Bangalore District Court
Siri Nidhi Credit Co-Op Society Ltd vs Shivamurthy Nayak . S.K on 8 April, 2026
KABC030561032020
Presented on : 13-11-2020
Registered on : 13-11-2020
Decided on : 08-04-2026
Duration : 5 years, 4 months, 25 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 8th day of April, 2026
C.C. No.15377/2020
COMPLAINANT: SIRI NIDHI CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY
LIMITED.
Registered Office at No.385, 8th 'A' Main,
11th Cross, Bhuvaneshwarinagara,
T.Dasarahalli
Bengaluru - 560 057
Rep by its Chief Executive Officer/Secretary,
Sri.Suresh.D.R,
S/o.Sri.Rangaiah,
Aged about 49 years.
(Rep By: Sri.Nagesha.V - Advocate)
V/s.
2
C.C.No.15377/2020
ACCUSED: SHIVAMURTHY NAYAK.S.K,
S/o.Late.Krishna Nayak,
Aged about 42 years,
No.352, 6th Main, 3rd Cross Road,
Parvathi Nagar, Laggere,
Bengaluru - 560 058.
Also at No.7, Henjagondanahalli,
Opp Mini Vidhanasoudha,
Arasikere, Hasan District - 573 103.
(Rep By : Smt.S.Swapna - Advocate)
Date of presenting 03.02.2020.
complaint
Date of arrest of accused NIL
Name of the Complainant SIRI NIDHI CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY
LIMITED.
Date of commencement of 02.07.2025.
evidence
Date of closing evidence 19.02.2026.
Offence complained of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881.
Date of Judgment 08.04.2026.
Opinion of the Judge Accused found guilty.
:JUDGMENT:
This Complainant has presented the complaint on
03.02.2020 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.15377/2020
2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINANT’S CASE
ARE AS UNDER:-
a) It is the case of the Complainant Society that the
accused being a member of Complainant Society had availed a
loan of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only)
on 02.04.2019 by executing all necessary documents. One
Sri. Dinesh Nayak K stood as a surety for said loan.
b) It is further case of the Complainant Society that
the accused has failed to repay the loan amount along with
interest as agreed upon. When the Complainant Society
approached the accused, the accused issued a cheque bearing
No.844871, dated 30.10.2019, drawn on Canara Bank,
Lottegollahalli Branch, Bengaluru, for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand only) towards balance
loan amount to discharge the legal debts by assuring to honor
the said cheque on its presentation.
c) It is further case of the Complainant Society that
as per the instructions of the accused, the said cheque was
presented for encashment on 30.10.2019 through its banker,
Apex Co-op Bank limited,, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru-57, but
the said cheque returned with a shara dated 31.10.2019 that,
“FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”. In spite of communication about
bouncing of the cheque, the accused has not repaid the
amount.
4
C.C.No.15377/2020
d) It is further case of the Complainant Society that
the Complainant Society caused a legal notice through its
counsel on 29.11.2019 by RPAD to the accused demanding
the payment of amount covered under the cheque. The said
legal notice sent to the first address as shown in the cause
title was returned as “No such addressee hence return to
sender” on 02.12.2019 but the notice sent to the second
address as shown in the cause title was returned as “Not
claimed return to sender” on 05.12.2019. But, till this day the
accused has not repaid the amount. Hence, 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
10.11.2020 Criminal Case was registered and process was
issued to the accused.
3(b) In response to the summons, accused has caused
his appearance through Smt.S.Swapna – Advocate and got
obtained the bail on 02.07.2025. The substance of accusation
was recorded on 02.07.2025. Since the accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried, the matter was posted for trial.
4. The sworn statement of the complainant was
treated as examination-in-chief of complainant and the
documents at Ex.P.1 to P.13 are marked through PW.1 and
Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 are marked through DW.1.
5
C.C.No.15377/2020
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. The accused in order to prove his defense, he
himself examined as DW.1.
7. Having heard learned advocate for the complainant
and learned advocate for the 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.844871
for Rs.1,70,000/- dated 30.10.2019 drawn on
Canara Bank, Lottegollahalli 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
through his banker, Apex Co-op Bank Limited,
T.Dasarahalli Branch which came to be
dishonored with an endorsement “FUNDS
INSUFFICIENT”
3) Whether the Complainant proved that the
demand notice was issued within one month
from the date of endorsement of the Bank and
6
C.C.No.15377/2020accused has been duly served with the demand
notice ?
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
cheque at Ex.P1 belong to his account and has admitted his
signature thereon. When the accused admits his signature on
the cheque, the burden lies upon him 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.
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 has failed to
prove that the accused has borrowed loan of Rs.15,000/- and
7
C.C.No.15377/2020
the same was repaid and cheque in question was not issued
towards repayment of Rs.1,70,000/-. On the contrary, the
Complainant Society has proved its case through oral and
documentary evidence. The learned counsel for the
Complainant Society in support of his argument has placed
reliance upon the following decisions:
1. In (2010) 11 SCC 441 between Rangappa Vs. Sri
Mohan‘s case, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:
“Complaint discloses prima-facie existence of a
legally enforceable debt or liability – since appellant
admitted that signature on the cheque was his,
statutory presumption under S. 139 comes into
play and the same was not rebutted even with
regard to the materials submitted by complainant –
Appellant not able to prove “lost cheque” theory –
Apart from not raising a probable defense, appellant
was also not able to contest the existence of a
legally enforceable debt or liability – Hence, his
conviction by High Court, held, proper”.
2. In (2019) 4 SCC 197 between Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh
Kumar‘s case, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:
“Section 139 mandates that unless the the
contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the
holder of a cheque received the cheque of the
nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge,
in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
However, the presumption is rebuttable by proving
to the contrary. Section 139 introduces an
8
C.C.No.15377/2020exception to the general rule as to the burden of
proof and shifts the onus on the accused to prove
by cogent evidence that there was no debt or
liability. Mere denial or rebuttal by the accused
was not enough”.
3. In Criminal Appeal Nos.1233-1235 of 2022 between
P.Rasiya Vs. Abdul Nazer and another‘s case, wherein Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that:
“Therefore, once the initial burden is
discharged by the complainant that the cheque was
issued by the accused and the signature and the
issuance of the cheque is not disputed by the
accused, in that case, the onus will shift upon the
accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was
not for any debt or other liability. The presumption
under section 139 of NI Act is a statutory
presumption and thereafter, once it is presumed
that the cheque is issued in whole or in part of any
debt or other liability which is in favour of the
complainant/holder of the cheque, in that case, it is
for the accused to prove the contrary”.
10. Per contra, it is the argument of the learned
counsel for the accused that the accused had borrowed
personal loan of Rs.15,000/- from the Complainant Society
and the same was repaid by the accused in two installments of
Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/-. The accused has not borrowed
the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Complainant Society as
alleged in the complaint. The Complainant Society though
has given loan of Rs.15,000/- at the time of granting loan, the
9
C.C.No.15377/2020
Complainant Society got obtained the signatures of the
accused on blank paper as well as on blank cheque. By mis-
using the signed blank papers, by creating a story of lending
loan of Rs.1,50,000/- has filed this false case by filling up of
blank cheque taken by the Complainant Society at the time of
granting loan of Rs.15,000/-.
11. Keeping in mind the well established and settled
principle laid down in the above decisions relied by the learned
counsel for the Complainant Society, let this Court to see the
case on hand.
12. To prove the guilt of the accused, PW1/the
authorized representative of the Complainant Society, 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.P15.
13. Ex.P.1 is the authorization letter given by the
Complainant Society in favour of PW.1. Based on Ex.P.1,
PW.1 has filed the present case and prosecuted the case.
14. Ex.P.2 is the cheque bearing No.844871 for
Rs.1,70,000/- dated 30.10.2019 drawn on Canara Bank,
Lottegollahalli Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the
Complainant Society. Ex.P.3 is the bank memo dated
31.10.2019, wherein it could be seen that the cheque at Ex.P2
presented by the Complainant Society was returned unpaid as
10
C.C.No.15377/2020
per Bank endorsement dated 31.10.2019 for “FUNDS
INSUFFICIENT”.
15. Ex.P4 is the office copy of the demand notice dated
29.11.2019 issued by the Complainant Society to the accused
through Advocate calling upon the accused to pay the cheque
amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
Ex.P5 and 6 are the postal receipts for having sent the notice
at Ex.P4 to the accused to his two addressees. Ex.P.7 is the
postal returned cover wherein it could be seen that notice sent
to the accused to his Bengaluru address returned with Shara
“No such person”. Ex.P.8 is the postal returned cover, wherein
it could be seen that notice issued to the accused to his native
place address returned with shara dated 06.12.2019 as “NOT
CLAIMED”.
16. 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 complainant.
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
11
C.C.No.15377/2020
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.
17. To invoke the presumption under Sections 118 and
139 of the N.I. Act, the complainant must establish that the
cheque belongs to the accused and bears his signature on it.
Here, the accused has not denied that Ex.P1 is his cheque and
his signature thereon. Thus, it is established that the cheque
at Ex.P.1 belongs to the accused and bears his signature.
18. 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.
19. The accused in his defense evidence has deposed
that in the year 2018-19 he borrowed loan of Rs.15,000/-
from the Complainant Society, but not Rs.1,50,000/-.
Though the Complainant Society has given cheque of
Rs.1,50,000/-, by taking his signature in another cheque, the
Complainant Society itself has drawn the amount of
Rs.1,50,000/-. He has further deposed that on the date of
borrowing the loan of Rs.15,000/-, the blank signed cheque
was taken by the Complainant Society. But, he has not issued
the cheque to the Complainant Society as stated in the
complaint. He has repaid the loan amount in the year 2020 by
12
C.C.No.15377/2020
paying Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- in two installments. In
spite of repayment of the loan, cheque and signed blank
papers were not returned to the accused. No intimation was
given with regard to dishonor of cheque. He came to know the
dishonor of cheque, when the police informed the same.
20. Though the PW.1 has been subjected to lengthy
cross-examination, nothing was elicited from the mouth of the
PW.1 which favors the defense of the accused that the accused
has not borrowed loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Complainant
Society and towards discharge of the said loan, cheque in
question was not issued.
21. The accused in his cross-examination has admitted
his signatures in loan documents at Ex.P.9 to 11, 14 and 15.
Ex.P.9 is the loan application submitted by the accused to the
Complainant Society, wherein it could be seen that on
23.03.2019, the accused has sought for financial assistance of
Rs.2,00,000/- from the Complainant Society for his domestic
purpose. Ex.P.10 is the agreement executed by the accused
along with surety, wherein it could be seen that the accused
has borrowed the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Complainant
Society on 02.04.2019 agreeing the repay the same in 50
monthly installments of Rs.3,000/- each commencing from
02.04.2019 with interest at the rate of 20% per annam.
Ex.P.11 is the On Demand Pro-Note executed by the accused
and surety wherein it could be seen that the accused and the
surety had executed an on demand pro-note on 02.04.2019
13
C.C.No.15377/2020
agreeing to repay the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with
interest at 20% Per Annam. Ex.P.14 is the affidavit given by
accused to the Complainant Society on 23.03.2019. Ex.P.15
is the letter given by the accused to the Complainant Society
on 02.04.2019 requesting for issuing bearer cheque, as he
urgent need of money.
22. The accused in his cross-examination though he
has admitted his signatures on loan documents as well as in
the cheque, he has stated that at the time of giving loan of
Rs.15,000/-, the Complainant Society has taken his
signatures on blank papers.
23. The current account statement of the Complainant
Society at Ex.P.13 speaks that on 09.04.2019, the accused
has drawn Rs.1,50,000/- by presenting cheque. The loan
account statement of accused at Ex.P.12 shows that on
02.04.2019 the Complainant Society disbursed loan of
Rs.1,50,000/-.
24. The loan documents produced by the Complainant
Society speak that on 02.04.2019, the accused has borrowed
loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Complainant Society. Further,
it appears that after borrowing the loan, the accused did not
pay the installments as agreed. From the loan account
statement of the accused, it could be said that on the date of
presenting the cheque, accused was due of more than
Rs.1,70,000/- to the Complainant Society.
14
C.C.No.15377/2020
25. Except oral say of the accused that the
Complainant Society has given loan of Rs.15,000/-, but not
Rs.1,50,000/-, nothing was placed on record in support of his
defense. If really, the Complainant Society has cheated the
accused by paying Rs.15,000/-, though Rs.1,50,000/- was
sanctioned and by mis-using the blank cheque, false case was
filed, the accused could have taken any legal action against
the Complainant Society. But, no such steps has been taken.
26. When the accused admitted his signatures on he
loan documents placed by the Complainant Society, it is
burden upon the accused to prove that, though Complainant
Society has given personal loan of Rs.15,000/-, by mis-using
his signature on the blank document, the Complainant Society
has created the loan documents stating that accused has
borrowed the loan of Rs.1,50,000/-. But, the accused has
failed to prove his defense either getting any admissions from
the PW.1 or independently.
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
bearing No.844871 for Rs.1,70,000/- dated 30.10.2019 drawn
on Canara Bank, Lottegollahalli Branch in favour of the
Complainant Society towards discharge of lawful dues to the
Complainant Society. Thus, it is held that the complainant
15
C.C.No.15377/2020
has proved the Point No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt.
Hence, 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
form 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
16
C.C.No.15377/2020
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 29.11.2019 at Ex.P.4 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. Per contra, it is the argument of the learned
counsel for the Complainant Society that notice issued to the
accused to his Bengaluru address which was the address
provided to the Society by the accused returned unserved as
“NO SUCH PERSON”, whereas notice issued to the accused to
his Arasikere Address, which is the permanent address of the
accused returned with postal shara “UNCLAIMED”. The
accused in his cross-examination has also admitted that he
resides in the second address which is the native place
address of the accused for which notice was sent. The accused
has not produced any document to show that he was not
residing in the addresses for which notice was sent. When the
notice which was sent to proper and correct address of the
17
C.C.No.15377/2020
accused, returned with shara “UNCLAIMED” then the Court
has to draw a presumption that, the accused has been duly
served with the notice, unless it is proved by the accused that
the address for which notice was sent is not the proper and
correct address of the accused. But, the accused has not
rebutted the presumption. Hence, the accused has been duly
be served with the notice.
32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
2007 (6) SCC 555 between C.C.Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty
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
18
C.C.No.15377/2020
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”.
33. It is no doubt, as per Ex.P.8, the notice sent to the
accused to his native address returned with postal shara
dated 06.12.2019 as “UNCLAIMED”. It is true, when the
notice issued to the accused to his correct address returned
with shara “Refused or Unclaimed” 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. The complainant in his cross-examination has
deposed that he resides in House No.7, Opp to Mini Vidhana
Soudha, Hengegondanahalli, Arasikere. As could be seen at
Ex.P.8, the Complainant Society has issued the notice to the
19
C.C.No.15377/2020
accused to the above stated his native place address. From
this, it could be said that the Complainant Society has rightly
sent the notice to the correct and proper address 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.
The accused has not rebutted this presumption, on the other
hand, the accused himself has deposed that he resides in his
native place address for which notice was sent. 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.
36. It is evident from the file that the complainant has
presented the present complaint on 31.12.2019 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
20
C.C.No.15377/2020
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.2 without
maintaining sufficient amount in his account. This shows the
intention of the accused is to defraud the Complainant Society
and to escape from her liability to pay the cheque amount.
40. In the instant case, accused issued cheque in
question to the Complainant Society towards repayment loan
which was due by his to the Complainant Society but, he has
failed to keep up his promise which amounts to unjust
enrichment for which Complainant Society is to be
compensated. Hence, having been 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 Society, this
Court is of the view that it is proper to impose fine of
Rs.3,10,000/- out of which Rs.3,00,000/- shall be payable to
21
C.C.No.15377/2020
the Complainant Society as compensation towards loan
account of the accused and remaining Rs.10,000/- 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.3,10,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Ten
Thousand Only), in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
Further, it is ordered that out of fine
amount of Rs.3,10,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs Only) shall be payable to
the Complainant Society as compensation and
the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand Only) shall be payable towards
State.
Since accused is absent copy of the
Judgment has not been supplied though copy of
Judgment is prepared and ready. The same is
kept in file.
The bail and surety bond of the accused
dated 02.07.2025 stands canceled.
22
C.C.No.15377/2020
(Dictated to Stenographer directly on computer, computerized
by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open
court on this the 8th 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.SURESH.D.R.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OT THE
COMPLAINANT/S:
Ex.P-1 Authorization Letter;
Ex.P-2 Cheque;
Ex.P-3 Bank Memo;
Ex.P-4 Legal Notice dated 29.11.2019;
Ex.P-5 & 6 Two Postal Receipts;
Ex.P-7 & 8 RPAD Returned Covers;
Ex.P-9 Loan Application;
Ex.P-10 Loan Agreement;
Ex.P-11 On Demand Pro-Note;
Ex.P-12 Loan Account Extract;
Ex.P-13 Current Bank Statement of Complainant Society;
Ex.P-14 Affidavit of accused;
Ex.P-15 Letter of accused.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED/S:
DW-1 : SRI.SHIVAMURTHY NAYAK.S.K.
23
C.C.No.15377/2020
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED/S:
NIL
(LAVANYA.H.N)
LII ADDL. C.J.M., BENGALURU.
Digitally signed
by LAVANYA H
LAVANYA N
HN Date:
2026.04.08
17:34:24 +0530
