Bangalore District Court
Manappuram Finance Ltd vs Lohith Devadiga on 28 November, 2025
C.C.NO.13055/2025
KABC030224702025
Presented on : 25-04-2025
Registered on : 25-04-2025
Decided on : 28-11-2025
Duration : 0 years, 7 months, 3 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt.Nagamma.M.Ichchangi,
BA.,LL.B.,(Spl),
XXVIII A.C.J.M, Bengaluru City.
DATED; THIS THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER-2025
CC.No.13055/2025
COMPLAINANT : M/s.Manappuram Finance Limited,
Having its Head O/at: Manappuram
House, Valapad, Thrissur,
Kerala-680567 & Having Branch
O/at 6/5,1st Floor, Manappuram,
Near Govt. Hospital, Chamarajapet,
Karnataka, Bangalore-560018,
R/by its Junior Officer,
Mr.Sandesh Gowda.G.P., Age: 27 years,
Email ID:[email protected]
Phone No.8095409565.
(By Sri.B.L.Tejas.,Adv.,)
V/s.
ACCUSED : Mr.Lohith Devadiga S/o Seetharama
No.615 Revathi Compound, Near
Kavoor Kola, Avoor, Kavur SO,
Dakshina Kannada,
Karnataka-575015.
Phone No.8867817001
C.C.NO.13055/2025
(By Sri.Bharath Poojary.,Adv.,)
Offence complained of : U/s.138 of N.I.Act
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 28.11.2025
:JUDGMENT:
The complainant company has complaint filed against the accused under section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 25 and 28 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act R/w section 138 & 141 of N.I.Act.
2. The case of the complainant's company in brief is as under:
It is the case of the complainant company that, the complainant is a public limited company engaged in the business of extending financial facility to its prospective customers under various finances schemes. In the course of its financial services, it has introduced digital personal loan for the benefit of its customers. Further under this facility, the accused had applied for digital personal loan and the same was sanctioned to the accused bearing loan No.60909 and had agreed to abide by the terms and conditions. As per the C.C.NO.13055/2025 terms and conditions of the said facility, the accused had agreed to pay the above said loan, together with interest by way of equated monthly installments, be besides other charges to the complainant. After availing the loan, the accused failed to honor the commitment and had became defaulter. The accused towards discharge of liability had issued NACH account No.41283333860 for Rs.60,033/- drawn on State Bank of India. Further when the complainant executed the said auto debit instruction for encashment through its banker, but same was dishonored as 'Balance Insufficient" on 31.05.2024. Thereafter on 24.06.2024 the complainant got issued a demand notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the said amount. The said notice was return to the accused as "Unclaimed" on 08.07.2024. After issuance of the notice, the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the said amount. As such, the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act R/w Section 25(1) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court on 12.08.2024.
3. After registration of the complaint, the C.C.NO.13055/2025 cognizance of the offence cited therein was taken. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Since there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, an order was passed on 01.02.2025 to register the case in Register No.III and it was registered as criminal case.
4. Thereafter, summons was issued to the accused and he has appeared before the court through counsel and secured bail. He was furnished necessary papers as contemplated under section 208 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the plea of the accused was recorded by the court. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The complainant's company in support of its case has examined its Authorized Signatory as PW.1 and got marked 07 documents at Ex.P.1 to 06 and closed its side.
6. After closer of the evidence of the complainant, the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Inspite of sufficient opportunity the accused has not led defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence taken as nil.
7. I have heard the arguments on both C.C.NO.13055/2025 complainant side and perused the material placed on record.
8. Upon hearing the arguments by complainant side and on perusal of the material placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the complainant proves the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability.?
2.Whether the complainant further proves that the accused had issued the Summary of NACH debit Mandate-Ex.P.1, towards the discharge of the said legally enforceable debt/liability.?
3.Whether the complainant further proves that Summary of NACH debit Mandate-Ex.P.1 was dishonored for the reasons "Balance Insufficient" in the account of the accused and thereafter the accused had failed to repay the same within the statutory period, inspite of receipt of legal notice.?
4.Whether the accused have thus committed an offence punishable under section 25 and 28 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act and section 138 of N.I.Act.?
5. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative C.C.NO.13055/2025 Point No.3: In the Affirmative Point No.4: In the Affirmative Point No.5: As per final order, for the following:
:REASONS:
10. POINT NO.1 to 4: In order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence points No.1 to 4 are taken together for common discussion The complainant is a public limited company engaged in the business of extending financial facility to its prospective customers under various finances schemes. In the course of its financial services, it has introduced digital personal loan for the benefit of its customers. Further under this facility, the accused had applied for digital personal loan and the same was sanctioned to the accused and had agreed to abide by the terms and conditions. As per the terms and conditions of the said facility, the accused had agreed to pay the above said loan, together with interest by way of equated monthly installments, be besides other charges to the complainant. After availing the loan, the accused failed to honor the commitment and had became defaulter. The accused towards discharge of liability had issued NACH account. Further when the complainant executed the said auto debit instruction for encashment through its C.C.NO.13055/2025 banker, but same was dishonored as 'Balance Insufficient". Thereafter the complainant got issued a demand notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the said amount. The said notice was return to the accused as "Unclaimed". After issuance of the notice, the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the said amount. As such, the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act R/w Section 25(1) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court.
11. In support of the case, the complainant has examined its Authorized Signatory as P.W.1 and the said PW.1 in his chief examination has reiterated the contents of complaint and got marked 06 documents at Ex.P.1 to 06. Ex.P.1 is the Summary of NACH Debit Mandate in question issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.60,033/-. Ex.P.2 is the bank memo dated: 31.05.2024 informing the dishonor of the Summary of NACH Debit Mandate as "Balance Insufficient". Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice dated: 24.06.2024. Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt. Ex.P.5 is the Returned Postal Cover & Notice. Ex.P.6 is the complaint.
C.C.NO.13055/2025
12. In order to attract the offence punishable under section 25 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007, R/w. Sec.138 of N.I.Act, the complainant is firstly required to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the Summary of NACH Debit Mandate came to be issued.
13. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused had approached the complainant to sanction loan for his urgent financial needs. The complainant had sanctions and disbursed the loan amount towards digital personal loan facility was due and payable by accused with respect to the same the accused had signed mandate for regular EMI through ECS/NACH transaction was presented for encashment ECS/NACH through its banker. But the said ECS/NACH was dishonored as "Balance Insufficient". He further argued that the accused has not denied Ex.P.1 being his Summary of NACH debit mandate drawn on his account. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the learned counsel for the accused has not cross examined the PW.1. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 25(1) of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.
C.C.NO.13055/2025
14. In the case on hand the accused has not seriously disputed that he had availed the loan for his urgent financial needs. It is not disputed that the complainant is a limited finance company and the accused was a customer of the complainant. In order to attract the offence under section 25 of Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 R/W Sec.138 of N.I.Act, the main ingredients are the existence of the legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the Summary of NACH debit mandate drawn on the account of the accused was given for discharge of the same, are to be proved. The complainant in order to prove its case, has examined its Authorized signatory as PW.1 and 06 documents are marked at Ex.P.1 to 06. In chief examination, he has reiterated the averments of the complaint.
15. Under section 25(1) of the Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 R/W Sec.138 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption regarding the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability. Such presumption is rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise defence in respect of existence of a legally enforceable debt/liability. In the case on hand the accused has not disputed the existence of legally C.C.NO.13055/2025 enforceable debt/liability, for which Summary NACH debit mandate-Ex.P.1 was issued. In order to prove his defense, the accused has not produced any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf. In this case the accused has not taken any specific defence regarding issuance of Summary of NACH Debit Mandate in favour of the complainant. The accused in his defence has not disputed the Summary of NACH Debit Mandate in question have been issued by him. Since, the presumption under section 25 (1) of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 is a rebuttable presumption the accused is firstly required to produce some probable evidence to rebut the same. The accused has to produce some probable evidence, which creates doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability. In order to prove his defence, he has not produced any materials before this court. Even not chosen to cross examined PW.1 inspite of sufficient opportunity.
16. The complainant have complied all the terms of ingredients of the provisions of Sec.25 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 R/w sec. 138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, PW.1 has established the case of the complainant, the C.C.NO.13055/2025 accused had issued the Summary NACH Debit Mandate in order to repay the legally recoverable amount. Therefore, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 25(1) of the Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 R/W Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the accused is liable for dishonor of the Summary of NACH debit mandate. When there is no rebuttal evidence, the accused has failed to make probable defense. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 25(2) of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 R/w 139 of N.I.Act. With these reasons, I answer point No.1 to 4 in the Affirmative.
17. POINT NO.5: The accused is held to have committed an offence punishable under section 25 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 R/w Sec. 138 of N.I.Act. The complainant has proved its case. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption for the reasons mentioned above and in view of the mandatory requirements of section 25(1) of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 R/w sec. 138 of N.I.Act, being complied with. The accused is found to have committed an offence punishable under section 25 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 R/w Sec.138 C.C.NO.13055/2025 of N.I.Act. Since, the said offence is an economic crime, the accused is not entitled for the beneficial provisions of probation of offenders Act. In view of the above discussions and the findings on point No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:
:ORDER:
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 25 & 28 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 R/w Sec.138 & 141 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond executed by the accused hereby stands canceled.
The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,25,066/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand and Sixty Six only) to the complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the said fine amount an amount of Rs.1,20,066/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand and Sixty Six only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand C.C.NO.13055/2025 only) shall be remitted to the State.
In default of the payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
The office is to furnish the free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment pronounced in the open court on 28 th day of November 2025) Digitally signed by NAGAMMA NAGAMMA ICHCHANGI ICHCHANGI Date: 2025.12.02 11:10:24 +0530 (Smt.Nagamma.M.Ichchangi) XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Mr.Sandesh Gowda G.P S/o Puttaswamy B.J List of documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Summary of NACH debit mandate.
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement. Ex.P.3 : Office copy of legal notice. Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt. Ex.P.5 : Returned postal cover & notice. Ex.P.6 : Complaint.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-Digitally signed by NAGAMMA
NAGAMMA ICHCHANGI
ICHCHANGI Date: 2025.12.02
11:10:33 +0530
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.13055/2025
28.11.2025
Accused absent. Counsel for
accused absent. No EP filed.
According to Section 353(6) of CrPC judgment can be pronounced in the absence of accused if the accused is sentenced with fine only. Since this court is going to impose fine only. Hence presence of accused is not necessary to pronounce the judgment.
Hence vide separate judgment pronounced in the open court.
C.C.NO.13055/2025 (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court Vide Separate Sheet) :ORDER:
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 25 & 28 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 R/w Sec.138 & 141 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond executed by the accused hereby stands canceled.
The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,25,066/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand and Sixty Six only) to the complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the said fine amount an amount of Rs.1,20,066/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand and Sixty Six only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) shall be remitted to the State.
In default of the payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
C.C.NO.13055/2025 The office is to furnish the free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.