Bangalore District Court
Pradeepa H J vs D C Ramesh Kumar on 24 March, 2026
KABC0C0493862024
IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2026
Present: SANTHOSH S.KUNDER., B.A.,LL.M.,
XIV Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 of Cr.P.C
C.C.No.65128/2024
Complainant Mr.Pradeepa.H.J.,
S/o Janardhan,
R/at No.704, 4th 'A' Main Road,
Hebbal H.A Forum,
Bengaluru-560024.
(By Sri.M.Basavaiah &
Sri.V.Shantha Kumar, Advocates)
V/s
Accused Mr.D.C.Ramesh Kumar,
S/o D.N.Chandrashekar,
R/at No.154, Anjenya Temple Road,
Behind Primary School,
Dantaramukki, Jyothi Nagar,
Chikkamangalore-577102.
(By Sri.K.N.Theertha Kumar, Advocate)
Offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the Pleaded not guilty
accused
Final Order Accused is held guilty & convicted
2
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
This complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C,
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Complaint averments in brief:
2.1. Complainant knows the accused through his
friend-Mr.Sharath D.R., for the past two years. Accused
was intending to form layout at Chikmagalur. He has
approached the complainant in the month of March 2024
seeking financial assistance of ₹5,00,000/- for the
purpose of development of layout and to sell the sites. He
had agreed to return the money within three months.
Further, he has undertaken that if money is not returned,
he would allot a site measuring 30 X 40 at Chikmagaluru.
Based on the assurance and considering the requirements
of the accused, complainant has arranged funds and lent
₹5,00,000/- to accused on 20.03.2024.
2.2. However, after borrowing money, accused
never contacted the complainant till the end of May 2024
and thereby failed to return the money within the agreed
time. He has also failed to allot site in favour of the
complainant. He went on postponing the event of
repayment on one or the other pretext. Finally, he has
issued cheque bearing No.208355 dated 07.06.2024 for
₹5,00,000/-, drawn on IDBI Bank, K.B.G. Buildings, M.G.
Road, Chikmagaluru branch, favouring the complainant.
3
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
2.3. Complainant has presented the said cheque for
encashment in RBL Bank Ltd., HRBR Layout, Bengaluru.
But, it was returned unpaid for the reason 'advice not
received', vide endorsement dated 11.06.2024. Left with
no other alternative, complainant has issued a legal notice
dated 25.06.2024, calling upon the accused to pay the
cheque amount. After service of notice, accused has
issued false and baseless reply dated 16.07.2024. Hence,
this complaint is filed.
3. This court took cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Complainant
was examined on oath. As prima facie case made out,
criminal case was registered and accused was summoned.
4. Pursuant to the process, accused has
appeared before the court and admitted to bail. After
compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C, this court recorded
his plea. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. On the same day, his statement under Section 313
of Cr.P.C., recorded. He has denied the incriminating
evidence
5. Sworn statement affidavit of complainant
treated as evidence post-cognizance stage. Documents at
Ex.P-1 to 6 marked for complainant.
6. In defence, accused has examined himself as
DW-1 and produced documents at Ex.D-1 to 8.
4
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
7. Learned counsels for both side have filed notes
of argument. In addition to notes of argument, learned
defence counsel has addressed oral argument.
8. Accused has relied on following judgments:-
(i) Rangappa Vs. Sri.Mohan
(2010) 11 SCC 441; and
(ii) APS Forex Services Private Limited
V/s Shakti International Fashion Linkers;
(2020) 12 SCC 724
9. Points for consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant has proved
that the accused has issued cheque
bearing No.208355 dated 07.06.2024 for
₹5,00,000/-, drawn on IDBI Bank, M.G
Road, Chikmagaluru branch, towards
discharge of legally recoverable
debt/liability and the said cheque was
dishonored for the reason 'advice not
received' and in spite of service
of statutory notice dated 25.06.2024, he
has failed pay the amount covered under
the cheque and thereby committed the
offence punishable under Section 138 of
N.I.Act?
2. What order?
10. The above points are answered as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 : As per final order; for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1:- The complainant is contending
that, he has lent ₹5,00,000/- to accused on 20.03.2024.
5
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
Towards discharge of said liability, accused has drawn the
subject cheque, which was returned unpaid for the reason
'advice not received' vide endorsement dated 11.06.2024.
Thereafter, complainant has issued a demand notice
dated 25.06.2024 calling upon upon the accused to pay
the cheque amount. But, in spite of service of demand
notice, accused has failed to pay the cheque amount.
12. In order to prove the case, the complainant has
offered his evidence. He has filed affidavit reiterating the
complaint averments. Of documents marked for the
complainant, Ex.P-1 is cheque; Ex.P-2 is bank
endorsement; Ex.P-3 is copy of the legal notice dated
25.06.2024; Ex.P-4 is postal receipt; Ex.P-5 is track
consignment report; Ex.P6 is reply notice.
13. In order to substantiate the defence, accused
has entered the witness to examine himself as DW-1 and
got marked Ex.D1 to 8. Defence of the accused is that
complainant is a total stranger and that he gave six
cheques (including subject cheques) to one Sharath of his
village, towards security for the chit business which he
had with him.
14. Of defence documents, Ex.D1 is certified copy
of complaint in PCR No.61/2023 filed by Sharath D.R
against the accused herein before JMFC at Chikmagaluru;
Ex.D2 is certified copy of cheque bearing No.958527 and
bank endorsements; Ex.D3 is certified copy of order sheet
6
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
in PCR No.198/2022 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC,
Mudigere, filed by one Chandramouli against the accused
herein; Ex.D3(a) is marked portion of Ex.D3; Ex.D4 is
copy of reply notice (same as Ex.P6); Ex.D5 is certified
copy of complaint in C.C.No.900/2023 filed by one
Basavaraju S/o Thimmappa on the file of Civil Judge and
JMFC, Kadur against the accused herein; Ex.D6 and 7 are
certified copies of subject cheque and bank endorsement
in C.C.No.900/2023; Ex.D8 is notice dated 11.07.2023
sent by one Bhanu Prathap to the accused herein in
respect of dishonor of cheque bearing No.268646.
15. Now coming to the cross-examination of PW-1,
where it is elicited that the complainant is working as
Manager for the past 10 years in Mad Vonut Company. It
is elicited that complainant draws salary of ₹48,000/- per
month. It is elicited that complainant spends about
₹10,000/- towards family expenses and that he is
spending ₹3,000/- towards maintenance of his two-
wheeler. It is elicited that one Sharath is his friend who is
resident of Chikmagaluru whereas, complainant is a
resident of Mysore. PW-1 has reiterated that he came in
acquaintance with accused through said Sharath. PW-1
has stated that accused has introduced himself by saying
that he is forming a layout. PW-1 has stated that he had
been to Chikmagaluru for about 20-25 times as it is a
tourist place. PW-1 has asserted that the accused had
7
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
accompanied Sharath in March 2024. He has stated that
perhaps it is on 20th March. PW-1 has asserted that
accused has not shown the documents pertaining to the
layout. He has stated that said layout is situated about 5
K.M away from Chikmagalur town. PW-1 has asserted
that he has borrowed ₹2,00,000/- from his friend Bhanu
Prathap in order to lend money to accused. He has also
asserted that he had ready cash of ₹3,00,000/- with him.
PW-1 has asserted that accused gave signed undated filled
cheque on the day when the money was lent. It is elicited
that the complainant himself has filled the date in the
cheque.
16. PW-1 was further cross-examined on
03.04.2025. It is elicited that complainant is spending
₹40,000/- per year for the education of his son who is
studying in 5th Standard. PW-1 has pleaded ignorance to
the suggestion that Sharath D.R was doing chit business
in Chikmagaluru in the year 2019-20. He has denied the
suggestion that Ex.P1 is the one of the cheques which was
taken by said Sharath from the accused for security. He
has also denied the suggestion that Sharath has filed
cheque dishonor case against the accused in
Chikmagaluru court by misusing one of the cheques.
PW-1 has pleaded ignorance to the suggestion that one
Ganesh has filed the cheque-dishonor case against the
accused in Arasikere court by misusing the other cheque.
8
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
He has pleaded ignorance to the suggestion that
Basavaraj, a relative of Sharath has filed a cheque-
dishonor case against the accused in Kadur Court. PW-1
has also pleaded ignorance to the suggestion that Sharath
has got filed another cheque-dishonor case against the
accused in Chikkanayakanahalli court through one
Rangadhamaiah. PW-1 has admitted the suggestion that
he has seen the accused for the first time in the court and
that he has never seen him anywhere. PW-1 has denied
the suggestion that the accused has never borrowed loan
of ₹5,00,000/- and that cheque was not issued to him.
17. During chief-examination, DW-1 has deposed
that he does not know the complainant. He has deposed
that one Sharath, Co-Villager, was running chit business
in the year 2019-20 with whom he had invested money in
two chits. DW-1 has deposed that when he had taken
money from the said chits, Sharath had taken six cheques
for security. However, he has failed to return the cheques
after closure of those chits. Subsequently, there was
misunderstanding between the accused and Sharath
which culminated in filing of cheque-dishonor case which
is registered as C.C.No.196/2023 in Chikmagaluru court.
He has also deposed the one Chandramouli has filed
PCR.No.198/2022 (C.C.No.995/2022) against him in
Mudigere court in which he has appeared before the court
on 20.03.2024. Therefore, say of the complainant that he
9
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
has lent money on 20.03.2024 in Bengaluru is false.
DW-1 has further deposed that apart from above said two
cases, Sharath has got filed cheque-dishonor cases
through one Basavaraj, Rangadhamaiah, Ganesh and
Manjunath in various courts. He has also deposed that he
has not borrowed money from the complainant and that
he has never issued cheque to him. With these, he has
prayed for acquittal.
18. Learned counsel for the complainant has
cross-examined DW-1. It is elicited that accused has
passed out SSLC. He has admitted the signature on the
cheque. He has also admitted that the cheque belongs to
his savings bank account. He has admitted that in a
cheque-dishonor case filed by one Rangadhamaiah in
Chikkanayakanahalli Court, he was convicted and
sentenced to pay fine of ₹10,00,000/-. Accused has
volunteered that he has filed appeal challenging the said
judgment. He has denied the suggestion that he is in the
habit of borrowing loan and not repaying it. He has also
denied the suggestion that he has cheated the
complainant too by not repaying the loan that was
borrowed.
19. Upon going through the evidence placed on
record, it is evident that the accused has admitted his
signature on the cheque. He has also admitted that the
cheque belongs to his bank account. Relevant portion of
10
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
deposition of DW-1 dated 17.11.2025 is extracted as
under:-
"XXXX ನನಗೆ ಈಗ ತೋರಿಸಿದ ನಿಪಿ-1 ಚೆಕ್ಕಿನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನಿಪಿ-
1(ಎ) ಸಹಿ ನನ್ನದೇ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆ ಚೆಕ್ಕು ನನ್ನ ಉಳಿತಾಯ ಖಾತೆಗೆ
ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಿದೆ. XXXXX"
20. Nevertheless, accused is contending that he
has handed over the cheque(s) to one Sharath in relation
to chit business. He is contending that he gave six
cheques to said Sharath for security. He is also
contending that he does not know the complainant at all.
Relevant portion of deposition of DW-1 dated 16.09.2025
is extracted as under:-
"1. ನನಗೆ ದೂರುದಾರರ ಪರಿಚಯ ಇಲ್ಲ. ನಮ್ಮ ಗ್ರಾಮದ
ಶರತ್ ಎನ್ನುವವರು 2019-20 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಚೀಟಿ ವ್ಯವಹಾರ
ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ನಾನು ಅವರ ಬಳಿ ಎರಡು ಚೀಟಿ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದೆ. ಒಂದು
ಚೀಟಿ ರೂ.3 ಲಕ್ಷದ್ದು, ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಚೀಟಿ ರೂ.2 ಲಕ್ಷದ್ದಾಗಿತ್ತು.
ಚೀಟಿ ಹಣ ಕೂಗಿದಾಗ, ಹಣದ ಭದ್ರತೆಗಾಗಿ ಅವರಿಗೆ ನಾನು ಆರು
ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೆ. ಅವುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ State Bank of
India, IDBI Bank ಮತ್ತು Canara Bank,
ಚಿಕ್ಕಮಗಳೂರು ಶಾಖೆಯ ತಲಾ ಎರಡು ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳು ಇದ್ದವು. ಚೀಟಿ
ಮುಗಿದ ನಂತರ ಆ ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ವಾಪಸ್ಸು ಕೊಡುವಂತೆ ನಾನು
ಶರತ್ ರವರನ್ನು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಅವರು ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು
ಹಿಂತಿರುಗಿಸಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಚೀಟಿ ಬಾಬ್ತು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಹಣವನ್ನು
ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೀರಿ, ಅದನ್ನು ವಾಪಸ್ಸು ಕೊಡಿ ಎಂದು ನಾನು
ಅವರನ್ನು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದ ಹಿನ್ನೆಲೆಯಲ್ಲೆ ಅವರು ನನ್ನೊಂದಿಗೆ ಜಗಳ
ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು. XXXX"
21. Thus, the defence of the accused is that he
gave the cheques to Sharath in relation to chit business.
Interestingly, there is no whisper, either in the cross-
examination of PW-1 or in the evidence of DW-1 as to
11
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
when the cheques were parted with Sharath and when the
alleged chits were closed. Accused is contending that said
Sharath parted the cheques with Chandramouli,
Basavaraj, Rangadhamaiah, Ganesh, Manjunath and the
complainant herein who filed cheque-dishonor cheques in
various courts including the present one. In the cross-
examination of DW-1, it is elicited that in the cheque-
dishonor case filed by Rangadhamaiah in
Chikkanayakanahalli court ended in conviction
challenging which he has filed appeal. In reply notice at
Ex.D4/Ex.P6, accused has contended that he had
financial transaction with said Sharath and that even
after repayment of entire money, he has not returned the
cheques and the same are misused. He has also narrated
in detail about complaints filed against him by various
persons.
22. Though, the accused is contending that he
gave the cheques to Sharath and that those cheques were
not returned, significantly, no action is initiated against
Sharath. It is pertinent to note that the accused has not
issued notice to said Sharath demanding return of the
cheque(s). It is pertinent to note that even after filing of
the present complaint, accused has not taken any steps
against Sharath. This creates doubt in the defence set up
by the accused.
12
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
23. Assuming for a moment that Sharath has
parted with the cheques of the accused with many
persons and got filed cheque-dishonor cases, an ordinary
prudent man will not keep quite without taking any action
against the person(s) who has misused the cheque(s). But
strangely, in the present case no such action is taken by
the accused. As noted above, in one of the cheque-
dishonor cases, filed by Rangadhamaiah, accused was
convicted.
24. In the instant case, accused having admitted
his signature on the cheque, burden is on him to establish
that cheque is not issued to the complainant towards
discharge of any liability/debt. It is trite that once
signature of an accused on the cheque is proved or
established, then 'reverse onus' clauses become operative.
In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused
to discharge the presumption imposed upon him.
Therefore, burden is on the accused to discharge the
mandatory presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of
NI Act.
25. In order to falsify the case of the complainant
that the money was lent on 20.03.2024, accused has
produced certified copy of order sheet in PCR
No.198/2022 (C.C.No.995/2022) on the file of Civil Judge
and JMFC, Mudigere, which is marked at Ex.D3.
Particularly, order sheet dated 20.03.2024, which is
13
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
marked at Ex.D3(a) is relied to contend that accused was
very much present in the said court and therefore, there
was no occasion for him come to Bengaluru. In the
context, it is necessary to note that, it is not the case of
the complainant that money was lent in Bengaluru. At the
same time, there is no pleading in the complaint regarding
place of lending of money. However, this does not mean
that money was not at all lent. Therefore, Ex.D3(a) will not
come to the aid of the accused to disprove lending of
money.
26. In matters relating to offence under Section
138 of the Act, the complainant is required to establish
that the cheque is genuine, presented within time and
upon it being dishonoured, due notice was sent within 30
days of such dishonour, to which repayment must be
received within 15 days, failing which a complaint can be
preferred by the complainant within one month as
contemplated under Section 142(1)(b) of the Act.
27. In Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel,
[(2022) 11 SCC 705], Hon'ble Supreme Court has
highlighted the ingredients forming the basis of the
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act in the following
structure:
"(i) The drawing of a cheque by person on
do account maintained by him with the
banker for the payment of any amount of
money to another from that account;
14
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
(ii) The cheque being drawn for the
discharge in whole or in part of any debt or
other liability;
(iii) Presentation of the cheque to the bank
arranged to be paid from that account;
(iv) The return of the cheque by the drawee
bank as unpaid either because the amount
of money standing to the credit of that
account is insufficient to honour the cheque
or that it exceeds the amount;
(v) A notice by the payee or the holder in
due course making a demand for the
payment of the amount to the drawer of the
cheque within 30 days of the receipt of
information from the bank in regard to the
return of the cheque; and;
(vi) The drawer of the cheque failing to
make payment of the amount of money to
the payee or the holder in due course
within 15 days of the receipt of the notice."
28. In K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan
Balan, [(1999) 7 SCC 510], the Hon'ble Court had
summarised the constituent elements of the offence in
similar terms by holding:
"14. The offence Under Section 138 of the
Act can be completed only with the
concatenation of a number of acts. The
following are the acts which are
components of the said offence: (1) drawing
of the cheque, (2) presentation of the
15
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
cheque to the bank, (3) returning the
cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4)
giving notice in writing to the drawer of the
cheque demanding payment of the cheque
amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make
payment within 15 days of the receipt of
the notice."
29. In Rangappa (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that, ordinarily in cheque bouncing cases, what the
courts have to consider is whether the ingredients of the
offence enumerated in Section 138 of the Act have been
met and if so, whether the accused was able to rebut the
statutory presumption contemplated by Section 139 of the
Act.
30. The NI Act provides for two presumptions:-
Section 118 and Section 139. Section 118 of the Act inter
alia directs that it shall be presumed, until the contrary is
proved, that every negotiable instrument was made or
drawn for consideration. Section 139 of the Act stipulates
that "unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed,
that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, for the
discharge of, whole or part of any debt or liability".
Because Section 139 requires that the court "shall
presume" the fact stated therein, it is obligatory on the
court to raise this presumption in every case where the
factual basis for the raising of the presumption has been
establish. Therefore, the court will necessarily presume
16
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
that the cheque is issued towards discharge of a legally
enforceable debt/liability in two circumstances. Firstly,
when the drawer of the cheque admits issuance/execution
of the cheque and secondly, in the event where the
complainant proves that the cheque was issued/executed
in his favour by the drawer. The circumstances set out
above form the fact(s) which bring about the activation of
the presumptive Clause. [Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg.Co.
V/s Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35].
31. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hiten P.Dalal
V.Bratindranath Banerjee: (2001) 6 SCC 16, it was held
that:
"22. Because both Sections 138 and
139 require that the Court "shall
presume" the liability of the drawer of
the cheques for the amounts for which
the cheques are drawn, as noted in
State of Madras vs.A.Vaidyanatha Iyer
AIR 1958 SC 61, it is obligatory on the
Court to raise this presumption in every
case where the factual basis for the
raising of the presumption had been
established. "It introduces an exception
to the general rule as to the burden of
proof in criminal cases and shifts the
onus on to the accused" (ibid). Such a
presumption is a presumption of law,
as distinguished from a presumption of
fact which describes provisions by
which the court 'may presume" a
certain state of affairs. Presumptions
are rules of evidence and do not conflict
17
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
with the presumption of innocence,
because by the latter all that is meant
is that the prosecution is obliged to
prove the case against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. The
obligation on the prosecution may be
discharged with the help of
presumptions of law or fact unless the
accused adduces evidence showing the
reasonable possibility of the
nonexistence of the presumed fact."
32. In Krishna Janadhan Bhat V/s Dattatraya
G.Hegde; (2008) 4 SCC 54, Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that:-
"The presumption mandated by Section 139
includes a presumption that there exists a
legally enforceable debt or liability . 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."
33. In M/s Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets,
(2009) 2 SCC 513, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:-
"20. The accused in a trial under
Section 138 of the Act has two options.
He can either show that consideration
and debt did not exist or that under
the particular circumstances of the
case the non existence of
consideration and debt is so probable
that a prudent man ought to suppose
18
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
that no consideration and debt
existed. To rebut the statutory
presumptions an accused is not
expected to prove his defence beyond
reasonable doubt as is expected of the
complainant in a criminal trial. The
accused may adduce direct evidence
to prove that the note in question was
not supported by consideration and
that there was no debt or liability to be
discharged by him. However, the
Court need not insist in every case
that the accused should disprove the
nonexistence of consideration and
debt by leading direct evidence
because the existence of negative
evidence is neither possible nor
contemplated. At the same time, it is
clear that bare denial of the passing of
the consideration and existence of
debt, apparently would not serve the
purpose of the accused. Something
which is probable has to be brought on
record for getting the burden of proof
shifted to the complainant. To disprove
the presumptions, the accused should
bring on record such facts and
circumstances, upon consideration of
which, the Court may either believe
that the consideration and debt did
not exist or their nonexistence was so
probable that a prudent man would
under the circumstances of the case,
act upon the plea that they did not
exist. Apart from adducing direct
evidence to prove that the note in
question was not supported by
consideration or that he had not
19
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
incurred any debt or liability, the
accused may also rely upon
circumstantial evidence and if the
circumstances so relied upon are
compelling, the burden may likewise
shift again on the complainant. The
accused may also rely upon
presumptions of fact, for instance,
those mentioned in Section 114 of the
Evidence Act to rebut the
presumptions arising under Sections
118 and 139 of the Act."
34. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418, it was
held that:-
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid
down by this Court in above cases on
Sections 118(a) and 139, we now
summarise the principles enumerated
by this Court in following manner:
(i) Once the execution of cheque is
admitted Section 139 of the Act
mandates a presumption that the
cheque was for the discharge of any
debt or other liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139
is a rebuttable presumption and the
onus is on the accused to raise the
probable defence. The standard of
proof for rebutting the presumption is
that of preponderance of probablities.
20
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open
for the accused to rely on evidence led
by him or accused can also rely on the
materials submitted by the
complainant in order to raise a
probable defence. Inference of
preponderance of probabilities can be
drawn not only from the materials
brought on record by the parties but
also by reference to the circumstances
upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the
accused to come in the witness box in
support of his defence, Section 139
imposed an evidentiary burden and not
a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to
come in the witness box to support his
defence."
35. In Kalamani Tex and Anr. V/s
Balasubramanian, 2021 SCC Online SC 75, Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that:
"14. Adverting to the case in hand, we
find on a plain reading of its judgment
that the trial Court completely
overlooked the provisions and failed to
appreciate the statutory presumption
drawn under Section 118 and Section
139 of NIA. The Statute mandates that
once the signature (s) of an accused on
the cheque/negotiable instrument are
established, then these 'reverse onus'
clauses become operative. In such a
21
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
situation, the obligation shifts upon the
accused to discharge the presumption
imposed upon him."
36. In Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel V/s State of
Gujarath [(2019) 18 SCC 106], the Hon'ble Apex Court
reiterated the legal position that once the complainant is
successful in discharging his initial burden to prove
issuance of cheque by the accused with his signature, the
presumption under Section 139 of NI Act would arise and
the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the legal
presumption. The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the
degree of proof to rebut the presumption on the part of
the accused and held in paragraph 18 as under:
"18. In the case at hand, even after
purportedly drawing the presumption
under Section 139 of the NI Act, the trial
court proceeded to question the want of
evidence on the part of the complainant as
regards the source of funds for advancing
loan to the accused and want of
examination of relevant witnesses who
allegedly extended him money for
advancing it to the accused. This approach
of the trial court had been at variance with
the principles of presumption in law. After
such presumption, the onus shifted to the
accused and unless the accused had
discharged the onus by bringing on record
such facts and circumstances as to show
the preponderance of probabilities tilting in
his favour, any doubt on the complainant's
case could not have been raised for want
22
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
of evidence regarding the source of funds
for advancing loan to the appellant-
accused....."
37. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjabij Tari V/s
Kishore S.Borcar & Another; (2025) SCC OnLine SC
2069, held as under:-
"15. In the present case, the cheque in
question has admittedly been signed by the
Respondent No.1-Accused. This Court is of the
view that once the execution of the cheque is
admitted, the presumption under Section 118
of the NI Act that the cheque in question was
drawn for consideration and the presumption
under Section 139 of the NI Act that the holder
of the cheque received the said cheque in
discharge of a legally enforceable debt or
liability arises against the accused. It is
pertinent to mention that observations to the
contrary by a two Judges Bench in Krishna
Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde,
(2008) 4 SCC 54 have been set aside by a
three Judges Bench in Rangappa (supra).
16. This Court is further of the view that by
creating this presumption, the law reinforces
the reliability of cheques as a mode of
payment in commercial transactions.
17. Needless to mention that the presumption
contemplated under Section 139 of the NI Act,
is a rebuttable presumption. However, the
initial onus of proving that the cheque is not in
discharge of any debt or other liability is on
the accused/drawer of the cheque [See: Bir
Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197].
23
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
XXXXX
21. This Court also takes judicial notice of the
fact that some District Courts and some High
Courts are not giving effect to the
presumptions incorporated in Sections 118
and 139 of NI Act and are treating the
proceedings under the NI Act as another civil
recovery proceedings and are directing the
complainant to prove the antecedent debt or
liability. This Court is of the view that such an
approach is not only prolonging the trial but is
also contrary to the mandate of Parliament,
namely, that the drawer and the bank must
honour the cheque, otherwise, trust in cheques
would be irreparably damaged."
38. From the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
judgments, it is clear that for the offence under Section
138 of the Act, the mandatory presumptions under
Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of N.I.Act have to be
raised as soon as execution of cheque by the accused is
admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter,
burden shifts on the accused to prove otherwise.
39. In the instant case, as noted above, accused
has admitted his signature on the cheque which is
indisputably dishonored for the reason 'advise not
received', vide endorsement at Ex.P2 dated 11.06.2024.
Thereafter, complainant has got issued demand notice,
dated 25.06.2024, a copy of which is at Ex.P3, calling the
accused to pay the dishonored cheque amount. Said
24
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
notice served on the accused on 29.06.2024 and the
accused has issued reply Ex.P6/D4 denying his liability
under the cheque. He has not complied with the demand
made in the notice. Therefore, all ingredients of the
offence have been satisfied. The complaint is filed well in
time.
40. In Rangappa's case (supra) Hon'ble Supreme
Court has elucidated the nature of the presumption under
Section 139, emphasizing his rebuttal character and the
onus it places on the accused to disprove the existence of
a debt. In the present case, accused did not contest his
signature on the cheque, thereby triggering the
presumption of an enforceable debt under Section 139.
Section 139 introduces a rebuttable presumption that the
cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. This
shifts the burden on the accused to disprove the existence
of such a liability. If the accused fails to substantiate the
defence by leading evidence, the court has no option but
to convict the accused.
41. In APS Forex Servies Private Limited
(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the legal
principles enshrined in Sections 138 and 139 of the NI
Act. In the instant case, except self-serving statement that
the cheques were given to Sharath, nothing is placed on
record to substantiate the same. Of course, there are
minor contradiction in the cross-examination of PW-1
25
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
where it is elicited that Sharath has given information to
file the complaint. The said minor contradiction is not
fatal to the complainant's case as the accused has not
produced evidence to substantiate that the cheques were
given to Sharath as security. It is pertinent to note that
the accused has not made an attempt to summon said
Sharath in order to substantiate the defence. On the other
hand, complainant has produced sufficient evidence to
prove that cheque was given by the accused towards
discharge of legally enforceable debt. Therefore, this court
holds that the complainant has proved that the accused
has committed the offence punishable under Section 138
of N.I.Act. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the
Affirmative.
42. Point No.2:-Punishment prescribed for the
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
is imprisonment for a period which may extend to two
years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount
of the cheque or with both. Object of Chapter-XVII of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, which prescribes punishment
for the dishonour of the cheque is both punitive as well as
compensatory and restitutive. In R.Vijayan V/s Baby and
another (AIR 2012 SC 528), Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that Chapter-XVII of the N.I. Act is an unique
exercise which blurs the dividing line between civil and
criminal jurisdictions and it provides a single forum and
26
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
single proceeding for enforcement of criminal liability and
also for the enforcement of the civil liability i.e., for
realization of the cheque amount and thereby obviating
the need for the creditor to move to different forums for
the relief. Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that the
apparent intention is to ensure that not only the offender
is punished, but also ensure that the complainant
invariably receives the amount of cheque along with
compensation. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further
observed that a stage has reached when most of the
complainants in particular the financial institutions view
the proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act as a
proceeding for recovery of the cheque amount and
therefore, the punishment of the drawer of the cheque for
the offence of dishonour become secondary. The said
judgment is relied by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
M/s. Banavathy & Company V.s Mahaeer Electro Mech
(P) Ltd., and others, (NC: 2025:KHC:25140).
43. Keeping in mind the principles laid down in
the aforesaid judgments, sentence has to be passed. In
the present case, money was lent on 20.03.2024. Cheque
is dated 07.06.2024. Having regard to the date of lending
of loan and date of cheque and keeping in mind the
provision contained in Section 80 of NI Act, it is a fit case
to impose sentence of fine of ₹6,50,000/- and out of the
said amount, it is just and proper to award a sum of
27
C.C.No.65128/2024
KABC0C0493862024
₹6,45,000/- as compensation to the complainant as
provided under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and the
remaining sum of ₹5,000/- shall be defrayed to State. In
view of the findings recorded above, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of ₹6,50,000/-. In default to pay fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Out of the realized fine amount, a sum of ₹6,45,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and the remaining sum of ₹5,000/- shall be defrayed to State.
Bail bonds executed by accused shall stand cancelled.
Office to supply a free copy of this judgment to accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th day of March, 2026) Digitally signed by SANTHOSH S SANTHOSH KUNDER S KUNDER Date: 2026.03.24 17:18:36 +0530 ( SANTHOSH S.KUNDER ) XIV Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
28C.C.No.65128/2024 KABC0C0493862024 ANNEXURE List of witness examined for the complainant:
PW.1 Mr.Pradeepa.H.J List of documents marked for the Complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque Ex.P.1(a) Signature of the accused Ex.P.2 Bank endorsement Ex.P.3 Copy of legal notice dated 25.06.2024 Ex.P.4 Postal receipt Ex.P.5 Track consignment report Ex.P.6 Reply notice List of witness examined for the defence:
DW.1 D.C.Ramesh Kumar List of documents marked for the defence:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of complaint PCR No.61/2023 filed by Sharath D.R against the accused herein before JMFC at Chikmagaluru Ex.D.2 Certified copy of cheque bearing No.958527 and bank endorsements Ex.D.3 Certified copy of order sheet in PCR No.198/2022 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere filed by on Chandramouli against the accused herein Ex.D.3(a) Marked portion of Ex.D3 Ex.D.4 Copy of reply notice (same as Ex.P6) Ex.D.5 Certified copy of complaint in 29 C.C.No.65128/2024 KABC0C0493862024 C.C.No.900/2023 filed by one Basavaraju S/o Thimmappa on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur against the accused herein Ex.D.6 & 7 Certified copies of subject cheque and bank endorsement in C.C.No.900/2023 Ex.D.8 Notice dated 11.07.2023 sent by one Bhanu Prathap to the accused herein in respect of dishonor of cheque bearing No.268646 Digitally signed by SANTHOSH S SANTHOSH KUNDER S KUNDER Date: 2026.03.24 17:18:28 +0530 XIV Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru.