Bangalore District Court
M/S. Snow White Launderette vs M/S. Tauruz on 9 December, 2025
1
CC No.4018/2024
KABC030077652024
IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Present: Sri. Maruthi.K B.A., LL.B.,
XXVII A.C.J.M Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 09th day of December, 2025
C.C. NO.4018/2024
Complainant : M/S SNOW WHITE LAUNDERETTE,
A Partnership firm,
having its office at # 185/A,
11th Main, Peenya Industrial Area,
Bangalore-560058,
Rep by its C.E.O,
Mr.P.Gururaja Upadhya,
S/o P.Narayana Upadhya
(Rep by Sri.R.K.T., Adv.)
V/s.
Accused : 1. M/s Tauruz,
Partnership firm,
Having its office at #16-17,
Survey No.191, Old Survey No.86,
Block No.17, Vaishnodevi
Industrial Estate,
4th Phase, Kumbalgodu village,
Kengeri, Bangalore-560074.
Rep by its Partner
Mr.Manoj
2. Mr.Manoj,
Aged about 52 years,
Partner of M/s Tauruz
and also at
M/s Tauruz,
Partnership firm,
Having its office at #19/6/139,
80 feet ring road,
Above Andhra Bank,
2
CC No.4018/2024
Papareddy Palya,
Nagarabhavi,
2nd Stage, Bangalore-560072.
(Rep. by Sri.S.N.M., Adv.,)
Offence : U/s.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted
Judgment Date : 09.12.2025
*****
JUDGMENT
The complainant company has filed complaint U/Sec.200 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the Accused No.1 & 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:-
The complainant is a partnership firm represented by its partners engaged in the business of washing the garments cloths. During the course of business the accused have approached the complainant for washing of the accused garment's cloths. The complainant invoiced, sold and delivered the washed garments cloths to the accused and raised the invoices against the accused vide invoices No.083 dated 22.04.2022, invoice No.0118 dated 28.04.2022, invoice No.230 dated18.05.2022, invoice 3 CC No.4018/2024 No.0107 dated 25.04.2023, invoice No.0222 dated 12.06.2023 and invoice No.044 dated 07.06.2023 for the value of 6 invoices a sum of Rs.7,01,032/-. Further accused submitted that during course of business the accused have paid amount of Rs.5,56,945/- to the complainant out of the principal amount of Rs.7,01,032/- and the accused have liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,44,087/- to the complainant. In spite of repeated and reminders the accused have issued a cheque bearing No.368741 for a sum of Rs.1,41,256/-
drawn on State Bank of India, Rajajinagar Industrial Branch, Bangalore dated 28.08.2023 in favour of the complainant as partial payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,44,087/-.
3. It is stated that, the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through its banker Union Bank of India, Rajajinagara Branch, Bangalore and the same got dishonored and returned with memo dated:
29.08.2023 stating "Funds Insufficient". After dishonor of the said cheque the complainant has approached the accused and requested the cheque amount with balance 4 CC No.4018/2024 amount of Rs.1,44,087/- but the accused have promised the complainant to represent the said cheque on 27.11.2023 as per instruction of the accused the complainant again has presented the cheque to its banker but again cheque was returned unpaid with the bank endorsement dated 28.11.2023 with a shara "Funds Insufficient".
4. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 26.12.2023 to the accused through RPAD calling upon him to repay the amount covered under the aforesaid cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The notice was received at 1 st and 2nd address of the accused and 3rd address of the accused returned to the complainant with shara as "Left" dated 27.12.2023. But, the accused has not repaid the amount covered under the said cheque. Hence, this complaint.
5. Sworn statement of the CEO of complainant company recorded as PW-1 and got marked 15 documents as Ex.P.1 to 15 and ordered summons to the accused No.2. The accused No.2 was appeared through his advocate and he was enlarged on bail. Substance of 5 CC No.4018/2024 accusation read over to the accused No.2 and he pleaded the case of the complainant as false. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, in the case Indian Bank Association & Ors V/s. Union of India & Ors, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590, the sworn statement of the complainant is treated as chief examination of the complainant. Then the case was posted for recording the Statement of accused No.2 under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. In the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused No.2 has denied all the incriminating evidences appearing against him. Application u/s 145(2) filed by the accused was allowed. When the case was reserved for further chief of PW-1, counsel for complaint has filed memo stating that due to oversight the complainant has produced documents pertaining to another case and same got marked as exhibits through PW-1. In view of reasons stated therein memo was accepted. The evidence of PW-1 was expunged. Thereafter, CEO of complainant company examined as PW-2 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. PW-2 was cross examined by defence counsel. Accused No.2 examined himself as 6 CC No.4018/2024 DW-1 and got marked 2 documents as per Ex.D1 & 2. Counsel for the complainant fully cross examined DW-1. Then, the matter was posted for arguments.
6. Heard arguments of both counsels on merits. Perused the records.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the cheque bearing No.368741 for a sum of Rs.1,41,256/- dated: 28.08.2023 drawn on State Bank of India, Rajaji nagar, Bengaluru issued by the accused has been dishonored on the ground of "Funds Insufficient" twice and the accused even after receiving the intimation regarding the dishonor of cheque failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period and thereby accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
8. 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:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1 : It is the case of the complainant that it is in the business of washing of garment clothes and during the course of its business washed the garments of the accused and raised invoices and delivered the washed garments to the accused. The value 7 CC No.4018/2024 of six invoices is of Rs.7,01,032/-. The accused have paid an amount of Rs.5,56,945/- to the complainant. Accused is due of Rs.1,44,087/- to the complainant. Towards partial discharge of the said dues, issued the cheque in question and the said cheque returned with reason "funds Insufficient" twice on its presentation. Inspite of demand notice by the complainant, the accused has not paid the cheque amount. PW-2 who is the CEO of the complainant partnership firm in his chief examination affidavit has reiterated the contents of the complaint averments.
10. Ex.P1 & 1(a) are cheque and signature of accused. Ex.P2 & 3 are two bank endorsements. Ex.P4 is legal notice. Ex.P5 is three postal receipts. Ex.P6 & 7 are two postal acknowledgments. Ex.P8 is postal envelope. Ex.P9 to 14 are tax invoices. Ex.P15 is authorization letter.
11. On the other side accused No.2 himself examined as DW-1 and got marked 2 documents as per Ex.D1 & Ex.D2. Ex.D1 is copy of Ledger statement. Ex.D2 is Certificate u/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act. 8
CC No.4018/2024
12. Learned counsel for the complainant orally argued and contended that they have complied all the requirements u/s 138 of NI Act. Though the cheque was presented twice it was well within time. Accused has made payment of Rs.20,000/- after filing of this complaint. Hence, prays to convict the accused and impose double fine amount.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has orally argued that the cheque at Ex.P1 was presented twice. After lapse of three months, the complainant has presented the cheque in question as per Ex.P3. Even though the accused has paid Rs.20,000/- on 05.03.2024 but the complainant not deducted the paid amount from the cheque amount and not pleaded the same in complaint. The complainant has not stated anything about repayment of Rs.20,000/- by the accused. Further argued that accused has requested not to present the cheque in question as there was a laundry damages but complainant has presented and filed false case. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused by dismissing the complaint.
9
CC No.4018/2024
14. It is the case of the complainant that it is in the business of washing the garments clothes and accused approached the complainant for washing of the accused garment's cloths. During the business the accused has raised 6 invoices for a sum of Rs.7,01,032/- and accused had paid partial amount of Rs.5,56,945/- and liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,44,087/- to the complainant. In lieu of the said payment the accused issued cheque in question in favour of complainant. The complainant has presented the cheque but the said cheque was returned for the reason funds insufficient. Later accused has promised the complainant to represent the said cheque on 27.11.2023 but again the said cheque was returned unpaid on 28.11.2023 with a shara "Funds Insufficient". Therefore, complainant issued legal notice dated 26.12.2023 but the accused has not repaid the cheque amount.
15. In order to establish the case of the complainant, PW-2 has produced invoices at Ex.P9 to 14 to show the transactions between the complainant and accused. On the other hand during the evidence of 10 CC No.4018/2024 DW-1, the accused has deposed that he was in the business with the complainant since 10 years. The accused during his cross examination has admitted invoices at Ex.P9 to 14 raised by complainant for a sum of Rs.7,01,032/- and also repayment of Rs.5,56,945/- and also the balance to be paid by him is of Rs.1,44,087/-. Hence, the accused has not denied the transactions, invoices raised by complainant company and the balance amount. Therefore, taking note of the materials available on record, suggestion put forth by the complainant to DW-1 and the answer elicited, it goes to show that, the complainant company ably proved that the accused had business to the tune of Rs.7,01,032/- and paid partial amount of Rs.5,56,945/- and due of Rs.1,44,087/- to the complainant company.
16. It is the contention of the accused that when the cloths were given for wash, at that time there was laundry damages by the complainant company. During cross examination of PW-2 nothing was suggested in regard to the damages of cloths. On the other side, accused during his chief examination deposed that 230 11 CC No.4018/2024 jeans pants were damaged. In this respect the accused has deposed that with regard to damages of jeans pant sent an email to complainant but to prove the said fact, he has not produced email conversation. Even not taken any legal action regarding the damages against the complainant. Further deposed that "ಡ್ಯಾ ಮೇಜ್ ಆದ ಪ್ಯಾಂಟ್ ಗಳ ಕುರಿತು ಸದರಿ ರೇಟ್ಗೆ ಕ್ರೆ ಡಿಟ್ ನೋಟ್ ನ್ನು ಕೊಡುವಂತೆ ಕೇಳಿದ್ದೇವು. ಆದರೆ ದೂರುದಾರರು ಕೇವಲ ರೂ.314/- ಮಾತ್ರ ಕೊಡುತ್ತೇನೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದ ರು." In chief examination, the accused has deposed that, the complainant agreed to pay the credit note for Rs.314/- per pant but no documents have been produced by the accused in order to show that complainant accepted to give credit note for Rs.314/- for alleged damaged jeans pants. During his cross examination when the suggestion was made on behalf of complainant, he deposed that "ಡ್ಯಾ ಮೇಜ್ ಆದ ಪ್ಯಾಂಟ್ ಗಳಿಗೆ ರೂ.630/- ಕೊಡುವಂತೆ ಕೇಳಿದಾಗ ದೂರುದಾರರು ರೂ.314/- ಕೊಡುತ್ತೇವೆಂದು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದ ರ ಕುರಿತು ಏನಾದರೂ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇದೆಯೇ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಮುಂದೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ರೆ." On perusal of Ex.D1, there is a debit note worth of Rs.76,651/- on 12 CC No.4018/2024 10.06.2023 towards job work charges GST at 5%. But there is no recital about issuance of crebit notes towards damaged goods as alleged by accused. Moreover, accused has not replied to the legal notice sent by complainant vide Ex.P4. Even in the cross examination of PW-2, the counsel for accused has not at all suggested anything about the damages of cloths as alleged by the accused during his chief examination. The said aspect of alleged damages of jeans pants introduced only at the time of evidence of DW-1 and it was not seen the light of the day during cross examination of PW-2. Hence, without producing material evidence it cannot be accepted that there was damage in the laundry cloths and complainant promised him that he will give credit note as contended by accused.
17. It is the contention of the accused that after lapse of three months the complainant has presented the cheque in question at Ex.P1 for encashment as per Ex.P3. In the present case the cheque is dated on 28.08.2023, which was presented for the first time on 29.08.2023 and returned on 30.08.2023 as per Ex.P2 13 CC No.4018/2024 with shara funds insufficient. Later as per Ex.P3 on 27.11.2023, the cheque was presented again for encashment by the complainant and returned on 28.11.2023 with shara funds insufficient. It is true that as per the current RBI guidelines validity period of a cheque is three months from the date mentioned on the face of the cheque. On the very next day of the expiry date, it becomes a stale cheque. When the cheque date is 28.08.2023, the validity period ends on the date corresponding to the day before the same date three months later. Therefore three months end on 27.11.2023. The cheque in question was presented on the very last date of its validity period. Therefore, the contention that the cheque was presented after the expiry of three months is not legally sound. The cheque was processed on 27.11.2023 as per Ex.P3. Therefore, it cannot be considered as stale cheque. Even the computer system of bank does not recognize the said cheque as a stale cheque. The reason for dishonor which has been marked by the bank is funds insufficient and not for the reason cheque is outdated/stale cheque. as the case may 14 CC No.4018/2024 be, from the date of drawing of the cheque, then the burden to prove the same lies upon the accused. During the cross of PW-2 it was suggested that "ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಶಾಮಿಲಾಗಿ ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹಿಂಬರಹವನ್ನು ತಂದು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ ." If at all the said cheque is stale cheque, the accused could have summon the bank official to examine the same. But the accused has not made any attempt neither to summon the Branch Manager or any official from the Union Bank of India, Rajajinagara, Bangalore. A cheque presented within its validity period is a prerequisite for attracting criminal liability u/s 138 of NI Act. In the context, it is pertinent to mention section 146 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881.
"Section 146:- Bank slip prima facie evidence of certain facts:- The court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this chapter, on production of bank's slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonored, presume the fact of dishonor of such cheque, unless and until such fact is proved".
18. From the aforesaid section it is apparent that the Bank's slip is a prima facie evidence and if the 15 CC No.4018/2024 accused is pleading otherwise, he needs to disprove the facts contained in the return memo/slip. Now coming to the facts of the case, cheque in question at Ex.P1 was returned for the reason 'funds insufficient' as per Ex.P3 and not for outdated cheque. If the accused is alleging that cheque was presented after the expiry of three months, as the case may be, from the date of drawing the cheque, then the burden to prove the same lies upon the accused. The accused side has not summoned any bank witness in this regard. Accordingly, this court does not have any reason to disbelieve the return memo produced by the complainant.
In (2023) 1 SCC 578 in the case of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel V/s Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel the Hon'ble Apex Court held that unless the stipulation in the proviso are fulfilled the offence is not deemed to be committed. The conditions in the provisio are as follows:-
1. The cheque must be presented in the bank within 6 months or 3 months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity, 16 CC No.4018/2024
2. The holder of a cheque must make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days form the receipt of the notice from the bank that the cheque was returned dishonored, and
3. The drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of said amount of money within 15 days from the receipt of the notice.
In (2019) 4 SCC 197 in the case of Birsingh V/s Mukesh Kumar the Hon'ble Apex court held that "prosecution based on second or successive dishonoring of cheque by bank, permissible even in the absence of statutory notice after first default in payment of cheque amount and non initiation of prosecution".
19. In the present case on hand the cheque was presented for the first time on 29.08.2023 which was returned on 30.08.2023. Later the same was presented on 27.11.2023 which was dishonored on 28.11.2023. The word used in section 138(a) is within period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. Therefore, the word used in a statute is within a period of three months but not used as within a period of 90 dayss. Therefore, on perusal of the cheque at Ex.P1 it was dated on 28.08.2023 and presented lastly on 27.11.2023 i.e., 17 CC No.4018/2024 within a period of validity the said cheque was presented for encashment. Thus, the accused has failed to disprove the return memo and the facts contained therein. Therefore it cannot be said that cheque in question is outdated cheque. Hence, argument of the learned counsel for the accused Ex.P1 is outdated cheque cannot be accepted.
20. It is the contention of the accused that Rs.20,000/- paid on 05.03.2024 but complainant has not pleaded the same in complaint and not deducted from the due amount. In order to prove the payment of Rs.20,000/-, the accused has produced Ex.D1 along with certificate of 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act at Ex.D2. In the said ledger extract maintained by accused firm, it can be seen that transaction of Rs.20,000/- was held on 05.03.2024 to complainant company through NEFT. During cross examination of accused also it was suggested that "ರೂ.20,000/- ಹೊರತುಪಡಿಸಿದಾಗಿಯೂ ನಾವು ದೂರುದಾರರಿಗೆ ರೂ.1,24,087/- ಕೊಡುವುದು ಬಾಕಿ ಇರುತ್ತ ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ ". Even the complainant also admitted the receipt of amount by making suggestion to 18 CC No.4018/2024 accused. Further on perusal of the complaint, the same was registered on 20.01.2024, but the aforesaid transaction was held on 05.03.2024 after filing the present complaint. It is not the case of the accused that he had paid the amount before filing the complaint. Hence, complainant has not pleaded the same in the complaint. However, during cross of DW-1, complainant has admitted the same by making suggestion. Hence, the transaction done on 05.03.2024 by the accused to complainant is not disputed by complainant. Hence, contention of the accused is not sustainable in the eye of law.
21. During the chief examination the accused had admitted the issuance of cheque and his signature towards legal liability in favour of complainant. The accused deposed that he had given instruction to complainant not to present the said cheque as there was damage in the laundry cloths. Once issuance of cheque and signature are admitted, the statutory presumptions would arise under sections 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act that the cheque was issued by the drawer for legally 19 CC No.4018/2024 payable debt/liability and for valid consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Rangappa V/s Mohan, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 296, the presumption that the cheque was drawn in discharge of legally recoverable debt is a presumption of law that ought to be raised in every case, though, it is a rebuttable presumption. Of course, the presumption under section 139 and 118 of the N.I.Act are rebuttal presumption. Further it is also held that mere plausible explanation by the drawer is not sufficient and proof of that explanation is necessary. The principle of law laid down in the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. In the instant case, since the complainant is in possession of the cheque-Ex.P.1 the court has to draw the initial presumption that he is the payee of that cheque. Once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant, the onus shifts on the accused to rebut the complainant's case. In the present case, only contention of the accused that the as there was a damages in the cloths. In this case, when the accused instructed complainant not to present the cheque in question until the consideration of 20 CC No.4018/2024 damaged jeans, why he has not taken back the said cheque and issued a fresh cheque for the same. Even as per Ex.D1 ledger account statement does not show the much difference in the due amount. As the ledger account shows the amount of Rs.1,20,616/- as closing balance while the complainant claimed Rs.1,41,256/- which comes to Rs.1,24,087/- after deduction of Rs.20,000/- from the due amount which is paid after filing of complaint. Further the accused has not produced any communications, documentation with respect to damages and also not replied to the legal notice. Not rebutted the presumption available in favour of complainant by cogent and convincing evidence.
22. In the light of the above discussion and the material placed on record, the court is of the opinion that the complainant has proved existence of legal liability and also proved that the accused issued the cheque in question towards discharge of legal liability. The complainant has proved the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Therefore considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the available evidence on 21 CC No.4018/2024 record, the court comes to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence the accused is liable to pay the cheque amount after deducting Rs.20,000/- which is paid by the accused after registration of the present case along with 9% of interest rate per annum. Hence Point Nos.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
23. POINT NO.2 :- In view of my findings to the Points No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER In exercise of power conferred U/sec. 255(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused No.1 & 2 are convicted for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,43,082/-.
In default of payment of the said fine amount, the accused No.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six month.
Out of the fine amount Rs.1,42,082/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as contemplated U/sec. 357(1)
(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and the remaining fine amount of Rs.1,000/- shall be paid to the state towards defraying expenses.
Supply copy of judgment to the accused No.2 free of cost.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced in open court by me on this the 09th day of December, 2025) Digitally signed (Maruthi.K) MARUTHI by MARUTHI K K Date:
2025.12.26 XXVII A.C.J.M., Bengaluru. 11:52:40 +0530 22 CC No.4018/2024 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW1 : Mr.P.Gururaja Upadhya (Expunged) PW2 : Mr.P.Gururaja Upadhya Documents marked on behalf of the complainant Ex.P1 & 1(a) : Cheque and signature of accused Ex.P2 & 3 : Two bank endorsements Ex.P4 : Legal notice Ex.P5 : 3 postal receipts Ex.P6 & 7 : Postal acknowledgments Ex.P8 : Postal envelope Ex.P9 to 14 : Tax invoices Ex.P15 : Authorization letter Witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
DW-1 : Manoj Documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D1 : Copy of ledger statement Ex.D2 : Certificate u/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Digitally signed by MARUTHI K XXVII A.C.J.M MARUTHI Date: K 2025.12.26 Bengaluru. 11:52:30 +0530