[CASE NUMBER] IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU Present: Smt. HEMA PASTAPUR B.A., LL.B., XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Dated this the 23rd day of June 2018 [CASE NUMBER] Judgment under section 355 of [ACT] Complainant : MR. MANI RAMAMURTHY, s/o. late [ENTITY], Aged about 69 years, Residing at No.249, Santrupthi, 2nd 'A' Main Road, 2nd Block, 4th Stage, Vinayaka Layout, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru - 560 072, Occupation:- Retired Mechanical Engineer. (By Shri [ENTITY]. R., Advocate) V/s Accused : MR. KANNAN, Managing Director, KRK Properties Pvt. Ltd., No.14, Pankaj, 4th Cross, 1 [CASE NUMBER] Central Excise Layout, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru - 560 040. Also at:- KRK Properties Pvt. Ltd., No.[SECTION]5, 3rd Main Road, 5th Cross, Behind ITI Layout, Geology Layout, Bengaluru - 560 065. (By Shri [ENTITY], Advocate) JUDGMENT
That, the complainant has filed the private complaint under [SECTION] of [ACT], for taking action against the accused for the offence punishable under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
That, the brief facts of the present case are as under:-
1. That, the accused was doing the project under the name and style of "Temple Town" near Tavarekere of Magadi Road and the complainant in the name of his son by name [ENTITY] had booked a site in said project and towards the booking amount on 31.08.2011 paid Rs.3,50,000/- through a [CASE NUMBER] cheque bearing No.526539 dated:-31.08.2011 drawn on HDFC Bank, Magadi Road, Chord Road, Extension and on 27.01.2012 paid Rs.4,00,000/- through a cheque bearing No.526547 dated:-
27.01.2012 drawn on HDFC Bank, Vijayangara branch, Bengaluru and on 30.01.2012 paid Rs.2,00,000/- through a cheque bearing No.745090 drawn on Hongkong and Shangai Banking Corporation Ltd., M.G. Road branch, Bengaluru. That, due to some legal issues the accused had shelved out the said project and asked the complainant for transferring the said amount in upcoming projects either at Bidadi or Hosakote. That, the complainant due to distance constraints had rejected the said proposal of the accused and on 26.09.2013 had submitted the application for canceling the said booking and also asked for refunding a sum of Rs.9,50,000/-. That, on basis of the said application the accused though, had issued in favour of the complainant a Cheque bearing No.298309 dated:-30.04.2014 for a sum of Rs.9,50,000/-
drawn on Corporation Bank, RPC Layout, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, but, never allowed the complainant for presenting the said cheque in bank for encashment and due to which the validity of the said cheque expired. That, thereafter, the accused had [CASE NUMBER] issued in favour of the complainant two cheques bearing No.711824 dated:-18.08.2016 and No.711823 dated:-17.08.2016 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each drawn on Corporation Bank, RPC Layout branch, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, That, the complainant had presented the aforesaid cheques for encashment in HDFC Bank, Nagarabhavi branch, Bengaluru and on 25.08.2016 the said cheques were returned with the sharas as 'Funds Insufficient' in the account of the accused and when the complainant had informed the accused about the dishonour of the said cheques then the accused had sought the time and requested the complainant for presenting the aforesaid cheques in bank in 2nd week of September 2016 and accordingly, the complainant on 16.09.2016 had presented the said cheques for encashment and on 17.09.2016 the same were returned with the sharas as 'Funds Insufficient'. That, the complainant for the aforesaid acts of the accused on 05.10.2016 had issued the legal notices and the notice sent to him to his first address was returned with the shara as 'addressee refused' and the notice sent to him to his second address was duly served upon him on 17.10.2016. That, as the accused inspite of receiving the said notice failed to [CASE NUMBER] comply with the terms of the same the complainant has constrained to knock the doors of justice.
2. That, on complaint being lodged by the complainant, this court registered the case in concerned register and took the cognizance for the offence punishable under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and thereafter, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and after satisfying with the materials placed on record registered the case against the accused in Register No. III and issued summons to him. That, the accused in pursuance of said summons appeared before this court through his Learned counsel and he was enlarged on bail. That, the substance of accusation of the accused has recorded and read over him in language known to him and he has not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. That, after completion of the complainant side evidence the statement of the accused as contemplated under [SECTION] of [ACT], has recorded and read over him and he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him.
[CASE NUMBER]
3. That, I have heard the arguments and perused the materials placed on record. That, the complainant has submitted his written arguments and I have gone through the same. That, the following points arise for My consideration and determination:-
1. Whether the complainant has proved that, the accused to discharge his legally enforceable debt had issued in his favour Cheques bearing No.711824 dated:-18.08.2016 and No.711823 dated:-17.08.2016 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each drawn on Corporation Bank, RPC Layout branch, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru?
2. Whether the complainant has further proved that, the said cheques were dishonoured as 'Funds Insufficient' in the account of the accused and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under [SECTION] of the [ACT]?
3. What order?
4. That, the complainant to substantiate his contentions has deposed himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at EXs.P1 to 14 and closed his side.
[CASE NUMBER] That, the accused to substantiate his contentions has deposed himself as DW1 and got marked the documents at EXs.D1 to 9 and closed his side.
5. That, My answer to the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 :- In the [ACT] Point No.2 :- In the [ACT] Point No.3:- As per the final order for the following:-
REASONS
6. Point No.1:- It is pertinent to note here that, the complainant has specifically contended that the accused was doing the project under the name and style of "Temple Town"
near Tavarakere of Magadi Road and in the name of his son he booked a site in said project and towards the booking amount on 31.08.2011 he paid Rs.3,50,000/- through a cheque bearing No.526539 dated:-31.08.2011 drawn on HDFC Bank, Magadi Road, Chord Road, Extension and on 27.01.2012 paid Rs.4,00,000/- through a cheque bearing No.526547 dated:-
27.01.2012 drawn on HDFC Bank, Vijayangara branch, Bengaluru and on 30.01.2012 paid Rs.2,00,000/- through a cheque bearing No.745090 drawn on Hongkong and Shangai Banking [CASE NUMBER] Corporation Ltd., M.G. Road branch, Bengaluru. That, the complainant has further deposed that the accused due to some legal issues had shelved out the said project and asked him for transferring the said amount in upcoming projects either at Bidadi or Hosakote but, due to distance constraints he rejected the said proposal of the accused and on 26.09.2013 he submitted an application to the accused for canceling the above said booking and also asked for refunding the amount of Rs.9,50,000/- and for which the accused had issued in his favour a Cheque bearing No.298309 dated:-30.04.2014 for a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, RPC Layout, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, but, the accused had never allowed him for presenting the said cheque for encashment in bank and due to which the validity of the said cheque expired. That, the complainant has further deposed that the accused had issued in his favour two cheques bearing No.711824 dated:-18.08.2016 and No.711823 dated:-17.08.2016 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
each drawn on Corporation Bank, RPC Layout branch, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru.
[CASE NUMBER]
7. It is pertinent to note here that, the complainant in support of his contentions has placed his reliance on following decisions:-
1. [PRECEDENT] wherein it has held that existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under [SECTION].
2. [ENTITY] -vs- Sri [ENTITY], reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 wherein it has held that [ACT], 1881 - [SECTION] - Presumption under - Scope of -
Held, presumption mandated by [SECTION] includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability - However, such presumption is rebuttal in nature - Criminal Trial - Proof - Presumption - Generally.
8. It is to be noted here that, the accused in his evidence has contended that he do not know the complainant and he had not issued in favour of the complainant any cheque. That, the accused has further deposed that his brother Sri. [ENTITY] was looking after the bank transactions and his said brother without [CASE NUMBER] his knowledge had issued his (accused) signed cheques to some other persons. That, the accused has further contended that his said brother had committed suicide and after his death he came to know about the irregularities committed by his said brother. That, the accused has further deposed that though, he had signed on cheques in question but, had not written the contents of the same.
9. It is pertinent to note here that, the accused in support of his contentions has placed his reliance on following decisions:-
1. [PRECEDENT] wherein it has held that [ACT] - S.17 -
Admission - Constitutes substantial piece of evidence for proving facts incorporated therein- Binding effect - Onus on person making admission to explain it- In case of his failure to disprove his admission, facts admitted would be presumed to be true and binding on maker of admission - Admission must be clear, certain and definite- [ACT], [SECTION].
[CASE NUMBER]
2. [PRECEDENT] wherein it has held that [ACT], 1881- [SECTION] - Discharge of cheque - Concept of legally enforceable debt - The buyer of the property had issued cheque for the seller - The seller did not keep up his word in selling the property - The seller presented the cheque for realization - The cheque was dishonoured - Could the issue of cheque be considered as to discharge the debt - No, it is a transaction of a civil nature - The acquittal of the accused is in accordance with law.
3. [ENTITY] -vs- [ENTITY], reported in (2009) 11 SCC 545 wherein it has held that [ACT] - Ss.[SECTION] and 23 and 42 and 43 - Deposition in civil suit about pleading guilty in criminal case, whether/when relevant and admissible - Explanation that the defendant was wrongly advised by counsel to make such admission - Implications and effect - Plaintiff allegedly pledging jewellery for obtaining a loan of Rs.7000 from defendant - Criminal Court allegedly [CASE NUMBER] convicting defendant and for violation of Ss.3 and 4 of the [ACT] - Defendant deposing that he accepted the guilt of the charges leveled in criminal proceedings - Respondent issuing notice to defendant for return of jewellery - Defendant deposing that he received aforesaid notice but did not reply - Effect - Although judgment of criminal case is not relevant in civil proceedings, the deposition of accused taken down in writing by civil court about such admission of guilt, held, is relevant and admissible - Explanation that defendant was wrongly advised by counsel, held, would not affect such admissibility as it would fall within the realm of appreciation of evidence- [ACT] - [SECTION] Admissibility of evidence - Interference with - When called for - Admissibility of evidence distinguished from appreciation of evidence.
10. It is pertinent to note here that, the Learned counsel for the accused has drawn the attention of this Court about the provisions of [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
[CASE NUMBER] That, the provisions of [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the said Act, runs as under:-
[SECTION] Admission defined.- An admission is a statement (oral or documentary or contained in electronic form), which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.
[SECTION] Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.- Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representatives in interest, except in the following cases:-
(1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under [SECTION].
[CASE NUMBER] (2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
(3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.
Illustrations
(a) The question between A and B is, whether a certain deed is or is not forged, A affirms that it is genuine, B that it is forged.
A may prove a statement by B that the deed is genuine, and B may prove a statement by A that the deed is forged; but A cannot prove a statement by himself that the deed is genuine, nor can B prove a statement by himself that the deed is forged.
[SECTION] Facts admitted need not be proved.- No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the [CASE NUMBER] parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing or which, before the hearing they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings:
Provided that the Court, may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.
11. It is pertinent to note here that, the entire burden lies upon the complainant to substantiate that the accused to discharge his legally enforceable debt had issued in his favour cheques bearing No.711824 dated:-18.08.2016 and No.711823 dated:-17.08.2016 each for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, RPC Layout branch, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru - EXs.P1 and 2.
It is significant to note here that, the complainant as stated above in his examination-in-chief and in his complaint has specifically deposed and pleaded that he had booked a site in said Temple town project and towards the booking amount he issued the cheques. It is pertinent to note here that, the [CASE NUMBER] complainant to substantiate his aforesaid contentions has got marked his Statement of account pertaining to HDFC Bank at EXs.P11 and 12 and his Account statement pertaining to Hongkong and Shangai Banking Corporation Ltd., at EX.P13 and also got marked the Entry in EX.P11 dated:-08.09.2011 at EX.P11(a), Entry in EX.P12 dated:-31.01.2012 at EX.P12(a) and Entry in EX.P13 dated:-03.02.2012 at EX.P13(a).
It is pertinent to note here that, the complainant as stated above has further contended that as the accused had shelved out the said project issued in his favour a cheque bearing No.298309 dated:-30.04.2014 drawn on Corporation Bank, RPC Layout branch, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, for a sum of Rs.9,50,000/-. It is pertinent to note here that, the complainant to substantiate his aforesaid contentions has got marked the said cheque at EX.P10. It is significant to note here that, the complainant in his cross-examination has admitted his aforesaid versions.
It is significant to note here that, the complainant in his cross-examination in page No.22 at 1st line has specifically admitted that, -11 jAz -13g vjg 3 [CASE NUMBER] ZPU Q ZguAi vjgvAzg j. zj 3 ZPU P.Dg.P JA nU PngAv ZPU DVgv JAzg j. zj ZPU U P.Dg.P qgU DzAv lPU DVgv JAzg j.
It is pertinent to note here that, the complainant in his cross-examination in page No.23 has further specifically admitted that after shelved out of the said Temple Town project he received the amount as per Ex.D5- the Challan of HDFC Bank and as per EXs.D6 and 7-the Challans of HDFC Bank, the accused had deposited in his account the said amount. It is significant to note here that, the complainant in his said cross- examination has specifically admitted that after shelved out of the said project he had received Rs.16,50,000/-.
It is pertinent to note here that, the complainant in his cross-examination in page No.24 has further admitted that, as per EX.D8-Debit voucher on 02.06.2014 he received Rs.3,00,000/- in cash and as per EX.P9-Debit voucher through cheque bearing No.778041 he received a sum of Rs.6,75,000/-.
[CASE NUMBER] It is pertinent to note here that, the complainant from traversing his aforesaid pleadings and admissions came up with a another different story by producing a EX.P14 - his Account statement pertaining to HDFC Bank. It is pertinent to note here that, the complainant by producing EX.P14 has specifically contended that through a cheque he paid a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- under buy back scheme and the accused entered into an agreement with him for repaying the amount as under:-
after six months Rs.6,75,000/-, after 12 months Rs.6,75,000/- and after 18 months Rs.3,00,000/-.
That, the complainant has further deposed that under the said buy back scheme the accused had paid him a sum of Rs.16,50,000/-. It is pertinent to note here that, the complainant has further deposed that the accused in the month of June 2012 had deposited a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- in his account and in the month of January 2013 had paid him a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- through cheque and in the month of January 2014 paid him a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash. It is further pertinent to note here that, the complainant in his cross-
[CASE NUMBER] examination in page Nos.28 to 30 has deposed that as per EXs.D5 to 9 he received a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- from the accused under said buy back scheme.
It is pertinent to note here that, the complainant neither in his complaint nor in his examination-in-chief has pleaded and deposed that he had received a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- from the accused under a buy back scheme. It is pertinent to note here that, from perusal of EX.D5- Challan of HDFC Bank dated:-
26.06.2012 it clearly appears that a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- had been deposited in the account of the complainant i.e., account No.031[SECTION]570000040. It is to be noted here that, from perusal of EX.D6- the Challan pertaining to HDFC Bank dated:-08.06.2012 it appears a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- had been deposited in the said account of the complainant. It is further pertinent to note here that, from perusal of EX.D7 it appears that on 01.06.2012 a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- had been deposited in the said account of the complainant. It is pertinent to note here that, from perusal of EX.D8 - the Debit voucher dated:-02.06.2014 it clearly appears that K.R.K. Properties Pvt. Ltd., had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
to the complainant in cash. It is to be noted here that, for the [CASE NUMBER] sake of convenience the contents of EX.D8 are reiterated as under:-
K R K Properties Pvt. Ltd.
DEBIT VOUCHR Date:02.06.2014 Debit A/c
Being cash paid to Mr. [ENTITY] towards site refund at K.R.K. Temple Town Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakh only).
It is to be noted here that, from perusal of EX.D9 - Debit voucher dated:-01.01.2013 it clearly appears that the complainant had received a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- through a cheque bearing No.778041. It is to be noted here that, for the sake of convenience the contents of EX.D9 are reiterated as under:-
K R K Properties Pvt. Ltd.
DEBIT VOUCHR Date:01.01.2013 Debit A/c
[CASE NUMBER] Being cheque No.778041 issued to Mr. [ENTITY] towards site refund at K.R.K. Temple Town Rs.6,75,000/- (Six lakh seventy five thousand only).
It is further pertinent to note here that, the accused in cross-examination of the complainant has got marked the xerox copy of the Complaint filed by him on the board of the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bengaluru Urban District, at EX.D1. It is to be noted here that, at this juncture it is very much necessary to have a glance over the contents of EX.D1 at paras no.2 and 3.
Para No.2:- Subsequently, considering their commitment to take up and complete a residential project on time, the Complainant booked a residential site on 31.08.2011 by paying a booking amount of Rs.3,50,000/- in their residential project called KRK Temple Town coming up on Magadi Main Road. However, the project was shelved by them for the lack of important legal issues concerning the land being procured. The complainant, therefore, withdrew his membership from that project on 29.06.2013.
[CASE NUMBER] Para No.3:- As a consequence of the facts explained in point No.2 above, the Complainant entered into Sale agreement on 25th June 2014 (Exhibit-1 enclosed) by paying the entire amount of Rs.10,00,000/- , (Rs.7,00,000/- by cheque No.695519 drawn on Karnataka Bank, Sadashivanagar branch, and Rs.3,00,000/- by cash) for a residential site of 30 ft. X 40 ft. dimension (site No.224 was allotted) in their residential project called the Residency coming up in Sy.No.80 situated at Cholappanahalli in Kasaba Hobli of Hosakote Taluk. The sale transaction was to be completed in 12 months as per point No.6 of the sale agreement.
It is to be noted here that, from perusal of the said contents of the EX.D1 it clearly appears that the complainant had booked a site in Temple Town project and as the said project was shelved out he withdrawn his membership and entered into sale agreement and booked a site in project called Residency and towards the booking charges he paid Rs.10,00,000/-. It is to be noted here that, from perusal of entire averments of [CASE NUMBER] complaint, evidence of the complainant and from perusal of EXs.D1, 5 to 9 it clearly appears that the complainant had booked the site in Temple Town project and after shelved out of the said project he had received the entire amount from the accused. It is significant to note here that, the complainant as stated above on one hand admits that he received the entire amount as per EXs.5 to 9 and on the other hand denies the same. It is to be noted here that, man may lie but, the documents cannot lie. It is pertinent to note here that, no one can probe hot and cold at the same time. It is to be noted here that, the accused has taken a probable and acceptable defenses and proved the same with all cogent evidence. It is to be noted here that, in view of My above findings and without much discussion I hold that, the complainant has failed to prove that the accused to discharge his legally enforceable debt had issued in his favour EXs.P1 and 2. In view of the same, point No.1 is answered in the [ACT].
12. Point No.2:- It is pertinent to note here that, the complainant has contended that he presented the EXs.P1 and 2 for encashment in HDFC Bank, Nagarabhavi branch, Bengaluru, [CASE NUMBER] on 25.08.2016 the same were returned with the sharas as 'Funds Insufficient' and for which he issued the legal notices to the accused and the notice sent to him to his first address was returned with the shara as 'addressee refused' and the notice sent to him to his second address was duly served upon him.
It is to be noted here that, the complainant to substantiate his aforesaid contentions in his evidence has got marked the Cheque return memo's issued by the said Bank at EXs.P3 and 4, the Legal notices issued to the accused dated:-05.10.2016 at EX.P5, Postal receipts at EXs.P6 and 7, Postal acknowledgement at EX.P8 and RPAD at EX.P9.
It is to be noted here that, as discussed on point No.1, the complainant has failed to prove that the accused to discharge his legally enforceable debt had issued in his favour EXs.P1 and 2 and if such being the case, the question of committing the offence by the accused under [SECTION] of the [ACT], do not arise at all. It is to be noted here that, in view of My above findings and without much discussion I hold that, the complainant has failed prove that the accused has committed the offence punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT]. In view of the same, point no.2 is answered in the [ACT].
13. It is pertinent to note here that, the Learned counsel for the accused has vehemently canvassed the arguments that in the instant case the complainant has not made the K.R.K. Properties as a party and in view of the same the present complaint is not maintainable.
14. It is pertinent to note here that, the Learned counsel for the accused in support of his aforesaid contentions has placed his reliance on following decisions:-
1. [ENTITY] -vs- [ENTITY], and another, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 4[SECTION]0 wherein it has held that [ACT] (26 of 1881), [SECTION] -
Dishonour of cheque - Drawer of cheque alone falls within ambit of [SECTION], whether human being or a body corporate or even a firm.
[ACT] (26 of 1881), [SECTION], [SECTION] - Offences by company - Dishonour of cheque - Proceedings initiated against company and its Managing Director - Managing Director of company cannot be [CASE NUMBER] prosecuted alone - Complaint against company already quashed - Order of High Court that proceeding against appellant - Managing Director can be continued even in absence of company - Liable to be set aside.
2. [ENTITY] -vs- [ENTITY] with Anil Hada -vs- [ENTITY] with Avnish Bajaj -vs- State and Ebay India Private Limited -vs- State and another, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 wherein it has held that [ACT] -Ss. 141, [SECTION], 7, 139, 118 and 140
- Criminal liability for Dishonour of cheque drawn by company - Officers of company when may be implicated- Extent of deeming fiction in [SECTION] Mandatory requirement of impleading company as one of the accused - Director or authorized signatory of cheque- Prosecution against, without arraigning of company as accused, held, not maintainable.
3. [ENTITY] -vs- [ENTITY], reported in 2016 (2) KCCR 1666 wherein it has held that [ACT] - [SECTION] - Dishonour of cheque - Taking cognizance - Complainant receiving cheque from accused /Director of Company - But not arraigning Company - Is a serious lapse - Vitiates entire proceedings - Order taking cognizance quashed.
15. It is to be noted here that, the complainant has specifically contended that he had invested the amount in Temple Town project. It is pertinent to note here that, the complainant has not arrayed the said K.R.K. Properties as a party in present case. It is to be noted here that, the complainant without arraigning K.R.K. Properties as a party he cannot maintain the prosecution and in view of the same the present complaint is not maintainable.
16. Point No.3:- That, as discussed on points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER That, acting under [SECTION] of [ACT], the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
[CASE NUMBER] That, the accused shall comply with the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. (Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of June 2018) ([ENTITY]) XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:-
PW.1 : Shri [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY]. List of exhibits marked on behalf of complainant:-
Exs.P1 and 2 : Original cheques; Exs.P1(a) and 2(a) : Signatures of the accused; Exs.P3 and 4 : Cheque return memo's; Ex.P5 : Legal notice dated:-05.10.2016; Exs.P6 and 7 : Postal receipts; Ex.P8 : Postal acknowledgement; Ex.P9 : RPAD; Ex.P10 : Original cheque; Ex.P10(a) : Signature of the accused; Ex.P11 : Statement of account pertaining to HDFC Bank; Ex.P11(a) : Entry dated:-08.09.2011; [CASE NUMBER] Ex.P12 : Statement of account pertaining to HDFC Bank; Ex.P12(a) : Entry dated:-31.01.2012; Ex.P13 : Statement of account pertaining to the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.,; Ex.P13(a) : Entry dated:-03.02.2012 and Ex.P14 : Account statement pertaining to HDFC Bank.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:-
DW.1 : Shri [ENTITY] s/o Late [ENTITY].
List of exhibits marked on behalf of the accused:- Ex.D1 : Xerox copy of Complaint filed before Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru Urban District;
Ex.D2 : Xerox copy of the Order passed by the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru Urban District, in [CASE NUMBER] dated:-10.04.2017;
Ex.D3 : Xerox copy of Execution petition; Ex.D4 : Xerox copy of Agreement of sale dated:-
25.06.2014;
Ex.D5 : Challan of HDFC Bank dated:-26.06.2012; Ex.D6 : Challan of HDFC Bank dated:-08.06.2012; Ex.D7 : Challan of HDFC Bank dated:-01.06.2012; Ex.D8 : Debit voucher dated:-02.06.2014 and [CASE NUMBER] Ex.D9 : Debit voucher dated:-01.01.2013.
XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.