Bangalore District Court
Smt. N.U. Saraswathi vs Vivekananda .H.S on 4 July, 2026
CC.No.16911/2022
KABC030440802022
Presented on : 06-06-2022
Registered on : 07-06-2022
Decided on : 04-07-2026
Duration : 4 years, 0 months, 28 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 4th day of July 2026
Present: Smt.Tejaswini K.M., B.A.L.LL.M,
XVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
CC. No.16911/2022
Smt.N.U.Saraswathi
W/o K.Vishwanath Singh
Aged about 51 years
R/at No.202, 2nd Floor,
2nd Main Road, Ganganadi Road,
Srinagar, Bengaluru - 560050.
....Complainant
(By Sri K.V.R., Advocate)
Versus
2 C.C.16911/2022
Vivekananda H.S
S/o Late.Subbegowda
Aged about 55 years
No.2785 A, 7th Main Road,
Kumaraswamy Layout, 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560078.
Also at
Vivekananda H.S
S/o Late.Subbegowda
Senior Electrician
Generator Room, Near Vakkaligara
Sangha, Dental College Hospital,
BIT Campus, V.V.Puram, K.R.Road,
Bengaluru - 560004.
And also at
Vivekananda H.S
S/o Late.Subbegowda
Senior Electrician
Handagi Village,
Konanuru Hobli,
Arakalagudu Taluk,
Hassan District.
.... Accused
(By Sri C.P.P., Advocate)
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
3 C.C.16911/2022
Date of commencement
of evidence : 16.03.2022
Date of closing evidence : 16.09.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
JUDGMENT
This case is registered against the accused for the
offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
2. Factual matrix of the complainant’s case is as
under:
It is stated that she is working in KIMS, Bengaluru
as nurse and accused is also working in the same hospital
as electrician and the accused is running the chit
business, in which the complainant has become a
member during the year 2008 to 2018 and she has paid
more than Rs.25 lakhs towards the chit amount to the
accused. After completion of the payment of chit amount
4 C.C.16911/2022the complainant has requested the accused to pay back
the chit amount. That time accused went on postponing
to repay the said amount. After persistent request made
by the complainant, towards discharge of his part liability,
the accused has issued 4 cheques bearing Nos.180882
dated 17.06.2021, cheque bearing No.180883 dated
22.06.2021 for Rs.2,00,000/-, cheque bearing No.575390
dated 22.06.2021 for Rs.10,00,000/- and cheque bearing
No.575391 dated 22.06.2021 for Rs.10,00,000/-, drawn on
Syndicate Bank, BIT Vishveshwarapuram, Bengaluru in
favour of the complainant.
3. Further, accused has assured to pay the balance
amount of Rs 50,000 within a short date. As per the
request of the accused, the complainant has presented
those cheques to the bank, but they got dishonored for
the reason ‘funds insufficient’ vide memos dated
18.06.2021 and 23.06.2021 respectively. The complaint
has issued a legal notice on 07.07.2021 through RPAD to
the accused calling upon him to make payment of the
cheques. The notices sent to the first address of the
accused has been served upon the accused on
09.07.2021, the notice sent to the second address has
5 C.C.16911/2022
been returned as ‘addressee refused’ on 09.07.2021 and
notice sent to the third address of the accused has been
returned as ‘addressee not in station’ on 16.07.2021.
However the accused has not paid the cheque amount.
Hence the complainant has constrained to file the present
complaint.
4. After receiving the complaint, this court has
meticulously gone through the documents and affidavit
filed along with it and then took cognizance of the offence
punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and
ordered for registration of the compliant as P.C.R.
5. Sworn statement of the complainant was
recorded and marked 22 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-22. As
there were sufficient materials to constitute the offence,
this court has proceeded to pass an order for issuing
process against the accused.
6. In pursuance of summons, accused has appeared
through his counsel and applied for bail. He was enlarged
on bail. Then the substance of accusation was read over
to the accused in the language known to him, for which
he pleaded not guilty.
6 C.C.16911/2022
7. As per the direction of Hon’ble supreme court in
“Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others
reported in (2014)(5) SCC 590, this court treated the
sworn statement of the complainant as complainant
evidence and posted matter for cross-examination of
PW.1. The counsel for the accused has fully cross-
examined PW.1. Thereafter the complainant closed her
side of evidence.
8. The statement of accused as contemplated under
the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded
vide order dated 09.12.2024 and the incriminating
evidence as such forthcoming against the accused in the
evidence of PW.1 and the documents has been read over
and explained to the accused in the language known to
him. He denied all incriminating evidence.
9. In order to substantiate his defense, the accused
got himself examined orally as DW.1 and got marked
Ex.D1 and he had been cross-examined by the learned
counsel for the complainant.
10. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for both the side. The counsel for both side filed
memo with citations. I have perused the oral and the
7 C.C.16911/2022
documentary evidence placed on record and gone
through those case laws.
11. Points that arise for my consideration are as
under:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the
accused towards discharge of his liabilityissued 4 cheques bearing No.180883 dated
22.06.2021 for Rs.2,00,000/-, cheque bearing
No.575391 dated 22.06.2021 for
Rs.10,00,000/-, cheque bearing No.575390
dated 22.06.2021 for Rs.10,00,000/- and
cheque bearing No.180882 dated 17.06.2021
for Rs.2,50,000/-, drawn on Syndicate Bank,
BIT, Vishweshwarapuram Branch, Bangalore
in favour of complainant, on presentation of
the same for encashment, they were
dishonored for “Funds Insufficient” in the
account maintained by the accused, then in-
spite of issuing demand notice to the
Accused and in complying with statutory
requirement under Negotiable Instrument
Act, Accused did not repay the cheques
amount, thereby he has committed an
8 C.C.16911/2022
offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act?
2. What Order?
12. My Answer to above points are as under:-
Point No.I :- In the Affirmative,
Point No.II :- As per the final order for
the following....
REASONS
13. POINT NO.I:- The Defense of the accused that:
In 2015 he was running chit business. In the said chit
transaction, the complainant was participating. As such he
had given his two signed blank cheques to the
complainant in 2016. In 2018 the complainant has told
him that his old cheques cannot be encashed and asked
to give two new cheques. Thereby taken two new cheques
from him. In 2020 he has taken a loan of Rs6,90,000/-
from Repco Bank by pledging his gold. Out of that
amount, he has given Rs4,00,000/- to the husband of the
complainant. He had given the disputed cheques between
2016 to 2018 to the husband of the complainant, as he
was doing the transaction with the husband of the
9 C.C.16911/2022complainant. He has no transaction with the complainant.
He has stopped the said chit business in 2017 itself. He
has not executed Ex.P22 in favour of the complainant. His
cheques are misused by the complainant. Hence, on these
grounds, accused prays to acquit him from this case.
14. Gist of the arguments of counsel for the
Complainant.
The counsel for the complainant has vehemently
argued that since the accused has admitted his signatures
on the disputed cheques, issuing of cheques is proved by
the complainant and thereby she is entitled to get the
benefit of initial presumption. He argued that the accused
has failed to prove his defence that his security cheques
are misused by the complainant or her husband. He failed
to prove the transaction with the husband of the
complainant, as no proof is produced before the court. He
argued that when the accused has admitted the issuance
of the cheques, based on the stray admission given by
PW1 in cross-examination entire case of the complainant
cannot be suspected. He argued that as per the
complainant’s evidence, the last payment was made in
2021 March, as such, the complaint is not barred by law of
10 C.C.16911/2022
limitation. The accused has failed to take any legal action
against the complainant or her husband if his security
cheques are misused. Therefore, he prays to convict the
accused.
15. Advocate for complainant has relied on the
citations reported in AIR 2023 SC 5018 in between Rajesh
Jain V/s Ajay Singh and AIR 1999 SC 3762 in between
K.Bhaskaran V/s Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan another
and Crl.R.No.188/2025 in between Sohan Lal V/s Jagdish
Kumar Sharma, I have gone through those case laws.
16. Gist of the arguments of the counsel for the
accused.
The counsel for the accused has vehemently argued
that there is no pleading regarding when exactly the chit
amounts were paid by the complainant. No documentary
proof is produced to believe that the accused was running
chit transaction and complainant has paid money to him.
He argued in 2018 itself the complainant has allegedly
stopped making payment towards the chits. But the
cheques are presented in 2022. As such the complaint is
barred by law of limitation. He argued that the
complainant has no financial capacity to pay such huge
11 C.C.16911/2022
amount towards the chit, as her meager salary is suffice
to maintain her expenses, rent and for payment of EMI as
per her evidence. He argued that the Ex.P22 document
has been created for the purpose of the case. The amount
shown in Ex.P22 and the amount shown in the disputed
cheques are not tallying with each other. Therefore, the
complainant has filed this case for excess amount than
what is shown in Ex.P22. He argued that the complainant
has not proved that the accused himself has executed Ex.
P22 by sending it to the FSL. Therefore, it cannot be
admitted. He argued that as the complainant admitted
that after receiving the cheques, within 3 years she has
not presented the cheques, as such on that ground also
the complaint is not maintainable, hence he prays to
acquit the accused.
17. Advocate for accused has relied on the citations
reported in Crl.A.No.473/2019(A) in between Purandara
Rai V/s Naveendra Naik, Crl.A.No.200057/2016 in
between The Bidar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., V/s
Mr.Girish, Crl.A.No.545/2010 in between K V Subba
Reddy V/s N.Raghava Reddy, Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No.1785/2001 in between Sasseriyil Joseph V/s
12 C.C.16911/2022
Devassia, 2001 CRI.L.J.24 in between Sasseriyil Joseph
V/s Devassia, Crl.A.No.505/1995 in between Girdhari Lal
Rathi V/s P.T.V. Raniaunjachari and another,
Crl.A.No.302/2010 in between K.N.Raju V/s Manjunath
T.V, 2011(3) KCCR 1825 in between M/s United
Distributors, Mangalore V/s Smt.Geetha K.Rai, (2006) 6
SCC 39 in between M.S.Narayana Menon Alias Mani V/s
State of Kerala and another, (2015) 1 SCC 99 in between
K.Subramani V/s K.Damodara Naidu, Crl.A.No.533/2015
in between H V Jagannatha V/s Prabhakar B.J, (2023) 1
SCC 578 in between Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel V/s
Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and another, (2014) 12 SCC
539 in between Indus Airways Private Limited and
others V/s Magnum Aviation Private Limited and
another, Crl.A.No.1432/2003 in between Joseph Sartho
V/s Gopinathan Nair, Crl.R.P.No.56/2019 in between
R.Hanumantharaya V/s A.P.Krishnakumar,
Crl.R.P.No.1456/2022 in between Khaleel Khan.P V/s
Shankarappa, Crl.M.C.No.2224/2009 in between M/s
Alliance Infrastructure Project Pvt Ltd and others V/s
Vinay Mittal, Crl.M.C.No.2225/2009 in between Alliance
Infrastructure Project Pvt Ltd and others V/s Sanjheev
13 C.C.16911/2022
Kapur and 2011 (1) DCR 135 in between Karamvir V/s
Ms.Anita Sharma, I have gone through those case laws.
18. Negotiable Instruments Act provides for some
presumption in favour of the complainant i.e., Section 118
reads as here: – “That every negotiable instrument was
made or drawn for consideration and that every such
instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed,
negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed,
negotiated or transferred for consideration”.
19. Further Sec 139 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act provides for presumption in favour of a holder. It
reads as here: – “It shall be presumed, unless the contrary
is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the
cheque, of the nature referred to in sec 138, for the
discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other
liability.”
20. Combined reading of above said sections raises
a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that
he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part
of any debt or other liability. However, it is settled
principle of law that the presumption available u/s 139 NI
14 C.C.16911/2022
Act can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable
defense.
21. The complainant has reiterated the contents of
the complaint in her chief-examination. She has got
marked Ex.P1 to P22. She has produced the cheques
issued by accused and the same are marked as Ex.P-1 to
P-4, the signatures of the accused are marked as Ex.P-1(a)
to 4(a), copies of bank memos are marked as Ex.P-5 to P-
8, copy of demand notice dated:07.07.2024 is marked as
Ex.P-9, copies of postal receipts are marked as Ex.P-10 to
P-12, copy of postal acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P-
13, copies retunred notices are marked as Ex.P-14 & 15,
postal covers are marked as Ex.P-16 & 17, copies of postal
receipts are marked as Ex.P-18 & 19, complaint is marked
as Ex.P-20, copy of account statement is marked as Ex.P-
21 and one small diary is marked as Ex.P-22. She has been
duly cross-examined by the counsel for the accused.
22. Percontra, the accused has also stepped into
witness box and orally deposed about his defense as
stated supra and he has been cross-examined by the
counsel for the complainant.
15 C.C.16911/2022
23. At the outset, the acquaintance between the
parties is not in dispute, as both parties have admitted
with each other that they are working in KIMS hospital.
Further, the accused admitted his signatures on the
cheques and issaunce of cheques. On perusal of Ex.P1 to
Ex.P4 cheques it is evident they belong to the account of
the accused maintained in Syndicate Bank and they are
duly signed by him. All four cheques are dishonored for
the reason ‘funds insufficient’, as per bank memos
marked at Ex.P5 to Ex.P8. Thereby the complainant has
prima facie proved that the accused has issued the
disputed cheques and they are duly signed by him.
24. Therefore, initial presumption U/Sec.118 and
139 of NI Act has to be drawn in favour of the
complainant as the Honorable Supreme Court of India in
“Triyambak S Hegde v Sripad” (2022) 1 SCC 742 while
relying upon the the constitution bench judgment of
Basalingappa v Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, under
para 14 of its judgment reiterated that
“once the cheque was issued and that the
signatures are upon the cheque are accepted by
the accused, the presumptions undee Sec 118 and
139 of the NI Act arise against the accused. That is,
16 C.C.16911/2022
unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed
that the cheques in question were drawn by the
accused for a consideration and that the
complainant had received the cheque in question
in discharge of debt/liability from the accused.”
25. As per Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act initial
presumption has to drawn infavour of the complainant
that cheques were issued in discharge of legally
enforceable debt. The burden lies on the accused to rebut
the said initial presumption on the scale of
preponderance of probabilities.
26. In nutshell case of the complainant is that she
has invested more than Rs.25,00,000/- in the chit
transaction with the accused between 2008 to 2018 and
towards repayment of part of the said chit amount, the
accused has issued the disputed cheques. When they are
presented to the bank, they got dishonoured for the
reason ‘funds insufficient’. Despite of issuance of legal
notice to the accused, he failed to pay back the cheques
amount. Hence the complaint is constrained to file this
case.
27. The complainant has reiterated her case in her
chief examination. During cross-examination also she has
17 C.C.16911/2022
deposed that she was paying the chit amount to accused
between 2008 to 2018. She has specifically deposed she
has taken chits worth of Rs 5,00,000/- and Rs.3,50,000/-
and Rs 70,000/- from the accused. She deposed for last
time in 2018 March she has invested for cheque. She
denied the suggestion that after completion of the chit
term, she used to take back the entire amount from the
accused.
28. Further in the cross-examination dated
06.01.2024, in Para No. 2, PW1 has specifically deposed
that between 2008 to 2018 she has totally invested a paid
RS 24,50,000/- to the accused. She used to pay Rs
20,000/-, Rs 40,000, Rs 60,000/- towards chit installments.
Every chit was for a term of 25 to 30 months. She deposed
accused was receiving the said chit installments by way of
cash. She deposed that she was saving around RS 50,000/-
to Rs 60,000/- per month. She is paying rent of RS
10,500/- per month to her house. She deposed that
accused has written about chit amount in a
document/small book and given to her. She deposed in
the presence of her husband, the accused has given all
four cheques to him in his office.
18 C.C.16911/2022
29. Further in the cross-examination dated
12.03.2025, PW1 has deposed that in 2018 she was
getting a salary of Rs 52,000/- and after deductions, she
was getting RS 49,000/- pm . She also deposed she was
paying EMI to her loan to an extent of Rs.15,771/-. She
deposed that her husband is doing business. He was
doing multiple businesses as such she cannot tell his
exact income or about his business. Per month she has
paid RS 40,000/- to the accused.
30. Therefore above cross examination of PW1
clearly shows that she has consistently deposed that every
month she has paid an chit installment amount to the
accused between 2008 to 2018. The counsel for the
accused has vehemently argued there is no proper
pleading as to how much amount she has paid every
month in the complaint. No proof is produced to show
that said amount was given to the accused or to prove
accused was involved in doing said chit transaction
business with her.
31. It is material to note here that in the chief
examination, the accused has unequivocally admitted that
in 2015 he was doing chit business. He has also deposed
19 C.C.16911/2022
that the complainant was participating in the said chit
transaction. Further in his cross-examination dated
28.06.2025 para No.2, he has admitted the suggestion of
the counsel for the complainant that he was doing chit
business. He voluntarily deposed that he was doing the
said business for about 15 years between 2010 to 2018.
He also deposed he might have done the said business
between 2008 to 2018. He deposed that initially he was
doing a said chit transaction of Rs 50,000/- and later he
was doing it upto Rs 2,00,000/- to RS 3,00,000/- ie chits
amount. Every chit was running for about 25 to 30
months. He also admitted the suggestion that the staff
members of the KIMS Hospital are the participants in the
said chit transaction and he voluntarily deposed even
outside people were also participating in the said
business.
32. Therefore, the evidence of the accused itself
proves that though he is an employee in the KIMS
Hospital, he was engaged in doing chit business and he
has voluntarily deposed that he done the said chit
business for about 15 years between 2008 to 2018. It is
important to note here that without obtaining license,
20 C.C.16911/2022
being a government servant the accused was doing said
chit transaction. Whether he can do said business is a
different aspect. But he has solicited money from the
public including staffs of the said hospital for said chit
transaction is a point to be considered by this court to
decide the dispute in question. As the accused himself
has admitted that he was doing the said chit transaction,
that requires no further proof, as admitted facts need not
to be proved as per Sec 58 of Evidence Act. Hence, the
case of the complainant that accused was doing chit
business to which she has invested money is clearly
established.
33. In view of initial legal presumption given under
Section 118 and 139 of NI Act, this Court shall prima facie
consider that the cheques are drawn for consideration i.e.
the complainant has paid the chit amount to the accused
and the accused has issued the disputed cheque in
discharge of the said liability .
34. In AIR 2023 SC 5018 in between Rajesh Jain V/s
Ajay Singh, Apex court held that
“31. Presumption, on the other hand, literally means
“taking as true without examination or proof”. In
21 C.C.16911/2022
Kumar Exports v. Sharma Exports, this Court
referred to presumption as “devices by use of which
courts are enabled and entitled to pronounce on an
issue notwithstanding that there is no evidence or
insufficient evidence.”
35. Therefore before questioning source of income
of the complainant and other details as sought by the
counsel for the accused in the cross-examination of PW1,
it is incumbent upon the accused to rebut the initial
presumption given in favour of the complainant on the
scale of preponderance of probabilities.
36. In the given case the accused himself has
admitted that he was doing chit transaction between the
year 2008 to 2018. Therefore the burden completely lies
on the accused to establish his defence and rebut the
initial presumption given in favour of the complainant.
37. It is material to note here that in the beginning
of his chief examination the accused has deposed that the
complainant was participating in the chit transaction done
by him and he had given two signed cheques for the
purpose of security to the complainant in 2016. Whereas
subsequently, the accused has deposed that he never
22 C.C.16911/2022
done any transaction with the complainant. The husband
of the complainant has done cheque transaction with him
and he has given the disputed cheques to the husband of
the complainant and not to the complainant. Thus here
itself court can notice two versions of the accused about
to whom he has given cheques.
38. Further the counsel for the accused has not
made any single suggestion to PW1 in the cross-
examination, about how the cheques went into the
custody of the complainant. Though the counsel for the
accused has cross examined PW1 multiple times, no
suggestion is made to PW1 that the husband of the
complainant has invested or paid the chit amount to the
accused, in that connection, accused has issued 4 cheques
to the husband of the complainant. In fact contention
taken by the accused in his defence evidence is not at all
reflected in the form of suggestions to PW1 in cross
examination.
39. In the cross-examination dated 07.02.2024, in
the last para, the counsel for the accused has suggested
to PW1, since the accused has his own house, he was not
in need of taking chit amount from the complainant and
23 C.C.16911/2022
same is denied by her. Therefore, the contention taken by
the accused in his chief and in the cross examination of
the PW1 is not at all tallied which gives an hint that the
accused has improvised his defence and the contention
taken by the accused in his chief examination is an
afterthought.
40. Secondly, in the chief examination the accused
has not at all deposed how much amount he has allegedly
received from the husband of the complainant. When he
has received? What is the total amount of the chit? For
how many months the said chit was existed? How many
installments were paid by the husband of the
complainant? When it is ended?. these are all material
particulars required to believe the version of the accused
that the husband of the complainant has invested for chit
with the accused. However, no such particulars are
provided by the accused. As the initial burden lies on the
accused to rebut the presumption, these information
ought to have been provided by the accused. However, he
has not given such information in his chief examination
and even in the cross examination of PW1 the counsel for
the accused has not made such suggestion. Under such
24 C.C.16911/2022
circumstances his contention that by taking loan of Rs
6,99,000/- in Repco bank, he has paid RS 4,00,000/- to the
husband of the complainant has no foundation or basis
itself.
41. The accused has produced the loan ledger
extract marked at Exhibit D1, which shows that he has
taken a loan of Rs 6,99,000/- from Repco Bank on
17.12.2020. The accused contends he has given Rs
4,00,000/- out of the said Rs 6,99,000/- to the husband of
the complainant. To prove the said factor, no iota of
evidence is produced before the court, except the oral say
of the accused. Since the accused has received the said
loan amount directly to his account, if at all any such
amount was due to pay to the husband of the
complainant, the accused could have directly transferred
the money to the account of the husband of the
complainant. What prevented him to transfer money to
the account of the husband of the complainant or to take
any acknowledgment for having advanced such huge
amount of RS 4,00,000/- to the husband of the
complainant is not forthcoming.
25 C.C.16911/2022
42. In the chief examination, accused has deposed
that he has initially given two cheques to the husband of
the complainant in 2016 and subsequently Two further
cheques were given to the husband of the complainant in
2018 at one breath. At another breath he deposed that in
2018 the complainant has told him that old cheques
cannot be encased as such, by stating so, the complainant
has received further two signed cheques from him.
Therefore in the chief examination itself there is a
contradiction regarding to whom the accused has handed
over the cheques, whether it is to the husband of the
complainant or to the complainant.
43. However in the cross examination at para No.3,
he deposed that in 2016 and in 2018 he has given his
signed cheques only for the purpose of security. Now, the
question to be considered by the court is for which
security he has issued his 4 cheques to the complainant or
to the husband of the complainant. Admittedly the
accused is a government employee, who has complete
knowledge about the potential consequences of issuing
blank signed cheques. It is noticed by the court that all the
cheques at Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are belongs to the same
26 C.C.16911/2022
account of the accused maintained in Syndicate Bank, BIT,
Vishveswara Puram, Bengaluru branch.
44. If at all the complainant has told him that old
cheques cannot be encashed, as such she asked him to
give new cheques, then accused ought to have enquir
why his old cheques are not encashed by the
complainant. If he was not due to pay any amount there
was no reason for the complainant to tell that old cheques
cannot be encashed. There was no reason for the accused
to issue further two cheques to the complainant or his
husband. Therefore there is no clarity in the evidence of
the accused regarding issues of cheques in the year 2016
and 2018. Admitted issuance of fresh cheques in 2018
probabilises the existence of a continuing financial
transaction between the parties on that date. The
issuance of fresh cheques, particularly in replacement of
earlier cheques, is a circumstance that reasonably
indicates acknowledgment of a subsisting liability.
45. Assuming for a moment that initially in 2016 the
accused has issued two cheques and subsequently in
2018 he has issued further two cheques for the sake of
arguments, any prudent person would before handing
27 C.C.16911/2022
over two new signed cheques, will make endeavour to get
back his earlier two cheques. But without making such
endeavour, without collecting back his old cheques, the
accused claims that he has issued further two cheques
and same creates suspicion about the defence of the
accused.
46. The accused contends that he has issued 4 blank
signed cheques to the complainant’s husband. Without
ascertaining what is the outstanding liability, no prudent
person would have given such number of cheques,
especially for an meager amount of Rs 4,00,000/- as per
the accused. At least for the second time, when the
accused claimed that he has issued two cheques at that
time he could have ascertained the outstanding balance
and written the exact amount in the cheques before
giving the cheques. Even such endeavour is also not made
by the accused. Therefore the whole story of the accused
itself is not trustworthy.
47. It is further significant to note here that all the
cheques are dishonored for the reason ‘funds insufficient’.
If at all there was no liability towards the cheques and
they were issued only for security purpose, if he had
28 C.C.16911/2022
already paid Rs 4,00,000/- to the husband of the
complainant by taking loan as per Ex.D1 on 17.12.2020
itself, then nothing prevented the accused to issue ‘stop
payment instructions’ to his banker intimating that his
cheques cannot be honoured as a measure to prevent
misuse of his cheques. Even such steps also not taken by
the accused for the reasons best known to him.
Thereafter also he has not taken any legal course to
recover back his alleged security cheques either from the
complainant or from his husband. Such conduct of the
accused seriously undermines the veracity of his defence.
48. After the cheques got dishonoured, the
complainant has issued a legal notice as per Ex.P9 to the
three different addresses of the accused through RPAD.
As per Ex.P13 postal acknowledgment, the notice is
served on the accused. Another notice given to the
accused for Ex.P16 is not served for want of correct
address of the accused. As per Ex.P17, the legal notice is
returned within Shara ‘addressee refused’. Therefore, as
per Ex.P13 Postal Acknowledgment and Ex.P17 Postal
Shara, the notice is deemed to be served under sec 27 of
29 C.C.16911/2022
49. In his cross-examination para No.1, the accused
has specifically deposed that he is working in KIMS
Hospital from past 35 years and he is residing in
Kumaraswami layout Bengaluru. He has specifically
deposed that he is residing in the first address shown in
the cause title of the complainant. Admittedly the
complainant has given legal notice to the residential
address of the accused as well as to the working place of
the accused. Since the accused has unequivocally
admitted that he is residing in the first address shown in
the complaint, it is proved by the complainant that the
legal notice is issued to the correct address of the accused
and it has been served to the accused as per Ex.P13.
Under such circumstances, the contention of the accused
that the legal notice is not served on him holds no water.
Despite of receiving the legal notice, the accused has not
given reply to the demand notice of the complaint and
same is fatal to the defence and it is a strong ground to
suspect the defence of the accused.
50. K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And
Anr reported in AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 3762, Apex
court held that
30 C.C.16911/2022
“No doubt Sec 138 of the Act does not require
that the notice should be given only by `post’.
Nonetheless the principle incorporated in Sec 27
(quoted above) can profitably be imported in a case
where the sender has despatched the notice by post
with the correct address written on it. Then it can be
deemed to have been served on the sendee unless
he proves that it was not really served and that he
was not responsible for such non-service. Any other
interpretation can lead to a very tenuous position as
the drawer of the cheque who is liable to pay the
amount would resort to the strategy of subterfuge
by successfully avoiding the notice. “
51. In C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed &
Anr (2007) 6 SCC 555, the Hon’ble Apex court has held; “
17. It is also to be borne in mind that the
requirement of giving of 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, can, within 15 days of
receipt of summons from the court in respect of the
complaint under Sec 138 the 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 a 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 the summons from the Court along
31 C.C.16911/2022with the copy of the complaint under Sec 138 of the
Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no
proper service of notice as under Sec 138 , by
ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary
under Sec 27 of the G.C. 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… ”
52. Above case laws aptly applicable to present
case. If the complainant has misused the cheques, the
accused ought to have given the reply to the demand
notice. No such endeavour is made by them for the
reasons best known to him. Though counsel for the
accused has suggested to PW.1 that the legal notice is not
personally served on accused, said defense is not
available to the accused as he has failed to deposit the
cheques amount soon after appearance before the Court
as per above case law.
53. Therefore, having scrutinized the entire evidence
of the accused, this Court is of the view that accused has
failed to prove existence of any transaction with the
husband of the complainant to an extent of Rs 4,00,000/-
32 C.C.16911/2022
or he has paid such Rs 4,00,000/- by taking loan from
Repco Bank as per Ex.D1.
54. The accused has not produced no iota of
admissible evidence to substantiate his contention that
the four cheques were handed over to the complainant’s
husband on 01.06.2018. Under Section 118 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a statutory
presumption as to the date of execution of a negotiable
instrument. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
the Court is bound to presume that the cheques were
issued on the dates appearing on cheques.
55. Accordingly, this Court shall consider that
ExP.P1 to P3 were issued on 22.06.2021 and Ex.P4 was
issued on 17.06.2021, as reflected on the cheques. To
rebut this statutory presumption, the accused is required
to place cogent and admissible evidence demonstrating
that the cheques had in fact been issued in the years 2016
or 2018, as alleged by him. However, no such evidence
has been forthcoming. In the absence of any
documentary or other reliable corroborative evidence, the
defence put forward by the accused remains a mere
assertion and is insufficient to rebut the presumption
33 C.C.16911/2022
under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Consequently, this Court declines to accept the plea that
the cheques were issued in the years 2016 or 2018.
56. For aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view
that the accused has failed to rebut the initial
presumption given in favour of the complainant. Under
such circumstances, the burden does not shifts back on
the complainant to prove her case beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, the inconsistencies existed in the
evidence of PW1 regarding her source of income or lack
of pleading with respect to when exactly the chit
installments are paid to the accused or the minor details
about Ex.P22 does not goes to the root of the case of the
complainant.
57. It is worth mentioning here that Ex.P22 is the
small book produced by the complainant stating that
accused has signed on the said book to prove that the chit
transaction was existed. Since the burden is on the
accused to probablize his defence, it is he who has to
establish before the court that he has not signed on the
said Ex.P22 book. Under such circumstances the
arguments of the counsel for the accused that the said
34 C.C.16911/2022
Ex.P22 is not sent to FSL by the complainant holds no
water.
58. Further this is not a civil case. It arise out of a
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and is not in the nature of a civil suit for
recovery of money. Had this been a money recovery suit
founded upon Ex.P22, the Court would have been
required to examine the contents of Ex.P22 in detail to
determine the exact amount due between the parties.
However, the present complaint is filed on the disputed
cheques, and Ex.P22 has been produced only as
corroborative evidence. Therefore, the contention of the
learned counsel for the accused that the amount reflected
in Ex.P22 does not tally with the amount covered under
the disputed cheques does not, by itself, affect the merits
of the present complaint. Because during her cross-
examination, PW.1 has offered an explanation that the
amount shown in Ex.P22 also includes amounts payable
by other chit members. In view of this explanation, Ex.P22
provides no clear particulars to conclude the exact extet
of amount paid or due. More over the accused is
contenting he has not signed in it and not executed it ,
35 C.C.16911/2022
when such being the case his he cannot selectively rely
upon its contents to dispute the quantum covered under
the cheques. This inconsistent defence substantially
weakens the credibility of the accused’s case.
59. In so far as contention of the accused regarding
that the cheques are presented after lapse of 3 years from
the date of receiving them from the accused or the
cheques are presented with respect to time barred
liability is concerned, this Court is of the firm view that the
moment when the cheques are issued the liability is
revived. Therefore from the date of cheuqes, the
complaint is filed well within time.
60. In Sri D Vijay vs Sri G Jayaprakash on 22
March, 2025, IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
NO.400/2016, Hon’ble High court of Karantaka held that
” In view of the principles laid down in the
judgment of the Apex Court,judgment of the different
High Courts, including this Court, this Court comes to a
conclusion that Court can invoke Section 138 of N.I. Act in
respect of the liability, even if it is a time barred debt
subsequently through a document recognizing the
liability and also promised to pay the same. Hence, the
very contention raised by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner in all the cases regarding no liability
cannot be accepted.”
36 C.C.16911/2022
61. In M/S Vijay Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Vinnay
Aggarwal162 (2009) DLT 23 , Delhi High court also held
that
“6. The ruling upon which reliance has been placed by the
learned advocate for the respondent is applicable on all
fours. In that case loan was advanced in the year 1985 and
the cheque was issued in the year 1990. By the time the
cheque was issued, the debt was barred by limitation
because no acknowledgment was obtained before the
expiry of 3 years from the date of loan. In these
circumstances, it was held there that the debt was not
legally enforceable at the time of issuance of cheque and
the accused could not be punished under sec 138 of the
said Act. In the light of Explanation to the said section, it
was further held therein that in case a cheque is issued for
time barred debt and it is dishonoured, the accused
cannot be convicted under sec 138 on the ground that the
said debt was not legally recoverable.”
62. In Sri Sudhakar Reddy C.B vs Smt Pushpa on
12 October, 2023 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
NO.256/2022, Hon’ble High court of Karanataka held that
“39. Thus, when the questions formulated by the learned
Single Judge of High Court of Bombay was referred to the
Division Bench, it took pains in considering the matter
from various facets and answered both the questions in
the Affirmative. Thereby, holding that issuance of cheque
is a promise in writing within the meaning of sub section
37 C.C.16911/2022
(3) of Section 25 of the Contract Act and it is an exception
to the general rule that the agreement without
consideration is void. Thus, issuance of a cheque satisfies
the ingredients of sub section (3) of Section 25, i.e.,
promise made in writing and signed by the person to be
charged therewith to pay wholly or in part a dent of
which the creditor might have enforced payment, but for
the law for the limitation of suits and as such, the cheque
becomes a cheque drawn towards discharge of a legally
enforceable debt as contemplated by the explanation to
Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, the position of law is
laid down by the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay
and there is no reason for not accepting the same.
40. In view of the settled position of law, even if the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the cheques were issued towards a time barred debt is to
be accepted, by applying the above principle of law to the
present case, issuance of cheques in question amount to
written promise to pay the said debt, as provided under
Section 25(3) of the Contract Act and it creates legally
enforceable debt. Hence, it squarely attracts Section 138
of NI Act. ”
63. In K Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh
and Anr, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1128, the Supreme Court
considered an appeal against the quashing of a
complaint. It ruled that a promissory note executed to
discharge a time-barred debt falls under Section 25(3) of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872, making it a valid and
enforceable agreement.
38 C.C.16911/2022
64. M/S M K Enterprises vs Kumari Varsha Pole on
17 December, 2021 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.
375/2021, Hon’ble High court of Karnataka held that
“26. Further, the defence that even if the version of
the complainant was to be accepted as on date of
presentation of the cheque, the debt was time barred
does not defeat the rights of the complainant in the
present factual matrix. The complainant has specifically
asserted that the amount that was given to the accused
was with the assurance that profits from the business
would be given.
27. The mere factum of payment stated to have
been made in 2010 would not make it a time barred
debt as on the date of issuance of cheque in 2018. As to
when the debt occurred is a factual inquiry. The nature
of the transaction was that in lieu of the investment
made by the complainant, a hotel would be opened in
the name of father of the complainant and profits from
the business would be paid. Accordingly, when once a
cheque is issued in light of the presumption of
consideration by virtue of Section 139, it could be
construed that a cheque has been issued towards a
debt. As to whether the debt was time barred as on the
date of presentation of cheque is to be proved by the
accused. Even otherwise once a cheque is issued it could
be construed to be a promise made in writing under
Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act and if read in
conjunction with illustration(e), the cheque could be
construed to be valid and its dishonour actionable under
Section 138 of NI Act. Accordingly, the contention that
39 C.C.16911/2022the cheque is issued as against a time barred debt and
hence, unenforceable debt is liable to be rejected. ”
65. All the case laws aforementioned have clearly
held that the debt was time barred does not defeat the
rights of the complainant. Issuance of cheques itself
revives the limitation and the liability. Therefore, the
contention of the counsel for the accused that the
complaint is barred by law of limitation holds no water.
66. The counsel for the accused has relied upon
number of case laws and argued that accused need not to
prove his case in entirety. It is the complainant who has to
prove her case beyond reasonable doubt. I have gone
through those case laws.
67. If accused is able to probabilise his defence or
create the dent of the prosecution’s case in any manner,
then the burden shifts back on the complainant. However,
nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of PW1 to
discredit her case. Per contra, the accused has failed to
probabilise his defence with the required amount of
evidence. Indeed stand taken by the accused in cross
examination of PW1 an during chief examination are not
in consonance with each other, for the reasons stated
40 C.C.16911/2022
supra. Under such circumstances, the onus does not
shifts back on the complainant.
68. No doubt it is equally settled law that by way of
cross examination of complainant , accused can demolish
the case of the complainant. But in what context, court
has to apply such principle is a matter of importance.
Firstly the accused has not given reply and taken a
contention regarding the financial capacity of the
complainant in the initial stage itself as per law ladi doen
by apex court in In Ashok Singh V State of Uttar
prasdesh and and another reported in 2025 Live law
(SC)_ 383,
“Pausing here, the Court would only comment that
the reasoning of the High Court as well as the First
Appellate Court and Trial Court on this issue is sound. Just
by taking a counter-stand to raise a probable defence
would not shift the onus on the complainant in such a
case for the plea of defence has to be buttressed by
evidence, either oral or documentary, which in th present
cases, has not been done. Moreover, even if it is
presumed that the complainant had not proved the
source of the money given to the petitioners by way of
loan by producing statement of accounts and/or Income
Tax Returns, the same ipso facto, would not negate such
claim for the reason that the cheques having being issued
and signed by the petitioners has not been denied, and no
evidence has been led to show that the respondent lacked
41 C.C.16911/2022
capacity to provide the amount(s) in question. In Tedhi
Singh v Narayan Dass Mahant, (2022) 6 SCC 735: ’10. The
trial court and the first appellate court have noted that in
the case under Section 138 of the NI Act the complainant
need not show in the first instance that he had the
capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act
is not a civil suit. At the time, when the complainant gives
his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to
the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not
have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the
complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had
the financial capacity. To that extent, the courts in our
view were right in holding on those lines. However, the
accused has the right to demonstrate that the
complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity
and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which
he can do by producing independent materials, namely,
by examining his witnesses and producing documents.”
69. However, the complainant has produced her
account statement and also it is an admitted fact that
both the complainant and accused are working in the
same department i.e. the KIMS Hospital. Therefore, there
is no reason to suspect the financial capacity of the
complainant. Moreover the chit amounts are paid over a
period and not at a time. Therefore, the decisions relied
upon by the accused, which proceeds on a different
factual matrix, are distinguishable and has no application
to the facts of the present case.
42 C.C.16911/2022
70. In so far as inconsistency existed in the evidence
of PW1 is concerned, this court noticed that PW1has been
questioned multiple times on same aspect on different
dates of cross examination. However evidence has to be
appreciated in it’s entirety and cannot be read as bits and
pieces. In the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of
Gujarat reported in 2019 (5) SCALE 138, it is held that
“even after purportedly drawing the
presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the
trial court proceeded to question the want of
evidence on the part of the complainant as regards
the source of funds for advancing loan to the
accused and want of examination of relevant
witnesses who allegedly extended him money for
advancing it to the accused. The Hon‟ble Supreme
Court observed that this approach of the trial court
had been at variance with the principles of
presumption in law. After such presumption, the
onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused
had discharged the onus by bringing on record such
facts and circumstances as to show the
preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour,
any doubt on the complainant’s case could not have
been raised for want of evidence regarding the
source of funds for advancing loan to the accused.”
43 C.C.16911/2022
71. Above principle laid down in by Apex court is
aptly applicable to case in hand. Mere making suggestion
to PW1 or self interested testimony of the accused in chief
examination doesn’t suffice to rebut the legal
presumptions given in favour of the complainant.
72. Further accused contends that he has not filled
the details in the cheque. In view of Sec.20 of the NI Act
the drawer of the cheque need not to fill entire details.
73. (2019) 4 SCC 197) ie Bir Singh V Mukesh Kumar,
Apex court has held that
“A meaningful reading of the provisions of the
Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular,
Sections 20, 87 and 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 to rebut
the presumption that the cheque had been issued for
payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is
immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any
person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed
by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal
provisions of Section 138 would be attracted”.
74. Oriental Bank Of Commerce vs Prabodh
Kumar Tewari , in (2024)12 SCC 165, Apex court held
that
44 C.C.16911/2022
’17. For such a determination, the fact that the
details in the cheque have been filled up not by the
drawer, but by some other person would be immaterial.
The presumption which arises on the signing of the
cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a
hand-writing expert. Even if the details in the cheque
have not been filled up by drawer but by another
person, this is not relevant to the defense whether
cheque was issued towards payment of a debt or in
discharge of a liability. ‘
75. Thus, in light of Section 20 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and the above-cited case laws, any
inconsistencies in handwriting, pen, or ink on the cheques
do not absolve the accused of liability, particularly when
he has admitted the issuance of the cheque in favour of
the complainant. The difference in the handwriting of the
cheque is not a ground to exonerate the liability of the
accused to prove his defense.
76. Having scrutinized the entire evidence placed on
record, this Court is of the considered view that accused
has utterly failed to probabilise his defence. Indeed failed
to rebut the initial presumptions given in favour of the
complainant. With these observations court proceed to
answer POINT NO.I IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
45 C.C.16911/2022
77. POINT NO.II:- In view of the reasons assigned in
above point, it is ample clear that accused has committed
the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act. A bare reading
of sec.138 of the NI Act indicates that the purport of
sec.138 is to prevent and punish the dishonest drawers of
cheques who evade their liability.
78. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent decision in
M/s. Meters & instrument Pvt Ltd. Vs. Kanchana Mehta
reported in (2018)1 SCC-560 held at para 18(ii)
that”(ii) The object of the provision being primarily
compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of
enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial
stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage
subject to appropriate compensation as may be found.” In view of
the reasons assigned in above point, it is ample clear that accused
has committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act.
79. In R. Vijayan vs. Baby and Another reported
in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 528, Apex court held that
‘that unless there were special circumstances, in all
cases of conviction, the Court should uniformly exercise the
power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount and
keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest
thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss,
direct payment of such amount as compensation. This Court
46 C.C.16911/2022
rightly observed that uniformity and consistency in deciding
similar cases by different courts not only increases the
credibility of the cheque as a Negotiable Instrument but also
the credibility of the Courts of Justice’.
80. M/S Kalamani Tex vs P. Balasubramanian
reported in AIRONLINE 2021 SC 82, Apex court
reaffirmed aforementioned principle and held that
“20. As regard to the claim of compensation raised on
behalf of the respondent, we are conscious of the settled
principles that the object of Chapter XVII of the NIA is not
only punitive but also compensatory and restitutive. The
provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal
liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for
realisation of the cheque amount. It is also well settled that
there needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding
compensation and unless there exist special circumstances,
the Courts should uniformly levy fine up to twice the cheque
amount along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per
annum.”
81. The court has to consider above principles while
imposing fine amount. Therefore, having regard to the
extent of amount involved in the transaction, defense
taken by the accused and his failure to prove it, length of
time taken for adjudicating the matter and keeping in
mind the primary object of the provision, this court is of
the opinion that, rather than imposing punitive sentence,
47 C.C.16911/2022
if sentence of fine of Rs.36,80,000/- is imposed with a
direction to compensate the complainant for his monitory
loss, by awarding compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C,
would meet the ends of justice. Further this court makes
it clear that complainant admits that he has received Rs 5
lakhs from the accused during pendency of this case and
same shall be treated as part of fine amount imposed by
this court. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass
following …..
ORDER
The accused is found guilty for the offence
punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the
accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine
of Rs.36,80,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs
Eighty Thousand Only), in default of payment
fine amount, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 months for the offence
punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
48 C.C.16911/2022
Out of the fine amount collected from the
accused, an amount of Rs.36,70,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Six Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) shall
be paid to the complainant as compensation
U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining fine of
Rs.10,000/- shall be adjusted towards the cost of
state expenses.
The bail bonds of the accused shall be in
force till the appeal period is over as
contemplated under the provisions of
Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
Office to supply the copy of the
Judgment to the accused forthwith at free of
cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and
then judgment pronounced in the open court on this the 4 th day of July
2026).
Digitally
signed by
TEJASWINI
TEJASWINI K M
KM Date:
2026.07.08
10:40:39
+0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
49 C.C.16911/2022
ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1: Smt.N.U.Saraswathi
II. List of documents on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P-1 to 4 : Original Cheques.
Ex.P-1(a) to (4) : Signatures of the accused.
Ex.P-5 to 8 : Bank memos.
Ex.P-9 : Legal notice.
Ex.P-10 to 12 : Postal Receipts.
Ex.P-13 : Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.P-14 & 15 : Returned Notices.
Ex.P-16 & 17 : Postal Covers.
Ex.P-18 & 19 : Postal Receipts.
Ex.P-20 : Complaint.
Ex.P-21 : Copy of Statement of Account.
Ex.P-22 : A Small Diary.
III. List of witnesses for the accused:
50 C.C.16911/2022
D.W.1: Sri.Vivekananda H.S
IV. List of documents for accused:
Ex.D-1 : Copy of Bank Statement.
Digitally
signed by
TEJASWINI K
TEJASWINI M
KM Date:
2026.07.08
10:40:47
+0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M ),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
51 C.C.16911/2022
