Bangalore District Court
Ramesh vs Srinivasa on 15 November, 2025
1
C.C.No.9369/2021
KABC030254862021
Presented on : 08-04-2021
Registered on : 08-04-2021
Decided on : 15-11-2025
Duration : 4 years, 7 months, 7 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI.JAI SHANKAR.J,
B.A.L., LL.B
XXII ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT U/s.278(1) of BNSS -2023
(Old Correspondence No. 255(1) of CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE)
C.C.NO. : 9369/2021
COMPLAINANT : Sri. Ramesh.R,
S/o. Ramakrishna,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at No.9/1,
Brundavana, 5th Cross,
2
C.C.No.9369/2021
Nethravathi Road,
Maruthinagar,
Chandralayout, Nagrabhavi,
Bangalore - 560 072.
(By Sri. Sharath Kumar Shetty,
Adv.,)
V/s.
ACCUSED : Sri. Srinivasa N.V,
Age about 40 years,
Residing at No.615,
"Maruthi Nilaya",
Ullala Main Road,
Jnanabharathi,
Opposite Government Press
Layout,
Gavipuram Layout,
Bangalore - 560 056.
(By Sri. G.M. Shankarnag., Adv., )
Offence complained : U/s.138 of N.I.Act
of
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is Acquitted
Date of order : 15.11.2025
3
C.C.No.9369/2021
JUDGMENT
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complainant's case is as under:
It is contended that, the complainant and the accused are well acquainted with each other and under such acquaintance, the accused intended to purchase the land near Manganahalli Village (Udaya Layout) and in this connection, the accused approached the complainant with financial help and accordingly, the complainant has advanced Rs.12 lakhs in the month of May 2016 and Rs.13 lakhs in the month of August 2016, in total Rs.25 lakhs, on the assurance that, the accused shall return the amount within a year. After the lapse of the agreed period, when 4 C.C.No.9369/2021 the complainant demanded the return of the amount, the accused issued the cheque bearing No.000095 dt; 25.08.2020 for Rs.25 lakhs, drawn on HDFC Bank, Nagrabhavi branch, Bengaluru, assuring that, on its presentation, it would be honored. On such assurance, when the complainant presented the cheque through his banker ie., HDFC Bank, Nagarabhavi Branch, the cheque came to be dishonored with the shara as Stop payment dt:23.11.2020. Thereby, the complainant got issued the demand notice dt:22.12.2020 through RPAD which served on the accused and inspite of which, he has not chosen to comply the same, which has given cause of action to file the present complaint.
3. After filing of the complaint, this court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Being 5 C.C.No.9369/2021 satisfied that, there are prima-facie materials to proceed against accused, summons was issued. After appearance of the accused, he was enlarged on bail and plea was recorded. The accused has not pleaded guilty, but submitted that, he would go for the trial.
4. From the basis of the pleadings, the following points that arise for my consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that, the accused issued cheque bearing No.000095 dt; 25.08.2020 for Rs.25 lakhs, drawn on HDFC Bank, Nagrabhavi branch, Bengaluru towards discharge of his liability which was returned unpaid on presentation for the reason "Stop payment" and despite of knowledge of the notice, he has not paid the said cheque amount and thereby, committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What order?6
C.C.No.9369/2021
5. The sworn statement and the documents marked at Ex.P.1 to P.5 by the complainant is being treated as the complainant evidence as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2010 (5) SCC 590. Thereafter, the complainant examining further got marked Ex.P.6 to 12 documents and closed his side evidence. The statement of the accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was read over and explained to accused, he denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him and submitted that, he has the evidence. But however, later he submitted that, he has no evidence. However, Ex.D.1 to D.4 documents were got marked through the confrontation of PW.1.
6. Heard from both side. The complainant counsel filed written argument and relied upon the decisions reported in:
7
C.C.No.9369/2021
1) 2023 Live Law (SC) 752 - K. Hymavathi Vs. State of A.P and another., wherein it is held that, the question as to whether a debt or liability being a time barred is a mixed question of fact and law.
2) ABC 2019 (II) 235 SC - Birsingh Vs. Mukesh Kumar., wherein it is held that, the cheque being a post dated does not absolve the drawer of a cheque of a panel consequences of Sec. 138.
3) Judgment of the HOn'ble Apex Court in Crl. Appeal NO. 867/2016 ( Arising out of SLP (Crl NO. 5410 /2014) Sampelly Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Engery Developmetn AGaency Ltd.,
4) Crl. Appeal No. 123/21 ( Arising out of SLP (Crl NO.
1876/2018) Kalamani Tex and another Vs. B. Balasubramani;
5) Crl. Appeal No. 1020/2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl No.407/2006) Rangappa Vs. Mohan, which are dealt on the point of presumption and rebuttable presumption U/s 118 & 138 of NI.Act.
8
C.C.No.9369/2021 The defence has relied upon the decisions :
1. 2023 Live Law (SC) 46 - Rajaram S/o. Sriramulua Naidu (Since deceased) through Lrs Vs. Maruthachalam (Sicne deceased) through LRs
2. 2014(2) SC 236 - John K Abraham Vs. Simon C Abraham and another.,
3. 2021 (1) KAR L R 615 - Bidar Urban Co-operative Bank ltd., Vs.Mr. Girish S/o. Late Gunderao Kulkarni
4. 2021 (3) KCCR 2165 - Srichand Vs. Sekhar R. Kundagol
5. 2024 (4) AKR 65 - Yogish Prabhu Vs. Jayanthi Naik
6. 2024(3) KCCR 2584 - K Gvodinda Nayak Vs. Janardhana Naik
7. 2012 (3) KCCR 2057 -Veerayya Vs. G.K. Madivalar
8. (LAWS) KAR 2018, 3 331- Manjula.G. Vs. Manjula B.T 9 C.C.No.9369/2021
9. 2024(3) KAR 469-Jithendra Kumar N.M Vs. Smt. Rajani
10. Crl. Rev. Petition No.114/2016 - S.R. Rajkumar Vs. M.J. Prabhakar
11. Crl. Appeal No.100296/2016 - Vishal Vs. Prakash Kadappa Hegannawar
12. Crl. Rev. Petition No. 287/2015 - S.S. Ramesh Vs. K.Lokesh
13. Crl. Appeal No. 2128/2016 - M/s. Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt Ltd., Vs. M.A. Zaulla Khan
14. Crl. Appeal No. 200272/2023 - Sri. Ravuji Vs. Hanamant
15. Crl. Rev. pet 1248/2017 - Sri. S.G.Rajesh Vs. N. Prakash
16. Crl. Appeal No. 1813/2017 - Smt. Thejavathi G.N Vs/ Smt. Savitha.10
C.C.No.9369/2021
17. Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 844/2016 - Smt. Annapoorna Vs. S.P. Nandish
18. Crl. Appeal No. 3257/2024 - Sri. Dattatraya Vs. Sharanappa
19. (2019) 5 SCC 418 - Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa
20. Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 320/2022 -Sri. Krishna Naika.K Vs. T.B. Basavaraj
21. Crl. Rev. Pet No. 768/2018- S.K. Honnappa Vs. S.A. Murthy
22. Special Leave Pet NO. 5996/2022 - M/s. Rajco Steel Enterprises Vs. Kavita Saraff and another.,
23. Crl Rev.Pet No.1171/2015 - V. Srinivas Vs. B.N. Eshwarappa which are dealt on the point of burden of proof, financial capacity, presumption, rebuttable presumption and time barred debt.
11
C.C.No.9369/2021
7. Perused the materials available on record.
8. My answer to the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 :- In the Negative Point No.2 :- As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- The complainant has filed this complaint alleging that, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. It is the case of the complainant that, the accused being well acquainted had borrowed Rs.25 lakhs in the month of April and May 2016 assuring that, he would return the amount within a year. After the agreed period, when the complainant demanded the return of the amount, the accused issued the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 assuring its honour, but it got dishonored with the shara as "Stop payment" as per Ex.P.2. Therefore, 12 C.C.No.9369/2021 he got issued the demand notice as per Ex.P.3, which served on the accused as per Ex.P.5 and claiming that, the accused has not chosen to reply the demand notice, which itself indicates that, he has admitted the claim made therein and thereby, emphasizing that, the disputed cheque being issued is dishonored, he claims that, he is entitled to claim the benefit U/s 118 & 139 of N.I.Act, seeks for conviction.
10. On the other hand, the accused would admit the acquaintance of the complainant. He also admit the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 and the signature appearing therein belongs to him and it being dishonored as per Ex.P.2, but he totally denies the loan transaction as pleaded in the complaint by questioning the financial capacity of the complainant and contended that, the disputed cheque was being forcibly obtained in the station. He also takes the contention that, the claim made by the complainant is a 13 C.C.No.9369/2021 time barred debt and thereby, questioning the maintainability of the complaint and the service of demand notice, contends that, he has rebutted the presumption and seeks for acquittal.
11. Having, heard and after perusal of the materials available on record, at this stage it would be appropriate to extract U/s.118 & 139 of N.I.Act which would help this court to appreciate the rival claims of the parties in the proper manner.
Sec. 118 of the Act reads as thus, that every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that, every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act provides for presumption infavour of PA holder. It reads like this, it 14 C.C.No.9369/2021 shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that, the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec. 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or any other liability.
12. A combined reading of the referred sections with the decisions relied by the complainant, it raises a presumption infavour of the holder of the cheque that, he/she has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. No doubt, the said presumptions of law are rebuttable in nature, the opponent can take probable defense in the scale of preponderance of probabilities to rebut the presumption available to the holder of the cheque. It is need less to say that, the evidence of the PW.1 can be rebutted even by effectively cross- examining him, rather entering the witness box. 15
C.C.No.9369/2021
13. So here, it is relevant to note that, whether the accused has really rebutted the presumption available under the law by cross examining the PW.1 which requires due consideration. In the back ground of the rival claims of the parties with the documentary and oral evidence available on record, it is not in dispute that, the complainant and the accused are well acquainted with each other. The disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 and the signature appearing therein at Ex.P.1(a) belongs to the accused is also not in dispute. The disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 being dishonored with the shara as Stop payment as per Ex.P.2 is also not in dispute. Perhaps, even the issuance of he demand notice at Ex.P.3 and it being delivered as per Ex.P.5 also cannot be denied, as these documents would evidence the complainant complying the mandatory provision of issuing the demand notice. But, however the 16 C.C.No.9369/2021 accused has seriously disputed the service of demand notice by questioning the financial capacity and the loan transaction as contended in the complaint. When, the accused has seriously disputed the complainant claim by questioning the very financial capacity and the loan transaction and also, the issuance of the disputed cheque towards the discharge of legal liability, the burden would be upon the complainant to discharge his initial burden so as to call upon the accused to rebut the presumption.
14. In order to establish his financial capacity and the loan transaction, he reiterated the contents of the complaint averments through his sworn statement which is being treated as the complainant evidence. He has deposed that, he is a BE graduate and he is working as a Senior Facility Manager in BIOCON company from past 23 years. His monthly salary in the year 2016 was Rs.90,000/-. He 17 C.C.No.9369/2021 also deposes that, apart from the salary, he gives the consultation pertaining to Engineering work and he is having a good source of income. But however, he has not chosen to produce any piece of evidence to establish his occupation or of his source of income. Though, he pleads that, he is an income tax assessee from 2016 till 2019, again he has not chosen to produce his I.T returns so as to appreciate his source of income.
15. As said above, when the complainant claim that, he has a sufficient source of income and the said fact is being disputed by the defence, it was incumbent upon the complainant to produce some documents to establish the said fact. Perhaps, he claims that, his monthly salary is being debited to his account through the company and though he had asserted the said fact, again he has not chosen to produce the bank statement so as to appreciate 18 C.C.No.9369/2021 his income. No probable reasons are placed on record as to why he has not chosen to produce, either his I.T. returns of the particular period or the bank statement so as to appreciate his claim.
16. It is relevant to note that, though the complainant has not produced any IT returns or the bank statement of the particular year, but he intended to establish his financial capacity by placing Ex.P.9 to P.12 documents. The Ex.P.9 to P.12 are the certified copies of the cheques. In other words, the complainant claim that, he happens to have with drawn the amount covered under Ex.P.9 to P.12 and he happens to have paid the loan amount to the accused. If these documents are taken into consideration, it would indicate that, the complainant happens to have withdrawn Rs.50,000/- from his bank on 28.08.2015, 19 C.C.No.9369/2021 Rs.1,05,000/- on 31.01.2015, Rs.5 lakhs on 27.01.2015 and Rs.9,90,000/- on 17.08.2015 in total Rs.16,45,000/-, but again by gathering the complaint pleadings with the withdrawal of the above amount, it indicates that, there is no proof to show that, the above withdrawal amount was being paid to the accused. Because, the date of withdrawal is of the month of January and August 2015, but the loan transaction pleaded in the complaint is of the month May and August 2016. Though, the Ex.P.9 to 12 would indicate the complainant was having financial capacity as of the month of January & August 2015, but either there is any proof to establish the said withdrawal amount was being paid to the accused in the month of May & August 2016 or that, he was having a sufficient funds or the financial capacity to advance the loan amount in the month of May and August 2016. Except, the complainant placing the 20 C.C.No.9369/2021 Ex.P.9 to 12, there is no probable evidence forthcoming to appreciate the fact of he advancing the withdrawal amount to the accused in the month of May and August 2016. If the complainant had reduced the loan transaction in writing, certainly, the claim of the complainant of he withdrawing under Ex.P.9 to 12 and he advancing in the month of May and August 2016 would have been appreciated.
17. It is an admitted fact that, the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 and the signature appearing therein does belongs to the accused. Here, the complainant claim that, the accused had borrowed hand loan amount of Rs.12 lakhs in the month of May 2016 and Rs.13 lakhs in the month of August 2016 in total Rs.25 lakhs to purchase a land near Manganahalli Village, Uday Layout. The complainant has also got produced the certified copy of the sale deed dt:01.09.2016 at Ex.P.7 which would go to indicate the 21 C.C.No.9369/2021 property bearing site no. 209, at Manganahalli village ( Uday Layout) stands in the name of the accused's wife Smt. Sunitha. This is a document on which the complainant emphasizes of he advancing the loan amount. But, however on perusal the sale deed at page no.3, it would go to indicate that, the sale consideration is being fixed at Rs.18 lakhs and the accused's wife happens to have transferred Rs.9 lakhs each on 30.05.2016 & 08.05.2016 through RTGS. While gathering these payments with the date of the loan transaction as pleaded in the complaint, it is of the month of May 2016 and August 2016. It would not be wrong to say that, the very contents of the sale deed regarding payment reveal that, before the date of the complainant claim to have advanced Rs.13 lakhs in the month of August 2016, the accused's wife happens to have paid entire sale consideration amount in the month of June 22 C.C.No.9369/2021 2016, which really contradicts the pleading of the complaint. Moreso, there is no written document reduced by the complainant to establish that, he had advanced Rs.12 lakhs in the month of May 2016 & Rs.13 lakhs in the month of August 2016.
18. It is an admitted fact that, either Rs.12 lakhs or Rs.13 lakhs is not a small amount. The complainant claim that, he had advanced Rs.25 lakhs in a hard cash. It is an admitted fact that, the accused is not a relative or blood relative of the complainant. When he claims to have advanced such a huge amount through cash, either he had no impediment to get transferred the said amount through cheque or online transaction or nothing had prevented him to get reduce in writing. He could have obtained some receipt for the payment. Though, the complainant again emphasized on Ex.P.6 the complaint made by the accused 23 C.C.No.9369/2021 under sec. 138 of N.I.Act against one Venkatesh which he intends to establish that, the amount referred in the said complaint covers his loan amount, but again there is no proof to establish the said fact or to establish the loan transaction as pleaded in the complaint. The complainant is not an illiterate or a rustic person. He claims to be a BE graduate and also, claims that, he gives consultation on the basis of his graduation. When such is the case, certainly he will be having a basic knowledge to get reduce the loan transaction in writing. Absolutely, there is no piece of evidence to appreciate his financial capacity or of the loan transaction. Even, for a moment if it is construed that, due to the well acquaintance of the accused, he had not reduced the transaction in writing or chosen to obtain any document toward the security purpose, but again he had no impediment to get declared the loan transaction in his I.T. 24 C.C.No.9369/2021 returns. If the complainant had declared the loan transaction in his I.T returns, certainly that would have supported his claim, which admittedly not forthcoming.
19. Here it is also relevant to note that, the accused has also got confronted the certified copy of the complaint in CC.No.11579/2019, CC.No. 25435/2021 and CC.No. 23511/ 2019 which is being marked at Ex.D.1, D.3 & D.4. The defence has harped much upon the conduct of the complainant to establish that, he is doing a money lending business without holding any license and also emphasized the pleading at Ex.D.4 wherein the complainant alleges to have advanced Rs.42 lakhs in the month of June 2016 to one K.N.Haritheerthaiah. Though, the accused has not produced any document to establish the complainant dealing with money lending without holding license, but 25 C.C.No.9369/2021 again the Ex.D.4 would really support the defence case so as to appreciate the financial capacity of the complainant. Because, the complaint averments in Ex.D.4 would indicate that, he had advanced Rs.42 lakhs in the month of June 2016 to one H.N.Haritheertha. In the case in hand, he claims to have advanced Rs.25 lakhs in the month of May & August 2016. If the amount calculated in the present complaint with the amount covered in Ex.D.4, can it be expected the complainant was having sufficient fund to advance the amount at a particular period which also creates a serious doubt. No doubt, the complainant would contend that, he had borrowed the loan from his friend and from his father-in-law and had advanced to the H.N. Haritheertha, but again there is no probable evidence forthcoming even to appreciate the said fact. So here it could be said that, a serious doubt would create so far the 26 C.C.No.9369/2021 financial capacity of the complainant in advancing lakhs of rupees, when he alleges to claim that, he is getting an amount of Rs.90,000/- as a monthly salary. Absolutely, there is no proof forthcoming to appreciate the financial capacity of the complainant to advance the loan amount of Rs.25 lakhs to the accused. If the complainant was able to place, either the receipt for having acknowledged the amount or had produced the I.T. returns disclosing the transaction, certainly the claim of the complainant with regard to his financial capacity and of loan transaction could have been appreciated, which admittedly not forthcoming.
20. The accused has also defended his claim on the ground that, the claim made by the complainant is a time barred debt and he also, questioned the very maintainability 27 C.C.No.9369/2021 of the complaint. It is not in dispute that, the complainant has filed four private complaints which is pending before this court and in the court of 19th ACJM. It is also not in dispute that, the complainant has also field a civil suit in O.S.No.194/2021 for recovery of the amount. It is also not in dispute that, the complainant has also filed a private complaint in PCR No.2127/2020 before the court of 4th ACJM. Here, the accused would take a contention that, he never handed over the disputed cheque to the complainant towards any legal liability, but in the course of the investigation in PCR No.2127/2020, the accused was called to the station on 04.06.2020 and with the help of the police officers, the complainant alleges to have forcibly obtained the disputed cheque. However, there is no evidence placed on record to appreciate that, the disputed cheque was being forcibly obtained in the police station on 04.06.2020. Here, 28 C.C.No.9369/2021 it is relevant to note that, if really the complainant had forcibly obtained the disputed cheque with other cheques in the station, nothing had prevented the accused to lodge complaint against the complainant or against the police officer to their higher authorities. No such efforts are made nor have produced any documents to that regard. Perhaps, he could have demanded the return of the cheques in writing or could have produced the request letter made to the bank, which would have supported his defence. But, absolutely no such evidence forthcoming. Any how, the accused has taken a contention that, the claim made by the complainant is a time barred debt which really requires a due consideration.
21. As said above, the complainant claim that, he has advanced Rs.12 lakhs in the month of May 2016 & Rs.13 lakhs in the month of August 2016. He has also deposed 29 C.C.No.9369/2021 the very same fact in his evidence by asserting the dates as 22.05.2016 and dt: 22.08.2016. Perhaps, he has categorically admitted that, the disputed cheque was being issued after the lapse of 4 years from the date of loan transaction. The admission would read like this, ದಿಃ 22.05.2016 ರಂದು ನಾನು ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ರೂ 12 ಲಕ್ಷ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಹಾಗೂ ದಿಃ 22.08.2016 ರಂದು ರೂ. 13 ಲಕ್ಷ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. Again, ನಾನು ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಸಾಲಕ್ಕೂ ಹಾಗೂ ವಿವಾದಿತ ಚೆಕ್ಕಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿಸಿರುವ ತಾರೀಖಿಗೂ ಸುಮಾರು 4 ವರ್ಪ ಅವಧಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ Again, ವಿವಾದಿತ ಚೆಕ್ಕು ನನಗೆ ದಿಃ 24.08.2020 ರಂದು ಸಂಜೆ 8.00 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
22. So, this admission suffices that, though the loan transaction is alleged to be took place in the month of May and August 2016, the disputed cheque is alleged to have 30 C.C.No.9369/2021 been issued on 24.08.2020, which really suffices the argument canvassed by the accused with regard to the time barred debt. The defence has also relied upon the decision reported in 2021(1) KLR 615, Bidar Uran Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vs. Sri. Girish wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that, Sec. 138 of N.I.Act is attracted only if there is legally recoverable debt as it cannot be said that, a time barred debt is legally recoverable debt. The Hon'ble High Court has also placed reliance of the judgment in Special leave to appeal (Crl) NO.1785/2021 dt: 10.09.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, if the cheque is issued after the time bound period, it would not come under the purview of implied promise and no offence can be brought out U/s. 138 of N.I.Act. Even, in the case in hand, nowhere the complainant would contend that, the disputed cheque was 31 C.C.No.9369/2021 being issued within the limitation, but he categorically admits that, it was being issued after the lapse of three years. So, here again it suffices that, the claim made by the complainant is a time barred debt and it would not come under the legally enforceable liability. Admittedly, either there is any agreement reduced within the time period, nor any acknowledgment is being made within the particular period so as to claim the benefit of Sec. 25(3) of Contract Act, so as to appreciate the complainant case. When such being the case, this court would not find any ground to hold that, the claim made by the complainant is a time debt. On the other hand, the accused was successful to establish the claim made by the complainant is a time barred debt.
32
C.C.No.9369/2021
23. So, in this back ground, having the complainant failed to establish the case so as to presume the disputed cheques being issued towards the discharge of legal liability, the service of the demand notice would not be much impact so as to appreciate the complainant case. If the complainant was able to establish his case by placing probable evidence, the service of demand notice would have been relevant. In this back ground, it would be said that, merely the accused admitting the disputed cheque and it being dishonored as per Ex.P.2, it cannot be said that, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act. The complainant utterly failed to establish his financial capacity and also, the loan transaction. In this back ground with due respect, though the principles enumerated in the decisions relied by the complainant cannot be denied, but it is not applicable to the case in 33 C.C.No.9369/2021 hand, for having the accused failed to establish his case. On the other hand, the decisions relied by the accused with regard to the financial capacity and the loan transaction, with the time barred debt aptly applies to the case in hand and accordingly, it is applied. Hence, point no.1 is answered in the Negative.
24. Point No.2:- For the reasons discussed in the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting U/s.278(1) of BNSS -2023 (Old Correspondence No. 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure), the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond and cash surety furnished by the accused stands canceled.34
C.C.No.9369/2021 Return the deposited cash surety to the accused on proper verification. (Directly dictated to stenographer on computer, typed by her, revised by me and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15 th day of November 2025).Digitally signed
JAI by JAI SHANKAR
J
SHANKAR Date:
J 2025.10.17
10:54:38 +0530
(JAI SHANKAR.J)
XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri. Ramesh R List of exhibits marked on behalf of complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Original cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of the accused
Ex.P2 : Bank Memo
Ex.P3 : Legal notice
35
C.C.No.9369/2021
Ex.P4 : Postal receipt
Ex.P5 : Track consignment
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of complaint in CC. No.
31075/2021
: Sale deed and affidavit U/s. 65 B of
Ex.P.7 & 8 evidence Act
Ex.P.9 to 12 : Certified copies of cheques
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:-
: - NIl-
List of exhibits marked on behalf of the accused:-
Ex.D.1 ; Complaint of CC. NO. 11579/2019 Ex.D.2 : Depositions Ex.D.3 : Complaint of CC. NO. 25435/2021 Ex.D.4 : Complaint of CC. 23511/2019 JAI Digitally signed by JAI SHANKAR J SHANKAR Date: 2025.10.17 J 10:54:51 +0530 (JAI SHANKAR.J) XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
36 C.C.No.9369/2021