617 of 2024.
2. The date of : 11-06-2024
commission of the
offence
3. Name of the : Sri N Somashekar
Complainant S/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 43 years,
Residing at No.226,
Ganga Bhavani Colony,
Kodigehalli,
Bangalore -560 092.
(By Sri.G K Varada Reddy,
Advocate)
4. Name of the Smt. Sujitha Patapati
Accused S/o A K Raghu,
Aged about 35 years,
SCCH-24 2 C.C.12617/2024
R/at No.2, 8th main,
IOB Bank Lane,
Beside Bharadwaja Apartment,
Balaji Layout,
Kodigehalli,
Bangalore -560 092.
And also at:
'Sahaja Pride' No.29/2,
Door No.004. 6th cross,
Badrappa Layout,
Kodigehalli,
Sahakaranagar Post,
Bangalore -560 092.
(By Sri T V M Advocate)
5. The offence complained : Under Section 138 of the
of or proves Negotiable Instrument Act.
6. Plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination
7. Final Order : Accused found guilty
8. Date of such order for : 17-04-2026
the following
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed under Sec. 200 of Cr. P. C. for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
SCCH-24 3 C.C.12617/2024
2. It is the case of the complainant that:
The accused is the owner of the property bearing Flat
No.101, first floor with a plinth area of 1342 sq feet in the
building known as “Sai Nilaya” along with 230 sq feet of
undivided share constructed in the site Nos.21 and 22,
(old BBMP katha No.582/21, new BBMP Katha
No.31/33/21 measuring in total extent of 5600 sq feet
along with undivided share in the land situated at
Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the schedule
property). The accused agreeing to sell the schedule
property for a consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- has
executed registered sale agreement dated 15-04-2023. On
the date of agreement itself part consideration of Rs.
10,00,000/- was paid by the complainant agreeing to pay
the balance consideration of Rs.35,00,000/- on or before
the execution of registered Sale Deed. The accused from
time to time on different dates had received balance
consideration of Rs. 35,00,000/- to repay the loan of her
husband so also of the accused, but has failed to execute
the registered Sale Deed. As a security for sum of
Rs.45,00,000/- received by her towards the sale
consideration, she has issued two cheques of her husband
SCCH-24 4 C.C.12617/2024as security. The accused had no intention to execute the
registered Sale Deed in favour of the complainant. Hence,
she agreed to refund the sale consideration of
Rs.45,00,000/- and additional sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-
towards breach of contract in all sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-.
The accused by taking back the two cheques of her
husband given as security, has issued two post dated
cheque dated 15-01-2024 for Rs.25,00,000/- each
towards the payment of consideration amount received by
her and executed document styled as ” ಪರಸ್ಪರ ಒಡಂಬಡಿಕೆ ಪತ್ರ” on
17-11-2023 it is under the said document she has issued
the aforesaid two cheques for Rs. 25,00,000/- each and
assured the complainant that she will return the amount
within one week or 10 days from 17-11-2023 and in the
event if she failed to pay the amount within the stipulated
period then to present the cheques after the date
mentioned in the cheque.
3. Even after the date mentioned in the cheque
since the accused did not return the amount, as per the
instruction of the accused, the complainant presented the
cheque through his banker Karnataka Bank, Sahakar
Nagar Branch, Bangalore. The said cheque was
dishonoured for the reason ” Funds Insufficient” on
14-02-2024.
SCCH-24 5 C.C.12617/2024
4. At the request of accused the complainant
presented the cheque again through his banker Karnataka
Bank, Sahakar Nagar Branch, Bangalore in the last week
of March -2024. The said cheque was again dishonoured
for the reason ” Funds Insufficient” on 25-03-2024.
Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice on 24-04-
2024 through RPAD. Though the notice was served to the
accused but she returned it back as “unclaimed”.
Accordingly, accused has committed an offence
punishable under Sec.138 of N.I Act.
5. After recording the sworn statement of the
complainant and verifying the documents, cognizance was
taken against the accused for the offence punishable
under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. The accused on receiving the
summons appeared before this Court through her
counsel, enlarged on bail and her plea was recorded. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence,
the case was posted for arguments.
6. The complainant got examined himself as PW.1
and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to 13. During the
cross-examination of DW.1, learned counsel for
complainant has confronted documents and got them
SCCH-24 6 C.C.12617/2024
marked as Ex.P.14. Then, the case was posted for
recording the statement of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C.
In the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has denied
all the incriminating evidence appearing against her and
claimed to be tried.
7. The accused got examined herself as DW.1 and
got marked documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D7. Hence, the
case was posted for arguments.
8. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
9. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that
accused has committed offence
punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
10. My findings on the above points are as under
Point No.1: In the affirmative;
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:
-: R E A S O N S :-
11. POINT NO.1:- It is the definite case of the
complainant that, towards the discharge of legally
recoverable debt, the accused has issued disputed
SCCH-24 7 C.C.12617/2024
cheques and when the cheques was presented for times,
same was dishonoured for the reason “Funds
Insufficient”. Though the said fact was brought to the
notice of the accused by issuing legal notice, but accused
has failed to repay the cheque amount.
12. In order to substantiate the contention, the
complainant got examined himself as Pw1 and got marked
in all 14 documents as ExP1 to Ex.P14. If the documents
produced by the complainant are perused, Ex.P1 and 2
are the cheques which bears the signature alleged to be of
accused. It is deposed by Pw1 that cheques in question
was issued by the accused towards discharge of her legal
liability. The cheques in question was presented by the
complainant through his banker which was returned with
memo as per ExP3 to Ex.P6 stating “Funds Insufficient”.
Hence, he got issued legal notice to the accused through
RPAD, which is produced at Ex.P.7. The postal receipts
are marked at Ex.P.8 & Ex.P9. Unserved postal cover and
notice inside the postal cover are marked as Ex.P10 and
Ex.P11. Sale agreement dated 15-04-2024 is marked as
Ex.P12. Contract Agreement dated 17-11-2023 is marked
as Ex.P13. Absolute Sale Deed is marked as Ex.P14.
SCCH-24 8 C.C.12617/2024
13. The accused by leading her evidence has taken
the defence that complainant was not known to her and
that at the instance of her husband she had executed sale
agreement in respect of the schedule property in favour of
complainant for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-. Even
though sale agreement was registered but the
complainant did not pay the consideration amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- but only paid sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
Hence she did not come forward to execute the registered
Sale Deed in favour of the complainant. It is for the first
time at the time of execution of sale agreement she had
seen the complainant and thereafter she had seen the
complainant only before the court. The accused further
stated about the complaint lodged by her against the
complainant before the Woman Commissioner and
Jurisdictional PS. The accused has denied the MOU as
per Ex.P13 entered between her and the complainant. The
accused has denied the cheque in question issued by her
and stated that they were constructing the house and she
had given her ATM and cheque to the husband and it was
with her husband. To meet the construction expenses, her
husband used the ATM and cheque book of the accused.
In the evidence the accused pleaded ignorance as to how
the disputed cheque has reached the hands of the
complainant.
SCCH-24 9 C.C.12617/2024
14. In order to substantiate the defence, the
accused got examined herself as DW.1 and got marked
document as Ex.D1 to Ex.D7.
15. If the defence of the accused is perused,
nowhere in the evidence of accused she has disputed the
service of legal notice. If Ex.P7 to Ex.P11 are perused,
legal notice as per Ex.P7 was issued through RPAD to the
address of the accused. The legal notice was returned with
shara “Unclaimed”. The accused nowhere has disputed
the correctness of her address mentioned in the notice
and postal cover. Further when legal notice issued
through RPAD was returned with shara “Unclaimed”, as
per Sec.27 of the General Clauses Act presumption shall
be raised regarding due service of legal notice. In spite of
service of legal notice the accused did not opt to give reply
notice.
16. The accused nowhere in her evidence has
disputed the financial capacity of the complainant to part
with sum of Rs.45,00,000/- towards the consideration
amount of sale agreement. It is true that in the cross
examination of PW.1 question was posed to the
complainant regarding his avocation and question was
SCCH-24 10 C.C.12617/2024
posed that complainant has not produced his bank
statement and Income Tax Return and denied the
payment of consideration amount under Ex.P12. The
PW.1 has deposed that he is running Cooking Section in
Bar and Restaurant on partnership. The accused has not
denied the avocation of the complainant. Further if the
entire cross examination of PW.1 and the evidence of
accused is perused, wherein she has bent upon stated
that the complainant is having money lending business
with her husband. If really complainant is not financially
sound, he would not have lend money to any one. Hence,
from the evidence of accused it can be gathered that the
complainant is financially sound. When there is no
specific question was posed to the PW.1 that he was not
financially sound to part with sum of Rs.45,00,000/- and
when it is nowhere the case of the accused that
complainant is not financially sound, under such
circumstances even if complainant has not produced any
document in proof of his financial condition, the court
cannot come to the conclusion that the complainant is
financially unstable so as to give sum of Rs.45,00,000/-
towards the sale consideration.
17. It is the case of the complainant that he had
given entire amount of Rs.45,00,000/- by way of cash on
SCCH-24 11 C.C.12617/2024
different dates. It is also deposed by complainant that he
has not disclosed the alleged sale transaction and
consideration amount of Rs.45,00,000/- given to the
accused in his Income Tax Returns.
18. The learned counsel for accused has
vehemently submitted that there is prohibition to have
cash transaction of the amount exceeding Rs.20,000/ and
that one has to disclose the transaction in the Income Tax
Returns. Hence, non disclosure of transaction of
Rs.45,00,000/- in the Income Tax Returns, the contention
taken by the complainant that he had given sum of
Rs.45,00,000/- by way of cash cannot be accepted.
19. On the point of argument canvassed herein
above by the learned counsel for accused, it is opt to refer
here the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Crl. Appeal No.175/2010 decided on 25-09-2025. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding an Appeal against
a Bombay High Court judgment observed that the Kerala
High Court’s recent judgment in P.C. Hari Vs. Shine
Varghese and Anr., delivered on 25-06-2025 was wrong. It
is observed that “a violation of Section 269SS of the
Income Tax Act, 1961, which restricts cash transactions
above Rs.20,000/- does not render such transactions
SCCH-24 12 C.C.12617/2024
illegal, void or unenforceable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that “the breach of Section 269SS merely
attracts the statutory penalty prescribed u/Sec.271D and
cannot by itself invalidate a debt for the purpose of
proceedings u/Sec. 138 of the NI Act 1881. Holding that
the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI
Act remain unaffected, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
rejected the view taken in P.C.Hari that cash transactions
above Rs.20,000/- are void and do not qualify as “legal
enforceable debt”. Hence, non disclosure of alleged loan
transaction in the Income Tax Returns does not affect the
case of the complainant in proving the alleged loan
transaction.
20. Further the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
Crl. Appeal No. 143 of 2019 between Mahesh R Vs. B M
Mahesh decided on 30-10-2024. In the said case, the
Hon’ble First Appellate court by referring Sec. 269 of
Income Tax Act held that the complainant could have lent
more than Rs.20,000/- in cash which is barred under
Income Tax Act. But the Hon’ble High Court has observed
that ” there is no such provision in NI Act and the NI Act do
not bar lending of such amount in cash. If at all the
complainant has violated the provisions of Income Tax Act,
it is for the Income Tax Department to take action and the
SCCH-24 13 C.C.12617/2024
accused could have complained to the said Department.
But the same cannot be ground to seek acquittal”.
21. Hence, non disclosure of transaction in the
Income Tax Returns and having cash transaction of the
amount above Rs.20,000/- would not be a ground to
dismiss the complaint.
22. It is not in dispute that the accused had
executed registered agreement of Sale as per Ex.P12. As
observed supra, the accused while admitting the
execution of Ex.P12 has taken the contention that the sale
price of the property was Rs.10,00,000/- and the
complainant has not paid the consideration amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- hence they did not execute the registered
Sale Deed in favour of the complainant.
23. It is true that the complainant has not
produced any other document like receipt to prove that
under the Ex.P12 consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- was
passed to the accused. But if the admitted document at
Ex.P12 is perused, at first it is a registered document.
When execution of document is admitted by the accused
she has to admit the contents of the document. If Ex.P12
is read in whole, there is recital to the effect that the
SCCH-24 14 C.C.12617/2024
accused by agreeing to sell the schedule property in
favour of the complainant for a consideration of
Rs.45,00,000/- has received part consideration of
Rs.10,00,000/- and agreed to execute the Sale Deed by
receiving balance consideration of Rs.35,00,000/-. When
there is a clear recital in the Ex.P12 regarding passing of
part consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and when accused
admits her signature under such circumstances there is
every reason to believe that accused had received sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- under the Ex.P12. If she had not received
Rs.10,00,000/- she would not have executed registered
Sale Agreement as per Ex.P12. When Ex.P12 is an
admitted document no more discussion would be required
and further proof of Ex.P12 would also be not required.
24. It is contended by the accused that at the say of
her husband she has executed sale Agreement as per
ExP.12. When accused has admitted that she is the owner
of the schedule property and when she has executed the
Ex.P12 she has to abide by the terms and condition of the
agreement. At whose instance she has executed Ex.P12 is
immaterial and it does not make any difference.
Admittedly, the accused has not executed registered sale
Deed in respect of the schedule property in favour of the
complainant. According to the complainant, prior to the
SCCH-24 15 C.C.12617/2024
execution of Ex.P12 itself the accused had raised loan on
the schedule property and had executed two sale
documents in favour of third parties, hence there was no
possibility of execution of Sale deed. When accused has
executed Sale Agreement and it is proved through Ex.P12
of the consideration amount of Rs.10,00,000/- received by
the accused under such circumstances she is bound to
repay the said amount.
25. It is the contention taken by the complainant
that after the execution of Sale Agreement, from time to
time he had paid balance consideration amount of
Rs.35,00,000/- and when the accused failed to execute
the Sale Deed, she come forward to refund the amount
with penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- and by entering into MOU
as per Ex.P13 dated 17-11-2023 issued the disputed
cheque for Rs.25,00,000/- each agreeing to pay the
consideration amount received by her within the
stipulated period. As accused failed to keep up the
promise by not refunding the amount, the complainant
presented the cheques.
26. The accused has denied the MOU as per Ex.P13
entered between her and the complainant. She even has
denied her signature in the Ex.P13. If Ex.P13 is carefully
SCCH-24 16 C.C.12617/2024
perused, the husband of the accused has signed the
Ex.P13 as witness. The accused nowhere has denied the
signature of her husband in the Ex.P13. If the disputed
signature of the accused in the Ex.P13 is compared with
the admitted signature in the Ex.P12, cheque and other
documents, it tallies with each other and there is no
dissimilarities of any nature in the disputed and admitted
signature of the accused.
27. PW.1 in his evidence has stated that the shara in
the Ex.P13 is in the handwriting of his brother and that
the said shara was written in the Ex.P13 as per the
dictation given by the husband of accused. According to
the PW.1, at the time of execution of Ex.P13, the brother
of the complainant and brother in law of the accused were
present but they are not the signatories to the Ex.P13.
28. The Learned counsel for accused has
vehemently submitted that when shara in the Ex.P13 is in
the handwriting of the brother of complainant, the
complainant ought to have examined his brother as
witness and that Ex.P13 was executed behind the back of
accused without bringing to her knowledge. But there is
no reason to accept the said version of the accused for the
SCCH-24 17 C.C.12617/2024
reason that as observed supra, this court has come to the
conclusion by comparing the signature in the Ex.P13 with
the signature of accused in the admitted document that
Ex.P13 bears the signature of the accused. Accused is
B Tech graduate. Hence, it can be said that accused is
well qualified lady. Further accused had executed many
number of Sale Deeds in favour of several persons of
which Ex.P14 is the one. It means, accused has business
knowledge Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 are not the only documents
executed by the accused. She has executed several
documents in favour several persons in respect of the
property owned by her. Hence, the court can very well rely
upon the Ex.P13. If Ex.P13 is perused, in the Ex.P13
there is reference about the Sale Agreement dated 15-04-
2023 (Ex.P12) and also about sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
received by the accused as part consideration amount.
There is further recitals in the Ex.P13 about the balance
amount of Rs.35,00,000/- received by the accused from
time to time for repayment of loan borrowed by her and
her husband. In the Ex.P13 there is mention about the
disputed cheque with cheque numbers, date and the
cheque amount. The complainant has categorically
contended that on the date of execution of Ex.P13, the
accused by agreeing to repay sum of Rs.50,00,000/-
towards non performance of her part of contract has
SCCH-24 18 C.C.12617/2024
issued disputed cheques for Rs.25,00,000/- each dated
15-01-2024. Hence, it can be said that by agreeing to
refund the consideration amount of Rs.45,00,000/- and
Rs.5,00,000/- towards non fulfillment of contract, the
accused has issued the disputed cheques on 17-11-2023
dated 15-01-2024.
29. If the cross examination of PW.1 is perused, the
accused has tried to prove before the court that the
disputed cheque belongs to her was issued by her
husband as security for the money transaction which he
had with the complainant. During the cross examination
of PW.1, suggestion was posed that the accused had not
agreed to sell the schedule property for a consideration of
Rs.45,00,000/- and that accused had not issued disputed
cheque and that it is the husband of the accused who has
sold the schedule property in favour of the complainant
and since some dispute was arisen between the
complainant and the husband of accused on money
transaction, by taking advantage of the same, the
complainant has misused the cheques of the accused
which was given by her husband as security. The PW.1
has denied the said suggestion. It is relevant to state here
that the accused at one breath has admitted the Sale
Agreement as per Ex.P12 executed by her and at another
SCCH-24 19 C.C.12617/2024
breath states that her husband has sold the property in
favour of the complainant. Hence, the accused is not
definate about her own case. If the evidence of the
accused and the line of cross examination done to the
PW.1 is read in whole, the accused has tried to prove that
her husband has misused her cheques which was in his
possession and given the said cheques to the complainant
as security without bringing to the knowledge of the
accused. If that being the case, on dishonour of the
cheques the accused could have taken legal action against
her husband. But till this date she has not taken any legal
action against her husband by lodging the complaint. It is
nowhere the case of the accused that her relationship with
her husband is strained. Till this date they are residing
together under common roof. If really her cheque was
misused by her husband, she would not have keep quite
for all these years.
30. So for as the complaint lodged by the accused
against the complainant as per Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 is
concerned, they are dated 27-08-2024 ie., much
subsequent to the present complaint filed by the
complainant. If really, her cheque was misused by her
husband and it was in turn misused by the complainant
and if really the accused has not executed Ex.P13 she
SCCH-24 20 C.C.12617/2024
could have stated the said fact in the complaint lodged by
her under Ex.D2 and Ex.D3. But there is no whisper in
the Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 regarding the same. In the said
complaint the accused has stated about the financial
transaction which her husband had with the complainant
and stated that on the issue of transaction, the
complainant and his henchman came to her house and
created nuisance.
31. So far as the bank statement as per Ex.D4 to
Ex.D6 produced by the accused is concerned, Ex.D4 is
relating to the account of her husband. Ex.D5 is relating
to the accused of A K Venkatesh the brother in law of the
accused (brother of A K Raghu) and Ex.D6 is relating to
the account of A K Raghu. It is not made known by the
accused as to how the Ex.D4 to Ex.D6 helps her to prove
defence and how the said documents relate to the
disputed transaction held between her and the
complainant. If Ex.D4 and Ex.D6 are perused, we can
gather the money transaction held between the
complainant and A K Raghu as some amount was
transferred from time to time from the account of
complainant to the account of A K Raghu and some
amount was transferred from the account of A K Raghu to
the account of complainant. But the transaction between
SCCH-24 21 C.C.12617/2024
the complainant and A K Raghu has nothing to do with
the sale transaction with the accused.
32. The Learned counsel for accused has much
argued by relying upon the evidence of PW.1 that when
PW.1 has no direct acquaintance with the accused how
could he give sum of Rs.45,00,000/- to the accused by
way of consideration.
33. It is true that PW.1 in his evidence has stated
that he had no direct acquittance with the accused but
her husband was known to the accused. Even the
accused in her evidence has stated that she came to know
of the complainant for the first time when Sale Agreement
as per Ex.P12 was entered into. From the evidence of
PW.1 and DW.1 it can be gathered that the complainant
and the husband of accused are known to each other
since several years. It appears that through A K Raghu
(husband of accused) the complainant came to know of
the accused for the first time while execution of Sale
Agreement as per Ex.P12. When it is the line of evidence
of accused that she was introduced to the complainant by
her husband while execution of Sale Agreement, the very
evidence given by the PW.1 that he has no direct
SCCH-24 22 C.C.12617/2024
acquaintance with the accused does not effect the case of
the complainant.
34. When Ex.P12 is admitted by the accused and
when complainant has proved the Ex.P13 and when
accused nowhere has disputed her signature in the
cheques, under such circumstances the complainant is
entitled for benefit of presumption u/Sec. 118 and 139 of
NI Act regarding issuance of cheque towards the discharge
of legally enforceable debt. Hence, burden is upon the
accused to rebut the presumption with cogent evidence
with preponderance of probabilities. But the accused has
failed to probablize the defence and thereby failed to rebut
the presumption.
35. In the light of the discussion made herein
above, this court is of the considered opinion that
complainant has proved that accused has committed the
offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answered Point No.1 in
the Affirmative.
36. POINT No.2 :- The Negotiable Instruments Act
is a Special Enactment, and the provisions of the Act
prevail over the general provisions contained in the Code
SCCH-24 23 C.C.12617/2024
of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, keeping the relevant
provisions of the Act in mind the sentence is to be
passed. In the light of the reasons on the Point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Sec. 278(2) of BNSS the
accused is found guilty of the offence
punishable under section 138 read with
section 142 of NI Act.
Consequently, accused is sentenced to pay
fine of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five
Lakhs Only), out of which Rs.50,00,000/-
shall be paid as compensation to the
complainant under Sec.396 of BNSS and
Rs.5,000/- shall be payable to the State.
In the event of default in payment within a
period of two months, the accused shall be
convicted to simple imprisonment for a period
of 6 months.
It is made clear that in view of Sec.430 of
BNSS, even if the accused under goes the
SCCH-24 24 C.C.12617/2024
default sentence imposed above, he is not
absolved of liability to pay the fine amount.
The bail bond of accused and that of surety
stands canceled.
Office to furnish the copy of this judgment
free of cost to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and
then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 17th day of April
2026.)
(ROOPASHRI)
XXII Addl.SCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru.
:ANNEXTURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF THE COMPLAINANT
P.W.1 : N SomashekarLIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 & 2 : Original Cheques
Ex.P.1(a) & 2(a) : Signatures of the accused.
Ex.P.3 to 6 : Endorsements.
Ex.P.7 : Copy of legal notice.
Ex.P.8 & 9 : Two Postal Receipts
Ex.P.10 : Unserved Postal Cover
Ex.P.11 : Notice inside the postal cover
Ex.P.12 : Sale agreement dt 15-04-2024
SCCH-24 25 C.C.12617/2024
Ex.P13 : Contract Agreement dated 17-11-2023
Ex.P14 : Absolute sale deed
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED
DW.1 : Sujitha PatapathiLIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Ex.D1 : - Acknowledgment
Ex.D2 & 3 : - Complaints
Ex.D4 : - Bank Statement pertaining to
account No.920010060783330
pertaining to the account of the
husband of accused
Ex.D5 : - Online copy of the Canara Bank
statement for the period from 01-04-
2020 to 31-03-2023
Ex.D6 : - Online copy of the State Bank of
India for the period from 02-08-2022
to 31-03-2024
Ex.D7 : - Certificate u/Sec. 65 B of Evidence
Act.
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru.
Digitally
signed by
ROOPASHRI
ROOPASHRI Date:
2026.04.17
15:44:51
+0530
