Bangalore District Court
Rathnamma H vs Umesh on 21 November, 2025
KABC030235612022
IN THE COURT OF XX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: BHOLA PANDIT, B.Com.,LL.M.,
XX ADDL. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
Dated this the 21th day of November 2025
C.C.No. 9230/2022
Complainant : Smt. Rathnamma .H,
W/o Shantappa,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at Bi,629/1, 1st Main Road,
Near Garden English School,
Kempegowda Nagar,
T. Dasarahalli, Bangalore North,
Bangalore - 560 057.
(By Sri. Lex Aegis Attorneys Advocate)
Vs/-
Accused : Sri. Umesh,
S/o Nanjundappa,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.89, Ground Floor,
18th Cross Road, Defence Colony,
Near Blossom School,
Bagalgunte, Bangalore.
(By Sri. Nataraju C. S. Advocate)
2 C.C. No.9230/2022
Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act.,
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is acquitted
JUDGMENT
The present complaint is filed against the accused under Sec.200 Cr.P.C. for the offence section 138 and section 142 of N.I. Act.
2. The factual backgrounds of the complaint are as under:
It is alleged that complainant has been working as a Executive in a private company, her husband has been working as a Teacher and the accused was running 'Sri Sarvamangala Enterprises and Finance'. In the said finance, the husband and son of complainant have invested money from 2016 to 2020. On the eve of this acquaintance, in the first week of 2020 the accused has requested the complainant to lend him a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to meet out the loss incurred in his finance business and has promised to repay the said amount within six months and on 25.11.2020 the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and on 31.11.2020 she paid a sum of 3 C.C. No.9230/2022 Rs.4,22,000/- in total Rs.9,22,000/- has been paid as a hand loan to the accused. After the expiry of assured period when the complainant has approached the accused, the accused has issued the following cheques.
1. Cheque No.000011 dated 07.08.2021 for a sum of Rs.3,64,000/-
2. Cheque No.173155 dated 21.09.2021 for a sum of Rs.2,08,000/-
3. Cheque No.000012 dated 30.09.2021 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-
Cheque at S.L. No.1 and 3 are drawn on Bank of Baroda and Cheque at S.L. No.2 is drawn on State Bank of India. As per the request of the accused all the cheques have been presented with his banker for encashment, but the cheque at S.L. No.1 has returned unpaid due to alteration made in the date of the cheque, Cheque at S.L. No.2 returned unpaid due to exceeds arrangement and cheque at S.L. No.3 returned unpaid due to funds insufficient as per the bank return memos. On 30.11.2021 demand notices were issued to the accused which are personally served on accused on 07.12.2021. Inspite of that the accused has failed to pay the cheque amount. 4 C.C. No.9230/2022 Therefore she sought to punish the accused U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act and to grant her compensation.
2. On presentation of the complainant verified the same along with documents, having made out prima-facie case cognizance for an offence U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act has been taken sworn statement of complainant has been recorded by way of affidavit as Pw1 and got marked in all 18 documents. Having made out prima-facie case summons has been issued against the accused by registering the case in Register-III.
3. In pursuance of the court summons, the accused has appeared before this court through his counsel and filed bail application U/Sec.436 of Cr.P.C. along with IA. Accused has been instead of bail and accusation has been recorded and read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and wanted to put forth his defense. The sworn statement of the complainant has been treated as affidavit of Pw1 and the accused has been permitted to cross examine Pw1. On completing evidence of complainant side, 313 has been recorded and explained to the accused, he denied the same in toto, offered explanation stating that he 5 C.C. No.9230/2022 has repaid Rs.3,60,000/- to the complainant and the disputed cheques were issued as a security cheques.
4. The accused has entered in the witness box and adduced his oral evidence as Dw1 and got marked six documents.
5. Heard oral arguments advanced by both the learned counsels.
6. The following points that arise for my consideration are as under;
POINTS
1. Does the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubts that, the accused have issued 1. Cheque No.000011 dated 07.08.2021 for a sum of Rs.3,64,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Bangalore, 2.
Cheque No.173155 dated 21.09.2021 for a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- drawn on S.B.I., Bangalore and 3. Cheque No.000012 dated 30.09.2021 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Bangalore towards the discharge of his lawful liability of the complainant and when the said cheques were presented for encashment, but the cheque at S.L. No.1 has returned unpaid due to alteration made in the date of the cheque, Cheque at S.L. No.2 returned unpaid due to exceeds 6 C.C. No.9230/2022 arrangement and cheque at S.L. No.3 returned unpaid due to funds insufficient as per the bank return memo and in-spite of issuance of demand notice, the accused have failed to pay the cheques amount, thereby has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act?
2. What Order or sentence ?
7. My findings to the above points is as follows;
1. Point No.1: In the Negative
2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. Point No.1: It is the specific case of the complainant that, she has advanced a sum of Rs.9,22,000/- to the accused and the accused has issued disputed cheques towards repayment of her debts and when all the cheques have been presented for encashment with her banker, they have returned unpaid due to alteration made in the date of the cheque, exceeds arrangements and funds insufficient. Therefore inspite of service of demand notice, the accused has failed to pay the 7 C.C. No.9230/2022 cheque amount. Thus it is sought to punish the accused and award to her compensation.
9. To prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts, the sworn statement of complainant has been treated as affidavit evidence of Pw1. Wherein she has replicated and got marked in all 18 documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 are the disputed cheques, Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6 are the bank return memos, Ex.P.7 is the demand notice, Ex.P.8 is the postal receipt, Ex.P.9 is the postal acknowledgment, Ex.P.10 is the demand notice, Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.17 are the cards of Sri Sarvamanagala Enterprises and Finance. Ex.P.18 is the small dairy with regard to recording of alleged payments of some amounts. To disprove the case of the complainant and also to rebut the legal presumptions, the accused has entered in to the witness box and lead his oral evidence as Dw1 and got marked in all six documents. Ex.D.1 is the same documents of reply notices as Ex.P.10. Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.4 are the postal receipts and acknowledgment relating to Ex.D.1. Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.6 are the bank account statements standing in the name of accused. Both the 8 C.C. No.9230/2022 learned counsels have cross examined their rival witnesses comprehensively.
10. Before to appreciate and receive in evidence, the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties it is necessary to find out whether the present complaint has been filed as per the requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
11. Looking upon the disputed cheques at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and returned memos at Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6, it can be seen that Ex.P.1 the cheque dated 07.08.2021 was presented to the bank on 09.11.2021 as per Ex.P.4. There is no specific pleadings in the complaint regarding the date of presentation of all the cheques to the bank. Considering the date mentioned on the bank return memo at Ex.P.4, it appears that Ex.P.1 was presented to the bank after its validity period of three months. Therefore though the reason for the return of the said cheque is not mentioned as invalid cheque, but when it was presented after its validity period it amounts to invalid cheque. Further as per Ex.P.4 reason for the return of cheque at Ex.P.1 as "alteration in date requires drawer authentication" which means for the alteration made in the date it requires 9 C.C. No.9230/2022 consent and signature of the drawer of the cheque, then only cheque can be honoured by the bank. On bare perusal of date mentioned on the cheque at Ex.P.1 it shows about making correction in the month. As per Sec.87 of N.I. Act any material alteration is made to the negotiable instrument, the instrument rendered void. Making alteration relating to month on the cheque is material alteration and because of that reason the cheque has been returned unpaid. The cheques at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 have been presented to the bank within their validity period and looking upon the demand notice at Ex.P.7, which was issued within 30 days from the date of receiving bank return memos. As per Ex.P.9 the postal acknowledgment the accused has received demand notice on 07.12.2021 and on 23.12.2021 he given reply. Thereafter on 16.12.2021 this complaint has been filed before this court. As per Sec.138(c) of N.I. Act, 15 days time shall be provided to the accused for payment of the cheque amount. If the accused fails to make the payment of cheuqe amount within 15 days, then within 30 days of expiry of 15 days time the complainant may file the complaint before the 10 C.C. No.9230/2022 court. Here before the expiry of 15 days cooling period i.e., as per Ex.P.9 when the demand notice was served on the accused on 07.12.2021, the accused shall have to be provided 15 days time which means 7 + 15 = 22 on 23.12.2021 this complaint ought to have been filed before this court but within 15 days i.e., on 16.12.2021 this complaint is filed, the same is not maintainable. Since the present complainant has also failed to comply the other requirements of Sec.138 of NI Act this complaint is not returned for representation. Therefore by these legal drawbacks I am of the considered opinion that, the present complaint is not filed as per the requirements of Sec.138 of NI Act.
12. There are two legal presumptions have been provided relating to the cheques. As per Sec.118 of N.I. Act, there is a presumption until the contrary is proved that the presumptions shall exist in respect of consideration stating that every negotiable instrument was drawn and it has been acceptable or transferred for some consideration. As per Sec.139 of N.I. Act, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the holder of the cheque has 11 C.C. No.9230/2022 received the cheque at the nature referred to in Sec.138 of N.I. Act for the discharge, in whole or in part of any other debt or any liability.
13. In the instant case the accused has given reply at Ex.P.10, wherein he has denied entire case of the complainant by giving para wise reply interalia has contended in para No.6 and 7 that, he has given alleged instruments as security purpose and he will clear the amounts periodically within a year. It is further contended that, the accused already has paid Rs.2,08,000/- by way of NEFT on 04.12.2020 and another amount of Rs.1,56,000/- on 19.12.2020, in total he has repaid Rs.3,64,000/- and he is due to repay the balance amount of Rs.5,58,000/- to the complainant. Even during the cross-examination of Pw1 he has offered that, he is ready to pay Rs.5,58,000/-. This is the defence put-forth by the accused in the beginning itself. As per this defence the accused is admitting the issuance of cheques from his account and his signatures thereon. Therefore the legal presumptions U/Sec.118 and 139 of N.I. Act shown in favour of the complainant. The burden shifts on the accused to rebut the legal presumptions. In 12 C.C. No.9230/2022 the well known judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa , the Hon'ble Apex court has provided the guidelines such as for rebuttal of the presumptions, the accused shall put forth probable defence and to prove the same by producing cogent, reliable and acceptable evidence, then only the onus shifts on the complainant to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts. To prove his defence as contended in the reply notice, the accused by name Umesh has entered in the witness box and adduced his oral evidence as DW1 stating that, since 20-25 years he knows the complainant, the complainant has filed this complaint against him for the payment of her money and that he has given reply to the demand notice as per Ex.P.10 and also Ex.D.1. He further stated that in the month of November-2020, the complainant has lent Rs.9,22,000/- to him, out of which he has repaid to her a sum of Rs.3,64,000/-. He deposes that on 04.12.2020 he has deposited Rs.1,04,000/- to the relative of complainant by name Lakshmamma and on the same day he has deposited Rs.1,76,000/- to the bank account of complainant and he has produced his bank 13 C.C. No.9230/2022 account statements at Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.6. Further stated that, the present complaint is filed against him just to get more money from him. In support of his oral evidence he placed on record his bank account statement as per Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.6, the entries made on 04.12.2020 the depicts that the accused has deposited the said amount of Rs.1,04,000/- to the bank account of Lakshmamma and on 19.12.2020 he has paid Rs.1,56,000/- to the complainant vide No.173154. Regarding deposit of these two amounts Pw1 has admitted in her cross-examination. However during the cross-examination of DW1 a new case of Pw1 has been suggested stating that, the accused was suppose to pay investment of the accused, only the said investments amount was repaid to the complainant and not relating to the debt of the present case. In support of this suggestion, the complainant has placed on record some statements of Sri. Sarvamangala Enterprises and Finance which are marked at Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.17. For the said suggestion made to DW1 during cross-examination, he has not clearly or he has not given specific admission. He just gave explanation stating that he might have repaid 14 C.C. No.9230/2022 Rs.1,04,000/- to the account of Lakshmamma and Rs.1,56,000/- to the account of complainant. Since it is not specific and clear admission, the same could not be reliable in evidence against the accused. On careful scrutiny of complaint there is no such pleadings in the complaint. When the accused has specifically took the defence in his reply notice dated Ex.P.10 then the complainant ought to have pleaded in her complaint as to why and how the accused has paid Rs.1,04,000/- and Rs.2,56,000/- to the account of complainant and Lakshmamma. In the absence of such pleadings and oral evidence on record, the improved version and evidence of the complainant relating to the documents at Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.17 is unacceptable. The complainant has also produced one dairy marked at Ex.P.18 regarding some amount marked as Ex.P.18(a). During cross-examination of DW1 the entries made at Ex.P.18a is neither confronted nor brought to the notice of Dw1, therefore the dairy at Ex.P.18 could not be reliable to support the version of complainant. Thus, by considering the oral evidence of Dw1, the material evidence culled out during the cross- 15 C.C. No.9230/2022 examination of Pw1 it can be held that, the accused has put forth probable defence and has proved the same on preponderance probabilities by producing cogent and relaiblabe and acceptable evidence. As per admission of Pw1 when she has admitted that Rs.1,04,000/- and Rs.1,56,000/- has been repaid. Then as per Sec.56 of NI Act the repaid the amount ought to have been deducted by making an endorsement behind the backside of cheques and for the remaining amount the disputed cheques ought to have been presented. Thus from considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record I am of the considered opinion that the legal presumptions U/Sec.118 and 138 of NI Act rebutted and that the complainant has failed to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the Negative.
14. Point No.2: In view of the above findings, this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of code of criminal procedure, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 16 C.C. No.9230/2022
The bail bond of accused and surety stands canceled subject to appeal period. {Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this 21thd day of November 2025}.
(BHOLA PANDIT) XX ACJM, [ ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
Pw1 : Smt. Rathnamma .H List of documents produced on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 to 3 : Disputed cheques,
Ex.P.4 to 6 : Bank return memos,
Ex.P.7 : Demand notice,
Ex.P.8 : Postal receipt,
Ex.P.9 : Postal acknowledgment,
Ex.P.10 : Demand notice,
Ex.P.11 to 17 : Cards of Sri Sarvamanagala
Enterprises and Finance.
Ex.P.18 : Small dairy
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
Dw1 : Sri. Umesh List of documents produced on behalf of accused:
Ex.D.1 : Reply notice.
Ex.D.2 to 4 : Postal receipts and acknowledgment
Ex.D.5 & 6 : Bank account statements
XX A.C.J.M. Bengaluru.