IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDL.

JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES &
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21).

Dated: This the 16th Day of July 2019

PRESENT: Smt.VANI A. SHETTY, B.A. Law L.L.B,

XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small
Causes & ACMM, Bengaluru.

C.C. No. 53724/2015

Complainant/s : Volvo Group India Private Limited,

Yelachahally, Tavarekere Post,
Hosakote,
Bengaluru – 562 122.
Represented by its authorized signatory
Mr.Laxminarayana Hegde,
Head Legal & Company Secretary.

(By Sri. N.M., Advocate)

V/s.
Accused/s : Mr. Meda Panduranga Setty Vikram,
S/o. Mr. M.K.Panduranga Setty,
Aged: Major,
Residing at No.14,
Bull Temple Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru – 560 004.
(By Sri. V.N.P., Advocate)

JUDGEMENT

The accused in this case is tried for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act
1881, on the complaint of the complainant.
SCCH-21 2 C.C. No.53724/15

2. The summary of the complainant’s case is that:

The complainant appointed M/s.Willworth Earth

movers Pvt. Ltd as a dealer for sale of its products and
certain amounts were due from wilworth company. Accused s
M.D. of Wilworth company and stood as a guarantor for it in
payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.5,81,75,617/- due
from Wilworth Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd., to the complainant
and executed Deed of Personal Guarantee. In discharge of an
amount of Rs.5,51,33,982/-, accused issued cheques bearing
Nos.580707 to 580755, Cheque Nos. 548806 to 548811 for
Rs.10,00,000/- each and Cheque No.548812 for
Rs.1,33,982/- dated 09.03.2015 respectively, draw on State
Bank of India, Bannerghatta branch, Bengaluru assuring
that the cheques would be honoured if presented for
payment. The complainant presented the said cheques for
encashment through its banker Hongkong Shanghai Banking
Corporation Bangalore, M.G.Road branch(HSBC), Bengaluru
on 19.05.2015. But the said cheques came to be dishonoured
on the ground of ‘Exceeds Arrangment” on 21.05.2015. The
said fact communicated to the complainant on 26.05.2015.
Thereafter, on 20.06.2015 complainant got issued legal
notice by RPAD demanding for repayment of the cheques
amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
The notice sent through RPAD was served on the accused
and the accused has given reply dated 29.06.2015. The
accused has not paid the amount and therefore, this
complaint filed on 30.07.2015.

3. On filing of the complaint cognizance was taken

for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act and
SCCH-21 3 C.C. No.53724/15

sworn statement was recorded. As there was sufficient

ground to proceed further, a criminal case has been
registered against the accused and he was summoned. The
substance of accusation is stated to the accused and his plea
was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and submitted that
he has defence to make.

4. In support of the complainant’s case, the sworn

statement filed by the complainant during the pre-
summoning stage is considered as his evidence and one
witness got examined as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P145 documents are marked. The statement of the
accused is recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and his
answers were recorded.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the written

arguments submitted by the complainant and accused.

6. The points that arise for my consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant proved that
accused has committed an offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act
1881?

2. What order?

7. My answer to the above points is as follows:

Point No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:

REASONS

8. POINT No.1: In order to constitute an offence

under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the cheque shall be presented
SCCH-21 4 C.C. No.53724/15

to the bank within a period of 3 months from its date. On its

dishonor, the drawer or holder of the cheque as the case may
be shall cause demand notice within 30 days from the date of
dishonor, demanding to repay within 15 days from the date
of service of the notice. If the drawer of the cheque fails to
repay the amount mentioned in the cheque within 15 days
from the date of service of notice, cause of action arises for
filing complaint.

9. The sworn statement filed by the complainant

during the pre-summoning stage is considered as his
evidence. In the affidavit, complainant has testified regarding
supply of materials, accused stood as guarantor in payment
of dues from Wilworth company, issuance of cheques,
issuance of demand notice and also failure of the accused to
pay the cheques amount. The complainant has produced the
cheques bearing Nos.580707 to 580755 and 548806 to
548811 for Rs.10,00,000/- each and Cheque No.548812 for
Rs.1,33,982/- dated 09.03.2015 respectively, drawn on State
Bank of India, Bannerghatta branch, Bengaluru, alleged to
be issued by the accused at Ex.P3 to 58. Ex.P3 to 58 cheques
stands in the name of complainant. Ex.P59 to Ex.P113 are
the endorsements issued by the bank stating dishonor of
Ex.P3 to 58 cheques. Ex.P59 to Ex.P113 shows that Ex.P3 to
58 cheques were dishonoured for ‘Exceeds Arrangement’ on
21.05.2015 respectively. Ex.P116 is the office copy of legal
notice dated 20.06.2015. Ex.P117 is the reply given by the
accused dated 29.06.2015 evidencing the service of notice to
the accused.
SCCH-21 5 C.C. No.53724/15

10. In the present case, cheques are dated

09.03.2015 respectively. Ex.P59 to Ex.P113 shows that
cheques in question were dishonoured on 21.03.2015. As per
Ex.P59 to Ex.P.113, it appears that the cheques were
presented within three months from the date of cheques. The
notice was issued within the statutory period of time. The
notice was served to the accused and he has given reply
dated 29.06.2015 as per Ex.P.117. The cause of action for
filing the complaint arose on 15.07.2015. The complainant
has filed this complaint on 30.07.2015 i.e. within 30 days
from the date of arisal of cause of action. In this way, the
complainant has complied all the mandatory requirements of
Section 138 and 142 of N.I. Act.

11. Section 118 of N.I. Act lays down that, until the
contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that every Negotiable
Instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Section
139 of N.I. Act, contemplates that unless the contrary is
proved, it shall be presumed that the holder of the cheque
received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138
for the discharge, in whole of any debt or liability. In the
decision reported in 2001 Crl.L.J. page 4647 (SC) (Hiten
P.Dalal –Vs- Bratindranath Banerjee) and in various other
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and our Hon’ble High
Court, repeatedly observed that in the proceeding under
Section 138 of N.I. Act the complainant is not required to
establish either the legality or the enforceability of the debt or
liability since he can avail the benefit of presumption under
Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act in his favour. It is also
observed that, by virtue of these presumptions, accused has
SCCH-21 6 C.C. No.53724/15

to establish that, the cheque in question was not issued

towards any legally enforceable debt or liability. Later in the
year 2006, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision M.S.
Narayan Menon @ Mani –vs- State of Kerala and another
(2006 SAR Crl. 616) has held that, the presumption
available under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act can be
rebutted by raising a probable defence and the onus cast
upon the accused is not as heavy as that of the prosecution.
It was compared with that of a defendant in civil proceedings.
Subsequently, in the year 2008, in Krishna Janardhana Bhat
–Vs- Dattatreya G. Hegde (2008 Vo.II SCC Crl.166) Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that, existence of legally recoverable
debt is not a presumption under Section 138 of N.I. Act and
the accused has a constitutional right to maintain silence
and therefore, the doctrine reverse burden introduced by
Section 139 of N.I. Act should be delicately balanced.

12. In the decision, Rangappa – Vs – Mohan (AIR

2010 SC 1898) Hon’ble Supreme has considered this issue
and clarified that, existence of legally recoverable debt or
liability is a matter of presumption under section 139 of N.I.
Act. In para 14 of the judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as here below:

“In light of these extracts, we are in agreement

with the respondent-claimant that the presumption
mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include
the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To
that extent, the impugned observations in Krishna
Janardhan Bhat (supra) may not be correct. However, this
does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the
decision in that case since it was based on the specific
facts and circumstances therein. As noted in the citations,
this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption
SCCH-21 7 C.C. No.53724/15

and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the

existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be
contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an
initial presumption which favours the complainant. Section
139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that
has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective
of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While
Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in
relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable
presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent
undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be
remembered that the offence made punishable by Section
138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since
the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil
wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private
parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a
scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the
construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and
the accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge an
unduly high standard or proof. In the absence of
compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually
impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive
burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that
when an accused has to rebut the presumption under
Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of
'preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is
able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts
about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability,
the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the
accused can rely on the materials submitted by the
complainant and it is conceivable that in some cases the
accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own "

13. In view of the above decision, now it is clear that

the presumption mandated by Section 139 of N.I. Act does
indeed include the existence of legally enforceable debt or
liability. It is a rebuttable presumption. It is open to the
accused to raise the defence wherein the existence of legally
enforceable debt or liability can be contested. For rebutting
presumption, the accused do not adduce evidence with
SCCH-21 8 C.C. No.53724/15

unduly high standard of proof but, the standard of proof for

doing so with that of preponderance of probabilities. If the
accused is able to raise a probable defence, which creates
doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt or
liability, the onus shifts back to the complainant. It is also
clear for rebutting the presumption accused can rely on the
materials submitted by the complainant or his cross-
examination and he need not necessarily adduce his evidence
in all the cases.

14. In the present case, complainant has complied all

the mandatory requirements of Section 138 and 142 of N.I.
Act by producing the documents and evidence. While
admitting the issuance of Ex.P3 to Ex.P58 cheques (56
cheques) for total amount of Rs.5,51,33,982/-, the accused
has contended in the reply notice that those cheques were
issued only for security. Accused has also contended that the
amounts were written in those cheques by him and they were
issued without filling up the dates and therefore, filling up
dates would amount to material alteration of cheques. I have
carefully gone through the entire evidence on record. The
accused has admitted the covering letter issued by him as
per Ex.P2, which reads as hereunder:

02.01.2015

To
Volvo India Pvt. Ltd.,
Bangalore.

From
M P Vikram
#14, Bull Temple Road
Basavanagudi
SCCH-21 9 C.C. No.53724/15

Bangalore.

Subject: Forwarding of Cheque Leaves.

Kind Attention: Sanu George

Please find enclosed 56 cheque leaves as per the face value for
Rs.10,000,00/- Lacs each with the Cheque Number:580707 to
580755, Cheque No.548806 to 548811, and Cheque
Number:58812 for Rs.1,33,982/- Lacs.

The details are mentioned in the appendix for further necessary

action at your end.

Kindly acknowledge the receipt for the same.

With regards
-sd-
MP Vikram

The contents of letter give a clear indication that Ex.P3 to

Ex.P58 cheques were issued unconditionally by the accused
to the complainant. The accused is not an ordinary person.
He is the Managing Director of M/s. Wilworth Earth Movers
Pvt. Ltd. If the cheques were not intended to be presented for
encashment or if they were issued only as a security,
certainly accused would have stated the same in Ex.P2 letter.
Therefore, Ex.P2 letter alone is sufficient to come to the
conclusion that, all Ex.P3 to Ex.P58 cheques were issued
voluntarily in discharge of legally enforceable debt.

15. It is also relevant to refer the reply given by the

accused to the notice sent by the complainant under Section
138(b) of N.I.Act. The said reply notice issued by his learned
counsel and it has produced at Ex.P117. It is necessary to
SCCH-21 10 C.C. No.53724/15

reproduce the relevant portion of said notice which reads as

hereunder:

2. My client states that he had no personal commercial

dealings or transactions in his personal capacity with your
client at any point of time and he is not due to your client at
any point of time in any manner or extent. There is no legally
recoverable debt due and payable by my client to your client in
terms of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and hence
he is not liable to comply with the demand made against him in
your said Notice particularly under the following facts and
circumstances. Viz.,

A) My client states that in fact, along with covering letter

dated 02/01/2015, he had sent to your client Volvo India
Ltd., about 55 dated blank Cheque leaves bearing Nos.
580707 to 580755 and bearing Nos.548806 to 548811 for
Rs.10 Lakhs each together another dated blank, named
blank Cheque leaf bearing No.548812 for Rs.1,33,982/-,
as security Cheques in place of the earlier security
Cheques leaves (1) bearing Nos.580636 to 580655 for
Rs.10 Lakh each and (2) bearing No.541941 dated
18/04/2014 for Rs.60,000/- which were given by him to
your client along with a covering letter attached to the
Deed of Personal Guarantee dated 13th March 2017 and
in furtherance thereof, he also had sent security Cheques
leaves bearing Nos.548856 to 548765 dated 18/04/2014
for Rs.10 Lakh each to your client along with a covering
letter dated 19th March 2014.

B) The said cheque leaves were sent to your client as a

security and not in any case towards any liability or
towards any legally recoverable debt due and payable by
him at any point of time to your client.

C) As the said Cheque leaves, when sent by my client to your

client were dated blank and as such they were in the
custody of your client, if at all any date is found to be
entered before presenting the said Cheque leaves to the
Bank by your client for realization, my client states that it
would be a material alteration of the said Cheque leaves
at the place proved for putting the date on each of the said
SCCH-21 11 C.C. No.53724/15

Cheques and thereby the dishonor of Cheque falls outside

the scope of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

3. It is being well established principle of law tht no

proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act would lie in respect of the Cheques issued as Security are
dishonoured for insufficient funds, the question of your client
proceeding to invoke the said provision in the aforesaid facts
and circumstances does not arise.

The contents of reply notice also clarifies the voluntarily

issuance of Ex.P3 to Ex.P58 cheques. The only contention
raised by the accused is that they were issued as security. As
observed by me earlier that Ex.P2 letter speaks otherwise and
therefore, I am unable to believe that those cheques were
issued as security. Even if those cheques were issued as
security, on its dishonor it attracts the penal provision of
Section 138 of N.I.Act. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the
decision relied by the learned counsel appearing for the
complainant rendered in the case of Umaswamy vs.
K.N.Ramanath (2006 SCC Online Kar 314). In the said
decision, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that the
cheque even if it is issued as a security for payment, it is
Negotiable Instrument and encashable security at the hand
of payee. Therefore, merely because the drawer contends that
it is issued as security is not a ground to exonerate the penal
liability under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

16. The accused has also contended that, the

complainant himself filled up the date and therefore, it
amounts to material alteration. In this regard, accused relied
on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the
case of M.S.Anirudhan vs. Thomco’s Bank Ltd., (AIR 1963 SC
SCCH-21 12 C.C. No.53724/15

746). Cheque is a Negotiable instrument. It is also relevant

to point out that accused had even issued cheques only after
filling up the amounts. When an undated cheque is issued it
gives an implied authority under Section 20of N.I.Act to fill
up the same and present it for encashment. In the present
case, Ex.P2 letter is also an authority to the complainant to
present the cheques for encashment. Therefore, even if
complainant had filled up the date, it cannot be considered
as material alteration of cheques. In this regard, in the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Bir Singh vs. Mukesh (2019 SCC online SC 138), wherein it is
observed as hereunder:

“37. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the

Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular,
Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a
person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the
payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to
rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued
for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is
immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by
any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly
signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid,
the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.

38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to

a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up
the amount and other particulars. This in itself would
not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the
accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge
of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.

39. It is not the case of the respondent-accused that he

either signed the cheque or parted with it under any
threat or coercion. Nor is it the case of the respondent-
accused that the unfilled signed cheque had been
stolen. The existence of a fiduciary relationship between
the payee of a cheque and its drawer, would not
disentitle the payee to the benefit of the presumption
under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in
the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence
SCCH-21 13 C.C. No.53724/15

or coercion. The second question is also answered in the

negative.

40. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and

handed over by the accused, which is towards some
payment, would attract presumption under Section 139
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any
cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued
in discharge of a debt.

42. In the absence of any finding that the cheque in

question was not signed by the respondent-accused or
not voluntarily made over to the payee and in the
absence of any evidence with regard to the
circumstances in which a blank signed cheque had
been given to the appellant-complainant, it may
reasonably be presumed that the cheque was filled in
by the appellant-complainant being the payee in the
presence of the respondent-accused being the drawer,
at his request and/or with his acquiescence. The
subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not
an alteration. There was no change in the amount of the
cheque, its date or the name of the payee. The High
Court ought not to have acquitted the respondent-
accused of the charge under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.

17. The learned counsel appearing for the accused

strongly contended that, Ex.P1 Deed of Personal Guarantee
executed on 16.08.2014 was only a draft and not acted upon
by the parties. He has also contended that as per Ex.P1
cheques are dated 31.10.2014 and those cheques are not
produced by the complainant. It is true that cheques dated
31.10.2014 are not produced. It is insignificant because, it is
not the contention of the accused that his liability towards
the complainant has been discharged through the cheques
mentioned in Ex.P1 Deed of Personal Guarantee. If the
complainant had presented the cheques mentioned in it also,
the circumstances would have been different. Therefore, as
rightly stated by the accused it may be true that parties have
SCCH-21 14 C.C. No.53724/15

not acted upon Ex.P1 Deed of Personal Guarantee. Since the

parties have not acted upon Ex.P1 Deed of Personal
Guarantee, subsequently Ex.P3 to Ex.P58 cheques were
issued as per Ex.P2. Therefore, Ex.P1 is relevant only to
ascertain the liability of the accused. Hence, Ex.P1 has
established the liability of the accused in respect of cheques
issued by him. Under such circumstances, even without the
help of presumption, complainant has established that
accused has issued Ex.P3 to Ex.P58 cheques in discharge of
legally enforceable debt.

18. The right of PW.1 to prosecute the case and give

evidence is questioned by the accused by relying upon the
decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of
M/s. Electric Construction & Equipment Company Ltd., vs.
M/s. Jagjit Electric Works (RFA 105/1978 dated
03.04.1984). The accused has contended that, Power of
Attorney is not in accordance with Section 85 of Indian
Evidence Act. It is pertinent to note that complainant is a
Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956, having Registered Office, Head office and branches
at different places. The complainant is the manufacturer of
Volvo CE(VIPL products) and having huge business.
Therefore, the company as juristic person cannot appear
before the court and prosecute the case. Hence, company
has authorized one Mr.Laxminarayana Hegde as its
authorized person through Minutes of meeting of the Board
of Directors which is produced at Ex.P118. It is accompanied
along with copy of POA. It is not the case of accused that
company has not authorized Mr.Laxminarayana Hegde to
SCCH-21 15 C.C. No.53724/15

prosecute the case. The same is not even suggested to

Mr.Laxminarayana Hegde in his cross examination.
Therefore, Ex.P118 is sufficient authority to
Mr.Laxminarayana Hegde to prosecute and give evidence.
Further, offence committed under Section 138 of N.I.Act is
document based offence. The scope of oral evidence is less
when there are documentary evidences. Therefore, I am
unable to find any force in the defences raised by the accused
in this regard. Hence, none of the defences raised by the
accused are capable of displacing the presumption available
in favour of the complainant. Therefore, I hold that
complainant has proved the guilt of the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the AFFIRMATIVE.

19. POINT No.2: Section 138 of N.I. Act empowers the

Court to sentence the accused upto two years and also to
impose fine which may extend to twice the amount of
cheques, or with both. The cheques in question were issued
on 09.03.2015 for total amount of Rs.5,51,33,982/-. The
liability was in respect of commercial transaction. The
complainant company was deprived of money that was
rightfully due to it for a period of more than four years. It
might have affected its regular business and future
prospectus. However, having regard to the facts of the case
and the amount involved, there are no warranting
circumstances to award the sentence of imprisonment as
substantive sentence, directing the accused to pay fine and
also awarding compensation to the complainant would meet
the ends of justice. But adequate default sentence shall have
SCCH-21 16 C.C. No.53724/15

to be imposed to ensure the recovery of fine imposed to the

accused. Therefore, the complainant is required to be
suitably compensated as per section 80 and 117 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act and also appropriate in default
sentence. Having regard to all these facts, I deem it proper to
award 12% interest p.a. on the cheque amount from the date
of cheques. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Sec.265 of Cr.P.C, the accused
is found guilty for the offence punishable under
Sec.138 of N.I. Act and he is sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores
only). In default to pay fine, the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year.
Further, acting under Section 357(1)(b) of
Cr.P.C., out of the fine amount, a sum of
Rs.7,99,90,000/- (Rupees Seven crore ninety nine
lakhs ninety thousand only) on recovery shall be
paid as compensation to the complainant.

The office is directed to supply a free copy of

judgment to the accused.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, same is

corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on
this the 16th day of July 2019)

(VANI A. SHETTY)
XVII ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes &
ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bengaluru.
SCCH-21 17 C.C. No.53724/15

ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:

P.W 1: Laxminarayana Hegde

P.W.2 : Shivananda Hegde

List of documents exhibited on behalf of the

complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Deed of Personal Guarantee
Ex.P.2 : Letter
Ex.P.3 to 58 : Cheques
Ex.P.59 to : Bank endorsements
113
Ex.P.114 : Deposit slips
Ex.P.115 : Letter issued by the bank
Ex.P.116 : Copy of Legal notice
Ex.P.117 : Reply
Ex.P.118 : Extract of minutes of meeting dated
22.06.2017
Ex.P.119 : Dealer agreement
Ex.P.120 : Annual Report 2014-15
Ex.P.121 : Directors Report
Ex.P.122 : Annual return’s of complainant Co.,
Ex.P.123 : Form No.AOC-4
Ex.P.124 : Form 23AC
Ex.P.125 : Termination letter dated 16.03.2015
Ex.P.125(a) : Signature on the letter
Ex.P.126 : C/C. of application
Ex.P.127 : Letter dated 13.04.2015
Ex.P.128 to : Email and account statements
141
SCCH-21 18 C.C. No.53724/15

Ex.P.142 : Accounts statement for the month of

September 2014
Ex.P.143 & : Email and account statement dated
144 28.07.2014 and 04.06.2014
Ex.P.145 : Order Sheet in CoP 116/2016

List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused: Nil.

List of documents exhibited on behalf of the accused: Nil.

(VANI A. SHETTY)
XVII ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes &
ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bengaluru.

***********