Crl.M.C. No.4740/19/18

**-:1:-** Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 8TH VAISAKHA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4740 OF 2019 ``` ``` AGAINST CC 1491/2019 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL ``` ``` MAGISTRATE COURT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES),ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 3 & 4: ``` ``` 1SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTD, PLOT NO.64-66, NARASPURA KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, ACHHATANAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURAHOBLI, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-563133, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PETR NOVOTNY. ``` - **`2 R.SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN,`** ``` SALES DIRECTOR, SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTD, PLOT NO.64-66, NARASAPURA KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, ACHHATANAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-563133 ``` - **`3 RAFAEL DE SOUSA ALVARENGA`** ``` AFTER-SALES DIRECTOR, SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTD, PLOT NO.64-66, NARASAPURA KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, ACHHATANAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-563133. ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.K.AMAL NATH NAIK SRI.NIRANJAN SUDHIR SRI.KANDAMPULLY VIKRAM ``` Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 ## **-:2:-** ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT 2ND ACCUSED & STATE:`** ``` 1AGY GEORGE M/S.AEON CONNECT, NO.14, LINK HEIGHT, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036 ``` - **`2 JIMMY RENSTROM,`** ``` FORMER CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTD, PLOT NO.64-66, NARASAPURA KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, ACHHATANAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURAHOBLI, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-563133. ``` ``` 3STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR) SRI.B.DEEPAK R.ANIL R B.RAMAN PILLAI ``` ## **`THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON`** ``` 10.04.2023, THE COURT ON 28.04.2023 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 **-:3:-** **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.4740 of 2019 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 28[th] day of April, 2023 ## **ORDER** Petitioners are facing indictment for the offences under sections 420, 406 and section 193 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC”) based on a private complaint filed by the first respondent. Petitioners are accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 while the second accused is arrayed as the second respondent, as he is allegedly not in station. 2. The complaint filed in C.C. No.149 of 2019 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences) Ernakulam stems from the purchase of two Scania buses by the first respondent in the year 2014. The total consideration for the two vehicles totalled to rupees two hundred and thirty six lakhs. The two buses supplied to the defacto complainant were from the initial lot of vehicles brought into India by the first petitioner as completely built units. First respondent-defacto complainant alleged that the vehicles were sold to him by the petitioners **-:4:-** Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 after committing cheating and criminal breach of trust and that they had even given false evidence to mislead the police authorities to avoid criminal proceedings. 3. The defacto complainant, alleged that the accused had, with dishonest intention, assured that the buses were durable, reliable and had high fuel efficiency with minimum operating costs and that those deceptive and false assurances induced the complainant to purchase two buses. Complainant further alleged that, in July 2017, he got information that the chassis number, as well as the engine number of the buses supplied to him, were different from that mentioned in the invoices. Since the vehicle supplied to the complainant did not conform to the invoices issued, the accused allegedly indulged in forgery and fabrication and also cheating. The complainant went on to further allege that the two buses supplied by the accused were defective and that within a few months of taking delivery of those vehicles, major engine problems arose, and without even taking consent from the complainant, the same was replaced, which fact came to the knowledge of the complainant much later. 4. The defacto complainant also alleged that even the replaced engines developed major defects, and the accused cheated him by supplying buses with old and faulty engines and later replacing them with defective engines itself. The complainant further alleged that every time when the buses were taken for repairs, the accused charged huge Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 **-:5:-** amounts and rectified the defects temporarily, which would recur later and that he was forced to approve the work to avoid trip cancellations of those buses. According to the complainant, cheques issued by him merely as security were presented for encashment and got dishonoured since the services were not provided by the accused as promised, and despite reply to the legal notices, the accused went ahead and filed false cases against him under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’) and thereby committing criminal breach of trust by misusing the cheques issued. Various defects noticed in the engine indicated that the vehicles supplied were all used buses, distinct from what was promised, which were done with an intention to cheat the complainant from the very inception. The complainant also alleged that when the police was informed on 12.07.2018, they failed to take any action due to the false statements and documents provided by the accused for misleading the police and to avoid the criminal proceedings and thus the accused committed the offences alleged. 5. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint as C.C. No.149 of 2019 and issued process to the accused. On receipt of the summons, accused 1, 3 and 4 have approached this Court through this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972, seeking to quash the proceedings, alleging that it is an abuse of the process of court. Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 **-:6:-** 6. According to Sri. Aswin Gopakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, the complaint is an abuse of the process of court since the attempt of the complainant is an experiment to convert an apparently civil claim for damages, if any, into a criminal complaint, for the purpose of compelling and coercing the petitioners to settle the dispute. It was also alleged that the complainant had come up with a criminal complaint after the cheques issued by him towards his liability for the service/repair charges, were dishonoured and the said fact alone is sufficient to read between the lines to arrive at a conclusion that the complaint is instituted with malafides. The learned counsel also argued that, apart from the two buses purchased by the complainant, two more additional buses were purchased by the complainant in 2015 after using the earlier two buses for several months and only after being satisfied with their performance. It was also contended that the two buses, which are the subject matter of the present complaint, were delivered on 30.04.2014 and had run more than 16,00,000 kms each as on 02/07/2019. The two additional buses purchased in 2015 had also run more than 12,00,000 kms each. Learned counsel asserted that after running an average of more than 28,000 kms a month, by each of the buses, the complainant cannot complain about any criminal act of cheating in the supply of buses. He further submitted that a minor mistake in the engine number mentioned in the invoice could not result in any criminal case and that the claim, if at all any, can only be for Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 **-:7:-** damages. He submitted that in other courts of the country also, there have been instances where customers of the first petitioner had resorted to criminal complaints when they became unable to pay the cost of repairs or service charges. According to the learned counsel, from the year 2014, petitioners 2 and 3 had not even been in the service of the first petitioner and none of the ingredients of the offences alleged is made out as against any of the accused and further that, no specific allegation of any criminal act has been alleged against petitioners 2 and 3 or against the second respondent and therefore the prosecution is inherently an abuse of the process of court and the same is liable to be quashed. 7. Sri. Harikumar G., learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, contended that the accused had supplied the vehicle in April, 2014 and within a few months, they had to be taken for repairs (i.e., by September, 2014). According to the learned counsel, the accused had fabricated documents and made false statements to the police and had even forged the invoice and thereby committed the offences alleged. Learned counsel pointed out that there were instances of vehicle engine numbers having been tampered with, fabrication of sale letters and invoices, and the engines were replaced without the complainant’s knowledge and thereby the accused had committed the offences alleged. The learned Counsel also argued that the accused had, by supplying a statement and documents alleging a mere typographical error in the Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 **-:8:-** engine number, fabricated false evidence intending and knowing fully well that those documents would be used in a judicial proceeding. It was further contended that the matter required detailed appreciation of evidence especially relating to the cheating by supplying old and defective buses and also the variance of the engine numbers and hence the facts of the case do not warrant invoking the inherent jurisdiction. 8. I have considered the rival contentions. 9. Before delving into the factual arguments of the case, it is relevant to notice certain legal principles that have a bearing in the instant case. In the decision in **Sushil Sethi and Another v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others** [(2020) 3 SCC 240], the Supreme Court had held that in a case of criminal liability arising out of a contract with a company, alleging supply of sub-standard equipment, vicarious liability cannot be imputed against the officers of a Company, in the absence of specific overt acts committed by them. It was also observed that since the penal code does not contain any provision imputing vicarious liability on the directors of a company, in the absence of any specific allegation regarding the acts that constitute the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust as having been committed by the personally named accused, who are officers of the company, the offence under IPC cannot be attracted. 10. In the decision in **Commissioner of Police and Others v. Devender Anand and Others** [2019 SCC OnLine SC 996], Supreme **-:9:-** Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 Court held that when a criminal complaint has been filed as a measure of settling a civil dispute, the complaint will be an abuse of the process of the court. Similarly, in the judgment in **Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another** [(2023) 3 SCC 423] Supreme Court had observed that, criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be continued when it is manifest that they are initiated with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the opposite side due to a private or personal grudge. A reference to the recent decision in **Mithesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka and Others** (2021 SCC OnLine SC 976) is also appropriate. In the said decision, the Supreme Court deprecated the growing tendency in business circles to convert pure civil disputes into criminal cases. It was also observed that these tendencies are on the increase as civil law remedies are time-consuming and that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. The court went on to observe that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims by applying the pressure of criminal prosecution should be discouraged. 11. A reference to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in **Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another** (2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1590) is also relevant since the same petitioner is involved in that case too. 12. With the aforesaid principles of law in mind, when the case of Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 ## **-:10:-** the complainant is analysed, it is evident that the complaint basically revolves around a dispute relating to a claim for alleged defective vehicles supplied. Two Scania buses were purchased by the defacto complainant on the basis of a High Sea Sale Agreement dated 20-03-2014. Customs clearance of the vehicles was also carried out. Later, an error in the chassis number was noticed by the registering authority and at the request of the first petitioner, the error was corrected, and the vehicles were approved for registration in the name of the defacto complainant. The vehicles were registered, and insurance was also taken. Both those vehicles are alleged to have run more than 16.50 lakh kilometres separately by 2019. Later, two more additional buses were purchased by the defacto complainant in the year 2015. Those two buses also ran more than 12.50 lakh kilometres each. The vehicles supplied by the petitioners to the first respondent were thus put to continuous and regular use. The vehicles when subjected to repair had to undergo engine replacement though the complainant alleges that approval for such changes was obtained without proper information. Admittedly, cheques executed by the defacto complainant towards payments due for service charges for the repairs done on the buses were dishonoured in 2018, and legal proceedings under the NI Act are pending consideration. 13. On a perusal of the various documents produced by the petitioners as well as the respondents, it is evident that the private Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 ## **-:11:-** complaint dated 10.12.2018 in C.C. No.149 of 2019 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences) Ernakulam was triggered by the complaints filed by the first petitioner under section 138 of the NI Act after dishonour of the cheques issued by the defacto complainant. 14. The allegation regarding variance in the engine number or chassis number is a matter which may have to be agitated before an appropriate forum either for compensation or for any deficiency in service. Of course, petitioners do have a case that the mistake in the engine number or chassis number as inserted in the invoice was an error in typing which was later corrected by issuing proper invoices that were accepted by the registering authority as well as the first respondent without any demur. Even if it is assumed that there was an error in the engine number or chassis number, when compared with the initial invoice, a colour of criminality cannot be attached to such an act in the circumstances of the case, that too of the offences under sections 406 and 420 IPC. 15. As is evident from section 406 IPC, the ingredients to attract the said penal provision require an entrustment of property and a dishonest misappropriation, use or disposal of that property entrusted, contrary to any law or contract. The buses purchased by the defacto complainant cannot be stated to have been entrusted, nor can the consideration for those buses be regarded as an entrustment. The transaction was a pure Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 ## **-:12:-** sale of goods. If there was any defect in the property sold, the remedy is under civil law and not a criminal action especially in the absence of the ingredients essential to constitute the offence. The decision in **Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi)** [(2019) 11 SCC 706] is apposite in this context. 16. Further, the offence under section 420 IPC is attracted only if there was a dishonest inducement from the inception for the purpose of making an unlawful gain to the accused and unlawful loss to the complainant. A reading of the complaint reveals that the allegation of cheating is based on a conscious supply of defective and faulty buses in which, after few months of driving, the engines had to be changed due to the alleged defects. Though petitioners argued that engine trouble started not due to any defect or fault of the machine but due to the excessive and irregular use of the vehicle without proper care (without oil), this court is of the view that, at this stage, the contentions of the petitioners cannot be reckoned. However, the allegations as made in the complaint do not satisfy the ingredients of section 420 IPC. Except for a bald allegation that the buses were assured to be durable, reliable, safe and have high fuel efficiency, there is no allegation of inducement, much less any dishonest inducement to mulct a criminal liability under section 420 IPC upon the accused. The transaction of supply of buses was on the basis of a high seas sale agreement and the bill of lading was endorsed in favour of the Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 **-:13:-** defacto complainant and registration of the buses was also carried out in his name. A perusal of the complaint filed by the first respondent does not reveal any of the ingredients of the offence of cheating under section 420 IPC. 17. The remaining penal provision attributed against the petitioners is under section 193 IPC, which deals with punishment for giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence. Petitioners are alleged to have fabricated false evidence as provided under section 192 IPC. A reading of the complaint reveals that except for a bald allegation, no specific case of an offence of fabricating false evidence has been pleaded by the defacto complainant. Paragraph 9 of the complaint merely mentions that “ _The complainant, vide Right to Information Act, has learnt that the accused persons have intentionally provided false evidence and statements before the police authorities during investigation so as to mislead the police authorities and avoid criminal proceedings. The averments and many of the documents in the written submission dated 19.09.2018 before the police authorities are made intentionally to give false evidence so as to cover up the offences committed by the accused regarding the intentional sale of old and faulty vehicles to the complainant_ .” On a reading of the aforesaid specific allegation and other averments in the complaint, this court finds it difficult to appreciate the allegations that a case of fabricating of false evidence can get attracted from those averments. Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 **-:14:-** 18. Section 192 IPC provides that if any circumstance is caused to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record or electronic record or makes any document containing a false statement intending that such false entry or false statement or circumstance may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding or in a proceeding before a public servant, causing him to form an erroneous opinion on a point material to the result of such proceeding is said to fabricate false evidence. Specific allegations are required to attract the offence of fabricating false evidence. From the pleadings in the complaint and especially those extracted above, the nature of false evidence fabricated by the petitioners is incomprehensible. 19. Further, even in the statement given before the Magistrate, no specific case of fabricating false evidence is seen to have been made by the defacto complainant. The only reference was with respect to the engines allegedly changed without his knowledge and when complained to the police the accused produced incorrect records to show that the complainant had knowledge of the change of engines. The stand of the complainant is contradictory and he does not have any specific case of the nature of evidence fabricated. Though there was an attempt to improve upon the case of the complainant through the counter affidavit and during arguments, I am afraid that, the allegations in the complaint do not bring out any specific case of fabricating false evidence for which the accused should stand trial. Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 ## **-:15:-** 20. Even otherwise, fabricating false evidence means creating evidence that does not actually exist or manipulating or altering existing evidence to support a particular claim. Further, the aforesaid acts must be done with the intention that it will appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding or other proceeding before a public servant. Correction of typographical errors in invoices of motor vehicles even before the registration of the vehicle, to make it in tune with the actual number on the engine, cannot be regarded as fabricating false evidence. If such an interpretation is adopted, every correction of records could be attributed with the colour of criminality. It is evident from the records produced that the mistake in the engine number, as printed on the invoice and other documents, was noticed by the registering authority when the vehicle was brought for registration. Correction of the engine number in the invoice in 2014 to make it in tune with the actual number on the engine, that too, done prior to registration of the vehicle, cannot be regarded as fabricating of false evidence, especially when the complaint itself was filed only in 2018. 21. Apart from the above, as far as petitioners 2 and 3 and even the second respondent are concerned, though they are arrayed as accused 3, 4 and 2, respectively, in the complaint, there are no specific allegations of any overt acts committed by them. Even though petitioners have alleged that all those three persons had joined the first petitioner several years **-:16:-** Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 after the transaction involved in the present dispute, that is a matter for evidence, and this Court cannot, at this juncture, arrive at a finding on the date of their joining. However, a perusal of the complaint reveals that no specific allegations have been made against accused 2 to 4. They being allegedly employees of the first petitioner, in the absence of any specific overt act attributed to them, criminal proceeding against accused 2 to 4 is ex facie an abuse of the process of court. 22. On an appreciation of the contentions advanced, this Court is satisfied that the attempt of the complainant is to entangle the petitioners in a criminal proceeding and to apply pressure on them to settle the proceedings under the NI Act and to convert a civil dispute into a criminal action. Therefore the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of court and is liable to be quashed. 23. Hence, all proceedings initiated against the accused in C.C. No.149 of 2019 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences) Ernakulam are quashed. The criminal miscellaneous case is allowed as above. Sd/- ## **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE** vps Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 **-:17:-** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4740/2019`** ## **`PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 27.7.2017 FROM THE FIRST PETITIONER TO THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT BY THE COMPLAINANT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 2.8.2017 ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 2.8.2017 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION 2.8.2017 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE ETRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 2.8.2017 SENT BY THE COMPLAINANT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER ANNEXURE FTRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 29.8.2017 ANNEXURE GTRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 8.9.2017 ALONG WITH COPY OF DISHONOUR MEMO ANNEXURE HTRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 8.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE ITRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 8.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE JTRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 8.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE KTRUE COPY OF THE DISHONOUR MEMO FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS ANNEXURE LTRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED ``` ## Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 ## **-:18:-** - **`21.3.2018 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE COMPLAINANT`** ``` ANNEXURE MTRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 16.4.2018 SENT ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT ``` - **`ANNEXURE N TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 8.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE COMPLAINANT`** - **`ANNEXURE O TRUE COPY OF THE DISHONOUR MEMO FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS`** - **`ANNEXURE P TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 27.4.2018 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE COMPLAINANT`** - **`ANNEXURE Q TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 11.5.2018 SENT ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT`** - **`ANNEXURE R TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 21.4.2018 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT`** - **`ANNEXURE S TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 17.7.2018 SENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PETITIONER`** - **`ANNEXURE T TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.466/2018(LESS ANNEXURES) FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ORDER SHEET AS OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE IN PCR NO.359/2018 AS WELL IN CC NO.466/2018`** - **`ANNEXURE U TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.467/2018(LESS ANNEXURES) FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ORDER SHEET AS OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE IN PCR NO.366/2018 AS WELL IN CC NO.467/2018`** - **`ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3.09.2018 FILED BY THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM`** - **`ANNEXURE W`** ``` TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 19.09.2018 (LESS ANNEXURES) SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST ``` Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 ## **-:19:-** ## **`PETITIONER TO THE POLICE`** ``` ANNEXURE XTRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 10.10.2018 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT ``` ``` ANNEXURE YTRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 21.11.2018 ``` ``` ANNEXURE ZTRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER TO THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ``` ``` ANNEXURE AACERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE ACJM COURT9(EO), ERNAKULAM(CC.NO.1491/2019 ``` ``` ANNEXURE BBTRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA INVOICE DATED 24.12.2018 FURNISHED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE COMPLAINANT ``` ``` ANNEXURE CCTRUE COPY OF ARRANGEMENT LETTER DATED 4.4.2019 FROM THE INDUSLND BANK, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI ``` ## **`RESPONDENT ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE R1(a) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. ``` ``` ANNEXURE R1aPHOTOGRAPHS OF THE TAMPERED CHASIS OF THE TWO BUSES ``` ``` ANNEXURE R1bTRUE COPIES OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF VEHICLES SRS TRAVELS Annexure R1CTRUE COPIES OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS AND BILL OF SALE OF BUSES. ``` Crl.M.C. No.4740/19 /18 **-:20:-**