Bangalore District Court
Chandrashekhar .S vs R Mahadev Gowda on 7 February, 2026
SCCH-2 1 C.C.No. 2439/2023
KABC020063452023
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-2).
C.C.No. 2439/2023
:: Present ::
Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
6th Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM, Bengaluru.
Dated: On this the 07th day of February, 2026.
Complainant : Sri Chandrashekahar S
S/o late Subba Shetty C P,
Aged about 68 years,
R/at: No. CS-06,
Ram Chaitanya Apartments,
Saibaba temple road,
Kodigehalli, Bengaluru 560092.
(By Sri. G S Srinivas, Advt.,)
- Vs. -
Accused : Sri R Mahadev Gowda
S/o late Ramachandrappa,
Aged about 60 years,
SCCH-2 2 C.C.No. 2439/2023
Chief managing Director of
DEE MANDALA INFRASTRUCTURE
PVT LTD.,
R/at: No. 28/1, 6th main,
9th cross, Malleswaram,
Bengaluru 560003.
(By Sri. S Vinod, Advocate)
:: J U D G M E N T :
:
The complainant has filed the present complaint
U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the accused has
committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act (herein after referred as N.I.Act).
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:-
The complainant has booked a flat bearing No. AP-1,
DEE MANDALA – RETREAT APARTMENTS, situated at
Hennur village, Kasaba hobli, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore on 12.10.2011 with the accused vide agreement
of sale dated 12.10.2011 and Construction agreement dated
12.10.2011. But the accused requested the complainant to
change the flat No. AP-1 to AP-2 which costs around
Rs.70,00,000/- which has been paid by the complainant on
various dates. Subsequently, the complainant came to know
about the legal hurdles with the revenue authorities, due to
which the accused could not continue the construction of the
SCCH-2 3 C.C.No. 2439/2023building. Hence, complainant demanded the accused to
repay the amount.
Further, the accused instead of repaying the amount had
arranged the flat No. CS-06, RAM CHAITANYA
APARTMENTS, situated at Kodigehalli, Bengaluru which was
owned by him for temporary accommodation. Thereafter, the
complainant has came to know about the loan raised by the
accused against the said flat, thereafter the accused
requested the complainant to clear the loan. Accordingly,
the complainant cleared the loan and the accused executed
the registered sale deed with respect to the said flat in the
name of complainant.
After the lapse of few months, i.e., on 15.09.2016, the
accused’s son Dheeraj M Gowda agreed to sell 1 acre out of 1
acre 11.12 guntas in Survey No.11/2 of Somasandra village,
Thyamogandlu hobli, Nelamangala taluk, Bengaluru for a
total consideration amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. The
complainant has consented for the same and paid
Rs.25,00,000/- as advance sale consideration vide
agreement dated 15.09.2016. But the accused failed to
perform his part of contract. Hence the complainant has
demanded for both the amounts of Rs.70,00,000/- and
Rs.25,00,000/- with interest. Subsequently, the accused has
borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- between November 2016
SCCH-2 4 C.C.No. 2439/2023
to march 2017 from the complainant. In all, the accused has
borrowed a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- from the complainant.
Further, the accused instead of repayment of the same
has threatened the complainant. As such the complainant
has lodged the complaint at Hennur PS, Bengaluru.
Thereafter, the accused has agreed to pay Rs.1,25,00,000/-
to the complainant and entered into an agreement dated
13.07.2022 and issued three cheques in case the amount
have not been paid by the accused within the stipulated
period.
As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant
has presented the cheque bearing No. 000103 dated
24.10.2022 for Rs.45,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra
Bank, Modi hospital road, Basaveshwara nagar 2 nd stage
branch, Bengaluru for encashment through his banker
HDFC Bank, Sahakar Nagar branch, Bengaluru on
25.10.20225. However, the said cheque was dishonored and
returned unpaid with an endorsement as “Payment
Stopped by Drawer” on 27.10.2022. Thereafter the
complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused on
23.11.2022 which was duly served on the accused on
25.11.2022. In-spite of service of notice also the accused
neither paid the amount nor sent any reply. Hence, cause of
action arose to file the complaint.
SCCH-2 5 C.C.No. 2439/2023
3. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/
Sec.138 of N.I.Act. After filing of the complaint, the sworn
statement of the complainant was recorded and it prima-
facie found that the accused committed the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, criminal case was
registered and the summons was issued to the accused.
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared
through his counsel and thereafter plea was recorded. The
accused was denied the accusation leveled against him,
claimed to be tried and stated that he has defence to make.
Further, the statement of the accused as contemplated
U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused has denied
the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the
evidence of complainant and submitted that he has defence
evidence.
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in Indian Bank
Association and Others vs Union Bank of India and
Another reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528, held that “Sworn
Statement of the complainant has to be treated as
examination in chief”. In the instant case, the complainant
examined himself as P.W.1 and the documents have been
marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21 & Ex.P3(a). Thereafter, P.W.1
was subject to the process of cross-examination from the
SCCH-2 6 C.C.No. 2439/2023
side of accused. Per contra, the accused has not adduced
any evidence.
6. Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the
materials available on record.
7. Now the points that arise for consideration of this
Court are as hereunder:
1. Whether the complainant has
proved that the accused has
committed the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of
N.I.Act?
2. What Order?
8. The findings of this Court to the above-referred points
are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
9. POINT No.1: In order to prove the case of the
complainant, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 by
filing affidavit in support of his oral examination-in-chief. In
the affidavit, P.W.1 has reiterated the complaint averments in
SCCH-2 7 C.C.No. 2439/2023
verbatim. Hence, this Court need not to recapitulate the
same once again at this juncture. In support of his oral
testimony, P.W.1 got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.21 & Ex.P3(a).
10. Now itself it is appropriate to see the documents
marked at Ex.P-Series.
Ex.P-Series.
Ex.P.1 is the cheque in question. Ex.P.1(a) is the signature
of accused. Ex.P.2 is the bank endorsement
dated:27.10.2022. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of the legal notice
dated:23.11.2022. Ex.P.3(a) is the postal receipt. Ex.P.4 is
the postal track consignment. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of
agreement of construction. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of
agreement of sale of undivided share of land.
Ex.P.7 & Ex.P8 are the certified copies of receipts dated
12.10.2011. Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 are the certified copies of
receipts dated 26.11.2011 and 12.01.2012 respectively.
Ex.P12 is the certified copy of receipt dated 08.01.2013.
Ex.P13 is the certified copy of sale agreement dated
15.09.2016. Ex.P14 is the certified copy of authorization
letter dated 23.07.2015.
Ex.P15 & Ex.P16 are the certified copies of receipts dated
23.07.2015. Ex.P17 is the certified copy of receipt dated
SCCH-2 8 C.C.No. 2439/2023
19.01.2016. Ex.P18 is the certified copy of receipt voucher
for the financial year 2016-2017. Ex.P19 & Ex.P20 are the
certified copies of agreements dated 21.02.2022. Ex.P21 is
the certified copy of agreement dated 13.07.2022.
11. Before going to discuss the main aspect, it is worth to
reproduce the provisions of Sec.138 and 139 of N.I.Act, the
same as hereunder:
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency,
etc., of funds in the account: –
Where any cheque drawn by a
person on an account maintained by
him with a banker for payment of
any amount of money to another
person from out of that account for
the discharge, in whole or in part,
of any debt or other liability, is
returned by the bank unpaid, either
because of the amount of money
standing to the credit of that
account is insufficient to honour the
cheque or that it exceeds the
amount arranged to be paid from
that account by an agreement made
with that bank, such person shall
SCCH-2 9 C.C.No. 2439/2023be deemed to have committed an
offence and shall, without prejudice
to any other provisions of this 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:
Provided that nothing contained
in this section shall apply unless-
(a) the cheque has been
presented to the bank within a
period of Six months from the date
on which it is drawn or within the
period of its validity, whichever is
earlier; (The period of 6 months has
been reduced to 3 months, vide R.B.I.
notification No.RBI/2011-
12/251,DBOD.AMLBC
No.47/14.01.001/2011-12, dated:4 th
November 2011 (w.e.f. 01.04.2012))
(b) the payee or the holder in due
course of the cheque, as the case
may be, makes a demand for the
payment of the said amount of
SCCH-2 10 C.C.No. 2439/2023money by giving a notice in writing,
to the drawer of the cheque, within
thirty days of the receipt of
information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque
as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails
to make the payment of the said
amount of money to the payee or, as
the case may be, to the holder in
due course of the cheque, within
fifteen days of the receipt of the
said notice.
Explanation: – For the purposes of
the section, “debt or other liability”
means a legally enforceable debt or
other liability.
139. Presumption in favour of
holder:- It shall be presumed, unless
the contrary is proved, that the
holder of a cheque received the
cheque of the nature referred to in
section 138 for the discharge, in
whole or in part, of any debt or
other liability.
SCCH-2 11 C.C.No. 2439/2023
12. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898,
between Rangappa V/s Mohan wherein their lordships have
observed at para 26 as hereunder:
“No doubt that there is a initial
presumptionwhich favours the
complainant”.
13. It is germane to note that the proceedings U/Sec.138
of N.I. Act is an exception to the general principle that the
accused is presumed to be innocent until the charge leveled
against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the
proceedings initiated U/Sec.138 of the N.I. Act proof of
beyond reasonable doubt is subject to the presumption
envisaged under Sec.139 of the N.I. Act. Once the
requirement of Sec.138 of the N.I. Act is fulfilled, then it has
to be presumed that the cheque was issued in discharge of
legally recoverable debt or liability. The presumption
envisaged under Sec.139 of N.I. Act is mandatory
presumption and it has to be raised in every cheque bounce
cases.
14. Now, the important question before this Court is
whether the complainant has complied the ingredients of
Sec.138 of N.I.Act or not? In this connection, Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.4 are relevant. Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing No.000103
SCCH-2 12 C.C.No. 2439/2023
dated:24.10.2022 for Rs.45,00,000/-. Ex.P1(a) is the
signature of the accused. Ex.P.2 is the bank endorsement
dated:27.10.2022. On careful perusal of these documents, it
appears to this court that, the complainant has presented
the cheque for encashment within the stipulated period.
15. Now, the question before this court is whether Ex.P.1
belongs to the accused and signature found in Ex.P.1is the
signatures of the accused or not?. In the instant case, the
accused examined as contemplated U/Sec.313 of CRPC. At
which point of time, he has stated that the complainant has
entered higher amount in the cheque and he has not liable to
pay such amount. That apart, PW.1 was cross examined
from the side of accused. A careful perusal of cross-
examination of PW.1, this court do not find any suggestion
regarding Ex.P1 is not pertaining to the accused and Ex.P1(a)
is not the signature of the accused. Therefore, it can be
inferred that, Ex.P1 is pertaining to the bank account of
accused and Ex.P1(a) is the signature of accused.
16. Now, the next question before this court is whether
the complainant has issued the legal notice in accordance
with law or not?. In this connection Ex.P.3 & Ex.P3(a) are
relevant. Ex.P.3 is the legal notice dated: 23.11.2022.
Ex.P.3(a) is the RPAD receipt. On careful perusal of these
documents, it appears to this court that, the complainant
SCCH-2 13 C.C.No. 2439/2023
has issued the legal notice to the accused on 23.11.2022 and
same was dispatched on 23.11.2022 itself. Therefore, it is
crystal clear that the complainant has issued the legal notice
within 30 days from the date of receiving of endorsement
from the bank.
17. Now, the next important question before this Court is
whether notice was served on the accused or not?. In this
connection Ex.P.4 is relevant. A careful perusal of Ex.P.4, it
appears to this Court that, the notice was served to the
accused on 25.11.2022. Moreover the accused has not
disputed the address mentioned in Ex.P3. That apart, the
accused has not produced any documents to substantiate
regarding the address mentioned in Ex.P3 is not pertaining
to him.
18. It is relevant to state that the object of issuance of
notice to the drawer is to provide an opportunity to pay the
cheque amount within 15 days of service of notice and
thereby free himself from the penal consequences of Sec.138
of Negotiable Instruments Act.
19. At this juncture, it is worth to rely on the decision of
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2007(6) SCC 555, between
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr, Wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court held as hereunder: ” Section 27 gives
SCCH-2 14 C.C.No. 2439/2023
rise to a presumption that service of notice has been
effected when it is sent to the correct address by
registered post. In view of the said presumption, when
stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to
the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further
aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the
notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that
the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice.
Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee,
service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the
time at which the letter would have been delivered in the
ordinary course of business. This Court has already held
that when a notice is sent by registered post and is
returned with a postal endorsement refused or not
available in the house or house locked or shop closed or
addressee not in station, due service has to be
presumed”.
20. The above referred decision is aptly applicable to the
case on hand. In the instant case, the accused has not
disputed the issuance of notice and address mentioned in
Ex.P3. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that, the
complainant has correctly issued the notice to the address of
accused and the accused has received the same.
SCCH-2 15 C.C.No. 2439/2023
21. Now, the question before this court is whether the
endorsement as “Payment Sttoped by Drawer” attracts the
offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act or not?.
In this regard it is appropriate to rely on the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2012(13) SCC 375
between Laxmi Dyechem V/s State of Gujarath, wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court held at para 16 as hereunder: ”
the expression ‘amount of money…… is insufficient’
appearing in Sec.138 of the Act is a genus and dishonour
for reasons such as “Account Closed”, “Payment
stopped”, “referred to the drawer”, are only species of
that genus”. Therefore, with the help of the above
referred decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court it is crystal
clear that, if the endorsement issued by the bank as
“Payment Stopped by Drawer” also attracts an offence
punishable under section 138 of N.I Act. Besides the
above referred aspects, as per Sec.118 and Sec.139 of NI Act
presumption favours the complainant. Hence the
complainant has complied the ingredients of Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
22. Now, it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court between Hiten P Dalal V/s Brathindranath
Manarji reported in 2001(6) SCC 16, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court observed that, “under Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, the complainant is not required to
SCCH-2 16 C.C.No. 2439/2023
establish either the legality or enforceability of the debt
or liability since he can avail the benefit of presumption
U/Sec.118 and Sec.139 of N.I. Act in his favour”.
23. It is also settled position of law that, the presumption
available U/Sec. 138 of N.I Act is a rebuttable presumption.
Further, to rebut the said presumption the accused need not
to enter into the witness box. However, the accused can
establish his probable defence by creating a doubt about the
existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
24. Further, it is also settled position of law that, the
standard of proof of rebutting the presumption is that of
preponderance of probabilities. It is also settled position of
law that, if the accused succeeded in rebutting the
presumption then the burden shifts back to the complainant.
At this juncture, again it is worth to refer the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898,
between Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court has observed that, “the standard of proof to
rebut the presumption is that one of preponderance of
probabilities”.
25. It is also settled position of law that, “it is
immaterial that, the cheque may have been filled in by
any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly
SCCH-2 17 C.C.No. 2439/2023
signed by the drawer. If the cheque otherwise valid,
within the provisions of Sec.138 would be attracted”.
26. Now the question before this court is whether the
accused has rebutted the presumption or not?. In the
instant case PW.1 was cross examined from the side of
accused. On perusal of the cross-examination of PW.1 it
would be gathered that the accused side has disputed the
transaction and also taken a contention that Ex.P21 was
taken forcefully from the side of accused with the assistance
of police. Further taken a contention that the accused had
no liability to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque.
27. Now, this court has to see whether Ex.P21 was taken
forcefully from the side of accused or not?. It is relevant to
note that during the course of cross-examination of PW.1
though the PW.1 has admitted that Ex.P21 was taken with
the assistance of police. However, immediately PW.1 denied
the said suggestion. The learned counsel for accused would
submit that PW.1 has clearly admitted that Ex.P21 was
taken with the assistance of police, hence the case of the
complainant is not maintainable and there is no legally
recoverable debt by and between the complainant and
accused. It is relevant to note that, the accused has not
taken any steps against Ex.P21. Suppose, Ex.P21 was
forceably taken by the complainant with the assistance of
SCCH-2 18 C.C.No. 2439/2023
police, what was the impediment for the accused to approach
the higher authority. Likewise what was the impediment for
the accused to issue notice to the complainant. That apart,
what was the impediment for the accused to approach the
Civil Court. The accused has not at all taken such coercive
steps against the execution of Ex.P21. Therefore, the
admission of PW.1 will not take away the case of the
complainant and also will not give room to suspect Ex.P21.
28. According to the complainant, the transaction was of
the year 2011, 2015, 2016 & 2017. Now, the question before
this court is whether the transaction amounts to time barred
debt or not?. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely on the
decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka decided in
the case of Criminal Revision Petition No. 287/2015
between S S Ramesh Vs. K Lokesh, wherein the Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka has held that, “when the question
of law appears, it is duty of the court to see whether the
transaction amounts to barred by law or not”. In the
instant case the complainant side has produced certified
copy of agreement which has been marked as Ex.P21. At
this juncture, it is worth to take Ex.P21 for discussion.
Ex.P21 is the agreement executed by and between the
complainant and accused. The contents of the document
reveals that the accused has affixed his signature. That
apart, one Sri R Raghuram and complainant also affixed
SCCH-2 19 C.C.No. 2439/2023
their signatures. Apart from that, the said agreement was
with respect to full and final settlement. Further the
contents of the said document reveals the issuance of cheque
and also reveal that through the said agreement superseded
all the other agreements. At the cost of repetition, Ex.P21
clearly reveals the issuance of cheque.
29. The transaction was with respect to the year 2011,
2015, 2016 & 2017. Now, the question before this court is
whether time barred debt can be enforceable or not? In this
connection, it is worth to rely on the decision of Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka decided in the case of Criminal
Petition No.243/2021 between K R Sudheer Vs. K S
Suresh Raju wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
held that “Even if in respect of a time barred debt, an
agreement comes into existence subsequently according
to Sec.25(3) of the contract Act, it becomes a new contra
which is enforceable. Even though there is no
acknowledgment of debt or liability in terms of Sec.18 or
Sec.19 of the Limitation Act, if a new agreement comes
in to existence according to Sec.25(3), it is a valid
contract and thus a cheque issued in this connection if
dishonoured, attracts penal action under Sec.138 of NI
Act”. Therefore, though the transaction is of the year 2015,
2016 & 2017, in the presence of execution of Ex.P21 and
cheque in question has been issued through Ex.P21. The
SCCH-2 20 C.C.No. 2439/2023
said cheque is enforceable. In other words, in the presence of
Ex.P1 time barred debt can be recovered.
30. In the instant case also the complainant has produced
Ex.P21. As per the terms of Ex.P21, the accused has
admitted the liability and also the issuance of cheque.
Moreover the accused has not established that Ex.P21 was
taken forcefully from him. That apart the accused has not at
all disputed his signature found in Ex.P21. Therefore, it
amounts to a new contract.
31. Besides the above referred aspects, the accused has
not explained how the cheque in question got into the
possession of complainant. That apart, the accused has not
at all taken steps to get back his cheque. Therefore, it is
pellucid that the accused has issued the cheque in question
towards the discharge of his liability. Therefore, the
contentions put forth by the accused are failed to inspire the
confidence of this court. As such, the defence raised by the
accused is not probable, not believable and amounts to
vague defence. Hence, the accused has not raised probable
defence. Based on the said vague defence the accused
cannot rebut the presumption. At this juncture, it is worth to
rely on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in
2018(8) SCC 165 between Kishan Rao V/s Shankar Gouda,
SCCH-2 21 C.C.No. 2439/2023
Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “Mere denial
regarding existence of debt shall not serve any purpose”.
32. At the cost of repetition, the initial presumption
favours the complainant. However, the said presumption is
rebuttable. If the accused rebutted the presumption then
burden shifts back to the complainant. Interestingly, in the
instant case, the accused has not put forth plausible defence
to rebut the presumption. In the absence of cogent evidence
to show that the cheques were not issued in discharge of a
liability, the defence raised by the accused failed to inspire
the confidence of this Court to believe his version or to meet
the standard of ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’. Hence, with
the help of presumption and also on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence on record, this Court has come to the
conclusion that, the accused has committed the offence
punishable U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accordingly, this Court is answered Point No.1 in the
Affirmative.
33. POINT No.2:- In view of the discussions
referred to above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
:: O R D E R ::
Acting U/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C, the
accused is convicted for the offence
SCCH-2 22 C.C.No. 2439/2023punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
The accused shall pay fine of
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs
Only) to the complainant and in default
to payment of fine, the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 3 months.
However, it is clarified that, mere
serving of default sentence by the
accused, does not absolve him from the
liability of payment of fine amount as
ordered by this court.
By exercising the powers conferred
U/Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C, the amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs
Only) is ordered to be paid to the
complainant as compensation.
Office is hereby directed to
provide free copy of judgment to the
accused forthwith.
SCCH-2 23 C.C.No. 2439/2023
Bail bond of the accused shall
stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her,
revised and corrected by me, and then pronounced in the open
Court on this the 07th February, 2026)
(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge and ACJM.,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
:ANNEXURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : Sri. Chandrashekar S.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque bearing 000103 dated
24.10.2022.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement dated:27.10.2022.
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of legal notice dated:23.11.2022.
Ex.P.3(a) : Postal receipt.
Ex.P.4 : Postal track consignment.
SCCH-2 24 C.C.No. 2439/2023
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of Agreement of construction.
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of Agreement of sale of undivided
share of land.
Ex.P.7 & : Certified copies of Receipts dated 12.10.2011.
Ex.P.8
Ex.P.9 to : Certified copies of Receipts dated 26.11.2011 and
Ex.P.11 12.01.2012 respectively.
Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of Receipt dated 08.01.2013.
Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of Sale agreement dated
15.09.2016.
Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of Authorization letter dated
23.07.2015.
Ex.P.15 & : Certified copies of Receipts dated 23.07.2015.
Ex.P.16
Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of Receipt dated 19.01.2016.
Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of Receipt voucher for the financial
year 2016-2017.
Ex.P.19 & : Certified copies of Agreements dated 21.02.2022.
Ex.P.20
Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of Agreement dated 13.07.2022.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED:
– None –
SCCH-2 25 C.C.No. 2439/2023
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
– Nil –
Digitally signed by
HP H P MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR Date: 2026.02.13
11:41:33 +0530
(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge and ACJM.,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.