Bangalore District Court
Anjinappa P S/O Pandu vs Kumar on 3 January, 2026
KABC020750612024
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
(SCCH-24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated: On this day of 3rd day of January 2026
CC NO.27386/2024
1. Sl.No. of the Case : C.C.No.27386 of 2024
2. The date of : 07-10-2024
commission of the
offence
3. Name of the : Sri Anjinappa P
Complainant S/o Pandu
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.368,
Ambedkarnagar Pantharapalya,
Gurusarwabowaramanagara,
Bengaluru -500039.
(By Sri.Harisha J., Advocate)
4. Name of the Kumar
Accused S/o Krishnappa
Aged about 40 years,
R/at #139, 3rd cross,
Avalahalli, Kasthuriba Colony,
SCCH-24 2 C.C.27386/2024
Hirannagudde Girinagar
2nd stage,
Bengaluru -560085.
(By Sri Manjunatha.S, Advocate)
5. The offence complained : Under Section 138 of the
of or proves Negotiable Instrument Act.
6. Plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination
7. Final Order : Accused found guilty
8. Date of such order for : 03-01-2026
the following
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed under Sec. 200 of Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is the case of the complainant that: The accused and complainant are known to each other since several years. In that acquaintance, the accused had approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.4,80,000/- for his daughter's marriage. The complainant at the first instance denied hand loan to the accused as the complainant himself was not in a position of providing any sort of hand loan. But the accused continuously requested the complainant for the hand loan stating that if hand loan is not given his SCCH-24 3 C.C.27386/2024 daughter's marriage would be affected. The complainant in order to help the accused asked the hand loan from his friend by name Mr. Krishnoji.
3. The complainant and Krishnoji are known to each other since several years. Mr. Krishnoji adhering to the trust and friendship with the complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cash to the accused and entered into a hand loan agreement with the accused. The accused agreed to repay the amount within 6 months and in case accused failed to repay the amount, the complainant shall stand as surety and the surety shall be liable to pay the amount to Krishnoji. At the same time, the complainant paid Rs.2,30,000/- to the accused by way of cash. The accused promised the complainant to repay the total hand loan of Rs.4,80,000/-. But the accused failed to repay the amount within the stipulated period as agreed by him. The complainant tried to contact the accused, but his contact was not secured. As the result, the surety ie., the complainant had to pay the hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cash to Krishnoji and cleared the debt of the accused.
4. During the month of July 2024, the complainant traced the accused and issued a cheque bearing SCCH-24 4 C.C.27386/2024 No.534955 dated 29-07-2024 for a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Girinagar Branch, Bangalore. As per the instructions, when the complainant presented the cheque through his banker, same was returned dishonor with memo "Funds Insufficient" "Drawer's Signature Incomplete/ Illegibile/Differs by drawer". Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 11-09-2024 through RPAD. In spite of service of notice, the accused has not repaid cheque amount. Accordingly, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I Act.
5. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and verifying the documents, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. The accused on receiving the summons appeared before this Court through his counsel, enlarged on bail and his plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims 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 documents as Exs.P1 to 7. During the SCCH-24 5 C.C.27386/2024 cross examination of DW.1, the learned counsel for complainant has confronted documents and got marked it as Ex.P8 to Ex.P10. Then, the case was posted for recording the statement of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. In the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and claimed to be tried. The accused got examined himself as DW.1, hence the case was posted for argument.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
8. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that accused has committed 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:- It is the definite case of the complainant that, towards the discharge of his liability, SCCH-24 6 C.C.27386/2024 the accused has issued disputed cheque and when the cheque was presented, same was dishonoued for the reason ""Funds Insufficient" "Drawer's Signature Incomplete/Illegible /Differs by drawer" . Though the said fact was brought to the notice of the accused by issuing legal notice but accused has failed to repay the cheque amount.
11. To substantiate the contention, the complainant got examined himself as PW1. The PW.1 in his examination in chief has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. ExP1 is the cheque which bears the signature of accused. It is deposed by Pw-1 that cheque in question was issued by the accused towards discharge of liability. The cheque in question was presented by the complainant through his banker which was returned with memo as per ExP2 stating 'Funds insufficient'. Hence, he got issued legal notice to the accused through RPAD, which is produced at Ex.P.3. The postal receipt is marked at Ex.P.4. The postal Track consignment are marked at Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, The hand loan agreement is marked at Ex.P7. During the cross examination of DW.1, the learned counsel for complainant has confronted the PAN Card, Driving license and Postal acknowledgment and got it marked as Ex.P8 to Ex.P10.
SCCH-24 7 C.C.27386/202412. The accused while admitting that complainant is known to him since several years has denied the hand loan transaction held between him and the complainant and stated that himself and complainant are driver by profession and both of them were having vehicle. The complainant now left the driving profession and running flower business and chit business. The accused had 3 chit transaction with the complainant and every month he used to pay Rs.18,000/- towards 3 chit transaction. Each chit was for Rs.1,50,000/-. He used to pay the chit subscription by way of cash and phone pay and while raising chit amount, the complainant had taken blank cheque as security. In the year 2019 himself and complainant purchased vehicle on partnership for Rs.8,50,000/- and they have contributed sum of Rs.1,25,000/- each towards the purchase of the vehicle and since loan was not approved in their name, it was obtained in the name of Puneetha and vehicle was registered in the name of Puneeth. The accused further has denied the service of legal notice to him.
13. In order to substantiate the defence, the accused got examined himself as DW.1. But no document has been placed on his side.
SCCH-24 8 C.C.27386/202414. The accused while admitting the cheque in question issued by him has deposed that he has given blank unsigned cheque as security and denied his signature in the Ex.P1. Hence the complainant will not get the benefit of presumption U/Sec.118 and 139 of N.I. Act.
15. So for as the objection raised by the accused regarding non service of legal notice is concerned it is deposed by Dw.1 that he has not been served with legal notice. The DW.1 has deposed that the address mentioned in his evidence in chief is his correct address. During the cross examination of DW.1 he has shown the Aadhaar card saved in his mobile phone. On perusal of the same, in the Aadhaar card the address of the accused is mentioned as 139, 3rd Cross, Avalahalli, Kasturaba Colony, Girinagara, Bengaluru-560085. The learned counsel for complainant during his cross examination has confronted the driving licence of the son of the accused by name Nandish and same was marked as Ex.P3 wherein also the above address is mentioned as the address of Nandish. The address of the accused one shown in the Aadhaar card, Ex.P3 and in the examination in chief of the DW.1 tallies with the address of the accused mentioned in the legal notice and SCCH-24 9 C.C.27386/2024 complaint. If postal acknowledgment at Ex.P4 is perused wherein we can find the signature. When legal notice is sent to the correct address of the accused through RPAD, presumption shall have to be drawn regarding due service of legal notice. Hence there is no reason to believe that legal notice is not served to the accused. Inspite of service of legal notice, the accused has failed to give reply and thereby failed to take the defence at the first instance which he has taken now.
16. It is the case of the complainant that, out of Rs.4,80,000/- sum of Rs.2,30,000/- was paid by him by way of cash and sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid by his friend by name Krishnoji and Krishnoji had given the said sum to the accused on the surety of the complainant and that since accused did not return the amount to the aforesaid Krishnoji, the complainant himself has paid the amount to Krishnoji.
17. If the cross examination of PW.1 is perused, it is deposed by PW.1 that except the income from flower business he has no other source of income. In the complaint itself the complainant has stated that he was not in position to pay sum of Rs.4,80,000/- to the accused hence he had approached his friend Krishnoji SCCH-24 10 C.C.27386/2024 and at his assurance, Krishnoji had given sum of Rs.2,50,000/'- to the accused.
18. The PW.1 has deposed that his monthly income is Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/-, he is married having daughter aged about 2 years and he is residing in a rented house on a monthly rent of Rs.6,700/-. It was the suggestion posed to the PW.1 that, the PW.1 had not give sum of Rs.4,80,000/- directly to the accused. The PW.1 has admitted the said suggestion. It is no where the case of the complainant that sum of Rs.4,80,000/- was given directly to the accused instead it is his case that sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was given by Krishnoji and balance amount of Rs.2,30,000/- was given by him by way of cash. Though the learned counsel for accused has posed suggestion that the accused is financially sound and there was no necessity for him to borrow any amount from the complainant and though question was posed to the PW.1 regarding his avocation and income but no single suggestion has been posed denying the financial capacity of the the complainant to lend any amount to the accused. Though the learned counsel for accused has posed suggestion that Krishnoji had not given any money to the accused and though it is true that complainant has not taken any steps to examine SCCH-24 11 C.C.27386/2024 Krishnoji as witness but the complainant in order to prove that Krishnoji had given sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused at the say of the complainant has produced hand loan agreement as per Ex.P7. If the entire cross examination of PW.1, the evidence in chief and cross examination of DW.1 is perused, no where the accused has disputed the genuineness of Ex.P7. At no point of time the accused has denied his signature in the Ex.P7 and has not denied the execution of loan agreement as per Ex.P7. If Ex.P7 is perused it bears the signature of Krishnoji, accused, one Puneeth and complainant. The recitals of Ex.P7 goes to show that accused had approached the complainant for hand loan and complainant brought the accused near Krishnoji and for meeting the marriage expenses of the daughter of accused, Krishnoji had given hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cash under Ex.P7 and accused agreed to repay the said amount within 6 months. Hence, Ex.P7 itself is sufficient to hold that sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was given to the accused by Krishnoji on the words of the complainant.
19. The accused in his cross examination has deposed that he his working as driver in Tourists Tempo Travels and he was running Nandish Tours and Travels SCCH-24 12 C.C.27386/2024 and from the driver profession he is earning sum of Rs.35,000/- per month and he has 3 children of whom daughter is married and two sons aged about 21 years and 19 years are also driver by profession and since 4 years they are doing driving work.
20. When the age of the children of accused is 21 years and 19 years as on the date of giving evidence i.e., on 08.10.2025, it is hard to believe that during the year 2021 ie.., the year in which the alleged loan transaction was held they were the earning members of the family by doing driving work. In the year 2021 both the sons of accused were minors. It is admitted by accused that his daughter's marriage was performed on 21.02.2021. According to the complainant, to meet the marriage expenses of the daughter of accused, the accused has borrowed sum of Rs.4,80,000/- in the year 2021. Though the accused has taken the defence of his having chit transaction with the complainant from the year 2019 and though he has stated that his wife, Puneeth, Geetha etc., are the members of the chit transaction with the complainant and though the accused has stated that he was paying chit amount by way of cash and phone pay but has failed to produce the screen shot of the phone pay transaction and has failed to examine Puneeth, the wife of accused and others as witness to SCCH-24 13 C.C.27386/2024 prove the chit business run by the complainant. It is true that on 23.10.2025 the learned counsel for accused had filed list of witness mentioning the name of M.Puneeth, Harish, Smt. Geetha and Smt. Radha as witness to prove the chit transaction and though the learned defense counsel had paid process fee to secure the presence of witness by hand but they failed to collect the hand summons from the office and failed to get the hand summons executed and to secure the presence of the witnesses so as to prove the chit transaction which they allegedly had with the complainant so as to say that accused had given blank unsigned cheque as security. Further it is quite natural that, if any person gives cheque as security, they will issue signed cheque instead of unsigned cheque. If unsigned cheque is given, there is no necessity to give such an unsigned cheque as security. Hence, there is no reason to believe that accused had given blank unsigned cheque to the complainant. It is true that the disputed cheque when presented was returned with shara "Funds Insufficient, Drawers signature incomplete/ illegible/differs. If Ex.P1 is perused it bears the signature stated to be of accused. The accused has denied Ex.P1(a) as his signature. If the plea and 313 statement of the accused is perused, wherein accused has put his signature in Kannada as SCCH-24 14 C.C.27386/2024 "ಕುಮಾರ". In the deposition of PW.1 also he has put his signature in Kannada as "ಕುಮಾರ". If Ex.P8 i.e., the PAN card of the accused and driving licence of the accused marked as Ex.P8 and 9 through the DW.1 is perused, wherein accused has put his signature in English as "KUMAR". In the postal acknowledgment as per Ex.P10 we can see the signature in the form of initial. As observed supra accused has denied service of legal notice and there by denied his signature in the Ex.P10. It is relevant to state here that during the course of cross examination of DW.1, he was asked to put his signature in blank paper both in Kannada and English. The accused has signed in 3 different ways. The last signature put by the accused tallies with the signature in the Ex.P1 and Ex.P7. As observed supra Ex.P7 is not disputed by the accused. Further the summons from the court was issued to the accused through RPAD. The summons was served to the accused which is evident from the postal acknowledgment which is in the case file wherein the accused has put his signature which tallies with the signature in the Ex.P1 and Ex.P7. Hence, it can be said that the accused is in the habit of signing in three different ways of which the signature in the Ex.P1, Ex.P7 and postal acknowledgment is the one. It appears that since accused had put his signature in the Ex.P1 in SCCH-24 15 C.C.27386/2024 different way than the one in the Account Form and Specimen Signature maintained in the bank, the cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured for one of the reason that "Signature differs/illegible/ incomplete". Though the accused has denied his signature in the Ex.P1 but he has not taken any steps to get the disputed signature compared with the admitted signature by referring the disputed and admitted signature to the hand writing expert. Hence, it can be said without any hesitation that Ex.P1(a) is the signature of the accused.
21. Hence on appreciation of the entire materials placed on record it can be said that complainant has proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the loan transaction held between the accused and complainant and with Krishnoji and cheque in question issued by the accused towards discharge of liability. The accused has failed to probabilise his defence. In the light of the discussion made herein above, this court is of the considered opinion that complainant has proved that accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
22. POINT No.2 :- The Negotiable Instruments Act is a Special Enactment, and the provisions of the Act SCCH-24 16 C.C.27386/2024 prevail over the general provision contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, keeping the relevant provisions of the Act in mind the sentence is to be passed. In the light of the reasons on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Sec. 278(2) of BNSS the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 read with section 142 of NI Act.
Consequently, accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand only), out of which Rs.4,85,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant under Sec.396 of BNSS and Rs.5,000/- shall be payable to the State.
In the event of default in payment within a period of one month, the accused shall be convicted to simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months.
SCCH-24 17 C.C.27386/2024It is made clear that in view of Sec.430 of BNSS, even if the accused under goes the default sentence imposed above, he is not absolved of liability to pay the fine amount.
The bail bond of accused and that of surety stands canceled.
Office to furnish the copy of this judgment free of cost to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 3rd day of January 2026) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl.SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
:ANNEXTURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF THE COMPLAINANT P.W.1 : Anjinappa P LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused. SCCH-24 18 C.C.27386/2024 Ex.P.2 : Endorsement. Ex.P.3 : Copy of legal notice. Ex.P.4 : Postal Receipt Ex.P.5 & 6 : Postal track consignment and Certificate u/Sec.63 (BNSS), by way of affidavit Ex.P7 : Hand loan agreement Ex.P8 : Xeroc copy of Pan Card Ex.P9 : Copy of Driving licence Ex.P10 : Postal acknowledgment
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED:
D.W.1 : - Kumar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
- -Nil-
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by ROOPASHRI ROOPASHRI Date:
2026.01.03 12:31:15 +0530