Bangalore District Court
Rajath Dwarka vs Ashwath K on 23 March, 2026
CC.No.21940/2017
KABC030948962017
Presented on : 01-09-2017
Registered on : 01-09-2017
Decided on : 23-03-2026
Duration : 8 years, 6 months, 22 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 23rd day of March 2026
Present: Smt.Tejaswini K.M., B.A.L.LL.M,
XVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
CC. No.21940/2017
Sri.Rajath Dwarka
S/o Late.Munirathnam Naidu
Aged about 41 years
R/at No.2062, 7th Main, 2nd Stage,
Kumarswamy Layout,
Bangalore - 560078.
....Complainant
(By Sri R.S., Advocate)
Versus
2 C.C.21940/2017
Sri.Ashwath Y.K
S/o Late.Kempanna
Ananya Farms
Yachenahalli, Bannur Hobli,
T.Narasipura Taluk,
Mysore District - 571101.
.... Accused
(By Sri.,B.R., Advocate)
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Date of commencement
of evidence : 31.08.2017
Date of closing evidence : 19.11.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of
Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
3 C.C.21940/2017
JUDGMENT
This case is registered against the accused for the
offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
2. Factual matrix of the complainant’s case is as
under:
It is stated that the complainant knows the accused
and they are close friends. The accused by profession is
an Artist/Actor and also proprietor for Ananya Farms
situated at Yachenahalli, Bannur Hobli, T.Narasipura
Taluk, Mysore District. The accused requested the
complainant for financial assistance to the tune of
Rs.15,00,000/- at the end of October 2016 for the purpose
of development of the said farm and also assured to take
the complainant as one of the partners of the Ananya
Farms. The complainant consented for the same and
agreed to pay Rs.12,50,000/-. The complainant has paid a
sum of Rs.12,50,000/- by way of cash on 08.11.2016.
Thereafter, the complainant requested the accused to
4 C.C.21940/2017execute the partnership deed and visited the farm
several times, but the accused postponed it.
3. Thereafter, the complainant demanded the
accused to refund above amount with nominal interest.
Accordingly, the accused has issued a cheque bearing
No.262976 dated 04.04.2017 for Rs.10,00,000/-, drawn on
State Bank of Mysore, J.C.Road Branch, Bangalore in
favour of the complainant and promised to pay
remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest within a
short period. As per instructions of the accused, the
complainant has presented the cheque before the bank,
it got dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’ vide
memo dated 27.06.2017. Therefore, the complainant got
issued legal notice on 24.07.2017 demanding the accused
to make payment amount within 15 days and it has been
returned with a shara ‘nobody was available at home to
receive the notice’ on 03.08.2017. However, the accused
has not paid the cheque amount and not replied to the
demand notice. Hence the complainant has constrained
to file the present complaint.
4. After receiving the complaint, this court has
meticulously gone through the documents and affidavit
5 C.C.21940/2017
filed along with it and then took cognizance of the
offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act and ordered for registration of the compliant as
P.C.R.
5. Sworn statement of the complainant was
recorded and marked 17 documents as Ex.C-1 to C-17. As
there were sufficient materials to constitute the offence,
this court has proceeded to pass an order for issuing
process against the accused.
6. In pursuance of summons, accused has appeared
through his counsel and applied for bail. He was
enlarged on bail. Then the substance of accusation was
read over to the accused in the language known to him,
for which he pleaded not guilty.
7. As per the direction of Hon’ble supreme court in
“Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and
others reported in (2014)(5) SCC 590, this court treated
the sworn statement of the complainant as complainant
evidence and posted matter for cross-examination of
PW.1. The counsel for the accused has fully cross-
examined PW.1. Thereafter the complainant closed his
6 C.C.21940/2017
side of evidence. During cross-examination of PW.1 Ex.D1
got marked by way of confrontation.
8. The statement of accused as contemplated under
the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded
vide order dated 24.06.2023 and the incriminating
evidence as such forthcoming against the accused in the
evidence of PW.1 and the documents has been read over
and explained to the accused in the language known to
him. He denied all incriminating evidence.
9. In order to substantiate him defense, the
accused got himself examined as DW.1 and got marked
Ex.D2 to D13 and he had been cross-examined by the
learned counsel for the complainant. During cross-
examination of DW.1 Ex.C18 to C20 are got marked by
way of confrontation. Witness by name Mr.Ashok
Kulakarni has been examined as DW.2 and he has been
duly cross examined by the learned counsel for the
complainant. Branch manager SBI is examined as DW3.
10. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for both the side and perused the oral and the
documentary evidence placed on record.
7 C.C.21940/2017
11. Points that arise for my consideration are as
under:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the
accused towards discharge of his liabilityissued a cheque bearing No.262972 dated
04.04.2017 for Rs.10,00,000/-, drawn on
State Bank of Mysore, J C Road Branch,
Bangalore in favour of complainant, on
presentation of the same for encashment,
it was dishonored for “funds insufficient” in
the account maintained by the accused,
then in-spite of issuing demand notice to
the Accused and in complying with
statutory requirement under Negotiable
Instrument Act, Accused did not repay the
cheque amount, thereby he has committed
an offence punishable U/s 138 of
2. What Order?
12. My Answer to above points are as under:-
Point No.I :- In the Affirmative,
8 C.C.21940/2017
Point No.II :- As per the final order for
the following....
REASONS
13. POINT NO.I:- The Defense of the accused is as
follows
1. He resides with his family in Yachenahalli, Mysore,
where he operates a dairy farm in partnership with Mr.
D.P. Ashok Kulkarni. He has known the complainant since
2008. The farm maintains approximately 80 cows and
produces around 600 to 800 liters of milk per day. A
separate bank account is maintained for the dairy
business.
2. In 2013, he borrowed a loan of Rs 2 lakhs from the
complainant, which was fully repaid in 2018. The cheque
in question was issued in 2013 as security for that loan.
3. It is further contended that he is working in
cinemas as well as television serials. He has taken the
cheque book pertaining to the disputed cheque in 2013.
He has repaid Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant on
12.07.2018. That time he did not know about this
complaint. After receiving warrant, he got to know about
this case.
9 C.C.21940/2017
4. Since the complainant did not get an opportunity
to act in cinemas and serials like him ie accused, the
complainant became enraged and filed this false case.
5. After repayment of the loan, despite of his request,
the complainant has not returned the security cheque
and as there is no legally enforceable debt, compliant is
not maintainable.
6. The complainant convened a press meet and
attempted to defame him, and by creating such pressure,
he is trying to extort money from him.
7. He has repaid interest to the complainant by way of
cash through partner Mr.Ashok Kulkarni, he never
borrowed Rs.12,50,000/- as alleged in this complaint.
8. Except the signature on the cheque he has not
filled the details in it.
9. Cheque limit is Rs.5 lakhs but, it has presented for
an amount exceeding Rs.5 lakhs, as such complaint is not
maintainable.
10. The complainant has managed to ensure that the
legal notice was not served on him by colluding with the
postal authorities.
10 C.C.21940/2017
Hence, on these grounds, accused prays to acquit
him from this case.
14. Negotiable Instruments Act provides for some
presumption in favour of the complainant i.e., Section
118 reads as here: – “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”.
15. Further Sec 139 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act provides for presumption in favour of a holder. It
reads as here: – “It shall be presumed, unless the contrary
is proved, that the holder of a 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.”
16. Combined reading of above said sections raises
a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that
he has received the same for discharge in whole or in
part of any debt or other liability. However, it is settled
principle of law that the presumption available u/s 139 NI
11 C.C.21940/2017
Act can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable
defense.
17. The complainant has reiterated the contents of
the complaint in his chief-examination. PW1. got marked
Ex.C1 to C20. He has produced the cheque issued by
accused and the same is marked as Ex.C-1, the signature
of the accused is marked as Ex.C-1(a), copy of bank
memo is marked as Ex.C-2, copy of demand notice
dated:24.07.2017 is marked as Ex.C-3, copy of postal
receipt is marked as Ex.C-4, copy of returned notice is
marked as Ex.C-5, postal cover is marked as Ex.C-6, postal
receipt is marked as Ex.C-7, copy of postal
acknowledgment is marked as Ex.C-8, copy of statement
of account is marked as Ex.C-9, copy of Income Tax
Return Verification Form is marked as Ex.C-10, C/c of
complaint in CC.No.700/2018 is marked as Ex.C-11, C/c of
order sheet in PCR No.94/2018 is marked as Ex.C-12, C/c
of Order Sheet in CC.No.742/2019 is marked as Ex.C-13,
C/c of complaint PCR No.167/2019 is marked as Ex.C-14,
copy of affidavit is marked as Ex.C-15, C/c of cheque is
marked as Ex.C16, copy of complaint in CC.No.8644/2021
is marked as Ex.C-17, C/c of complaint in PCR No.7/2022
12 C.C.21940/2017
is marked as Ex.C-18, C/c of Roznama and complaint in
PCR No.82/2022 are marked as Ex.C-19 and copy of
private complaint is marked as Ex.C-20. PW.1 has been
cross-examined by the counsel for the accused.
18. Percontra, the accused has also stepped into
witness box and orally deposed about his defense as
stated supra and he has been cross-examined by the
counsel for the complainant.
19. Accused has also examined one witness by
name Mr.Ashok Kulkarni as DW.2 and he has deposed in
his chief examination that he is one of the partners of the
Dairy farm run by accused from 2010. Himself and the
family of accused are residing in the farm’s address. The
accused is acting cinemas and serials. He knows the
complainant since prior to 2010. In 2013 the accused has
borrowed Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant and repaid it
in 2018, in between he has paid interest to the
complainant through account. In 2013 the complainant
has taken the a cheque for security from the accused and
despite of repayment of loan, the complainant has
presented the said cheque and filed this case. He has
been cross-examined by the counsel for the complainant.
13 C.C.21940/2017
20. The accused filed an application to summon
the bank manager, which was allowed vide order dated
23.07.2025. Pursuant thereto, the Assistant Manager of
the Bengaluru City Branch of SBI appeared before the
Court and he was examined as DW.3. In his evidence,
DW.3 deposed that although the cheque mentions it as a
multicity cheque payable up to RS 5 lakhs, even if it is
presented for an amount exceeding RS 5 lakhs, the bank
may still process it after contacting the customer for
confirmation.
21. With the leave of the Court, the counsel for
the accused treated the witness as hostile and cross-
examined him. During cross-examination, DW.3 denied
the suggestion that a cheque with a limit of RS 5 lakhs, if
presented for RS10 lakhs, would not be permitted. He
further deposed that if a cheque is presented for
encashment exceeding RS 5 lakhs, it is not maintainable
as such, however, the amount can be transferred directly
to the account.
22. I have meticulously gone through pleadings,
evidence placed on record and given my anxious
consideration to the arguments canvassed by both side.
14 C.C.21940/2017
During arguments, the counsel for the complainant
submitted that the accused has failed to establish his
defence and he has taken inconsistent stands regarding
the issuance of the cheque in the present case as well as
in the private complaint filed by him, marked as Ex.P20. It
was further contended that the accused did not reply to
the legal notice. The counsel argued that the amount
paid by the accused during the pendency of the case
itself indicates the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
It was also submitted that the accused has a habitual
practice of issuing cheques to various persons, as a result
of which multiple cheque bounce cases have been filed
against him. Since the accused has admitted his
signature on the cheque, the initial presumption
operates against him, and he is required to rebut the
same. However, the accused has failed to discharge this
burden in the present case. Accordingly, the
complainant’s counsel prayed for conviction of the
accused.
23. Per contra, the counsel for the accused argued
that the accused is running a dairy farm where he
maintains a large number of cows and earns substantial
15 C.C.21940/2017
income. It was further contended that the accused is also
engaged in acting in cinema and television serials and is
a well-known public figure with sufficient earnings. The
counsel submitted that despite repayment of Rs 2 lakhs
by the accused, the complainant has suppressed this
material fact in the sworn statement, and therefore an
adverse inference must be drawn against him. It was
further argued that the income tax return documents
produced by the complainant are fabricated for the
purpose of the case. According to the defence, the
auditor through whom the said ITRs were allegedly filed
does not exist, and there are material inconsistencies in
the evidence of PW.1 regarding the auditor’s details,
address, and the ITR documents. It was also contended
that the complaint itself is not maintainable, as it pertains
to a time-barred debt allegedly advanced in 2013.
24. The counsel for the accused further argued that
the cheque itself carries a ceiling limit of Rs5 lakhs, and
therefore it could not have been presented for Rs10
lakhs. It was contended that the evidence of the bank
manager examined as DW.3 is not admissible, as no prior
16 C.C.21940/2017
consent was obtained from the accused to process such
a cheque, as stated in evidence of DW3.
25. He further submitted that several persons are
employed at the dairy farm, where around 100 cows are
maintained, and the entire family of the accused resides
at the said premises. Despite this, the complainant
ensured that the legal notice was not served on the
accused by colluding with the postal authorities and
caused a postal shara to be made stating that the
accused was not available for service. On these grounds,
it was argued that the complainant has failed to comply
with the mandatory requirements under Section 138(b)
of the NI Act regarding issuance and service of legal
notice, and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
26. Further he argued that purpose for which loan
is alleged to be given is for development for the farm.
However, said farm is fully developed and there is no
proof for payment of Rs.12.5 lakhs to the accused and
without the consent of another partner, the accused
alone cannot take the complainant partner to the Ananya
Farm, as such the said story is created by the
complainant. He further argued that the cheque in
17 C.C.21940/2017
question is from the cheque book obtained in 2013, and
since the accused has used more than four cheque books
after that period, the possibility of issuing the disputed
cheque in 2017 does not arise. This indicates that the
security cheque given by the accused in 2013 was
misused, despite the repayment of Rs 2 lakhs along with
interest. On this grounds, he prayed for the acquittal of
the accused.
27. With this back drop lets proceed to appreciate
the evidence. On perusal of the entire evidence placed on
record, following are admitted facts,
1 The acquaintance between the parties is not in
dispute.
2 It is also an admitted fact that the accused is
running dairy farm by name Ananya Farm to which
himself and DW.2 are the partners and the accused is
also acting in cinemas and serials .
3. The disputed cheque belongs to the account
of the accused and it bears his signature. Though
accused contends that the details in the cheque are not
filled by him, he admits his signature on the cheque and
18 C.C.21940/2017
he admits he himself has issued the cheque to the
complainant.
28. Therefore, it is prima-facie proved by the
complainant that accused has issued the cheque
maintained by his account in his name and it bears his
signature.
29. Therefore, initial presumption U/Sec.118 and
139 of NI Act has to be drawn in favour of the
complainant as the Honorable Supreme Court of India in
“Triyambak S Hegde v Sripad” (2022) 1 SCC 742 while
relying upon the the constitution bench judgment of
Basalingappa v Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, under
para 14 of its judgment reiterated that
“once the cheque was issued and that the
signatures are upon the cheque are accepted by
the accused, the presumptions undee Sec 118 and
139 of the NI Act arise against the accused. That is,
unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed
that the cheques in question were drawn by the
accused for a consideration and that the
complainant had received the cheque in question
in discharge of debt/liability from the accused.”
30. Therefore, as per Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act
initial presumption has to drawn infavour of the
19 C.C.21940/2017
complainant that cheque was issued in discharge of
legally enforceable debt. The burden lies on the accused
to rebut the said initial presumption on the scale of
preponderance of probabilities.
31. The case of the complainant is that he has lent
loan of rs.12.5 lakhs to the accused by way of cash on
18.11.2016 and towards partial repayment of Rs.10 lakhs,
the accused has issued the disputed cheque, but same
got dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’.
Despite of issuance of legal notice, the accused has not
repaid the cheque amount. Hence this case.
32. In his cross-examination the complainant has
deposed in consonance with his case, about issuance of
Rs 12.5 lakhs to the accused. During cross-examination
dated 08.11.2019 at para No.3, PW.1 has deposed that he
has given 12.5 lakhs by way of cash, but he has not taken
any receipt from the accused in this regard. Since the
accused sought loan by way of cash, he has given it by
way of cash. He deposed that he has withdrawn the
amount from his Canara Bank and he has produced his
account statement in this regard. He denied that he did
not has financial capacity to pay Rs.12.5 lakhs to the
20 C.C.21940/2017
accused. He specifically deposed that he had Rs.12.50
thousand with him as on 07.11.2016.
33. To substantiate this fact the complainant has
produced his account statement marked at Ex.C9. On
perusal of the same it is evident that on 17.11.2016 there
was outstanding balance of Rs.12,77,976/- in the account
of the complainant, he has withdrawn it through self
cheque. Thus by producing Ex.C9 the complainant has
proved his financial capacity to lend the alleged loan to
the accused. Therefore, various questions asked by the
counsel for the accused regarding the occupation of
PW.1, his income tax returns documents, the account
details of the accused etc holds no water.
34. AIR 2023 SC 5018 in between Rajesh Jain V/s
Ajay Singh, Apex court held that
” 31. Presumption, on the other hand, literally means “taking
as true without examination or proof”. In Kumar Exports v. Sharma
Exports, this Court referred to presumption as “devices by use of
which courts are enabled and entitled to pronounce on an issue
notwithstanding that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence.”
“62. The fundamental error in the approach lies in the fact
that the High Court has questioned the want of evidence on part of
the complainant in order to support his allegation of having
extended loan to the accused, when it ought to have instead
concerned itself with the case set up by the accused and whether
21 C.C.21940/2017he had discharged his evidential burden by proving that there
existed no debt/liability at the time of issuance of cheque..”
35. Principle laid down in above case law aptly
applicable to present case. Since the complainant enjoys
the initial presumption U/Sec.118 of NI Act i.e. cheque is
drawn for consideration, the Court shall presume that
the consideration has been passed to the accused.
Unless and until the accused rebut it on the scale of
preponderance of probabilities, the complainant need to
be called upon to prove his case further. The only
defense taken by the accused is that he has borrowed
loan of Rs.2 lakhs in 2013 and it was repaid in 2018 with
interest. Despite of the same, the security cheque was
given in 2013 has been misused by the complainant.
36. During his evidence, accused has specifically
taken a contention that on 12.07.2018, he has transferred
Rs.2 lakhs from his account to the account of
complainant.
37. Firstly, to prove that he had borrowed Rs.2
lakhs from the complainant in 2013, no iota of evidence is
produced before the Court. Indeed in the cross-
examination of the complainant he has denied that he
22 C.C.21940/2017
had given loan of Rs.2 lakhs to the accused in 2013 and
received security cheque for said loan by the accused.
Therefore, the burden completely rests on the accused to
prove his defense. Except his self interested testimony,
no admissible evidence is produced before the Court to
prove the alleged loan transaction of Rs.2 lakhs of 2013.
Though DW.2 ie one of the partners of the accused has
supported the case, it is worth mentioning here that he is
one of the partners of Ananya Farms with the accused.
Therefore, he is interested witness, his oral evidence
itself is not suffice to believe the version of the accused.
38. Secondly, the accused contends that from 2013
to 2018, he has paid interest to the complainant. To
substantiate this fact, he has examined DW.2 who has
deposed that he has transferred interest amount from
his account to the account of the complainant. Ex.D1 is
the account statement standing in the name of Mr.Ashok
Kulkarni D.P i.e. DW.2, on perusal of the same it appears
that he has transferred Rs.15,500/- through cheque on
21.06.2014 and 12.04.2014. Except 2 entries, in Ex.D1,
there is no other transaction which would goes to shows
that from 2013 to 2018, the accused has paid interest to
23 C.C.21940/2017
the loan of Rs.2 lakhs through the account of DW.2. It is
not forthcoming what is the rate of interest agreed upon
between the parties. Except in 2014 April and June, no
further interest paid to the complainant by the accused in
this regard.
39. The counsel for the accused has vehemently
argued that accused is busiest actor and famous public
figure, he runs a dairy farm wherein he maintained
around 100 cows, through which accused gets 600 to 600
liters milk every day. As such the accused has sufficient
income and there was no reason to get loan of Rs.12.5
lakhs from the complainant as alleged to develop the
business.
40. It is material to note here that the complainant
has stated that by assuring that accused will take him as
one of the partners of the Ananya Farm, for the
development on the said farm, the accused has received
Rs.12.5 lakhs on 08.11.2016. The accused has produced
Ex.D8 account statement which stands in the name of
Ananya Farm. On perusal of the same it appears that
from 01.06.2016 to 30.06.2016 there is hardly balance of
Rs.75,315/- and not more than that. The said account
24 C.C.21940/2017
statement reflects the financial stability of the accused
and the said Ananya Farm.
41. In the evidence of accused as well as DW.2, they
have deposed that in their dairy farm, they have go-
dawn, feed store, residential house, got 80 High breed
Cows, advance technology milk extract machine though
which they produce around 600 to 800 liters of milk
every day. During cross-examination of PW.1 dated
31.01.2019 at para No.2 counsel for the accused has
suggested that accused has acted in more than 200
cinemas and PW.1 pleaded ignorance to the said
suggestion. He further suggested that per day accused
get remuneration of 20 to 25 thousand and PW.1 pleaded
ignorance to the said suggestion. Further he suggested
that accused owns more than 100 Jersey cows, employs
15 laborers, and possesses a tractor and tiller and after
deducting entire expenses, the accused gets an income
of Rs.2 to 3 lakhs from the said farm and PW.1 denied for
the same. The counsel further suggested to PW.1 that
the dairy farm and house worth of Rs.7 to 8 crores and
PW.1 deposed it might worth of Rs.55 lakhs.
25 C.C.21940/2017
42. Therefore, by putting such suggestions to PW.1,
the counsel for the accused attempted to create an
impression before the Court that the accused is
financially sound and that his dairy business is profitable,
therefore there was no need and necessity of borrowing
any loan from the complainant. However, in the absence
of any cogent or documentary evidence to substantiate
these suggestions, they remain as mere suggestions
without evidentiary value.
43. Accused ought to have produced his Bank
statements showing regular income of Dairy, Ownership
documents of land, buildings, and dairy infrastructure,
livestock details , Milk sale records, salary registers of 15
labours, Payment receipts for acting remuneration etc to
prove the above suggestions. The burden lies on the
accused to prove his defence as per sec 101 and 102 of
Indian Evidence Act, with reliable evidence and without
such proof, the Court will treat those claims as
unsubstantiated assertions.
44. Further it is significant to mention here that if at
all the accused was getting such huge remuneration and
financially stable, then why he took nearly five years,
26 C.C.21940/2017
from 2013 to 2018, to repay the allegedly modest loan of
Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant. The significant delay in
repayment of such a relatively small sum itself indicates
that the accused was not financially capable.
45. Further only after filing this case by the
complainant, the accused has transferred Rs.2 lakhs from
his account to the complainant’s account and the accused
contends that he did not not know about pendency of
this case while transferring of Rs.2 lakhs to the
complainant. The counsel for the accused has argued
that the complainant has intentionally suppressed the
fact that the accused has paid Rs.2 lakhs to his account,
in the evidence affidavit and complaint. It is pertinent to
note here that this complaint is filed on 28.08.2017 and
the sworn statement has been recorded on 31.08.2017.
The accused has transferred Rs.2 lakhs to the
complainant on 12.07.2018 as per Ex.D10 account
statement. Therefore, after this complaint is filed and the
sworn statement is recorded, the accused has
transferred the said Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant.
Therefore there is no occasion for the complainant to
plead about the said Rs.2 lakhs in the complaint or in his
27 C.C.21940/2017
sworn statement. After appearance of the accused before
the Court the said sworn statement itself is treated as
chief-examination of PW.1. Therefore, it is not possible to
the complainant to plead about said Rs.2 lakhs in the
present case and same cannot be construed as
suppression of material facts as argued by the counsel
for the accused.
46. In so far as contention of the accused that
without knowing the fact that this complaint has been
filed, he has transferred Rs.2 lakhs loan is concerned, this
Court has noticed that accused has filed private
complaint against the complainant for allegedly giving
false press statement which would defame him as per
Ex.P20. On perusal of averments of this complaint at
Ex.P20, the accused has alleged that through
complainant, he met a person by name Mr.Raju and from
him ,he has borrowed Rs.2 lakhs and it was repaid to the
said person on 16.11.2017.
47. It is further alleged in paragraph 8 that, in July
2018, the complainant approached the accused seeking
repayment of Rs 2 lakhs. It is also stated that the
complainant had filed a cheque bounce case against the
28 C.C.21940/2017
accused and demanded payment of Rs 2 lakhs for
withdrawing the said case. At that time, the accused
agreed to repay Rs 2 lakhs on or before 10.06.2018 and
issued two separate blank cheques drawn on his HDFC
Bank account to the complainant.
48. In para No.9 of the said complaint, it is clearly
pleaded that accused has transferred Rs.2 lakhs on
12.07.2018. But the complainant failed to withdraw the
cheque bounce case. Further it is alleged that the
complainant has asked him to pay Rs.16 lakhs including
penal charges, also said that he has to pay Rs.10 lakhs.
Therefore, these averments of his own complaint of the
accused makes it clear that after he got to know that the
cheque bounce case has been filed against him by the
complainant, at the assurance of the complainant, to
withdraw the said case, he has agreed to transfer Rs.2
lakhs to him and despite of transferring Rs.2 lakhs on
12.07.2018, the complainant has failed to withdraw the
cheque bounce case. Hence, the contention raised by the
accused in the present case that he transferred Rs 2 lakhs
without knowledge of the pending cheque bounce case is
29 C.C.21940/2017
wholly false, and it also reflects upon the conduct of the
accused.
49. It is worth mentioning here that as per Ex.C20
PCR No.2208/2018 the accused has borrowed Rs.2 lakhs
from one Mr.Raju and separate Rs.2 lakhs from the
complainant of this case. If the accused is a busiest actor
and highly paid, then there was no reason to get Rs.2
lakhs each loan from those 2 persons as narrated in
Ex.C20. The fact that he has taken Rs.4 lakhs from them
itself shows that he was in need of funds.
50. Further, the complainant has produced copies
of various cheque bounce cases filed against the
accused, marked as Ex.C12 to Ex.C19. These documents
demonstrate that multiple persons have initiated cheque
bounce proceedings against the accused, wherein he had
issued cheques to them. The said judgments also reflect
the financial condition of the accused.
51. In one of those complaints, the accused has
issued his cheque of SBM bank account and even in the
present case, the disputed cheque belongs to the
account of the accused maintained in SBM. The counsel
for the accused has argued that the cheque leaf was
30 C.C.21940/2017
taken in the year 2013 and it cannot be given in 2017 and
to substantiate it the accused has taken information from
his banker as per Ex.D9 on 24.07.2023. No doubt it is
mentioned that the cheque book from numbers 262951
to 263000 is issued on 08.07.2023. But no iota of
evidence is produced before the Court to show that prior
to obtaining the subsequent cheque book, the accused
had exhausted all the cheque leaves from the earlier
cheque book.
52. Indeed, the account statement produced by the
accused pertains only to the year 2016 and does not
reflect that he had utilized all the cheque leaves issued in
2013. Therefore, the possibility of issuance of the cheque
even after obtaining a new cheque book cannot be ruled
out. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence,
this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the
accused that a cheque leaf issued in the year 2013 could
not have been used in 2017. There is no hard and fast
rule in this regard.
53. Yet another important contention taken by the
accused is that the legal notice is not served on him. After
the cheque got dishonorued, the complainant has issued
31 C.C.21940/2017
legal notice as per Ex.C3 through RPAD and it has been
returned with a shara while postal authority tried to
serve the notice, nobody was available in the address, as
such it is returned back as per Ex.C6. The counsel for the
accused has much argued that since there is dairy farm
in the given address, many labours working and the
entire family are residing in the given address, there was
no reason for non-service of notice on the accused. It is
further argued that the complainant has intentionally
secured the postal shara to avoid proper service of notice
upon the accused.
54. It is significant to note here that the accused has
not disputed his address shown in the legal notice. As per
the postal authority, they tried to serve the notice on
different dates i.e. from 27.09.2017 to 02.08.2017, but
they could not served the notice. Except making
suggestion to PW.1 that by colluding with postal
authority he has obtained such shara, no admission is
taken from the mouth of PW.1 in this regard and the
accused has not examined postal authority to prove that
despite of availability of the accused, in the given
address, by colluding with complainant ,they have not
32 C.C.21940/2017
served the notice. The purpose of giving legal notice
before filing the complaint is to provide an opportunity to
the honest drawers of the cheques to make payment of
the cheque, if for any reason they could not pay the
amount. However, in the present case, as per his own
version the accused has not paid the amount from 2013.
But as per the complainant he has lent loan in the year
2016, the notice is given on 24.07.2017. Therefore, by
giving legal notice to the correct address of the accused,
the complainant has complied the ingredients of Sec.138
of NI Act and nothing contrary is proved by the accused
in this regard.
55. In C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr
(2007) 6 SCC 555, the Hon’ble Apex court has held; “
17. It is also to be borne in mind that the
requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from
the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of
giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer
who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post,
can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court
in respect of the complaint under Sec 138 the Act, make
payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court
that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of
summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the
summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be
33 C.C.21940/2017rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of
receipt of the summons from the Court along with the
copy of the complaint under Sec 138 of the Act, cannot
obviously contend that there was no proper service of
notice as under Sec 138 , by ignoring statutory
presumption to the contrary under Sec 27 of the G.C. Act
and Sec 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other
interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object
of the legislation… ”
56. Therefore, defense of the accused that notice is
not served holds no water as she has not deposited
cheque amount before court as per law laid down by
Apex court in aforementioned case law. The accused has
not given reply to the notice and same is fatal to his
defense.
57. Further the accused contends that the
complaint is filed with respect to time barred debt. The
accused counsel has much argued that the loan
transaction is done in 2013, the complainant has filed
this case in 2017 and same is beyond 3 years, from the
date of loan, as such it is time barred debt.
58. There is an initial presumption regarding the
date of issuance of the cheque U/Sec.118 of NI Act. Sec
118 (b) of NI Act say that, Until the contrary is proved, the
34 C.C.21940/2017
following presumptions shall be made: as to date:–that
“every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or
drawn on such date;”
59. It is material to note that, according to the
complainant, the loan was advanced on 08.11.2016,
which has been specifically pleaded in the complaint and
duly deposed to by PW.1 in his evidence. The cheque, as
per Ex.C1, is dated 04.04.2017. There exists a statutory
presumption regarding the date of issuance of the
cheque under Section 118 of the NI Act. Nothing contrary
has been elicited from the cross-examination of PW.1 to
establish that the cheque was issued in the year 2013
and not on the date mentioned therein. In fact, the
accused has failed to prove that he had availed any loan
in 2013 and had issued the disputed cheque during that
period.
60. Merely because the bank authorities have
furnished information stating that the cheque book, to
which the disputed cheque leaf belongs, was issued in
the year 2013, it cannot be construed that the loan
transaction itself took place in 2013, as contended by the
learned counsel for the accused. According to the
35 C.C.21940/2017complainant, a sum of Rs 12.5 lakhs was advanced on
08.11.2016, and the present case was filed in the year
2017. Hence, the complaint has been filed well within the
period of limitation.
61. Further, the learned counsel for the accused has
extensively cross-examined PW.1 with regard to his
Income Tax Return documents. The complainant has
produced Ex.C10, i.e., his ITR for the assessment year
2017-18. The counsel for the accused has contended that
Ex.C10 has not been produced through the auditor, that
the said auditor does not exist, that no such office is
located at the address mentioned in Ex.C10, and that
there are discrepancies in the evidence of PW.1
regarding the details of the said auditor. On these
grounds, it is argued that the complainant has produced
false and fabricated Income Tax Return documents. It is
pertinent to note here that the scope of the case is to see
that whether the disputed cheque has been issued in
discharge of legally enforceable debt or not. By giving
oral evidence as well as documentary evidence i.e. bank
statement, the complainant has clearly proved that he
had Rs.12.5 lakhs with him and same is further supported
36 C.C.21940/2017by the statutory presumptions available under Sections
118 and 139 of the NI Act.
62. Whether the complainant has complied with the
provisions of the Income Tax Act in filing his ITR, or
whether the said auditor exists or not, is beyond the
scope of the present case. It is well-settled law that even
if the alleged loan transaction is not disclosed in the
Income Tax Returns, the same does not absolve the
accused of his liability nor does it dispense with his
burden to establish his defence. If at all any irregularity
or misdeed has been committed by the complainant in
respect of his ITR or its filing, it is for the concerned
department to take appropriate action against him, and
the same cannot be a ground to the accused to seek
acquittal in the present case. Therefore, the entire cross-
examination of PW.1 on the aspect of ITR is of no
consequence.
63. Further the accused contends that since the
accused is famous actor, to defame him, the complainant
has tried to give false press statement and it has been
telecast in TV also and such efforts is made to extort
money from the accused. In the cross-examination PW.1
37 C.C.21940/2017has deposed that he had given a press statement only
because the media personnel had approached him. He
specifically denied the suggestion that he stated before
the television that the accused had borrowed Rs 18 lakhs
from him.
64. The accused himself has produced the said
news article published in Hi Bengaluru newspaper as per
Ex.D4 and D11 and D12. On perusal of the same, it
appears that it alleged that accused has taken loan of
Rs.12.5 lakhs and not Rs.18 lakhs. Even otherwise based
on the press statement, the Court cannot assume the
facts. Court has to consider the pleadings of the
complainant and the evidence given in that regard. The
accused has already taken steps against the complainant
for making such efforts of defaming him by filing private
complaint. However, though the accused has not
produced any documentary evidence regarding whether
he has proceeded against the complainant or not.
65. If the accused believed that his reputation was
affected by the alleged press statements or TV telecast
made by the complainant, being a well-educated and
socially influential person, he is at liberty to pursue the
38 C.C.21940/2017appropriate legal remedies. But the complainant’s efforts
to recover the loan amount cannot be construed as an
attempt to extort, as wrongly alleged by the accused.
66. No doubt in the cross-examination dated
08.11.2019 PW.1 has deposed that he has received Rs.3
lakhs from the accused. But no proof is produced by the
accused to prove that he has given such Rs.3 lakhs,
through what mode, in whose presence, or in relation to
which transaction. Admittedly the accused and the
complainant are acquainted with each other and they
were engaged in cinemas and TV serial, as such
possibility of having any such small transaction between
them cannot be brushed aside and for want of proof, this
Court declines to hold that PW.1’s statement regarding
Rs 3 lakhs amounts to any inconsistency in the case.
67. Moreover, the accused paid Rs 2 lakhs on
12.07.2018, after the filing of the present complaint. If
the accused had already paid Rs 3 lakhs as stated above,
no explanation is forthcoming as to what necessitated
the payment of an additional Rs 2 lakhs to the
complainant. Therefore, since this amount was
transferred after the complaint is filed, the complainant
39 C.C.21940/2017had no opportunity to refer to it in the complaint or to
endorse it on the disputed cheque.
68. No proof is produced by the accused prove that
he has utilized more than 3 cheque books, after
obtaining cheque book in 2013. Admittedly DW.2 and
DW.3 are the partners of the dairy farm. But the
complainant has stated that the accused has assured to
take him as partner to the said dairy farm. The reasons
why the accused gave such an assurance, or whether it
was communicated to the other partner ie DW2, or even
no such proposal came from accused, are irrelevant and
do not assist the accused in establishing his defense in
the present case.
69. Further, the learned counsel for the accused has
argued that, in view of the demonetization on
09.11.2016, the payment of the loan amount to the
accused in cash appears suspicious. However, the
complainant has produced his account statement
showing that he withdrew Rs 12.5 lakhs on 07.11.2016
and paid the same to the accused on 08.11.2016.
Therefore, the demonetization had no impact on this
40 C.C.21940/2017cash transaction, as it was completed prior to the
demonetization date.
70. It is also well settled law that cash transaction
cannot be termed as illegal per say. In Sanjabij Tari vs
Kishore S.Borcar, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2069
Apex court held that
“20. However, this Court is of the view that any
breach of Section 269SS of the IT Act, 1961 is subject to
a penalty only under Section 271D of the IT Act, 1961.
Further neither Section 269SS nor 271D of the IT Act,
1961 state that any transaction in breach thereof will be
illegal, invalid or statutorily void. Therefore, any
violation of Section 269SS would not render the
transaction unenforceable under Section 138 of the NI
Act or rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and
139 of the NI Act because such a person, assuming
him/her to be the payee/holder in due course, is liable
to be visited by a penalty only as prescribed.
Consequently, the view that any transaction above
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) is illegal and
void and therefore does not fall within the definition of
‘legally enforceable debt’ cannot be countenanced.
Accordingly, the conclusion of law in P.C. Hari (supra) is
set aside. ‘
71. Further the counsel for the accused has argued
that limit of sealing cap of the cheque is Rs.5 lakhs same
is printed on the cheque lief at Ex.C1, but the
41 C.C.21940/2017complainant has presented the cheque for Rs.10 lakhs as
such the complaint is not valid. No doubt on Ex.C1 it is
printed ‘multicity cheque is payable upto maximum of
Rs.5 lakhs at all branches of SBM’. The Complainant has
examined branch manager i.e. DW.3 in the present case,
who has specifically denied the suggestion of the counsel
for the accused that a cheque exceeding the printed limit
of Rs 5 lakhs could not be honored for Rs 10 lakhs.
Furthermore, the banker issued a memo, Ex.C2,
indicating that the cheque was dishonored due to “funds
insufficient” and not because it “exceeds arrangements”
or is “invalid.”
72. The bank manager, DW3, has specifically
explained that while a cheque cannot be encashed
directly for more than Rs. 5 lakhs, but if it is presented for
an amount exceeding this limit, the cheque remains
valid, the bank would contact the customer, obtain
confirmation regarding the presentment, and then
process the cheque. In view of this explanation, the
argument advanced by the accused’s counsel that the
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act does not apply to
the disputed cheque is not admissible.
42 C.C.21940/2017
73. Further accused hasn’t produced his account
statement and any proof to believe that as on the date of
presentment of cheque he has sufficient balance in his
account. Had he maintained sufficient balance, then also
cheque got dishonoured for the reason ‘cheque invalid’
that would have been different case. Except making fancy
full suggestions to PW1about financial status of accused,
no admissible evidence is produced before the court.
Thus defence appears to be clear afterthought and mere
eye wash tactics, to avoid liability of cheque.
74. Further, the fact that the cheque was kept with
the complainant for security is only to ensure that the
complainant’s money was protected in case it is not
repaid by accused. Further contention of the accused is
that the security cheque does not attracts the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act is devoid of merits as it is
clearly held by the Apex Court in catena of case laws that
security cheque also comes within purview of Sec.138 of
NI Act , provided the existence of legally enforceable
debt.
75. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 2016 (10) SCC 458 in
between Sampelly Sathaynarayana Rao Vs. Indian
43 C.C.21940/2017
Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., held
that,
“Post dated cheque described as security towards
repayment of installment of already disbursement loan
amount, the proceeding u/s 138 of N.I. Act is maintainable
in case of dishonor of such cheque. Further observed that,
once loan amount was disbursed and as per the
agreement installments had fallen due on date of issuance
of cheque, dishonor of such cheque would fall u/s 138 of
N.I. Act and such issuance of cheque undoubtedly
represents outstanding liability”.
76. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the
position of law Sunil Todi and others vs State of
Gujarat and others, reported in AIR 2022 SC 147,
” that where in the case of a loan transaction,
the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a
specified time frame and issues a cheque as a
security to secure the repayment and the loan is
not repaid, the cheque which is issued as security
would mature for presentation.
The Court observed:
“A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial
transaction cannot be considered as a worthless
piece of paper under every circumstance. ‘Security’
in its true sense is the state of being safe and the
security given for a loan is something given as a
pledge of payment. It is given, deposited or
pledged to make certain the fulfillment of an
44 C.C.21940/2017obligation to which the parties to the transaction
are bound. If in a transaction, a loan is advanced
and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a
specified time frame and issues a cheque as
security to secure such repayment; if the loan
amount is not repaid in any other form before the
due date or if there is no other understanding or
agreement between the parties to defer the
payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as
security would mature for presentation and the
drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present
the same. On such presentation, if the same is
dishonoured, the consequences contemplated
under Section 138 and the other provisions of
N.I.Act would flow.
When a cheque is issued even though as
‘security’ the consequence flowing therefrom is
also known to the drawer of the cheque and in the
circumstance stated above if the cheque is
presented and dishonored, the holder of the
cheque/drawee would have the option of initiating
the civil proceedings for recovery or the criminal
proceedings for punishment in the fact situation,
but in any event, it is not for the drawer of the
cheque to dictate terms with regard to the nature
of litigation.”
77. Therefore principle laid down in above cases
aptly applicable to case on hand. The accused was aware
of these circumstances and issued the cheque knowingly.
Additionally, multiple cheque cases filed against the
45 C.C.21940/2017
accused demonstrate that he had knowledge of the
potential consequences of issuing cheques. In such
circumstances, the accused cannot be permitted to
escape from his liability by raising trivial and hyper-
technical points.
78. The accused has failed to substantiate credible
evidence in support of his alleged transaction of Rs. 2
lakhs with the complainant in the year 2013. Therefore,
the argument regarding the printed limit of the cheque
cannot invalidate the cheque or this complaint. Oral
evidence of DW.2 is noway helpful to the accused as he is
partner of the accused ie he is interested witness. If at all,
interest was transferred from the account of DW.3, same
cannot be construed for repayment of interest for loan in
question, and moreover same is between the
complainant and DW.3 and it cannot be interconnected
with the present case which is pertaining to the loan of
the year 2016 as per the complaint. Furthermore, very
meager amount has been transferred by DW2 to
complainant on two occasions. It is not sufficient to
construe that interest for huge loan of Rs 12.5 lakhs.
46 C.C.21940/2017
79. Therefore, having scrutinized the entire case of
the complainant the accused has failed to rebut the initial
presumption in accordance with law. Indeed he has
utterly failed to probablize his defense with convincing
evidence. Mere making suggestion to PW.1 would not be
the proof of such suggestions. Percontra, the
complainant’s case is consistent and he has proved his
case beyond reasonable doubts.
80. Even any such minor inconsistencies existed in
the evidence of PW.1, that will affect the case of the
complainant and such minor inconsistencies cannot be
ground to exonerate the liability of the accused to prove
his defense, as the compliant has privilege of strong
legal presumption given U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act. In
the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat
reported in 2019 (5) SCALE 138, it is held that
“even after purportedly drawing the presumption
under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the trial court
proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part
of the complainant as regards the source of funds for
advancing loan to the accused and want of examination
of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money
47 C.C.21940/2017
for advancing it to the accused. The Hon‟ble Supreme
Court observed that this approach of the trial court had
been at variance with the principles of presumption in
law. After such presumption, the onus shifted to the
accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus
by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to
show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his
favour, any doubt on the complainant’s case could not
have been raised for want of evidence regarding the
source of funds for advancing loan to the accused.”
81. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the
complainant has proved his case in accordance with law.
With these observations court proceed to answer POINT
NO.I IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
82. POINT NO.II:- In view of the reasons assigned
in above point, it is ample clear that accused has
committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act. A
bare reading of sec.138 of the NI Act indicates that the
purport of sec.138 is to prevent and punish the dishonest
drawers of cheques who evade their liability.
48 C.C.21940/2017
83. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent decision in
M/s. Meters & instrument Pvt Ltd. Vs. Kanchana
Mehta reported in (2018)1 SCC-560 held at para 18(ii)
that”(ii) 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.”
84. In R. Vijayan vs. Baby and Another reported
in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 528, Apex court held that
‘that unless there were special circumstances, in all
cases of conviction, the Court should uniformly exercise the
power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount and
keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest
thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of
loss, direct payment of such amount as compensation. This
Court rightly observed that uniformity and consistency in
deciding similar cases by different courts not only increases
the credibility of the cheque as a Negotiable Instrument but
also the credibility of the Courts of Justice’.
85. M/S Kalamani Tex vs P. Balasubramanian
reported in AIRONLINE 2021 SC 82, Apex court
reaffirmed aforementioned principle and held that
“20. As regard to the claim of compensation raised on
behalf of the respondent, we are conscious of the settled
49 C.C.21940/2017
principles that the object of Chapter XVII of the NIA is not
only punitive but also compensatory and restitutive. The
provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal
liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for
realisation of the cheque amount. It is also well settled that
there needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding
compensation and unless there exist special circumstances,
the Courts should uniformly levy fine up to twice the
cheque amount along with simple interest at the rate of 9%
per annum.”
86. The transaction in the year 2016 and it took
almost 10 years, for adjudicating the case on merits for
one or other reasons. Therefore, having regard to the
extent of loan, time from which it is lying with the
accused and defense taken by the accused and failure to
prove it, length of time taken for adjudicating the matter
and keeping in mind the primary object of the provision,
this court is of the opinion that it is fit case to impose
double the cheque amount as fine amount , rather than
imposing punitive sentence, thus if sentence of fine of
Rs.20,00,000/- is imposed with a direction to compensate
the complainant for his monitory loss, by awarding
compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C, would meet the ends
of justice. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass
following …..
50 C.C.21940/2017
ORDER
The accused is found guilty for the offence
punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act.
Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the
accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs
Only), in default of payment fine amount, he
shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years
for the offence punishable under section 138 of
N.I.Act.
Out of the fine amount collected from
the accused, an amount of Rs.19,90,000/-
(Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Ninety Thousand
only) shall be paid to the complainant as
compensation U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and the
remaining fine of Rs.10,000/- shall be adjusted
towards the cost of state expenses.
The bail bonds of the accused shall be
in force till the appeal period is over as
51 C.C.21940/2017
contemplated under the provisions of
Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
Office to supply the copy of the
Judgment to the accused forthwith at free of
cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and
then judgment pronounced in the open court on this the 23 rd day of
March 2026). Digitally signed
by TEJASWINI
KM
TEJASWINI
Date:
KM 2026.04.04
17:20:09
+0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1: Sri.Rajath Dwarka
II. List of documents on behalf of complainant:
Ex.C-1 : Original Cheque.
Ex.C-1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.C-2 : Bank memo.
Ex.C-3 : Legal notice.
Ex.C-4 : Postal Receipt.
Ex.C-5 : Returned Notice.
52 C.C.21940/2017
Ex.C-6 : Postal Cover.
Ex.C-7 : Postal Receipt.
Ex.C-8 : Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.C-9 : Copy of Statement of account.
Ex.C-10: ITR Returns Document.
Ex.C-11 : C/c of Complaint in CC.No.700/2018.
Ex.C-12 : C/c of Order Sheet in PCR No.94/2018.
Ex.C-13 : C/c of Order Sheet in CC.No.742/2019.
Ex.C-14 : C/c of Complaint in PCR No.167/2019/
Ex.C-15 : Affidavit.
Ex.C-16 : C/c of Cheque.
Ex.C-17 : C/c of Complaint in CC.No.8644/2021.
Ex.C-18 : C/c of Complaint in CC.No.1328/2023.
Ex.C-19 : C/c of Roznama in CC.No.1348/2022.
Ex.C-20 : C/c of Complaint in PCR.No.2208/2018.
III. List of witnesses for the accused:
D.W.1: Sri.Ashwath Y.K
D.W.2: Sri.Ashok Kulkarni
D.W.3: Sri.Sathish
IV. List of documents for accused:
Ex.D-1 : Copy of Bank Statement.
53 C.C.21940/2017
Ex.D-2 to 6: Notarized copies of Aadhar Cards.
Ex.D-7 : Copy of Partition Deed.
Ex.D-8 : Milk Received Bill.
Ex.D-9 : Letter dated 24.07.2023.
Ex.D-10 : Bank Statement.
Ex.D-11 & 12 : Paper Publications.
Ex.D-13 : Copy of Publication in TV Channel.
Digitally
signed by
TEJASWINI K
TEJASWINI M
KM Date:
2026.04.04
17:20:16
+0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M ),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
