Bangalore District Court
M/S.Sree Gokulam Chit And Finance Co. ... vs Rajamma V on 25 November, 2025
0
C.C.NO.21569/2021
KABC030590422021
Presented on : 24-08-2021
Registered on : 24-08-2021
Decided on : 25-11-2025
Duration : 4 years, 3 months, 1 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 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER-2025
CC.No.21569/2021
COMPLAINANT : Sree Gokulam Chits & Finance
Co. (P) Ltd., A registered company under
the Companies Act, Reg/Corp, O/at
No.66, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam,
Chennai-600 024 and one of its
Regional Branch O/at No.240, 16th
Cross, Sampige Road,
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560040.
R/by its G.P.A Holder & Authorized
Representative,
Mr.Girish.R S/o Mr.Ramaiah.J,
Age: 51 years.
(By Sri.Shivaprasad.E.,Adv.,)
V/s.
1
C.C.NO.21569/2021
ACCUSED : Mrs.Rajamma.V
W/o Mr.Prem Kumar.B.K
Presently at No.6/A, 7th Cross,
Near Yellamma Temple,
Magadi Road, Bangalore-560039.
(By Sri H.S.Suresh.,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 : 25.11.2025
:JUDGMENT:
The complainant company has filed complaint against the accused under section 200 of Cr.P.C., for an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments 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 company is a registered company and is engaged in the business of conducting chit transactions. One Mrs.Janaki R, #1105, Onake Obavvay Road, Pipe Line, Srinagar, Bangalore being the prized subscriber of prize chit ticket No. 07 in chit group No.G2G/0835/MSR, having chit amount of Rs.3,00,000/- conducted by the complainant company received the entire prize amount of 2 C.C.NO.21569/2021 Rs.2,32,200/- by way of cheque dated:
30.04.2018 from the complainant company and by executing requisite documents both the prize bidder and surety/accused, agreed/undertook for regular payments of entire future chit dues i.e., all future subscription/monthly installments, arrears, if any interest incidental charges etc., of the chit/prize ticket of the prize bidder, to the complainant company. Subsequently, prize subscriber committed default in payment of chit dues of the prized ticket/chit and thus, became defaulting subscriber and inspite of repeated demands for payments the defaulting subscriber/prized bidder and accused as surety both failed to pay the outstanding chit dues of the chit and accused being surety/guarantor is co-
extensively liable to pay a total amount of Rs.94,717/- to the complainant company and the complainant company is legally entitled to recover jointly and severally from the prize subscriber and the accused who has stood and offered as surety and undertaken for the payments. Further the complainant company demanded the accused as surety of the defaulting subscriber, issued the cheque No.929899 dated: 03.02.2021 for Rs.94,717/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Girinagar 3 C.C.NO.21569/2021 Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through its banker i.e., Axis Bank Ltd., Vijayanagar Branch, Bangalore, but the said cheque was dishonoured on 05.02.2021 as "Drawers Signature Differ". Thereafter, on 03.03.2021 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused through its counsel by RPAD calling upon her to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice was duly served to the accused on 04.03.2021. As such, the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 138 N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court on 15.04.2021.
3. After registration of the complaint, the 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 24.08.2021 to register the case in Register No.III and it was registered as Criminal case.
4. Thereafter, summons was issued to the accused and she has appeared before the court through counsel and secured bail. She was 4 C.C.NO.21569/2021 furnished necessary papers as contemplated under section 208 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the plea of the accused was recorded by the court. She has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. As earlier Legal clerk of the complainant's company who were examined as PW.1 in support of complainant's case have left the company. Hence, the complainant company has examined its Legal Assistant /GPA/Authorized Representative as PW.2 by filing substitution application and got marked 14 documents at Ex.P.1 to 14 and closed its side.
6. After closer of the evidence of the complainant's company, the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. She has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against her and got examined herself as DW.1 and got marked 03 document at Ex.D.1 to 3.
7. I have heard the arguments on the both sides and perused the material placed on record.
8. Upon hearing the arguments on the both sides and on perusal of the material placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration:
5C.C.NO.21569/2021
1.Whether the complainant proves the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability.?
2.Whether the complainant further proves that the accused had issued the cheque-
Ex.P.1, towards the discharge of the legally enforceable debt/liability.?
3.Whether the complainant further proves that the cheque-Ex.P.1 was dishonored for the reason "Funds Insufficient" 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 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 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 company is a registered company and is engaged in the business of 6 C.C.NO.21569/2021 conducting chit transactions. One Mrs.Janaki R, being the prized subscriber of prize chit ticket No. 07 in chit group No.G2G/0835/MSR, having chit amount of Rs.3,00,000/- conducted by the complainant company received the entire prize amount by way of cheque from the complainant company and by executing requisite documents both the prize bidder and surety/accused, agreed/undertook for regular payments of entire future chit dues i.e., all future subscription/monthly installments, arrears, if any interest incidental charges etc., of the chit/prize ticket of the prize bidder, to the complainant company. Subsequently, prize subscriber committed default in payment of chit dues of the prized ticket/chit and thus, became defaulting subscriber and inspite of repeated demands for payments the defaulting subscriber/prized bidder and accused as surety both failed to pay the outstanding chit dues of the chit and accused being surety/guarantor is co- extensively liable to pay a total amount of Rs.94,717/- to the complainant company and the complainant company is legally entitled to recover jointly and severally from the prize subscriber and the accused who has stood and offered as surety 7 C.C.NO.21569/2021 and undertaken for the payments. Further the complainant company demanded the accused as surety of the defaulting subscriber, issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through its banker, but the said cheque was dishonoured as "Drawers Signature Differ". Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused through its counsel by RPAD calling upon her to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice was duly served to the accused. As such, the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 138 N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court.
11. In support of the case, the complainant's company has examined its Legal Assistant/GPA Holder & Authorized Representative as P.W.2. PW.2 in his chief examination has reiterated the contents of complaint and got marked 13 at Ex.P.1 to 13. Ex.P.1 is the cheque issued by the accused in favour of the complainant on 03.02.2021 for Rs.94,717/-. Ex.P.2 is the bank memo dated: 05.02.2021 informing the dishonor of the cheque as "Drawers Signature Differ".
8C.C.NO.21569/2021 Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice dated:03.03.2021. Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt. Ex.P.5 are the Postal acknowledgment. Ex.P.6 is the Surety proposal form. Ex.P.7 is the Ledger Extract. Ex.P.8 is the Incorporation Certificate. Ex.P.9 is the certified copy of GPA. Ex.P.10 is the Minutes of Extract. Ex.P.11 is the Complaint. Ex.P.12 is the Certified copy of the Extract from the Minutes of Proceedings. Ex.P.13 is the Certified copy of GPA. Ex.P.14 is the Amended complaint.
12. The counsel for the complainant has argued that One Mrs.Janaki R, being the prized subscriber of prize chit ticket No. 07 in chit group No.G2G/0835/MSR, having chit amount of Rs.3,00,000/- conducted by the complainant company received the entire prize amount by way of cheque from the complainant company and by executing requisite documents both the prize bidder and surety/accused, agreed/undertook for regular payments of entire future chit dues i.e., all future subscription/monthly installments, arrears, if any interest incidental charges etc., of the chit/prize ticket of the prize bidder, to the complainant company. Subsequently, prize subscriber committed default in payment of chit 9 C.C.NO.21569/2021 dues of the prized ticket/chit and thus, became defaulting subscriber and inspite of repeated demands for payments the defaulting subscriber/prized bidder and accused as surety both failed to pay the outstanding chit dues of the chit and accused being surety/guarantor is co- extensively liable to pay a total amount of Rs.94,717/- to the complainant company and the complainant company is legally entitled to recover jointly and severally from the prize subscriber and the accused who has stood and offered as surety and undertaken for the payments. Further the complainant company demanded the accused as surety of the defaulting subscriber, issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant company. The complainant has presented the said cheque to its banker for encahsment. But the said cheque has been dishonored for the reasons Funds Insufficient. Further argued that the accused has not denied Ex.P.1 being her cheque drawn on her account. When the signature is not disputed, the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act is to be drawn in favour of the complainant and accused is liable for punishment under section 138 of N.I.Act.
10C.C.NO.21569/2021
13. The counsel for accused argued that the accused has never stood as surety to one Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy and has never issued any cheque towards the chit transaction. Further argued that the accused has subscribed conducted by Smt.Janaki Ramamuthy and she had given two blank cheques to said Janaki Ramamurthy for security purpose of the said chit transaction and now the complainant filed false case against the accused by using blank cheques which were issued by the accused to Smt.Janaki Ramamuthy for the security purpose. Hence, prays to acquit the accused.
14. In order to attract the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant is firstly required to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the cheque came to be issued. The complainant has to prove all the requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act. Ex.P.1 being her cheque drawn on the account of the accused is not in dispute. The said cheque has been dishonored, when it was presented by the complainant before the bank for encashment is also not seriously disputed by the accused. Thereafter, the notice-Ex.P.3 being received by the accused further admitted. The accused has 11 C.C.NO.21569/2021 not taken up any contention that thereafter she had paid the cheque amount within stipulated time of 15 days, after service of the notice the accused had issued an untenable reply. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before the court on 15.04.2021 within the period of one month from the date cause action. As such, in the present case from perusal of documents, the essential requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act, have been complied with.
15. As per the section 139 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 discharging the existence of a legally enforceable debt/liability. In the case on hand the accused has disputed the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the cheque-Ex.P.1 was issued. In the case on hand the accused has contended that she had given the signed blank chaques to one Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy at the time of subscribing for chit transaction conducted by said Smt.Janaki Ramamuthy. The accused has specifically denied issuance of cheque to the complainant towards the discharge of any debt/liability. She contends 12 C.C.NO.21569/2021 that the blank cheques given by her to one Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy is misused by the complainant.
16. Once issuance of the 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 payable debt or 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. Further it is 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 order to prove her defence, the accused got examined herself as DW.1 and 03 documents 13 C.C.NO.21569/2021 marked on her behalf at Ex.D.1 to 3. DW.1 in her chief examination has deposed that in the year 2017 one Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy was conducting chit transaction in her name and she had subscribed to chit for Rs.9,00,000/- and at the time of bidding of chit she had issued two blank cheques towards security purpose of bid amount. Thereafter the said Janki Ramamurthy left Bangalore without informing anybody and without giving bid amount to her. Totally 15 members were subscribed to the said chit transaction conducted by Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy. All the members have lodged complaint against the said Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy before Hanumanthanagar P.S. After abscond of said Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy, the concerned police have not yet traced out the said Janaki Ramamurthy. Inspite of several efforts she could not traced out the said Janaki Ramamurthy. She has never participated in chit transaction of complainant company and she never stood as a surety for Janki Ramamurthy. The complainant company has misused the cheques which were given to one Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy and filed false case against her. When she is informed about warrant then only 14 C.C.NO.21569/2021 she came to know about the present case. Her husband by name Prem Kumar is a cancer patient and he has also not stood as a surety to any one and not signed any documents relating to chit transactions.
17. It is the contention of accused that the complainant company has misused the old cheque which was given for security purpose of chit transaction conducted by one Smt. Janaki Ramamurthy. In this regard counsel for complainant has cross examined DW.1. It is pertinent to reproduce here the portion of the cross examination of the DW.1.
" ನಾನು ಜಾನಕಿ ರಾಮ ಮೂರ್ತಿ ಎಂಬುವರಿಗೆ ಚೀಟಿ ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಕುರಿತು 02 ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ಖಾಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಲು ನನ್ನ ಹತ್ತಿರ ಯಾವುದೇ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . ನಾನು ಜಾನಕಿ ರಾಮ ಮೂರ್ತಿ ರವರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟ 02 ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ಖಾಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕುಗಳ ನಂಬರ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಹೇಳಲು ಬರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಿಡಿ.1 ಶ್ರೀಮತಿ.ರತ್ನ W/o ರಾಮು.ವಿ ಎಂಬುವವರಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ್ದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಡಿ.2 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವ ನನ್ನ ವಿಳಾಸ ಮತ್ತು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿದ ನನ್ನ ವಿಳಾಸ ಎರಡು ಒಂದೇ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.5 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿದ ವಿಳಾಸ ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯ ವಿಳಾಸ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. "
On perusal of cross examination of DW.1 it reveals that the accused has not produced any documents to show that she had issued two 15 C.C.NO.21569/2021 blank cheques to one Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy and she does not know the cheque numbers which are said to be given to Janaki Ramamurthy. The name mentioned in Ex.D.1 is Smt.Ratna W/o Ramu.V and she has lodged the complaint before Hanumanthanagar P.S against Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy. Address mentioned in Ex.D.2 and complaint are one and the same and she is residing at the address mentioned in Ex.P.5.
18. It is the contention of the accused that her old cheque which was given to one Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy was misused by the complainant company. In support of her contentions he has relied upon Ex.D.1 to 3 i.e., Notarized copies of acknowledgment issued by Huanumanthanagar P.S., Aadhaar card of accused and Aadhaar card of Janki Ramamurthy. On perusal of the Ex.D.1 it reveals that one Smt.Ratna W/o Ramu.V has lodged complaint against Smt.R.Janaki, Kiran Raju, Ramamurthy, Ramdas, Municipal Sankuthala, Selvi and others have cheated her. It is the specific contention of the accused that Ex.P.1 i.e., cheque was given to one Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy at the time of bid of chit conducted by said Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy.
16C.C.NO.21569/2021 If at all Ex.P.1 was issued to Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy then the accused could have examined any witness who has participated in that chit transaction conducted by said Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy. DW.1 in her chief examination herself deposed that along with her 15 persons have participated in the chit transaction conducted by said Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy. Then what prevented the accused to examine the members of said chit transaction and what prevented the accused from producing documents in respect of chit transactions conducted by said Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy. Further on perusal of cross examination of DW.1 she herself admitted that she is residing at the address mentioned in Ex.P.5 then what prevented the accused for giving reply notice to the complainant company after receipt of legal notice as per Ex.P.5.
19. It is further contended by the accused that the complainant company has misused the cheque which was given to one Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy. If at all the complainant has misused the cheque issued by the accused for the security purpose to the chit transaction conducted by one Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy then 17 C.C.NO.21569/2021 what prevented the accused for taking legal action against complainant company. If the complainant company has misused the cheque by filling up blank cheque as per their whims then as a prudent man, the accused should have inquired with the complainant and demanded to return the cheque or should have submitted application to the bank for stop payment. No ordinary prudent man would keep quite in such circumstances, without taking any steps. The conduct of the accused is very unusual, because the accused did not take any legal action against the complainant, even after filing of the complaint based on Ex.P.1. Hence, it prima facie shows that accused has taken a false defence saying that the complainant has misused the cheque which was issued for security purpose of chit transaction conducted by one Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy. Once issuance of cheque and signature are admitted, the statutory presumptions would arise under sections 138 of N.I.Act that cheque was issued by the drawer for legally payable debt/liability and for valid consideration. In the case of Sripati Singh (Since deceased) through his son Gaurav Singh V/s State of Jarkhand and another, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1002, the Hon'ble Supreme court 18 C.C.NO.21569/2021 categorically held that; once the cheque is issued as security for the loan and if the loan is not paid back then if the cheque is dishonored it attracts offence punishable 138 of N.I.Act. The principle laid-down in the above said decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the contention of the accused cannot be acceptable that the cheque was given only for security purpose at the time standing as surety to the chit transaction conducted by one Smt.Janaki Ramamurthy without there being any cogent evidence to probables her defence.
20. In the case of K.S.Ranganatha V/s Vittal Shetty, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1191, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, once the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability. It is further held that the position of law makes it crystal clear that when a cheque is drawn out and is relied upon by drawee, it will raise a presumption that it is drawn towards a 19 C.C.NO.21569/2021 consideration which is a legally recoverable amount; such presumption of course, is rebuttable by proving to the contrary. The onus is on the accused to raise a probable defence and the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is on preponderance of probabilities.
21. In the case of Kalemani Tex and another V/s P.Balasubramanian, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
22. In addition to this in the case of T.P.Murugan (Dead) through legal representatives V/s Bojan, reported 2018 (8) SCC 469, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that once the cheque has been signed and issued in favour of the holder of the cheque, there is statutory presumption that the cheque is issued in respect of legally enforceable debt or liability: rebuttal of such presumption must be by adducing credible 20 C.C.NO.21569/2021 evidence. Mere raising a doubt without cogent evidence with respect to the circumstances, presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act cannot be discharged. The principle of law laid-down in the above decisions are applicable to the facts of this case. Except some bald contentions, the accused has not been able to make out a probable case on her behalf.
23. In the instant case the accused has nowhere denied transaction and she herself has admitted that she is the holder of alleged cheque. It is sufficient to hold that the accused has issued the cheque and even after the accused has not repaid the cheque amount even after getting of receipt of notice. However, in any manner as the complainant has complied all the terms of ingredients of the provisions of 138 of N.I.Act. The accused is liable for dishonor of cheque. In case of dishonor of cheque, once the execution of cheque is admitted by the accused, then it for him to first rebut presumption arising out of section 139 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, PW.1 has established the case of the complainant, the accused has issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 in order to repay the legally recoverable amount. Therefore, the accused has failed to probables the defence taken by her.
21C.C.NO.21569/2021 Therefore, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act. Hence, the accused liable for dishonor of the cheque. With these reasons, I answer point No.1 to 4 in the Affirmative.
24. POINT NO.5: The accused is held to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. The complainant has proved its case. The accused has failed to prove her rebuttal for the reasons mentioned above and in view of the mandatory requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act, being complied with. The accused is found to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 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:
ORDERS Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond of the accused hereby stands canceled.
22
C.C.NO.21569/2021
The accused is sentenced to pay
fine of Rs.1,94,434/- (Rupees One
Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Four
Hundred and Thirty Four Only) to the complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the said fine amount an amount of Rs.1,89,434/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Four 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 of 03 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 25 th day of November 2025) Digitally signed NAGAMMA by NAGAMMA ICHCHANGI ICHCHANGI Date: 2025.12.03 15:56:53 +0530 (Smt.Nagamma.M.Ichchangi) XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.23
C.C.NO.21569/2021 ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Mr.Darshan.K.M S/o Sri.K.R.Manjappa. PW.2 : Mr.Girish.R S/o Ramamiah.J List of documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque.
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement.
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.P.4 : Postal receipts.
Ex.P.5 : Postal acknowledgment.
Ex.P.6 : Surety proposal form.
Ex.P.7 : Ledger Extract.
Ex.P.8 : Incorporation certificate.
Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of GPA.
Ex.P.10 : Minutes of Extract.
Ex.P.11 : Complaint.
Ex.P.12 : Extract from the Minutes of
Proceedings.
Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of GPA.
Ex.P.14 : Amended complaint.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
DW.1 : Smt.Rajeshwari @ Rajamma
W/o Prem Kumar.
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused Ex.D.1 : Notarized copy of Acknowledgment given by Hanumanthanagar P.S. Ex.D.2 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card. Ex.D.3 : Notarized copy of Smt.Janki Ramamurthy Aadhaar card.Digitally signed by NAGAMMA
NAGAMMA ICHCHANGI
ICHCHANGI Date: 2025.12.03
15:57:01 +0530
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
24
C.C.NO.21569/2021
25.11.2025
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.
(Judgment pronounced in the Open Court Vide Separate Sheet) :ORDER:
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond of the accused hereby stands canceled.
The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,94,434/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Four Only) to the complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the said fine amount an amount of Rs.1,89,434/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty 25 C.C.NO.21569/2021 Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Four 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 of 03 months.
The office is to furnish the free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.