Bangalore District Court
Narayan Namdev Kolekar vs Kariyapa Rudrappa Metri on 8 July, 2026
KABC030869952022
Presented on : 29-11-2022
Registered on : 29-11-2022
Decided on : 08-07-2026
Duration : 3 years, 7 months, 9 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ACJM, BENGALURU
-: Present :-
Smt.Asha K.S., B.A.L, L.L.B.,
XXIII ACJM, BENGALURU,
C.C. No.36991/2022
Dated: the 08th day of July, 2026
Complainant :- Sri.Narayan Namdev Kolekar,
Residing at 15th Cross,
4th Main, Manasa Layout,
Kengeri Upanagar,
Near Holy Church School,
Bengaluru-560060.
(By Sri.Hamsa.G., Advocate)
-V/s -
Accused :- Sri.Kariyappa Rudrappa Metri,
House No.26, KHB Colony,
Shanthi Nagara, B.K. Halli Road,
Behind APMC Yard,
Haliyal, Karwar District,
Uttar Kannada-581329.
(By Sri.Balareddy.R., Advocate)
2
C.C.No.36991/2022
Offences complained of U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the Accused Not Pleaded guilty.
Final Order Accused is Acquitted
Date of Order 08.07.2026.
Digitally signed
ASHA by ASHA K S
Date:
KS 2026.07.08
17:28:40 +0530
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the
commission of an offense punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-
“The accused and the complainant are known to each
other from several years. In the year 2021 the accused had
approached the complainant for financial assistance for his
legal necessities. The complainant also believed and paid
Rs.10 lakhs through RTGS. The accused has assured to
repay the said amount within one year. When the
complainant has demanded for repayment, the accused has
issued two Cheques bearing No. 386835 for Rs.5,00,000/-
and another cheque bearing No.386836 for sum of Rs.
6,57,500/-. Both Cheques drawn on Canara Bank,
Sambrani branch, On presentation of said cheques by the
3C.C.No.36991/2022
complainant through his banker ICICI Bank, Kengeri
branch, Bengaluru, the said cheques have been returned for
the reason “Stopped in Clearing” on 11.07.2022.
3. Thereafter the complainant has issued legal
notice to the accused on 16.07.2022 and same has been
served. Thereafter the accused has not chosen to issue reply
notice.
4. After filing of complaint, cognizance was taken.
In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the
Court and he had enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation
has been framed and contents of its read over to the
accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be
tried.
5. In order to prove his case complainant has
examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 11 documents
at Ex.P.1 to 11 on behalf of the complainant. After closure of
complainant evidence, accused has been examined as
under section 313 of Cr.P.C and opted to lead evidence.
Accused has been examined as DW-1 and got marked
Ex.D.1 and D.2.
6. Thereafter arguments heard and perused the
Record.
7. The following points arise for my determination: –
4
C.C.No.36991/2022
1) Whether the complainant has
made out all the ingredients of Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act to prove the
guilt of accused?
2) What Order?
8. On hearing the arguments and on perusal written
arguments and the materials placed on record, my answers
to: –
Point No.1:- In the Negative
Point No.2:- As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
09. It is the case of complainant is that the accused
and complainant are known to each other. The accused had
borrowed amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant.
To discharge the said liability, the accused had issued
cheques. On presentation of said cheques have been
returned for the reasons “Stopped in Clearing”.
10. To attract Sec.138 of NI Act it is necessary to
fulfill the ingredients of said provision. I have carefully
perused the section 138 of of N.I.Act, it has three
ingredients which are as follows:
1. That there is a Legally enforceable debt,
2. That the cheque was drawn from the account of
bank for discharge in whole or any part of any
debt or other liability which pre-supposes a
legally enforceable debt.
5
C.C.No.36991/2022
3. That the cheque so issued had been returned
due to insufficiency of funds.
11. Keeping in view the ingredients of Sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Now I proceed to reproduce the
Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I.Act here itself.
12. Sec.139 of N.I.Act reads as follows “Presumes in
favor of holder, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is
proved, that the holder of 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”.
13. Sec.118(a) reads as follows “Presumption as to
Negotiable Instrument Act until the contrary is proved, the
following presumption shall be made (a) of consideration-
that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for
consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has
been accepted endorse, negotiate or transferred, was
accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for
consideration”.
14. Keeping in view of the ingredients and provision
of Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I.Act, now I proceed to discuss
the documents in the case. I am of the opinion that I need
not repeat the entire case of the complaint once again since
I have already stated the same at the beginning of this
judgment.
6
C.C.No.36991/2022
15. To prove his case, the complainant has examined
himself as PW-1 and produced 11 documents and same has
been marked as Ex.P.1 to P.11. The cheques as per Ex.P.1
and P.2 signatures thereon as per Ex.P.1(a) and P.2(a).
Bank memos as per Ex.P.3 and P.4. Legal Notices as per
Ex.P.5 and P.6. Postal Receipts as per Ex.P.7 and P.8.
Acknowledgments as per Ex.P.9 & P.10 and Reply as per
Ex.P.11.
16. In the cross-examination of PW-1, he has deposed
that he was working in TCS company as an Engineer from
18 years and getting Rs.1 lakh salary per month. In the year
2021, he was getting Rs.65,000/- to Rs.70,000/- salary per
month. He is residing in rented house. He is a tax payer. In
the month of January 2021, accused has sought financial
assistance of Rs.11,57,500/-. He paid through account Rs.5
lakhs on 28.01.2021, Rs.4,64,000/- on 29.01.2021,
Rs.35,000/- on 16.01.2021. He paid Rs.1,57,500/- on
30.01.2021 by way of cash. He has produced his bank
statement. He has not obtained any documents from the
accused on the date of alleged payment on various dates.
17. He further deposed that his wife and accused
were doing business of distribution of Indane gas and there
was a partnership deed dated 10.03.2021 between them.
He also signed to Ex.D.1 as witness. He does not know the
terms of Ex.D.1 partnership deed. He denied the suggestion
7
C.C.No.36991/2022
that he has transferred Rs.9,57,000/- to the accused as
capital amount of business between the accused and his
wife. He has also denied the suggestion that he has misused
the cheques kept in the office by the accused.
18. The accused has denied the case of complainant
and to prove his defence he has examined as DW-1. He has
deposed that he knows the complainant and he never
issued cheque to the complainant. The wife of complainant
has requested that her husband is willing to join
distribution of Indane gas business. On that time wife of
complainant has informed that her husband will invest
Rs.11 lakhs and thereafter he and wife of complainant were
entered into partnership deed. Thereafter the complainant
has transferred amount of Rs.9,50,000/- as a capital
amount of business to his account. Due to Covid Pandemic
period there was a huge loss in the said business.
Thereafter the complainant and his wife were requested for
return of their capital amount. Later the complainant has
taken his signed cheques in the office and misused the
same. In support of his case he has produced two
documents and same has been marked as Ex.D.1 and D.2.
Ex.D.1 is the certificate of Registration of Firm and Ex.D.2
is bank statement.
19. In the cross-examination of DW-1, he has
deposed that he knows the complainant from several years.
8
C.C.No.36991/2022
He is working in Babu Indian Grameena Vitharak. He was
getting Rs.74 as commission per one cylinder. The
complainant was also looking after the said business on
behalf of his wife. His account was in Syndicate Bank and
now merged with Canara Bank. Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheques and
signatures belongs to him. He knows the bank transaction.
Till today he has not filed any complaint against the
complainant for alleged misuse of his cheques. From 2021
to 2025 there were many workers in that office. As per
Ex.D.2 there is no entry with regard to payment of
Rs.95,000/- by him. He denied other suggestions.
20. As per complainant he had paid Rs.10 lakhs to
the accused through RTGS and during the evidence,
complainant has deposed that he paid Rs.11,57,500/- to
the accused. To discharge the said liability, the accused had
issued cheques. There is no dispute in relationship between
the parties ie., both are known to each other from many
years. Admittedly cheques and signatures belongs to the
accused but there is a dispute in issuance of cheques. The
accused has denied the issuance of cheques. He has taken
contention that he had kept his cheques in the office and
the complainant has taken those cheques without
knowledge of the accused and misused the same. As per
Sec.139 of N.I.Act “Presumes in favor of holder, it shall be
presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of
cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in
9
C.C.No.36991/2022
Sec.138, for the discharge, in whole or in part or any debt or
other liability”. Here the question is, whether accused has
proved his defence or not. Mere taking defence is not
sufficient but, the party who takes specific defence has to
prove his contention with relevant documents or evidence.
The complainant has produced cheque, bank memos, notice
to show that cheque has been returned for the reason
“Stopped in Clearing” and thereafter he has demanded the
accused for repayment by issuing notice.
21. In this case the accused has denied the issuance
of cheques and also transaction. He has taken contention
that he had kept his cheques in the office, the complainant
has misused the same. It is further contended that his wife
and complainant were doing business of Indane Gas
distribution in the partnership and for that the complainant
has paid amount of Rs.9,50,000/- as capital amount. When
accused has taken this contention, the burden is on the
accused to prove that aspect with relevant documents.
There is no dispute in joint business between complainant
and wife of accused. Ex.D.1 shows that the complainant
and wife of accused were partners and both have invested
equal amount in Indane gas agency. It shows that the
complainant and wife of accused were doing business as per
Ex.D.1.
10
C.C.No.36991/2022
22. The initial burden is on the complainant to prove
the transaction and parties to the case have to prove their
case as per their pleadings. In the complaint and evidence
the complainant has stated that he had paid Rs.10 lakhs to
the accused as hand loan. In the cross-examination of PW-
1, he has deposed that he had paid amount of
Rs.11,57,500/- on various dates. He has also stated about
the alleged date of payment ie., Rs.5 lakhs on 28.01.2021,
Rs.4,64,000/- on 29.01.2021, Rs.35,000/- on 16.01.2021
and Rs.1,57,500/- by way of cash. The complainant has not
explained that why this dual contention with regard to
transaction. There are two cheques and amount of those
cheques are Rs.5 lakh and Rs.6,57,500/- totally
Rs.11,57,500/-. Now the complainant has to explain that
when he had paid amount to the accused and why he has
not disclosed about the date of alleged payment in the
complaint. The accused has raised defence that there was
no transaction between the parties as alleged in the
complaint. In such circumstances that complainant has to
explain what was the actual transaction between the
parties.
23. To attract Section 138 of N.I.Act there should be
legally recoverable debt and issuance of cheque. It is also
necessary to cause notice to the accused with regard to
dishonour of cheque. Now it is necessary to discuss that
whether the complainant has fulfilled all the ingredients
11
C.C.No.36991/2022
required to constitute offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act
or not. As discussed above the complainant has narrated in
the complaint and deposed in the evidence that he had lent
amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the accused and to discharge said
liability the accused had issued two cheques in favour of
complainant. The accused has denied these aspects and
contended that his wife and complainant were doing
business jointly. It probablizes that both parties are known
to each other and there was a transaction between the
parties.
24. As per Accused the complainant has paid
Rs.9,50,000/- as capital amount to the business. It
probablizes that the transaction with respect to Indane Gas
distribution transaction between the complainant and wife
of the accused. Because, there is no document to show that
the accused has borrowed amount from the complainant
and it shows that there was a business between the wife of
accused and complainant. Otherwise the complainant
would have stated same version in the complaint and in his
evidence. Here there is no such document to show that the
accused has borrowed amount from the complainant.
25. The complainant has not explained that why he
has taken different version with regard to payment. During
the cross-examination of PW-1 he has deposed that he had
paid amount of Rs.5 lakhs on 28.01.2021, Rs.4,64,000/- on
12
C.C.No.36991/2022
29.01.2021, Rs.35,000/- on 16.01.2021 through account
and Rs.1,57,500/- by way of cash, totally Rs.11,56,500/-.
As discussed above in the evidence PW-1 has deposed that
he had paid Rs.11,57,500/- to the accused. In the
complaint he has stated that he paid Rs.10 lakhs to the
complainant. In the cheques amount shown as Rs.5 lakhs
and Rs.6,57,500/- and total cheques amount is
Rs.11,57,500/-. It creates serious doubt regarding
transaction because in the complaint amount shown as
Rs.10 lakhs but in the evidence it is shown Rs.11,57,500/-
but in the cheques it it shown as Rs.11,57,500/-. It shows
that the complainant has no clarity about the alleged
payment made by him to the complainant. When
complainant has no clarity with regard to payment then
how could he claim amount from the accused. There should
be clarity with regard to alleged payment. The complainant
has not explained that why he has received cheques for
Rs.11,57,500/-, if he paid Rs.10 lakhs or Rs.11,56,500/-.
There is no clarity in that aspect.
26. In the notice there should be proper recital with
regard to payment or legal liability of the accused. In the
Ex.P.5 notice also the complainant has stated that he had
paid Rs.10 lakhs to the accused and accused had issued
cheques for Rs.11,57,500/-. There also he has not
explained that why that difference ie., cheque amount and
amount pleaded in the complaint and notice. As per
13
C.C.No.36991/2022
complaint and notice, the complainant has paid only Rs.10
lakhs to the accused but he has received cheques for
Rs.11,57,500/-. There is no explanation from the
complainant that why should he had received cheques
Rs.11,57,500/-. Though the complainant has tried to
explain that he had paid amount on different dates but it is
also lesser than Rs.11,57,500/-. As stated above there is
no pleadings in the complaint with regard to date of alleged
payment of Rs.11,57,500/- to the accused on various dates.
If really the accused had borrowed amount of
Rs.11,57,500/- from the complainant then complainant
would have pleaded in his complaint with regard to said
amount and date of payment. Here there is no such
pleading in the complaint. In the absence of pleading and
material, court cannot accept the version of complainant
with regard to alleged payment of Rs.11,57,500/-.
27. As per complainant he had transferred amount to
the accused through account. If that is so, burden is on the
complainant to show that when he had transferred amount
to the accused. Here no such document has been placed
before the court. If really the complainant has transferred
amount through account, then there was no hurdle for him
to produce bank statement. Silence of complainant shows
that he is trying to hide or suppressed material facts.
Because as discussed above the accused has clearly stated
that the complainant has paid Rs.9,50,000/- as capital
14
C.C.No.36991/2022
amount to the Indane gas business. If the complainant
would have produced his bank statement, then definitely
truth would have come out. To avoid the same the
complainant has not produce his bank statement. Though
the complainant has undertaken to produce bank statement
but not produced.
28. As discussed above complainant has not
produced bank statement to show that when he had
transferred amount to the accused. Ex.P.3 and P.4 are bank
endorsements and those documents show that, cheques
have been returned for the reason erstwhile Syndicate bank
MICR Code cheques stopped in clearing. It is also stated in
the endorsements that for any clarification or more
information, you may call our customer care or visit your
nearest ICICI Bank. Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheques pertaining to
Canara Bank, Sambrani branch and admitted the cheques
and signatures belong to accused. As per complaint
averments, the complainant has presented those cheques
through his banker ICICI Bank, Kengeri branch. Here it is
pertinent to discuss that whether complainant has
presented cheques pertaining to Syndicate Bank or Canara
Bank. As stated above Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheques are
pertaining to Canara Bank, Sambrani branch but in the
bank endorsements ie., in the Ex.P.3 and P.4 it is shown as
Syndicate Bank MICR code cheques. There is no
explanation from the complainant that why bank has issued
15
C.C.No.36991/2022
endorsement pertaining to Syndicate bank cheques. Here
the complainant has not presented cheques pertaining to
Syndicate Bank, but in the endorsement it is shown as
Syndicate Bank MICR code cheques. It shows that Ex.P.3
and P.4 not pertaining to Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheques. If really
the complainant has presented Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheques for
realization, definitely there should be entry in the bank
statement of complainant. Here the complainant has
intentionally not produced his bank statement. All these
aspects clearly creates doubt regarding presentation of
cheques. It also probablizes without presenting cheques for
realization, the complainant has produced endorsements
pertaining to other cheques. In the absence of
endorsements, there is no cause of action for filing
complaint and complaint itself is not maintainable. After
noticing about the endorsements, court has sought
clarification from the complainant but complainant has not
chosen to explain that why bank has stated as Syndicate
Bank cheque in the endorsements instead of Canara Bank.
29. All these aspects probablizes that the accused
might have kept his cheques in the office and the
complainant only filled the cheque as per his wish. It shows
the dishonest intention of the complainant and it is contrary
to pleadings of the complainant. Admission of PW-1 with
regard to vary in amount pleaded in the complaint and
16
C.C.No.36991/2022
deposed in the evidence shows that there was no
transaction between the parties as alleged in the complaint.
30. In the authority in Sunita Dubey (Smt.) Vs.
Hukum Singh Ahirwar. In that Hon’ble Apex Court held that
blank cheque can be filled up by holder thereof. Which will
be valid instrument in eye of law. The complainant has right
to get benefit U/s.20 of Act. As per complainant accused
only filled the cheque and issued but the accused has
denied the said aspect. It shows that accused has not
authorized the complainant to fill the cheque. As per
Section 20 of N.I.Act inchoate instruments are also valid
and legally enforceable. In the case of a signed blank
cheque, the drawer gives authority to the drawee to fill up
the a great liability.
31. It is true that as per Section 20 of N.I.Act the
holder of cheque can fill the cheque but he cannot fill the
amount as per his wish. The holder of cheque can only fill
the cheque as per contract between himself and who has
issued the cheque. In this case the accused has admits the
signature but he has specifically contended that he has not
authorized the complainant to fill the cheques for
Rs.11,57,500/-. It shows that the accused has not
authorized the complainant to fill cheque for
Rs.11,57,500/-. Without instructions of accused only, the
complainant has filled the cheque. Hence the complainant
17
C.C.No.36991/2022
cannot claim benefit U/s.20 of N.I.Act. Hence, the ratio held
in above authority is applicable to case on hand. It shows
that the complainant has misused the cheque issued by the
accused for security purpose after payment made by the
accused also.
32. When there is no authorization by the accused to
fill the cheque, the complainant or any other person had no
right to fill the cheque and he has also no right to fill the
cheque for the amount as he wish. When there is no liability
for Rs.11,57,500/- by the accused, question of filling
cheque and presenting for realization is not at all valid in
the eye of law. All the process followed by the complainant is
not accordance with law. As stated above the complainant
has filed this complaint for wrong claim and issued notice
also for wrong claim. All these aspects show that the
complainant has not approached the court with clean
hands.
33. Advocate for accused has produced Judgment
reported in Crl appeal 939/2010 in Yeshwanthkumar
Vs.Shanthkumar N. In that also Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka held when there is no clarity with regard to date
of alleged transaction in the complaint, in such
circumstances it creates doubt regarding transaction. In
this case the complainant has narrated in his complaint
that he had paid Rs.10 lakhs to the accused but not
18
C.C.No.36991/2022
disclosed the date of alleged payment. Not produced bank
statement to show that when he had transferred amount.
Later he has contended that he had paid Rs.11,57,500/- on
different dates but that amount also not tally with the
amount stated by the complainant.
34. Accused has produced another authority reported
in (2023) 1 SCC 578 John K.Abraham Vs. Simon
C.Abraham. In that Hon’ble Apex Court held that in order
to draw presumption u/s.118 R/w.sec.139 of N.I.Act
burden lies on complainant to show that he had requisite
funds for advancing date of advancement and other aspects.
The complainant must plead the date of alleged transaction
and he has to produce documents in support of transaction.
Here the complainant does not know the date of transaction
and not produced bank statements also. Hence ratio held
in above authority is supports the case of accused.
35. The accused has produced another authority
reported in (2023) 1 SCC 578 Dashrathbhai Trikambhai
Patel Vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and another. The facts
and circumstances of both the cases are entirely different.
Hence ratio held in above authority is not applicable to case
on hand.
36. The accused has produced another authority
reported in Crl. Appeal No.1017/2016 in S.Chandrashekar
19
C.C.No.36991/2022
Vs.Sri.Bhojaraj Jain In that Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka held that when the accused has replied the
notice and denied the transaction, the burden lies on the
complainant to prove the transaction and also the liability.
In the case on hand the complainant has no clarity about
the alleged payment and date of payment. The complainant
has fails to prove that when he had paid amount to the
accused and why dual version with regard to said amount.
Hence ratio held in above authority is applicable to case on
hand.
37. Advocate for complainant has argued that
presumption is in favour of complainant and the
complainant has proved the case. On perusal of record, it is
noticed that the complainant has not approached the court
with clean hands and he had suppressed the material facts.
The complainant has not produced endorsements issued by
the bank with respect to Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheques. He has
not proved his case as per his pleadings and he has not
fulfilled the ingredients required to attract offence
punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act.
38. In the judgment reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513,
(Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets), in that Hon’ble Apex
Court held that the presumption available to the
complainant U/Sec.138 of NI Act is not conclusive but
rebuttable. To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused
20
C.C.No.36991/2022
is not expected to prove his defense beyond reasonable
doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial,
the standard of proof for doing so is that of “preponderance
of probabilities”. The accused can rely on the materials
submitted by the complainant in order to raise such defense
and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may
not need to adduce evidence of his own. The court need not
insist in every case that the accused should disprove the
non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct
evidence because the existence of negative evidence is
neither possible nor contemplated.
39. In this case there is no ingredients to attract
section 138 of N.I.Act i.e., issuance of cheque, legally
recoverable debt and issuance of notice. Here the complaint
is pertaining to Rs.10 lakhs, notice pertaining to Rs.10
lakhs but the cheque is pertaining Rs.11,57,500/-. There is
no details with regard to dates of alleged payment made by
the complainant. As discussed above the complainant has
deposed during the cross-examination with regard to dates
and amount but if count the said amount then total amount
is Rs.11,56,500/-. There is no material to show that which
amount is correct. The complainant has not disclosed about
the dates of payment. Hence it cannot be considered as
accused had issued cheque for part debt or liability. If
complainant would have disclosed about the amount and
dates in the complaint and notice, then definitely court
21
C.C.No.36991/2022
would have considered as cheques have been issued for
discharge of his liability. Here the complainant has
suppressed the facts and filled cheque without
authorization by the accused. It is not valid under the eye of
law. The complainant has fails to prove his case. The
complainant has not fulfilled the ingredients required to
attract Section 138 of N.I.Act. On the other hand, the
accused has raised probable defence and elicited many
things in the cross-examination of PW-1. Hence the ratio
held in above authority applicable to case on hand.
40. On careful perusal of materials on record I am of
the opinion that there is no legally recoverable debt or
liability. The accused has successfully rebutted the
presumption by eliciting many material contradictions in
the cross examination of PW1. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case the version of accused appears to
be true. The ingredients required to fulfill Sec.138 of NI Act
also not proved. Hence, I hold that there are no materials
available on record to conclude that accused has committed
an offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act, hence I answered Point no.1
in the Negative.
41. Point No.2:- In view of the aforesaid reasons, I
proceed to pass the following :-
22
C.C.No.36991/2022
-: ORDER :-
By invoking the power conferred
under section 278(1) of B.N.S.S.,The
accused is Acquitted for the offence
punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
Bail bond and surety bond stands
canceled.
(Dictated to stenographer directly on my computer, after clerical
additions by him, script revised, corrected and pronounced by me in the
Open Court on this the 08th day of July-2026)ASHA Digitally signed
by ASHA K S
Date: 2026.07.08
KS 17:29:15 +0530(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM,Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1) List of Witnesses examined for complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri.Narayan Namdev Kolekar
2) List of documents marked on behalf of complainant: –
Ex.P.1 & P.2 : cheques.
Ex.P.1(a) &P.2a : Signatures of accused.
Ex.P.3 & P.4 : Bank Memos.
Ex.P.5 & P.6 : Legal Notice.
Ex.P.7 & P.8 : Postal receipts.
Ex.P.9 & P.10 : Postal Acknowledgments.
Ex.P.11 : Reply.
3) List of witness examined on behalf of the Accused :-
DW-1 : Sri.Kariyappa Rudrappa Metri.
23
C.C.No.36991/2022
4) List of documents marked on behalf of the Accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Certificate of Registration of Firm.
Ex.D.2 : Bank Statements. Digitally signed ASHA by ASHA K S Date: KS 2026.07.08 17:29:29 +0530 (Smt.Asha K.S,) XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru. 24 C.C.No.36991/2022
