Bangalore District Court
P C Chandra vs Smt M Pavithra on 6 March, 2026
KABC030687162021
Presented on : 24-09-2021
Registered on : 24-09-2021
Decided on : 06-03-2026
Duration : 4 years, 5 months, 12 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ACJM, BENGALURU
-: Present :-
Smt.Asha K.S., B.A.L, L.L.B.,
XXIII ACJM, BENGALURU,
C.C. No.25046/2021
Dated: the 06th day of March, 2026
Complainant :- P.C.Chandra,
S/o.Late.Channaiah,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at No.1894,
37th Cross, D Group Layout,
Srigandhadakavalu,
Bengaluru-560091.
Mob: 9916115592
(By Sri.P.R.Dhananjaya, Advocate)
-V/s -
Accused :- Smt.M.Pavithra,
W/o.Shivakumar K.
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at No.01,
BWSSB Staff Quarters,
13th Main, 9th Cross,
Near Play Ground, ISRO Layout,
Bengaluru-560078.
And also:
2
C.C.No.25046/2021
Working as Assistant at
Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage
Board, Electrical 3 Sub Division,
Jayanagar Shopping Complex,
2nd Floor, Opp: Railway Reservation
Counter, Jayanagar 4th Block,
Bengaluru-560011.
(By Sri/Smt.Prathima N., Advocate)
Offences complained of U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the Accused Not Pleaded guilty.
Final Order Accused is Convicted
Date of Order 06.03.2026.
Digitally signed
ASHA by ASHA K S
Date:
KS 2026.03.09
15:29:31 +0530
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the commission of an offense punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-
"The accused is known to the complainant from several years. The accused had approached the complainant for financial assistance of Rs.8 lakhs for her family commitments. The complainant also agreed and paid Rs.5 3 C.C.No.25046/2021 lakhs on 15.08.2019. The accused has assured to repay the said amount in the month of March 2020. Thereafter when the complainant has demanded for repayment of said amount, the accused had issued cheque bearing No.108262, dated 05.12.2020 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, T.K.Halli Branch, Mandya District. On presentation of said cheques by the complainant through his banker Indian Bank, Vijayanagar Branch. The said cheque has been returned for the reason "Funds Insufficient" on 03.02.2021.
3. Thereafter the complainant has got issued legal notice to the accused on 11.02.2021 and same has been served. Thereafter the accused has not chosen to issue reply notice and not paid amount.
4. After filing of complaint, cognizance was taken. In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the Court and she had enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation has been framed and contents of its read over to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and she claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove his case complainant has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 07 documents at Ex.P.1 to 07 on behalf of the complainant. After closure of complainant evidence, accused has been examined as under
section 313 of Cr.P.C and opted to lead evidence. Accused 4 C.C.No.25046/2021 has been examined as DW-1 and Seven documents and as been marked as Ex.D.1 to D.7. Two witnesses as DW-2 and DW.3.
6. Thereafter arguments heard and perused the Record.
7. The following points arise for my determination: -
1) Whether the complainant has made out all the ingredients of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to prove the guilt of accused?
2) What Order?
8. On hearing the arguments and on perusal written arguments and the materials placed on record, my answers to: -
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative Point No.2:- As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
9. It is the case of complainant is that the accused is known to the complainant since many years. The accused had approached the complainant and borrowed amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant in the year 2019. To discharge the said liability, the accused had issued cheque. Ex.P.1. On presentation said cheque has been returned for the reason "Funds Insufficient". After service of notice the accused has not chosen to issue reply notice.
5C.C.No.25046/2021
10. To attract Sec.138 of NI Act it is necessary to fulfill the ingredients of said provision. I have carefully perused the section 138 of of N.I.Act, it has three ingredients which are as follows:
1. That there is a Legally enforceable debt,
2. That the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or any part of any debt or other liability which pre-supposes a legally enforceable debt.
3. That the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds.
11. Keeping in view the ingredients of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Now I proceed to reproduce the Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I.Act here itself.
12. Sec.139 of N.I.Act reads as follows "Presumes in favor of holder, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec.138, for the discharge, in whole or in part or any debt or other liability".
13. Sec.118(a) reads as follows "Presumption as to Negotiable Instrument Act until the contrary is proved, the following presumption shall be made (a) of consideration- that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted endorse, negotiate or transferred, was 6 C.C.No.25046/2021 accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration".
14. Keeping in view of the ingredients and provision of Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I.Act, now I proceed to discuss the documents in the case. I am of the opinion that I need not repeat the entire case of the complaint once again since I have already stated the same at the beginning of this judgment.
15. To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and produced 07 documents and same has been marked as Ex.P.1 to P.07. The cheque as per Ex.P.1 and signature thereon as per Ex.P.1(a) Bank memos as per Ex.P.2. Legal Notice as per Ex.P.3. Postal Receipts as per Ex.P.4 and P.5. Postal acknowledgment as per Ex.P.6 and Track Consignment as per Ex.P.7.
16. In the cross-examination of PW-1, he has deposed that he is working in BWSSB. He had Rs.3 to 4 lakhs income per year. Manjula is his mother. He knows the accused from 20 years. The accused and his mother also known to each other. He paid amount to one Nagaveni also. He does not know that Shivaraj, Bhaskar and Jagadish. No reply notice has been served to him. He denied the suggestion that he had received cheques from his mother and misused the same. He also denied the suggestion that 7 C.C.No.25046/2021 accused had borrowed amount from his mother and issued cheques for security purpose.
17. The accused has denied the case of complainant and to prove her case she has examined as DW-1. She has deposed that she knows the complainant and in the year 2016 she had borrowed Rs.5,50,000/- from the mother of complainant. Thereafter she was regularly paying 3% interest per month and she paid Rs.3,50,000/- to the mother of complainant. On 8.10.2020 her husband expired and she was not in a position to repay the balance amount of Rs.2 lakhs. On that time she had issued four blank cheques to the mother of complainant. The complainant and his mother have colluded with each other misused the cheques filed false cases against her. Even though she had requested with the Manjula that she is ready to repay the balance amount and requested to return her cheques but said Manjula refused to return her cheques. In support of her case the accused has produced Ex.D.1 to D.7. Ex.D.1 is notice issued to Nagaveni. Ex.D.2 is reply notice. Ex.D.3 and D.4 postal receipt and acknowledgment. Ex.D.5 notice. Ex.D.6 agreement and Ex.D.7 deposition in CC.No.22536/2021.
18. In the cross-examination of DW-1 she has deposed that she had received notice and also issued reply notice. She knows the witnesses namely Mahadev Naik and 8 C.C.No.25046/2021 Putta Dasegowda, who have signed to Ex.D.6. She has signed to Ex.D.6 in the house of Manjula. She denied the suggestion that she had created Ex.D.2, D.4 and D.6 for the purpose of this case.
19. One Mahadeva Naik has been examined as DW-2 and he has deposed that he knows the accused and her husband. The accused had borrowed amount of Rs.5,50,000/- for interest @ 5% per month. On that time accused had issued three signed blank cheques and three blank cheques to the Manjula. In the month of September 2020 the accused has repaid Rs.3,50,000/- and demanded for return of her cheques. On that time Manjula has executed Ex.D.6. He and Puttadasu were signed to the Ex.D.6 on 11.09.2020. On that day Manjulamma has told that cheques are with her son.
20. In the cross-examination of DW-2, he has deposed that he knows the complainant and his mother Manjula. He does not know that where is Manjula now. The accused is resident of Bengaluru. He does not know about the education qualification of Manjula. Manjula has signed to agreement in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he, Puttadase Gowda and accused colluded with each other and created agreement.
9C.C.No.25046/2021
21. One Sri.Puttadase Gowda has examined as DW-3, but in spite of granting sufficient opportunity also, DW-3 has not tendered himself for cross-examination, hence his evidence has been discarded.
22. Advocate for complainant has argued that complainant has proved his case and accused has fails to rebut the presumption. Till today accused has not lodged any complaint against the complainant. Advocate for accused has argued that there was no transaction between the parties and the complainant has not proved his case. As per complainant accused had borrowed amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and to discharge the same, the accused had issued Ex.P.1 cheque. Here there is no dispute in signature and issuance of cheque but the accused has denied the transaction. The complainant has produced documents and same has been marked as Ex.P.1 to 07. Ex.P.1 cheque, Ex.P.2 memo, Ex.P.3 is a legal notice, Ex.P.5 and P.5 are Postal receipts, Postal acknowledgement as per Ex.P.6 and Track consignment as per Ex.P.07. Admittedly cheque and signature is belongs to accused and the accused has disputed the issuance of cheque. Complaint has been filed within time. cheque is in the hands of the complainant. As per Sec.139 of N.I.Act "Presumes in favor of holder, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec.138, for the discharge, in whole or in part or any debt or 10 C.C.No.25046/2021 other liability". Here the question arise for consideration is whether the accused has rebutted the presumption or not and is there legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused has an option to rebut the presumption by way of eliciting truth from PW-1 in the cross-examination, by way of entering into witness box and he can utilize materials available on record. In this case the accused has entered into witness box and cross-examined the PW-1 also.
23. The burden is on the accused to prove that how her cheque had been to the hands of the complainant. The accused has explained that how her cheque had been to the hands of the complainant ie.., she had issued cheques for security purpose to the mother of complaiannt namely Manjula. Though she has deposed that she had issued four cheques to the Manjula but she has not disclosed the cheque numbers of remaining cheque numbers also. If really accused had issued four cheques to the complainant, then there was no hurdle to disclose about those cheque numbers.
24. The accused has produced Ex.D.6 agreement to prove that she had borrowed amount from the Manjula and issued cheques. On perusal of Ex.D.6, it is noticed that it has been executed on 11.09.2020. As per accused, Smt.Manjula has executed Ex.D.6. In the said document there is a recital that Smt.Pavithra ie., accused herein has 11 C.C.No.25046/2021 executed document infavour of Manjula. It is further shown as Accused has paid an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and thereafter repaid Rs.3,50,000/- and balance amount is Rs.2 lakhs. As per accused, Manjula has been executed Ex.D.6 but recital in the Ex.D.6 shows that accused had executed document in favour of Manjula. ಶ್ರೀಮತಿ ಮಂಜುಳ ಕೋಂ ಚನ್ನಯ, ವಯಸ್ಸು 58 ವರ್ಷ (ಕೈಸಾಲ ಕೊಟ್ಟವರು ) ಆದ ನಿಮಗೆ, ಪವಿತ್ರ ಕೊಂ ಲೇಟ್ ಶಿವಕುಮಾರ್ ಆದ ನಾನು ಒಪ್ಪಿ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟ ಕೈಸಾಲದ ಕರಾರುಪತ್ರದ ಕ್ರಮವೇನಂದರೆ. These two sentences indicates that Pavithra has executed document in favour of Manjula but in the said line it is shown as borrower and lendor and it indicates that accused herein has borrowed amount and Manjula has executed document. But recitals written in the document indicates that accused has executed said documents. It might be because of language problem. Apart from these aspects, it is necessary to discuss about the document to ascertain that whether Manjula has executed said document or not and is it genuine document or not.
25. As per accused she had issued six cheques to the Manjula as on the date of alleged transaction for security purpose. If that is so, there was no hurdle for the accused to disclose about the cheques numbers of six cheques and other details about the cheques. In the said document, it is also written as she does not recollect the cheque numbers of six cheques. AS per accused, Manjula has executed Ex.D.6 and if Manjula may not remember the cheque numbers but 12 C.C.No.25046/2021 accused would have disclosed about her cheque numbers. Because no person will issue six cheques to some third person without taking note of numbers of those cheques. It creates doubt regarding Ex.D.6.
26. The complainant has disputed the Ex.D.6 and to prove that document accused has examined as DW-2 Mahadeva Naik. He has also deposed with regard to execution of Ex.D.6 and he has identified his signature also. He has also not disclosed about the cheque numbers of six cheques. Ex.D.6 is not a registered document and not executed before notary also. It has been written on Rs.2 document sheet. As per accused, Manjula has executed said document in her home. If that is so, there was no hurdle for the accused to take signatures of complainant or any other family members of complainant. Moreover accused admits that her husband was kept the Ex.D.6 in his house. It shows that prior to 11.09.2020, accused has prepared Ex.D.6 document. Because accused only admits in her cross-examination that ನಿಶಾನೆ ಡಿ.6ನ್ನು ಯಾರು ಟೈಪ್ ಮಾಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆಂದು ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ್ಠ ನಮ್ಮ ಯಜಮಾರನು ಜೀವಂತವಾಗಿದಾದ್ದಗೆ ಅದನ್ನು ತಂದು ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿಟ್ಟದ್ದರು. ಅಕ್ಟೊಬರ್ 2020ರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಜಮಾನರು ಮರಣಹೊಂದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. AS discussed above date of Ex.D.6 is 11.09.2020 and the husband of accused died in the month of October 2020 and prior to that Ex.D.6 was in the house of accused. It clearly shows that accused only prepared Ex.D.6 for the purpose of this case and to cheat the 13 C.C.No.25046/2021 complainant. Admission of DW-1 itself shows that the accused only prepared Ex.D.6, prior to 11.09.2020. It also shows that DW-1 and DW-2 are deposing false story that on 11.09.2020 Manjula had executed Ex.D.6 in her home. Otherwise there should be cheque numbers in the said document and accused would have obtained signatures of family members of Manjula. Moreover the accused has not disclosed about the Ex.D.6 in her reply notice. If really Manjula had executed Ex.D.6 in favour of the accused, definitely accused would have disclosed about that document in the reply. Moreover the accused has not produced that document in the beginning of her evidence also. After completion of cross-examination, accused has produced this document. All these aspects creates doubt regarding Ex.D.6.
27. Advocate for accused has contended while cross- examining PW-1 that the complainant only filled the cheques, hence it is not valid. During the cross-examination of PW-1, he denied that aspect. Here the question is whether complainant can fill the cheque or not. In the authority in Sunita Dubey (Smt.) Vs. Hukum Singh Ahirwar. In that Hon'ble Apex Court held that blank cheque can be filled up by holder thereof. Which will be valid instrument in eye of law. The complainant has right to get benefit U/s.20 of Act. As per Section 20 of N.I.Act inchoate instruments are also valid and legally enforceable. In the case of a signed 14 C.C.No.25046/2021 blank cheque, the drawer gives authority to the drawee to fill up the a great liability. Hence accused cannot contend that the cheque is not valid. Moreover the complainant has clearly deposed that the accused only filled cheque and issued. Moreover the accused has not chosen to take assistance from the expert to prove that writing found in cheque is not belongs to accused.
28. As per accused, the complainant has misused her cheques. If really the complainant has misused the cheques of accused, then she has an option to proceed against the complainant before appropriate authority or forum. This case has been filed in the year 2021 and now it is 2026 but till today no such effort from accused side. The accused has not explained that why she is silent, if her contention is genuine. There is no answer from accused side.
29. The accused has taken another contention that notice has been served to her and she had issued reply notice also. Here, the complainant has contended that no reply notice has been served to the complainant. The accused has produced reply notice and same has been marked as Ex.D.2. In that accused has taken contention that in the month of July 2020 she lost her husband and she could not repay the balance amount to the Manjula and Manjula has caused threat that, her four cheques are in the custody of Manjula. Here it is pertinent to note that as per 15 C.C.No.25046/2021 Ex.D.2 accused had issued four cheques to the Manjula but in the evidence, accused had deposed that she had issued cheques to the Manjula. It is totally contrary to the evidence of accused. There is no explanation from the accused that howmany cheques were in the cucstody of Manjula. If really contention of accused is genuine, then there was no hurdel for the accused to depose or state to same aspect in the reply notice and in her evidence. More particularly accused has not chosen to disclose her cheque numbers alleged to issued to the Manjula.
30. As per accused she had sent reply notice on 17.03.2021 and same has been served to the advocate for complainant as per Ex.P.4. Ex.P.4 is postal acknowledgment and in that address of advocate shown as P.R. Dhananjai and in the Ex.D.4 postal acknowledgment signature of Dhananjaya is in kannada language. In the Ex.D.5 notice signature of Dhananjai is in the English language. It shows that someone has received reply notice and not by the advocate for complainant. Here the question is whether accused has rebutted the presumption or not and whether accused has proved her defence or not.
31. Advocate for accused has contended that, the complainant has no financial capacity to lend such a huge amount. In the evidence the complainant has clearly deposed that he is working in the BWSSB and getting 16 C.C.No.25046/2021 income. He has also deposed that he lent his savings amount. Advocate for complainant suggested that, the complainant has filed another cheque case against another person for Rs.10 lakhs. It shows that the complainant has capacity to pay said amount.
32. Though the accused has contended that the complainant and his mother have misused her cheques but till today no notice has been issued to the complainant or Manjula and no complaint has been lodged against the complainant and Manjula. The accused has not issued intimation letter to the bank for stop payment. If really accused has not borrowed any amount from the complainant then definitely she would have disclosed the name of Manjula in the intimation and she would have given to the bank. Here no such effort from the accused.
33. As discussed above, the advocate for accused has cross-examined the PW-1 but nothing has been elicited to prove the defence of the accused. Except suggesting with regard to alleged transaction between the accused and mother of complainant, nothing has been suggested. As discussed above the accused has not placed any documents to show that there was no loan transaction between them and she had issued cheque for security purpose to the Manjula. As discussed above in the reply, accused has taken contention that she had issued four cheques to the 17 C.C.No.25046/2021 Manjula b ut thereafter accused and DW-2 have deposed that she had issued six cheques to the Manjula. DW-1 has deposed that she had received hand loan from the Manjula for interest @ 3% per month. But DW-2 has deposed that the accused had borrowed amount from the complainant for interest @ 5% per month. It creates serious doubt regarding alleged offence.
34. In this case the accused has not exercised options available to her. Though she has alleged that complainant and his mother were misused her cheques but no complaint lodged against them. All these aspects clearly shows that there was a transaction between the parties and accused has issued cheque to discharge her liability but only to escape from her liability, she has denied the case of complainant and taken different versions but fails to prove her contention.
35. As per Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act court may presume that bill of exchange was accepted for good consideration. Issuance of cheque is proved. Hence presumption can be drawn. Therefore, it probabalizes that the transactions alleged in the complaint is genuine.
36. The accused person has fails to prove her defence. The reason or explanation given by the accused with regard to how her cheque had been to the hands of the 18 C.C.No.25046/2021 complainant is not at all acceptable one. Hence there is no reasons to disbelieve the case of complainant. Hence presumption can be drawn in favour of complainant.
37. Regarding the burden of the accused to rebut the presumptions in N.I Act the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat in Crl.A.No.508 OF 2019 held:
"16.On the aspects relating to preponderance of probabilities, the accused has to bring on record such facts and such circumstances which may lead the Court to conclude either that the consideration did not exist or that its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration did not exist. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that though there may not be sufficient negative evidence which could be brought on record by the accused to discharge his burden, yet mere denial would not fulfill the requirements of rebuttal as envisaged under Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act..."
38. As discussed above the accused has fails to rebut the presumption. Under the criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the proceeding U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is quasi-criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions envisaged under sec.118, 139 and 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act. An essential ingredient of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is that cheque in question must have been issued towards a legally or liability. Sec.118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act 19 C.C.No.25046/2021 envisage certain presumptions. Under Sec.118 a presumption shall be raised regarding consideration, date, acceptance, transfer, endorsements and regarding the holder in due course of Negotiable Instruments. Even under Sec.139 a rebuttal presumption shall be raised that the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally enforceable debt. These presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in case of Negotiable Instruments. These presumptions are not conclusive presumptions, but are rebuttable. The accused has fails to rebut the presumption.
39. In the authority reported in Crl Appeal No.348/2011 in Smt.Jayalakshmamma Vs.Shasikala. In that case the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that if accused has taken contention that complainant has misused his cheque, then there should be complaint before the police or any authority or intimation to the bank. If accused has not exercised these options then, his contention cannot be considered with regard to missing of cheque or alleged misuse of cheque. In the case on hand also the accused has taken contention that she had issued cheque for security purpose to Manjula and complainant and his mother have misused the same. but no notice has been issued to the complainant and no complaint is lodged. If really contention of accused is genuine, definitely she 20 C.C.No.25046/2021 would have lodged complaint against the complainant and Manjula. Here no such complaint by the accused. It shows that there was a transaction between the parties and only to escape from her liability she has taken that contention but not proved her contention. Hence ratio held in above authority is applicable to case on hand.
40. But in the recent decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the authority reported in Crl. Appeal 1755/2010 in Sanjabij Tari Vs.Kishore S. Borcar case Hon'ble Apex Court held that only on the ground that transaction is by way of cash and not shown in the IT returns, complaint cannot be dismissed. It is further held that if accused not lodged any complaint against the complainant after dishonour of cheque by alleging that the cheque was not to be encashed. Consequently, the defence of financial in capacity and transaction by way of cash by the accused is on after thought. In the case on hand also after dishonour of cheque, the complainant has issued notice and same has been served to the accused but thereafter also accused has not proved her defence. Till today the accused has not lodged any complaint against the complainant and Manjula for alleged misuse of her cheque. Hence accused cannot take defence with regard to financial in capacity of the complainant or cash transaction. The ratio held in above authority is supports the case of complainant.
21C.C.No.25046/2021
41. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"26. 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 [(2008) 4 SCC 54 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 166] 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 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.
28. 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 in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own."
42. Such being the case it is for the accused to rebut the presumption under Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and to show that the cheque in question was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt or liability and accused has to prove the same not by mere possible explanation, but 22 C.C.No.25046/2021 by cogent evidence. In this case the accused has fails to prove that she has not issued cheques towards legally enforceable debt. There is no dispute with regard to signatures. Till today accused has not filed any complaint against the complainant and Manjula for alleged misuse of her cheques. She has not tried to take back her cheques. Silence of accused shows that she is admitting transaction and for that reason only, she has not tried to take back her cheques. Only to escape from her liability, she has denied the case of complainant.
43. Advocate for complainant argued that transaction was in the year 2019 and till today the complainant has not received any benefit from the accused. Due to delay in proceedings also, the complainant has suffered a lot. In the authority reported in Crl. Revision Petition No.996/2016 of M/s.Banavathi and Company Vs.Mahaeer Electro Mech Pvt Ltd and another. In that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that as per Section 80 of N.I.Act When no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, interest on the amount due thereon shall, notwithstanding any agreement relating to interest between any parties to the instrument, be calculated at the rate of eighteen per centum per annum, from the date at which the same ought to have been paid by the party charged, until tender or realization of the amount due thereon, or until such date after the institution of a suit to recover such amount as the Court directs. All discussed 23 C.C.No.25046/2021 above transaction was in the year 2019 and now it is in the year 2026 and the complainant has suffered a lot of financial issue due to delay. If complainant would have invested and deposited in any bank or business, she would have get benefit. Hence the accused is liable to pay interest @ rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of complaint to till realization.
44. Therefore, when there is evidence of complainant regarding the issuance of cheque and it was dishonour on presentation and when there is no evidence on the side of the accused to rebut the presumption available under section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, I am of the view that complainant has successfully established that cheque have been issued by the accused towards the discharge of legal liability and was dishonoured on its presentation for "Funds Insufficient".
45. The complainant has proved that accused had issued cheque towards discharge of her legally recoverable debt or liability. There is no proper explanation from the accused that why she has not tried to take back her cheque. There is no effort from the accused to take steps against the complainant for alleged misuse of her cheque. If 24 C.C.No.25046/2021 there was no transaction between the parties, then no ordinary prudent man will simply sit by issuing cheque. After receiving of notice also the accused had an option to take steps against the complainant but the accused has not exercised any of option available to her. The accused has deposed contrary to her own defence. More particulary the accused has not disclosed the cheque numbers alleged to issued in favour of Manjula. The accused has not proved the execution of Ex.D.6. Moreover the accused has not disclosed about the Ex.D.6 in her reply notice. All these aspects show that there was a transaction between the parties and to discharge her liability only, accused had issued Ex.P.1. The accused has fails to prove that there is no legally recoverable debt or liability. Hence, in view of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the complainant has proved his case. On careful perusal of materials on record I am of the opinion that there is a legally recoverable debt or liability. All these aspects show that accused had issued cheques to the complainant towards discharge of her liability. The complainant has proved the initial burden and accused has not proved her defence and not rebutted the presumption. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence corroborates with each other. During the cross-examination of PW-1 also nothing has been elicited. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the version of complainant appears to be true. The 25 C.C.No.25046/2021 ingredients required to fulfill Sec.138 of NI Act also proved. Hence, I hold that there are materials available on record to conclude that accused has committed an offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act, hence I answered Point no.1 in the Affirmative.
46. Point No.2:- In view of the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following :-
-: ORDER :-
By invoking the power conferred under section 278(2) of B.N.S.S.,The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only).along with interest @ rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of complaint to till realization till payment of amount. In default to pay the fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Further, acting under Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., on recovery of sum of 5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs only along with interest @ rate of 18% per annum only, Rs.
4,95,000/-along with interest shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the state exchequer.
26C.C.No.25046/2021 Supply free copy of this order to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to stenographer directly on my computer, after clerical additions by him, script revised, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 06th day of March-2026) Digitally signed ASHA by ASHA K S Date: KS 2026.03.09 15:29:55 +0530 (Smt.Asha K.S,) XXIII ACJM,Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1) List of Witnesses examined for complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri.P.C.Chandra.
2) List of documents marked on behalf of complainant: -
Ex.P.1 : cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of accused,
Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo,
Ex.P.3 : Legal Notice,
Ex.P.4 and 5 : Receipts
Ex.P.6 : Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.P.7 : Track Consignment Report.
3) List of witness examined on behalf of the Accused :-
DW-1 : Smt.M.Pavithra.
DW-2 : Mahadeva Naik.
DW-3 : Puttadasegowda.
4) List of documents marked on behalf of the Accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Notice to Nagaveni
Ex.D.2 : Reply.
Ex.D.3 : Postal Receipt.
Ex.D.4 : Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.D.5 : Notice.
Ex.D.6 : Hand Loan Agreement.
27
C.C.No.25046/2021
Ex.D.7 : Deposition in
CC.No.22536/2021
ASHA Digitally signed
by ASHA K S
Date: 2026.03.09
KS 15:30:06 +0530
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
28
C.C.No.25046/2021