Bangalore District Court
P Sreeramulugupa vs K P Jayavelu on 10 April, 2026
KABC030169542023
Presented on : 25-04-2023
Registered on : 25-04-2023
Decided on : 10-04-2026
Duration : 2 years, 11 months, 15 days
IN THE COURT OF LII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT
SMT.LAVANYA.H.N, B.Sc., LL.B.,
LII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2026
C.C. No.9914/2023
COMPLAINANT: SRI.P.SREERAMULU GUPTA,
S/o.Subbarathnayya Setty,
Aged about 63 years,
No.33, 34 & 35,
Sri Jee Apartment,
5th Cross, 6th Main,
Gandhinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 009.
(Rep By: Sri.K.Vijaya Kumar - Advocate)
V/s.
ACCUSED: SRI.K.P.JAYAVELU,
S/o.Late Pachippan,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.1223/64, Flat No.401,
2
C.C.No.9914/2023
Rajssivana Apartment,
1st Main Road,
MRCR Extension,
Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 040.
Also carrying business at
Global Batteries,
Shop No.1, No.47,
Dr.T.C.M.Royan Road,
(Goodshed Road),
Bengaluru - 560 053.
(Rep By : Sri.Harisha.T - Advocate)
Date of presenting 06.03.2023.
complaint
Date of arrest of accused NIL
Name of the Complainant SRI.P.SREERAMULUGUPTA.
Date of commencement of 19.08.2023.
evidence
Date of closing evidence 22.12.2025.
Offence complained of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881.
Date of Judgment 10.04.2026.
Opinion of the Judge Accused found guilty.
:JUDGMENT:
This Complainant has presented the complaint on
06.03.2023 against the accused for the offense punishable
under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter it is referred to as NI Act).
3
C.C.No.9914/2023
2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINANT’S CASE
ARE AS UNDER:-
a) It is the case of the complainant that the accused
and wife of the accused Smt. Lathavelu are well known to each
other. The accused and his wife are running a business in the
name of “Global Batteries” at Shop No.1, No.47, Dr.T.C.M.
Royan Road, (Goodshed Road), Bengaluru-560053. The
accused and his wife approached the complainant in the last
week of April 2022 seeking financial assistance of
Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) for their business and
other legal necessities and they agreed to repay the same in
the month of August 2022. Accordingly the complainant
considering the request has paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to
the wife of accused/Smt.Lathavelu on various dates by way of
cash since the wife of the accused insisted to pay the amount
in cash, in the following manner:- a) A sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
on 01.05.2022, b) A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 10.05.2022, c) A
sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 22.05.2022 and d) A sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.05.2022.
b) It is further case of the complainant that in the last
week of June 2022 again the accused and his wife have
approached the complainant and sought for further hand loan
of Rs.6,00,000/- and agreed to repay the total loan amount of
Rs.12,00,000/- within August 2022. The complainant has
transferred a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the account of accused
on 30.06.2022. However, the accused and his wife did not re-
pay said sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. Finally, on 01.10.2022 wife of
4
C.C.No.9914/2023
accused issued a cheque bearing No.000008, dated
07.10.2022 drawn on City Union Bank, OTC Road, Chickpet
Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 053, in favour of the complainant
for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and the accused has issued a
cheque bearing No.002295 dated 01.10.2022 drawn on City
Union Bank, OTC Road, Chickpet Main Road, Bengaluru-
560053, in favour of complainant for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-,
promising the complainant that when the said cheques are
presented it would be honoured.
c) It is further case of the complainant that the
complainant presented the cheque bearing No.002295, dated
01.10.2022, on 01.10.2022 through his banker i.e., Indian
Overseas Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru, which came
to be returned with an endorsement “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”.
The complainant presented the cheque bearing No.000008
dated 07.10.2022, on 07.10.2022 through his banker i.e.,
Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru, which
came to be returned with an endorsement “FUNDS
INSUFFICIENT”.
d) It is further case of the complainant that when the
complainant intimated with regard to dishonour of the said
cheques to the accused and his wife, they requested to re-
present the cheques after 20.12.2022. Accordingly, the
complainant re-presented the cheque bearing No.002295
dated 01.10.2022, on 22.12.2022 through his banker i.e.,
Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru,
5
C.C.No.9914/2023
however the said cheque came to be returned with an
endorsement dated 23.12.2022 “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”,
Immediately, thereafter the complainant brought the fact of
dishonour of the said cheque and demanded immediate
payment of the same. But, for one reason or another the
accused postponed the payment of the said sum to the
complainant.
e) It is further case of the complainant that the
complainant has issued a legal notice dated 20.01.2023 to the
accused through RPAD to his two addresses. The notice sent
to the accused to his residential address is served to the
accused on 25.1.2023, but notice issued to his business
address returned with endorsement “Door Locked”. Since
accused has not paid the cheque amount within stipulated
time, the complainant was constrained to file this complaint.
3(a) After presenting the complaint cognizance of the
offense under Section 138 of N.I Act, was taken. As a prima-
facie case was made out against the accused, by order dated
25.04.2023 Criminal Case was registered and process was
issued to the accused.
3(b) In response to the summons, accused has caused
his appearance through Sri.Harisha.T – Advocate and got
obtained the bail on 19.08.2023. The substance of accusation
was recorded on 19.08.2023. Since the accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried, the matter was posted for trial.
6
C.C.No.9914/2023
4. The sworn statement of the complainant was
treated as examination-in-chief of complainant and the
documents at Ex.P.1 to P.10 are marked through PW.1.
5. All the incriminating evidence appearing against
the accused in the evidence of PW.1 has been read over and
explained to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and
accordingly, answers given by the accused were recorded.
6. While recording statement under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., though accused has stated that, he has defense
evidence, he has not lead defense evidence.
7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the complainant and accused and on perusal of the materials
available on record the points that would arise for
determination are as under:-
POINTS
1) Whether the complainant proved that the
accused has issued cheque bearing No.002295
for Rs.6,00,000/- dated 01.10.2022 drawn on
City Union Bank, OTC Road Chickpet Main
Road Branch, in favour of the complainant
towards discharge of lawful dues to the
complainant?
2) Whether the Complainant proved that the
complainant has presented the said Cheque
within a period of its validity for encashment
7
C.C.No.9914/2023through his banker, Indian Overseas Bank,
Vijayanagara Branch which came to be
dishonored with an endorsement “FUNDS
INSUFFICIENT”
3) Whether the Complainant proved that inspite
service of legal notice sent within one month
from the date of endorsement of the Bank the
accused has failed to repay the Cheque amount
within the stipulated period ?
4) What order or sentence?
8. The answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.2 : In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.3 : In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.4 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No.1:
9(a) It is the argument of the Learned counsel for the
complainant that the accused has not disputed that the
cheques at Ex.P1 belongs to his account and has admitted his
signature thereon. When the accused admits his signature on
the cheque, the burden lies upon his to rebut the presumption
under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. However, the accused has
failed to rebut the presumption favor the complainant that the
cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally recoverable
debt. Since accused has borrowed hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/-
8
C.C.No.9914/2023
from the complainant and for the discharge of the above loan,
Ex.P.1 was issued, the accused neither issued reply to the
demand notice, nor let in defense evidence to prove his
defense.
9(b) Learned counsel for the complainant further
submits that an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is a
statutory offence. In such cases, the accused must specifically
plead and prove his defense. But, the accused neither issued
a reply nor led any defence evidence. The accused has failed to
prove his defense that neither the accused nor his wife
borrowed Rs.12,00,000/- from the complainant and by mis-
using the cheque in question which was given to Abhiram has
filed false case. On the contrary, the complainant has proved
his case through oral and documentary evidence.
10. Per contra, it is the argument of the learned
counsel for the accused that neither wife of the accused nor
accused had borrowed loan of Rs.12,00,000/- as alleged in the
complaint. There was no any cash transaction between the
complainant and accused. By mis-using the cheques which
were given to Abhiram, the false cases were filed against the
accused as well as his wife. Since the complainant has not
paid any amount to the accused and his wife, it was not
shown in his IT Returns. The complainant has not produced
any documents to show that on the alleged dates when cash
payments were made, he withdraw the amount from his
account. Since no document has been placed by the
9
C.C.No.9914/2023
complainant to show that, he has lent loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to
the accused and Rs.6,00,000/- to wife of accused, the Court
has to draw an adverse inference that the complainant has not
lent loan of Rs.12,00,000/- either to the accused or to his wife.
The learned counsel for the accused, in support of his
argument has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Crl.Appeal No.3257/2024 between Sri
Dattatraya Vs. Sharanappa, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held that:
“Moreover, affirming the findings of the Trial
Court, the High Court observed that while
the signature of the respondent on the
cheque drawn by him as well as on the
agreement between the parties herein
stands admitted, in case where the concern
of financial capacity of the creditor is raised
on behalf of an accused, the same is to be
discharged by the complainant through
leading of cogent evidence”
11. Keeping in mind the well established and settled
principle laid down in the above decisions relied by the learned
counsel for the accused, let this Court to see the case on
hand.
12. To prove the guilt of the accused, PW1/the
complainant, in his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit,
has reproduced the averments made in the complaint and
produced documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P10.
10
C.C.No.9914/2023
13. Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing No.002295 for
Rs.6,00,000/- dated 01.10.2022 drawn on City Union Bank,
OTC Road Chickpet Main Road Branch in favour of the
complainant. Ex.P.2 is the bank memo dated 23.12.2022
wherein it could be seen that the cheque at Ex.P1 presented
by the complainant was returned unpaid for the reason of
“FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”.
14. Ex.P3 is the office copy of the demand notice dated
20.01.2023 issued by the complainant to the accused through
his Advocate calling upon the accused to pay the cheque
amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
Ex.P4 & 5 are the postal receipts for having sent the notice at
Ex.P3 to the accused. Ex.P.6 is the postal track consignment,
wherein it could be seen that the accused has been duly
served with the notice on 25.01.2023. Ex.P.7 is the RPAD
returned cover, wherein it could be seen that notice sent to the
accused to his business address returned with postal shara
dated 25.01.2023 as “NOT CLAIMED”.
15. Ex.P.8 is the GST Registration Certificate. Ex.P.9
is the Membership Card issued by Karnataka Film Chambers
of Commerce. From Ex.P.8 and 9, there is no doubt that
complainant is a Film Distributor and runs his business in the
name of Lakshmi Vinayaka Pictures.
16. Ex.P.10 is the Certified Copy of the Bank Pass book
of the accused bearing account No.084201000009761 from
11
C.C.No.9914/2023
11.03.2022 till 11.04.2025. Having gone through the account
statement of the complainant, it can be said that the
complainant has a financial capacity to lend loan of
Rs.12,00,000/-.
17. It is a settled principle that once the signature on a
cheque is admitted, a presumption arises under Section 139
of the N.I. Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of a
debt or liability. This presumption extends to the existence of
a legally enforceable debt or liability. There is no doubt
regarding the initial presumption in favor of the compltainant.
However, this presumption is rebuttable. The initial onus lies
on the accused to rebut it by raising a probable defence to the
satisfaction of the Court. The standard of proof required is
‘preponderance of probabilities’. If the accused raises a
probable defence creating doubt about the existence of a
legally enforceable debt or liability, or shows that the
consideration was improbable, doubtful, or illegal, the onus
shifts to the complainant to prove the debt as a matter of fact.
Failure to do so results in the complainant’s case failing.
18. To invoke the presumption under Sections 118 and
139 of the N.I. Act, the complainant must establish that the
cheque belong to the accused and bears his signature. Here,
the accused has not denied that Ex.P1 is his cheque or his
signature thereon. Thus, it is established that the cheque at
Ex.P.1 belongs to the accused and bears his signature.
12
C.C.No.9914/2023
19. Once the complainant discharges this burden, the
Court must presume under Section 139 of the N.I. Act that the
cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or liability. However,
this presumption is rebuttable. The Court must now examine
whether the accused has raised a probable defence to rebut it.
20. It is true, the accused has not lead defense
evidence. It is also true that the accused has not given reply
to the notice issued by the complainant though he was served
with the notice. It is also true that either while recording the
statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C or recording the plea, the
accused has not stated his defense except denying the case of
the complainant. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
decision reported in 2019(3) KCCR 2473 (SC) between
Basalingappav/s Mudibasappa’s case, to rebut the
presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led
by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by
the complainant in order to raise a probable defense. Inference
of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from
the materials brought on record by the parties but also by
reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
21. Thus, it is clear that merely because the accused
has not let in defense evidence it could not be said that
accused has not raised probable defense and he could not able
to rebut the presumption available U/s 139 of NI Act. Even the
accused could rebut the presumption from the evidence of the
13
C.C.No.9914/2023
complainant. Now let this Court to look into the evidence of
the complainant to see that whether the accused able to rebut
the presumption which favours the complainant from the
mouth of the complainant or not.
22. The defense of the accused could be seen during
the cross-examination of the complainant. It is specific
defense of the accused that the cheque in question was given
to one Abhiram who is friend of complainant. By mis-using
the said cheque, which was given to Abhiram false case was
filed against the accused.
23. Though PW.1 has been subjected to lengthy cross-
examination, nothing was elicited from the mouth of the
complainant which favours the defense of the accused. It is
no doubt that the complainant has not produced any
documents with regard to lending of hand loan of
Rs.6,00,000/- to the wife of the accused as alleged in the
complaint. Since no documents were taken on the date of
lending of hand loan by way of cash, the complainant has not
produced any documents. It is true, as admitted by the
complainant, he has not shown lending of hand loan of
Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cash to the wife of the accused in his
IT Returns. Merely because lending of hand loan of
Rs.6,00,000/- on various dates as shown in the complaint was
not disclosed in IT Returns of the complainant, it cannot be
said that the accused has successfully rebutted the
presumption available under Section 139 of NI Act.
14
C.C.No.9914/2023
24. As noted above, it is the specific defense of the
accused that cheque in question was given to one Abhiram,
but not to the complainant. Admittedly, the accused has not
taken any steps either against Abhiram or against
complainant for alleged mis-use of his cheque. Mere taking
defense that cheque given to Abhiram was mis-used by the
complainant, is not enough to rebut the presumption available
under Section 139 of NI Act.
25. It is worth to note that during the cross-
examination of complainant on 16.10.2025, it was suggested
on behalf of the accused that Rs.6,00,000/- was paid to the
accused as stated by Abhiram. From this suggestion, it could
be said that the complainant has paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the
accused by way of RTGS. It is not the defense of the accused
that, he has repaid the amount which he taken from the
complainant. As noted above, the accused has failed to prove
his defense that cheque given to Abhiram was mis-used by the
complainant.
26. Overall assessing the evidence of the complainant,
it is held that, the accused has failed to prove his defense that
neither he nor his wife has taken hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/-
each from the complainant and the false case was filed by mis-
using the cheque which was given to Abhiram. Hence, it is
held that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption
available under Section 118 and 139 of NI Act.
15
C.C.No.9914/2023
27. In view of the aforesaid discussions, in the
considered opinion of this Court, it is held that the
complainant has proved that, the accused has issued Cheque
at Ex.P.1 in favour of the complainant towards discharge of
lawful dues to the complainant. Hence, the Point No.1 is
answered in the AFFIRMATIVE.
POINT No.2 AND 3:
28. These two points are taken up together for common
discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
It is relevant to note here that, only proving of existence
of legally recoverable debt is not suffice to convict the accused
for the offense punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. In
addition to this, the complainant has also to satisfy the
following ingredients:-
1. That the complainant has presented the
said cheuqe for encahsment within its
validity period;
2. That the said Cheque has been returned
unpaid for want of sufficient funds in the
account of the accused;
3. That the complainant has issued
statutory notice demanding the amount
covered under the Cheque to the accused
within the stipulated period of 30 days
16
C.C.No.9914/2023form the date of receipt of notice of
dishonour of Cheques in question;
4. That the accused has failed to comply
with, the demand notice issued, within the
statutory period of 15 days from the date
of receipt of such statutory notice; and
5. That the complaint has been presented
within the period of one month after expiry
of 15 days from the date of receipt of
statutory notice issued to the accused as
provided under section 142 of N.I.Act.
29. It is seen that the complainant has got the
demand notice on 20.01.2023 at Ex.P.3 issued within
stipulated period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
intimations of dishonor of Cheque.
30. It is one of the arguments of the learned counsel
for the accused that accused has not been served with the
notice.
31. It is seen that as per Ex.P.6, postal track
consignment, accused has been served with the notice on
25.01.2023 which was sent to the residential address of the
accused. The notice sent to the business address of the
accused returned with postal shara “UNCLAIMED”.
32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
2007 (6) SCC 555 between C.C.Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty
17
C.C.No.9914/2023
Muhammed and another has held that”Insofar as the question
of disclosure of necessary particulars with regard to the issue
of notice in terms of proviso (b) of Section 138 of the Act, in
order to enable the Court to draw presumption or inference
either under Section 27 of the G.C. Act or Section 114 of the
Evidence Act, is concerned, there is no material difference
between the two provisions. In our opinion, therefore, when
the notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing
the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory requirement of issue
of notice in terms of Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the
Act stands complied with. It is needless to emphasise that the
complaint must contain basic facts regarding the mode and
manner of the issuance of notice to the drawer of the cheque.
It is well settled that at the time of taking cognizance of the
complaint under Section 138 of the Act, the Court is required
to be prima facie satisfied that a case under the said Section is
made out and the aforenoted mandatory statutory procedural
requirements have been complied with. It is then for the
drawer to rebut the presumption about the service of notice
and show that he had no knowledge that the notice was
brought to his address or that the address mentioned on the
cover was incorrect or that the letter was never tendered or
that the report of the postman was incorrect. In our opinion,
this interpretation of the provision would effectuate the object
and purpose for which proviso to Section 138 was enacted,
namely, to avoid unnecessary hardship to an honest drawer of
a cheque and to provide him an opportunity to make amends”.
18
C.C.No.9914/2023
33. It is true, when the notice issued to the accused to
his correct address returned with shara “Refused or
Unclaimed or Door Locked” then it has to be presumed that
the accused has been duly served with notice. It is burden
upon the accused to prove that the address for which notice
sent was not his proper and correct address. If the accused
proves that notice was not sent to his last known correct
address then the complainant has to prove that the accused
has intentionally avoided to take notice though it was sent to
his correct and proper address.
34. It is not the defense of the accused that the
addresses for which notice was sent are not the correct and
proper address of the accused. Under the circumstances, it
could be said that the complainant has rightly issued the
notice to the correct addresses of the accused.
35. When the notice which was sent to correct and
proper address of the accused returned with postal shara
“NOT CLAIMED/UNCLAIMED”, then it has to be presumed
that accused has been duly served with the demand notice.
Even as per Ex.P.6 also accused has been duly served with
notice on 25.01.2023. Hence, it is held that there is no merit
in the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that
accused has not been served with the demand notice.
19
C.C.No.9914/2023
36. It is evident from the file that the complainant has
presented the present complaint on 06.03.2023 i.e., within the
period of one month after expiry of 15 days from the date of
receipt of the legal notice by the accused.
37. From the above documentary evidence, it is held
that, in this case, all the ingredients of section 138 of N.I Act
have been complied with.
38. In view of the aforesaid discussions, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the complainant has proved
the Point No.2 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore,
the Point No.2 and 3 are answered in the AFFIRMATIVE.
POINT No.4:
39. On going through the entire oral and documentary
evidence on record, the conduct of the accused goes to show
that he has issued the cheque in question at Ex.P.1 without
maintaining sufficient amount in his account. This shows the
intention of the accused is to defraud the complainant and to
escape from his liability to pay the cheque amount.
40. In the instant case, accused issued cheque in
question to the complainant towards repayment loan which
was due by his to the complainant but, he has failed to keep
up his promise which amounts to unjust enrichment for which
complainant is to be compensated. Hence, having been
20
C.C.No.9914/2023
considering the aforesaid aspects and also in view of foregoing
answers on Point No.1 to 3, the accused is liable to be
punished under section 138 of N.I.Act.
41. Considering the length of the case, amount under
the cheque, reasonable rate of interest from the date of
issuance of the cheque till date, the cost of expenses of the
litigation and time spent by the complainant, this Court is of
the view that it is proper to impose fine of Rs.7,75,000/- out of
which Rs.7,50,000/- shall be payable to the complainant as
compensation towards loan due to the complainant and
remaining Rs.25,000/- towards State. Accordingly, this court
proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER
The complaint filed by the Complainant
Society U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881., is hereby allowed.
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the
accused is hereby convicted of the offence
punishable u/S.138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881.
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.7,75,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and
Seventy Five Thousand Only), in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Further, it is ordered that out of fine
amount of Rs.7,75,000/-, Rs.7,50,000/-
21
C.C.No.9914/2023
(Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only)
shall be payable to the complainant as
compensation and the remaining amount of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand
Only) shall be payable towards State.
Office to supply copy of the Judgment to
the accused forthwith.
The bail and surety bond of the accused
dated 19.08.2023 stands canceled.
(Dictated to Stenographer directly on computer, computerized
by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open
court on this the 10th day of April, 2026)
(LAVANYA.H.N)
LII ADDL. C.J.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT/S:
PW-1 : SRI.P.SREERAMULU GUPTA.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OT THE
COMPLAINANT/S:
Ex.P-1 Cheque.
Ex.P-2 Bank Memo.
Ex.P-3 Notice dated 20.01.2023.
Ex.P-4 & 5 Two Postal Receipts.
Ex.P-6 Postal Track Consignment.
Ex.P-7 Returned RPAD Cover.
Ex.P-8 Copy of GST Registration Certificate.
22
C.C.No.9914/2023
Ex.P-9 Copy of Membership Card issued by
Karnataka Film Chambers of Commerce
Ex.P.10 Certified copy of Bank Pass book
Statement of complainant.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED/S:
NIL
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED/S:
NIL
(LAVANYA.H.N)
LII ADDL. C.J.M., BENGALURU.
Digitally
signed by
LAVANYA H N
LAVANYA Date:
HN 2026.04.10
17:37:58
+0530
