Bangalore District Court
Neela N vs Ramya Dayal on 20 January, 2026
KABC030148612022
Presented on : 25-02-2022
Registered on : 25-02-2022
Decided on : 20-01-2026
Duration : 3 years, 10 months, 23 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ACJM, BENGALURU
-: Present :-
Smt.Asha K.S., B.A.L, L.L.B.,
XXIII ACJM, BENGALURU,
C.C. No.4617/2022
Dated: the 20th day of January, 2026
Complainant :- Smt.Neela.N.
W/o.H.R.Muddagangaiah,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at No.42, 1st Stage,
KRK Enclave, Magadi Main Road,
Tavarekere, Bangalore-562130.
Mob: 9886695691.
(By Sri.Gurumurthy M. Advocate)
-V/s -
Accused :- Smt.Ramya Dayal,
W/o.Dayal,
Aged about 45 years,
Rakshitha Flowers
No.135, Krishna Temple Road,
3rd Stage, 3rd Block, 8th Main,
Basaveshwara Nagara,
Bangalore-560079.
Mob: 8073536443.
2
C.C.No.4617/2022
(By Sri.Doreraju Sambasivaiah., Advocate)
Offences complained of U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the Accused Not Pleaded guilty.
Final Order Accused is Convicted
Date of Order 20.01.2026.
ASHA Digitally signed
by ASHA K S
Date:
KS 2026.01.23
12:27:02 +0530
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the commission of an offense punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-
" In the last week of February 2020, the accused had approached for the financial assistance of Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant. The complainant also paid the said amount to the accused. At that time, the accused has assured to return the said amount with interest @ rate of 12% per annum. The accused had issued cheque bearing No.460245, dated 28.09.2021 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Basaveshwaranagar branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant. On presentation of said 3 C.C.No.4617/2022 cheque by the complainant through her banker Bank of Baroda, Mudalapalya Branch. The said cheque has been returned for the reason "Funds Insufficient" on 30.09.2021.
3. Thereafter the complainant has got issued legal notice to the accused on 29.10.2021 and same has been served to the accused. Thereafter the accused has issued untenable reply.
4. After filing of complaint, cognizance was taken. In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the Court and she had enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation has been framed and contents of its read over to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and she claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove her case complainant has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 05 documents at Ex.P.1 to 05 on behalf of the complainant. After closure of complainant evidence, accused has been examined as under
section 313 of Cr.P.C and opted to lead evidence. Accused has been examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.3.
6. Thereafter arguments heard and perused the Record.
7. The following points arise for my determination: -
1) Whether the complainant has made out all the ingredients of Sec.138 of 4 C.C.No.4617/2022 Negotiable Instruments Act to prove the guilt of accused?
2) What Order?
8. On hearing the arguments and on perusal written arguments and the materials placed on record, my answers to: -
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative Point No.2:- As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
9. It is the case of complainant is that the accused had approached the complainant and borrowed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant in the year 2021. To discharge the said liability, the accused had issued cheque. Ex.P.1. On presentation said cheque has been returned for the reason "Funds Insufficient". After service of notice the accused has issued untenable reply.
10. To attract Sec.138 of NI Act it is necessary to fulfill the ingredients of said provision. I have carefully perused the section 138 of of N.I.Act, it has three ingredients which are as follows:
1. That there is a Legally enforceable debt,
2. That the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or any part of any debt or other liability which pre-supposes a legally enforceable debt.5
C.C.No.4617/2022
3. That the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds.
11. Keeping in view the ingredients of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Now I proceed to reproduce the Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I.Act here itself.
12. Sec.139 of N.I.Act reads as follows "Presumes in favor of holder, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec.138, for the discharge, in whole or in part or any debt or other liability".
13. Sec.118(a) reads as follows "Presumption as to Negotiable Instrument Act until the contrary is proved, the following presumption shall be made (a) of consideration- that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted endorse, negotiate or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration".
14. Keeping in view of the ingredients and provision of Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I.Act, now I proceed to discuss the documents in the case. I am of the opinion that I need not repeat the entire case of the complaint once again since I have already stated the same at the beginning of this judgment.
6C.C.No.4617/2022
15. To prove her case, the complainant has examined herself as PW-1 and produced 05 documents and same has been marked as Ex.P.1 to P.05. The cheque as per Ex.P.1 and signature thereon as per Ex.P.1(a). Bank memo as per Ex.P.2. Legal Notice as per Ex.P.3. Postal Receipt as per Ex.P.4. Reply as per Ex.P.5.
16. In the cross-examination of PW-1, she has deposed that she is doing tailoring work and her husband is working in private company. She never doing money lending business or chit business. She is getting Rs.1500/- income from her tailoring income per month. Her son is residing at Australia and she does not know about the income of her son. She met the accused first time at Sunkadakatte. On 25.02.2020 accused came to her house and she paid Rs.2 lakhs, on that time the brother of accused also present. Accused had issued cheque only. She had received chit amount and also received amount from her son. Her husband was working as a clerk in the Syndicate Bank. She denied the suggestion that she has misused the cheque lost by the accused. She also denied the suggestion that her husband has taken the cheque from the shop of accused in the year 2012 and misused the same.
17. The accused has denied the case of complainant and to prove her case she has examined as DW-1. She has deposed that there was no transaction between herself and 7 C.C.No.4617/2022 complainant. She is running shop of garland from 2010 and in the year 2012 she kept one signed cheque in the shop to issue the same to the Deepak. On that day itself she has noticed that the cheque has been misplaced. There was a small misunderstanding between herself and Muddurangaiah with regard to exchange of plastic flowers and other garland items. After three days of that incident only her cheque has been misplaced. The said Muddurangaiah had taken the cheque from the shop and given to her wife and filed this false case. In support of her case she has produced three documents reply notice marked at Ex.D.1, postal acknowledgment marked at Ex.D.2. Document issued by the bank marked at Ex.D.3.
18. In the cross-examination of DW-1, she has deposed that she has not lodged any complaint and not given paper publication with regard to alleged missing of her cheque. She has not given intimation to the bank for stop payment also and till today she has not taken any steps against the complainant. She denied other suggestions.
19. As per complainant accused had borrowed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and to discharge the same, the accused had issued Ex.P.1 cheque. Here there is no dispute in signature. The complainant has produced documents and same has been marked as Ex.P.1 to 5. Ex.P.1 cheque, Ex.P.2 memo Ex.P.3 is a legal notice, Ex.P.4 Postal receipt, 8 C.C.No.4617/2022 Ex.P.5 is the Reply. Admittedly cheque and signature are belongs to accused and the accused has disputed the issuance of cheque. Complaint has been filed within time. The accused only deposed in her evidence that the husband of complainant was her customer and she is doing the business of selling plastic flowers and other garland items. As per accused once the husband of complainant had purchased plastic flowers and other items from the accused and after using he had returned the same and for that reason there was a small misunderstanding and enmity between them. After three days of that incident cheque has been misplaced and as per accused, husband of complainant only taken the cheque from shop and misused the same. Admittedly cheque and signature belongs to the accused and cheque is in the hands of complainant. As per Sec.139 of N.I.Act "Presumes in favor of holder, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec.138, for the discharge, in whole or in part or any debt or other liability". Here the question arise for consideration is whether the accused has rebutted the presumption or not. The accused has an option to rebut the presumption by way of eliciting truth from PW-1 in the cross-examination, by way of entering into witness box and he can utilize materials available on record. In this case the accused has entered into witness box and cross-examined the PW-1 also.
9C.C.No.4617/2022
20. In this case there is no dispute in signature in the cheque but accused has disputed the transaction and issuance of cheque. The accused has explained that how her cheque had been to the hands of the complainant ie.., she kept her signed cheque in the shop. When the husband of complainant had visited the shop to purchase plastic flowers and garland items the had stolen the cheque and misused the same. In support of her contention DW-1 has produced three documents and same has been marked as Ex.D.1 to D.3. Ex.D.1 is reply notice. Ex.D.2 is postal acknowledgment and Ex.D.3 is Letter issued by the bank.
21. During the evidence accused herself has deposed that, in the year 2012 itself i.e., when the cheque has been missed in the shop itself she has noticed that aspect. In such circumstances the option available to the accused is to inform the same to the bank for stop payment. The another option is to file complaint with regard to missing of cheque. Because cheque is a valuable document and if anyone missed the valuable document then definitely they would file complaint and inform the same to the bank but here the accused has not exercised those options. As per Ex.P.2 cheque has been presented for realization on 30.09.2021 and as per accused cheque has been missed in the year 2012. It shows that the accused has kept quite for many years without taking any steps with regard to alleged missing of cheque. No ordinary prudent man will simply sit 10 C.C.No.4617/2022 by losing or missing valuable document. There is no explanation from the accused also for not issuing intimation to the bank for stop payment.
22. Advocate for accused argued that there was no transaction between the parties and complainant is stranger to the accused. It is further argued that PW-1 herself admits that she has met accused twice only, in such circumstances how could the complainant can lent amount to the accused. In the cross-examination of PW-1, she has deposed that ನಾನು ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ಎರಡನೇ ಸಲ ನೋಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. It does not mean that the complainant has met the accused twice only. Because PW-1 further deposed that she met the accused first time at Sunkadakatte and accused has visited to her house. She also deposed that the accused only met her. It shows that there was a contact between the parties and they are not strangers.
23. Advocate for accused further argued that accused does not have any siblings but the complainant has falsely deposed that the accused and brother came to her house. The complainant has clearly deposed that the accused and one person came to her home and accused only informed that, said person is her brother. It is the version of accused and complainant has believed the same and deposed the same. Because no person will ask documents to ascertain relationship. In such circumstances, the accused cannot 11 C.C.No.4617/2022 take contention that the complainant is stranger to her. The scope of offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act is very limited. Here the accused has to explain that how her cheque had been to the hands of the complainant and what steps she has taken, if really her cheque has been misused by the complainant. Here there is no such explanation from the accused with regard to custody of the cheque.
24. The accused has produced three documents. Ex.D.1 is reply notice, but not proved her defence. Ex.D.3 is letter issued by the bank and it shows that the accused has opened her bank account in the year 2012 and cheque bearing No.460241 to 460250 has been issued on 29.08.2012. The advocate for accused argued that Ex.P.1 cheque bearing Number is also 460245 and it has been issued in the year 2012 and it is not valid. It is true that the Ex.P.1 cheque has been printed in the year 2012 and same has been issued in favour of the accused in the year 2012. It does not mean that cheque is not valid. The date of cheque is criteria for calculating validity of the cheque. The cheque is valid up to three months from the date mentioned in the cheque. Here also the cheque has been printed in the year 2012 but cheque date is 28.09.2021 and same has been presented within three months i.e., on 30.09.2021. Moroever the cheque has been returned for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and not for any other reason as contended by the accused. Hence the accused cannot take 12 C.C.No.4617/2022 that contention. Because date of cheque is 28.09.2021 and same has been presented within three months, hence cheque is valid. There is no limitation to use the cheque unless date mentioned in the cheque. From the date of mentioning date in the cheque, the time will begin to calculate limitation or validity of the cheque. Hence there is no merits in the arguments of the accused with regard to validity of the cheque.
25. Here the question is whether accused has proved her defence and rebutted the presumption or not. The party to the proceedings, who takes specific contention, has to prove that contention. Here as per accused she had kept her cheque in the shop and same has been misplaced. If that is so, the burden is on the accused to prove that when she had kept her cheque in the house and when she has noticed with regard to alleged missing of cheque. Because cheque is a valuable document and no one will ignore by signing and kept at anywhere. In such circumstances, why should the accused is kept quite without informing to the bank and taking steps against the complainant for alleged misuse of her cheque.
26. As discussed above, the advocate for accused has cross-examined the PW-1 but nothing has been elicited to prove the defence of the accused. Except suggesting with regard to restriction of cash transaction and financial 13 C.C.No.4617/2022 capacity of the complainant nothing has been suggested. The complainant has clearly narrated in the complaint and also deposed in her evidence that accused was in need of money and borrowed amount. She has also stated that she was receiving amount from her son and husband. Her son was working at Australia and her husband also working in the bank. She also stated that she also doing tailoring work and has received chit amount also. The amount involved in this case is Rs.2,00,000/-. As discussed above the husband of complainant and son are working and complainant also doing tailoring work. All these aspects show that the complainant has financial capacity to lend amount.
27. As per Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act court may presume that bill of exchange was accepted for good consideration. Issuance of cheque is proved. Hence presumption can be drawn. Therefore, it probabalizes that the transactions alleged in the complaint is genuine.
28. In the authority reported in Crl Appeal No.348/2011 in Smt.Jayalakshmamma Vs.Shasikala. In that case the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that if accused has taken contention that complainant has misused his cheque, then there should be complaint before the police or any authority or intimation to the bank. If accused has not exercised these options then, his contention cannot be considered with regard to missing of 14 C.C.No.4617/2022 cheque or alleged misuse of cheque. In the case on hand also the accused has taken contention that she had kept her cheque in her shop and the complainant has misused the same but no notice has been issued to the complainant and no complaint is lodged. Hence ratio held in above authority is applicable to case on hand.
29. The accused person has fails to prove her defence. The reason or explanation given by the accused with regard to how her cheque had been to the hands of the complainant is not at all acceptable one. The complainant has produced documents to prove her case. Hence there is no reasons to disbelieve the case of complainant. Hence presumption can be drawn in favour of complainant.
30. Regarding the burden of the accused to rebut the presumptions in N.I Act the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat in Crl.A.No.508 OF 2019 held:
"16.On the aspects relating to preponderance of probabilities, the accused has to bring on record such facts and such circumstances which may lead the Court to conclude either that the consideration did not exist or that its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration did not exist. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that though there may not be sufficient negative evidence which could be brought on record by the accused to discharge his burden, yet mere denial would not fulfill the requirements of rebuttal as envisaged under Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act..."15
C.C.No.4617/2022
31. As discussed above the accused has fails to rebut the presumption. Under the criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the proceeding U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is quasi-criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions envisaged under sec.118, 139 and 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act. An essential ingredient of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is that cheque in question must have been issued towards a legally or liability. Sec.118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act envisage certain presumptions. Under Sec.118 a presumption shall be raised regarding consideration, date, acceptance, transfer, endorsements and regarding the holder in due course of Negotiable Instruments. Even under Sec.139 a rebuttal presumption shall be raised that the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally enforceable debt. These presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in case of Negotiable Instruments. These presumptions are not conclusive presumptions, but are rebuttable.
32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"26. In light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the presumption 16 C.C.No.4617/2022 mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat [(2008) 4 SCC 54 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 166] may not be correct. However, this does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the decision in that case since it was based on the specific facts and circumstances therein. As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant.
28. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "preponderance of probabilities". Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence, which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own."
33. Such being the case it is for the accused to rebut the presumption under Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and to show that the cheque in question was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt or liability and accused has to prove the same not by mere possible explanation, but by cogent evidence. In this case the accused has fails to prove her defence and not issued cheque towards legally enforceable debt. There is no dispute with regard to signature. Till today accused has not filed any complaint 17 C.C.No.4617/2022 against the complainant for alleged misuse of her cheque. She has not tried to take back her cheque. Silence of accused shows that she is admitting transaction and for that reason only, she has not tried to take back her cheque.
34. Advocate for complainant argued that transaction was in the year 2020 and till today the complainant has not received any benefit from the accused. Due to delay in proceedings also, the complainant has suffered a lot. In the authority reported in Crl. Revision Petition No.996/2016 of M/s.Banavathi and Company Vs.Mahaeer Electro Mech Pvt Ltd and another. In that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that as per Section 80 of N.I.Act When no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, interest on the amount due thereon shall, notwithstanding any agreement relating to interest between any parties to the instrument, be calculated at the rate of eighteen per centum per annum, from the date at which the same ought to have been paid by the party charged, until tender or realization of the amount due thereon, or until such date after the institution of a suit to recover such amount as the Court directs. All discussed above transaction was in the year 2020 and now it is in the year 2026 and the complainant has suffered a lot of financial issue due to delay. If complainant would have invested and deposited in any bank or business, she would have get benefit. Hence the accused is liable to pay interest 18 C.C.No.4617/2022 @ rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of complaint to till realization.
35. The complainant has proved that accused had issued cheques towards discharge of her legally recoverable debt or liability. There is no proper explanation from the accused that why she has not tried to take back her cheque. There is no effort from the accused to take steps against the complainant for alleged misuse of her cheque. If there was no transaction between the parties, then no ordinary prudent man will simply sit by issuing cheque. After receiving of notice also the accused had an option to take steps against the complainant but the accused has not exercised any of option available to her. The accused is not an ordinary woman. She is a business lady. In such circumstances definitely she knows the consequence of issuance of cheques. If really husband of complainant had an intention to cheat, he would have filed complaint in the year 2012 itself for higher amount. There was no necessity for the complainant to wait till 2022. All these aspects show that there was a transaction between the parties and to discharge her liability only, accused had issued Ex.P.1. The accused has fails to prove that there is no legally recoverable debt or liability. Hence, in view of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the complainant has proved her case. On careful perusal of materials on record I am of the opinion that there is a legally recoverable 19 C.C.No.4617/2022 debt or liability. All these aspects show that accused had issued cheques to the complainant towards discharge of her liability. The complainant has proved the initial burden and accused has not proved her defence and not rebutted the presumption. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence corroborates with each other. During the cross-examination of PW-1 also nothing has been elicited. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the version of complainant appears to be true. The ingredients required to fulfill Sec.138 of NI Act also proved. Hence, I hold that there are materials available on record to conclude that accused has committed an offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act, hence I answered Point no.1 in the Affirmative.
36. Point No.2:- In view of the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following :-
-: ORDER :-
By invoking the power conferred under section 278(2) of B.N.S.S.,The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only).along with interest @ rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of complaint to till realization till payment of amount. In default to pay the fine, 20 C.C.No.4617/2022 accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Further, acting under Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., on recovery of sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only along with interest @ rate of 18% per annum only, Rs.1,98,000/-along with interest shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs.2,000/- shall be remitted to the state exchequer.
Supply free copy of this order to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to stenographer directly on my computer, after clerical additions by him, script revised, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 20th day of January -2026) Digitally signed ASHA by ASHA K S Date: KS 2026.01.23 12:27:24 +0530 (Smt.Asha K.S,) XXIII ACJM,Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1) List of Witnesses examined for complainant:-
PW.1 : Smt,Neela.N.
2) List of documents marked on behalf of complainant: -
Ex.P.1 : cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of accused.
Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo,
Ex.P.3 : Legal Notice,
Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt,
Ex.P.5 : Reply.
3) List of witness examined on behalf of the Accused :-
DW-1 : Ramya Dayal
21
C.C.No.4617/2022
4) List of documents marked on behalf of the Accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Reply
Ex.D.2 : Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.D.3 : Document issued by the Bank.
ASHA K Digitally
ASHA K S
signed by
S Date: 2026.01.23
12:27:34 +0530
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
22
C.C.No.4617/2022