Bangalore District Court
Vijay C.N vs Hemavathi D.B on 2 May, 2026
SCCH-6 1 CC.11990/2021
KABC020342142021
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY.
(SCCH-6)
Present: Smt. Chetana S.F.
B.A., L.L.B.,
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
CC. No.11990/2021
DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF MAY, 2026
COMPLAINANT/S Sri Vijay C.N.,
S/o. Sri Nagakumar C.M.,
Aged about 30 years
R/at No.825, 6th 'B' Cross,
Kempegowda Nagara,
T. Dasarahalli, Bengaluru-560 057
(By Sri. Nagesha V., Advocate)
-Vs-
ACCUSED Smt. Hemavathi D.B.,
W/o. Sri Kumar,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at. Toremallanayakanahalli,
Doddachikkanahalli,
Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya District-571 445
Also at:
SCCH-6 2 CC.11990/2021
R/at No.E-244, 11th Cross,
Near Vijayabharathi School,
Bhuvaneshwarinagara,
T.Dasarahalli, Bengaluru-560 057
(By Sri. K.L. Prabhakar, Advocate)
-: J U D G M E N T :-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Secs.138
and 142 of the N.I. Act R/w. Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. for the offences
punishable under Secs.138 of the N.I. Act as against the
accused praying to punish the accused for the said offence.
2. The case of the complainant is that, the
complainant is doing Real Estate business. One Smt.
Mamatha A.B., wife of Sri. Gopal and complainant known to
each other from past several years and accused had
approached the complainant along with accused husband Sri
Kumar, through Smt. Mamatha A.B., request to advance a
hand loan sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for the purpose of their family
and legal necessities. Accordingly, complainant believing
accused assurance, complainant has paid an amount sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cash on 20.02.2020 to accused.
SCCH-6 3 CC.11990/2021
Subsequent to the above hand loan, complainant has paid an
amount of Rs.2,25,000/- by way of cash on 15.03.2020 to the
accused. Towards discharge of his liability, accused has issued
a cheque bearing No.018513 dated 29.07.2021 for a sum of
Rs.4,75,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Hesaraghatta Main
Road Branch, Bengaluru, in favor of complainant.
3. The complainant presented the cheque through his
banker South Indian Bank Ltd., Malleshwaram Branch,
Bengaluru-560 003 and same has been returned through his
bank with endorsement that "50-Account Closed" on
04.08.2021. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated
02.09.2021 to the accused through RPAD. Inspite of service of
notice, the accused has not paid the cheque amount and
hence, she has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of NI
Act. Hence, this complaint.
4. After issuance of legal notice accused failed to repay
the said loan nor replied to the notice. The accused has not
paid the cheque amount and has committed an offence
punishable u/s 138 of NI Act. Hence, this complaint.
SCCH-6 4 CC.11990/2021
5. After recording the sworn statement of the
complainant by way of affidavit and also verifying the
documents, cognizance was taken against the accused for the
offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act. The accused
appeared before this Court through her counsel and enlarged
on bail and her plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for
evidence of the complainant.
6. The complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and
examined another witness as PW.2 and got marked 10
documents as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.10. Thereafter, the case was
posted for recording the statement of accused under Sec.313
of Cr.P.C. In the statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has
denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him.
On the other hand, the accused examined herself as DW.1 and
no documents were marked on her behalf.
SCCH-6 5 CC.11990/2021
7. The learned counsel for complainant has relied on
the following decisions:
ï‚· (2010)11 SCC 441, between Rangappa vs. Sri
Mohan
ï‚· (2019) 4 SCC 197 between Bir Singh vs. Mukesh
Kumar
ï‚· Cri. Appeal Nos.1233-1235 of 2022 between P.
Rasiya vs. Abdul Nazer and Anr.
8. Heard the arguments of both side and Perused the
records.
9. The following points arise for my consideration:
1.
Whether the complainant proves that the
cheque bearing No.018513 dated
29.07.2021 for a sum of Rs.4,75,000/-
drawn on Bank of India, Hesaraghatta
Main Road Branch, Bengaluru, issued by
the accused has been dishonored on the
ground of “50-Account Closed” on
04.08.2021 and even after receiving the
intimation regarding the dishonor of
cheque failed to pay the cheque amount
within the stipulated period and thereby
the accused has committed an offence
punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
SCCH-6 6 CC.11990/2021
10. My findings on the above points are as under
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order for the
following:
-: R E A S O N S :-
11. POINT NO.1:- In view of the present legal position as
held by our Hon’ble High Court as well as Apex Court of
India in a catena of decisions as well as relevant
provisions of the Act, this court has to see whether the
complainant has complied all the requirements as
contained in Sec.138 of NI Act so as to bring home the
guilt of the accused for the alleged offence. If so, whether
the accused is able to rebut the legal presumption
available to the complainant under Sec.139 of the Act by
adducing probable defense or not. However, it is held by
the full bench of our Apex Court in the case of Rangappa
Vs. Mohan reported in 2010 (1) DCR 706 that;
“The Statutory presumption mandated by
sec.139 of the Act, does indeed include the
existence of a legally enforceable debt or li-
ability. However, the presumption U/S 139
of the Act is in the nature of a rebuttable
SCCH-6 7 CC.11990/2021presumption and it is open for the accused
to raise a defence wherein the existence of
a legally enforceable debt or liability can be
contested”.
12. Therefore, in view of the above decision, once the
cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption would
automatically fall in favour of the complainant the
complainant that, the alleged cheque was issued for discharge
of an existing legally enforceable debt or liability against the
accused and the burden will shift on to the accused to rebut
the same.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION:-
13. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it
would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to
be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under
Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfill all the
essential ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare
provision reveals the following necessary ingredients of the
offence:-
First Ingredient: The cheques were
drawn by a person on an account
SCCH-6 8 CC.11990/2021maintained by him for payment of
money and the same is presented for
payment within a period of 3 months
from the date on which it is drawn or
within the period of its validity;
Second Ingredient: The cheques were
drawn by the drawer for discharge of
any legally enforceable debt or other
liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheques were
returned unpaid by the bank due to
either insufficiency of funds in the
account to honour the cheque or that
it exceeds the amount arranged to be
paid from that account on an
agreement made with that bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the
said amount has been made by the
payee or holder in due course of the
cheque by a notice in writing given to
the drawer within thirty days of the
receipt of information of the
dishonour of cheque from the bank;
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to
make payment of the said amount of
money within fifteen days from the
date of receipt of notice.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE-
14. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence
under Section 138 NI Act if the above-mentioned ingredients
SCCH-6 9 CC.11990/2021
are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the
conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be
fulfilled. Notably, there is no dispute at bar about the proof of
only first, third, and fifth ingredient. The complainant had
proved the original cheque vide Ex.P.1 which the accused
person had not disputed as being drawn on the account of the
accused. It was not disputed that the cheque in question was
presented within its validity period. The cheque in question
was returned unpaid vide return memos vide Ex.P.2 due to the
reason, “50-Account Closed” dated 04.08.2021. The
complainant had proved the service of legal demand notice
dated 02.09.2021 vide Ex.P.3. Postal receipts vide Ex.P4 & 5.
Two postal covers vide Ex.P6 & 7. Track Consignment vide
Ex.P8. Certificate under Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act vide
Ex.P9. South Indian Bank Account Statement vide Ex.P10.
Thus, there is a dispute only with regard to the second
ingredient to the offence. As such, the 1st,3rd,4th& 5th
ingredient of the offence under section 138 of the NI Act
stands proved.
SCCH-6 10 CC.11990/2021
15. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned,
the complainant has to prove that the cheque in question was
drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable
debtor any liability. In the present case, the issuance of the
cheque in question is not denied. As per the scheme of the NI
Act, once the accused admits signature on the cheque in
question, certain presumption are drawn, which result in
shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the
presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or
drawn for consideration. Another presumption is enumerated
in Section 139 of NI Act. The provision lays down the
presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the
discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
16. The combined effect of these two provisions is a
presumption that the cheque is drawn for consideration and
given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability.
Both the sections use the expression “shall”, which makes it
imperative for the court to raise the presumptions once the
foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance
SCCH-6 11 CC.11990/2021
is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16.
17. Further, it has been held by a three-judge bench of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri
Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption
contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act includes the
presumption of existence of a legally enforceable debt. Once
the presumption is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the
same by establishing a probable defence.
18. The presumptions raised under Section 118(b) and
Section 139 NI Act are rebuttable presumptions. A reverse
onus is cast on the accused, who has to establish a probable
defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities to
prove that either there was no legally enforceable debt or other
liability. In this case, the arguments raised by the Ld. counsel
for the accused to rebut the presumption are discussed
below:
SCCH-6 12 CC.11990/2021
Notice has not been served:
19. The accused has taken the specific defence that the
notice has not been served to him. It was argued by the
learned counsel for accused that, Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 returned
Postal covers have been returned with shara as ‘addressee not
in station’ and ‘in complete address’ respectively and accused
had not been residing in the address mentioned in Ex.P6 and
Ex.P7. If at all the notice has not been served to the accused,
accused would have given the reply. On the other hand,
learned counsel for complainant argued that notice has been
sent to the correct address of the accused. As per Ex.P6
returned postal cover to which the notice has been sent it has
been returned as accused not residing in the said address as
on the date of the service of the notice. Even Ex.P8 Track
consignment, it has returned as ‘addressee moved’ and
accused has not at all denied the address to which the notice
has been sent or taken the contention that it is not his
address. Hence the notice has been deemed to be serve and
intentionally accused has vacated the said address to avoid
SCCH-6 13 CC.11990/2021
the service of summons. The complainant has sent notice to
the last known address of the accused and hence the notice
has been deemed to be duly served.
20. In this regard, on perusal of the cross examination of
the PW.1, learned counsel for accused though taken the
contention that notice has not been served, nowhere accused
counsel denied that the addresses to which the notice has
been sent is not his address and no point of time, he was
residing in the said address. As per Ex.P6, the address to
which the notice has been sent which was returned as
accused has not been residing in the said address. Ex.P8
Track consignment shows that the addressee has been moved.
Even nowhere accused counsel has taken the contention that
at no point of time, accused has not resided in the address
mentioned in Ex.P6. Thus it is clear that, the notice has been
sent to the last known address of the accused and accused left
the said address and moved somewhere. At no point of time,
accused counsel or the accused denied that, the address
mentioned in Ex.P6 or Ex.P7 is not his address and he never
SCCH-6 14 CC.11990/2021
resided in the said address. Moreover, the accused has never
denied that he was residing in front of the house of
complainant for 7-8 years. Even the accused in his cross
examination at para No.5 clearly admited that after Corona
i.e., after 2020 he has vacated the address. Thus it is clear
that complainant has sent the notice to the last known
address of the accused and it is sufficient that if the notice has
been sent to the last known address of the accused. The
accused admitted that thereafter, in the year 2021, he has left
the address. Hence it is clear that accused has intentionally
left the address. Moreover, summons sent by this court has
been duly served to the accused, hence the notice is deemed to
be served.
21. Moreover, in this regard, it has been held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/S Indo Automobiles Vs.
M/S. Jaidurga Enterprises reported in 2008 (2) DCR 499
and also as provided under Sec.27 of the Mysore general
clauses Act, 1897. When a notice is sent to the correct address
of the addressee, even if the same is returned unserved due
SCCH-6 15 CC.11990/2021
absence or non-claiming or refusal of the addressee, the same
amounts to deemed service. Moreover, the very purpose of
giving statutory notice to provide an opportunity to the
accused/drawer to make payment of the cheque amount and
escape from the criminal prosecution. The non-service of the
notice would be ground only in the case of the accused
admitting the liability under the cheque and pleading only
exemption from the criminal prosecution for non payment of
the cheque amount. Thus this defence of the accused is of no
consequence in the present case as he is totally denying the
liability under the said cheque.
22. As such the statutory demand notice is held to have
been duly served on the accused. Hence defence taken by the
accused that notice not served her does not holds good.
II. Financial Capacity:
23. Further accused has taken the defence that the
complainant has no financial capacity to lend the loan of
Rs.4,75,000/- to the accused. The learned counsel for accused
SCCH-6 16 CC.11990/2021
cross examined PW.1 with regard to his occupation, income
and specific source of funds for the alleged loan for which
PW.1 clearly stated that he was doing Real estate business
and getting 8-10 Lakhs in the year 2020. It is pertinent to note
here that learned counsel for the accused has not at all denied
the occupation or income of the PW.1 at least by putting a
single denial suggestion. The learned counsel for accused went
on cross examining PW.1 with regard to whether PW.1 has
produced any document to show that he was having the
income of Rs.8,00,000/-. Though complainant has not
produced any document to show his income, but, it is not
material or fatal to complainant case that as accused has not
at all denied the income of the PW.1 stated by him at least by
putting a single denial suggestion.
24. Further PW.1 in his cross examination clearly stated
that during February 2020, he has lent the loan of
Rs.2,50,000/- in cash to the accused and thereafter, after 15
days, once again PW.1 has lent the loan of Rs.2,25,000/- in
cash. It is pertinent to note here that accused counsel has not
SCCH-6 17 CC.11990/2021
at all denied this fact of lending of the loan of Rs.4,75,000/- in
cash by the complainant to the accused at least by putting a
single denial suggestion. The accused counsel further cross
examined PW.1 with regard to from where he has brought the
loan of Rs.4,75,000/. Accused counsel has not at all denied
the statement deposed by the PW.1 with regard to lending of
the loan in cash. Further PW.1 clearly stated that he has
withdrawn amount from the bank and also given some
amount which was within his hand. Further PW.1 clearly
stated that he was having an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to
1,50,000/- with his hand and he has withdrawn remaining
amount from the bank. Even this fact deposed by the PW.1 is
not at all denied by the accused counsel at least by putting a
single denial suggestion. The learned counsel for accused went
on cross examining PW.1 whether he has produced his bank
statement to show that he has withdrawn the amount from
the bank for which PW.1 stated that he will produce on the
next date. Though earlier PW.1 has not produced his bank
statement, but later on in his further chief examination,
SCCH-6 18 CC.11990/2021
produced his bank statement as per Ex.P10. As per Ex.P10,
the complainant has withdrawn the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-
through cheque on 10.02.2020. Even further on 10.02.2020
itself complainant has withdrawn the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/-. It is pertinent to note here that though learned
counsel for accused cross examined PW.1 with regard to
Ex.P10, but however nowhere learned counsel for accused
denied that complainant has never withdrawn any amount
from his bank. The learned counsel for accused argued that
though there is no entries in the bank statement for
withdrawal of the money from his bank, but, there is entries or
the document to show that PW.1 has lent the loan amount to
the accused. PW.1 clearly stated that he has withdrawn the
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from his bank account and
remaining amount which was with him and together he has
given to the accused. Even this fact also has not been denied
by the accused counsel. Thus nowhere accused counsel has
denied the occupation, source of income and source of alleged
funds lent by the complainant to the accused atleast by
SCCH-6 19 CC.11990/2021
putting a single denial suggestion. Hence the complainant has
clearly proved that he has sufficient financial capacity to lend
the loan of Rs.4,75,000/- and prove the passing of
consideration.
III. No debt existed:-
25. Further accused has taken the specific defence that
accused was never had any capacity to repay the loan and he
has never borrowed any loan of Rs.4,75,000/- from the
complainant. Further complainant has not produced any
document to show that he has lent the loan to the accused.
The learned counsel for accused cross examined PW.1 with
reference to Mamatha wherein PW.1 clearly stated that he
knew Mamatha landlord of the accused and on the say of the
said Mamatha, PW.1 has lent the loan to the accused. On
trust over the Mamatha, complainant has lent the loan to the
accused. In support of his contention, complainant has
examined Mamatha as PW.2 wherein PW.2 stated that
accused is the tenant and accused and her husband used to
borrow 10-20 thousand from her and used to repay the same
SCCH-6 20 CC.11990/2021
as and when she needs money. Further PW.2 deposed that
accused is very close friend to them and become their family
friends and further PW.2 knew their relative and family
members. In February 2020, the accused and her husband
have requested a loan of Rs.5-10 lakhs, as they were in
problem. As accused requested PW.2 called the complainant to
her house and requested the complainant to lend the loan to
the accused on behalf of her and as per the say of PW.2, PW.1
has lent the loan of Rs.2,50,000/- in February 2020 and once
again Rs.2,25,000/-. Thereafter accused has assured that
after selling their site, she would repay the same. Further
PW.2 stated that accused husband is a Manson and
contractor who used to construct the house and selling the
house and husband of the accused also assured that he will
repay the amount after selling the site or the house.
Thereafter, accused issued the cheque in question for the
repayment of the loan. Thereafter accused has vacated their
house. Though PW.2 cross examined by learned counsel for
accused at length but, nowhere accused counsel denied the
SCCH-6 21 CC.11990/2021
fact that he was residing in the house of the PW.2 as a tenant
for 7-8 years and also further accused counsel has not at all
denied petty financial transaction between him and the PW.2
for several time. Even Pw.2 in her cross examination clearly
stated that as accused’s husband was constructing the house
and accused was in need of money, as per request of the
accused, PW.2 asked complainant to lend the loan of
Rs.4,75,000/- and in her presence, complainant has given the
amount of Rs.4,75,000/- in cash. At that time, accused
husband was also present.
26. It is pertinent to note here that, all these facts
deposed by the PW.2 in her cross examination are not at all
denied by the learned counsel for the accused at least by
putting a single denial suggestion. The learned counsel for
accused went on cross examining whether any document is
taken by the accused at the time of lending of the loan for
which Pw.2 clearly stated that based on the trust and accused
being the family friend and close to her and hence
complainant has lent the loan of Rs.4,75,000/- to the accused
SCCH-6 22 CC.11990/2021
on her say.
27. Further accused has taken the contention that Pw.2
was doing chit business and at that time, accused has given
Ex.P1 cheque to the PW.2 as a security and PW.2 has misused
the same and filed a false case through the complainant. The
defence taken by the accused is entirely denied by the PW.1
and PW.2. When PW.1 and PW.2 have denied the defence
taken by the accused, the burden lies on the accused to prove
the same. In this regard, on perusal of cross examination of
PW.1 and PW.2 and even in the defence evidence, the accused
has never stated when he was doing the chit business with
said Mamatha and who are all members in the said chit
business, what was the chit amount and how much of the
amount has been paid by him towards chit business, whether
he has taken bid amount and when he has taken the bid
amount and when he has given the cheque in question to the
PW.2 and when the chit business has been completed and
why after completion of the chit business, he has not taken
any steps for return of his cheque. Accused has not at all
SCCH-6 23 CC.11990/2021
stated any details with regard to above details which makes
the defence of the accused doubtful. The accused has failed to
raise the probable defence with regard to how the cheque in
question has gone into the hands of the PW.1. The accused
has suppress the material facts and truths with regard to the
defence taken by the accused makes the defence of the
accused doubtful. Even accused has not produced any
document to show that he was doing chit business with the
PW.2. Further if at all accused has issued the cheque in
question to the PW.2 then why accused has not taken any
legal action against the Pw.2 for the recovery of her cheque
atleast accused would have given the stop payment notice to
his bank. But, no such action taken by the accused.
28. Apart from this, if at all the defence of the accused is
believed to be a gospel truth, then question arises in the
minds of the court as to why even after service of the notice,
accused has not taken the said defence at the earliest possible
opportunity by giving reply to the notice issued by the PW-1.
No explanation were forthcoming in this regard. In the absence
SCCH-6 24 CC.11990/2021
of any such recourse being adopted by the accused, it is highly
impossible to believe his defence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan Reported in 2010 (1) DCR
706, wherein it was held as follows:
24. “-Very fact that the
accused had failed to reply to
the statutory notice under
Sec.138 of N.I.Act leads to
inference that there was merit
in the complainant’s version”.
29. In the present case also the accused inspite of the
service of the notice has not replied to the notice and taken
the defence at the later stage only for the sake of the defence.
That, being the true facts it can be held that, the accused has
failed to establish his defence.
30. Moreover, ordinarily no prudent man would keep
quite after giving the signed blank cheque and signed blank
papers to a third person that too after receiving the notice. In
this regard it is pertinent to note the principle held in Sri.
Prakash @ Jnana Prakash v/s Miss T.S. Susheela reported
in ILR 2012 KAR 4815 our Hon’ble High Court has held
SCCH-6 25 CC.11990/2021
that – If the documents had been illegally obtained by the
complainant, it is inexplicable that the petitioner did not
choose to give a complaint to the police or to take other
measures insofar as that conduct of the complainant is
concerned and hence has disbelieved the evidence set forth –
31. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Court to
the present case on hand, the accused in this case also has
not taken up any legal measures against complainant
regarding possession of cheque. From this an inference can
be drawn that no prudent man will keep himself silent
without taking any steps to safeguard his interest when his
document lies with the possession of other party.
Conclusion:
32. In view of all the above discussions, it can be
concluded that the complainant has established through
cogent and convincing evidence the fact of issuance of the
cheque for discharge of legality enforceable debt, which is
dishonored for want of sufficient funds, Issuance of legal
notice within stipulated time, failure on the part of accused
SCCH-6 26 CC.11990/2021
to repay the amount within stipulated period. On the other
hand, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption
available to the complainant through probable evidences that
would preponderate upon the evidence lead by the
complainant. Therefore, the accused is held to have
committed an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
33. POINT NO.2:- In view of my answer to point
No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
-: O R D E R :-
Acting U/Sec.278(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, accused
is hereby convicted for the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.4,80,000/- for the offence punishable
under section 138 of N.I.Act. The amount
of Rs.4,75,000/- shall be paid to the
complainant by way of compensation in
accordance with Sec.395(1) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, within one month from today.
SCCH-6 27 CC.11990/2021
The remaining amount of Rs.5,000/-
shall be confiscated to the state. In default
of payment of fine, the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of six months.
It is made clear that in view of Sec.461 of
BNSS, even if the accused shall undergo
the default sentence imposed above,
accused is not absolved of liability to pay
the fine amount.
The bail and surety bond of the accused
and surety shall stand canceled.
Office to furnish the copy of this judgment
for free of cost to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the
02nd day of May, 2026).
(CHETANA S.F.)
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 :- Sri. Vijay C.N.,
PW.2 :- Smt. Mamatha
SCCH-6 28 CC.11990/2021
List of witnesses examined for the accused:-
DW.1 :- Smt. Hemavathi
List of documents marked for the Complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of Legal Notice
dt.02.09.2021
Ex.P.4 & 5 : Postal Receipts
Ex.P.6 and 7 : Two Postal covers
Ex.P8 : Track consignment
Ex.P9 : Certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian
Evidence Act
Ex.P10 : South Indian Bank Account
statement
List of documents marked for the accused:-
NIL
(CHETANA S.F.)
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge &
ACJM, Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
[ad_1]
Source link
