Bangalore District Court
M S Nandha Products Prooters Pvt Ltd vs Bank Of India on 6 May, 2026
1 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
KABC010256182015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63), BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.
P R E S E N T:-
Sri. Raghavendra S. Channabasappa, B.A., LL.B (Spl).,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1358/2015
APPELLANT/ 1) M/s. Nandh Products
ACCUSED: Prooters Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director.
O/at. 299/5, 10th Main, 6th Cross,
I Block, Jayanagara,
Bengaluru - 560 011.
2) Sri. K.N.Panduranga Setty,
S/o. Late. Narayana Setty,
Aged about 80 years,
R/at. 299/5, 10th Main, 6th Cross,
I Block, Jayanagara,
Bengaluru - 560 011.
3) Sri. K.P.Srikanth,
S/o. K.N.Panduranga Setty,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at. 299/5, 10th Main, 6th Cross,
I Block, Jayanagara,
Bengaluru - 560 011.
(By Sri. R.Srinivas, Advocate)
2 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
-V/.s-
RESPONDENT/ Bank of India,
COMPLAINANT Hanumanthanagara Branch,
4th Cross, Hanumanthanagara,
Bengaluru - 560 019.
(By Sri. V.S.S.S, Advocate)
*****
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants challenged the judgment and sentence passed
by the learned Magistrate dated 08-10-2015 in
C.C.No.3782/2003. Wherein the said learned Magistrate has
convicted the appellants-accused no.2 and 3 for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act and sentenced them
directing to pay fine of Rs.40,00,000/- and in default to pay the
fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6
months. Out of total fine amount a sum of Rs.38,00,000/-
ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their litigative status before the learned trial Court. The
appellants are the accused no.1 to 3 and the respondent is
3 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
the complainant as per their original ranks before the learned
trial Court.
3. The respondent-complainant filed the complaint against the
appellants-accused no.1 to 3 before the learned trial Court for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act. Based
on the said complaint, cognizance was taken, sworn
statement of the complainant was recorded and the case was
registered against the accused in C.C.No.3782/2003 for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act. Upon
service of summons, the accused appeared through their
counsel and plea of the accused was recorded and the
accused pleaded not guilty.
4. During the course of trial in order to prove the case of the
complainant, the complainant has examined its authorized
signatory as P.W-1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P-1
to 20. Accused when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C
denied all incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence
against them. On the other hand, accused no.2 himself
examined as D.W-1 and one more witness by name Sri.
4 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
K.N.Jayaprakash has examined himself as D.W-2 and on their
behalf no documents were got marked.
5. After hearing both the parties, the Court below convicted the
accused no.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section
138 of N.I Act and sentenced them as aforesaid. Being
aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence of the learned
trial Court, the appellants-accused have filed this criminal
appeal by challenging the Judgment on the following:-
GROUNDS
(1) On technical ground the Bank has not been represented
by appropriate person and regarding the P.W-1
appearing on behalf of the Bank, no board resolution
has been passed. On the basis of the recent decisions
of the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court, it
can be clearly seen that, P.W-1 did not had appropriate
authority to represent the Bank before the learned trial
Court.
(2) The learned Magistrate has not followed the recent
position of law, which clearly establishes that the
signatory to the cheque has to be prosecuted and no
other directors should be prosecuted. On the perusal of
Ex.P.1 to 5-cheques it can be clearly seen that the
5 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015signature found on those cheques are pertaining to the
appellant no.2-accused no.2. Thus the learned trial
Court has wrongly convicted the accused no.3-appellant
no.3 in the aforesaid case.
(3) On the perusal of the Ex.P.1 to 5-cheques, which can
be clearly seen that, the cheques were in fact issued in
favour of the accused no.1 and later the name of the
complainant Bank has been inserted. This material
alteration has not been considered by the learned trial
Court.
(4) The learned trial Court had not considered the
admission made by P.W-1 that Ex.P.1 to 5-cheques
were not given by the accused to discharge the liability.
When P.W-1 has categorically admitted that the
cheques were not issued to discharge the liability, this
admission clearly corroborates the defence of the
accused.
(5) The learned trial Court has also failed to see that there
was admission by P.W-1 that the accused no.2 had
given the said cheques to accused no.1’s internal
financial administration.
(6) The learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence
of defence, for the reason that in order to attract Section
138 of N.I Act, it has to be made out by the complainant
6 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
that the cheques should have been issued to discharge
the liability. On the perusal of the cross-examination of
P.W-1, it has been clearly established in the learned trial
court that the cheques were not issued to discharge the
liability.
(7) The learned Magistrate has not followed the position of
law laid down in cheque bounce cases as per the ruling
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rangappa’s case. Hence,
accused have not committed any offence under Section
138 of the N.I Act, 1881. Wherefore, the impugned
Judgment passed by the learned trial Court, is liable to
be set aside.
6. After admitting of this criminal appeal, the notice was issued to
the respondent. The respondent has appeared through its
counsel. The learned trial Court records secured.
7. Heard arguments from Amicus curiae. I have carefully
perused the entire trial Court records pertaining to this case
and the impugned Judgment.
7 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
8. The following points arise for the consideration of the Court:
1. Whether the appellants made-out grounds to allow the
appeal and set-aside the order passed by the learned
XVIII A.C.J.M and XX A.S.C.J, Bengaluru, in
C.C.No.3782/2003 dated 08-10-2015?
2. What order?
9. The findings of the Court on the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1:- The case of the complainant is that, the
accused no.2 to 6 are the Directors of accused no.1-Company
and carrying on business of Bullion trading. The accused
no.2 to 6 have opened Current account bearing no: C.D.305
in the name of accused no.1-Company with the complainant
Bank during first week of March, 2000. At the request of
accused no.1-Company through its Directors, the accused
no.2 to 6 herein, the complainant Bank was purchasing
cheques by allowing temporary overdraft in the said current
account. Accused no.2 to 6 being Directors have executed
8 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
necessary documents on 19-04-2001 to secure the repayment
of over drawings in the said C.D account and they have
personally guaranteed for the repayment of over drawings in
the said current account of first accused company in addition
to creation of equitable mortgage on the immovable properties
owner by some of the Directors. The total dues of
Rs.2,80,84,061/- as on 31-12-2002 plus uncharged interest
from 21-12-2001, the accused no.2 has issued five cheque
bearing no.037566, 037567, 037568, 037569 and 037570
dated 31-12-2002 for Rs.5,00,000/- each drawn in the name
of the accused no.1-Company in favour of Sree Charan Co-
operative Bank Ltd., complainant Bank has partial payment of
dues in the said current account on account of T.O.D allowed
owing to purchase of cheques by complainant. On
presentation of the cheque on 05-01-2003, it was returned by
the Bankers of the accused with an endorsement “Exceeds
Arrangements” vide return memo dated 06-01-2003. The
legal notice was issued on 16-01-2003 and demanded
payment of the cheques amount from the accused through
R.P.A.D and U.C.P. The legal notice was issued within 30
9 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
days from the date of intimation of dishonour of cheque.
Inspite of service of notice the accused neither paid the
amount covered under the cheques nor any reply. Therefore,
accused committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I
Act. Hence, this complaint.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that, the
Judgment passed by the learned trial Court in
C.C.No.3782/2003, dated 08-10-2015 is hold and good and
not committed any error, after perused the Ex.P-1 to 20 i.e., 5
cheques, 5 endorsements of the Bank, copy of the legal
notice, 4 postal acknowledgments, U.C.P, account extract of
accused, reply to notice from accused no.1, letter from
accused no.6 and complaint and also observed all the
evidence of the respondent-complainant and passed the
Judgment against the appellants-accused and therefore, the
appeal filed by the appellants, is devoid on merits and liable to
be dismissed.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants, has argued that, the
learned trial Court arrived at the wrong conclusion in respect
10 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
of the transaction between the complainant and accused.
There are contradictions in the evidence of P.W-1. Further
contended that, the learned Magistrate has completely
ignored the principles of criminal jurisprudence. That the
burden of proof lies on the respondent and the benefit lies in
favour of the appellant. Further argued that, the learned trial
Court failed to consider the evidence given by the P.W-1
during the course of cross-examination and fail to note Ex.P-1
to 5 were not given by the accused to discharge the liability.
Hence, the appreciation made by the learned Magistrate, is
needs interference.
13. Perused entire order sheets, complaint filed under Section
200 of Cr.P.C, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
N.I Act, examination-in-chief affidavit of the complainant, plea
of accusation, contents of exhibited documents as per Ex.P-1
to 20. There is no procedural defect of any nature while
conducting trial relating to private complaint registered for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act.
11 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
14. So far as appreciation of evidence is concerned, complainant
has examined its authorized signatory as P.W-1. P.W-1 has
been subsequently cross-examined by the counsel of
accused. P.W-1 has reiterated averments of complaint in his
examination-in-chief. Ex.P-1 to 5 are the cheques bearing
no.037566, 037567, 037568, 037569 and 037570 dated 31-
12-2002 for Rs.5,00,000/- each, Ex.P-1(a) to 5(a) are the
signature of the accused no.2 on Ex.P-1 to 5 respectively,
Ex.P-6 to 10 are the 5 endorsements of the Bank, Ex.P-11 is
the office copy of the legal notice dated 16-01-2003, Ex.P-12
to 15 are the 4 postal acknowledgments, Ex.P-16 is the U.C.P,
Ex.P-17 is the account extract of accused, Ex.P-18 is the
reply to notice from accused no.1, Ex.P-19 is the letter from
accused no.6 dated 27-01-2003 and Ex.P-20 is the main
complaint (P.C.R No.3339/2003). The appellants have
deposed that, Ex.P.1 to 5-cheques were not given by the
accused to discharge the liability. They further deposed that,
they have repaid entire loan amount and does not owe any
outstanding loan amount to the complainant. But, no
evidence to show that the accused paid entire amount to the
12 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
complainant. Hence, the contention of the accused does not
reliable.
15. The accused no.2 to 6 are the Directors of accused no.1-
Company and carrying on business of Bullion trading. The
accused no.2 to 6 have opened Current account bearing no:
C.D.305 in the name of accused no.1-Company with the
complainant Bank during first week of March, 2000. At the
request of accused no.1-Company through its Directors, the
accused no.2 to 6 herein, the complainant Bank was
purchasing cheques by allowing temporary overdraft in the
said current account. Accused no.2 to 6 being Directors have
executed necessary documents on 19-04-2001 to secure the
repayment of over drawings in the said C.D account and they
have personally guaranteed for the repayment of over
drawings in the said current account of first accused company
in addition to creation of equitable mortgage on the
immovable properties owner by some of the Directors. The
total dues of Rs.2,80,84,061/- as on 31-12-2002 plus
uncharged interest from 21-12-2001, the accused no.2 has
13 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015issued five cheque bearing no.037566, 037567, 037568,
037569 and 037570 dated 31-12-2002 for Rs.5,00,000/- each
drawn in the name of the accused no.1-Company in favour of
Sree Charan Co-operative Bank Ltd., complainant Bank has
partial payment of dues in the said current account on account
of T.O.D allowed owing to purchase of cheques by
complainant. On presentation of the cheque on 05-01-2003, it
was returned by the Bankers of the accused with an
endorsement “Exceeds Arrangements” vide return memo
dated 06-01-2003. The legal notice was issued on 16-01-
2003 and demanded payment of the cheques amount from
the accused through R.P.A.D and U.C.P. The legal notice was
issued within 30 days from the date of intimation of dishonour
of cheque. For which the complainant got issued legal notice
calling upon payment.
16. Despite notice, the accused did not make payment of
cheques’ amount and thereby, committed an offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act. However, the
accused have not repaid the cheques’ amount. Accordingly,
14 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
the accused have committed an offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I Act. Thereafter, burden shifts on the
accused as per presumptions under Section 118 & 139 of N.I
Act in the form of reverse onus on the accused to rebut
presumptions.
17. To rebut the statutory presumption which could be drawn in
favour of the complainant and also to prove the probable
defense to the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities,
the accused no.2 entered into the witness box and adduced
his evidence as D.W-1 and one more witness by name
Sri. K.N.Jayaprakash has examined himself as D.W-2, but, on
their behalf no documents were got marked. The learned
prosecuting counsel has cross-examined D.W-1 and 2 at
length and has not established entire repayment of borrowed
amount to the complainant.
18. I relied placed below mentioned Authority and it is settled
principle of law as held by House of Lords in Vickers Sons
and Maxim Ltd., Vs. Evans (1910) AC 444 as quoted with
approval by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jamma Masjid,
15 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
Mercara Vs Kodimaniandra Deviah and Others AIR 1962 SC
847 and reiterated in Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing
Society vs Swaraj Developers, AIR 2003 SC 2434 and in
catena of decisions that the court cannot read anything into a
statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous.
19. On bare perusal of the object of the N.I. Act, it shows that the
main object of the Chapter introducing dishonour of cheque
on account of insufficiency of funds as penal offence in the
Act is to enhance the acceptability of cheque. In order to
attract the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I Act, the
complainant needs to prove that the cheque drawn by a
drawer of the cheque on an account maintained by him issued
to the payee in discharge of any debt or other liability, cheque
is presented to Bank within three months of the date of
cheque and returned by the drawer bank as unpaid,
complainant has made a demand for the payment of the said
amount of money by giving a notice in writing within 30 days
of receipt of information of dishonour by the Bank, and the
drawer of such cheque has not made the payment of the said
16 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
amount of money to the payee within fifteen days of the
receipt of the said notice, then such person shall be deemed
to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to
any other provisions of the Act, be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years,
or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the
cheque, or with both.
20. It is well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that, a
criminal trial proceeds on the presumption of innocence of the
accused. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless
proved guilty. It is the complainant to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, in respect of
offence under Section 138 of the Act, although there is a
reverse onus clause contained in Sections 118 and 139 of the
Act, the initial burden is on the complainant.
21. It is also a settled proposition of law that the standard of proof
which is required from the accused to rebut the statutory
presumption under Section 118 read with Section 139 of the
Act, is preponderance of probabilities. The accused are not
17 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. This
onus on the accused can be discharged from the materials
available on record and from the circumstantial evidences or
even by admissions in the cross-examination of complainant
and his witnesses.
22. I relied view expressed by the Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran Vs.
Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan reported in AIR 1999 SC 3762, the
Apex Court held that once the signature in the cheque is
admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption
envisaged in Section 118 of the N.I Act can legally be drawn
to infer that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration
on the date which the cheque bears.
23. I relied view expressed by the Apex Court in Rangappa Vs. Sri
Mohan reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898, a three Judges’ bench
of the Supreme Court held that that once issuance of a
cheque and signature thereon are admitted, presumption of a
legally enforceable debt in favour of the holder of the cheque
arises. It is for the accused to rebut the said presumption,
though accused need not adduce his own evidence and can
18 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
rely upon the material submitted by the complainant.
However, mere statement of the accused may not be
sufficient to rebut the said presumption. A post-dated cheque
is a well recognized mode of payment.
24. I relied view expressed by the Apex Court in K.S. Ranganatha
Vs. Vittal Shetty reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1191, a
three judges’ bench of the Supreme Court held that once the
cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption
envisaged in Section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred
that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the
date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins
on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque
received it for the discharge of any debt or liability. It is further
held that the position of law makes it crystal clear that when a
cheque is drawn out and is relied upon by the drawee, it will
raise a presumption that it is drawn towards a consideration
which is a legally recoverable amount; such presumption of
course, is rebuttable by proving to the contrary. The onus is
on the accused to raise a probable defence and the standard
19 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
of proof for rebutting the presumption is on preponderance of
probabilities.
25. I relied view expressed by the Apex Court in M/s. Kalemani
Tax Vs. Balan (Crl.A.No.123/2021) (LL 2021 P.75) decided on
10.02.2021, a three judges’ bench of the Supreme Court of
India has observed that, even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily
signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards
some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any
cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in
discharge of a debt.
26. I relied view expressed by the Apex Court in M/s. Ashok
Transport Agency V/s. Awadhesh Kumar and Another,
reported in 1998(5) Sec.567, Court has observed as under;
“A partnership firm differs from a proprietary concern
owned by an individual. A partnership is governed by
the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
Though a partnership is not a juristic person but Order
XXX Rule 1 CPC enables the partners of a
partnership firm to sue or to be sued in the name of
the firm. A proprietary concern is only the business
20 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015name in which the proprietor of the business carries
on the business. A suit by or against a proprietary
concern is by or against the proprietor of the business.
In the event of the death of the proprietor of a
proprietary concern, it is the legal representatives of
the proprietor who alone can sue or be sued in
respect of the dealings of the proprietary business.
The provisions of Rule 10 of Order XXX which make
applicable the provisions of Order XXX to a
proprietary concern, enable the proprietor of a
proprietary business to be sued in the business
names of his proprietary concern. The real party who
is being sued is the proprietor of the said business.
The said provision does not have the effect of
converting the proprietary business into a partnership
firm. The provisions of Rule 4 of Order XXX have no
application to such suit as by virtue of Order XXX Rule
10 the other provisions of Order XXX are applicable to
a suit against the proprietor of proprietary business
“insofar as the nature of such case permits”. This
means that only those provisions of Order XXX can be
made applicable to proprietary concern which can be
so made applicable keeping in view the nature of the
case”
In view of the nature of the case, the same has been
reiterated in Raghu Lakshminarayanan V/s. Fine Tubes, 2007
(5) SCC 103.
27. Further, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in H.N.Nagaraj Vs.
Suresh Lal Hiral Lal, reported in 2022 LIVELAW (Karnataka)
21 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
400, it is observed that in a proceeding under Sec.138 of N.I.
Act, the arraying of a proprietor as an accused or a proprietary
concern represented by the proprietor would be sufficient for
compliance u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. The proprietor and the
proprietary concern are not required to be separately arrayed
as party accused.
28. Applying the above said principles to the present case and
before considering the point whether accused succeeded to
rebut presumptions and to establish their defence to the
extent of probabilities, it is just and necessary to accumulate
undisputed facts in this case.
29. It is not in dispute that bounced cheques belongs to the Bank
account of the accused. It is also not in dispute that,
signatures appearing on the bounced cheques, are the
signature of the accused is differ. It is also not in dispute that,
the cheques presented by the complainant came to be
dishonoured by the banker of the accused for the reason
stated in the dishonour memo.
22 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
30. To consider whether accused succeeded to rebut the
presumption and established defence to the extent of
probabilities, the accused no.2 has adduced evidence and
marked one document as Ex.D-1 i.e., Bank statement of
accused, on his behalf and has failed to establish his defence
that he repaid entire borrowed amount. It is evident from the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Transport
Agency and Hon’ble High Court in H.N.Nagaraj case, as
discussed supra, proprietorship is not a separate legal entity
like a Company, Partnership Firm or Association. Proprietary
business name need not be arrayed as party. Therefore, the
learned trial Court has rightly held that the accused have not
rebutted the presumption arising U/Sec.139 of N.I Act.
31. In addition to that accused have not produced documents to
show that, accused filed complaint before jurisdictional Police
against complainant for misuse of their cheques. Appellants-
accused did not produce any documents to establish the fact
that they have repaid the cheques’ amount to the
complainant. Evidence of D.W-1 and D.W-2 are oral
23 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
evidence, which did not rebut the documentary evidence and
documentary evidence is prevail. On the other hand, the oral
and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant, it is
proved that the accused issued the cheques for legally
recoverable debt.
32. This Court has compared reasons assigned by the learned
trial Court in the impugned judgment of conviction as
discussed above with the allegations made in the
memorandum of appeal. No grounds are made out in the
memorandum of appeal to interfere with the Impugned
judgment of conviction. The learned trial Court has rightly
passed the judgment and order of conviction.
33. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, sentenced
accused no.2 and 3 to pay fine of Rs.40,00,000/- and in
default to pay the fine amount, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 months. Out of total fine amount a sum of
Rs.38,00,000/- ordered to be paid to the complainant by way
of compensation. But, no order in respect of remaining
amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, for the proper
24 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015
adjudication of the appeal, the Appellate Court liable to modify
by directing the accused no.2 and 3 shall pay Rs.1,90,000/-
along with Rs.38,00,000/- to the complainant as a
compensation and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- has to be
defrayed to the state for expenses incurred in the prosecution.
Fine amount imposed is within the purview of Section 138 of
N.I Act. Appellants failed to show that sentence imposed is
exorbitant. Accused-appellants failed to show that quantum of
fine imposed is excessive. There is no merit in the appeal.
Order under appeal is sustainable in law. Hence, interference
of this Court is not necessary. Accordingly, Point No.1 is
answered in the ‘Negative’.
34. POINT NO.2:- For the foregoing the reason I proceed to pass
the following:-
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal filed by the appellants-
accused under Section 374(3)(a) of Cr.P.C, is hereby
dismissed.
Consequently, the Order passed by the XVIII
A.C.J.M and XX A.S.C.J, Bengaluru, in
C.C.No.3782/2003, dated: 08-10-2015, is hereby
25 Crl.Appeal.No.1358/2015confirmed by way of small modification regarding to the
compensation amount.
Accused no.2 and 3 shall pay Rs.1,90,000/-
along with Rs.38,00,000/- to the complainant as a
compensation out of total fine amount of
Rs.40,00,000/- and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/-
has to be defrayed to the state for expenses incurred in
the prosecution.
Office is hereby directed to send the certified
copy of this Judgment to the learned trial Court along
with T.C.R.No order as to cost.
(Dictated to the Steno Gr-III directly on computer, typed by him and corrected,
signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06 th day of May, 2026.)(Raghavendra S. Channabasappa)
LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(CCH-63), Bengaluru.
