Bangalore District Court
Arun Kumara B L vs Ramesh C on 19 January, 2026
1
CC.NO.18880/2018
KABC030509832018
Presented on : 10-07-2018
Registered on : 10-07-2018
Decided on : 19-01-2026
Duration : 7 years, 6
months, 9 days
IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2026.
:Present:
Smt. Dhanalakshmi.R
XII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore.
CC.No.18880/2018
Complainant : Sri.Arun Kumara.B.L.,
S/o. Lingeshetty
Aged about 35 years,
R/at: No.140,
2nd stage, Sarigenagar,
K.S.R.T.C Layout Nadanahalli,
T.Narasipura Road,
Mysore Taluk
and District- 570028
(By Sri.P.H.S., Advocate)
V/s
Accused : Sri.Ramesh.C
S/o. Sri.Chikkonu
Aged about 36 years,
R/at: No.232, 2nd Floor,
Kembatthana Halli, Gottegere
Main Road & Post,
2
CC.NO.18880/2018
KABC030509832018
Bengaluru-560083
And also Available at
Sri.Ramesh.C.,
S/o. Sri.Chikkonu,
Kallamma
Aged about 36 years,
R/at: 334,
Oppo.Cement Ettige Factory
Belur Village and Post,
Kothathi Hobli, Mandya Taluk,
Mandya District-571404.
(By Sri. =, Advocate)
1. The date of : 07.05.2018
commission of the
offence
2. Date of the filing of 07.07.2018
offence
3. Name of the : Sri.Arun Kumara.B.L
Complainant
4. Date of recording of : 17.02.2023
evidence
5. Date of closing of : 21.08.2025
evidence
6. Offence Complained : 138 of NI Act
of
7. Opinion of the Judge Accused is convicted
8. Date of such order for : 19.01.2026
the following
3
CC.NO.18880/2018
KABC030509832018
JUDGMENT
01. This case is registered U/sec. 200 of Cr.P.C based on the written complaint given by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter called as NI Act for the purpose of brevity).
02. The case of the complainant in brief is as under : -
The complainant and accused are known to each other as they are friends. The accused was running the auto and he used to pick up and drop the children of the complainant at Bangalore. The accused in the first week of May 2017 has approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- for the education purpose of his children and also for other legal necessity. Accordingly, the complainant on 30.05.2017 has 4 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 lent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash. The accused has failed to repay the said amount within a period of 1 or 2 months as agreed by him. After expire of two months, upon insistence the accused on 02.03.2018 has issued cheque bearing No.891232 dt: 02.04.2018 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Guthalu Branch, Mandya to the complainant. And requested the complainant to present the same on 1st week of May 2018. As per the instruction of the accused, when the complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker, the same came to be dishonored on 07.05.2018 with an endorsement as "Funds insufficient". Hence, the complainant on 22.05.2018 issued a legal notice to the accused, informing regarding the dishonour of the cheque and calling upon him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. Inspite of receiving the said 5 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 notice, the accused has not repaid amount. Hence, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
3. On filing of the complaint, cognizance of the offence is taken and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and marked 8 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The complainant has complied all the statutory requirements under Sec.138 of NI Act. Thereafter, the case is registered against the accused and summons issued.
4. On service of summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and he was enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. As per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India & Others reported 6 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 in (2014) 5 SCC 590, this court has treated the sworn statement of the complainant as his evidence. On application filed by the counsel for the accused under Section 145(2) of NI Act, permission was accorded to cross examine PW1. Accordingly, PW1 was cross examined by learned counsel for the accused. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Accused filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief and examined as DW1 and produced 11 documents on his behalf as Ex.D1 to Ex.D11 and examined one witness as DW2 and produced Ex.D12.
05. Heard the learned counsel for complainant. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities the learned counsel for the accused has not addressed his arguments. Perused the records.
7
CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018
06. The following points arise for consideration:
POINTS
1) Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued the cheque for the legally recoverable debt as alleged by him?
2) Whether the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 138 Act?
3) What Order or Sentence?
07. The above points are answered as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative, Point No.2: In the Affirmative, Point No.3: As per the final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
08. POINT No. 1 : This Court is of the opinion that it need not repeat the entire 8 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 averments made in the complaint here also, as this Court has already narrated the same at the inception of this judgment.
9. In order to bring home a liability under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, following elements must spring out from the averments in the complaint and the evidence adduced by the complainant, viz.
1. A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain sum of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability;
2. The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date mentioned on the cheque or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
3. The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid either because the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
9
CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018
4. The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 40 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
5. The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
10. It is well settled that whenever complainant alleges that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, obviously, the complainant has to establish that there was a legally enforceable debt and to discharge the said legally enforceable debt the accused has issued the cheque and subsequently the said cheque has been dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer/accused. Keeping in view of these main and important ingredients of 10 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 Section 138 of NI Act, this Court proceeds to discuss the evidence available on record.
11. As been stated above, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1. The PW-1 has filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief under Section 145 of N I Act reiterating the entire averments of the complaint.
12. The cheque at Ex.P1 is dt: 02.04.2018. On perusal of Ex.P-1 makes it clear that it supports the stand taken by the complainant herein. The Ex.P2 is the Bank endorsement discloses that the aforesaid cheque has been dishonoured on 07.05.2018 for the reason of "Funds Insufficient" in the account of the drawer. As per clause (a) of proviso to Section 138 of NI Act the cheque is to be presented for encashment within three months or within the period of its validity from the date on which the cheque issued. 11
CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 The Ex.P1 bares the date 02.04.2018 it was presented on 07.05.2018, which is within the prescribed period.
13. Further, as per clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of N I Act, the complainant is required to issue legal notice, in writing, to the drawer/accused making a demand for repayment of the said cheque amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of information about the dishonor of the cheque. The Ex.P2 is the Bank endorsement dated 07.05.2018. The Ex.P-3 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 22.05.2018 and the Ex.P.4 and Ex.P5 are the postal receipts dt: 22.05.2018. Therefore, the complainant has issued legal notice within 30 days from the date of knowledge of dishonor of cheque. Thus, the provisions of clause
(a) & (b) of proviso to Section 138 of N I Act have been complied with. Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are the Postal Envelops and it shows that the legal notice 12 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 got issued by the complainant is returned on 22.06.2018 as not claimed and on 01.06.2018 as door locked respectively. As per clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of NI Act, the drawer/accused is entitled to have 15 days time to make the payment of the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant was required to wait till 07.07.2018. According to the complainant, no payment was made by the drawer/accused within that period. Thus the cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 07.07.2018. Further the clause
(b) of Section 142 of N I Act makes it clear that the complaint has to be filed within 30 days from the date of cause of action arose. Thus this complaint was required to be filed on or before 06.08.2018. The endorsement made by this Court on the complaint reveals that the complainant presented this complaint on 07.07.2018 and as such, this complaint is well within the time limit. Therefore, 13 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 this Court is of the considered opinion that that the complainant has complied all the necessary components of Section 138 of NI Act.
14. The complainant at paragraph No.3 of the complaint has stated that he and accused are known to each other as they both stay in Bangalore and accused is also running a own auto and he used to pick up and drop the children of the complainant at Bangalore. The accused has denied the said fact but he admitted that he is running his own auto. He stated that the complainant is a stranger to the accused. The complainant by misusing the cheque which is given by the one Hemanth Kumar has filed false case against him. The accused further denied his signature in the cheque at Ex.P1 and stated that he has not signed the cheque in presence of the complainant and he has not issued the said 14 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 cheque to the complainant. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the accused has filed an interim application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer the disputed signature of the accused in Ex.P1 cheque and admitted signature of the accused in his vakalath for scientific investigation. This court, vide order dated 16.12.2023, has held that the case is at the stage of cross-examination of DW1. Since it is the burden on the complainant to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, an opportunity should be given to the complainant to conduct cross examination of DW1 and then consider the interim application. Hence the said interim application is kept in abeyance and will be considered along with merit. The accused has challenged the said order before the Hon'ble LXII, ACC and SJ (CCH-63) Bengaluru in Crl.R.P.No.28/2024. The Hon'ble Appellate Court, vide order dated 11.09.2024 has 15 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the order of this court dt: 16.12.2023 and directed the court to consider the interim application and then to proceed further. Accordingly, this Court on 11.11.2024 by considering the said interim application has rejected the same on the ground that the accused has not produced any document containing his signature which was put by him at the earliest point of time i.e., prior to arising of the dispute between the parties. Hence, no purpose will be served by sending only the vakalath of the accused along with the disputed cheque for FSL.
15. The accused has filed an interim application to summon the Bank Manager to produce the documents such as account opening Form, specimen signature card or Form and letter is given by the accused pertaining to the account number in the State Bank of India, Guthalu 16 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 Branch, Mandya City. The said application is allowed and the Bank Manager examined as DW2 and he has produced Ex.D12 document. Again, the accused has filed another interim application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The said application is allowed by this Court on 11.07.2025. The disputed signature of the accused in Ex.P1(a) and the admitted signature of the accused in Ex.D12 documents is sent to the Truth Lab, Bengaluru. The said Truth Lab report is opened in the open court in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties on 21.08.2025, wherein it is mentioned that the admitted signature is not sufficient to compare the signature of the accused in Ex.P1 cheque. Later the accused has not taken any steps to give his earlier signature to compare the same with Ex.P1 document. Further the Bank Manager who is examined as DW2 has clearly deposed that the 17 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 signature in the cheque at Ex.P1(a) tallies with the specimen signature of the accused in the KYC documents produced by him at Ex.D12. Further, it is to be seen that the cheque at Ex.P1 is not dishonored for the reason 'Drawers signature differs' but for the reason 'Funds insufficient'. Such being the case, the mere denial of the signature of the accused that he has not signed Ex.P1 cheque cannot be considered. Hence 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
16. The accused, in order to rebut the said presumption, has cross examined the complainant 18 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 in detail and also examined himself as DW1 and produced Ex.D1 to D11 respectively. He has also examined the Bank Manager of SBI Branch, Guthalu Branch, Mandya District as DW2 and produced Ex.D12 document. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P. 839/2021 dated 04.12.2021 wherein the conviction order passed against the accused in CC 24760/16 dated 06.09.2019 by this Court and also the Hon'ble LXIV, ACC and SJ (CCH-65) Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.2118/19 dated 12.03.2021 is suspended subject to the conditions imposed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Ex.D2 to Ex.D5 are the study certificates of the son of the accused by name Ramesh C to show that he has studied in the Government School at Beluru. Ex.D6 is the certified copy of the FIR in Crime No.257/2017 pertaining to Channamanakere Achukattu Police 19 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 Station, wherein the accused has given complaint against Hemanth Kumar. Ex.D7 is the certified copy of the private complaint lodged by the accused against Hemanth Kumar. Ex.D8 is the 'B' report pertaining to the complaint lodged by the accused against Hemanth Kumar. Ex.D9 is the certified copy of the Letter dated 08.05.2018 given by the accused to the Bank Manager of State Bank of India, Guthalu Branch, Mandya regarding the 14 cheques snatched by the Hemanth Kumar. Ex.D10 is the acknowledgment dated 05.10.2016 regarding the complaint given by the accused against Hemanth Kumar. Ex.D11 is the certified copy of the details of the three cheques. Ex.D12 is the certified copy of the acknowledgment of stop payment of cheques dt: 08.05.2018 which is produced by the DW2.
17. The accused has filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief. It is the specific defence 20 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 of the accused that the complainant is a strange person to him. He has never had any money transaction with the complainant and he has never issued Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant by signing the same. One Hemanth Kumar has attacked the auto of the accused on 04.10.2016 and has forcibly taken cash of Rs.50,000/-, two ATM cards, cheque book, Pan cards, original voter ID card, Aadhar card, HP gas, original bond papers, house rent agreements and other documents. By misusing the one cheque, the said Hemanth Kumar filed false case against present accused in CC.24760/2016. The accused by challenging the order of conviction against him has filed Criminal Appeal in No.2118/2019 which is also dismissed by the Hon'ble ACC and SJ, Bengaluru. Hence, the accused has filed Criminal Petition No.839/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, wherein the judgment of conviction is 21 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 stayed. The accused has produced the said stay order as per Ex.D1. Further it is stated by the accused that he has given complaint against the said Hemanth Kumar before the Channamanakere Achukattu police station in Crime No.257/2017 as per Ex.D6. But the police have filed 'B' report as per Ex.D8. Hence the accused has filed protest memo and filed private complaint in PCR. No.11917/2016 as per Ex.D7. The said Hemanth Kumar by misusing the another cheque of the accused has given it to the complainant and through him he has filed false case against the accused.
18. The accused has taken a specific defence that he has given complaint to his Banker i.e. ,State Bank of Mysore now it is State Bank of India Guthalu Branch Mandya on 21.10.2016 to stop the payment of the cheques which has been snatched by the said Hemanth Kumar. But the 22 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 Bank officials by colluding with the said Hemanth Kumar has given the endorsement as funds insufficient. The accused has produced a letter dated 08.05.2018 at Ex.D9 which is given by the accused to the Bank Manager of the State Bank of India, Guthalu branch. Further, the accused, by summoning the Bank Manager of the State Bank of India, Guthalu branch, Mandya, has produced the Ex.D12 document which is dated 08.05.2018 wherein it is stated that regarding the Cheque No.891227 to 891240 the accused has given stop payment request on 08.05.2018. It is pertinent to note that both the documents at Ex.D9 and Ex.D12 are dated 08.05.2018 respectively. Whereas the accused in his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination at paragraph No.5 has stated that he has given complaint to his Banker on 21.10.2016 itself. But the accused has not at all produced the said complaint given to his Banker 23 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 regarding stop payment instruction. The accused during his cross-examination dt: 05.12.2024 has categorically admitted that in Ex.D9 there is mention regarding lodging of the complaint on 20.10.2016 to the SBI Bank and he has no hindrance to produce the copy of the said complaint. But the accused has not produced the copy of the complaint given to his Banker regarding stop payment request on 20.10.2016 itself. It is also pertinent to note that the accused during his cross examination dated 16.01.2024 and 05.12.2024 has categorically admitted that after receiving the message from his Banker regarding the dishonour of the cheque for the reason of "insufficient funds" he has given complaint to the Bank. The said admission supports the document produced by the accused at Ex.D9 and the document produced by the Manager of the SBI Branch at Ex.D12 respectively. 24
CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 Further the Bank Manager who is examined as DW2 has clearly deposed that the accused has given stop payment instruction on 08.05.2018 regarding 08 cheques and he has also produced the acknowledgment dt: 06.10.2016 regarding the complaint given to the Police station. Further he has stated that the accused has given stop payment instruction on 2015 and 2017 and they will enter all the details of the cheque regarding the stop payment requisition. The DW2 during his cross-examination has categorically admitted that the accused has not given stop payment requisition pertaining to the Ex.P1 cheque.
19. The accused also admitted that the complaint which he has stated in his chief examination is the Ex.D9 document itself. Hence it is very much clear that the accused has not given stop payment instruction on 21.10.2016 as 25 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 stated in his affidavit, but he has given the stop payment instruction after the dishonour of the Ex.P1 cheque. The accused has also produced a document at Ex.P11 which is taken from the online, wherein the three cheques said to be belonging to the accused are dishonored for the reason stopped. But they said 3 cheques number mentioned in Ex.D11 does not bare the cheque number at Ex.P1. Hence the document at Ex.D11 does not come to the aid of the accused to show that he has given stop payment instruction to his Banker regarding the Ex.P1 cheque. As stated above the Ex.P1 cheque is dishonoured for the reason "funds Insufficient" as per Ex.P2 but for not the reason as "Stop payment". The accused as to show that "stop payment" instruction were not issued because of insufficiency or paucity of funds. If the accused shows that in his account there were sufficient funds to clear the amount of the 26 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 cheque at the time of presentation of the cheque for encashment at the drawer Bank and that the stop payment notice had been issued because of other valid causes including that there was not existing debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque for encahsment, then offence under Section 138 of NI Act would not be made out. The burden of so proving would be on the accused. In the present case as stated above the cheque at Ex.P1 is dishonoured on 07.05.2018 as per Ex.P2 and as admitted by the accused and as per document produced by the accused at Ex.D9 and Ex.D12 the accused after receiving message from his Banker regarding dishonour of the cheque he has given stop payment instruction on 08.05.2018. Hence the contention of the accused that he has given stop payment instruction to his Banker cannot be accepted.
27
CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018
20. The accused has also taken a defence that he had no legal necessity to obtain loan from the complainant as his son has studied at Government School. Hence, he has not borrowed any hand loan from the complainant regarding the education purpose of his children. In support of his defence, he has produced Ex.D2 to Ex.D5 documents i.e., the study certificate pertaining to his son Ramesh. The accused except the production of the said documents has not examined the person who has issued those documents. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not only stated that the accused has borrowed loan for the education purpose of his children, but also mentioned that for other legal necessities the accused has borrowed loan.
21. The accused further taken a defence that the complainant had no financial capacity to lend 28 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused. At this stage, this Court relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2023) 16 SCC 125 between Rajaram since deceased through LRs vs. Marudachalam, since deceased through LRs. wherein it is held that the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of NI Act can be rebutted by the accused, examining the income tax officer and bank officials of the complainant/drawee. As per this judgment the accused has not examined the Income Tax officer or Bank officials of the complainant. Such being the case the defence of the accused that the complainant had no wherewithal to lend sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused does not hold no water.
22. The accused has also taken a defence that the legal notice issued by the complainant is not at all served on the accused. It is to be seen that as per Ex.P3, the complainant has issued 29 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 legal notice on 22.05.2018 by mentioning the two address of the accused i.e., one address at Bengaluru and another address at Mandya District. The accused except the bare suggestion that the legal notice is not served on him, he has not produced any document to show that as on the date of the sending of the notice as per Ex.P3 in which address he was residing. He has not produced any documents before the court regarding his address proof. It is pertinent to note that the accused in his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief has mentioned the address of Beluru Village Kodathi Hobli, Mandya Taluk, which is same as the second address mentioned in the legal notice at Ex.P3. As per Ex.P6, the said the notice issued to the said address is returned with an endorsement as not claimed. Further the legal notice issued to the accused to the Bengaluru address as per Ex.P7 is returned with an 30 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 endorsement as door locked. As per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897, once a party properly posts letter by registered post to a proper address, it establishes a legal presumption that service of a documents by register post is effective, unless evidence proves otherwise. At this stage this court relies upon the Judgment reported in (2014) 8 SCR 880 between M/s. Ajith Sheets Ltd. v. K. Gopalakrishnaya, wherein it is held that, "as per Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered poster. It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and 31 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 until contra is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business."
23. The above said judgment is aptly applicable to this case as the address of the accused mentioned in the complaint, Legal Notice at Ex.P3 and Postal acknowledgment at Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are of the same address as admitted by the accused during his cross examination dt:
16.01.2024 at Page No.4. Hence the burden shifts to the accused to prove the non-receipt of the notice. But the accused except bare denial that he has not resided in the address mentioned in Ex.P6 as on the date of service of notice, has not lead any evidence to show as to where he has resided as on the date of service of notice at Ex.P3. Such being the case, the contention of the accused that the legal notice at Ex.P3 is not served on him to the 32 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 address mentioned in Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 cannot be accepted.
24. The accused has categorically admitted that the complaint at Ex.D10 which is given against Hemanth Kumar is not at all related to the present complainant. Further, the accused during his cross examination on 05.12.2024 has stated that out of the two pan cards and two ATM cards, one pan card and one ATM card belongs to his wife. But neither himself nor his wife have not given any complaint against the said Hemanth Kumar regarding the theft of the pan card and ATM card of his wife. Hence, the complaint given by the accused against the said Hemanth Kumar as per Ex.D6, the private complaint as per Ex.D7 and also the criminal judgment in which the accused has convicted as per Ex.D1 document is not at all related to the present case. As stated above and as admitted by the accused 33 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 categorically twice during his cross-examination that he has given stop payment request only after receiving of the message regarding dishonour of the cheque. Hence for the above said reasons this Court holds that the accused has failed to prove the presumption. The accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "Preponderance of probability". Therefore if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of the legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. But it is to be seen that in this cases the accused has failed to rebut the presumption. Hence, for the above said reasons it is held that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. As such, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the AFFIRMATIVE. 34
CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018
25. Point No.3: Negotiable Instruments Act was enacted to bring credibility to the cheque. The very purpose of the enactment is to promote the use of the Negotiable Instrument, while to discourage the issuance of the cheque without having sufficient funds in the account. Such being the case, the intention of the legislature is that complainant be suitably compensated while the accused be punished for his act.
26. When compensation is awarded enforcement of the same come into question. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for imposing default sentence for enforcing the payment of compensation. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2002 (2) SCC 420 between Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagadeeshan was pleased to hold that "the court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default". The same is reaffirmed in 35 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 latest decision in 2010 AIR SCW 3398 between K.A.Abbas H.S.A. Vs Sabu Joseph. Therefore, it is deemed fit to provide default sentence in order to enforce the payment of compensation. Ex.P.1 cheque is of the year 2018. Therefore, the complainant is deprived of the money that was rightfully due to him for about 08 years. Accordingly, it is deemed fit that a compensation of Rs.2,98,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand only) be granted. It is to be seen that as per the reportable judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P.No.996/2016 dt:
09.07.2025 between M/s.Banavathy and company Vs. Maheer Electro Mech (P) Ltd., and to others the Hon'ble High Court at paragraph No.21 has held as under:
"while passing the order of the sentence after determining the fine/Compensation the court shall also pass an order to pay future 36 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 interest at the rate of 9% p.a on the compensation amount payable to the complainant by fixing time of one or two months to deposit compensation amount so that even if the matter is challenged before the Session Court in appeal and High Court in Revision the interest of the complainant will be protected".
27. Hence, as per the above judgment the complainant is entitled for future interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the compensation amount from the date of judgment till its repayment. Further the accused is directed to deposit the compensation amount before this court within three months from the date of this order. Accordingly, in the light of above discussions, this court proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and he is sentenced to pay fine of 37 CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 Rs.2,98,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand only) and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.
If the fine amount is recovered a sum of Rs.2,96,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation as per the provisions under Section 357 of Cr.PC. and the remaining amount of Rs.2,000/- is to be appropriated to the State.
The complainant is entitled for future interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the compensation amount from the date of judgment till its complete repayment.
The accused is directed to deposit the compensation amount before this court within three months from the date of this order.
The Bail Bond and cash surety of the accused shall stand canceled. 38
CC.NO.18880/2018 KABC030509832018 Supply a free copy of this Judgment to the accused.
(Dictated directly using mobile Adalath AI app, copied and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this 19th day January, 2026).
(Smt.Dhanalakshmi.R) XII Addl. CJM, Bengaluru ANNEXURES Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 : Sri.Arun Kumara.B.L Documents exhibited for the Complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Original cheque Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement Ex.P.3 : Copy of Legal Notice, Ex.P.4&5 : Postal Receipts Ex.P.6 & 7 : Postal Envelops Ex.P8 : Vakalath
Witnesses examined for the defence Accused:
DW.1 : Ramesh.C
DW.2 : Vasanthkumar.S.K
39
CC.NO.18880/2018
KABC030509832018
Documents exhibited for the defence Accused:-
Ex.D1 Certified copy of the order sheet in Crl.R.P.No.839/2021 Ex.D2 to D5 Study certificates of Ramesh Ex.D6 Certified copy of the FIR Ex.D7 Certified copy of the PCR Ex.D8 Certified copy of the 'B' Report Ex.D9 Certified copy of the Letter dt: 08.05.2018 Ex.D10 Certified copy of the Acknowledgment dt:
05.10.2016
Ex.D11 Certified copy of the cheque
details given by the SBI
Bank
Ex.D12 Certified copy of the
acknowledgment of stop
payment of cheque.
Digitally signed by
DHANALAKSHMI DHANALAKSHMI R
R Date: 2026.01.30
12:40:21 +0530
(Smt.Dhanalakshmi.R)
XII Addl. CJM, Bengaluru
40
CC.NO.18880/2018
KABC030509832018
CC.No.18880/2018
19.01.2026
For Judgment
(Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate Order) ORDER Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,98,000/- (Rupees CC.No.18880/2018 Two Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand only) and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.
If the fine amount is recovered a sum of Rs.2,96,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation as per the provisions under Section 357 of Cr.PC. and the remaining amount of Rs.2,000/- is to be appropriated to the State.
The complainant is entitled for future interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the compensation amount from the date of judgment till its complete repayment.
The accused is directed to deposit the compensation amount before this court within three months from the date of this order.
The Bail Bond and cash surety of the accused shall stand canceled.
Supply a free copy of this Judgment to the accused.
XII Addl. CJM, Bengaluru CC.No.18880/2018 CC.No.18880/2018