Bangalore District Court
Jaisheelan. R vs Senthil Kumar Settu on 5 January, 2026
KABC020196832023
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY.
(SCCH-6)
Present: Smt. Chetana S.F.
B.A., L.L.B.,
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
CC. No.5572/2023
DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF JANUARY 2026
COMPLAINANT/S Sri Jaisheelan R.,
S/o. Ramaswamy
Aged about 46 years
R/at. No.1367,
S.M.V. Layout, 4th Block,
Bengaluru-560 056.
(By Sri R. Umesh- Advocate)
-Vs-
ACCUSED Sri S. Senthil Kumar Settu
S/o. Late V. Settu,
Aged about 47 years
R/at No.3, 1st Floor,
1st Cross, 1st Main,
Manjunathanagara, Magadi Road,
Bengaluru-560023.
SCCH-6 2 CC No.5572/2023
(By Sri.S.G. Muniswamy- Advocate)
-: J U D G M E N T :-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec. 200
of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Secs.138 of N.I.
Act as against the accused praying to punish the accused for
the said offence.
2. The case of the complainant is that, the
complainant and accused are well known to each other for the
past 5-6 years. The complainant is the Carpenter and doing
carpentry work in the locality and the complainant need some
carpentry works at his house and he asked the accused for
quotation of the carpentry works and the accused has given
carpentry works quotation to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- and
the complainant has agreed the said amount and has paid
Rs.3,00,000/- by cash to the accused in the month of October
2022 and Rs.4,00,000/- by cash in the month of November
2022 as advance amount and also agrees to pay balance
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- after completion of work.
SCCH-6 3 CC No.5572/2023
3. After receipt of the said advance amount of
Rs.7,00,000/-, the accused agreed with the complainant that
he will complete the works within a period of two months. The
complainant requested and demanded the accused to return
back the amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. At that time, the accused
informed the complainant is not able to do the carpentry work
and issued two cheques i.e., 1) cheque bearing No.194002
dated 10.03.2023 for Rs.4,00,000/- and 2) Cheque bearing
No.194001 dated 01.03.2023, both the cheques drawn on
Union Bank, Rajajinagar II Stage, Bengaluru-10.
4. The complainant presented the cheque bearing
No.194002 to the bank for encashment, but the said cheque
returned unpaid with the shara "Payment stopped by the
drawer" on 13.03.2023. The complainant issued legal notice
dt.15.04.2023 to the accused through RPAD and speed post
and the same was served to the accused. The accused has not
paid the cheque amount and has committed an offence
punishable u/s 138 of NI Act. Hence, this complaint.
SCCH-6 4 CC No.5572/2023
5. After recording the sworn statement of the
complainant by way of affidavit and also verifying the
documents, cognizance was taken against the accused for the
offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act. The accused
appeared before this court through his counsel and enlarged
on bail and his plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for
evidence of the complainant.
6. The complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and
got marked 8 documents as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P8. Thereafter, the
case was posted for recording the statement of accused under
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. In the statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C., the
accused has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing
against him. The accused has examined himself as DW.1.
During cross examination of PW.1, learned counsel for
accused got marked Ex.D.1 through confrontation.
7. Heard the arguments of both side and Perused the
records.
SCCH-6 5 CC No.5572/2023
8. The following points arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the complainant proves that the cheque bearing No.194002 dated 10.03.2023 for sum of Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Union Bank, Rajajinagara II stage, Bengaluru issued by the accused has been dishonored on the ground of Payment Stopped by the Drawer on 13.03.2023 even after receiving the intimation regarding the dishonor of cheque failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as under
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
-: R E A S O N S :-
10. POINT NO.1:- In view of the present legal position as held by our Hon'ble High Court as well as Apex Court of India in a catena of decisions as well as relevant provisions of the Act, this court has to see whether the complainant has complied all the requirements as SCCH-6 6 CC No.5572/2023 contained in Sec.138 of NI Act so as to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence. If so, whether the accused is able to rebut the legal presumption available to the complainant under Sec.139 of the Act by adducing probable defense or not. However, it is held by the full bench of our Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2010 (1) DCR 706 that;
"The Statutory presumption man- dated by sec.139 of the Act, does in- deed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. However, the presumption U/S 139 of the Act is in the nature of a rebuttable pre- sumption and it is open for the ac- cused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested".
11. Therefore, in view of the above decision, once the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption would automatically fall in favour of the complainant that, the alleged cheque was issued for discharge of an existing legally enforceable debt or liability against the accused and the burden will shift on to the accused to rebut the same. SCCH-6 7 CC No.5572/2023
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION:-
12. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfill all the essential ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision reveals the following necessary ingredients of the offence:-
First Ingredient: The cheques were drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity;
Second Ingredient: The cheques were drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheques were returned unpaid by the bank due to SCCH-6 8 CC No.5572/2023 either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
-APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE-
13. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled. Notably, there is no dispute at bar about the proof of SCCH-6 9 CC No.5572/2023 only first, third, and fifth ingredient. The complainant had proved the original cheque vide Ex.P.1 which the accused person had not disputed as being drawn on the account of the accused. It was not disputed that the cheque in question was presented within its validity period. The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memo dated 16.03.2023 vide Ex.P.2 due to the reason, "Payment Stopped by the Drawer". The complainant had proved the service of legal demand notice dated 15.04.2023 vide Ex.P.3 by bringing on record the postal receipt vide Ex.P.4, Postal acknowledgment vide Ex.P5, Reply notice vide Ex.P6, Loan application Farm vide Ex.P7 and Letter dated 13.02.2023 vide Ex.P8. Thus, there is a dispute only with regard to the second ingredient to the offence. As such, the 1st,3rd,4th& 5th ingredient of the offence under section 138 of the NI Act stands proved.
14. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned, the complainant has to prove that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debtor any liability. In the present case, the issuance of the SCCH-6 10 CC No.5572/2023 cheque in question is not denied. As per the scheme of the NI Act, once the accused admits signature on the cheque in question, certain presumption are drawn, which result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Another presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of NI Act. The provision lays down the presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
15. The combined effect of these two provisions is a presumption that the cheque is drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections use the expression "shall", which makes it imperative for the court to raise the presumptions once the foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16.
16. Further, it has been held by a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan SCCH-6 11 CC No.5572/2023 (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act includes the presumption of existence of a legally enforceable debt. Once the presumption is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the same by establishing a probable defence.
17. The presumptions raised under Section 118(b) and Section 139 NI Act are rebuttable presumptions. A reverse onus is cast on the accused, who has to establish a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities to prove that either there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability. In this case, the arguments raised by the Ld. counsel for the accused to rebut the presumption are discussed below:
18. The accused has taken the specific defence that, accused has agreed to do the Italian Kitchen work for Rs. 9,50,000/-in the house of the complainant. Thereafter accused started the said work, but, complainant was not paying the amount properly. After completion of half work, complainant asked to complete the full work by contract SCCH-6 12 CC No.5572/2023 labour and accordingly accused has engaged 4 to 5 labours for the work. Even complainant has not paid the wages to those labourers. The complainant used to say that he will pay entire amount only after completion of the entire work. Thereafter the complainant has not paid the wages to the said labourers also. Accused himself by taking the loan, has paid labour payment. The complainant assured to make full payment on the house warming ceremony day but on that day also complainant did not pay the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards materials contract and Rs.3,00,000/- for labour contract work. Further according to the accused, he has taken his one signed blank cheque and 2 blank cheques along with him in his kit bag to the house of the complainant, while doing the work. At that time, he lost one signed cheque and 2 blank cheque kept in his kit bag in the house of complainant. Even he has informed his bank about lost of his cheque. The complainant has misused those cheques which were lost by the accused in the house of the complainant and filed this false case, when accused forced to make his balance payment. SCCH-6 13 CC No.5572/2023 Accused contended that he is not at all liable to pay any amount to the complainant.
19. In this regard, on perusal of the evidence on record, accused has given the reply as per Ex.P6 to the notice issued by the complainant. Wherein accused has denied the entire contents of the notice as false and contended that complainant has paid total amount of Rs.2,56,500/- on various dates through google pay and phone pay to the accused as stated in para No.7 of Ex.P6 towards the payment for the work done by the accused and his laborers. Further accused himself in his reply para No.7 stated that he has received the above said amount apart from cash received by him, but accused has not stated specifically how much amount he has received in cash towards the work done by the accused and hence, the question of hand loan and repayment of the same and issuance of the cheque does not arise at all.
20. Even in the cross examination of PW.1 accused has taken the contention that the amount paid by the complainant to the accused through phonepay was towards wood work SCCH-6 14 CC No.5572/2023 done by the accused and accused has never received any amount in cash from the complainant. But contrary to his version in the reply accused contended that he has also received amount in cash. Thus accused has taken two contradictory version in his reply notice and in cross of PW.1, hence it creates a doubt about defence of the accused that he has never received the amount in cash.
21. Apart from this, accused has not stated anything about how the cheque in question is gone into the hands of PW.1. In his reply notice, only for the first time, in the cross of PW.1 and in his defence evidence, come up with the defence that he has kept his signed blank cheque and other two blank cheque in his kit bag, while he was working in the house of the PW.1 and at that time, those cheques were lost and those cheques were misused by PW.1 and filed this false case. With regard to the above specific defence, if the defence of the accused is believed as gospel truth then a genuine question doubt arises in the mind of the court as to if at all accused has lost his cheque why accused has not set up the above defence SCCH-6 15 CC No.5572/2023 at an earliest opportunity in his reply. Even, accused has not stated as to why he has kept his cheques in his kit bag, so carelessly and negligently. Even accused has not stated any reason and explanation as to why he has kept quite without taking any legal action for lost of his cheques.
22. Even, nowhere accused stated that PW.1 himself has taken those cheques without his notice. Further, though accused stated that he has given the information to his bank about lost of his cheque, but accused has not produced any single document to show that he has given the stop payment notice for the reason that he has lost the cheques in the house of the PW.1. Hence, the version of the accused cannot believed and accepted. Non production of material document with regard to for what reason accused has stopped payment creates doubt about defence of accused and as such adverse inference can be drawn against accused.
23. Moreover, PW.1 in the cross examination clearly stated that "ನನ್ನ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 9591770177 ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯ ಒಳ ವಿನ್ಯಾ ಸದ ಕೆಲಸಕ್ಕಾ ಗಿ 9 ಲಕ್ಷ ಮೊತ್ತದ ಕೊಟೇಶನ್ ಅನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು SCCH-6 16 CC No.5572/2023 ಹೇಳಿದ್ದು , ಆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಲು ಆಗುತ್ತದೆಯೇ ಎಂದರೆ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಮೌಖಿಕವಾಗಿ 9 ಲಕ್ಷ ವೆಚ್ಚ ತಗುಲುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಮಧ್ಯೆ ಲಿಖಿತವಾಗಿ ಒಪ್ಪಂದ ಆಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ಅಕ್ಟೊ ಬರ್ 2022ರಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಂಗಡವಾಗಿ 3 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಭದ್ರತೆಗಾಗಿ ಆರೋಪಿತರು 3 ಲಕ್ಷ ಮೊತ್ತದ ಚೆಕ್ ಅನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಸದರಿ ಚೆಕ್ ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ನಿ.ಪಿ.1 ಚೆಕ್ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. 2022ರ ನವೆಂಬರ್ ತಿಂಗಳಿನಲ್ಲಿ 4 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಚೆಕ್ ಅನ್ನು ಭದ್ರತೆಗಾಗಿ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಸದರಿ ಚೆಕ್ ನಮ್ಮ ವಕೀಲರ ಬಳಿ ಇದೆ. ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಚೆಕ್ ಅನ್ನು ಬರೆದು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ದಿನಾಂಕವನ್ನು ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನಿಂದ ಮುಂಗಡ ಹಣವನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡ ಕಾರಣ ಚೆಕ್ಅನ್ನು ಭದ್ರತೆಗಾಗಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ."
24. It is pertinent to note here that learned counsel for the accused has not at all denied the above said evidence deposed by the PW.1, in the cross examination with regard to the passing of consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- to the accused and also issuance of cheque by the accused to the complainant as security, at least by putting a single denial suggestion. Even on whole perusal of cross examination of PW.1, nowhere accused denied the statement made by PW.1 SCCH-6 17 CC No.5572/2023 with regard to payment of Rs.7,00,000/- through phonepay and cash as deposed by the PW.1. Non-denial of the passing of the consideration and issuance of cheque by the accused clearly amounts to admission of the said fact.
25. Apart from this, though the accused contended that he has done the work in the house of PW.1 through his two workera Suri and Prasanth, and he has paid the labour charges to those witness, but accused has not produced any single documents to show that he has paid the labour charges to those person. Even accused has not examined any of those witness to show that those worker were working under his supervision and he has paid labour charges to them. Hence, defence taken by the accused appears to be in shyam. Further, if at all as per the version of the accused, complainant liable to pay Rs.2,50,000/-towards materials contract and Rs.3,00,000/- labour charges. Then why accused has keep quite till this date, without taking any action against the complainant. Atleast, the accused would have given the police complaint against the complainant. Apart from this SCCH-6 18 CC No.5572/2023 nowhere in the reply notice stated about fact that complainant himself was liable to pay amount of Rs.5,50,000/- to him towards labour charges. If at all complainant was due of amount towards the accused, then certainly accused would have stated about said in his reply. Hence, the defence taken by the accused seems to be doubtful and after thought.
26. In view of the above said reason and discussion accused has failed to rebut the presumption available infavour of the complaint filed raised probable defence and prove his defence through cogent and reliable evidence. Conclusion:
27. In view of all the above discussions, it can be concluded that the complainant has established through cogent and convincing evidence the fact of issuance of the cheque for discharge of legality enforceable debt, which is dishonored for want of sufficient funds, issuance of legal notice within stipulated time, failure on the part of accused to repay the amount within stipulated period. On the other hand, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption available to the SCCH-6 19 CC No.5572/2023 complainant through probable evidences that would preponderate upon the evidence lead by the complainant. Therefore, the accused is held to have committed an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
28. POINT NO.2:- In view of my answer to point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
-: O R D E R :-
Acting U/Sec.278(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,05,000/- for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. The amount of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant by way of compensation in accordance with Sec.395(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 within three months from today.SCCH-6 20 CC No.5572/2023
The remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be confiscated to the state. In default of payment of fine, the accused persons shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
It is made clear that in view of Sec.461of BNSS, even if the accused shall undergo the default sentence imposed above, accused is not absolved of liability to pay the fine amount.
The bail and surety bond of the accused and surety shall stand canceled.
Office to furnish the copy of this judgment for free of cost to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her. After her typing, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the 05th day of January, 2026).
(CHETANA S.F.) IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.SCCH-6 21 CC No.5572/2023
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 :- Sri Jayasheelan R., List of witnesses examined for the accused:-
DW.1 : S. Senthil Kumar Settu List of documents marked for the Complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of Legal Notice
Dt:15.04.2023
Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt
Ex.P.5 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.6 : Reply notice dated 28.04.2023
Ex.P.7 : Home loan application form
Ex.P.8 : Letter dated 13.02.2023
List of documents marked for the accused:-
Ex.D.1 : Copy of a photo of the house's building taken via WhatsApp (CHETANA S.F.) IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, BENGALURU.