Bangalore District Court
Gangadhara D J vs Dharamegowda P on 17 October, 2025
KABC010126972022
IN THE COURT OF LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-59)
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT:
Sri. BALACHANDRA N BHAT,
B.Sc, LL.B, PGDHRL
LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.A.No.545/2022
APPELLANT / Sri.Gangadhara D.J.,
ACCUSED S/o. Jambuvaiah,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at C/o. Jayashree at No.65/2,
Kaveripura, Kamakshipalya,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.V.G.Manjunath, Adv.)
- VS -
RESPONDENT / Sri.Dharmegowda P,
COMPLAINANT: S/o. Puttaswamy Gowda,
R/at No.16, 4th Cross, 4th Main,
G.G.Palya, Bengaluru-560 022.
(By Sri.Shankar, Adv.)
***
2 Crl.A.No.545/2022
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment and sentence passed in C.C.No.23460/2016 on 08.04.2022 by the Court of the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The parties are referred to by the ranks held by them before the learned trial Court for the sake of convenience, clarity and to avoid confusion. The appellant was the accused and the respondent was the complainant before the learned trial Court.
3. The crux of the case of the complainant in a nut shell is that:
The present case emanates from the private complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant had acquaintances with the accused for several years. The accused in order to improve his business and to discharge the vehicle loan is said to 3 Crl.A.No.545/2022 have approached the complainant in the month of November 2015 and requested for financial assistance of Rs.6,00,000-00. The accused is said to have promised to repay the amount within 9 months. The complainant claims to have tendered the loan during second week of December 2015. The accused ought to have repaid the loan on or before August, 2016. However, on request and demand made by the complainant, the accused is said to have issued a cheque bearing No.245228 dated 24.08.2016 drawn on Canara Bank, Yelahanka Branch, Hassan District for Rs.6,00,000-00 favouring complainant. The complainant claims to have presented the cheque to the drawee bank through his banker State Bank of India, Peenya Branch. The cheque came to be dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. The cheque was returned with memo dated 26.08.2016. The complainant claims to have then got a legal notice issued to the accused on 20.09.2016 sent through registered post with acknowledgment due. The cover containing the legal notice sent to the accused was returned with the endorsement "addressee not found". The accused had the knowledge of the contents of the notice and had failed to comply with it within the period prescribed 4 Crl.A.No.545/2022 by the law. Hence, the cause of action had arisen for the present complaint.
4. The complaint was presented under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 20.10.2016. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Sworn statement was recorded by way of affidavit. Thereafter, case was ordered to be registered and summons to be issued to the accused. In response to the summons, the accused appeared before the Court and was enlarged on bail. Accusations were read over and the plea of the accused was recorded. The accused had pleaded not guilty and had claimed to be tried.
5. The complainant examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and claimed to be tried. The accused himself got examined as DW.1 and one witness Sri.Robeen Raju, Officer of the Canara Bank, 5 Crl.A.No.545/2022 Yelahanka, examined as DW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9.
6. By considering the materials on record, the learned trial Judge has found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the accused was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.8,05,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. After deposit of fine amount, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as provided U/s. 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The remaining Rs.5,000/- be appropriated to the State as fine.
7. The accused being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and sentence has preferred this appeal. The grounds urged on behalf of the appellant could be summarised as follows;
7a) The Court below has grossly erred in convicting the appellant without considering the materials and facts placed by both the parties. The Court below has not taken into consideration the plea of the appellant that there is no liability on the part of 6 Crl.A.No.545/2022 the appellant as claimed by the respondent / complainant. The respondent purposely for wrongful gain has filed the said complaint with sole intention to harass and humiliate the appellant with ulterior motive, the appellant never due any amount to the complainant / respondent. There is no vehicle business filed and to clear vehicle loan transaction with the complainant/respondent by the appellant/accused.
7b) The Court below has wrongly held that, the appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant, eventhough, no such document, except the cheque which was filled and signed by the complainant/respondent. It is further admitted by the complainant/respondent that, the legal notice is not at all served on the accused. The accused signature is also not at all differed in the alleged cheque. The complainant/respondent never produced any documents before the hon'ble trail Court to establish his case that the signature on the cheque is belongs to the appellant / accused. The appellant never transaction with the respondent at any point of time, the respondent failed to produce 7 Crl.A.No.545/2022 any type of documents before the learned trial Court, but the trail court has not considered these points.
7c) The learned trial Court failed to note the contents of cross-examination of the respondent/ complainant admit that there was a difference between the signature and the written on the cheque are different, but the trial court did not appreciate the cross of complainant/respondent. The legal notice sent to the accused / appellant did not served, it is admitted in the cross of complainant but the trial court did not appreciate the same and blindly convicted the appellant.
7d) The learned trail Court is also not at all appreciated the cross of complainant that, when the cheque was issued by this appellant / accused to the complainant, the trail Court did not considered the same and convicted the accused. The complainant did not prove his case that when the cheque was issued and the signature on the cheque belongs to the appellant / accused. The trail court did not considered the same and convicted the accused, hence, the same is liable to be set aside on these grounds.
8 Crl.A.No.545/20227e) The appellant submits that, Ex.D1 to D3 which were produced by the appellant were not taken into consideration by the Court below. Whereas the complainant stated in his examination-in-chief that, the accused was residing at Bengaluru and also the accused borrowed a loan to purchase a vehicle from the Bank. The same is paid by the accused, he need not to ask any loan from the complainant for the purchase of the vehicle. The accused /appellant was residing since from 15 to 18 years in the Bengaluru in a rented house, it is admitted at the time of evidence and cross of accused, the trial Court did not appreciate the same and blindly convicted the accused.
7f) The appellant submits that, the complainant /respondent never stated in his
complaint or sworn statement or evidence in-chief that the cheque in question issued for any legally enforceable debt with specific date of issuance of the cheque. It clearly shows that the complaint is false and frivolous one. The trial Court has not considered the same and blindly convicted the accused without considering all these important points. Where as in the complaint, nothing has been stated by the 9 Crl.A.No.545/2022 complainant/respondent about when the loan amount was given to the appellant/accused. There is a clear cut discrepancy with regard to payment of the loan to the accused. The accused never borrowed any money from complainant till date.
7g) The appellant submits that, the blank cheque without sign and written on the alleged cheque was issued to complainant when the complainant made illegal chit business in his house. When the accused was member of the chit, the complainant obtained a blank cheque without filling date, name and amount and without signature of the accused from the accused. The accused paid the entire chit amount to the complainant by way of cash, the complainant did not return the blank cheque to the accused. The same was misused by the complainant by filling the same and also signed by him. The signature on the cheque do not belongs to the accused / appellant. The appellant made a summons to the Bank Manager and examined as DW-2 before the trial Court and led cogent evidence before the trail court and the Ex-P1 (a) signature differs between the specimen signature. The signature on the Ex.P1 is not at all tallied with the 10 Crl.A.No.545/2022 specimen signature card as per Ex-D-6. The Bank manager examined and cross-examined by the complainant counsel and it is admitted that, as usual the cheque came to the bank, the bank employees check the balance amount, if there is sufficient amount in the account, then only the signature will be checked, but in this complaint, the endorsement issued by the bank is insufficient funds, eventhogh the signature is not tallied / mismatched, the trial Court taking into consideration this point in technically, but the signature is not at all tallied / mismatched, Section 138 of NI Act is not at all attracted. But the trial Court did not considered the same and passed a judgment and blindly convicted the accused, eventough, the signature is not at all belongs to the accused. These grounds itself are sufficient to allow the appeal and acquit the accused by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the trail Court against this appellant.
7h) The appellant submits that, the trail Court failed to consider this discrepancy as the complainant is not sure about the date of transaction and any transaction between the respondent / complainant and the appellant. The signature on the cheque is 11 Crl.A.No.545/2022 not at all belongs to the accused. The accused led a cogent evidence before the trial Court and examined himself as DW.1 and examined Bank Manager. The trial Court did not considered all these grounds.
7i) The appellant further submits that the Court below failed to consider whether the respondent/complainant paid such a amount during the particular month (as there is discrepancy in the statement of the complainant) and that too without obtaining any documents other than cheque Ex.P.1, which clearly shows that, no such alleged transaction took place as stated by the respondent/complainant. On the other hand, the appellant/accused proved his case that, the complainant has not lend such amount as falsely claimed by the complainant/respondent, there is no transaction between the appellant and respondent at any point of time. There is no need of money, because he obtained a loan for purchasing the vehicle for his livelihood as per Ex-D1 and Ex.D2 and he produced the documents before the trail court. Copy of the judgment itself clearly shows that, the trail Court has not at all considered the facts of the case.
12 Crl.A.No.545/20227j) The appellant submits that, the trial Court did not considered the evidence and documents produced by the appellant/accused as DW-1 and the Bank Manager DW-2 and documents at Ex.D-6 to D.8. The trail Court did not appreciate the evidence and cross of DW.1 and DW.2 and documents. It is clearly established by the accused before the trail Court that, the signature on the cheque is not at all belongs to the accused, he never signed on the cheque. The question of pay the cheque amount to the complainant by the appellant/ accused does not arise at all. The accused disputed his signature on the cheque, the burden shifted to the complainant to prove his case, but the complainant failed before the trail Court. The trial Court did not considered this point and convicted the accused blindly and technically.
7k) The tail Court without going through the cross-examination of the complainant, accused and Bank Manager wherein clear admissions that the signature on the Ex.P1 is not belongs to the accused. Further without considering the true facts of the case, Court below erroneously held that, the accused is liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the 13 Crl.A.No.545/2022 respondent/complainant and convicted the appellant U/S 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/S 138 of the N.I.Act. The Court below should have noticed that, there are no documents or any acknowledgment for having received the alleged loan by the appellant / accused, and the evidence placed before the trial Court is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant and thus the accused is entitled for acquittal. The alleged cheque has been misused by the complainant/respondent to harass the appellant, has filed false complaint against the accused/appellant. The sentence passed by the learned Magistrate is too harsh and severe and the impugned judgment is illegal, incorrect and improper and has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
8. The notice of this appeal was duly served on the respondent. He has appeared before this Court through his counsel. The trial Court Records called and placed along with this appeal.
9. Heard arguments from both the sides. Perused the written arguments submitted by both sides. Perused the entire materials on record along with citations.
14 Crl.A.No.545/202210. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following rulings:
1. 2021 (1) KCCR SN 41 - Sandesh Vs Dayanand.
2. 2022 (3) AKR 314 - Herman Castelino Vs Suresh Kudva.
3. Bombay High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 19/2005 -
Girdhari Parmanand Motiani Vs Vinayak Bhagwan Khavnekar & others.
4. Kerala High Court in Crl.A.No.1055/2009 - Josco Agencies Vs K.P.Shukkoor and another.
5. Bombay High Court in Crl.A.No.20/2007 - Patricio D'Souza Vs Oscar D'Souza and another.
6. Kerala High Court in Crl.L.P.353/2017 - Subhash Vs State of Kerala.
7. Madras High Court in Crl.A.No.10/2010 - M/s.
Innovative Enterprises Vs M/s. Steel and Tubes Syndicate and others.
8. Punjab and Hariyana High Court in CRM-A No.327 MA of 2011 - Anil Singla Vs Sanjay Kumar.
9. Orissa High Court in Crl.Rev.No.1003/2013 -
Prasanta Naik Vs Subhendu Mohapatra and another.
10. Karnataka High Court in Crl.A.No.2812/2010 - Sandesh S/o. Chudia alias Chudamani Tandal Vs Dayanand S/o. Dakappa Hosamane.
11. AIR 2024 SC 4103 - Sri Dattatraya Vs Sharanappa. I have gone through the above rulings.
15 Crl.A.No.545/202211. Now, the points that arise for my consideration are :
1. Whether the appellants / accused has made out grounds to set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.23460/2016 dated 08.04.2022, on the file of the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACMM, Bengaluru ?
2. What order?
12. My answer to the above points are as under:
POINT No.1 : In the Negative,
POINT No.2 : As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
13. Point No.1: PW.1 is the complainant, who had reiterated the contents of the complaint in the affidavit sworn to by him in lieu of sworn statement and later on treated as the examination-in-chief. Apart from the oral testimony, the complainant had produced and got marked 6 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6.
14. Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing No.245228 dated 24.08.2016 drawn on the Canara Bank, Yelahanka Branch, Hassan District on account 16 Crl.A.No.545/2022 No.5628108000679 for Rs.6,00,000-00 favouring complainant. Ex.P.2 is the endorsement dated 26.08.2016, according to which, the drawee bank had dishonoured the cheque for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 20.09.2016. Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt dated 20.09.2016 for having sent the original notice at Ex.P.3 to the accused through registered post with acknowledgment due. Ex.P.5 is the cover containing legal notice sent to the accused. The accused was not in station and hence with the endorsement "ಈ ವಿಳಾಸದಾರರು ಊರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಇಲ್ಲ ದ ಕಾರಣ ವಾಪಸ್ಸು ಕಳಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ", the cover was returned. Ex.P.5(a) is the notice contained in Ex.P.5 sent to the accused. Ex.P.6 is the statement of account pertaining to the complainant in respect of the account No.00000030095428602 with the State Bank of India. The statement was for the period between 1.09.2015 and 1.02.2016. on 10.12.2015, there is a withdrawal of Rs.6,70,000-00 from the account. This would correspond to the recitals in the complaint.
15. The accused himself examined as DW.1 and one witness examined as DW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9. Ex.D.1 is the 17 Crl.A.No.545/2022 invoice issued by the Bhagyalakshmi Motors Pvt. Limited on 13.10.2015 and the amount was transferred from the Chola. Ex.D.2 is the statement of loan account held by the accused with Chola. Ex.D.3 is the policy document in the name of the accused. Ex.D.4 is the receipt issued by Avinash HP Gas Agency that is the proof of the address of the accused. The address is shown to be No.81, 4 th Cross Road, Kaveri Nagar, Laggere, Bengaluru-58. Ex.D.5 is the electricity bill, which is illegible. Ex.D.6 is the specimen signature of the accused. This document does not bear the date on which the signature of the accused was obtained by the bank. Ex.D.7 is the savings bank account opening form. The signature of the accused appears to be in Kannada as in Ex.D.6. Even this document does not bear the date on which it was prepared. There is no endorsement of the officials of the bank for having received this application. However, the accused is found to have written his name in english and on the exercise of power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, when this handwriting is compared with signature on Ex.P.1 cheque, they appear to be of the same person considering the lapse of time and repeated writings and such other parameters.
18 Crl.A.No.545/202216. Ex.D.8 and Ex.D.9 are the copies of the aadhaar card and account extract pertaining to the accused held in the Canara Bank. This is the account on which Ex.P.1 cheque appears to have been drawn. There was no sufficient funds at or about the time, the cheque was presented.
17. The witness PW.1 was cross-examined at length, but while being contradicted his attention was not drawn to the specific document. Moreover, from the entire evidence, it would be clear that, there was no material contradiction that would go against the complainant. It was elicited through PW.1 that, he was an employee in a mining company. The witness had expressed ignorance in respect of the equal monthly installments being paid by the accused. The witness also does not know regarding the matters that are personal to the accused. All these would not be sufficient to hold that, there was no transaction as the witness is found to have denied categorically the suggestion to that effect. The accused is found to have asked this witness that, the cheque was given to this witness towards chit transaction that was forged by this witness and misused to file this case. If this was the fact, the question is whether the accused had 19 Crl.A.No.545/2022 initiated any action under the relevant law. There is absolutely no iota of materials placed by the accused to show that, he had initiated action under law against the complainant. This would also lead to an inference that, the accused in order to deceive the complainant had ensured that, he would sign differently on the cheque and other documents to bring about before the Court that the signature appearing on Ex.P.1 cheque did not belong to him. The endorsement issued at Ex.P.2 does not refer to variance in the signature, but specifies that, the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused.
18. The accused had volunteered to step into the witness box and it was elicited through this witness that, where he resided was a house obtained on rent and he had executed lease agreement with the owners. However, the document were all lost. This appears to be too intelligent an answer. The accused may have obtained loan from a financial institution, but this would not absolve him from the liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused had placed documents and had examined witnesses as well, but the defence raised 20 Crl.A.No.545/2022 appears to be not plausible sufficient to be believed by any prudent man. The signature appearing on the summons and the Ex.P.1 cheque appear to be similar. This aspect was put to the witness DW.1, who had denied. However, the conduct of the accused could be gathered from all these circumstances. The accused appears to be too intelligent in affixing signature in the manner that would suit the situation. DW.1 had also stated that, the loan said to have been borrowed by him from Chola was not repaid completely. This would show the commitment of the accused in borrowing the loan and not repaying them promptly.
19. DW.2 is the Officer of the Canara Bank, Yelahanka, through whom documents at Ex.D.6 to Ex.D.9 were got marked. However, during the cross- examination, it is found to have been elicited through this witness that, he was not working in the branch to which Ex.P.1 cheque would refer to the relevant point of time. The witness also admits that, if the signature on the cheque does not match the specimen signature endorsement to that effect would be issued. However, in this case, there is no endorsement to the effect that, the signature on Ex.P.1 was at variance with the specimen signature.
21 Crl.A.No.545/202220. Now, in so far as the address is concerned, the accused had the knowledge of the contents of the notice and hence had evaded the service of the same. It is not the case of the accused that, he is not a resident of Devihalli, Yalahanka post, Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District. Moreover, the summons was also served by hand at this address. Therefore, the accused was surely not successful in probablising the defence raised by him. The defence raised by the accused also has no support to stand that could be held as sufficient to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant.
21. The discussion made by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment is in consonance with the established principle of law. The discussion made in this judgment are in addition to the discussion made in the impugned judgment and would rather supplant the discussion made by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, I have no other option but to hold the point No.1 is in the Negative.
22. Point No.2: In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
22 Crl.A.No.545/2022ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant / accused under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C., is dismissed.
Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.04.2022 passed in C.C.No.23460/2016 on the file of the Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is confirmed.
In addition to the amount the complainant was held entitled to by the learned trial Court, the complainant is entitled to interest on Rs.6,00,000/- at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of cheque till realisation throughout with costs of the entire proceedings.
The order of suspension of the sentence passed by this Court on 06.05.2022 shall stands vacated.
Send back records to the learned trial Court along with copy of this judgment. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 17th day of October, 2025) (Balachandra N Bhat) LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.