Bangalore District Court
Shankarappa M vs Vidhyashree B G on 16 March, 2026
1
Cri Appeal No.27/2025
KABC010002382025
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56)
DATED: THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2026
PRESENT
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU, M.A., LL.M.
LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.27/ 2025
Appellant/ SHANKARAPPA M.
accused S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUTG 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NEAR MANJUNATHA FAST
FOOD, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
MANJUNATHANAGAR, TAVAREKERE POST
AND HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU.
[R/by .SRI.PRABHAKARA M., Adv.]
Vs
Respondent/ SMT.VIDYASHREE B.G.
Complainant W/O CHANDRU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.423, 2ND FLOOR,
8TH CROSS, DODDAGOWDANAHAPALYA,
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
[R/by Sri N.A., Adv.]
2
Cri Appeal No.27/2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed U/s.374(3) of Cr.P.C. by the accused against the judgment of conviction dated:
06.12.2024 passed in C.C.No.16865/2020 by learned XVI ACJM, Bengaluru, for the offence under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act [for short 'N.I. Act'] (2) The parties are referred to their rank before the trial court.
(3) The case of the complainant is briefly stated as follows:
The accused used to visit the complainant's house frequently as he very well known to her husband Chandru. Hence, the accused also came to know to the complainant. The accused used to seek financial assistance with the complainant in the presence of her husband Chandru. On several times, the accused received the amount and repaid the same to the complainant. In the same manner during the second week of November 2017 the accused approached the complainant seeking financial assistance of Rs.2 lakhs as the same was required for him to solve his family 3 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 problems and other domestic requirements and he assured the complainant that he will repay the amount within 2 years from the date of borrowing. Considering the request made by the accused, the complainant by agreeing to pay the hand loan on 21.11.2017 she has paid sum of Rs.60,000/- to the accused by way of cheque and paid Rs.1,40,000/- by way of cash in the presence of her husband. Thus, the accused has received total amount of Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant. ON the same day on 21.11.2017 the accused also executed hand loan agreement. After stipulated time of two years, when the complainant and her husband Chandra demanded the accused to repay the hand loan then the accused requested them to grant another 3 months time to repay the same. After expiry of further period when again the complainant and her husband demanded the accused to repay the loan amount, at that time, the accused in order to discharge his liability issued a cheque bearing No.119623 dated 20.03.2020 for Rs. 2 lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, J.P. Nagar branch, Bengaluru. When the complainant presented the same for encashment on 21.03.2020 the cheque came to be dishonoured with 4 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 endorsement dated 24.03.2020 for funds insufficient.
When the complainant contacted the accused and told him regarding dishonhour of cheque then the accused by assuring that he will make arrangement of the amount in the first week of June 2020 and asked her to present the cheque. Hence, the complainant once again represented the cheque on 04.06.2020 for encashment through her bank Karnataka Bank Limited, Uttarahalli branch, Bengaluru. But the cheque issued by the accused came to be dishonoured with an endorsement dated 05.06.2020 as funds insufficient. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice through her counsel on 19.06.2020 to the accused to the address mentioned in the cause title through RPAD. The RPAD sent to the accused refused by him and returned with an endorsement, intimation delivered, returned to sender dated 25.06.2020. Despite of notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint.
(4) After filling the complaint, the learned Magistrate taken cognizance of the offence punishable 5 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 u/S.138 of NI Act. The sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. The learned Magistrate after perusal of the sworn statement of the complainant, complaint averments and documents passed an order directing the office to register case against the accused in Register - III for the offenses punishable u/S.138 of NI Act and issued summons to the accused. Accordingly, the case in C.C.No.16865/2020 came to be registered against the accused. The accused entered appearance by engaging his counsel and released on bail. The accusation read over and explained to the accused for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. The learned Magistrate examined accused u/S.313 of CrPC. The accused denied incriminating evidence. The sworn statement of the complainant considered as his evidence in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in INDIAN BANK ASSOCAITIONS case. Since the learned counsel for the accused moved application u/S.145(2) of NI Act praying to permit the accused to cross examine PW1 application came to be allowed and case posted for cross examination of PW1. PW1 was fully cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused 6 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 as defence evidence. The accused examined himself as DW1 and document Ex.D1 marked through him.
(5) After hearing both sides the learned Magistrate pronounced the judgment on 06.12.2024 and acting u/S.255 (1) of CrPC the accused convicted for the offences punishable u/S/138 of NI Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,50,000/-, in default, shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The amount of Rs.3,45,000/- ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the State as expenses.
(6) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused has preferred this appeal, on the following among other grounds.
The trial court has erred in convicting the accused. The accused has not made any transaction with the complainant. The accused has established that there is no legally enforceable debt. The complainant has not given any money to the accused. The accused led his defence and marked document. But the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence. Hence, on these grounds, the appellant prays to set aside the judgment 7 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 and order of dated 06.12.2024 passed by the XVI ACJM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.16865/2020 and prayed to acquit the accused.
(7) The trial court records received.
(8) The respondent entered appearance by engaging its counsel.
(9) I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the entire records.
(10) The following points would arise for my consideration:-
Point No.1:- Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed thereon is illegal, perverse and calls for interference?
Point No.2:- Whether there is sufficient grounds made out by the appellant to set aside the judgment dated 06.12.2024 passed in C.C.No.16865/2020 as prayed for?
Point No.3:- What order?
(11) My findings to the above points are as below:-
Point No.1:- In the negative
Point No.2:- In the negative
Point No.3:- As per the final order,
for the following
8
Cri Appeal No.27/2025
REASONS
(12) POINT NO.1 & 2:- These points are taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of discussion in evidence and for the sake of convenience.
(13) Prior to proceed further, it is important to note that the accused has admitted that Ex.P1 cheque is belongs to his bank account. The accused has admitted his signature on Ex.P1 cheque. Now coming to the defence of the accused can be gathered from cross-
examination of PW1 and evidence of accused/ DW1. In the cross examination of PW 1, the accused has taken defence that he had borrowed only sum of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant in the year 2017. At that time, he had given her blank signed cheque Ex.P1 for security purpose. But in chief examination of DW1/ accused he has taken contention that he do not know the complainant. He has not received any amount from the complainant. He has received Rs.60,000/- from one Chandru (husband of complainant), but at that time the said Chandru obtained his blank signed cheque and blank stamp papers. Even though he had repaid the said 9 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 amount but Chandru misused the said cheque and got filed this complaint through his wife. Thus, on plain reading of the cross examination of PW 1 and defence evidence led by the accused / DW1 he has taken inconsistent defence in this case. That itself is sufficient to hold that the accused has not definite about from whom he had borrowed Rs.60,000/- whether from the complainant or from the husband of the complainant.
(14) PW1 in her examination in-chief affidavit by reiterating the complaint averments has deposed that the accused borrowed sum of Rs.2 lakhs from her. She had paid Rs.60,000/- to the accused by way of cheque and remaining amount of Rs.1,40,000/- by way of cash. The accused / DW1 admitted in his cross examination that he had received sum of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant on 20.11.2017 by way of cheque. However, he has further deposed that the said amount was given by the husband of the complainant. When there is suggestion during the cross examination of PW1 is that the accused himself received Rs.60,000/- from the complainant, inconsistent defence taken by the accused in his oral evidence is not acceptable. PW 1 in order to 10 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 substantiate her contention has produced and got marked documents Ex.P1 to P11. Ex.P1 is the cheque dates 20.03.2020 drawn on SBI bank for Rs 20,00,000 in favour of the complainant , Ex.P1(a) is the signature of the accused. Ex.P2 and P3 are bank endorsements for having dishonored the cheque for funds insufficient. Ex.P4 is the legal notice dated 19.06.2020 issued to the accused. Ex.P5 is the postal receipts for having sent legal notice to the accused. Ex.P7 is the returned postal cover wherein there is clear endorsement that the accused refused to receive the notice. Ex.P6 is the notice which was there in Ex.P7 postal cover. Ex.P8 is the postal receipt. Ex.P9 is the postal acknowledgment. Ex.P10 is the loan agreement dated 21.11.2017. Ex.P11 is the complaint. Ex.P11(a) and (b) are the signature of the accused. The accused also not disputed his signature found in Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P11 loan agreement.
(15) PW1 in her examination-in-chief affidavit deposed in consonance with complaint averments. Her oral evidence is supported by the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 by learned counsel for the accused, she has deposed that 11 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 the money transaction was taken place between her and accused. Accused used to borrow amount from her to the extent of 5,000 to 10,000 and repaying the same. She has denied the suggestion that accused not at all met her in second week of November 2017 seeking for financial assistance of Rs. 2,00,000. She has deposed that by giving tuition, she was earning sum of Rs. 10,000 to 15,000 per month. She also getting rent of Rs. 50,000 per month. She has denied the suggestion that accused borrowed only sum of Rs 60,000 from her through cheque in the year 2017. She has denied the suggestion that accused not at all borrowed sum of Rs 1,40,000 by way of cash from her. She has denied the suggestion that accused repaid Rs. 20,000 to her through his friend's bank account. She has denied the suggestion that accused repaid remaining balance amount of Rs 40,000 to her in the month of September 2018. She has denied the suggestion that at the time of lending amount of Rs 60,000 to the accused, she had received Ex.P1, from the accused for security purpose. She has also denied the suggestion that she also received signed blank e-stamp paper from the accused for security of 60,000 paid by her 12 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 to the accused. She has denied all the suggestions made to her. Thus on perusal of the defence taken by the accused in the cross-examination of PW1 is that he had borrowed only sum of Rs 60,000 from her and for security purpose he had given Ex.P1 and Ex.P11 blank signed cheque and blank signed stamp paper to her. But in his oral evidence, accused/ DW1 has taken defence that he do not know the complainant/ PW1. He borrowed sum of Rs. 60,000 from Chandru(husband of PW1).
(16) DW1 / accused in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he do not know PW1/ complainant. He came to know about Chandru through his friend Venkatesh. He had borrowed sum of Rs. 60,000 from Chandru by giving him blank signed cheques and blank signed stamp paper for security purpose. Thereafter he had repaid monthly amount of Rs. 2,500 to Chandru till 2019 by visiting to his house. He has deposed that he had paid 40,000 to Chandru on 25.08.2019 and remaining amount of Rs. 20,000 paid to Chandru through his friend on 25.09.2019 by way of phonepe. Thereafter he requested Chandru to return the blank signed cheque and stamp paper. Sri Chandru who goes on postponing the same, as Corona 13 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 Pandemic started, he stopped to meet Chandru. He came to know about misusing of his cheque by Chandru only after police came to his house by bringing warrant. He states that he has not received any notice from the complainant. He has produced and got marked Ex.D1, his bank passbook. In his cross-examination by learned counsel for the complainant, he has admitted the suggestion that amount of Rs. 60,000 was credited to his bank amount on 21.11.2017 through the cheque of the complainant. He has admitted his signature on Ex.P1. He has not issued any notice to the husband of the complainant requesting him to return the cheque and bond paper. He has admitted the suggestion that he is residing in Manjunath Nagara of Magadi Road since from 2017.
(17) It is pertinent to note that DW1/ accused has not disputed his address which mentioned in Ex.P7 postal cover Ex.P4 legal notice and Ex.P11 complaint. The complainant got issued legal notice to as per Ex.P4 to the correct address of the accused. Ex.P7 postal cover returned with shara that "intimation delivered.""Refused" Since the complainant got issued notice as per Ex.P4 to 14 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 the correct address of the accused, in view of Section 27 of General Clauses Act, the notice is deemed to be served. DW1 has not stated anything about the address which is mentioned in Ex.P7 postal cover, Ex.P4 Legal notice as incorrect. When the learned Magistrate after registering the case in CC No. 16865/2020 issued summons to the same address of the accused mentioned in Ex.P11 complaint, same came to be served. Accused entered appearance before trial court and engaged his counsel and released on bail. Hence it can be safely held that notice duly served on accused. The learned magistrate rightly relied upon the judgment in Gorantala Venkatesh Rao case. Ex.P7 postal cover returned with shara that intimation delivered, refused. The accused who knows about legal notice refused to receive the same. Thus it is deemed to be served. Accused has not issued any reply to the legal notice. The accused during the course of evidence, has taken inconsistent defence. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant U/s 139 and 118 of NI Act. refusal 15 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 (18) It is important to refer some of the judgments. (19) In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Ranganath Vs Vitthala Shetty reported in 2022 [1] Crimes 454-[SC] wherein head note reads as below:-
"Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 read with Sections 118 and 139- Dishonour of cheque-Conviction and sentence
- When a cheque is drawn out and is relied upon by drawee, it will raise a presumption that it is drawn towards a consideration which is a legally recoverable amount - Onus is on accused to raise a probable defence and standard of proof for rebutting presumption is on preponderance of probabilities-Defence sought to be put forth and witnesses examined in instant proceedings are only by way of improvement in respect of same cause of action-Defence sought to be put forth relating to cheque and other documents having been obtained by force, cannot be accepted as a probable defence when respondent successfully discharged initial burden cast on him-Appeal dismissed.(Paras 11, 17 and 19)"
(20) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Judgment in a case of Rangappa V/s Mohan in para no. 14 observed as follows:-
"In the light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent/ claimant that presumption mandated by section 139 of the act does indeed include the existence of a 16 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent the impugned observations in Krishnajanardhana Bhat case may not be correct. However this does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the decision in that case since it was based on the specific facts and circumstance therein. As noted in the citations, this is ofcourse in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant."
(21) In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2019(1) DCR 401 between Bir Singh V/s Mukesh Kumar it is held that a meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act including, in particular, sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of section 138 would be attracted. In my humble view, the principles of these decision is aptly 17 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 applicable to the present case because PW1 in her examination in chief clearly deposed regarding accused issuing Ex.P1 cheque towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Further, in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Sumeti Vij V/s M/s Paramount Tech Fab Industries, wherein it is held that to rebut the presumption, facts must be proved by the accused on a preponderance of probability. In the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in M Ramesh Kumar Case wherein in para No.5 observed that section 138 of N.I. Act, on proof of issuance of the cheque, the onus shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for discharge of any debt or liability in terms of section 138 of N.I. Act. In the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sitaram Gouda A V/s Isbu Kunhammade it is held that, accused not disputing issuance of cheque- but taking inconsistent stand later- accused not initiating any proceedings as regards misuse, or forgery of cheque and making of wrongful claim- except denial, accused not proving his case beyond reasonable doubt as obligation was on him to do so when he took a special plea.
18
Cri Appeal No.27/2025 (22) On perusal of trial court records, the trial court has rightly drawn presumption under S.139 of N.I. Act, by following three ingredients as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs Mohan reported in 2010 SC 1898. Section 139 of N.I. Act empowers the court to presume that holder of cheque received it for discharge of any liability enforceable debt or liability. Burden is on the accused to rebut the said presumption.
(23) Section 118 of The Act reads thus:
118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. -- Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:--
(a) Consideration --that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration (24) Further, Section 139 of The Act reads thus:
139. 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 19 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
(25) Section 118 of The Act pertains to presumption of negotiable instrument which mandates that 'unless the contrary is proved.' Similarly, Section 139 of The Act also mandates that 'unless the contrary is proved.' Therefore, it has to be presumed that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 of the Act for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or liability. Needless to say that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Act is rebuttal presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of any debt or liability is on the accused. But in this case, the accused has failed to rebut the presumptions available to complainant u/S.139 of NI Act. It is relevant to cite the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Todi and others V/s State of Gujurat and another and in judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which are reported in 2021(2) KCCR SN 119 (DB), Judgment reported in 2006 (5) KLJ 323 and reported in 2006(3) KLR 20 Cri Appeal No.27/2025
333. When the cheque issued in blank, the holder of the cheque has authorized to fill the amount due.
(26) Further, The Hon'ble Apex Court in (2012) 13 SCC 3123 (Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat) has held thus:
"It has to be presumed that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or other liability but the presumption could be rebutted by adducing evidence. The burden of proof was however on the person who wanted to rebut the presumption. However, this presumption coupled with the object of Chapter XIV of The Act leads to the conclusion that by countermanding payment of post dated cheque party should not be allowed to get away from the penal provision of Section 138 of The Act. "
(27) In this case, it is not the contention of the appellant is that respondent / complainant has not followed proper procedure as contemplated u/s/138 & 142 of NI Act. The complainant has presented Ex.P1 cheque to the bank within its validity. Soon after he received Ex.P2 and 3 the bank endorsement. Within 30 days he has issued legal notice to the accused as per Ex.P4. After service of notice to the accused, the complainant had given 15 days time to the accused to pay cheque amount. Thereafter within 30 days the 21 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 complainant has filed this complaint. Thus, the complainant has followed proper procedure as contemplated u/S.138 & 142 of NI Act.
(28) The defence taken by the accused is that the complainant or her husband received blank signed cheque from him at the time of him borrowing amount of Rs 60,000 and even though he had repaid the borrowed amount, the complainant or her husband misused his blank signed cheque is not proved by the accused by preponderance of probabilities. For obvious reasons best know to him, he has not examined his friend who is stated to be introduced him to the husband of the complainant and also to show that through his friend, he has repaid the borrowed amount.
(29) The trial court on proper appreciation of the evidence on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused has committed offence punishable u/S.138 of NI Act. The accused has failed to rebut presumption available to the complainant u/S.139 & 118 of NI Act. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed thereon and warrants 22 Cri Appeal No.27/2025 no interference at the hands of this court.
(30) Considering on re-appreciation of entire evidence and after perusal of entire records, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court in C.C. No.16865/2020. Hence, I answer point No.1 & 2 in the negative.
(31) POINT NO.3:- In view of my findings on point No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant/ accused U/s.374 [3] of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned XVI ACJM, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.16865/2020 dated 06.12.2024 is hereby confirmed. The office is directed to send back TCR forthwith to learned XVI ACJM, Bengaluru, along with a copy of this judgment.
[Dictated to the SG-I, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of MARCH 2026] (MOHAN PRABHU), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-56)