Bangalore District Court
Mr. Naseer Ahmed vs Mr. Mohammed Asif on 22 November, 2025
1 CC 3631/2024
Judgment
KABC030069992024
IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL. CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2025
PRESENT: Smt. Namrata Rao .K.S
B.A.L, L.L.B., M.B.L.,
XV ACJM,.
BENGALURU.
C.C.No.3631/2024
Complainant : Sri. Nazeer Ahmed
S/o Siraj Ahmed
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.47, Marappa Block,
J.C Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 006.
(By Sri. Syed Imran,
Advocate )
V/s
Accused : Sri. Mohammed Asif
S/o Abdul Waheed,
Aged about 55 years,
2 CC 3631/2024
Judgment
R/at No.146, 5th Cross,
8th Main, 3rd Stage,
Bilal Masjid, Pillana Garden,
Bengaluru-560 045.
(By Sri. Pooja. V -
Advocate )
Cognizance taken on 12.01.2024
Plea recorded on 23.05.2024
Offence alleged U/s 138 NI Act
Evidence commenced on 12.01.2024
Evidence closed on 06.08.2025
Judgment pronounced on 22nd Day of November
2025
Final order Convicted
XV ACJM, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed alleging the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . 3 CC 3631/2024
Judgment
2. The germane facts necessary to adjudicate this case are as follows:
Both the complainant and the accused were employed at Rewards Company managing Indira Canteen at JC Nagar, Bengaluru. Hence they became good friends.
After leaving the job in the said company, the accused was in need of financial assistance and requested the complainant to lend loans.
The complainant has lent the loan out of good friendship on various stages amounting to a sum of ₹ 2,60,000/-. The accused had assured to repay this amount after securing a new job.
When the complainant demanded the money back for his personal needs, the accused issued the cheque bearing number 263773 4 CC 3631/2024 Judgment dated 30.09.2023 for a sum of Rs.1,81,320/-
drawn on UCO Bank, Frazer Town Branch, Bengaluru.
3. Upon presentation of the cheque for encashment twice, the cheque was dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient" on 07.09.2023 and 06.10.2023. A legal notice dt.04.11.2023 was issued to the accused and it came to be served upon the accused. Despite the service, the accused did not repay the amount within the statutory period. Hence, this complaint.
4. On taking the cognizance for the offence and pursuant to the appearance of the 5 CC 3631/2024 Judgment accused, he pleaded not guilty, claimed defense.
5. The Complainant has examined himself as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are marked in substantiation of his case. During the statement under section 313 CrPC, the accused has denied all the incriminating evidence against him. The accused examined as DW.1, but no documents are marked on his behalf.
6. I have given a careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for both sides. I have carefully perused the records.
6 CC 3631/2024
Judgment
7. In view of the materials placed on record, The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Is there a legally recoverable debt?
2. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act?
3. What Order?
8. My findings for the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: As per the final order for the following REASONS
9. POINT No.1: It is the 7 CC 3631/2024 Judgment testimony of PW.1 that he and the accused are friends. The same is not disputed.
10. It is to further testimony of PW1 that, after leaving job in Rewards Company, the accused was in need of financial assistance. Therefore, he approached the complainant and borrowed amounts on various dates. Thus he had borrowed an amount of ₹2,60,000/- from the complainant in total. The accused had assured to repay this amount once he gets the job. Subsequently, when the complainant insisted for the repayment, upon the intervention of the well wishers, the accused in discharge of this legally 8 CC 3631/2024 Judgment recoverable debt issued the cheque marked at Ex. P1.
11. The accused does not dispute the cheque and the signature therein. Relying upon the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa V/s Mohan reported in 2010(11) SCC 441 a presumption under section 139 of the NI Act is raised. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the cheque is drawn from the account of the accused and the accused admits and accepts the signature on the cheque, the court is obliged to presume, as per Section 139 of the N.I. Act, in favor of the complainant. Needless to say that this is a rebuttable 9 CC 3631/2024 Judgment presumption, and the accused may show the possibility of the absence of a legally binding obligation or debt.
12. As the presumption is raised, the onus shifts on the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued to the complainant in discharge of a legally recoverable debt or probabalise his defence on the hilt of preponderance of probabilities.
13. It is the contention of the accused that he had borrowed smaller amount of ₹45,000/- from the complainant in the year 2022 and at that time he had issued the cheque for the purpose of security. He had issued a blank signed cheque. He had 10 CC 3631/2024 Judgment returned the amount in the year 2022 itself. But despite the repayment, the complainant has filed this false complaint.
14. This line of defence can be deduced from his examination-in-chief. The entire chief examination literally runs in lines and I do not find any hindrance in extracting the same and it runs as under:-
"Complainant was my colleague while I was working in the Indira Canteen. In the year 2022 I had borrowed an amount of Rs45,000/- from the complainant. I had issued Ex.p1 cheque for the purpose of security. I had issued a blank signed cheque. I had returned this amount of Rs.45,000/- in the year 2022 itself. Despite the repayment, the complainant has filed this false complaint for a 11 CC 3631/2024 Judgment larger amount, I pray to acquit me".
15. Therefore,the defence of the accused are as under:
a. He had borrowed a smaller amount and he has repaid it.
b. The cheque has been misused.
c. He had issued blank signed cheque.
SMALLER AMOUNT
16. So far as the contention of the accused that he had borrowed a smaller amount of ₹ 45,000/- from the complainant is concerned, in view of the presumption raised under Section 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the onus is upon him to 12 CC 3631/2024 Judgment prove that in fact he had borrowed a smaller amount.
17. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Smt. Parvathamma v/s Smt. Chandrakala in Criminal Appeal No. 508 Of 2015 dated 15.06.2024 has held that when the cheque and its signature is admitted a legal presumption has to be necessarily raised that the cheque was issued for a legally recoverable debt. When the accused raises a defence that he had borrowed a lesser amount than cheque amount and he has repaid the amount so borrowed, the onus will be on the accused to show that he had in fact borrowed the lesser amount.
13 CC 3631/2024
Judgment
18. Apart from the self-serving testimony of the accused, I do not find any evidence based on record to show that he had in fact borrowed a smaller amount than the amount mentioned in the cheque. That apart, I have gone through the cross-examination of PW1. I do not find a single suggestion in the cross- examination that the accused had borrowed a smaller amount and the cheque has been filled for a higher amount. I have also gone through the substance of accusation and also the statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC. Apart from denying the allegations and the incriminating evidence against him, I do not find even a single whisper as to the contention of the accused that he had borrowed smaller amount from the complainant. Despite having 14 CC 3631/2024 Judgment sufficient opportunities to put forth his case and contend that he had borrowed smaller amount than the amount mentioned in the cheque, he has kept quiet. This Court is inclined to arrive at the conclusion that the oral testimony of the accused contending that he had borrowed a smaller amount of ₹45,000/- is nothing but an afterthought. MISUSE OF BLANK SIGNED CHEQUE
19. It is the contention of the accused that he had issued signed blank cheque for the purpose of security. The cheque has been misused by the complainant. As per Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when the accused has admitted the cheque and the signature 15 CC 3631/2024 Judgment therein the recitals in the cheque with regard to the amount has to be presumed to be correct. Unless and until the said fact is countenanced with cogent evidence, the presumption stands unrebutted.
20. During the course of cross examination of PW1, at para 4, a suggestion is put to PW1 that Ex. P1 cheque was issued to a third person and it was a signed blank cheque. However this contention is not taken during the examination-in-chief of the accused. Moreover, the accused does not reveal even the name of that third person to whom he had given the cheque. At this stage I have once again gone through the substance of acquisition read over to the accused and 16 CC 3631/2024 Judgment also the statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. I do not find any mention about the contention that Ex P1 cheque was issued blank. Or I do not find any whisper about the cheque being issued to a third person also. It simply goes without saying that taking such a contention at the befend of the trial is just an afterthought and appears to be a means adopted by the accused to absolve from the liability.
21. Even if the contention of the accused that he had issued a blank signed cheque to the complainant or a third person is taken for a while for consideration, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a blank signed cheque is not a waste of piece of 17 CC 3631/2024 Judgment paper. The Hon'ble Apex Court in in Sripathi Singh Vs State of Jharkhand reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1002 at para 17 has held as under:
"16. A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. 'Security' in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment. It is given, deposited or pledged to make certain the fulfilment of an obligation to which the parties to the transaction are bound. If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified timeframe and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the 18 CC 3631/2024 Judgment consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow.
22. The Honble Apex Court in Bir Singh Vs Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 at Para 38 has held that issuance of a blank signed cheque provides the liberty to the payee to fill it. The onus is on the accused to show the non-existence of any such debt as on the date of the cheque. Para 38 as under:
"38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused 19 CC 3631/2024 Judgment to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence."
Therefore, it is Incumbent upon the accused to show that as on the date of issuance of the cheque, legally recoverable debt was not in existence. If he succeeds in probabilising the fact that as on the date of the cheque, there was no legally enforceable debt, then the presumption stands rebutted. In the present case, the accused has not probabilised that he had repaid the smaller amount so borrowed from the complainant.
23. The counsel for the accused during the course of his arguments has vehemently stressed upon the point that the complaint 20 CC 3631/2024 Judgment doesn't mention the date of lending of alleged loan to the accused. He brings the attention of this Court to para 4 of the complaint. I have gone through para 4 of the complaint. It is true that the date or approximate year of lending of loan has not been stated in the complaint. Whereas, in cross examination of PW1 and para 2 the complainant states that he had issued the loan on different dates starting from 2021 to 2023. The relevant portion of the cross examination is at :
Para-2, line-2:
""ಆರೋಪಿ ನನ್ನಿಂದ ಸಾಲವನ್ನು ಆಗಾಗ ಸಣ್ಣ ಮೊತ್ತದಲ್ಲಿ 14 ತಿಂಗಳ ಕಾಲ ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಹೀಗೆ ಸಾಲವನ್ನು 2021ರ ಅಖೈರಿನಿಂದ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಿಸಿ 2023 ರವಗೆ ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ". 21 CC 3631/2024
Judgment
24. It may seem that as the complainant has not mentioned the approximate year of lending of such loan in the complaint, the complaint may fail. However the accused himself admits that there was a financial transaction between him and the complainant. He does not dispute the financial transaction. He also mentions the year. What he disputes is that he had borrowed smaller amount from the complainant and not the amount so mentioned in the cheque. In view of the admission by the accused that he had financial transaction with the complainant as alleged in the complaint but not to the extent mentioned in the complaint, I am inclined to arrive at the conclusion that the default in 22 CC 3631/2024 Judgment mentioning the alleged date or year of loan loses its significance.
25. Having regard to all the materials placed on record, the complainant has established the financial relationship, the accused having admitted his cheque and signature at Ex.P1 , the presumption being raised in favour of the complainant and the accused having failed to rebut this presumption by any cogent evidence I am of the opinion that the accused has committed an offence under section 138 of the N.I Act. Hence, I answer the point No.1 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
26. Point No.2: The Cheque marked at 23 CC 3631/2024 Judgment Ex.P1 is dated 03.09.2023. It was presented twice and got dishonoured on 07.09.2023, 06.10.2023 with reason Funds Insufficient. A legal notice was issued within the statutory period on 04.11.2023. The complaint is presented on 08.12.2023. The complaint is in time and the complainant has complied with all the requirements of the section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
27. On the basis of the entire materials on record, I am of the opinion that the accused has committed an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answer the POINT NO.2 24 CC 3631/2024 Judgment In The AFFIRMATIVE.
28. Point No.3: For the foregoing reasons and in view of the above findings, I pass the following:
ORDER The accused is found guilty.
In Exercise of the Powers vested under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced
to pay a fine amount of
Rs.1,92,000/- (One Lakh
Ninety Two Thousand Only) In default of payment of fine, the 25 CC 3631/2024 Judgment accused shall undergo SI for three months.
In Exercise of the powers vested under Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., out of the fine amount, the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,87,000/- (One Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Only) towards compensation.
In Exercise of the powers vested under Sec.357(1) (a) of Cr.P.C., the remaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is to be remitted to the state.
The personal bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled and the cash security deposited by the accused shall be refunded to 26 CC 3631/2024 Judgment the accused after the appeal period is over.
A copy of the above judgment shall be supplied to the accused for free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of November, 2025 ).
(SMT. NAMRATA RAO K.S) XV ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 : Sri. Nazeer Ahmed LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature
Ex.P2 & 3 : 2 Bank endorsements
27 CC 3631/2024
Judgment
Ex.P4 : Office copy of Legal
Notice
Ex.P5 : Postal receipt
Ex.P6 : Postal Envelope
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
DW.1 : Sri. Mohammed Asif LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
NIL (SMT. NAMRATA RAO K.S) XV ACJM, Bengaluru 28 CC 3631/2024 Judgment 22.11.2025 (Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER The accused is found guilty.
In Exercise of the Powers vested under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced
to pay a fine amount of
Rs.1,92,000/- (One Lakh
Ninety Two Thousand Only) In default of payment of fine, the 29 CC 3631/2024 Judgment accused shall undergo SI for three months.
In Exercise of the powers vested under Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., out of the fine amount, the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,87,000/- (One Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Only) towards compensation.
In Exercise of the powers vested under Sec.357(1) (a) of Cr.P.C., the remaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) is to be remitted to the state.
The personal bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled and the cash security deposited by the accused shall be refunded to 30 CC 3631/2024 Judgment the accused after the appeal period is over.
A copy of the above judgment shall be supplied to the accused for free of cost.
(Vide separate judgment) XV ACJM, Bengaluru.