Bangalore District Court
Mahesha B N vs Shital Jain on 17 January, 2026
KABC020704412024
IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, ACJM AND MEMBER-MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-13)
DATED: THIS 17th DAY OF JANUARY 2026.
PRESENT: Smt.Shyla S.M., B.B.M. LL.B.,
II Addl.Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes
BENGALURU.
C.C.No.24672 OF 2024
Complainant: Sri.Mahesha B.N.
S/o Late Nanjayya
Aged about 39 years,
R/At No.113/Y, 4th Main,
4th Phase, 7th Block,
BSK 3rd Stage, Bengaluru-560085.
(By Sri.B.Manjunath, Adv.,)
V/S
Accused: Smt.Shital Jain
W/O Rajendra Kumar Jain
Aged about 52 years
R/At No.1245, Trupti Nilaya
SCCH-13 2 CC.24672/2024
3rd Floor, 48th Cross, 38th Main,
PP Layout, Bengaluru-560061.
(By Sri.D.Venugopal, Adv.,)
*****
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the Complainant under section 223 of BNSS R/w Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant and the accused are well known to each other and have been friends for several years. During the course of their acquaintance, the accused, expressing financial exigency, approached the complainant and requested a hand loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- for meeting her family necessities and for development of her business.
3. Considering the request and the longstanding relationship, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the accused through online transfer on 29-05-2024. The accused assured the complainant SCCH-13 3 CC.24672/2024 that the entire loan amount would be repaid within 15 days, i.e., by the second week of June 2024.
4. When the complainant demanded repayment in the second week of June 2024, the accused, in discharge of her legally enforceable debt, issued a cheque bearing No. 139175 dated 27-06-2024 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, ISRO Layout Branch, Bengaluru.
5. As per the request and instructions of the accused, the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker on 27-06-2024. However, the cheque was returned unpaid on 28-06- 2024 with the bank endorsement "Funds Insufficient".
6. Upon receipt of information regarding dishonour of the cheque, the complainant issued a statutory legal notice dated 12-07-2024 to the accused, calling upon her to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The said notice was duly served on the accused on 18- 07-2024. Despite service of the legal notice, the accused failed to comply with the demand and did not repay the cheque amount.
SCCH-13 4 CC.24672/20247. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, seeking to take cognizance of the offence and to take appropriate action against the accused in accordance with law.
8. After prima facie of the complaint, the cognizance for the offence under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act was taken and summons was issued to the accused. In pursuance of summons the accused appeared through her Counsel and enlarged on bail.
9. Substance of the accusation was made over and stated to the accused. The accused having understood the same and denied the said plea averments.
10. The complainant was examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P5. The incriminating evidence and materials available in the case of the complaint was read over to the accused and accused was duly examined under section 351 of BNSS. The accused on understanding the said SCCH-13 5 CC.24672/2024 averments denied it to be false. The accused has not lead his defence evidence.
11. Heard both complainant and accused counsel. Perused the materials available on record.
12. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the following decisions:
1. Crl.Appeal No.1581/1999 - Gorantla Venkateshwara Rao V.Kolla Veeraraghawa Rao.
2. (2010) 11 SCC 441 - Rangappa Vs. Sri.Mohan
3. Crl.Appeal No.2689/2009 - Sripad Vs. Ramadas M Shet
4. 2013 (4) AKR 289 - S.Govindaraju Vs. State of Karnataka
5. Crl.R.P.No.996/2016 - Banavathy and Co. Vs. Maheer Electro Mech Pvt.Ltd., and others.
13. The following points arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the Complainant proves that the cheque in question is issued by the accused to discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability?SCCH-13 6 CC.24672/2024
(2) Whether the complainant further proves that the accused has committed the offence under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
(3) What Order ?
14. My findings are:
Point No.1 & 2: In the Affirmative;
Point No.3 : As per final orders
for the following;
REASONS
15. Points No.1 & 2: As these two points are inter connected, in order to avoid duplication, they are taken together for common discussion.
16. In view of the legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Mohan [(2010) 11 SCC 441], once the issuance of the cheque and the signature thereon are admitted, the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 automatically arises in favour of the complainant.
The presumption is that the cheque was issued SCCH-13 7 CC.24672/2024 towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Thereafter, the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the said presumption by raising a probable defence supported by cogent evidence.
17. Keeping the above settled position of law in mind, it is necessary to examine: whether the complainant has complied with the mandatory requirements under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; and whether the accused has successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions available in favour of the complainant.
18. The complainant alleges that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/- towards discharge of an outstanding legally enforceable liability. The cheque was dishonoured for "Funds Insufficient" and thereafter a statutory notice was issued within the prescribed period. Despite service of notice, the accused failed to comply with the demand, compelling the complainant to institute the present complaint.
SCCH-13 8 CC.24672/202419. The complainant examined himself as PW1. His testimony has been partly cross-examined, and PW1 has consistently reiterated all the material facts stated in the complaint. On examination of statutory compliance, Ex.P1 is the cheque dated 27-06-2024, Ex.P2 is the bank endorsement dated 28-06-2024, Ex.P3 is the statutory legal notice dated 12-07-2024, Ex.P4 is the postal receipt, and Ex.P5 is the returned postal acknowledgment. The complaint was filed on 04-09-2024. A careful scrutiny of Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 clearly establishes that the complainant has complied with all mandatory requirements under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation.
20. There is no dispute with respect to the cheque marked as Ex.P1. The accused has neither denied issuance of the cheque nor disputed her signature on Ex.P1. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Rangappa v. Mohan, once the cheque and signature are admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act necessarily SCCH-13 9 CC.24672/2024 operate in favour of the complainant, and the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the same.
21. The primary issue for consideration is whether the accused has succeeded in rebutting the mandatory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
22. In the present case, during the course of cross-examination, PW1 has stated that there was no transaction between him and the accused other than the present loan transaction and that he paid the amount to the accused on 29-05-2024 through online transfer. He further deposed that the accused assured repayment within seven to eight days and subsequently issued the cheque when the amount was demanded. These facts have not been specifically denied or disproved by the accused.
23. The accused has not produced any documentary evidence to show that she did not receive the alleged loan amount. She has also failed to fully cross-examine PW1 by putting forth a specific defence explaining how the cheque came SCCH-13 10 CC.24672/2024 into the possession of the complainant. Further, the accused has not entered the witness box to depose on oath and subject herself to cross-examination. Thus, the defence raised by the accused remains a mere unsubstantiated assertion.
24. On the contrary, material on record clearly establish that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the accused, that the cheque was issued towards repayment of the said amount, that the cheque was dishonoured, and that despite service of statutory notice, the accused failed to repay the amount within the stipulated period.
25. During cross-examination, a suggestion was put to PW1 that the contents were not filled up by the complainant. PW1 categorically denied the said suggestion. Moreover, the accused did not raise such a contention in her statement under Section 351 BNSS, and no evidence has been adduced to substantiate the plea of blank cheque.
26. Even assuming that the cheque was issued blank, Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act SCCH-13 11 CC.24672/2024 expressly authorizes the holder of a negotiable instrument, duly signed and delivered, to complete the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, AIR 2019 SC 2446, and Rohitbhai Jeevanlal Patil v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2019 SC 1876, has categorically held that a signed blank cheque voluntarily handed over can be filled by the payee and such filling does not invalidate the cheque. The burden still remains on the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued towards a legally enforceable debt, which burden the accused has failed to discharge.
27. The accused has also failed to issue any reply to the statutory legal notice, which is an additional adverse circumstance against her. In 2007 CRI.L.J(NOC520 (KER), Samjeev P.R. Vs/ Thriveni Credit Corporation, Thoapuzha and another, and Gorantla Venkateshwara Rao v. Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (2006 Cri LJ 1), it has been held that failure to reply to a duly served statutory notice supports the case of the complainant and gives rise to an adverse inference against the accused.
SCCH-13 12 CC.24672/202428. Further, the accused has not lodged any complaint nor initiated any civil or criminal proceedings alleging misuse of the cheque, which further weakens her defence.
29. On the other hand, the complainant has produced consistent oral and documentary evidence. Ex.P1 (cheque), Ex.P2 (bank endorsement), Ex.P3 (legal notice), and Ex.P4 & Ex.P5 (postal receipts) collectively prove the existence of legally enforceable liability, issuance of cheque, dishonour, service of notice, and failure of the accused to repay the amount within the statutory period. Mere suggestions during cross-examination, without supporting evidence, do not discharge the burden cast upon the accused.
30. Thus, upon an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court holds that the accused has miserably failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereas the complainant has successfully proved his case both SCCH-13 13 CC.24672/2024 on facts and in law. Accordingly, the points for consideration is answered in the affirmative.
31. Point No.3: I have already held that the complainant has successfully proved the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable instrument Act. It is worth to note that the offence punishable under Sec.138 though criminal in nature, partakes the character of a civil wrong. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2015) 17 SCC 368 - H.Pukhraj Vs. D.Parasmal, wherein it is observed that having regard to the length of trial and date of issuance of cheque, it is necessary to award reasonable interest on the cheque amount. Considering all the aspects, this court proceed to pass the following:
::O R D E R::
Exercising the power u/s 278(3) of BNSS accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.SCCH-13 14 CC.24672/2024
Accordingly, the accused is
sentenced to pay fine amount of
Rs.3,30,000/- and in default to pay fine amount she shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.3,30,000/- a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 395 of BNSS and a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the State.
Office to provide free copy of this judgment to the accused.
The bail bond executed by the accused stands discharged. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court dated this the 17th day of January 2026).
(SHYLA.S.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACJM, Member, MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
SCCH-13 15 CC.24672/2024ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for complainant :
PW.1 Mahesha B.N. List of documents marked for complainant :
Ex.P.1 & : Cheque and Signature of the accused 1(a) Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement Ex.P.3 : Legal notice Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt Ex.P.5 : Postal track consignment List of witnesses examined for accused :
-None-
List of documents marked for accused:
-Nil-
(SHYLA S.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACJM Member, MACT Bengaluru.