Bangalore District Court
Basavasri Credit Co Operative Society … vs Rudresh on 17 February, 2026
1
CC No.550/2025
KABC030011322025
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT: BENGALURU
Present : Smt. NIRMALA .S.,
B.A.L., LL.M.,
XXVI Addl., Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.1973
1. Serial number : C.C. No.550/2025
2. Name of the : Basavasri Credit Co-operative
complainant Society Limited,
No.62, Basava Bhavana,
Vidyanagar Main Road,
T. Dasarahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560 057.
Rep. by its Manager
(By Sri. R.S.U. Advocate)
3. Name of the accused : Rudresh
S/o Ganga Shettappa,
Aged about 57 Years
R/at No.12/A, Bagalakunte,
2
CC No.550/2025
Defence Colony,
Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru-560 073.
(By Sri. K.V.S. Advocate)
4. The offence : Section 138 of the N.I. Act
complained of or
proved
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final order : Accused is convicted
7. Date of order : 17-02-2026
******
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant i.e.,
Basavasri Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., against the
accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of complainant case is that, one K.V.
Umesh and Smt. Mamatha are the members at the
3
CC No.550/2025
complainant’s society and they had availed loan of
Rs.1,00,000/- each from the complainant on 26-06-2015 and
for both the parties the accused stood as surety to the said
loans. The said K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S.
defaulted in paying the loan amount with an outstanding
amount of Rs.52,641/- and Rs.1,06,268/- respectively. The
complainant made several requests and demanded them
through demand notice, messages, phone calls and personal
visits. However K.V. Umesh, Smt. Mamatha V.S. nor the
accused paid the said outstanding amount to the
complainant and started postponing the repayment of loan
on one or the other pretest for the reasons best known to
them. After persistent demand made by the complainant
to the said K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S., they both
had not responded to the said demand made by the
complainant towards the repayment of the loan. Without
any alternate the complainant’s officials visited the accused
4
CC No.550/2025
house on 12-12-2024 and demanded the accused to clear
the said outstanding loan amount to the complainant. At
that time the accused agreed to clear the said outstanding
amount and issued a post dated cheque bearing No.467047
dated 13-12-2024 for a sum of Rs.1,58,910/- drawn on
Canara Bank, Bagalagunte Branch. Further it is stated
that when the complainant has presented the aforesaid
cheque for encashment through its banker i.e., Central
Bank of India, Widia Branch, it was dishonoured as
‘drawer’s signature differs from the specimen’ on 17-12-
2024. Further even though the complainant brought the
same fact to the knowledge of the accused through the legal
notice dated 23-12-2024 by RPAD and it has been refused
by the accused. Therefore the complainant aggrieved by
the acts of the accused filed this complaint for dishonour of
the cheque issued by the accused towards the discharge of
legally recoverable debt. As such is the case failure on the
5
CC No.550/2025
part of the accused to repay the cheque amount the
complainant has approached the court for the reliefs
claimed in the complaint.
3. After filing this complaint, this court took cognizance
of the offence and registered the criminal case against the
accused and summons was issued to him. In response to
summons, he appeared before the court through his counsel
and he was enlarged on bail. Thereafter plea was recorded
and accused pleaded not guilty.
4. The complainant has represented by its Manager, the
complainant by name Santhosh and he has been examined
as PW1 and he has produced 11 documents as per Ex-P1 to
11. On the other hand the accused is examined as DW-1
and got marked 01 document as per Ex.D-1.
6
CC No.550/2025
5. On perusal of entire case file and evidence available
on record the following points would arise for my
consideration are:
1) Whether the complainant proves
that, the accused in due discharge of
legally recoverable debt or other liability
had issued the alleged cheque bearing
No.467047 dated 13-12-2024 for
Rs.1,58,910/- drawn on Canara Bank,
Bagalagunte Branch, Bengaluru?
2) Whether the complainant proves that,
on presentation of said cheque, same
was returned unpaid as “drawer’s
signature differs from the specimen” and
despite of giving legal notice, he failed to
pay the cheque amount, thereby he
committed an offence punishable under
section 138 of NI Act ?
3) What order?
7
CC No.550/2025
6. Heard on both sides and I have also perused the
entire materials available on record.
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.3 : As per the final order for the
following:-
REASONS
POINTS NO.1 and 2 :
Both points 1 and 2 are taken up together for common
discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
8. It is the case of the complainant that, one K.V. Umesh
and Smt. Mamatha V.S. are the members at the
complainant’s society and they had availed loan of
Rs.1,00,000/- each from the complainant on 26-06-2015 and
for both the parties the accused stood as surety to the said
loans. The said K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S.
8
CC No.550/2025
defaulted in paying the loan amount with an outstanding
amount of Rs.52,641/- and Rs.1,06,268/- respectively. The
complainant made several requests and demanded them
through demand notice, messages, phone calls and personal
visits. However K.V. Umesh, Smt. Mamatha V.S. nor the
accused paid the said outstanding amount to the
complainant and started postponing the repayment of loan
on one or the other pretest for the reasons best known to
them. After persistent demand made by the complainant to
the said K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S., they both
had not responded to the said demand made by the
complainant towards the repayment of the loan. Without
any alternate the complainant’s officials visited the accused
house on 12-12-2024 and demanded the accused to clear
the said outstanding loan amount to the complainant. At
that time the accused agreed to clear the said outstanding
amount and issued a post dated cheque bearing No.467047
9
CC No.550/2025
dated 13-12-2024 for a sum of Rs.1,58,910/- drawn on
Canara Bank, Bagalagunte Branch. Further it is stated
that when the complainant has presented the aforesaid
cheque for encashment through its banker i.e., Central
Bank of India, it was dishonoured as ‘drawer’s signature
differs from the specimen’ on 17-12-2024. Further even
though the complainant issued the legal notice on 23-12-
2024 by intimating the dishonour of the cheque to the
accused, the same has been refused by the accused.
Further even though the notice has been issued to the
accused, the accused not repaid the cheque amount.
Therefore, the accused having committed the offence
punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act. Hence, the complainant has
come before the court with this complaint.
9. To prove the contentions of the complainant the
manager of the complainant by name Santhosh has been
examined as PW1. PW-1 has filed his examination-in-chief
10
CC No.550/2025
by way of affidavit which is replica of complaint averments.
Further PW-1 has produced alleged Ex-P2 cheque which
was issued by the accused towards discharge of loan
amount of Rs.1,58,910/-. On presentation of the said
cheque same has been returned as per the Ex.P-3 return
memo as “drawer’s signature differs from the specimen”.
Further as per Ex-P4 the complainant issued legal notice
on 23-12-2024 through RPAD to the accused, the same has
been returned unserved as “refused” it can be seen from
Ex.P-6.
10. Before going to the merits of this case first of all I
would like to glance over the law pertaining to the instant
case. Admittedly the present case filed under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act to bring home guilt against the
accused, the complainant must prove the following
ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
11
CC No.550/2025
i) That, there is a legally enforceable debt.
ii) That the cheque was drawn from
account of bank for discharge in
whole or in part of any debt or other
liability which presuppose a legally
enforceable debt;
iii) Cheque so issued had been
returned due to drawer’s signature
differs from the specimen.
11. In a proceeding under section 138 of NI Act, the first
and foremost ingredient is that, the alleged cheque must be
drawn on account maintained by the accused and signature
on alleged cheque belongs to him. But in this case the
accused admits that the cheque belongs to the accused, but
he denies the signature in the cheque.
12. Further in this case on perusal of Ex-P2 cheque and
bankers memo Ex-P3 it is clear that, on presentation of
said cheque it was returned as “drawer’s signature differs
from the specimen”.
12
CC No.550/2025
13. Further on perusal of the case file it is found that the
complainant has issued legal notice through RPAD as
required under section 138 (b) & (c) of NI Act to the
address of the accused and the same has been refused by
the accused.
14. Here since the accused has admitted the cheque
belongs to him and the cheque belongs to his bank account,
but he denies the signature in the cheque. As such
whatever the presumption contemplated U/s.139 of NI Act
is not drawn in this case as held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Rangappa vs. Mohan reported in AIR 2010(11)
SCC 441.
15. It is true that, even though the cheque belongs to the
accused, but the accused in this case very seriously
disputes the signature stating that the signature is in the
cheque is not belongs to the accused. As such the initial
13
CC No.550/2025
burden of proving the case of the complainant is not
discharged. Even though the law grant the initial
presumption in favour of the complainant, but as the
accused has denied his signature in the cheque it is the
burden cost upon the complainant to prove his case by
producing the oral and documentary evidence so as to show
that there was legally enforceable debt stands against the
accused and for repayment of the same the accused has
issued the cheque.
16. In view of that the complainant Basavasri Credit Co-
Operative Society Ltd., is represented through its Manager
by name Santhosh. In order to prove the same the
complainant has produced the authorisation letter
authorising the P.W.1 to prosecute the case. The Ex.P-1
authorisation letter which is clearly established that the
present complainant is having an authority to represent
the instant case on behalf of the complainant society.
14
CC No.550/2025
Further to avail the presumption the complainant has
been examined himself as PW-1 and marked exhibits
Ex.P-1 to 11 i.e., Ex.P-1 is the authorisation letter, Ex.P-2
is the cheque, Ex.P-3 is the endorsement, Ex.P-4 is the
legal notice, Ex.P-5 is the postal receipt, Ex.P-6 is the
returned postal cover, Ex.P-7 is the loan application, Ex.P-8
is the On Demand Pro-note, Ex.P-9 is the loan application,
Ex.P-10 is the On Demand pro-note and Ex.P-11 is the
demand notice. Out of these documents to prove the
presumption in favour of the complainant on perusal of the
Ex.P-1 Authorisation letter for the PW-1 to prosecute the
case. Ex.P-2 is the cheque bearing No.467047 dated
13-12-2024. Ex.P-3 is the endorsement dated 17-12-2024 as
the same is issued as a return memo for ‘drawer’s signature
differs from the specimen’. Further as per the Ex.P-4 is the
legal notice by which the complainant has issued the legal
notice to the accused dated 23-12-2024 and the same has
15
CC No.550/2025
been refused by the accused. According to complainant the
K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S. had obtained the loan
from the complainant bank and defaulted themselves from
repaying the loan amount i.e., Rs.52,641/- and Rs.1,06,268/-
in total Rs.1,58,910/-. But even though after repeated
demands by the complainant the K.V. Umesh and Smt.
Mamatha V.S. has not at all repaid the same, but finally
when the bank people went to the accused’s house
demanding the amount on 12-12-2024 at that time this
accused has agreed to clear the said outstanding amount,
had issued the cheque bearing No.467047 for the amount
of Rs.1,58,910/-. As such as per the contentions taken by
the complainant on perusal of the Ex.P-2 cheque it very
clearly appears that it belongs to the account of the accused
and when the same was presented for the encashment the
same has been dishonoured by the bank as per Ex.P-3 for
the reason ‘drawer’s signature differs from the specimen’.
16
CC No.550/2025
Further even though the complainant has issued notice to
the accused intimating dishonour of the cheque as per
Ex.P-4, but it was returned unserved as per Ex.P-6 and
also accused has not repaid the loan amount.
17. At this point of time it is very much necessary to
discuss with regards to the contentions and the defence
taken by the accused in the cross-examination as well as in
the chief-examination of the accused. On perusal of the
same it is found that in the chief-examination accused has
deposed and taken a contention that in the complainant
society the accused and his wife are members and his
wife’s name is Pushpalatha and his wife was also doing
financial transactions with the complainant society.
Further it is deposed that the wife of the accused has
obtained loan of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant bank on
31-10-2015 and it is very clearly depicts in the Ex.D-1 and
this accused stood as the surety for that loan. Further at
17
CC No.550/2025
the time of obtaining of the loan by his wife, this accused
has issued the empty cheque as the security for the loan
obtained by his wife and he has given the cheque in the
year 2015 and after fully repayment of the loan amount
this accused has not taken the cheque back. Further the
said cheque was not returned by the complainant even
after repeated request by the accused. Further the accused
deposed that he has not signed in the said cheque and not
written any contents in the cheque. Further he has
deposed that he knows K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S.
even they are doing financial transaction with the society
and this accused has given surety for the loan obtained by
the K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S. and they have
also repaid the loan. Further deposed that the
complainant has filed false case against the accused
therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.
18
CC No.550/2025
18. As already stated above it is the contention of the
complainant that K.V. Umesh and Mamatha V.S. has
obtained the loan of Rs.52,641/- and Rs.1,06,268/- in total
Rs.1,58,910/- was balance outstanding, but after repeated
request and phone calls the K.V. Umesh and Smt.
Mamatha V.S. have not at all responded to the
complainant, as such finally when the complainant has
approached the accused’s house as he is the surety for the
loan of the K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S., at that
time the accused has issued the cheque agreeing to repay
the loan amount.
19. But on the other hand the contentions taken by the
accused that this accused has not at all issued the cheque
to the complainant as contended by the complainant that,
the cheque was issued for the repayment of the loan
amount of K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S. But it is
contended by the accused that the cheque was empty
19
CC No.550/2025
cheque was issued by the accused at the time of obtaining
of loan of Rs.50,000/- by his wife from the complainant
society. At that time the accused issued the Ex.P-2 cheque
without signing and without filling the same. Further it is
also appears that the accused has taken the contention that
whatever the loan obtained by the wife of the accused is
already paid by the wife of the accused. But the
complainant has not returned the cheque even though the
loan has been closed. Further in support of the contentions
taken by the accused, the accused has got marked Ex.D-1
and deposed that the account has been closed that the loan
has been repaid completely.
20. Here in support of the contentions of the
complainant, the complainant got marked Ex.P-1 to
Ex.P-11. Further in support of the accused, the accused has
got marked Ex.D-1. On perusal of the Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11
cheque was belonging to the accused and on presentation of
20
CC No.550/2025
the same it was dishonoured by the bank for “drawer’s
signature differs from the specimen”. Further on issuance
of the notice to the accused, the same was not received by
the accused, but was refused by the accused. Further in
this case it is very clearly appears that on perusal of the
Ex.P-7 it is the loan application in the name of Mamatha
Ex.P-8 is the On Demand pro-note executed by the
Mamatha and for that two persons are sureties by name
K.V. Umesh and M.G. Rudresh. Further on perusal of
Ex.P-9 i.e., loan application in the name of the Umesh.
Further on perusal of Ex.P-10 On Demand Pro-note it very
clearly appears that the borrower is the Umesh and the
sureties are Mamatha and M.G. Rudresh. Here on perusal
of the exhibits it is very clearly appears that there was loan
obtained by the K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S. from
the complainant Bank and one person by name Rudresh
stood as surety for their loan. Further the same is also
21
CC No.550/2025
admitted by the accused that he has stood as the surety to
the loan of the K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S.
21. Here with regard to the contentions taken by the
accused that he has issued the empty cheque for the loan
obtained by his wife i.e., amount of Rs.50,000/-. In support
of the same he has produced the Ex.D-1 i.e., Pass book
issued by the complainant bank in favour of the accused’s
wife. On perusal of the same it very clearly shows that
balance due on 02-12-2015 was Rs.50,000/- and it was
completely repaid on 16-03-2020 and account closed on
16-03-2020.
22. On perusal of this contentions of both the parties it is
true that K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S. has also
obtained the loan from the complainant, but there is no
document to show that K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S.
has completely repaid the loan amount. Further it is also
22
CC No.550/2025
true that the wife of the accused by name Pushpalatha has
also obtained loan of Rs.50,000/- and repaid the same on
16-03-2020. Here it is also very clear that the loan of the
K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S. are not repaid and it
is not proved by the accused that, that loan has been fully
repaid. Here it has to be seen that if really as contended
by the accused that the blank cheque without signature
and without writing anything in the cheque has been
issued by the accused as a security to the loan obtained by
the wife of the accused Smt. Pushpalatha definitely after
16-03-2020 the accused should have obtained back the
cheque which is given for security purpose. But in this case
even though the accused contended that after his repeated
demands the complainant has not returned the cheque of
the accused. Here in the cross-examination it is also very
clearly admitted by the accused that he has not lodged any
complaint before the police and also he has not issued any
23
CC No.550/2025
legal notice to the complainant seeking for return of the
cheque and also he has not sought for the return of the
same through the court of law by filing complaint and also
he has not sought for the return of the same through his
wife. Further in this case it is also contended by the
accused that the complainant has misappropriated the
cheque. As such is the case if the same has been done by
the complainant definitely a prudent man of a common
conscience will definitely will take any legal action. But in
this case accused has not taken any legal action against the
complainant as such doubt arises in the contentions taken
by the accused.
23. Further with regard to the defence of the accused with
regard to the notice has not been served to the accused is
concerned with this regard the accused admitted in his
cross-examination that he is residing from 1998 in No.12A,
Bagalagunte Defence colony, Nagasandra Post and on
24
CC No.550/2025
23-12-2024 also he was residing in the same address till
now and any letter correspondence to this address will
reach the accused and summons from the court has also
served to this address. With this regard I have perused
the causetitle of the complaint in that same address has
been mentioned with regard to the accused address and
further I have perused the Ex.P-4 i.e., legal notice in that
also the address of the accused is maintained as same. As
such as per the Sec.27 of the General Clauses Act it is very
clear that notice issued to the correct address of the
accused is presumed to be served to the accused. As such
in this case even though the notice has been refused by the
accused in the eyes of law the refusal of any notice which is
sent to the correct address of the accused the same
considered as ‘due service’.
24. Further in this case another defence taken by the
accused that the signature in the cheque is not belonging to
25
CC No.550/2025
the accused. When the accused disputes his signature and
disputes by stating that his signature has been forged and
his cheque has been misappropriated, at that time it is
bounden duty of the accused to take a legal action against
such act. Further if really the accused disputes his
signature it is the burden cost upon the accused to prove
that the signature is not belonging to the accused, but is
forged for that he should have sought for forensic
examination of the signature and he has to prove that the
signature is not belongs to him. But in this even though
accused has cross-examined the PW-1 and he has examined
himself as DW-1 and in his cross-examination he also
admits that in the loan application of K.V. Umesh and Smt.
Mamatha V.S. and his wife he has singed as surety in
Kannada whereas in the Board meeting and in the
membership application he admits that both in Kannada
and English both languages he signs. As such when the
26
CC No.550/2025
accused has got two forms of signature i.e., Kannada and
English when it is disputed by him he should have sought
for forensic examination of the same by referring the same
to handwriting expert, but in this case the accused has not
at all sought for such relief.
25. Therefore upon perusing the above discussions made
by this court it is very clear that the accused has failed to
prove that the alleged cheque has been issued by the
accused at the time of obtaining loan in the name of his
wife as a security, but on the other hand it is the
complainant who has successfully proved its case along
with the documents that the K.V. Umesh and Smt.
Mamatha V.S. has obtained loan from the complainant and
this accused Rudresh has stood as surety and signed in the
loan application and pro-note. Further when the
K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S. has not repaid the
amount and not responded to the complainant, the
27
CC No.550/2025
complainant has approached the surety for repayment of
the loan. At that time this accused being the surety has
issued the cheque for the repayment of the loan amount
obtained by the K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S. As
such it is very clear that Ex.P-2 cheque has been issued by
the accused for repayment of the legally recoverable debt
I.e., the loan which was borrowed by the K.V. Umesh and
Smt. Mamatha V.S.. and this accused being surety having
the equal liability as of the principal borrower of the loan
has issued the cheque for repayment of the same as such in
my considered opinion whatever the case of the
complainant has been successfully proved by the
complainant with oral and documentary evidence. On the
other hand the accused utterly failed to rebut the
presumption and also disprove the case of the complainant
by cogent and relevant oral and documentary evidence. As
28
CC No.550/2025
such in my considered opinion the accused has committed
an offence.
26. Therefore, it can be said that the complainant has
successfully proved that the K.V. Umesh and Smt.
Mamatha V.S. was due the amount as mentioned in the
cheque and it is legally recoverable debt. Further the
accused has issued cheque undertaking to repay that
legally recoverable debt. Contrary to that, in order to
prove the defence of the accused, he has not produced
sufficient materials before the court. Further as such on the
failure of the accused to prove the same, it is presumed
that the cheque was issued for the legally recoverable debt.
Further on the other hand it is also clear that the accused
has not proved that the entire repayment was made by the
K.V. Umesh and Smt. Mamatha V.S., as such it cannot be
said that the accused has repaid entire loan amount and
29
CC No.550/2025
they were not due the amount as mentioned in the alleged
cheque.
27. Therefore, looking into these all documents and facts
and circumstances, I am of the considerable opinion that,
the complainant has successfully proved that, the accused
had issued alleged cheque for repayment of due loan
amount and it is a legally recoverable debt.
28. However, in the case on hand, the accused has failed
to rebut the evidence of PW1. As such I am of the opinion
that, the accused has issued Ex.P2 cheque for discharge of
legally recoverable debt. Therefore the presumption has to
be raised in favour of the complainant as contemplated
under section 139 of N.I. Act.
29. Therefore the materials placed by the complainant
corroborates with each other with respect to the
involvement of legally recoverable debt. So these all
30
CC No.550/2025
documents are clearly established that, the alleged cheque
amount is legally recoverable debt. So in the absence of
disproof of complainant case, I have no hesitation to believe
the case of the complainant i.e., it has proved their case as
per the standard of proof by producing relevant and cogent
evidence. Even the entire materials indicates to the court
that, complainant has filed the complaint in a proper
manner i.e., within the stipulated time under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act and further there is no
endeavors on behalf of the accused to disprove the case of
the complainant by producing relevant and cogent evidence.
Accordingly I am of the considered opinion that the accused
is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under
section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and I answered
these points No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
31
CC No.550/2025
POINT No.3
30. In view of the findings on points No.1 and 2 to
compensate the holder in due course the accused who has
issued cheque without having sufficient funds in his
account has to be punished suitably. Therefore considering
the facts and circumstances, the accused is liable to pay the
above amount with the reasonable interest as stated as
compensation and expenses to complainant. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
Acting U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is
convicted for the offence punishable U/s.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to
pay a fine Rs.1,80,451/- (Rupees One Lakh
Eighty thousand Four hundred and fifty
one only)
32
CC No.550/2025In default of payment of fine amount he
shall under go simple imprisonment for 03
(three ) months.
Further, acting U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C. a sum
of Rs.1,77,451/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy
seven thousand four hundred and fifty
one only) is order to be paid to complainant
as compensation and remaining amount of
Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only)
shall go to the state.
It is made it clear that in view of section
421 of Cr.P.C. the liability of accused to pay the
compensation will not be absolved even if he
under go default sentence.
The bail bond executed by the accused and
surety stand canceled.
33
CC No.550/2025
Supply free copy of judgment to the
accused.
(Typed directly on computer to my dictation by the
stenographer in the chamber, corrected and then pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 17th day of February 2026)
Digitally signed by
NIRMALA
NIRMALA Date: 2026.02.23 13:17:04
+0530
(Smt. NIRMALA .S.)
XXVI ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 : Santhosh Witness examined for the accused: D.W.1 : M.G. Rudresh.
List of Documents marked for the Complainant:
Ex. P-1 Authorisation letter
Ex. P-2 Cheque
Ex. P-2(a) Signature of the accused
Ex. P-3 Bank Endorsement
Ex. P-4 Copy of legal notice
34
CC No.550/2025
Ex. P-5 Postal receipt
Ex. P-6 Returned postal cover
Ex. P-7 Loan application
Ex. P-8 On Demand Pro-note
Ex. P-9 Loan application
Ex. P-10 On Demand Pro-note
Ex. P-11 Demand notice
List of Documents marked for the accused:
Ex.D-1 Passbook.
(Smt. NIRMALA .S.)
XXVI ACJM, Bengaluru.
