Bangalore District Court
Samballi Narendra vs Govardhan N on 7 March, 2026
KABC030188812023
Presented on : 08-05-2023
Registered on : 08-05-2023
Decided on : 07-03-2026
Duration : 2 years, 9 months, 30 days
IN THE COURT OF LII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT
SMT.LAVANYA.H.N, B.Sc., LL.B.,
LII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2026
C.C. No.10926/2023
COMPLAINANT: SRI.SAMBALLI NARENDRA,
S/o.Samballi Keshavulu Naidu,
No.435, 17th B Cross,
Mariyappana Palya,
Jnanabharathi, 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 056.
Now at No.88, 6th Cross,
Raju Layout, Nagadevanahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 056.
(Rep By: Sri.K.N.Veena Arun - Advocate)
V/s.
ACCUSED: SRI.GOVARDHAN.N,
S/o.Sri.Narayanappa,
C/o.Sri Maha Enterprises,
2
C.C.No.10926/2023
No.704, Shop No.2, 1st Main,
6th Cross, Jnanabharathi BDA
Layout, KS Town,
Bengaluru - 560 060.
Permanent Address.
SRI.GOVARDHAN.N,
S/o.Sri.Narayanappa,
No.103, Marasanappali
Gownipalli,
Chintamani,
Chikkaballapura - 563 161.
(Rep By : Sri.G.N.Subramani - Advocate)
Date of presenting 17.12.2022.
complaint
Date of arrest of accused NIL
Name of the Complainant SRI.SAMBALLI NARENDRA.
Date of commencement of 19.12.2023.
evidence
Date of closing evidence 23.02.2026.
Offence complained of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881.
Date of Judgment 07.03.2026.
Opinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty.
:JUDGMENT:
This Complainant has presented the complaint on 17.12.2022 against the accused for the offense punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter it is referred to as NI Act).
3C.C.No.10926/2023
2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINANT'S CASE ARE AS UNDER:-
a) It is the case of the complainant that the accused is friend of the Complainant, and is known to the Complainant for last five years. The accused approached the complainant and requested for the loan Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Only) in order to meet his urgent financial necessities and promised to re-pay the same within three months with interest @18% p.a. The complainant by friendship has given hand loan by taking personal loan from the Bank. The complainant has been paying interest for the loan to the Bank.
b) It is further case of the complainant that in spite of the lapse of the several months the accused did not repay the loan amount and on several demands the accused has issued the five cheques in favour of the complainant, i) Cheque bearing No.748766 dt. 25.07.2022 for a sum Rs.4,00,000/-, ii) Cheque bearing No.748768 dt. 25.07.2022 for a sum Rs.5,00,000/-, iii) Cheque bearing No.748769 dt.
25.07.2022 for a sum Rs.3,00,000/- iv) Cheque bearing No.748770 dt. 25.07.2022 for a sum Rs.2,00,000/- and v) Cheque bearing No.748767 dt. 25.07.2022 for a sum Rs.4,00,000/- all are drawn on State Bank of India, Gownipalli Village Branch, Roayalpad Hobli, Srinivasapur Taluk, towards the re-payment of the loan amount.
c) It is further case of the complainant that the Complainant presented the cheques for realization on 4 C.C.No.10926/2023 30.09.2022 as well as 27.10.2022, as requested by the accused through his banker ICICI BANK LIMITED Kengeri branch, Bangalore, but the same were returned unpaid with an endorsement of bank dated 27.10.2022 for the reason of "INSUFFICIENT OF FUNDS".
d) It is further case of the complainant that after receipt of the endorsements from the Bank, the complainant informed orally and by phone several times, but inspite of serval request the accused not paid amount, hence the Complainant issued the legal notice dated 31.10.2022, through R.P.A.D., calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The notice sent by R.P.A.D to the address of the accused was returned that the Accused not found but another post sent to the 2nd address is not returned. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this complaint.
3(a) After presenting the complaint cognizance of the offense under Section 138 of N.I Act, was taken. As a prima- facie case was made out against the accused, by order dated 08.05.2023 Criminal Case was registered and process was issued to the accused.
3(b) In response to the summons, accused has caused his appearance through Sri.G.N.Subramani - Advocate and got obtained the bail on 19.12.2023. The substance of accusation 5 C.C.No.10926/2023 was recorded on 19.12.2023. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the matter was posted for trial.
4. The sworn statement of the complainant was treated as examination-in-chief of complainant and the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.24 are marked through PW.1.
5. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused in the evidence of PW.1 has been read over and explained to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and accordingly, answers given by the accused were recorded.
6. The accused has not chosen to lead defense evidence.
7. Having heard learned Advocate for the accused and on perusal of the materials available on record, the points that would arise for determination are as under:-
POINTS
1) Whether the complainant proved that the accused has committed the offense punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act ?
2) What order or sentence?
8. The answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative;
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
6
C.C.No.10926/2023
REASONS
POINT No.1 :
9. Complainant/PW1 in his affidavit has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. Complainant in support of his oral evidence has relied upon Ex.P1 to P24. Ex.P1 to 5 are the cheques bearing No.748767 for sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, the cheque bearing No.748766 for sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, the cheque bearing No.748769 for sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, the cheque bearing No.748770 for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and the cheque bearing No.748768 for sum of Rs.5,00,000/- all are drawn on State Bank of India, Gownipalli Village Branch dated 25.07.2022 which were alleged to have been issued by the accused in the name of complainant.
10. Ex.P6 to Ex.P.10 are the bank memos dated 27.10.2022 wherein it could be seen that the cheque at Ex.P1 to Ex.P.5 presented by the complainant were dishonored on 27.10.2022 on the ground of "OUTDATED". Ex.P15 to Ex.P.19 are the bank memos dated 30.09.2022 wherein it could be seen that the cheque at Ex.P1 to Ex.P.5 presented by the complainant were dishonored on 30.09.2022 on the ground of "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS". Ex.P20 to Ex.P.24 are the bank memos dated 27.07.2022 wherein it could be seen that the cheque at Ex.P1 to Ex.P.5 presented by the complainant were dishonored on 27.07.2022 on the ground of "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS".
7C.C.No.10926/2023
11. Ex.P11 is the office copy of the demand notice dated 31.10.2022 issued by the complainant to the accused calling upon the accused to repay the cheque amount within stipulated period. Ex.P12 & 13 are the postal receipts having service having sent the notice at Ex.P11 to the accused. Ex P14 is the RPAD Returned cover, wherein it could be seen that notice issued to the accused to Marasanapalli - Govinapalli address returned with shara "ADDRESSEE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR 7 DAYS ALSO"
12. It is one of the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused that this case itself is not maintainable since the cheques in question were returned "OUTDATED" as per Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.10, the bank endorsements dated 27.10.2022. Therefore, one of the conditions of Section 138 of the NI Act, has not been complied with. On this ground only, the complaint filed by the complainant liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the accused in support of his argument has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court Karnataka in Crl.Appeal.No.220/2019 between Hemalatha Niranjan Vs. M.A.Shanmuka decided on 09.01.2025, wherein it is held that:
"The cheque is at Ex.P1 and it is dated 04.02.2017. The complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment and the said cheque came to be returned under memo dated 06.05.2017 (Ex.P2) by HDFC Bank with reason "Stale". The said endorsement itself indicates that the cheque has not been presented for 8 C.C.No.10926/2023 encashment within the period of its validity. One of the conditions for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is that the cheque should be present to the Bank within the period of its validity. In the case on hand the cheque has not been presented to the Bank within a period of its validity and therefore, it has been returned with reason "Stale". The said cheque has not been dishonoured for want of funds. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that earlier the complainant has presented the cheque for two times and it came to be dishonoured for want of funds cannot be accepted as cheque can be presented any number of times till its validity. The complainant has presented the cheque before the Bank after its validity and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is not attracted. Considering the said aspect, learned Magistrate has rightly held that offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act is not attracted and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal.
13. At the outset, it is relevant to note that in spite of sufficient and reasonable time, the complainant/PW.1 did not tender himself for cross-examination. When PW.1 has failed to tender himself for cross-examination, no evidentiary value attached to the evidence of the complainant. Leave it as it may be.
14. It is one of the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused that since complainant has sent notice to wrong 9 C.C.No.10926/2023 address of the accused, accused has not been served with the statutory notice.
15. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, Marasanapalli, Gownipally for which notice was sent comes within the Revenue Jurisdiction of Srinivaspura Taluk, Kolar District, but not Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, as mentioned in the notice, complaint and postal cover. Though Taluk and District, were wrongly mentioned in the notice, postal cover and complaint, the PIN Code for which notice was sent is 563161. This PIN Code is of Srinivasapura Taluk, but not Chintamani Taluk. As could be seen at Ex.P.14, the notice was reached to the Gownipally Post Office. From this, it could be said that though Taluk and District were wrongly given, based upon the PIN Code, the notice was rightly reached to the Jurisdictional Post Office.
16. It is worth to note that the notice was not returned with postal shara, because of wrong address, but it was returned for the reason of "ADDRESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR 7 DAYS". As noted above, PW.1 did not tender for cross- examination. Under the circumstances accused did not get an opportunity to prove his defense that he was not served with the notice. Be that as it may be.
17. As could be seen from the above documents, as per Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.24, the cheques at Ex.P.1 to 5 were presented within its validity period and the same were dishonored on 10 C.C.No.10926/2023 27.07.2022 for the reason of "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS". Based upon these endorsements, no statutory notice was issued to the accused for taking legal action under the provisions of 138 NI Act. Similarly, as per Ex.P.15 to Ex.P.19, the cheques at Ex.P.1 to 5 were presented within its validity period and the same were dishonored on 30.09.2022 for the reason of "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS". Based upon these endorsements also, no statutory notice was issued to the accused for taking legal action under the provisions of 138 NI Act.
18. It is no doubt that cheque could be presented any number of time within its validity period. As noted above, based upon Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.15 to Ex.P.19, no legal action was taken by the complainant by issuing statutory notice in accordance with law.
19. The statutory notice at Ex.P.11 was issued based upon the bank endorsements dated 27.10.2022 at Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, as per Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.10, the cheques were returned unpaid for the reason of "OUTDATED". But, in the complaint, as well as in the statutory notice at Ex.P.11, it has been stated that cheques were returned unpaid as "Insufficient Fund". From the documents at Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.10, it is clear that when the complainant presented the cheques for encashment for third time on 27.10.2022 the time was barred. That means to say that cheques were not presented within the validity period.
11C.C.No.10926/2023
20. It is one of the conditions for the offence punishable for 138 of NI Act, that cheque should be presented to the bank within the period of its validity. As noted above, based upon Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.10, statutory notice was issued to the accused. When the complainant has presented the cheques for 3 rd time on 27.10.2022 based upon which case was filed at that time, the validity of the Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 was expired. Thus, it is clear that cheques at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 were not presented within the validity period. Under the circumstances, it is held that the one of the main and first ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act, was not complied with. For this reason alone, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Thus, accused is entitle for acquittal for the offense punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. In view of the above reasons, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove that accused has committed the offense punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I Act. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
POINT No.2:
21. In view of the above reasons, it is held that the accused is entitled to acquittal for the offense punishable U/Sec. 138 of N.I Act. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable 12 C.C.No.10926/2023 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881., is hereby dismissed.
Acting under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is Acquitted for the offense punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
The bail bond of the accused stands canceled.
(Dictated to Stenographer directly on computer, computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of March, 2026) (LAVANYA.H.N) LII ADDL. C.J.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT/S:
PW-1 : SRI.SAMBALLI NARENDRA.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OT THE
COMPLAINANT/S:
Ex.P-1 to 5 Cheques.
Ex.P- 6 to 10 5 Bank Memos.
Ex.P-11 Legal Notice dated 31.10.2022.
Ex.P-12 & 13 Two Postal Receipts.
Ex.P-14 Postal Acknowledgment.
13
C.C.No.10926/2023
Ex.P-15 to 24 10 Bank Memos.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED/S:
NIL DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED/S:
NIL (LAVANYA.H.N) LII ADDL. C.J.M., BENGALURU.
Digitally
signed by
LAVANYA H N
LAVANYA Date:
HN 2026.03.09
15:45:00
+0530