Sarvesh2003/Legal_audio_dataset333 · Datasets at Hugging Face

Text stringlengths 4 256	Audio_File audioduration (s) 1.25 30
A. Devaraj vs. rajammal on 1 february, 2011 author: g.m. Akbar ali bench: g.m. Akbar ali in the HC of judicature at madras dated:
1-2-2011 coram the honourable mr. J. g.m. Akbar ali crl.O.P. no.27211 of 2010 and m.p.nos.1 and 2 of 2010 a. Devaraj ..petitioner vs. rajammal
..respondent Crl. O.P. filed under S. 482 Cr.P.C. for the reliefs as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr. n. Sudharsan for
respondent : Mr. p. Ananda kumar order the petition is filed seeking a direction to set aside the order dated 10.11.2009 made in Crl. r.c.no.37/2008
by the learned additional district and sessions judge, gopichettypalayam and confirming the order passed by the learned judicial magistrate, sathyamangalam in cmp no.3579 of 2007
in c.c.no.595 of 2004 dated 2.5.2008. 2. Petitioner is the accused in c.c no.595 of 2004 pending on the file of judicial magistrate, sathyamangalam, erode.
The said proceedings was initiated on a Pvt. complaint lodged by the respondent for an offence under sec.138 r/w 142 of NI Act
(hereinaftera. Devaraj vs. rajammal on 1 february, 2011
3. Pending proceedings, the petitioner has filed cmp no.3579 of 2007 under sec.45 of the indian evidence act seeking for an order to send the
cheque to the expert to determine the "age of the ink" found in the cheque. It was opposed by the complainant. The learned judicial magistrate
relied on a decision reported in 2008 (1) ctc 496 (s.gopal vs. p. Balachandran), wherein it is held that there is no scientific facility to
determine the age of the ink. Consequently, the learned magistrate dismissed the Appl. . 4. The petitioner has filed a revision petition in Crl. r.c.no.37 of
2008 before the learned additional district and sessions judge, gopichettipalayam. The learned additional district and sessions judge (fast track court ii), after considering the points,
concurred with the learned judicial magistrate and dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by which, the accused is before this court under sec.482 Cr.P.C.
5. Mr. n. Sudharsan, learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to an order passed by this court on 2.11.2010 in crp (pd) No.
1475 of 2010, wherein, his lordship r.S. ramanathan j. Observed as follows: "6. It is seen from the judgment referred supra, the learned judge after
getting opinion from the assistant director, document division, forensic science Dept. , Govt. of tamil nadu came to the conclusion that no such facility is available
in the forensic science Dept. , Govt. of tamil nadu and also on the basis of the opinion expressed by the assistant director held that the
age of the ink cannot be found out. Now the revision petitioner has produced a brochure downloaded from the central forensic science laboratories, hyderabad website
wherein it has been stated that they are undertaking the work of determining the age of the ink. Further, it is seen from the letter
written from the office of Govt. examiner of questioned documents directorate of forensic science, hyderabad, the age of the ink can be ascertained by comparing
it with the admitted signature of the same period and at the same time it has been stated that there is no foolproof method by
which the exact age of the writing/signature can be determined or authenticated. However, with a view to give fair trial to the revision petitioner and
having regard to the particulars available from the website of central forensic science laboratory, hyderabad, the prayer for the revision petitioner can be considered and
the document can be sent to central directorate of forensic science in the office of Govt. examiner of questioned documents. Further, the revision petitioner should
also send the admitted signature of the first defendant alleged to have been written during the relevant period during which the disputed document was also
signed. 6. He also relied on a decision reported in 2007 (1) crimes 106 (SC ), (kalyani baskar vs. m.S. sampornam), wherein the apex
court has held as follows: "where accused in a cheque bouncing Cas. prayed to magistrate to send cheque in question for examination by handwriting expert
to ascertain genuineness of signatures, as a fair trial request should have been allowed in exercise of power u/sa. Devaraj vs. rajammal on 1 february,
2011
7. On the contrary, Mr. anandakumar, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the alleged transaction took place in the year 2004 and the
accused has chosen to file an Appl. only in the year 2007 and therefore, at the belated stage, the Appl. cannot be entertained and it
is only a delaying tactics by the accused petitioner. 8. The learned counsel relied on a decision reported in 2010 1 ctc 424 (r. Jagadeesan
vs. n. Ayyasamy and Anr. ) , wherein this court has held that finding the age of the writing in a document is only futile, since
the head of the Dept. of forensic science at chennai had stated that there is no scientific method available anywhere in this state to scientifically
assess the age of any writing. 9. Heard and perused the materials available on record. 10. The petitioner has invoked sec.45 of indian evidence act
contending that the cheque was not issued to the complainant but had been issued to the brother of the complainant during 1998 and 1999 and
to prove that the writings in the cheque do not belong to the year 2004 as dated in the cheque, the age of the ink
has to be determined. 11. The learned judicial magistrate as well as the revision Auth. had relied on the decision reported in 2008 (1) ctc
496 (s.gopal vs. p. Balachandran) (cited supra) and has also relied on a decision reported in 2010 1 ctc 424 (r. Jagadeesan vs. n. Ayyasamy
and Anr. ) (cited supra), wherein it is held that there is no facility available to determine the age of the ink. However, Anr. learned single
judge of this court has now held that the central forensic science laboratory at hyderabad has the facility to ascertain the age of the ink.
12. In my considered opinion, the latest judgment of the learned single judge of this court in crp (pd) no.1475 of 2010 is not a
contradictory judgment to the earlier judgment of the learned single judge in the Cas. of r. Jagadeesan vs. n. Ayyasamy and Anr. , reported in 2010
(1) ctc 424. Hon'ble r.S. ramanathan j. Has differentiated the earlier judgment of Hon'ble S. nagamuthu j, and has ordered sending the document to be
examined by the cfsl, hyderabad as they claim the facility is available. 13. Since the learned magistrate has dismissed the Appl. based on the earlier
judgment, i am of the considered view that when there is facility available, a fair trial requires that a chance must be given to the
accused/petitioner as he has taken a definite stand that the cheque was issued to a different person in the year 1998-1999, which has been used
by the complainant in the year 2004. However, as observed in the order dated 2.11.2010 in crp (pd) no.1475 of 2010, an admitted signature of
the petitioner of the same year should also be sent for comparison. 14. Therefore, the Crl. O.P. is allowed and the order passed by
the learned additional district and sessions judge, gopichettypalayam in Crl. r.c.no.37/2008 dated 10.11.2009 and learned judicial magistrate, sathyamangalam in cmp no.3579 of 2007 in c.c.no.595
of 2004a. Devaraj vs. rajammal on 1 february, 2011
15. The revision petitioner is directed to submit his admitted signature as stated above within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order before the LC . The LC is directed to send both the documents to the central forensic science
laboratory, directorate of forensic science as stated above. The LC is directed to fix the remuneration to the Adv. commissioner and also for the
expenses for comparison. If the revision petitioner fails to produce the admitted signature for comparison as stated above within the stipulated period, the revision petitioner
is not entitled to ask for sending the documents for comparison. Consequently, the connected mps are closed. Sr to 1. Additional district and sessions judge,
gopichettypalayam 2. The judicial magistrate, sathyamangalama. Devaraj vs. rajammal on 1 february, 2011
Bharathi rock products vs. gangambika enterprises on 10 march, 2023 kabc030972102021 presented on : 30-12-2021 registered on : 30-12-2021 decided on : 10-03-2023 duration :
1 years, 2 months, 11 days in the court of xxvii addl. Chief MM , bengaluru present: sri. H. Satish b.a.l. Ll.b., ll.m., xxvii a.c.m.m
bengaluru. Dated: this the 10 th day of march 2023. C.c. No.37392/2021 complainant bharathi rock products (india) pvt.ltd. (formerly mines and rock products (india Pvt.
ltd), no.24, old 56 b/34, 1st main, lower palace orchards, viyalikaval, bengaluru-560003. Rep.by AR , srivallabha .k.s., s/o. Late shamanna aged about 50 years. (by
sri. Jayaraj gowda. M.n. Adv. ) v/s. Accused 1. Gangambika enterprises situated at, gokul (village), basavakalyan, bidar 585327 representative by its authorized person, sri. Ravi reddy
s/o. Venkatareddy patil, major, 2. Sri. Ravi reddy, s/o. Venkatareddy patil, represented by its authorized person gangambika enterprises, situatedat No. gokul (village) basavakalyan,bharathi rock products
vs. gangambika enterprises on 10 march, 2023
(by sri.samuel s dandin adv.,) u/s.138 of negotiable instruments offence act. 2 c.c. No. 37392/2021 plea of the accused claims to be tried final order
convicted judgment date 10/03/2023 **** judgment the complainant Co. has filed complaint u/sec.200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable
u/sec.138 of negotiable instrument act. 2. The facts germane for disposal of the instant complaint can be summarized as per following:- it is the Cas.
of the complainant Co. that, the complainant Co. was formerly known as mines and rock products (india pvt ltd.,) and it is engaged in the
business of supply of mines and rock products and the accused no.1 is engaged in the similar type of business and the accused No. 2
being the owner of the accused no.1 concern used to purchase material sand, p-sand, jelly and coarse products with the complainant Co. as and when
required and as per the books of account, the accused has purchased coarse products on various dates from 01/09/2018 and stated that as per the
books of accounts maintained by the complainant Co. as on 01/09/2018, the accused was due to the complainant Co. to the tune of rs.48,205/- and
the accused failed to repay the said amount despite repeated request. 3. It is stated that, after persistent request and demand, towards discharge of outstanding
liability due and payable, the accused issued cheque bearing no.000005 dated 20/11/2018 for a sum of rs.48,205/- drawn on hdfc bank, no.55 a, sadahalli village,
devanahalli taluk, bengaluru in favour of the complainant Co. and assured that the same would be honoured on its presentation and the complainant Co. presented
the said cheque on 20/11/2018 for encashment through its banker i.e., axis bank, sadhashiva nagar branch, bengaluru and the same got dishonoured and returned with
an endorsement dated:23/11/2018 stating " funds insufficient " . Thereafter, the complainant Co. got issued demand notice dated: 15/12/2018 to the accused through rpad calling
upon him to make the payment covered under the aforesaid cheque, within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and the said notice
was returnedbharathi rock products vs. gangambika enterprises on 10 march, 2023
Hence, this complaint. 4. It is to be noted that, there was a delay in filing the complaint and this court vide order dated: 04/12/2021
condoned the delay in filing the complaint. Thereafter, the sworn statement of the AR of the complainant Co. by name srivallabha. K.s was recorded.
As the complainant had complied the mandatory requirements of S. 138 of negotiable instrument act, the court issued summons to the accused. After service of
summons, accused entered appearance and was enlarged on bail. 5. The plea of the accused was recorded and the substance of the accusation was read
over to the accused in the language known to him and the same was explained, to which, accused pleaded not guilty and submitted he has
defence to make. 6. In order to prove the Cas. , the AR of the complainant Co. by name srivallabha. K.s got himself examined as
pw.1 and got marked ex.p1 to ex.p13 documents. 7. The statement of accused under S. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused
denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The accused has not let in his side oral evidence and no documents are marked on his behalf.
8. Heard arguments on both sides. I have perused the materials on record. 9. The following points arise for my determination: (i) whether the complainant
Co. proves that towards discharge of liability due and payable, the accused issued cheque bearing no.000005, for Rs. 48,205/- drawn on hdfc bank, no.55, sadahalli
village, devanahalli taluk, bengaluru in favour of complainant Co. ? (ii) whether the complainant Co. proves that accused has committed an offence punishable u/sec.138 of
negotiable instrument act? (iii) what order? 10. My answer to the above points is as per following:- point no.1& 2 : in the affirmative point
no.3 : as per the final order, for the following:-bharathi rock products vs. gangambika enterprises on 10 march, 2023
11. Point nos.1 & 2 : in order to prove the Cas. , the AR of the complainant Co. by name sri. Srivallabha. K.s got
himself examined as pw.1 and the Aff. filed by him in lieu of sworn statement was treated as examination in chief as per the dictum
laid down in the ruling of the Hon'ble apex court of india, reported in (2014) 5 scc 590 (indian bank Assn. & ors v/s. Union
of india & ors). Pw1 got marked ex.p1 to p13 documents. 12. The complainant Co. has exhibited the following ex.p1 to p13 documents. Ex.p1 is
the certified copy of board resolution, ex.p2 is the statement of account, ex.p3 is the cheque dated: 20/11/2018, ex.p3(a) is the signature of accused, ex.p4
is the bank endorsement dt:23/11/2018, ex.p5 is the office copy of legal notice dated : 15/12/2018, ex.p6 & 7 are the postal receipts, ex.p8 &
9 are postal covers, ex.p10 & 11 are the invoices and ex.p12 & 13 are the bills. 13. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently

A. Devaraj vs. rajammal on 1 february, 2011 author: g.m. Akbar ali bench: g.m. Akbar ali in the HC of judicature at madras dated:

1-2-2011 coram the honourable mr. J. g.m. Akbar ali crl.O.P. no.27211 of 2010 and m.p.nos.1 and 2 of 2010 a. Devaraj ..petitioner vs. rajammal

..respondent Crl. O.P. filed under S. 482 Cr.P.C. for the reliefs as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr. n. Sudharsan for

respondent : Mr. p. Ananda kumar order the petition is filed seeking a direction to set aside the order dated 10.11.2009 made in Crl. r.c.no.37/2008

by the learned additional district and sessions judge, gopichettypalayam and confirming the order passed by the learned judicial magistrate, sathyamangalam in cmp no.3579 of 2007

in c.c.no.595 of 2004 dated 2.5.2008. 2. Petitioner is the accused in c.c no.595 of 2004 pending on the file of judicial magistrate, sathyamangalam, erode.

The said proceedings was initiated on a Pvt. complaint lodged by the respondent for an offence under sec.138 r/w 142 of NI Act

(hereinaftera. Devaraj vs. rajammal on 1 february, 2011

3. Pending proceedings, the petitioner has filed cmp no.3579 of 2007 under sec.45 of the indian evidence act seeking for an order to send the

cheque to the expert to determine the "age of the ink" found in the cheque. It was opposed by the complainant. The learned judicial magistrate

relied on a decision reported in 2008 (1) ctc 496 (s.gopal vs. p. Balachandran), wherein it is held that there is no scientific facility to

determine the age of the ink. Consequently, the learned magistrate dismissed the Appl. . 4. The petitioner has filed a revision petition in Crl. r.c.no.37 of

2008 before the learned additional district and sessions judge, gopichettipalayam. The learned additional district and sessions judge (fast track court ii), after considering the points,

concurred with the learned judicial magistrate and dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by which, the accused is before this court under sec.482 Cr.P.C.

5. Mr. n. Sudharsan, learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to an order passed by this court on 2.11.2010 in crp (pd) No.

1475 of 2010, wherein, his lordship r.S. ramanathan j. Observed as follows: "6. It is seen from the judgment referred supra, the learned judge after

getting opinion from the assistant director, document division, forensic science Dept. , Govt. of tamil nadu came to the conclusion that no such facility is available

in the forensic science Dept. , Govt. of tamil nadu and also on the basis of the opinion expressed by the assistant director held that the

age of the ink cannot be found out. Now the revision petitioner has produced a brochure downloaded from the central forensic science laboratories, hyderabad website

wherein it has been stated that they are undertaking the work of determining the age of the ink. Further, it is seen from the letter

written from the office of Govt. examiner of questioned documents directorate of forensic science, hyderabad, the age of the ink can be ascertained by comparing

it with the admitted signature of the same period and at the same time it has been stated that there is no foolproof method by

which the exact age of the writing/signature can be determined or authenticated. However, with a view to give fair trial to the revision petitioner and

having regard to the particulars available from the website of central forensic science laboratory, hyderabad, the prayer for the revision petitioner can be considered and

the document can be sent to central directorate of forensic science in the office of Govt. examiner of questioned documents. Further, the revision petitioner should

also send the admitted signature of the first defendant alleged to have been written during the relevant period during which the disputed document was also

signed. 6. He also relied on a decision reported in 2007 (1) crimes 106 (SC ), (kalyani baskar vs. m.S. sampornam), wherein the apex

court has held as follows: "where accused in a cheque bouncing Cas. prayed to magistrate to send cheque in question for examination by handwriting expert

to ascertain genuineness of signatures, as a fair trial request should have been allowed in exercise of power u/sa. Devaraj vs. rajammal on 1 february,

2011

7. On the contrary, Mr. anandakumar, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the alleged transaction took place in the year 2004 and the

accused has chosen to file an Appl. only in the year 2007 and therefore, at the belated stage, the Appl. cannot be entertained and it

is only a delaying tactics by the accused petitioner. 8. The learned counsel relied on a decision reported in 2010 1 ctc 424 (r. Jagadeesan

vs. n. Ayyasamy and Anr. ) , wherein this court has held that finding the age of the writing in a document is only futile, since

the head of the Dept. of forensic science at chennai had stated that there is no scientific method available anywhere in this state to scientifically

assess the age of any writing. 9. Heard and perused the materials available on record. 10. The petitioner has invoked sec.45 of indian evidence act

contending that the cheque was not issued to the complainant but had been issued to the brother of the complainant during 1998 and 1999 and

to prove that the writings in the cheque do not belong to the year 2004 as dated in the cheque, the age of the ink

has to be determined. 11. The learned judicial magistrate as well as the revision Auth. had relied on the decision reported in 2008 (1) ctc

496 (s.gopal vs. p. Balachandran) (cited supra) and has also relied on a decision reported in 2010 1 ctc 424 (r. Jagadeesan vs. n. Ayyasamy

and Anr. ) (cited supra), wherein it is held that there is no facility available to determine the age of the ink. However, Anr. learned single

judge of this court has now held that the central forensic science laboratory at hyderabad has the facility to ascertain the age of the ink.

12. In my considered opinion, the latest judgment of the learned single judge of this court in crp (pd) no.1475 of 2010 is not a

contradictory judgment to the earlier judgment of the learned single judge in the Cas. of r. Jagadeesan vs. n. Ayyasamy and Anr. , reported in 2010

(1) ctc 424. Hon'ble r.S. ramanathan j. Has differentiated the earlier judgment of Hon'ble S. nagamuthu j, and has ordered sending the document to be

examined by the cfsl, hyderabad as they claim the facility is available. 13. Since the learned magistrate has dismissed the Appl. based on the earlier

judgment, i am of the considered view that when there is facility available, a fair trial requires that a chance must be given to the

accused/petitioner as he has taken a definite stand that the cheque was issued to a different person in the year 1998-1999, which has been used

by the complainant in the year 2004. However, as observed in the order dated 2.11.2010 in crp (pd) no.1475 of 2010, an admitted signature of

the petitioner of the same year should also be sent for comparison. 14. Therefore, the Crl. O.P. is allowed and the order passed by

the learned additional district and sessions judge, gopichettypalayam in Crl. r.c.no.37/2008 dated 10.11.2009 and learned judicial magistrate, sathyamangalam in cmp no.3579 of 2007 in c.c.no.595

of 2004a. Devaraj vs. rajammal on 1 february, 2011

15. The revision petitioner is directed to submit his admitted signature as stated above within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order before the LC . The LC is directed to send both the documents to the central forensic science

laboratory, directorate of forensic science as stated above. The LC is directed to fix the remuneration to the Adv. commissioner and also for the

expenses for comparison. If the revision petitioner fails to produce the admitted signature for comparison as stated above within the stipulated period, the revision petitioner

is not entitled to ask for sending the documents for comparison. Consequently, the connected mps are closed. Sr to 1. Additional district and sessions judge,

gopichettypalayam 2. The judicial magistrate, sathyamangalama. Devaraj vs. rajammal on 1 february, 2011

Bharathi rock products vs. gangambika enterprises on 10 march, 2023 kabc030972102021 presented on : 30-12-2021 registered on : 30-12-2021 decided on : 10-03-2023 duration :

1 years, 2 months, 11 days in the court of xxvii addl. Chief MM , bengaluru present: sri. H. Satish b.a.l. Ll.b., ll.m., xxvii a.c.m.m

bengaluru. Dated: this the 10 th day of march 2023. C.c. No.37392/2021 complainant bharathi rock products (india) pvt.ltd. (formerly mines and rock products (india Pvt.

ltd), no.24, old 56 b/34, 1st main, lower palace orchards, viyalikaval, bengaluru-560003. Rep.by AR , srivallabha .k.s., s/o. Late shamanna aged about 50 years. (by

sri. Jayaraj gowda. M.n. Adv. ) v/s. Accused 1. Gangambika enterprises situated at, gokul (village), basavakalyan, bidar 585327 representative by its authorized person, sri. Ravi reddy

s/o. Venkatareddy patil, major, 2. Sri. Ravi reddy, s/o. Venkatareddy patil, represented by its authorized person gangambika enterprises, situatedat No. gokul (village) basavakalyan,bharathi rock products

vs. gangambika enterprises on 10 march, 2023

(by sri.samuel s dandin adv.,) u/s.138 of negotiable instruments offence act. 2 c.c. No. 37392/2021 plea of the accused claims to be tried final order

convicted judgment date 10/03/2023 **** judgment the complainant Co. has filed complaint u/sec.200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable

u/sec.138 of negotiable instrument act. 2. The facts germane for disposal of the instant complaint can be summarized as per following:- it is the Cas.

of the complainant Co. that, the complainant Co. was formerly known as mines and rock products (india pvt ltd.,) and it is engaged in the

business of supply of mines and rock products and the accused no.1 is engaged in the similar type of business and the accused No. 2

being the owner of the accused no.1 concern used to purchase material sand, p-sand, jelly and coarse products with the complainant Co. as and when

required and as per the books of account, the accused has purchased coarse products on various dates from 01/09/2018 and stated that as per the

books of accounts maintained by the complainant Co. as on 01/09/2018, the accused was due to the complainant Co. to the tune of rs.48,205/- and

the accused failed to repay the said amount despite repeated request. 3. It is stated that, after persistent request and demand, towards discharge of outstanding

liability due and payable, the accused issued cheque bearing no.000005 dated 20/11/2018 for a sum of rs.48,205/- drawn on hdfc bank, no.55 a, sadahalli village,

devanahalli taluk, bengaluru in favour of the complainant Co. and assured that the same would be honoured on its presentation and the complainant Co. presented

the said cheque on 20/11/2018 for encashment through its banker i.e., axis bank, sadhashiva nagar branch, bengaluru and the same got dishonoured and returned with

an endorsement dated:23/11/2018 stating " funds insufficient " . Thereafter, the complainant Co. got issued demand notice dated: 15/12/2018 to the accused through rpad calling

upon him to make the payment covered under the aforesaid cheque, within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and the said notice

was returnedbharathi rock products vs. gangambika enterprises on 10 march, 2023

Hence, this complaint. 4. It is to be noted that, there was a delay in filing the complaint and this court vide order dated: 04/12/2021

condoned the delay in filing the complaint. Thereafter, the sworn statement of the AR of the complainant Co. by name srivallabha. K.s was recorded.

As the complainant had complied the mandatory requirements of S. 138 of negotiable instrument act, the court issued summons to the accused. After service of

summons, accused entered appearance and was enlarged on bail. 5. The plea of the accused was recorded and the substance of the accusation was read

over to the accused in the language known to him and the same was explained, to which, accused pleaded not guilty and submitted he has

defence to make. 6. In order to prove the Cas. , the AR of the complainant Co. by name srivallabha. K.s got himself examined as

pw.1 and got marked ex.p1 to ex.p13 documents. 7. The statement of accused under S. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused

denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The accused has not let in his side oral evidence and no documents are marked on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments on both sides. I have perused the materials on record. 9. The following points arise for my determination: (i) whether the complainant

Co. proves that towards discharge of liability due and payable, the accused issued cheque bearing no.000005, for Rs. 48,205/- drawn on hdfc bank, no.55, sadahalli

village, devanahalli taluk, bengaluru in favour of complainant Co. ? (ii) whether the complainant Co. proves that accused has committed an offence punishable u/sec.138 of

negotiable instrument act? (iii) what order? 10. My answer to the above points is as per following:- point no.1& 2 : in the affirmative point

no.3 : as per the final order, for the following:-bharathi rock products vs. gangambika enterprises on 10 march, 2023

11. Point nos.1 & 2 : in order to prove the Cas. , the AR of the complainant Co. by name sri. Srivallabha. K.s got

himself examined as pw.1 and the Aff. filed by him in lieu of sworn statement was treated as examination in chief as per the dictum

laid down in the ruling of the Hon'ble apex court of india, reported in (2014) 5 scc 590 (indian bank Assn. & ors v/s. Union

of india & ors). Pw1 got marked ex.p1 to p13 documents. 12. The complainant Co. has exhibited the following ex.p1 to p13 documents. Ex.p1 is

the certified copy of board resolution, ex.p2 is the statement of account, ex.p3 is the cheque dated: 20/11/2018, ex.p3(a) is the signature of accused, ex.p4

is the bank endorsement dt:23/11/2018, ex.p5 is the office copy of legal notice dated : 15/12/2018, ex.p6 & 7 are the postal receipts, ex.p8 &

9 are postal covers, ex.p10 & 11 are the invoices and ex.p12 & 13 are the bills. 13. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently