Bangalore District Court
Ashokananda.B.A vs Sunil.S on 11 December, 2025
KABC020218962023
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES & ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU (SCCH-08)
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER - 2025
PRESENT: Mrs. Kannika M.S.,
M.A., LL.B.
XII ADDL. SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
C.C. No.6031/2023
Complainant : Mr. ASHOKANANDA B.A.
S/o. Anandakumar B.P.
Aged Major,
R/at No.325, 17th 'A' Cross,
27th Main, K.R. Layout,
J.P. Nagar, 6th Phase,
Bengaluru - 560078.
(By Sri. Shankar B. Advocate)
:Vs:
Accused : Mr. SUNIL S.
Resident of No.7/2, 1st floor,
A Munisanjeevappa Layout,
Kanakapura Main Road,
SCCH-8 2 C.C.No.6031/2023
Jaraganahalli,
Bengaluru - 560078.
Also at:
C/o Eagle Bar & Restaurant,
No.288, 15th Cross,
5th Phase, J.P.Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560078.
(By Sri. Mahesh Kumar N. Advocate)
Date of complaint : 24-03-2023
Date of commencement of
Evidence : 24-07-2023
Offence charged : Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act
Date of Judgment : 24.11.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not guilty
JUDGEMENT
This is a private complaint filed U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the alleged offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
SCCH-8 3 C.C.No.6031/2023
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that:
The accused and complainant are well known to each other from considerable time as friends and based on the said friendship, during 1st week of May 2022 the accused approached the complainant for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- to meet his urgent domestic problems.
Believing the words of the accused, the complainant has paid said sum from his savings and borrowing from his friends. The accused assured to repay the said amount within 6 months, but the accused has failed to repay the amount to the complainant. When the complainant demanded for repayment of the amount, towards the discharge of liability the accused issued a cheque bearing No.509933 dated 16.11.2022 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, drawn on Vijaya Bank (Bank of Baroda) J.P. Nagar Branch, Bengaluru. As per the instructions of the accused, complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker Bank of Baroda, J.P.Nagar SCCH-8 4 C.C.No.6031/2023 branch, Bengaluru, but the said cheque came to be dishonored and returned with shara dated 10.02.2023 stating "Invalid Account Number & In house cheque". Hence the complainant got issued the legal notice on 22.02.2022 through RPAD to the accused address and the same was served on 25.02.2023 as per Postal track. Inspite of service of notice, the accused has not paid the amount, hence the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Court.
3. Cognizance was taken and sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Since there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, the summons was issued to the accused. Accused appeared through his counsel and got enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation was framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, he denied the same and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for complainant's evidence.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the 5 documents at SCCH-8 5 C.C.No.6031/2023 Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and closed his evidence. After closure of complainant's side evidence, the statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C was prepared and read over to accused, he has denied the same. The accused has not led his defence evidence. During the course of cross examination of PW.1, through confrontation one document was marked as Ex.D1. Thereafter, case was posted for arguments.
5. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for complainant. Perused the entire records in this case.
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, the accused has issued the cheque bearing No. 509933 dated 16.11.2022 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, drawn on Vijaya Bank (Bank of Baroda) J.P. Nagar Branch, Bengaluru and the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, but the said cheque returned on 10.02.2023 with an endorsement as "Funds Insufficient" ?
2. What order?SCCH-8 6 C.C.No.6031/2023
7. The finding of this court on the above points is as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
POINT No.1:
8. Since these points are interconnected, hence they are taken up together to avoid repetition of facts.
9. According the complaint, the accused is known to him and on the basis of said acquaintance, the accused has borrowed handloan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant and assured to repay the same within 6 months. Thereafter when the complainant demanded to repay the amount, the accused issued the post dated cheque bearing No.509933 dated 16-11-2022 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, drawn on Vijaya Bank (Bank of Baroda) J.P. Nagar Branch, Bengaluru and when he has presented the said cheque for collection and for realization, the said cheque was dishonored and returned with SCCH-8 7 C.C.No.6031/2023 shara dated 10.02.2023 stating "Invalid Account Number & In house cheque," hence he issued the legal notice to the accused on 22.02.2023 through RPAD and the same was served to the accused. Inspite of service of notice, the accused has not paid the amount, hence the complaint.
10. In support of his contention complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief wherein reiterated the averments of the complaint and examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 documents. Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.509933 dated 16.11.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/- issued by the accused in favour of the Complainant. Ex.P1(a) is the signature of the accused. EX.P2 is the endorsement dated: 10.02.2023 issued by the Bank with respect to the dishonour of the cheque bearing No.509933 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is shows that cheque was dishonored for the reason "Invalid account Number & in house Cheque". Ex.P3 is the legal notice dated 22-02-2023 issued by the complainant through his counsel to the accused for repayment of the said loan amount. Ex.P4 is SCCH-8 8 C.C.No.6031/2023 the postal receipt & Ex.P5 is the postal acknowledgment. Ex.P6 & 7 are the summary of account. Ex.P1 to P5 shows that the legal notice sent to the accused was served. The accused has not repaid the amount. Thereafter complainant has filed this case against the accused. Hence, complainant has complied the mandatory requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
11. On the other hand, the accused has not examined himself before the court, but during the cross examination of PW.1, through confrontation got marked whats-app chat messages as Ex.D1.
12. The Negotiable Instrument act clearly lays down presumption in favour of the complainant with regard to the issuance of cheque by the accused towards the discharge of his liability. The onus is upon the accused to rebut the said presumption by raising a probable defence. It is a well settled law that the bare/mere denial of the passing of consideration apparently does not appear any defence. Something which is probable must be brought on record for getting the benefit. The SCCH-8 9 C.C.No.6031/2023 presumption referred under sec.118 and 139 of NI act is a rebuttable presumptions and the accused is expected to rebut the presumptions by raising a probable defence.
13. Such being the legal position, it would be pertinent to refer to the defence raised by the accused to rebut the presumptions in favour to the complainant in this case. There is no dispute that cheque belongs to the accused with his signature on it. But there is serious dispute with regard to the date of issuance of cheque, as well as with regards to the existence of the alleged loan transaction between them, that the accused has issued the subject cheque towards the discharge of legally recoverable debt in his favour as claimed by the complainant. In such circumstance, though the accused admits the cheque and his signature on it, the complainant is bound to discharge his initial burden of proving that existence of the legally recoverable debt beyond reasonable doubt.
14. First let me examine whether the complainant has proved that he had the requisite funds or financially capable for SCCH-8 10 C.C.No.6031/2023 advancing the sum of money/loan in question to the accused. It is only after satisfying that the complainant has proved that he had requisite funds for advancing the sum of money/loan in question to the accused, then the court can proceeded to draw presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act and thereafter court can find out as to whether or not the accused has rebutted the said presumption.
15. In the decision reported in (2014)2 Supreme Court Cases 236 (between John K. Abraham Vs. Simon C. Abraham and another), wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as hereunder:-
"Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws - Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Ss.118, 139 and 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Drawing presumption under Sectoin 118 R/w. Section - 139 - Prerequisites for, when cheque is repayment of a loan/advanced money-proof required on the part of complainant - Held, in order to draw presumption under section 118 R/w. S.139, burden lies on complainant to show 1) that he had the requisite funds for advancing the sum of money/loan in question to accused 2) that the issuance of cheque by accused in support of repayment of money advanced was true, and 3) that the accused was bound to make payment as had been agreed while issuing cheque in favour of SCCH-8 11 C.C.No.6031/2023 complainant - In present case, complainant not aware of the date when substantial amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was advanced by him to appellant - accused - Respondent complainant failed to produce relevant documents in support of the alleged source for advancing money to accused - complainant also nto aware as to when and where the transaction took place for which the cheque in question was issued to him by accused - complainant also not sure as to who wrote the cheque and making contractor statement in this regard - In view of said serious defects / Lacuna in evidence of complainant, Judgment of High Court reversing acquittal of accused by trial court, held was perverse and could not be sustained - Acquittal restored".
As per the above Ruling in order to draw presumption U/S.118 R/w. Section 139, burden lies on the complainant to show: 1) that he had the requisite funds or financially capable for advancing the sum of money/loan in question to the accused, 2) that the issuance of cheque by accused in support of repayment of money advanced was true and 3) that the accused was bound to make payment as had been agreed while issuing cheque in favour of complainant.
SCCH-8 12 C.C.No.6031/2023
16. According to the complainant accused has requested financial assistance of Rs.10,00,000/- in the 1st week of May 2022, he has lent the said loan loan by way of cash and towards repayment of the said amount accused has issued cheque dated 16.11.2022. Accused has denied lending capacity of the complainant and also issuance of cheque towards loan. When such being the specific contention urged by the accused, burden is on the shoulder of the complainant, to prove the same, to discharge the initial burden so as to draw the presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act. In the cross- examination of the Pw1 he deposed that he has borrowed some hand loan from his friends and given it to the accused, further deposed that " he borrowed Rs.4 to 5 lakhs from his friends before four to five days of lending the amount to accused". But in the complaint, complainant has not mentioned the date of lending the loan to accused. To prove the said fact complainant has not examined his friend who has lent the loan to him. SCCH-8 13 C.C.No.6031/2023
17. Further complainant has not produced any document to show the his capacity to lend the said amount to accused. In the cross-examination Pw1 admits that he will produce the statement of account of his bank account and also documents related to payment of Income tax returns, but he has not produced the same for the reasons best know to the complainant. Further in the cross-examination Pw1 stated that "ನನ್ನ ಉಳಿತಾಯದ ಹಣದಿಂದ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಸಾಲನೀಡಿದ್ದು ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಯನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ". Further deposed that "ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಗೆಳೆಯರಿಂದ ಕೈಸಾಲ ಪಡೆದು ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಹಣ ನೀಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ನನ್ನ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರನ್ನು ಕರೆಯಿಸಿ ವಿಚಾರನೆಗೆ ಒಳಪಡಿಸಲು ತೊಂದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲ." But he has not examined other oral evidence in support of his version and also not produced the account details and also income tax balance sheet to prove the same. Pw1 admitted to produce those documents on next date of hearing, but not produced those documents for the reasons best known him.
18. Added more, there is absolutely no materials placed on record by the complainant to show that he was having the SCCH-8 14 C.C.No.6031/2023 above said amount with him at that relevant point of time. Therefore, it cannot be believed that, even if the complainant possessed the financial capacity to lend a loan of Rs.10,00,000/-. Further, Pw1 has stated that he has lent the loan without any documents, the alleged act of the complainant who is said to have lent a helping hand to the accused is just an illusion rather moonshine created by the complainant. If the complainant has really lent a huge sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, he would have definitely reflected the same in his account statement. Non-disclosure of the same also creates clouds of suspicion.
19. The accused another main defence is that he has borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant in the year 2019, at that time he has issued the disputed cheque for security of the said loan, he has repaid the said loan along with interest of Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2023, the alleged cheque was in the hands of complainant from 2019. the complainant has misused the said security cheque for the reason interest SCCH-8 15 C.C.No.6031/2023 not paid from 2019. To prove the said aspect in the cross- examination of the Pw1 accused counsel confronted the whats- app chats messages, Pw1 admitted it, it was marked as Ex.D1. On perusal of the said document it clears that Cheque belongs to the accused was in the custody of the complainant on 15.10.2021 and also Pw1 in his cross-examination admits that the said cheque was in his custody on the said date and it is not the case of the complainant that before the present transaction there was a earlier transaction between them, for the said transaction cheque was given as security. When the complainant has not stated the said things it believes that the disputed cheque was in the custody of the complainant before 2022.
20. The accused further defence is that when he has issued the cheque in the year 2019 disputed cheque was valid, afterwords the Vijaya Bank was merged with the Bank of Baroda, the bank has issued the directions to their customers for return the old cheques and take new cheques and also old SCCH-8 16 C.C.No.6031/2023 cheques are not valid after the date which was stated by the Bank authority. Therefore the disputed cheque is not a valid cheque. To this regard accused counsel has suggested the Pw1, Pw1 deposed that "2021ರಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ವಿಜಯಾ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ಕಿನ ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಇನ್ ವ್ಯಾಲಿಡ್ ಆಗಿದ್ದರೂ ಕೂಡ ನಾನು 2022 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ." These admissions of Pw1 and also earlier admission regarding the cheque was in his custody prior to the loan transaction, clears that complainant has knowledge of the merger of Banks and also validity date of the cheque of the Vijaya Bank. Even though he has got knowledge, he has presented the cheque for enchashment and it was dishonored as a reason "invalid account and cheque" . The Vijaya bank was merged to Bank of Baroda. After merger previous cheques are invalid.
At this stage this court have go through the provision of Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act reads as follows:
"Section 138: dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc., of funds in the account where any cheque drawn by a persons on an account maintained SCCH-8 17 C.C.No.6031/2023 by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another persons from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that 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 be extended to two years) or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless
(a) the cheque was been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said account of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid:
and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, SCCH-8 18 C.C.No.6031/2023 as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice".
21. On plain reading of the above provision of law, it is clear that if any invalid cheque is presented before the Bank and the same was dishonoured, then there is no liability under Section 138 of the Act.
22. As per the case of complainant, he had lent alleged hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- in the month of May 2022 and the disputed cheque was issued on 16.11.2022, at that time the cheque in question is related to Vijaya Bank. As per admission of Pw1 Vijaya Bank was merged with Bank of Baroda on 01.04.2019. As per the contents of Complaint and Sworn statement affidavit of complainant, the disputed cheque stated to have been issued on 16.11.2022 and the complainant has presented the said cheque after merger of the bank i.e. on 10.02.2023 i.e., after lapse of nearly 3 year from the date of merger of Vijaya Bank with Bank of Baroda. As on the date of SCCH-8 19 C.C.No.6031/2023 presentation of the disputed cheque, Vijaya Bank was not at all in existence and it was merged with Bank of Baroda.
23. At this juncture it is beneficial to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court which is reported in 2024 AHC 10243 between Smt. Archana Singh Gautam VS State of UP and Another, wherein the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has issued a significant ruling regarding cheque bounce cases involving merged bank accounts. The said court held that dishonored cheque from a bank that has under gone merger cannot attract liability under section 138 of the NI Act. Further at paragraph No.12 it is also held as follows:
"12. This Court is also of the view that the above analogy will also be applicable to the cheques of all banks which had merged with other banks".
24. In the case on hand, the dishonour memo is produced. As per the Ex.P2 which is the endorsement issued by the Bank of Baroda the Cheque is dishonored for the reason "invalid account". It cannot be disputed that Vijaya Bank is merged with Bank of Baroda on 01-04-2019 and the validity of SCCH-8 20 C.C.No.6031/2023 the cheque leaves of Vijaya Bank was only till 01.07.2021. As such, the cheques are not valid as on the date of presentation of the said cheque. From the above decision and also on perusal of section 138 of the NI Act, it is clear that if any invalid cheque is presented before the bank and the same is dishonored, then no liability under section 138 of the NI Act would be attracted. Further the cheque in question which was issued from the account maintained in the erstwhile Vijaya Bank after its merger with Bank of Baroda is not valid cheques on the date of presentation as required by proviso (a) of section 138 of the NI Act, therefore dishonoring the same will not attract liability under section 138 of the NI Act.
25. In the light of the discussions made supra, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the disputed cheque is issued to him by the accused towards the discharge of his liability.
26. In this case, complainant has discharged the initial presumption by leading oral and documentary evidence. The SCCH-8 21 C.C.No.6031/2023 complainant was subjected to cross examination at length, in which doubtful or probable circumstances are elicited. The accused denied the case of complainant and also rebutted the statuary presumption by cross-examining PW-1. Under such circumstances it can be believed that, accused has not issued the cheque towards legally enforceable debt.
27. The presumption U/Sec.139 and 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1988, is presumption of law and it is not a presumption of fact. A statutory presumption has an evidentiary value. This presumption has to be raised by the court in all the cases once the factum of dishonour of the cheque is established. The onus to rebut this presumption lies on the accused. In this case complainant has complied the statutory requirements of Sec.138 of NI Act and initial burden is discharged by the accused. At the same time the accused has successfully rebutted this presumption. Therefore, the complainant has failed to establish that, accused has SCCH-8 22 C.C.No.6031/2023 committed the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Accordingly, this court answers Points No.1 in the Negative.
28. Point No.2 :- In view of my answer to Point No.1 as above, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
The bail bond and surety bond stands as cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 11th day of December, 2025) KANNIKA Digitally signed by KANNIKA M S MS Date: 2025.12.20 13:56:49 +0530 (Kannika M.S.) XII Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.SCCH-8 23 C.C.No.6031/2023
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for complainant :-
P.W.1 : Mr. Ashokananda B.A. List of documents marked for complainant:-
Exhibits Particulars of the Document
Ex.P1 Cheque
Ex.P1(a) Signature of Accused
Ex.P2 Bank Endorsement
Ex.P3 Legal notice
Ex.P4 Postal receipt
Ex.P5 Postal track consignment
List of witnesses examined for accused:
-NIL-
List of documents marked for accused:-
Ex.D1 : Whats up message copy.
Digitally signed
KANNIKA by KANNIKA M S
MS Date: 2025.12.20
13:56:54 +0530
(Kannika M.S.)
XII Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACJM, Bengaluru.