Bangalore District Court
Johar Brothers vs Shema Enterprises on 16 July, 2025
KABC020159182022
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, & A.C.J.M. AT: BENGALURU
(SCCH-26)
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2025
PRESENT : SRI. APPASAB NAIK,
B.A.L.L.B.(Spl)
XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
BENGALURU.
1. Case Number CC. No.7421 OF 2022
2 The date of 31.05.2022
. commencement of
evidence
3. The date of closing 12.03.2025
evidence
4. Name of the M/s. Johar Brothers,
Complainant A Partnership Firm,
Having its office at
Shop Nos.G1, G2 and G3,
Brigade Plaza, S.C. Road,
Ananda Rao Circle,
Bengaluru - 560 009.
Represented by its Duly
constituted General Power of
Attorney Holder,
Sri. Srinivasa S,
S/o Shri Sudhakara,
Aged about 43 years,
(By Sri.Krishna B.R.- Advocate)
SCCH-26 2 CC No.7421/2022
5. Name of the Accused Sri. M/s. Shema Enterprises,
01/06, 4th Cross, 4th Main,
Devegowda Block,
Adugodi,
Bengaluru - 560030.
Represented by its Proprietor
Shri. Sabastian Arokiaswamy
(By Sri.T.S.Gopinath, Advocate)
6. The offence U/s.138 of the Negotiable
complained of Instruments Act
7. Opinion of the judge Accused found guilty
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this complaint Under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that the
accused has committed an offence punishable Under
Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (In short
N.I.Act).
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are as
under :
It is the case of the complainant that, the complainant
is a partnership firm, carrying on the business interalia,
sale and marketing Sealing Chemical, Cem Paints,
SCCH-26 3 CC No.7421/2022Brushers for Painting, Paints, Primers, Thinners, Varnishes,
Turpentine, Distempers, Polishes, Putty Materials, Putty
Blades, Polishing Cloths and Powers Sandpapers, Emery
Paper and other allied business related to painting. The
accused is proprietary concern, has been placing orders for
supply of materials, goods etc., with the complainant from
time to time and the accused is having a running account
with the complainant. The accused was availing credit
facilities from the complainant for the materials supplied by
the complainant against the accused various purchase
orders. During the course of business with the accused on
28.02.2022 as per the books of accounts maintained by the
complainant an amount of Rs.12,65,829.48/- was
outstanding and same has been confirmed by the accused.
Thereafter, accused had issued cheque bearing No.872241
dated 11.04.2022 for Rs.12,65,829.48/- drawn on State
Bank of India, Koramangala Branch, Bengaluru. The
complainant has presented the said cheque for collection
through banker but the same has been returned to him
SCCH-26 4 CC No.7421/2022
unpaid with endorsement ‘Funds Insufficient’ on
12.04.2022. Therefore, on 19.04.2022 he has issued legal
notice to the accused demanding him to pay cheque amount
within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The said
notice was returned on 20.04.2022 with the postal shara
“Unclaimed returned to sender”. In spite of it, the accused
has not paid the cheque amount or not replied to the notice.
Hence, filed this complaint against the accused.
3. After perusing the contents of the complaint and
documents, this court has taken cognizance of offence
punishable u/s 138 of NI act and registered PCR.
Thereafter, this court has recorded the sworn statement of
the PW.1 and got marked 29 documents as Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.29. Since, the complainant has made out prima- facie
case to proceed against accused, the case has been
registered in Criminal Register No. III and issued summons
to the accused. The accused, in response to the summons,
the accused has appeared before the court through his
counsel and was enlarged on bail. Subsequently, plea was
SCCH-26 5 CC No.7421/2022
recorded and the substance of the accused was read over
and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried then the case was posted for complainant evidence.
4. in view of the principal lead down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association & others
V/s Union of India and others, after appearance of accused,
the sworn statement of the complainant is treated as
evidence of complainant as PW1 complainant company has
examined its official as PW1 and the documents produced
by the complainant at the time of sworn statement are
considered as a document of the complainant as Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.29. As per the principal lead down by the Hon’ble Apex
court in the case of Indian Bank Association & others V/s
Union of India and others, the accused has filed application
u/s 145 (2) of N.I.Act seeking permission to cross
examination of PW1, therefore the matter posted for cross
examination of PW1. Further, the Statement of the Accused
U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C was recorded and incriminating
circumstances appeared in the evidence against the accused
SCCH-26 6 CC No.7421/2022
were read over to the accused and accused had denied the
all incriminating circumstance appeared in the evidence and
chosen to lead defence evidence. Accused himself examined
as DW1 and he has not marked the documents on his
behalf and defence evidence is taken as closed.
5. Heard the arguments on accused side. Perused the
materials available on record.
The learned counsel for complainant has filed the
following citations:
1) (2020) 12 SCC 7244
2) (2020) 3 SCC 794
3) (2021) 5 SCC 283
4) (2019) 16 SCC 83
5) (2022) 18 SCC 631
6. Now the points that arise for my determination are
as follows:-
POINTS
1. Whether the complainant proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that the
accused has issued cheque bearing
No.872241 dated 11.04.2022 for
Rs.12,65,829.48/- drawn on State
Bank of India, Koramangala Branch,
Bengaluru., in his favour in discharge
of the legally enforceable debt or
liability and when the said cheque
SCCH-26 7 CC No.7421/2022was presented to the Bank for
encashment it was returned unpaid
with remarks that “Funds
Insufficient” and inspite of demand
notice, he has not paid the amount
and there by committed the offence
punishable under Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What order?
7. My answers to the above points are as follows :-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following :-
REASONS
8. POINT No.1:- It is the case of the complainant
that, the accused was availing credit facilities from the
complainant for the materials supplied by the
complainant against the accused various purchase orders.
During the course of business with the accused on
28.02.2022 as per the books of accounts maintained by
the complainant an amount of Rs.12,65,829.48/- was
outstanding and same has been confirmed by the
accused. Thereafter, accused had issued cheque bearing
No.872241 dated 11.04.2022 for Rs.12,65,829.48/-
SCCH-26 8 CC No.7421/2022
drawn on State Bank of India, Koramangala Branch,
Bengaluru. The complainant has presented the said
cheque for collection through banker but the same has
been returned to him unpaid with endorsement ‘Funds
Insufficient’ on 12.04.2022. Therefore, on 19.04.2022 he
has issued legal notice to the accused demanding him to
pay cheque amount within 15 days from the date of
receipt of notice. The said notice was returned on
20.04.2022 with the postal shara “Unclaimed returned to
sender”. In spite of it, the accused has not paid the
cheque amount or not replied to the notice.
9. As already stated supra the authorized
representative of the complainant company has examined
himself as PW.1 and got marked 29 documents as Ex.P.1
to P.29. PW.1 has filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-
chief reiterating the entire averments of his complaint.
Ex.P1 is the GPA, Ex.P2 is the Balance confirmation of
accounts, Ex.P.3 is the Cheque, Ex.P.3(a) is the Signature
of accused, Ex.P.4 is the Bank Return memo, Ex.P.5 is
SCCH-26 9 CC No.7421/2022
the Legal Notice, Ex.P.6 is the Postal receipt, Ex.P7 is the
Unopened RPAD cover, Ex.P8 to 28 are the Tax invoice
receipt with E-way bills, Ex.P29 is the GST upload details.
10. The documents produced by PW-1 clearly show
that he has complied with the provisions of Section 138 of
NI Act. Therefore, it gives raise to presumption in favour
of complainant u/s 118 and 139 of NI Act that he received
the cheque in question for discharge of legally enforceable
debt or other liability. However, the presumptions
available in favour of complainant are rebuttable in
nature. The accused has chosen to rebut the
presumptions by way of cross-examination of PW-1.
Though the accused has chosen to lead defence evidence,
and he himself examined as DW-1.
11. Ex-P3 is the cheque dt. 11.04.2022 and Ex-4 is
the bank endorsement memo dt.12.04.2022. As per these
documents, it appears that the complainant company has
presented the said cheque for collection, but the same has
been returned to it with endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.
SCCH-26 10 CC No.7421/2022
Ex-P5 is the Legal notice dt.19.04.2022 and Ex.P-6 is the
Postal receipt, Ex.P7 unopened RPAD cover. The
complainant has presented the complaint on 31.05.2022.
Therefore, the complainant has filed the present complaint
within statutory period.
12. The documents produced by the PW-1 clearly show
that he has complied with the mandatory requirements as
envisaged u/s 138 of NI Act. Therefore, the complainant has
discharged his initial burden by producing the documentary
evidence. Therefore, it gives raise to statutory presumption
u/s 118 r/w sec. 139 of NI Act in favour of the complainant.
Section 118 of NI Act reads as under:-
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.
13. Further Section 139 of NI Act provides for
presumption in favour of holder. It reads as under:-
It shall be presumed, unless the
SCCH-26 11 CC No.7421/2022contrary 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 or
any debt or other liability.
14. On combined reading of the above provisions, it
raises a presumption in favour of holder of the cheque that
he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part
of any debt or other liability. It is relevant to note that the
law itself provides that such presumptions are rebuttable in
nature.
15. In this case the accused had disputed thatthe
cheque is not issued for discharge of legally recoverable debt
or other liability and contended that, the cheque has been
issued for security purpose of business transactions and the
complainant has misused the said cheque and the accused is
not liable to pay the amount covered under the cheque.
16. In this case the authorized person examined as
PW-1 and he has produced the relevant documents to draw
presumption in favour of the complainant as per the
ingredient of Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Now it is proper to consider
SCCH-26 12 CC No.7421/2022
the oral evidence of the PW-1.
17. During cross examination of PW-1, it is specific
defense of the counsel that the accused has paid entire
amount by way of cash. Complainant has mis-used the
blank cheque issued by the accused towards security
purpose.
18. In order to rebut the legal presumption existing as
per Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act, accused got examined as
DW1. He has narrated entire defense by stating that, I have
not taken any materials from the complainant company and
also issued the blank three postdated to the complainant for
the security purpose. Further defense that I have not
received the legal notice.
19. During cross examination he admitted entire
suggestions put by the complainant. He admitted that I
have purchasing the paints with the complainant company
and also admitted I have been doing business with the
complainant company for 5 years between himself and
complainant from 5 years back.
SCCH-26 13 CC No.7421/2022
20. The learned counsel for the complainant argued
that the accused is proprietary concerned and represented
by proprietor Sri. Sabastian Arokiaswamy and has been
placing orders for supply of material’s. The complainant has
supply the material’s to the accused as per purchase order.
The accused was availing credit facilities from the
complainant for the supply of materials. Further argued
that accused was due balance amount of Rs.12,65,829.48/-
and accused has confirmed the due balance statement as
per Ex.P-2. The accused has admitted the transactions. The
accused has not reply the legal notice. The complaint has
produced the loan documents and details of the said tax
invoices and e-way bills as EX.P-8 to P-28. The accused
has issued the cheque for repayment of due amounts and
complainant has proved the case on oral and documentary
evidence. Hence he prayed for convict the accused.
21. The learned counsel for accused argued that, the
complaint has filed by the complainant is not maintainable.
The complainant has misused the security cehque of the
SCCH-26 14 CC No.7421/2022
accused. The legal notice not duly served to the accused.
The complainant has created the tax invoice bills. The legal
notice not duly served to the accused. The complainant has
not produced the documents in respect of transactions
between the accused and complainant. Hence he prayed for
acquit the accused.
22. I have perused entire material placed on record.
Ex.P-8 to 28 are the tax invoice and E-way bills. Ex.P-2 is
the Balance confirmation statement, which discloses that as
on 28-02-2022 due sum of Rs.12,65,829.48/-
23. According to the accused, he has issued the
cheque for security purpose and misused by the
complainant and created the documents by the
complainant.
24. The learned counsel for complainant argued that
once the issuance of cheque and documents were admitted
by the accused, it drawn presumption U/s 139 of NI Act.
25. On careful examination of all the documents of
complainant, it is very clear that the complainant filed this
SCCH-26 15 CC No.7421/2022
complaint well within time and complied all the ingredients
of NI Act 1881. The presumption under section 139 of the
Act is a presumption of law, it is not a presumption of fact.
This presumption has to be raised by the court in all the
cases once the factum of dishonor is established. The onus
of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused. The
standard of such rebuttable evidence depends on the facts
and circumstances of each case. Such evidence must be
sufficient to prove the case. Therefore a mere explanation is
not sufficient to rebut this presumption of law.
26. As per NI Act, the presumption is in favour of
holder of cheque. Here, the holder of cheque is complainant
and presumption is in favour of complainant. It is burden
on the accused to rebut the above presumption. As per
section 118 of N.I Act, presumption has to be raised by the
court in all the cases once the factum of dishonour is
established, but it is rebuttal presumption. The onus of
proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused. The
standard of such rebuttal evidence depends on the facts and
SCCH-26 16 CC No.7421/2022
circumstances of each case. Such evidence must be
sufficient, cogent and should prove beyond any reasonable
doubt. Therefore, a mere explanation is not enough to repel
this presumption of law. Therefore, it is to appreciate
whether accused rebut the evidence or not?
27. In this regard, Learned counsel for complainant
has relied the citations in
2020(12) SCC 724
APS Forex Services Private Ltd V/s
Shakti International Fashion Linkers
and others
It is held that
A-Debt, Financial and monetary laws-
Negotiable Instruments Act,1881-Ss
13,118 and 138-Dishonour of cheque-
Presumption in favour of holder of
cheque under S.139-Is rebuttable of any
such evidence, version put forward by
accused cannot be accepted-All
ingredients of Ss.138 being satisfied in
present case, conviction confirmed.
SCCH-26 17 CC No.7421/2022
(2020)3 SCC 794
Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel & Others
V/s State of Gujarath & another
It is held that
B. Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws –
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 –
Ss.139, 118(a) and 138 – Presumption
under – when arises – Issuance of chque
(s) having been admitted by drawer,
presumption under Ss.139 &118(a)
would arise in favour of holder of cheque
– Burden lies on accused to rebut the
presumption by adducing evidence – In
present case, appellant – accused having
failed to rebut said presumption, High
Court erred in quashing proceedings
merely on ground that there were inter se
disputes between the parties – Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 – S.482 – Cheque
(2021) 5 SCC 283
Kalamani Tex and another V/s
Balasubranian
It is held that
A. Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws –
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 –
SCCH-26 18 CC No.7421/2022
Ss.139 & 118 – Presumption in case of
voluntarily signed blank cheque leaf –
Presumption as to legally enforceable
debt, held, available against the accused
even in case when he voluntarily signed
and handed over a blank cheque leaf
towards some payment
B. Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws –
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss.139 and 118 Presumption as to legally enforceable debt - Effect of
admission regarding signature on cheque
– In such situation, Court, held, required
to presume that the cheque was issued
as consideration for a legally enforceable
debt
C. Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws –
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 –
Ss.138 & 142 r/w Ss.118 & 138 –
Presumption as to legally enforceable
debt – Effect of admission regarding
signature on cheque and deed of
undertaking – In such a situation, Trail
Court ought to have presumed that the
SCCH-26 19 CC No.7421/2022
cheque was issued as consideration for a
legally enforceable debt – Defence plea
that only a blank cheque and signed
blank stamp papers were given to the
respondent, held, immaterial
(2019) 16 SCC 83
Shree Daneshwari Traders V/s Sanjay
Jain and another
A. Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws –
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Ss.
139 & 138 – Dishonour of cheque –
Presumption under S.139 – Rebuttal of –
Defence that subject cheques were
issued as security towards goods
supplied for which payment was
subsequently made by cash – Held, could
not be established, as some purchases
were paid for in cash and others by
cheque – Evidence produced by
complainant was sufficient to raise
presumption under S.139 in respect of
subject cheques, which respondent
accused were unable to rebut – Hence,
acquittal reversed
SCCH-26 20 CC No.7421/2022
The said decisions clearly applicable to the case on hand.
Here, presumption in favour of holder of cheque u/sec.139
of NI Act and also accused is admitted cheque as well as
signature. He contended that, it was issued for the purpose
of security. Accused failed to prove the same.
28. The accused contended that issued blank cheque
for security in business transaction. What is the effect of
issuing a blank cheque is to be considered at this stage.
Where the cheque is signed leaving blank all other
particulars and handed over to the payee authorizing his to
fill-up the blanks as agreed upon, it is valid in law.
Therefore, when such a cheque is dishonoured, Section 138
applies. ILR 2001 KAR 4127 in the case of S.R.Muralidhar
Vs G.Y.Ashok. In this regard section 20 of the Act is very
clear. Here the stand of the accused is not maintainable.
29. The accused contended that the cheque is issued
for the purpose of security. The cheque issued as a surety is
also comes under the purview of section 138 of N.I Act. This
aspect was observed in the decision which is reported in
SCCH-26 21 CC No.7421/2022
AIR 2002 SC 3014 (ICDS Ltd., Vs Beena Shabeer and
another). Hence complainant has placed sufficient oral and
documentary evidence to prove that the accused issued the
cheque in discharge of legal liability. Presumption Therefore,
the under Sec.139 of N.I.Act remain intact. Considering the
cross examination of PW-1 and chief examination of DW-1.
In the cross examination of PW-1, the accused is taken
defence that entire amount paid to the complainant by way
of cash, the accused is deposed in his evidence that I have
not taken any materials from the complainant company and
also issued the blank three postdated to the complainant for
the security purpose. Both defense taken by the accused is
contradictory to each other. the accused failed to prove the
defence by rebutting the above said presumption. On the
other hand, the complainant has proved the complaint
averments by placing oral and documentary evidence.
30. As already stated supra, the accused vehemently
contended that the demand notice has not been served on
him. I have perused Ex-P.5 to 7 It appears that the
SCCH-26 22 CC No.7421/2022
complainant has issued demand notice as per Ex-P.5 to the
accused on 19-04-2022 and the same has been notice cover
is returned on 20-04-2022 for the reasons that Left without
instructions. But as per Ex-P.7 the return notice cover, the
demand notice has been not served to the accused. It is
relevant to note that the address shown in Ex-P5 is the
same address as shown in the cause title of the complaint.
Therefore, in view of Section 27 of General Clauses Act, if
a letter is sent through registered post acknowledgment
due, it is deemed to be served on a proper address, unless
the contrary is proved. But the accused has not placed any
evidence to show that he did not receive the said notice.
Therefore, the contention raised by the accused that no
demand notice was served on him holds no water.
31. Therefore, it is clear that the demand notice as
contemplated u/s 138 of NI Act has been served on the
accused. Therefore, it in-turn clearly shows that the
complainant has complied with the mandatory provisions of
SCCH-26 23 CC No.7421/2022
Section 138 of NI Act. Therefore, the complainant has
proved to fulfill the ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act.
32. The complainant has proved that the cheque in
question was issued by the accused towards discharge of
legal liability. The Honble Apex Court in several decisions
starting from Rangappa V/s Mohan and 139 of N.I.Act
comes into operation in favour of the complainant that held
that presentation u/s.118 the cheque in question is issued
towards payment of any legal debt, placing initial burden on
the accused to rebut the same and establish the
circumstances in which the cheque in question reached the
hands of the complainant. Only after rebutting the above
said presumption, burden, would shift on the complainant
to prove his case.
33. In the light of the above discussion and the
material placed on record, the court is of the opinion that
the complainant has proved existence of legal liability and
also proved that the accused issued the cheque in question
towards discharge of legal liability. The complainant has
SCCH-26 24 CC No.7421/2022
proved the complaint averments by placing oral and
documentary evidence. On the other hand, the accused
failed to prove the defence by rebutting the above said
presumption.
34. In the light of the above discussion and the
material placed on record, the court is of the opinion that
the complainant has proved existence of legal liability and
also proved that the accused issued the cheque in question
towards discharge of legal liability. The complainant has
proved the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Therefore
considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case
and the available evidence on record, the court comes to the
conclusion that the accused committed the offence
punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Therefore, the
complainant has proved point No.1 and I answered in
point No.1 is the affirmative.
35. POINT No.2: In view of the reasons stated and
discussed above, the complainant has proved the guilt of
the accused punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act.
SCCH-26 25 CC No.7421/2022
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a decision reported in
(2018)1 SCC-560 between Meters And Instruments (P)
Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta, it was held at para 18 that “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
acceptable to the parties or the court.” Therefore, keeping
in mind the time when the transaction has taken place and
primary object of the provision, this court is of the opinion
that, rather than imposing punitive sentence, if sentence of
fine is imposed with a direction to compensate the
complainant for its monitory loss, by awarding
compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C, would meet the ends of
justice. The amount covered under the disputed cheque is
Rs.12,65,829.48/-. By considering all these aspects, this
court is of the opinion that, it is just and proper to imposed
fine amount of Rs.12,70,829.48/-, out of which
SCCH-26 26 CC No.7421/2022
compensation of Rs.12,65,829.48/- has to be awarded to the
complainant U/sec.357 Cr.P.C for the aforesaid reason, I
proceed to pass the following:-
-: O R D E R :-
By Acting U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C
the accused is hereby convicted for
the offence punishable U/s 138 of
NI Act.
The accused is hereby
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.
12,70,829.48/-, (Rupees Twelve
Lakhs Seventy Thousand Eight
Hundred Twenty Nine and Forty
Eight Paise Only). In default, the
accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for period of six
months.
Acting U/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
out of the total fine amount payable
by the accused, a sum of Rs.
12,65,829.48/-, shall be paid to the
complainant as compensation. The
remaining fine amount of
SCCH-26 27 CC No.7421/2022Rs.5,000/- shall go to state.
It is further made clear that if
the accused opt to undergo
imprisonment, it does not absolve
him from liability of paying
compensation to the complainant.
Office is hereby directed to
supply free certified copy of this
judgment to the accused forthwith.
The bail bond of the accused
shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly over computer,
typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the
open Court on this day 16th July 2025.)
APPASAB Digitally
by APPASAB
signedRAMAPPA RAMAPPA NAIK
Date: 2025.07.21
NAIK 11:49:11 +0530(Appasab Naik )
XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& A.C.J.M. BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
I. WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 : Sri.Srinivasa S
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Notarized copy of GPA
SCCH-26 28 CC No.7421/2022
Ex.P2 : Balance confirmation of accounts
Ex.P3 : Original cheque, signature as
Ex.P3(a)
Ex.P4 : Bank endorsement
Ex.P5 : Legal notice
Ex.P6 : Postal receipt
Ex.P7 : Unopened RPAD cover
Ex.P8toP28 : Tax invoice receipt with E-way bills
Ex.P29 : GST upload details
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
ACCUSED:
DW-1 : Sri. Sebastian
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
ACCUSED:
- Nil- APPASAB Digitally
by APPASAB
signed
RAMAPPA RAMAPPA NAIK
Date: 2025.07.21
NAIK 11:49:21 +0530
(Appasab Naik )
XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& A.C.J.M. BENGALURU.