Bangalore District Court
Satish L G vs Chennuru Mahesh Kumar on 7 January, 2026
Corrected
KABC030649602022
Presented on : 11-08-2022
Registered on : 11-08-2022
Decided on : 07-01-2026
Duration : 3 years, 4 months, 27 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 7th day of January - 2026
PRESENT: SMT. THENDRALL.K, B.A.L, LL.M.,
XVIII Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.25872/2022
Complainant : Sri.L.G.Satish,
S/o.L.R.Gopal Krishnan,
Aged about 58 years,
R/at No.29, 3rd Cross,
Jayanagar 1st Block,
Lalbagh Siddapura,
Bengaluru South,
Bengaluru-11.
(Rep. by Sri.M.G.N, Adv.)
V/S
Accused : Sri.Chennuru Mahesh Kumar,
S/o.Chennuru Rama Rao,
Aged about 67 years,
R/at No.104, Pranathi Plaza,
3rd Lane, Devapuram,
Judgment 2 C.C.No.25872/2022
Near Krishnan Nagar Park,
Gunturu Town, Gunturu,
Andhra Pradesh-522 002.
(Rep. by Sri.A.R, Adv.)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Convicted
DATE OF ORDER : 07.01.2026.
(THENDRALL.K)
XVIII Addl.CJM., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The instant complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I Act to punish the accused in accordance with law and to award compensation to complainant as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the case of complainant is that :
It is submitted that, the complainant and accused are friends and known to each other from considerable time. In this connection, during 1st week of November 2021, the Judgment 3 C.C.No.25872/2022 accused had approached and requested the complainant for financial assistance of Rs.9,00,000/- to meet out his family commitments and to clear old debts and promised to repay the same within three months. Considering the pathetic condition of accused, the complainant had arranged and mobilized funds of Rs.9,00,000/- and paid to the accused by way of cash during 2nd week of November 2021.
Further contended that, after lapse of the said agreed period of three months, when the complainant demanded the accused to return of said loan amount, at that time towards discharge of his liability, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.000026 dated 16.03.2022 for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Arundelpet Branch, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh in favour of complainant and assured that the said cheque would be honoured on its presentation. As per instructions of accused, the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker viz., State Bank of India, Coffee Board Layout Branch, Hebbal Kempapura, Bengaluru, same came to be dishonoured and returned with an endorsement dated 18.03.2022 stating "Funds Insufficient".
Further contended that, after non-realization of the cheque, complainant constrained to cause a legal notice to Judgment 4 C.C.No.25872/2022 the address of accused through RPAD on 13.04.2022, same came to be returned with a shara dated 19.04.2022 & 26.04.2022 stating "Unclaimed intimation delivered", after knowledge and intimation of notice, the accused had approached and requested the complainant not to file complaint against him and after negotiation the accused had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and towards payment of remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/-, the accused had issued another cheque bearing No.000030 dated 21.05.2022 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Arundelpet Branch, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh in favour of complainant and assured that the said cheque would be honoured on its presentation. As per instructions of accused, the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker viz., State Bank of India, Coffee Board Layout Branch, Hebbal Kempapura, Bengaluru, same came to be dishonoured and returned with an endorsement dated 23.05.2022 stating "Funds Insufficient". Despite the same, the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor replied the notice. Thus, the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, filed the present case.
3. After taking cognizance and registration of the case, process was ordered to issue summons against accused. In pursuance thereof, accused appeared before the court Judgment 5 C.C.No.25872/2022 through his counsel and accordingly, he was enlarged on bail and has recorded the accusation for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act, same was explained to accused. Since accused pleaded not guilty and claims to have defence evidence hence, the case has been set down for recording of evidence.
4. To substantiate the complaint averments, complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 07 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The counsel for complainant has relied upon the following decisions:
1. 2019 (2) Kar.L.R.717 (SC) in the case of Uttam Ram V/s. Devinder Singh Hudan and another.
2. 2024 (1) KCCR 695 (SC) in the case of Ajit Sinh Chehuji Rathod V/s. State of Gujarat and another.
5. As the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused, the statement of accused U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded by preparing separate questionnaires.
The accused has not explained anything, in order to rebut the case of the complainant, accused got examined himself as DW.1, but not produced any documents on his behalf. The counsel for accused has relied upon the following decisions:
1. (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 441 in the case of Rangappa V/s Sri Mohan.
Judgment 6 C.C.No.25872/2022
2. AIR 2019 Supreme Court 942 in the case of Amss Rajashekar V/s. Augustus Jeba Ananth.
3. AIR 2019 Supreme Court 1983 in the case of Basalingappa V/s. Mudibasappa.
4. 2020 (5) KCCR 545 in the case of Sri Prakash V/s. Sri Ramanath M.Hegde.
5. (2017) 11 Supreme Court Cases 239 in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and another.
6. Crl.P.No.245 of1999 in the case of Smt.P.Vijaylakshmi V/s Mr.P.V.Manoharan and another.
6. Heard arguments. The learned counsel for complainant has submitted his detailed written arguments, apart from oral arguments.
7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the following points would arise for determination :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused have given a cheque bearing No.000026 in order to realize the legally enforceable debt?
2. Whether the complainant further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he has complied provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act?
3. What order or sentence?
Judgment 7 C.C.No.25872/2022
8. My findings on the above points as under:
Point No.1 : In the "Affirmative"
Point No.2 : In the "Affirmative"
Point No.3 : As per the final order, for the following:
:R E A S O N S:
9. Point No.1: This is the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The case made out by complainant is that, the complainant and accused are friends and known to each other from considerable time, during 1st week of November 2021, the accused had approached and requested the complainant for financial assistance of Rs.9,00,000/- to meet out his family commitments and to clear old debts and promised to repay the same within three months, considering the pathetic condition of accused, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash during 2 nd week of November 2021 and towards discharge of his liability, the accused had issued a cheque in question to the complainant which has been returned unpaid to the complainant, after non-realization of the cheque, complainant constrained to cause a legal notice to the accused, same came to be returned, after negotiation the accused had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and towards Judgment 8 C.C.No.25872/2022 payment of remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/-, the accused had issued another cheque bearing No.000030 dated 21.05.2022 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, same came to be dishonoured and returned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient".
10. In order to prove his case, the complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 07 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. He has reiterated the averments of complaint in his examination-in-chief. The documents at Ex.P1 is the cheque, Ex.P1(a) is the signature, Ex.P2 is the Return Memo, Ex.P3 is the office copy of Legal notice, Ex.P4 is the Postal receipt, Ex.P5 is the unserved RPAD cover, Ex.P6 is the original cheque bearing No.000030 and Ex.P7 is the return memo.
11. In order to prove his defence, the accused himself was examined as DW.1, but not produced any documents on his behalf. He reiterated averments in his examination-
in-chief.
12. The counsel for complainant argued that, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant by way of cash and the accused has given the cheque in question to realize the legally enforceable debt which returned unpaid. The complainant had issued legal notice to the accused. Despite the same, the accused had Judgment 9 C.C.No.25872/2022 repaid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and towards discharge of his liability the accused has given a cheque bearing No.000030 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, same came to be returned unpaid, the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor issued reply, thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Further argued that the complainant has complied the provisions of the Act and prayed to convict the accused.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for accused has argued that, the accused and one Sri.Raghunatha Reddy are known to each other and accused had transaction with the said Sri.Raghunatha Reddy, at that point of time, the accused had issued two blank signed cheques to him. Further argued that the said Sri.Raghunatha Reddy and instant complainant are known to each other, the instant complainant colluding with the said Sri.Raghunatha Reddy, by misusing the said two signed blank cheques of accused had filed instant case against the accused.
Further argued that the accused had never borrowed the alleged amount of Rs.9,00,000/- and never issued the alleged cheques to the complainant for discharge of legally enforceable recoverable debt as alleged in the instant complaint, the accused was not in need of such huge amount and he was financially well settled, the Judgment 10 C.C.No.25872/2022 complainant had no capacity to lend that huge amount. Therefore, there is no legally enforceable debt and the complainant has not complied the provisions of N.I.Act.
14. In the light of the above oral and documentary testimonies placed by the both parties and the arguments advanced by the both counsels let me examine the oral and documentary testimony produced by the complainant. It is pertinent to note that unlike the other cases, in the case of an offence punishable under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the paramount duty of the complainant is to prove that there is legally enforceable debt and the cheque has been given for realizing the legally enforceable debt.
15. In order to establish the transaction between complainant and accused, PW.1 has deposed in his evidence that, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant by way of cash during 2nd week of November 2021 and towards repayment of the said amount, the accused had given the cheque in question, which returned unpaid, hence issued legal notice to the accused. Despite the same, the accused had repaid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and towards repayment of the remaining amount, the accused had given a cheque bearing No.000030 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to him which has been returned unpaid. Though PW.1 was cross- examined by counsel for accused, but nothing has been Judgment 11 C.C.No.25872/2022 elicited from his mouth to disprove the case of complainant.
16. The main defence of accused is that, himself and one Sri.Raghunatha Reddy are known to each other and he had transaction with him, at that point of time, he had issued his two blank signed cheques to Sri.Raghunatha Reddy. The said Sri.Raghunatha Reddy and complainant herein by colluding with each other had misused the said two signed blank cheques had filed this instant case against him. He never borrowed any amount and never issued the alleged cheques to the complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable recoverable debt as alleged in the instant complaint, the complainant had no financial capacity to lend that much of huge amount to him.
17. In order to substantiate the defence of accused, the learned counsel for accused has cross-examined the PW.1. In the cross-examination, the PW.1 has deposed that:
"ನಾನು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕಡೆ ರಿಯಲ್ ಎಸ್ಟೇಟ್ ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇನೆ. ನನ್ನ ಕುಟುಂಬದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಒಬ್ಬನೇ ದುಡಿಯುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ನನಗೆ ತಿಂಗಳಿಗೆ ರೂಃ60,000/- ದಿಂದ ರೂಃ1,00,000/- ಆದಾಯ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ".
Further suggested to PW.1 that: "ಆರೋಪಿ ರಘುನಾಥರೆಡ್ಡಿ ರವರ ಬಳಿ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ ಇದೆ ಎಂದು ರೂಃ10 ಲಕ್ಷ ಕೇಳಿದ್ದರು. ರಘುನಾಥರೆಡ್ಡಿ ರವರು ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಕರೆದು ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಜೊತೆ Judgment 12 C.C.No.25872/2022 ಮಾತನಾಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಂತರ ಆರೋಪಿ ರೂಃ9 ಲಕ್ಷ ಸಾಕು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅದಕ್ಕಿಂತ ಮುಂಚಿತವೂ ಸಹ ಆರೋಪಿ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಭೇಟಿಯಾಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ರಘುನಾಥರೆಡ್ಡಿ ರವರಿಗೆ ರೂಃ10 ಲಕ್ಷ ಕೊಡುವಷ್ಟು ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯ ಇತ್ತು, ಆದರೆ ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರ ಬಳಿ ರೂಃ10 ಲಕ್ಷ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನವೆಂಬರ್ 2021 ರ ಮೊದಲ ವಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿ ಹಣ ಕೇಳಿದ್ದರು, ಆಗ ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ರೂಃ9 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ, ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಕೇವಲ ರೂಃ4 ಲಕ್ಷ ಇತ್ತು. ರಘುನಾಥರೆಡ್ಡಿ ರವರು ನನಗೆ ರೂಃ2 ಲಕ್ಷ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಇನ್ನಿಬ್ಬರು ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರಿಂದ ಒಬ್ಬರ ಹತ್ತಿರ ರೂಃ2 ಲಕ್ಷ ಮತ್ತು ಇನ್ನೊಬ್ಬರ ಹತ್ತಿರ ರೂಃ1 ಲಕ್ಷ ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಅವರ ಹೆಸರು ವಿಜಯಕುಮಾರ್ ಮತ್ತು ಹನುಮಂತಗೌಡ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ರಘುನಾಥರೆಡ್ಡಿ, ವಿಜಯಕುಮಾರ್ ಮತ್ತು ಹನುಮಂತಗೌಡ ರವರು ನನಗೆ ನಗದಾಗಿ ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ರೂಃ9 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನಗದಾಗಿ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ".
18. On perusal of the above oral testimony of PW.1, it discloses that the complainant was doing real estate business and had income of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. The accused had problem at his house and asked Raghunath Reddy for Rs.10 lakhs, then the said Ragunath Reddy had called the complainant and talked with him. In the 1st week of November 2021, the accused had requested money from the complainant for Rs.9 lakhs, at that time he was not having Rs.9 lakhs, he had Rs.4 lakhs only with him and the said Raghunath Reddy had given a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and also he had received amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-from his friends Vijayakumar and Hanumanth Gowda respectively and Judgment 13 C.C.No.25872/2022 thereafter he had given in all Rs.9,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash in the presence of Raghunath Reddy. The said testimony of PW.1 was not denied by the accused. It clearly indicates that the complainant had lent a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash.
19. During the course of cross-examination, the PW.1 has deposed that the accused had mentioned the date as 16.03.2022 in Ex.P1 cheque, when he spoke with the accused through phone, at that time the accused stated that he would come and give money, but the accused did not give money, hence he presented the cheque in question to the bank, same came to be returned, thereafter the accused came and repaid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and towards remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- he had given Ex.P6 cheque to him, the said cheque also came to be dishonoured. The said testimony of PW.1 was also denied by the accused.
20. It is to be noted that the defence of accused is that out of loan amount of Rs.9,00,000/-, the accused has paid partial amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and had given Ex.P6 towards payment of remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. It clearly manifests that the loan transaction held in between complainant and accused.
Judgment 14 C.C.No.25872/2022
21. Further the advocate for accused has suggested to PW.1 that:
"ಆರೋಪಿ, ರಘುನಾಥ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ರವರ ಜೊತೆ ಇದ್ದ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದ ಎರಡು ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ನಾನು ದುರ್ಬಳಕೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಈ ಕೇಸು ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಆರೋಪಿ ಆರ್ಥಿಕವಾಗಿ ಸದೃಢರಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಅವರಿಗೆ ನನ್ನಿಂದ ಸಾಲ ಪಡೆಯುವ ಯಾವುದೇ ಅವಶ್ಯಕತೆ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಅದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಾನು ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಯಾವತ್ತೂ ರೂಃ 9,00,000/- ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಆರೋಪಿ ಮತ್ತು ರಘುನಾಥರೆಡ್ಡಿ ರವರ ನಡುವೆ ಇದ್ದ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದ ಖಾಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ರಘುನಾಥರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಸೇರಿ ಖಾಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಭರ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿ, ಈ ಕೇಸು ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ".
22. On perusal of the above cross-examination of PW.1, it clearly indicates that the advocate for accused has suggested to PW.1 that in the transaction held between accused and Raghunath Reddy, the accused had given signed blank cheque to Raghunath Reddy, the complainant had misused the said cheque in question and filed this case. The above said suggestion was strongly denied by the PW.1 during his cross-examination. When the PW.1 has denied the above defence of accused, then the burden lies upon accused to disprove the same. In order to establish the above said fact, the accused has not produced any cogent and convincing document nor examined the said Judgment 15 C.C.No.25872/2022 Raghunath Reddy before the court. Absence of such documentary evidence creates ambiguity in the defence of accused.
23. During the course of cross-examination, the DW.1 has deposed that:
"ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರು ನನ್ನ ಚೆಕ್ಕನ್ನು ದುರುಪಯೋಗಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆಂದು, ಅವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ನಾನು ಯಾವುದೇ ಕ್ರಮ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ....... ನಿಪಿ-1 ಚೆಕ್ಕು ನನಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ್ದು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಹಿ ನನ್ನದಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ನಿಪಿ-1 ಚೆಕ್ಕನ್ನು ನಾನು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿಲ್ಲ, ಅದನ್ನು ನಾನು ಭರ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ, ಸದರಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕನ್ನು ನಾನು ರಘುನಾಥ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ರವರಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ".
24. On perusal of the above oral testimony of DW.1, the accused has admitted that he has not taken any legal action against complainant for misusing of his cheque. The DW.1 has further admitted that the Ex.P1-cheque and signature belongs to himself, and further deposed that he has not issued Ex.P1-cheque to the complainant, but same was given to Raghunath Reddy.
25. If really, the accused has not issued the questioned cheque to the complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and if the said cheque was given by accused to Raghunath Reddy and the complainant has misused the same by filing this instant case against Judgment 16 C.C.No.25872/2022 accused, but on record, there is absolutely no proof to show that the accused has given the cheque in question to Raghunath Reddy, this creates ambiguity in the defence of accused. Further the accused does not disclose what was the transaction, where, in whose presence, on which date, month and year he had transaction with Raghunath Reddy and when the disputed cheque and another cheque was issued to Raghunath Reddy. In this regard there is no explanation forthcoming from the side of accused, this also creates ambiguity in the defence of accused. If at all, the accused had transaction with the Raghunath Reddy and had issued cheque in question to him, in order to establish this fact the accused has neither produced ocular or documentary evidence nor summoned Raghunath Reddy to examine before the court. In the absence of such material evidence before the court, it is difficult to believe the version of accused that he has not issued the cheque in question to the complainant for discharge of legally recoverable debt.
26. Further if really, the accused has not issued the questioned cheque to the complainant for discharge of legally enforceable debt and if the said cheque was misused by the complainant, definitely, he would have taken legal action against the complainant, but in the instant case, the accused has neither lodged the complaint to police nor had issued notice to PW.1 nor to the bank Judgment 17 C.C.No.25872/2022 authorities regarding misuse of his cheque. Therefore, he cannot say that PW.1 has misused his cheque. In order to substantiate his version the accused has not produced either ocular or documentary evidence. Further the accused has not given any intimation to the bank for stop payment and also with regard to misuse of his cheque. Another interesting aspect to be noted that, the bank authority has given endorsement as "Funds Insufficient". In the absence of such material evidence before the court, it is difficult to believe the version of accused that he had given the disputed cheque to Raghunath Reddy and has not issued the cheque in question to the complainant for discharge of legally recoverable debt. In view of the above detailed discussion, the accused has utterly failed to rebut the presumption and to adduce acceptable rebuttal evidence.
27. The another contention of accused is that he has signed Ex.P1 cheque, but denies the other writings of Ex.P1-cheque, in this regard this court thought it fit to quote Section 20 of Negotiable Instrument Act which reads thus:-
Sec.20 Inchoate stamped instruments. - Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force Judgment 18 C.C.No.25872/2022 in 1 (India), and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima-facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount: provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.
28. If a cheque or instrument which is inchoate given to the holder in due course then the giver is permitted to subscribe the instrument. Under these circumstances as admittedly accused has given cheque he cannot take a contention that he has not written on the cheque. However, he is not disputing that Ex.P1 does not belong to him. Under these circumstances, the defence taken by the accused with respect to handwriting on Ex.P1 is concerned holds no good. If at all the accused has denied the signature over the Ex.P1 then definitely the Bank authority would have given an endorsement in that regard.
Judgment 19 C.C.No.25872/2022 Under these circumstances, the defence taken by the accused in that regard cannot be taken into consideration. In view of the above detailed discussion, the accused utterly failed to rebut the presumption and to adduce acceptable rebuttal evidence.
29. The counsel for accused argued that, the accused had transaction with Raghunatha Reddy, at that juncture the accused had issued two blank signed cheques to him. Further argued that the said Raghunatha Reddy and complainant by colluding with each other had misused the said two signed blank cheques of accused and has filed instant case against the accused. The accused never borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant at any point of time, thereby it does not create any liability, therefore the instant case is not maintainable, in this regard this court would rely on the decision reported by Hon'ble Apex Court in Appeal No.123/2021, LL 2021 SC 75, between M/s. Kalamani Tex/P.Balasubramanian, it has held that :
"Even a blank cheque leaf would attract presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when the signature is voluntarily signed is admitted".
30. At this juncture this court is relying upon a decision reported in (2018) 8 Supreme Court Cases 165 in Judgment 20 C.C.No.25872/2022 the case between Kishan Rao V/s Shankargouda, it is held that :
"A. Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881S.139 -
Presumption under - When may fail
Ingredients and scope of S.139 Principles
summarized
B. Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Ss 138 and 139 -
Dishonour of cheque Presumption in favour of holder of cheque under S.139 Not rebutted by accused by leading any evidence - No sufficient ground mentioned by High Court to enable it to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting conviction aside Conviction under S.138, restored."
31. This court relies upon another decision reported by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2022 SCC Online SC 1131 in Crl.Appeal.No.1233-1235/2022 (Arising out of Slp Crl.Nos.7430-7432/2022 @ D.No.13470/2019 between P.Rasiya V/s Abdul Nazer & Another has held that :
"Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orders passed by the Appellate Court affirming the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the accused preferred three different Revision Applications before the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has reversed the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below and has acquitted the Judgment 21 C.C.No.25872/2022 accused on the ground that, in the complaint, the Complainant has not specifically stated the nature of transactions and the source of fund. However, the High Court has failed to note the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. As per Section 139 of the N.I. Act, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Therefore, once the initial burden is discharged by the Complainant that the cheque was issued by the accused and the signature and the issuance of the cheque is not disputed by the accused, in that case, the onus will shift upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not for any debt or other liability. The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is a statutory presumption and thereafter, once it is presumed that the cheque is issued in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which is in favour of the Complainant/holder of the cheque, in that case, it is for the accused to prove the contrary."
32. I have gone through the said decision, wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that, accused may adduce evidence to rebut presumption under S.139, but mere denial regarding existence of debt nor with respect to the source of income of complainant shall not serve any Judgment 22 C.C.No.25872/2022 purpose. In the event accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubt with regard to existence of a debt or liability, the presumption may fail. Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for drawing the presumption in favour of holder.
33. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer Section 139 of NI Act, which reads as under: Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act:- Presumption in favour of holder ; It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability".
34. On reading of Section 139 of the NI Act, it is very much clear that, there shall be a presumption, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. The presumption will have to be drawn that, every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for discharge of debt or liability once the execution of negotiable instrument is either proved or admitted. Once the complainant discharges the burden of proving the instrument, then the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the same. The counsel for accused has relied upon Judgment 23 C.C.No.25872/2022 decisions with due respect the nature and circumstances of those cases are different from the nature and circumstance of instant case.
35. Further, until the contrary is proved as provided under Section 118 of NI Act, presumption will have to be drawn in favour of complainant. In order to rebut the contentions taken by the complainant, accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that, there is no debt or liability to be discharged by him. To disprove the presumptions, accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist. But in the present case, accused utterly failed to disprove the presumptions. Therefore, this court is of considered opinion that, there are no contradictions or variances in the contention taken in the complaint and evidence of PW1. Moreover, accused has neither produced ocular or documentary evidence to rebut the evidence of PW.1 and to disprove the liability and issuance of cheque. Hence, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the aforesaid decision is aptly applicable to the present case on hand.
36. This court relies on the decision reported in 2008(2) Kar L.J 276 by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka between PKN Judgment 24 C.C.No.25872/2022 Caps & Polymers, Bangalore V/s K.Vishnu Prasad has held that:
"NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881, Section138 - The respondent herein filed the I.A. after recording the evidence of parties i.e., at a belated stage. The appellant herein filed a detailed objection. In fact, the objection filed by the appellant discloses that the complaint for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Therefore, when once the documents are admitted in evidence, without the objections of the opposite party when once the Court rightly or wrongly admits the documents, the admissibility of these documents cannot be questioned. Therefore, it could be said that the respondent fails to place proper rebuttal evidence to hold that the cheques issued by him was not for legally enforceable debt or otherwise. When the respondent admits about the issuance of the two cheques and the receipt of the demand notice and dishonour of the cheques, he cannot now contend and say that it is not for legally enforceable debt."
37. Another decision reported by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2021(1) KCCR 545 (SC) between M/s. Kalamani Tex and others V/s P.Balasubramanian it is held that :
"D. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881- Sections 118 and 138-Presumption-Reverse onus- Burden of proof shifts on the accused. Preponderance of probabilities. Possibilities.
Judgment 25 C.C.No.25872/2022 Discussed, Accused not leading proper evidence. Accused has to be convicted. Order of conviction confirmed."
It is settled preposition of law that proving of the case depends upon the preponderance of probability. Therefore, the more probabilities lies in favour of the complainant in the present case on hand. Therefore, under these circumstances the presumption under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act can safely be drawn in favour of the complainant. Under these circumstances, this court is of opinion that complainant has successfully established and proved beyond all reasonable doubt that there is legally enforceable debt due to complainant payable by the accused, in order to realize the antecedent/legally enforceable debt the accused has given a cheque in question Ex.P1. Further the complainant had admitted that when the Ex.P1-cheque was returned and after non- realization of the cheque, he constrained to cause a legal notice to the accused on 13.04.2022 and after knowledge and intimation of notice, and after negotiation the accused had repaid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as against the Ex.P1- cheque amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to him. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deducted in the total compensation amount. If that is done, it will meet the ends of justice. There is no substance in the probable defence of the accused, whereas the complainant has Judgment 26 C.C.No.25872/2022 discharged his burden and proved the guilt of the accused. Therefore, keeping in the mind of the object of introduction of Negotiable Instruments Act, it appears this court that it is fit case to convict the accused. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
38. Point No.2: It is the specific contention of the complainant that the accused has given cheque in question Ex.P1 on 16.03.2022 which has been presented to the bank in time. The said cheque Ex.P1 has been returned to the complainant unpaid due to insufficient of funds on 18.03.2022. The complainant has to issue legal notice to the accused within 30 days from the date of returning of cheque. The complainant had issued legal notice to accused on 13.04.2022 which is also in time, inspite of issuance of notice the accused has not complied the same. In the present case the complainant has filed the complaint which is well within time. Therefore, under these circumstances this court is of opinion that the complainant has successfully complied the provisions of Section 138 of N.I.Act. Therefore, the point No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
39. Another aspect to be noted is that, the defence of accused that, the legal notice sent by complainant was not served to him. The said defence of accused has denied by the complainant and has stated that the demand notice was sent by him to the correct address of accused. Further Judgment 27 C.C.No.25872/2022 during the cross-examination, the DW.1 has admitted the address mentioned in his evidence affidavit and Ex.P5 unserved R.P.A.D Cover. On perusal of the address mentioned in cause title of complaint, Ex.P3-legal notice, Ex.P5 unserved R.P.A.D Cover and affidavit evidence of DW.1 are one and the same and they corroborate with each other. It appears that the complainant has sent the demand notice to the correct address of accused. Therefore, the accused cannot say that the legal notice was not served on him and he is not aware about the notice sent by the complainant.
40. On careful perusal of shara made by postal authority at Ex.P5, it appears that the notice sent by complainant through R.P.A.D came to be returned with a shara "Unclaimed". The said shara made by postal authority was not denied by the accused. In order to disprove the same, the accused had not taken any steps neither to produce documents nor examined the concerned postal authority in order to ascertain the genuinity. In the absence of such material evidence before the court, this creates ambiguity.
At this juncture this court relies on the decision reported in 2020 0 Supreme (Kar) 1029::2020 4 AIR (Kar) (R) 513 in the case of Chikkahonnaiah V/s Basamma @ Bindu, Judgment 28 C.C.No.25872/2022 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that:
"Section 138 of the N.I.Act mandates giving of a legal notice but it does not mandate that the said legal notice must be actually and physically placed in the hands of the accused. When a legal notice has been sent with the correct complete and full address of the accused with appropriate postage and when the said notice was tendered to the accused, if the accused fails to accept the notice and thus fails to claim the notice sent to him under registered post, there is deemed served of notice upon him."
In another decision reported in 2006 (4) KCCR 2375 in the case of Mr.Umraz Khan and others V/s. Mr.A.Jameel Ahmed and another, wherein, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to held that:
"Once there is proof of posting of notice to correct address, it is deemed to have been served, the judgment of acquittal is bad in law".
41. On going through the above said dictums and invoking Section 27 of General Clauses Act, it is also made clear that if the notice was sent with correct address of the accused, it is suffice to draw the inference that the notice was duly served on the accused. If the accused failed to accept the notice and failed to claim the notice sent to him under registered post, there is deemed service of notice upon him. In the present case on hand, it appears that the Judgment 29 C.C.No.25872/2022 address mentioned in the cause title of complaint, legal notice and unserved RPAD cover at Ex.P5 are one and the same. From which, it is made clear that the complainant has complied proviso (b) of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
42. So for as the quantum of the sentence is concerned this is being tried as summary trial as contemplated under Section 143 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and hence, the accused need not be heard on the sentence. It is pertinent to note that the case lodged against accused is under special law and the benevolent provision of the Probation of Offenders Act will not be made applicable.
43. Point No.3 :- In view of the above discussion and foregoing reasons this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 278(2) of BNSS-
2023 (Old Corresponding provision under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C) the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881.
Accused is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.9,30,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, in default, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of seven months.
Judgment 30 C.C.No.25872/2022 Acting under Section 396 of BNSS-2023 (Old Corresponding provision under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C), a sum of Rs.9,25,000/- out of the fine amount shall be paid to the complainant as compensation.
The remaining sum of Rs.5,000/- out of the fine amount shall be remitted to the state towards the expenses of the state.
The bail bond and surety bond stands canceled and sureties discharged.
Supply the free copy of the Judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to Stenographer directly on computer typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of January - 2026) Digitally signed by THENDRALL K THENDRALL K Date:
2026.01.23 17:44:03 +0530 (THENDRALL.K) XVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : L.G.Satish List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P1 : Original Cheque Ex.P1(a) : Signature Ex.P2 : Return memo Ex.P3 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P4 : Postal receipt Judgment 31 C.C.No.25872/2022 Ex.P5 : Unserved RPAD cover Ex.P6 : Original cheque bearing No.000030 Ex.P6(a) : Signature Ex.P7 : Return memo
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
DW-1 : Chennuru Mahesh Kumar List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
- Nil -
XVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 32 C.C.No.25872/2022
07.01.2026.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment
Case called out.
Complainant and Accused absent. No
representation from both side counsels.
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
***** ORDER Acting under Section 278(2) of BNSS-2023 (Old Corresponding provision under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C) the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881.
Accused is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.9,30,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, in default, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of seven months.
Acting under Section 396 of BNSS-2023 (Old Corresponding provision under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C), a sum of Rs.9,25,000/- out of the fine amount shall be paid to the complainant as compensation.
The remaining sum of Rs.5,000/- out of the fine amount shall be remitted to the state towards the expenses of the state.
The bail bond and surety bond stands canceled and sureties discharged.
Supply the free copy of the Judgment to the accused.
XVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 33 C.C.No.25872/2022
07.01.2026.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment
At the time of preparing for
judgment had clarification. Heard.
Call for Judgment by: 08.01.2026.
XVIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru.
07.01.2026
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment
Complainant absent. accused
absent. E/P files. Perused and
allowed. Call for hearing if any by
accused counsel by 14.11.2025.
XVIII A.C.J.M, Bengaluru.
Complainant absent. accused
absent. Call for hearing if any by
accused counsel by 06.12.2025..
XVIII A.C.J.M, Bengaluru.
Complainant absent. accused
absent. E/P files. Perused and
allowed.
Judgment 34 C.C.No.25872/2022
Heard accused counsel in part
and prays time for further hearing.
Call for further hearing by
26.12.2025.
XVIII A.C.J.M, Bengaluru.