Bangalore District Court
M/S. Ninjacart Services Pvt Ltd vs Mgs Fruit Commissioner Agent on 23 October, 2025
KABC030031062025
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 23rd day of October 2025
Present : SRI. GOKULA. K
B.A.LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore City.
C.C.No.1736/2025
Complainant : M/s Ninjacart Services Private Limited
R/of at Sy No.16/1 & 17/2
Bellandur Gate, Sarjapura Main Road
Ambalipura, Bengaluru 560102.
Rep by its Manager
Mr.Kiran Kashinathan.
(By CHDG Advocate )
V/s
Accused : MGS Fruit Commission Agent
Shop No.20, Small Fruit Agent
KK Nagar, Madurai
Tamil Nadu 625 020.
Rep by its Proprietor
Murugan Velu
(By AP - Advocate )
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
Final Order: Accused is Convicted
Date of Judgment 23.10.2025
2
C.C.No.1736/2025
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 223 of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha 2023 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief case of the complainant is as under:
That the complainant is engaged in the business of wholesale trading of agricultural products and fresh produce supply and tied up with Non Banking Financial Institutions to enable the service of credit facility to borrowers as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. The accused is engaged in the business of wholesale trade of agricultural products and commission agency. The accused approached the complainant, for loan through M/s Trillion Loans Fin tech Private Limited with loan application No.88679. After considering the same, the complainant sanctioned credit facility to the accused on 14.08.2023 for a sum of Rs.20,88,490/- out of which the accused availed Rs.10,00,000/- on the terms and conditions of the agreement. The accused approached for loan on online platform and he has digitally signed the loan documents. It is pleaded that during the process of loan transaction the accused has issued a signed NACH (National Automated Clearing House) mandate bearing UMRNNo.ICIC0000000015853650 drawn on 3 C.C.No.1736/2025 ICICI Bank for a sum of Rs.20,88,490/- towards due discharge of debt/liability. After availing loan, the accused agreed to make regular payments. Later the accused failed to make payment as per the agreement. The accused, on repeated demands of the complainant, instructed to present the NACH mandate which is given for outstanding amount. As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant has processed E-
NACH mandate through his banker Indusind Bank, Koramangala Branch for an outstanding sum of Rs.10,49,993/-. On processing said E NACH Mandate, it is returned dishonored with remarks "Balance Insufficient" in the account of the accused to honor the same on 14-11-2024 bearing sequence No.1201727252. On receipt of said intimation, the complainant got issued legal notice on 15-11-2024 through registered post and demanded to pay the amount dishonoured under E-NACH Mandate. The notice returned with shara 'Unclaimed' on 21.11.2024. The accused intentionally not claimed the notice. Inspite of issuance of notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant within the statutory time. Therefore, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the complainant has filed the complaint.
4
C.C.No.1736/2025
3. On the basis of Private complaint filed by the complainant, this court has taken cognizance of offence and registered the case in PCR No.746/2025 and recorded sworn statement of the representative of the complainant as PW 1 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.10. This court by considering the material on record issued process under Section 227 of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita by registering the criminal case. In response to the process issued by this court, the accused appeared before this court and he is released on bail. The copy of the complaint is served to the accused along with the summons as contemplated under Section 230 of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita.
4. The substance of the acquisition as provided Section 274 of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita is read over to the accused and his plea is recorded. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others reported in AIR 2014SCW3463, the affidavit filed by the complainant at the stage of taking cognizance and documents marked is treated as evidence under section 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On the application of the accused, PW1 is 5 C.C.No.1736/2025 recalled and he is examined in full. The complainant got marked additional 3 documents as Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.13. After closure of evidence of the complainant the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the complainant is read over to the accused and his statement under Section 351 of BNSS is recorded. The accused has denied the same as false. The accused is examined as DW 1 and he has produced documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5.
6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the accused and perused the material on record and the written arguments filed by the accused.
7. On the basis of the material on record the following points arise for the consideration of this court :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has issued NACH Mandate bearing UMRNNo.
ICIC0000000015853650 for a sum of
Rs.20,88,490/- drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd.,
for discharge of liability and it is
dishonoured on processing for collection for a outstanding sum of Rs.10,49,993/- on 14-11-2024 in sequence no.1201727252 for the reason Balance Insufficient and inspite of service of demand notice dated 15-11-2024 the accused failed to repay the amount within the statutory period and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and 6 C.C.No.1736/2025 Settlement Systems Act r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ?
2. What Order or Sentence ?
8. The findings of this court to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 As per final order
for the following :
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1: To prove the case the authorised representative of the complainant examined as PW-1 and in his evidence affidavit he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The complainant is a company registered under the Companies Act and tied up with Non Banking Financial Institution i.e. Trillions Loan Fin tech Private Limited and providing service of credit facility to the borrowers. To prove incorporation of the company the PW 1 has produced the certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation as Ex.P 1. The PW 1 has produced the Certified Copy of resolution of Board of Directors of the company as Ex.P2. As per Ex.P 2 the PW1 is authorized to represent the complainant company and prosecute the accused. The accused has not disputed the status of the complainant company. In the cross examination of PW 1 it is suggested that as per Ex.P 2 board resolution he is not having authority to give evidence on behalf of company. But he has not disputed passing of said resolution by the board of directors. On perusal of Ex.P 2 the 7 C.C.No.1736/2025 company has authorised PW 1 to represent the company and to give statements on behalf of the company. Thus the resolution clearly shows that the complainant has delegated the powers to represent the company in the cheque dishonour cases filed on behalf of the company.
10. The PW 1 has deposed that the accused approached the complainant for loan through M/s Trillion Loans Fin-tech Private Limited in loan application No.88679. After considering the same, the complainant sanctioned credit facility to the accused on 14.08.2023 for a sum of Rs.20,88,490/-. The complainant has produced the loan application form, loan sanction letter and loan agreement as Ex.P 3 to 5. The PW 1 has deposed that The accused approached for loan on online platform and the said documents were executed in digital platform. He has deposed that out of said credit facility the accused availed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is pleaded that during the process of loan transaction the accused has issued a signed NACH (National Automated Clearing House) mandate bearing UMRNNo. ICIC0000000015853650 for a sum of Rs.20,88,490/- drawn from the account of the accused with ICICI Bank towards due discharge of debt/liability. The PW 1 has deposed that they have processed the E NACH mandate to the outstanding amount in the loan account for Rs.10,49,993/- 8
C.C.No.1736/2025 and it is dishonored for the reason balance insufficient. It is stated that inspite of issuance of demand notice, the accused has not complied the demands made in the notice and not paid the due amount and thus committed the offence.
11. The offence alleged is primarily under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007, which reads as under.
Section 25. Dishonour of electronic funds transfer for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.
(1) Where an electronic funds transfer initiated by a person from an account maintained by him cannot be executed on the ground that the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the transfer instruction or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with a bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the electronic funds transfer, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless--
(a) the electronic funds transfer was initiated for payment of any amount of money to another person for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;
(b) the electronic funds transfer was initiated in accordance with the relevant procedural guidelines issued by the system provider;
(c) the beneficiary makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the person initiating the electronic funds transfer within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank concerned regarding the dishonour of the electronic funds transfer; and 9 C.C.No.1736/2025
(d) the person initiating the electronic funds transfer fails to make the payment of the said money to the beneficiary within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. (2) It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the electronic funds transfer was initiated for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
(3) It shall not be a defence in a prosecution for an offence under sub-section (1) that the person, who initiated the electronic funds transfer through an instruction, authorisation, order or agreement, did not have reason to believe at the time of such instruction, authorisation, order or agreement that the credit of his account is insufficient to effect the electronic funds transfer. (4) The Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this section, on production of a communication from the bank denoting the dishonour of electronic funds transfer, presume the fact of dishonour of such electronic funds transfer, unless and until such fact is disproved.
(5) The provisions of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881) shall apply to the dishonour of electronic funds transfer to the extent the circumstances admit.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability, as the case may be.
This provision also specify that the provisions of chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the extent the circumstances admit is applicable. The essential ingredients of section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 to be complied are i) An electronic fund transfer initiated by the person from his account ii) Processing of the NACH Mandate by the beneficiary, iii) it returning unexecuted for the reason insufficiency of funds to honour transfer instructions. iv) electronic fund transfer was initiated in discharge of any debt or 10 C.C.No.1736/2025 liability v) it is initiated in accordance with the relevant procedural guidelines issued by the service provider vi) Beneficiary making demand with in 30 days of receipt of information of dishonour by giving notice in writing, vii) failure of the person initiating electronic fund transfer to make payment within the period of 15 days after receipt of the demand notice. The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 does not prescribe any time limit to file the complaint. Therefore it is necessary to apply provisions of Section 142 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the complainant shall present the complaint within a month after expiry of 15 days of service of notice to the accused.
12. Therefore it is proper to consider whether the statutory requirements for constituting the offence under Section 25 of he Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied by the complainant. The PW1 has deposed that, the accused issued E NACH Mandate bearing UMRN No. ICIC0000000015853650 for a sum of Rs.20,88,490/- drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. The PW 1 has produced the NACH mandate copy as Ex.P 6. As per Ex.P 6 the accused has signed NACH mandate on 23-08-2023. He has deposed that the accused has defaulted to repay the loan availed regularly as agreed upon and he become defaulter in repayment. He has deposed that they have processed said 11 C.C.No.1736/2025 NACH Mandate issued by the accused for realization of outstanding sum of Rs.10,49,993/- through sequence No.1201727252 through their banker i.e. Indus Ind Bank, Koramangala Branch, Bengaluru and said NACH Mandate returned dishonored on 14-11-2024 for the reason "Balance Insufficient" in the account of the accused. As provided under Section 25(4) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act and also under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act law presumes that on production of banker slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque/ electronic fund transfer has been dishonored, presume the fact of dishonor of such said cheque, unless and until same is disproved. The accused has not disputed the dishonour of NACH mandate. The PW 1 has produced the debit transaction return memo as Ex.P.7. The PW1 has deposed that they have got issued legal notice dated 15-11-2024 calling upon the accused to pay the due amount and it is marked as Ex.P 8. The PW 1 has deposed that said notice issued through RPAD returned with postal shara "unclaimed" on 21.11.2024. Evidencing the service of notice, PW 1 has produced the postal receipt and the postal envelop as Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10. The accused even though denied service of notice, he has not denied the address of the accused stated in the legal notice. Therefore it is clear that the notice is issued to the correct address of the 12 C.C.No.1736/2025 accused. The accused has contended that in the postal envelop there is no endorsement that intimation delivered to accused. But the accused has not opted to examine the postal authority. The endorsement made by the postal authority during the course of discharge of official duty is having presumptive value. Hence, it is clear that the accused intentionally not claimed the notice and refused it. Therefore notice is deemed to be served. The PW 1 deposed that in spite of issuance of notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant with in the statutory time. The complaint is filed before this court on 16-12-2024. The NACH is processed for collection through the account of the complainant with Indusind Bank, Koramangala, Bengaluru situated with in the jurisdiction of this court. Thus the complainant has complied all the statutory requirements for constitution of offence under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for presumption under Section 25 (2) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007. Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act also there is similar presumption. The provisions of Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act reads as under:-
139- Presumption in favour of holder - It should be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in 13 C.C.No.1736/2025 section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
13. Hon'ble Supreme court in a decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 411 between Rangappa V/s Sri Mohan has held that -
The presumption mandated by Section 139 of the act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. It is also observed that Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instrument. It is also held that in such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant caused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high slandered or proof.
14. The accused has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court of India reported in 2018 AIR SC 7702 between P. Venugopal Vs Madan P Sarathi, where in it is held that the presumption raised does not extent to the expenditure that the cheque was issued for discharge of any debt and liability and it is required to be proved by the complainant. The accused has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in AIR 2008 SC 738 between Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G. Hegde. But, in view of law declared in the subsequent decision in Rangappa Vs Mohan, refered supra, existence of 14 C.C.No.1736/2025 debt or liability is also matter of presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused has also relied on the decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1633 between Kumar Exports Vs Sharma Carpets, where in it is held for rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act the accused need not prove his defence with proof beyond reasonable doubt and burden of proof can be shifted back to complainant by producing convincing circumstantial evidence by applying principles of preponderance of probability.
15. In view of the principles laid down in these decisions the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption with probable evidence. The principles laid down in these decisions under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act can also be made applicable to the proceedings for the offence under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007.
16. The accused has not issued any reply at the initial stage at the time of service of the legal notice. The accused has taken his defence in the cross examination of PW1 and also lead his evidence as DW 1.
17. The accused in the initial portion of cross examination has denied that accused is doing the bushiness of wholesale 15 C.C.No.1736/2025 commission agent, but later he has admitted that he is doing the business of wholesale commission agent. The accused has admitted that he has availed loan from M/s Trillion Loans Fine- tech Pvt Ltd. But denied that he has availed loan from the complainant Ninjacart Services Pvt Ltd. The complainant has also stated that the accused availed loan from M/s Trillion Loans Fine tech Pvt Ltd, but they have stated that complainant has facilitated the loan and as per the sanction letter Ex.P 4 clause no. 7 Trillion loans has authorized the complainant for recovering the loan dues. Clause no. 7 specify that repayment shall be mad by using Ninjacart Services and its affiliates or partner entity app. On behalf of Trillion Loans Ninjacart Services and its affiliates entity facilitates NACH Mandate or similar payment mandates for repayment of dues. The accused is also signatory to the sanction letter. Therefore the complainant is being subsidiary to M/s Trillion Loans Fine tech Pvt Ltd and is authorized to facilitate the NACH Mandate towards dues of M/s Trillion Loans Fine-tech Pvt Ltd. Therefore there is no loan transactions or there is no legal liability to pay loan dues to the complainant is not tenable defence.
18. The accused has stated that the personal of Trillion loans by name Vishnu approached him offering the loan and the said loan was required to be repaid once in 15 days. Vishnu has 16 C.C.No.1736/2025 obtained his signature through Mobile Phone. He has also deposed that the loan amount is credited to his bank account with ICICI Bank. He has also contended that he has availed loan for 22 times and he has repaid entire loan availed by him. With regard to credit of said loan to his bank account the accused has produced the bank statements as EX.D 1 and he has extracted the relevant details of entry in Ex.D 1 (a). The complainant has not disputed availment of loan for 22 times by the accused under the credit facility extended to the accused. The accused has also taken the contention that he has repaid entire loan availed from Trillion loans as detailed in Ex.D 1. To prove the repayment of the loan, accused has produced 17 statements of accounts as Ex. D 2 and extract of relevant entrees as Ex.D 2(a). The complainant has also not denied repayment made by the accused as per Ex.D 2. The accused has also produced the statement of accounts of his bank account with HDFC Bank having entry about repayment made by the accused and it is marked as Ex.D 4. The complainant has not denied repayment made as reflected in said statement of accounts Ex.D 4. Thus the complainant has admitted the case of the accused that he has availed credit facility under the loan account for 22 times and repaid the same with in the prescribed period as per the payment schedule. But it is pertinent to note 17 C.C.No.1736/2025 that all the disbursement of loan and repayment of the loan as per EX.D 1. D 2 and D 4 is prior to July 2024.
19. The complainant has stated that under the said credit facility the accused has also availed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and said amount is not repaid. To substantiate disbursement of said amount the complainant has produced the statement of accounts of Trillion Loans as Ex.P 11. He has stated that they have transferred a sum of Rs.4,94,882/- after deducting processing charges, to the account of the accused in ICICI Bank on 19-09-2024. The complainant has also stated that as per the OTP authentication given by the accused, they have transferred a sum of Rs.4,99,950/- after deducting processing charges to the account of Vendor of the accused, Mr. Vasudevan of KVS Enterprises on 19-09-2024. To substantiate OTP authentication of the accused, the complainant has produced draw-down confirmation letter as per Ex.P 12. Thus the complainant has submitted that the credit facility availed by the accused on 19- 09-2024 for a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- is not repaid by the accused. The repayment made as per Ex. D 1, 2 and 4 is prior to July 2024 intersect of the amount availed prior to july 2024. The accused in his cross examination as DW 1 has admitted the mobile number mentioned in Ex.P 12 as his mobile number. With regard to Ex.P 11 in the cross examination of PW 1 it is 18 C.C.No.1736/2025 suggested that in Ex.P 11 all the pages of statement is not produced, only few pages of statement is produced and there is skipping of page numbers. But the PW 1 has deposed that the statement of account runs to more than 1000 pages and he has only produced relevant pages of the statement showing transfer of amount to the accused. The accused has suggested that the complainant has produced edited pages. But it is pertinent to note that in the cross examination of PW 1 no suggestion has been made by the accused that the amount of Rs.4,94,882/- is not credited to his bank account on 19-09-2024. But he has suggested that the amount transferred to accused on 19-09- 2024 is repaid by the accused. Thus he has admitted that the amount as per EX.P 11(a) is transferred to his account. To prove the repayment of the said amount the accused has not produced statement of accounts of relevant period.
20. Now it is pertinent to note that the Ex. D 1, 2 and 4 produced by the accused only till 21-07-2024. He has not produced his bank statement for the month of September 2024 and onward. In his evidence he has stated that he can produce statement of accounts of his bank account with ICICI Bank. But on next date of hearing in the cross examination he has deposed that his bank account is blocked, therefore he cannot produce the statement of accounts. As per Ex.D 1 he has produced the 19 C.C.No.1736/2025 bank account statement till 21-07-2024. Therefore, it is clear that statement of the accused that as his bank account is blocked and he cannot produce the statement of account is false. When the accused has secured statement of accounts prior to 21-07-2024, he could have secured the statement of accounts after 21-07-2024. If he produce his statement of accounts for the month of September 2024, it will revel credit of loan disbursed by Trillion loans to his account as per Ex.P 11 statement of accounts. Therefore it is clear that only to avoid production of statement of account for the month of September 2024 the accused has stated that his account is blocked and hence he could not produce the statement of accounts. In the cross examination the DW 1 has also not denied credit of said amount as per Ex.P 11 to his bank account and he only pleaded that he do not remember whether the amount is credited to his account as per Ex.P 11. This clearly shows that accused is avoiding to admit credit of the amount as per Ex.P 11(a).
21. With regard to disbursement of amount as per Ex.P 11(a) to the account of Vasudevan of KVS Enterprises, the accused as DW 1 has deposed that, he do not know that for transfer of Rs.4,99,950/- to Vasudevan he has received OTP authentication to his mobile. The DW 1 has not denied receipt of OTP authentication specifically. But he has admitted his mobile number mentioned Ex.P 12, to which OTP is sent by the 20 C.C.No.1736/2025 complainant. If there is no such instruction is issued by the accused, he should have specifically denied said suggestion. Even as per Ex.P 5 loan agreement credit facility limit for Trade Finance A is Rs 16,70,792/- and Trade Finance B is Rs.16,70,792/-. In this regard the PW 1 in the cross examination deposed that " The witness volunteers that the total amount of Rs.20,88,490/- is sanctioned amount, the trade finance A Rs.16,70,792/- represents Trade finance A model which can be utilized for his own business purpose and Trade Finance B Rs.16,70,792/- represents the maximum limit of money which can be utilized for purchase of the goods for the business purpose." Thus the loan agreement itself provides for transferring portion of sanctioned loan amount to the suppliers of the goods of the accused. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that he has transferred a sum of Rs.4,99,950/- to Vasudevan, on the OTP authentication given by the accused cannot be ruled out as improbable transaction. As admitted by the accused he has availed 22 loans and repaid all such loans availed by him till July 2024. Therefore in the normal course of business it is not a unknown practice of transfer of amount to the suppliers of the borrowers by receiving OTP authentication. As discussed above the accused as DW 1 has not specifically denied the OTP authentication given by him. Therefore, the accused has not denied transfer of the amount to Vasudevan on 21 C.C.No.1736/2025 the OTP authentication given by the accused. Therefore the accused has not placed any material evidence to disprove the contention of the complainant that he has disbursed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused and Rs.5,00,000/- to the vendor of the accused on his instructions on 19-09-2024 and credited the amount as shown in Ex.P 11(a) after deducting processing charges.
22. Thus upon considering entire evidence of record, it is clear that on the credit facility sanctioned to the accused, by the complainant from M/s Trillion Loans Pvt Ltd, the accused has availed credit facility for several times such as 22 times as admitted by the accused, and he has repaid such amount with in the proscribed period of 15 days till July 2024. But, from the evidence on record it is clear that, the accused has availed a sum of Rs,10,00,000/- from Trillion Loans through the complainant under the said credit facility on 19-09-2024. Lending of said amount by the complainant to the accused is evidenced in Ex.P 11 statement of accounts and from the evidence of DW 1. To prove that the accused has repaid said amount availed in September 2024, the accused has not placed any material evidence. As per the accused himself all the sanctioned amount is transferred through online to the bank account and he has repaid all the amount availed only through 22 C.C.No.1736/2025 online transfer as per EX. D 2 and 4. If the accused has not availed any amount in September 2024 he should have produced his bank statement and if he has repaid such amount availed in September 2024, he should have produced the statement of accounts showing repayment. Therefore mere denial of availment of the loan or contention that he has repaid said loan amount, without production of bank statement, does not probabalise the defence of the accused. The conduct of withholding best evidence i.e. the bank statement of ICICI bank account for the month of September 2024 itself shows that the accused is not defending the case with clean hands and he has suppressed best evidence available with him, giving raise of adverse inference against the accused. Therefore it is clear that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption of existence of legal debt by producing probable evidence.
23. The accused has also taken the contention that in the complaint or in legal notice or evidence affidavit the complainant has not stated loan disbursement date. The demand notice is to be issued to the drawee intimating about dishonor of the instrument and demanding repayment of the dishonoured amount. The law does not mandate to give other details in the demand notice. Therefore only for the reason that the complainant has not mentioned the loan disbursement date 23 C.C.No.1736/2025 in the notice, complaint or evidence affidavit, it will not give adverse inference against the complainant or it will a ground to disbelieve the case of the complainant or to hold that the presumption is rebutted. The accused has also contended that the complainant has not produced mobile application statement in respect of transaction with accused. The complainant is backed with the presumption about existence of debt. The accused has also admitted that under the credit facility he have availed loan for 22 times and repaid it. The complainant has stated that he has disbursed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- on 19-09-2024 and produced statement of accounts primafacie showing the debt. To rebut the existence of said debt the accused has not placed any material. Therefore in the absence of rebuttal by the accused the complainant is not required to prove existence of debt with cogent evidence. The onus to prove the debt with cogent evidence shifts on the accused only on rebutal of presumption.
24. Therefore the defence of the accused is not convincing to believe that existence of legal liability is doubtful and it is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 25 (2) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 25 (2) of The Payment and 24 C.C.No.1736/2025 Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this court concludes that the complainant has successfully proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this court answers the above point No.1 in the Affirmative.
25. POINT NO. 2 : While answering the point no. 1 this court has concluded that the complainant proved that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Amount processed for collection through NACH is Rs.10,49,993/-. The NACH mandate is processed for collection on 14-11-2024. The money involved in the case is used in commercial transactions. Therefore considering all these aspects the amount of fine is calculated for a sum of Rs.11,46,000/-.
26. The Ho'ble High Court of Karnataka in the reportable decision in CRL.RP No. 996 of 2016 dated 09-07-2025 between M/s Banavathy and Company VS Mahaveer Electro Mech (P) Ltd at para 21 has held that -
21. In case lesser interest is awarded and only default sentence is imposed, the rigor of offence under Section 138 will be diluted and thereby the 25 C.C.No.1736/2025 object of the Statute will be defeated. If recovery and compensatory part is not taken care of while determining the quantum of sentence and appropriate interest is not awarded, until the date of recovery of the entire amount, the complainant will be forced to file civil suit on the same subject matter. In view of Section 143(3) the trial for offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act has to be completed within six months. If the said provision is not adhered to and the trial for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act takes 4 to 5 years, in the mean time, the claim of the complainant for recovery of the cheque amount by filing civil suit becomes barred by limitation. Not only that the accused who is convicted for offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act challenges the same before the Sessions Court wherein the matter takes 2 to 3 years. The accused unsuccessful in the said appeal prefers revision petition before the High Court and it is seen that the disposal of revision takes more than 5 years. After all this if the complainant has to receive the fine/compensation as awarded by the trial Court, if it is cheque amount or little higher than the cheque amount, he will be at loss and put to injustice. Therefore, while passing the order of sentence after determining the fine/compensation, the Court shall also pass an order to pay future interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation amount payable to the complainant by fixing time of one/two months to deposit compensation amount so that even if the matter is challenged before the Sessions Court in appeal and High Court in revision the interest of the complainant will be protected.
Therefore considering directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court issued in the above refereed judgment, it is also proper to direct the accused to pay future interest on the fine amount at the rate of 9 % P.A. till payment. Therefore considering all these aspects this court proceed to pass the following - 26
C.C.No.1736/2025 ORDER By exercising powers conferred under Section 278(2) of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 R/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.11,46,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Forty Six Thousand only), which shall be deposited with in a month and in default, pay interest at the rate of 9% from this day till payment of fine amount.
In default to pay the fine with interest, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months.
Further acting Section 395(1)(a) of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
Further acting Section 395(1)(a) of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha a sum of Rs.11,41,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Forty one Thousand only) with interest out of the fine amount on recovery shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
27
C.C.No.1736/2025 Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused . [[ (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of October 2025).
(GOKULA.K) XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW1 : Kiran Kashinathan.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of Incorporation Certificate Ex.P2 : Certified Copy of the Board Resolution Ex.P3 : Web copy Loan application Ex.P4 : Web copy of Sanction Letter Ex.P5 : Web copy of Loan Agreement Ex.P6 : NACH Mandate Ex.P7 : Return Memo Ex.P8 : Office copy of Legal Notice Ex.P9 : Postal Receipt Ex.P10 : returned Postal envelope Ex.P11 : Bank Statement of Trillion Loans Fin tech Ltd.
Ex.P11(a) : Relevant entry in Ex.P 11. Ex.P12 : Confirmation Letter Ex.P13 : Certificate U/s.63 of BSA, 2023.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
DW1 : Murugan
28
C.C.No.1736/2025
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
Ex.D1 : Statement of Account ICICI Bank ExD1(a) : Loan Disbursement Details Ex.D2 : Statement of Account Ex.D3 : Certificate U/s. 65B of Evidence Act. GOKULA Ex.D4 : Statement of Account HDFC Bank K Ex.D5 : Certificate U/s. 65B of Evidence Act. Digitally signed by GOKULA K Date: 2025.10.24 17:02:11 +0530 (GOKULA.K.) XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.