Bangalore District Court
Ramanna @ Ramaiah vs B.G. Chandrashekar on 20 August, 2025
KABC020144612016
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND A.C.J.M, AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST - 2025
PRESENT:
Smt.Nirmala.M.C.,B.Com.,L.L.B .,
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & ACJM
CC No.13099/2016
Complainant: Ramanna @ Ramaiah
S/o. Late.Venkatappa,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at. No.64/A, Sri Lakshmi
Ranganath Nilaya,
7th Main road, Kempamma Layout,
Lakshmidevi Nagar
Bengaluru-96.
(By Sri.K.V.Venkatesh. Advocate)
-Vs-
Accused: B.G.Chandrashekar
S/o.Late.B.M.Gundappa
Aged about 48 years
R/at Flat No.109/A,
23rd cross, 2nd Block
Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-10.
(By Sri.K.Raghavendra. Advocate)
SCCH-9 2 CC.No.13099/2016
JUDGMENT
This case is instituted by the complainant viz., Sri. Ramanna @ Ramaiah, Under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. R/w. Sec.138 of the N.I.Act stating that the accused and the complainant are close friends and known to each other. Accused approached the complainant during first week of September 2015 and requested for hand loan of Rs.20,00,000/- to meet his urgent domestic necessities and for improvement of his Granite business agreeing to repay the same within three months. The complainant has paid Rs.20,00,000/- in the month of September 2015. Further, it is case of the complainant that, even after completion of three months, accused has not at all paid the loan amount even after repeated demands. Accused towards discharge of said debt/liability has issued cheque bearing No.556283 dated 21-01-2016 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- drawn on SBM, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant. The complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker SBI, SCCH-9 3 CC.No.13099/2016 Yeswanthpura Branch, Bengaluru and the same has been returned on 25-01-2016 with a memo as "Funds insufficient". Thereafter complainant issued legal notice to accused on 10-2-2016 by RPAD calling upon accused to repay the said amount of Rs.20,00,000/- within 15 days. The notice issued through registered post was duly served on the accused and accused gave untenable reply, but failed to pay the cheque amount. Hence, he committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
2. My Predecessor in Office by taking cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act, registered the case as PCR. Sworn statement of complainant was recorded. Thereafter, by perusing the averments of complaint, documents, this court has registered the case as CC in register No.3 and issued summons to accused. In pursuance of summons accused appeared through his Advocate and he is on bail. Plea read over accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. SCCH-9 4 CC.No.13099/2016
3. My Predecessor in Office by taking cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act, registered the case as PCR. Sworn statement of complainant was recorded. Thereafter, by perusing the averments of complaint, documents, this court has registered the case as CC in register No.3 and issued summons to accused. In pursuance of summons accused appeared through his Advocate and he is on bail. Plea read over as per the provisions of U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. Complainant in order to prove his case, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to 19. Thereafter, statement of accused U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied the incriminating evidence available against him, hence matter posted for cross of PW.1. When the case was posted for cross of PW-1 and subsequently, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, neither the accused nor his counsel have SCCH-9 5 CC.No.13099/2016 appeared before this court or cross examined PW-1. Hence to that effect NBW has been issued against the accused and the same was un-executed. The accused has not at all challenged the evidence of PW-1 and the present case is summary trial and quasi-criminal in nature and thereby recording the statement of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with. As per the new amendment under Section 145(2) of N.I. Act in- spite of giving sufficient opportunities, neither the accused nor his counsel have filed the application to adduce their defence evidence. Since the present complaint is a summary trial and quasi- criminal in nature. Hence, defence evidence is taken as Nil. Finally passed the judgment on 19.07.2018 and convicted the accused. Thereafter accused preferred appeal before the Hon'ble CCH-60 Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru as per Criminal Appeal No.1486/2018. Said appeal is allowed on 03.01.2020 wherein the Hon'ble SCCH-9 6 CC.No.13099/2016 appellate court directed to dispose off the matter in accordance with law afresh from the stage of cross- examination of PW.1. Accordingly, opportunities given to both parties as per direction of the appellate court and Court witness examined as CW-1 and got marked Ex.C1 document. After conclusion of the trial, passed the judgment on 13.05.2022 and convicted the accused. Again accused preferred appeal before LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru as per Crl.Appeal No.678/2022. The said appeal is also allowed. As per the Hon'ble appellate court provided opportunities to the accused to led his evidence and also given liberty to complainant to cross- examine the accused or DW.1 as per law.
Accused himself examines as DW1 and got marked documents as per Ex.D1 to D5 and closed his side. After conclusion of the trial, matter posted for argument.
5. Heard arguments of both sides.
SCCH-9 7 CC.No.13099/2016
6. The following points are arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused had issued cheque bearing No. 556283 dated 21-1-2016 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- drawn on SBM, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru towards discharge of his legal liability and when the said cheque presented for encashment, it was dishonoured with an endorsement "Funds insufficient", after issuance of legal notice, he failed to repay Rs.20,00,000/- covered under the cheque and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative; Point No.2 : As per the final order;
for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1: It is the specific case of the complainant that, the accused has approached the SCCH-9 8 CC.No.13099/2016 complainant for financial assistance of Rs.20,00,000/- for improvement of his granite business and other legal necessities. The complainant has paid Rs.20,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash. Further accused agreed to repay the said loan amount within 3 months. After completion of 3 months complainant requested to repay the said loan amount. Hence accused had issued the disputed cheque to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment which has been returned with endorsement as funds insufficient. Thereafter complainant approached the accused and intimated about dishonor of the cheque but accused has not response to the complainant, hence complainant has issued legal notice. After service of legal notice accused has not repaid the amount but he has replied the notice.
9. I have perused all the materials available on record with cautiously. As stated above, in order to prove SCCH-9 9 CC.No.13099/2016 the guilt of the accused, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P19. The PW1/complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated all the facts mentioned in his complaint. The Ex.P.1 is the original cheque bearing No.556283 dated 21.01.2016 for Rs.20,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Rajajinagar branch, Bangalore, Ex.P1(a) is the signature of accused, Ex.P2 is bank memos issued by State bank of Mysore, ATPAR branch. Ex.P3 is the Legal Notice issued by the complainant through his counsel, Ex.P4 is the postal receipt, Ex.P5 is the requisition to Postal department, Ex.P6 is the reply notice and Ex.P.7 to 19 are 13 rental and lease agreements.
10. The learned counsel for complainant has argued the case and submitted that, accused has committed an offence punishable u/Sec 138 NI act by issuing bounced cheque, thus accused is liable to be convict for the offence SCCH-9 10 CC.No.13099/2016 punishable U/sec 138 of NI Act by imposing the cheque amount.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for accused has vehemently argued and would submitted that, accused has not at all committed any offence as alleged by the complainant. Thus he requested for acquittal of the accused. In support of his arument he relied upon oral and documentary evidence of the accused.
12. Before discussion of case of the complainant, it is better to have important ingredients as contemplated under the Act, which constitute the offence punishable u/Sec 138 of the said Act which reads as under:-
a) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.
b) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by SCCH-9 11 CC.No.13099/2016 giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer, of the cheque(within 30 days) of the receipt of information from him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
c) The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be to the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
13. In this regard perused the record, it is not in dispute, accused and complainant are well known to each other. It is also not in dispute that, disputed cheque and signature on the cheque belongs to the accused. It is also not in dispute, accused has issued the cheque in favour of the complainant.
14. Perused the material available on record. The complainant contended that accused has approached him for hand loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for his legal necessities and for improvement of granite business. Therefore considering the request of the accused, complainant has paid amount of SCCH-9 12 CC.No.13099/2016 Rs.20,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash and accused agreed to repay the same within 3 months. Thereafter complainant demanded the accused to repay the said loan amount but accused has not paid the amount, he had issued the disputed cheque in favour of the complainant for discharge his liability. In support of his contention complainant relied upon the documents such as disputed cheque, bank endorsements, legal notice, reply notice, rent agreement, letter given to post office. These documents shows that the complainant has lend the amount to the accused, in this regard accused has issued the disputed cheque in favour of the complainant to discharge his liability.
15. On the other hand accused denied the contention of the complainant and he has taken the defence that, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 138 of N I Act but there is 6 delay for filing of complaint. Hence, SCCH-9 13 CC.No.13099/2016 the complaint is not maintainable. In this regard, perused the record complainant has filed this complaint along with documents. My predecessor has verified the complaint and document thereafter taken the cognizance and registered the case and issued the summons. After service of the summons accused has appeared before the court and enlarged the bail. After immediately appearing before the court, accused has not challenged the cognizance taken by this court before the appellate court. Hence, in the present case cognizance already taken but it is not challenged by the accused before appellate court. Hence, I relied upon the decision reported in (2004) 7 SCC 338, between Adalat Prasad V/s. Roop Lal Jindal and others, it is held that when once this court taking cognizance for offence proceeded further rightly or wrongly the said order cannot be reviewed and there is no review power is given under Criminal procedure code to this court to review its own order. So, SCCH-9 14 CC.No.13099/2016 even if there is wrong order in taking cognizance and condoning delay this court cannot go back and review its order. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused is not acceptable.
16. Further, the Learned counsel for the accused argued that, there was no financial capacity to the accused to lend huge amount of Rs.20 lakhs. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the complainant denied the arguments of the accused counsel. In this regard perused the record, it is true complainant has filed this case on the basis of disputed cheque which is marked at Ex.P.1 which shows that issued the disputed cheque of Rs.20 lakhs. In the complaint, complainant contended that accused apportioned him for financial assistance of Rs.20 lakhs for his legal necessities and improvement of his granite business. Considering the request of the accused, complainant has paid said Rs.20 lakhs amount to the accused. Further, SCCH-9 15 CC.No.13099/2016 complainant has produced 13 the rent and lease agreements to prove his financial capacity which are marked at Ex.P.7 to
19. Perused the said agreement Ex.P.7 to 19 which are showing that, complainant and his wife have given houses for rent and they are getting rents every month. These documents are sufficient to believe the contentions of the complainant that, he was having sufficient source to lend the amount mentioned in the complaint. However, though the accused taken the defense that, complainant was not having financial capacity to lend the amount. He has not produced any document to prove his defense hence, mere defense is not sufficient to believe the defense of the accused. Further, accused has issued the reply notice wherein he submitted that, complainant and his wife has borrowed the loan from him but he has not whispered single word about the financial capacity of the complainant. Hence, at this stage I am relied upon the decision reported in SCCH-9 16 CC.No.13099/2016 Criminal Appeal No.362/2022 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No.1963/2019 wherein it is held that:
"9. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have noted that in the case under Section 138 of the N. I. Act the complainant need not show in the first instance that he had the capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the N. I. Act is not a civil suit. At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity. To that extent the Courts in our view were right in holding on those lines. However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents. It is also open to him to establish the very same aspect by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself. He can further, more importantly, achieve this result through the cross examination of the witnesses of the complainant. Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the Courts to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence and then come to a conclusion whether in the given case, the accused has SCCH-9 17 CC.No.13099/2016 shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason that the accused has established a probable defence".
17. The above decision aptly applicable to the present circumstances of the case. In the present case, accused has issued reply notice, but he has not taken any defence that the complainant was not having financial capacity to lend the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs. If the defence of the accused is really true, he would have taken the said defence at the initial stage i.e. reply notice. But he has not taken above defence in his reply notice, he has taken above defence in the cross-examination. Therefore as per above decision, the defence of the accused is not reliable.
18. Further, the Learned counsel for the accused argued and same defense taken in the defense evidence of the accused that, " he was carrying granite business and complainant approached him for joining as partner and for the said reasons and security purpose complainant has taken 5 SCCH-9 18 CC.No.13099/2016 blank signed cheques and signed blank stamp papers". It is clearly denied by the complainant. In this regard, perused the reply notice wherein accused has not taken above defense but, he has taken the defense at para 12 that "
During 2007 - 08 your client was introduced to our client through one Mr.Gangadhar, who was working as Lorry commission agent of money lenders. As during the year 2009 your client was approached by me through the said Gangadhar for financial assistance at which time our client was present and a meager amount of Rs.5,000/- was borrowed by our client and at the time of giving the money, your client collect one blank signed cheque but your client did not return the blank cheque to out client even after reimbursing the said amount. Since then, your client holds had been holding the cheque illegally".
19. As above the accused has taken defense that he has borrowed the loan of Rs.5,000/- in the year 2009 at that SCCH-9 19 CC.No.13099/2016 time, accused issued the signed blank cheque in favour of the complainant. After repayment of the said amount, the complainant has not returned which was issued by the accused. The above defense is contrary to the defense taken in the defense evidence. Further, in case if it is really true, complainant requested the accused to join him to granite business, why and what purpose the accused has issued the 5 blank signed cheques and signed blank stamp papers. It is not clearly explained by the accused. Hence, the defense of the accused is not believable. But as per Ex.P.6 one thing is clear that, there was financial transaction between the complainant and accused, the accused has issued the disputed cheque in favour of the complainant.
20. Further contention of the accused that, accused was running granite business since 1991. Further accused was income tax assesse. It is well known to the complainant. In the year 2013-14 complainant was trying to borrowed the SCCH-9 20 CC.No.13099/2016 loan from private sectors for improve his unnamed money lending business. But he failed to avail to loan from private finance, for the reason that a cheque from government servant or income tax assess is required for surety or guarantee. Therefore, complainant approached the accused and requested give a cheque for surety. Therefore, accused intend to help and for humanity reason, he had given a 5 signed blank cheques and also issued one blank signed non judicial stamp paper of Rs.500/-. It is clearly denied by the complainant. In this regard perused the record. Accused has not produced document to prove his defense that he was income tax assessee. Further there is no document to show that, in the year 2013-14 complainant was trying to get loan from private sector and accused intend to help the complainant hence, he has issued 5 blank signed cheques and stamp paper. Except oral testimony of the accused, no other documentary evidence on record. Hence, mere defense SCCH-9 21 CC.No.13099/2016 is not sufficient in the absence of material document. Hence, the defense of the accused is not believable.
21. Further contention of the accused that, in the year 2014-2016 complainant approached the accused for financial assistance hence, accused paid of Rs.15,000/- by way of cash and transferred the amount of Rs.3,83,000/-. Like this accused has paid total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant. It is denied by the complainant. According to the accused, he paid the amount of Rs.15,000/- by way of cash and he transferred the amount of Rs.3,83,000/-. If it is really true, it is calculated it comes to around Rs.3,98,000/-. There is no any explanation by the accused what about remaining amount of Rs.2,000/- as to whether he has paid the said amount in cash or in other mode. In the absence of proper explanation and documentary evidence, the defence of the accused is not believable.
SCCH-9 22 CC.No.13099/2016
22. Further the Learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that during the cross examination of PW.1 he admitted that, the accused has transferred the amount of Rs.2 lakh. In this regard, perused the cross- examination of PW.1 he deposed that, "2014-2015 ರ ಅವಧಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ಧನಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿ ಯವರ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ಸುಮಾರು 4 ರಿಂದ 5 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಆರೋಪಿ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು 2 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣ ಹಾಕಿರಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾ ಈ ವ್ಯವಹಾರಕ್ಕೂ ಮೊದಲೇ ಕೈ ಸಾಲ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದರು ಆ ಹಣ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು".
23. As above, though the accused deposed that the accused has transferred the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- to his wife account, he clearly deposed that the said amount transferred towards earlier transaction. When the PW.1 denied the suggestion of the accused, it is the burden upon the accused to prove the same. But the accused failed to prove his defence through cogent evidence. Hence, there is no reason to believe the arguments of the SCCH-9 23 CC.No.13099/2016 learned counsel for the accused.
24. Further accused has taken the defence that the complainant has misused his security cheque and stamp paper. If it is really true, he would have taken legal action against the complainant. But till today the accused has not taken any legal action against the complainant. Admittedly accused is businessman, he is not an illiterate person. He is well known effect of the issuance of blank signed cheque and stamp papers. Even though he has not taken any legal action against the complainant to get back the signed blank cheque and stamp papers. Hence, the defence is not believable that the complainant has mis-used his blank signed cheque and stamp paper.
25. In the present case, the complainant contended that the accused has borrowed Rs.20,00,000/- and issued the disputed cheque for legally recoverable debt. In support of his defence, he relied upon the disputed cheque and other SCCH-9 24 CC.No.13099/2016 documents. Ex.P1 is a disputed cheque, accused has clearly admitted that disputed cheque and signature on the cheque belongs to him. Further, issuance of cheque is not in dispute, it is presumed that the accused has issued the disputed cheque for legally recoverable debt. However, it is rebuttable presumption, accused can rebut the presumption by raising the probable defence with documentary evidence. In the present case though the accused tried to rebut the presumption arised in favour of the complainant by taking several defence during the cross-examination of PW.1 as well as his defence evidence, but he failed to rebut the presumption arose in favour of the complainant. Mere defence is not sufficient in the absence of cogent oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the defences of the accused were not believable. The complainant has clearly established his case through cogent, oral and documentary evidence
26. In the present case, the complainant is clearly SCCH-9 25 CC.No.13099/2016 established that, the accused is issued the disputed cheque for legally recoverable debt and accused is committed the offences punishable under Section 138 of N I Act by issuing the disputed cheque. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
27. POINT NO.2: As discussed in point No.1, the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused. It is worth to note that the offence is of the nature of quasi civil and quasi criminal wrong. Hence, it is proper to award sentence of fine only instead of imposing sentence of imprisonment to the accused. At this juncture, it is worth to place the reliance of recent decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2020 (1) SCC 283 Kalamani Text. and another V/s. P Balasubramaniam, Wherein the Hon'ble Apex court at head note D has held that Negotiable Instrument Act 1881- Sec. 138 - compensation under - there needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding it compensation SCCH-9 26 CC.No.13099/2016 and unless there exist special circumstance, the court should uniformly Levy fine of up to the double of cheque amount along with simple interest at 9%. So considering the pendency of the case from 2016 and the loan transaction this court feels an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- can be awarded as compensation to the complainant, which would meet the ends of justice. Thus for the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255[2] of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence Punishable U/s. 138 of the N.I. Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay total fine amount of Rs.25,05,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, accused shall under go Simple Imprisonment for a period six months.
After deposit of fine amount an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- shall be paid to SCCH-9 27 CC.No.13099/2016 the Complainant as compensation as provided U/s.357(3) Cr.P.C. The remaining Rs.5,000/- be appropriated to the state as fine.
The bail bond of the accused is hereby stand cancelled.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith. (Dictated to the stenographer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of August, 2025.) (Nirmala.M.C) Court of Small Causes, Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of
complainant:
PW1 Sri. Ramanna
CW1 Sri. G.Purushotham
List of Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P1 Cheque
Ex.P1(a) Signature of accused
SCCH-9 28 CC.No.13099/2016
Ex.P2 Bank endorsement
Ex.P3 Copy of Notice
Ex.P4 Postal receipt
Ex.P5 Letter to postal department
Ex.P6 Reply notice
Ex.P7-19 13 rent and lease agreement
Ex.C1 Letter of Postal department
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
DW.1 Sri. Chandrashekar.B.G List of documents marked on behalf of accused:
Ex.D.1 Letter by accused to SBM
Ex.D.2 Statement of account
Ex.D.3 2 postal receipts
Ex.D.4 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.D.5 Reply notice
(Nirmala.M.C)
Court of Small Causes,
Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru. .