Bangalore District Court
M/S T N K S Enterprises Rep By T S Srinivasa vs Uma Narendra on 6 November, 2025
KABC010203102023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 6th day of November, 2025
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. MALA N.D.,
BAL, LL.M
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023
APPELLANTS:- : 1. M/s T.N.K.S Enterprises,
No.176, 2nd Floor, A.C. Char
Street, Bengaluru.
Rep. By its authorized
signatory T.S. Srinivas
2. Sri. T.S. Srinivas,
Aged about 67 years,
M/s T.N.K.S Enterprises,
No.176, 2nd Floor,
A.C. Char Street,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. HRM., Advocate)
2
Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023
Vs.
RESPONDENT :- : Smt. Uma Narendra,
W/o Sri. Narendra Babu,
Aged about 61 years,
R/at No.274/16, 3rd Cross,
I Bock, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru
(By Sri. CVA., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
Appellant has filed this appeal u/s 374(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.18004/2018 dated 06/04/2021 on the file of 22nd ACMM, Bengaluru.
2. Rank of the parties is referred to as per their ranks assigned before the trial court.
3. The facts of the case leading to this appeal may be summarized as under;
3
Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 The respondent herein is the complainant before the trial court, she has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, alleging the offence committed by the accused punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (herein after referred as N.I. Act). According to the complainant, accused is her known person, availed a credit facility to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- on 18/11/2015 through a cheque with an assurance to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 1.10% per month, accused once again requested for further loan of Rs.3,00,000/-, as such complainant paid Rs.3 lakhs on 19/01/2016, for which accused executed an on demand promissory note and consideration receipt, thereafter complainant insisted the accused for repayment of loan amount, as such accused as part payment issued cheque bearing No.036035 dated 23/06/2017 for Rs.30,000/- and another cheque 4 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 bearing No.036036 dated 23/07/2017 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- drawn on Sree Subramanyeshwara Co- operative Bank Ltd., Avenue Road branch, Bengaluru, upon its presentation for collection of amount through her banker, the same were dishonored for the reason of funds insufficient as per endorsement dated 25/07/2017, as such the complainant got issued a statutory notice on 12/08/2017 calling upon the accused to repay her amount, same was duly served on the accused on 21/08/2017, however he neither chose to make payment nor to give reply to the said legal notice, therefore complainant was constrained to file the complaint against the accused. As such, accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, complainant by complying all legal procedures initiated legal proceedings against accused. The trial court took cognizance and after going through the materials, found 5 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 prima facie case against accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, registered criminal case and issued summons.
4. Before the trial court, accused/appellant appeared, got enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation was recorded, he claimed trial. The complainant got examined her GPA holder D.V. Narendra Babu as PW.1 and got marked in all 06 documents from Exs.P.1 to P.06 and closed her side. After closure of evidence of complainant the statement of accused u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been recorded. 2nd accused himself examined as DW.1. Trial court after hearing arguments on both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, found accused committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five 6 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, accused approached this court urging the following grounds;
a) The impugned judgment is highly illegal and unjust, suffers from serious irregularity, as such the same is liable to be set aside.
b) The trial court has failed to notice the fact that complainant has utterly failed to prove the alleged transaction of Rs.3 lakhs with accused, complaint averments and deposition of P.W. 1 is inconsistent and on over all scrutiny the complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged transaction with accused, on demand promissory note and consideration receipt are created and concocted for the purpose of this case. 7
Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023
c) As per complaint the loan was alleged to have been advanced during the year 2015 and 2016 and it is admitted during cross-examination of P.W. 1 that cheques involved in this case was taken by him at the time of alleged lending of money i.e. during 2016, when such being the case, there is absolutely no explanation forthcoming in the complaint that on what basis a sum of Rs.30,000/- was got filled, as such the same raises strong suspicion against the complainant that she herself filled the contents of cheques to suit her convenience to have unlawful gain and has filed this false case.
d) The trial court has failed to notice the fact that entire evidence adduced by P.W. 1 is only an hear say evidence, as original complainant has not stepped into witness box to depose about the alleged transaction and P.W. 1 who is projected as P.A. holder of complainant 8 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 has not at all participated in the transaction, as such there is no evidence to that effect.
e) The trial court has passed the impugned judgment in hurried manner by referring to some judgments, if an opportunity was afforded to accused, he would have explained and demonstrated that said rulings are not applicable to the facts of present case, thus the trial court has committed serious error in not affording opportunity to accused which is sheer violation of principles of natural justice.
f) The complainant has not complied the requirements of provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, on which ground itself complaint ought to have been dismissed.
g) The learned trial judge has not applied his judicious mind in appreciating the dictum of Hon'ble Apex 9 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 court and other High Courts and has come to erroneous conclusion.
h) The trial court has not appreciated both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties in its proper perspective and has come to wrong conclusion and convicted the accused, hence, Impugned judgment is opposed to law, facts and probabilities and equities.
On these grounds accused prayed to set aside the judgment dated 06/04/2021 passed in C.C.No.18004/2018 by 22nd ACMM, Bengaluru.
6. After registration of the appeal, notice was issued. The respondent appeared through her counsel. The trial court records have been secured.
7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the available materials on record.
8. The points do arise for my consideration are as under;
10
Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023
1) Whether appellant has shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in preferring this appeal?
2) Whether cheque at Ex.P.2 and 4 were issued by the accused in favour of the complainant towards discharge of legally recoverable debt or liability as alleged in the complaint?
3) Whether trial court is correct in holding that, accused has committed offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act?
4) Whether there is legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, which requires interference of this court ?
5) What Order?
9. On re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, my findings on the aforesaid points as follows:-
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative; Point No.3: In the Affirmative;
Point No.4: In the Negative;
Point No.5: As per final order, for the following:11
Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 REASONS
10. POINT No.1: Appellant has filed an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of 2 years 10 months delay in preferring this appeal. Perused the application filed u/s Sec. 5 of Limitation Act and contents of affidavit, wherein it is sworn that, impugned judgment was passed on 06/04/2021. Accused was suffering from serious ailments of lower back slip disc and he was taking treatment, he also had age related ailments, as such he could not stand for many hours, when the matter before the trial court reached the stage of arguments, counsel before the trial court assured him that he would inform the result of the case, due to Covid-19 pandemic clients were not allowed to enter the court and his health condition was also worsened, he was not in a position to travel in public, could not contact his counsel to know about the judgment, after some 12 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 months he suffered huge weight loss and serious health issues, upon consultation of doctor and upon several tests, he was diagnosed for Duodanal Ulcer and GERD LA Grande B Esophagitis and other related health issues, he became complete sick and bed ridden for months together, he was under treatment almost for a year, completely on bed rest, as a result he could not go out and meet his counsel, even today he cannot independently go outside, one has to accompany him, despite treatments for months together he is not yet completely cured, recently with the help of attenders he could meet his counsel during 2 nd week of July 2023, it is thereafter his counsel obtained necessary copies of the case, explained the reasoning given by the trial court, as such after recouping from ailments, he preferred this appeal along with this application seeking condonation of delay which is not intentional, but for a bonafide 13 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 mistake, therefore by pleading hardship, it is prayed to allow the application.
11. The contents of affidavit is supported by medical documents which are corroborating with the pleadings of affidavit that, appellant was suffering from serious health issues from 2021, hence, reasons assigned by the accused is bonafide one. Above application is orally resisted by the respondent on the ground that the appeal has preferred in delay of two years, contents of affidavit has no cogent and sufficient reasons to condone such delay, therefore it is prayed not to condone the delay and reject the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
12. In this context, it is worth to mention that, the Hon'ble Apex court in catena of decisions has laid down that, the court shall take liberal approach in condoning the delay in filing the appeals or petitions. In AIR 1988 SC 897 14 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 (G.Ramegowda V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru), Hon'ble Apex court pleased to observe that;
'Sufficient cause' in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delay in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. It must be grasped that, judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.' In the light of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and under the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court opined that, it is just and proper to condone the delay in preferring this criminal appeal to provide an opportunity 15 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 to prosecute the petition. Hence this interim application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
13. POINTS No.2 & 3:- These points are interrelated, hence they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
14. After presentation of appeal memorandum, appellant and his counsel remained absent, sufficient opportunities have been given to canvass arguments, however learned counsel for accused has not chosen to canvass his side arguments. On the contrary, heard the learned counsel for respondent who submitted certified copy of Crl. Appeal No.883/2018 passed by the court of CCH-70 and canvassed that, the trial court has rightly concluded that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of debt or liability, when accused has 16 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 admitted signature on the cheque which is subject matter of the case in question and when once accused admits the signature in the cheque he has no other option or defence and the same has been up held by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in several cases, it is further contended that there is absolutely no cogent and convincing evidence to support the version of the accused to the effect that the disputed cheque was issued as a security while availing aforementioned loan of and there is no liability and blank signed cheques so taken was misused by the complainant.
15. It is further submitted that, as there are no sufficient funds in the account of accused, in order to save himself from the clutches of provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act this appeal is filed. Therefore it is submitted that the judgment of trial court is 17 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 proper both in eye of law and on facts, it does not require any interference by this court. Accordingly it is canvassed that the appeal deserves dismissal.
16. In this back drop, this court has meticulously considered the complaint averments, documents placed by the complainant along with oral testimony and defense evidence placed by both the parties. Before proceedings further, it is relevant to reassert preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in connection with the cheque bounce cases. In the latest decision reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan, the Hon'ble court pleased to held in para No.9 that;
"Ordinarily in cheque bounce cases, what the courts have to consider is whether the ingredients of the offence enumerated in Sec.138 of the Act have been met, if so, whether the accused was able to rebut the statutory 18 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 presumption contemplated by Sec.139 of the Act".
The Hon'ble Court observed that, the presumptions U/s.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act is a presumption of law, it is not a presumption of fact. This presumption has to be raised by the court in all cases once the factum of dishonour is established. The onus of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused. The standard of rebuttal evidence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The mere explanation is not enough to rebut this presumption of law, as reported in AIR 2001 SC 3897; Hiten P:. Dalal V/s. Bratinderanath Banerjee and (2006) 6 SCC 39; M.S.Narayan Menon alias Mani V/s.State of Kerala and another and ILR 2009 KAR 1633; Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets.
17. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex court, in a case of this nature, court shall consider the compliance 19 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 of ingredients of the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Complainant has produced following documents;
1. Ex.P.1 Certified copy of GPA
2. Ex.P.2 Cheque dated 23/06/2017
3. Ex.P.2(a) Signature of accused
4. Ex.P.3 Cheque return memo
5. Ex.P.4 Cheque dated 23/07/2017
6. Ex.P.4(a) Signature of accused
7. Ex.P.5 Cheque return memo
8. Ex.P.6 Legal notice dated 12/08/2017
9. Ex.P.6(a) Postal receipts
10.Ex.P.6(b) Postal acknowledgment
11.Ex.P.6(c) Postal acknowledgment Complaint filed on 13/04/2018.
Perusal of these documents show that, complainant has presented the cheques within validity period of 3 months. Cheques returned unpaid with banker's memo for the reason "funds insufficient". Within one month from the date of bank endorsements, legal notice has been issued. After expiry of 15 days period to comply the terms of notice, present complaint filed within one month 20 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 from the date of cause of action. The accused has not disputed the signature present on the disputed cheques and also admitted that, cheques in question belong to the bank account maintained by him. Therefore, it is claimed by the complainant that, legal presumptions enshrined U/s.139 and 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act could be raised in his favour, which includes the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
18. It is worth to note that, the accused has not disputed nor denied the issuance of the subject cheques. Hence, initial statutory presumption attached to the cheques as per Section 118(a) and 139 of N.I.Act has to be raised in favour of the complainant. Section 139 of N.I.Act reads as under;
Sec.139. Presumption in favour of holder.
--It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section138 for the 21 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
19. In so far as the payment of the amount by the complainant in the context of the cheques having been signed by the accused, the presumption for passing of consideration would arise as provided U/s.118(a) of N.I.Act, which reads as under;
Sec.118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.--Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:--
(a) of consideration:--that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;
The above noted provisions are explicit to the effect that such presumptions would remain, until the contrary is proved. In the case on hand, it is clear that, 22 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 signature on the cheques having been admitted, a presumption shall be raised under Section 139 of the N.I.Act that the cheques were issued in discharge of debt or liability. The question to be looked into is as to whether any probable defence was raised by the accused.
20. The next point for consideration is whether the accused has placed cogent material on record sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption? In a case of this nature, the defence of accused could be gathered from the reply notice. Plea of defence, suggestions and admissions in the cross-examination of P.W.1. The contentions taken in the reply notice acquires more credibility, as it is the first and foremost opportunity to the accused to place his defence by explaining the circumstances under which the disputed cheques reached the custody of the complainant. Here in this 23 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 case, service of legal notice is denied and in the cross- examination accused denying the entire case of complainant sets up a defense that he had issued 4 to 5 blank cheques and denied the transaction dated 19/01/2016 which is in dispute and as a matter of security he had issued cheques to the complainant which was not returned to him, thereafter complainant misused the said cheque to initiate legal proceedings against him, thus accused forgone the maiden opportunity of taking defense in the reply notice.
21. The accused has not issued reply to the statutory notice. The non-issuance of reply is fatal to the defence. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down in the decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441; Rangappa V/s. Mohan that;
"Very fact that the accused had failed to reply to the statutory notice U/s.138 of N.I.Act leads to inference that there was 24 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 merit in the complainant's version-- Apart from not raising a probable defence, the appellant accused was not able to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability."
In the light of the above proposition of law, this court has no hesitation to opined that, non-issuance of the reply to the statutory notice, further strengthens the case of the complainant.
22. As stated above it is the only defense of the accused before the trial court that he had earlier availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant and has repaid the same, thereby denied the transaction in respect of disputed cheques, however, it is admitted that, he had issued a blank signed cheques to the complainant as a security as he was doing money transaction with complainant. Though the accused denies the service of legal notice, the documents i.e. 25 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 registered post acknowledgments establishes the due service of legal notice on him as the said legal notices were received by authorized signatory by affixing his signature which can be seen at Ex.P.6(b) and (c). From the cross-examination of accused he has admitted the loan availed by him from the complainant in the year 2015 and denied another loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the complainant on 19/01/2016, this accused admits initiation of other two criminal proceedings under N.I. Act against him, it can also be noted this appellant has not taken any legal action for not returning his cheques said to have been given as security to the complainant.
23. Under these circumstances, it is relevant to mention that, accused herein has failed to establish probable defense put forth by him in his cross- examination. Even the accused has not attempted to establish that the address mentioned in the legal notice 26 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 is incorrect one, however the registered post acknowledgments establish the due service of legal notice as it bears the signature of authorized signatory of accused enterprises. On the contrary, complainant has proved the case with cogent and satisfactory evidence. On careful scrutiny of sequels of facts and documents accused is not able to put up probable explanation by examining the witnesses or by producing documentary evidence to show that version of complainant is false, though there are 2 to 3 defenses the same are not supported with any material evidence, hence, the defense put up by the accused are not probable enough to believe his version. Except denial, nothing has been placed before the trial court by the accused to establish that his blank signed cheques which were given as security was not returned by the complainant and in turn misused to initiate legal proceedings against him. No 27 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 police complaint is forth coming to show that accused has taken legal steps to recover his signed blank cheques issued as security for his previous loan amount. Thereby accused failed to establish his defense before the trial court, consequently he failed to disprove that there was no legally enforceable debt existed as on the date of issuance of cheque.
24. From this defense it can be noticed that, accused had the knowledge that the complainant was possessing his cheques and it was not returned inspite of repeated request and demand, if this version of accused is to be believed as genuine at the same time, question arises why accused has not taken any legal action against P.W.1 for not returning his cheques even after payment of entire loan amount as contended by him. Thus no explanation or proper reasons were assigned in this regard and there is no attempt by the 28 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 accused at least to request the bank authorities to stop the payment, when no such preventive measures are taken, it cannot be said that complainant has misused his cheques which were given as security as no ordinary person keep quiet even after giving signed blank cheques and paper to third persons, as such the trial court right in rejecting the contention of the accused that there is no legally enforceable debt.
25. On the contrary, the complainant in support of her case has furnished signed cheques along with endorsement which are corroborating with his case as per Ex.P.2 and P.4 Therefore defense of the accused that he had previously availed loan of Rs.3 lakhs in the year 2015 and has already repaid the same to the complainant by way of cash and he has not availed any another loan of Rs. 3 lakhs in the year 2016 are without any corroborative evidence.
29
Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023
26. In this scenario, this Court has appreciated the evidence placed before the trial court to analyze the grounds raised by the accused person. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act casts burden on the person who asserts the fact which is within his special knowledge. The N.I.Act is special statute entitle the accused to rebut the presumption. Except taking bare contention, accused person has not placed iota of evidence to show the previous transactions and repayment of the loan amount. To put it other way, except self serving statement, the accused has not placed any cogent and material evidence to establish the financial transaction with the complainant and issuance of the subject cheques towards security to the said loan. Therefore, this court is hesitant to believe this unsupported defence of the accused.
30
Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023
27. This proposition of law is laid down in the Hon'ble Apex court relied on the decision reported in, 2001 CRI.L.J 4745 (Supreme Court), between K.N.Beena Vs. Muniyappan, it is held that;
" Negotiable Instrument Act -S- 138, 139, 118- cheque dishonour complaint- Burden of proving that cheque had not been issued for any debt or liability - is on the accused - Denial/averments in reply by accused are not sufficient to shift burden of proof on to the complainant- Accused has to prove in trail by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability - setting aside conviction on basis of some formal evidence led by accused - Not proper. "
In this view of the matter, the formal evidence led by the accused is not sufficient to prove his defense.
28. It is the defense of the accused that, he had given signed blank cheques to the complainant and the same is misused to file this false complaint. The complainant has denied this contention. No cogent 31 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 evidence is placed in support of this contention of the accused that, disputed cheques are security cheques. Even for the sake of arguments, if we consider the contention of the accused that, the cheques were issued for the security purpose is concerned, the Hon'ble courts have laid down in the plethora of decisions that, the cheques issued for security also attracts Section 138 of N.I.Act. In the decision reported in 2015 (4) KCCR 2881 (SC) in a case of T.Vasanthkumar V/s.Vijayakumari wherein the Hon'ble Apex court pleased to observe that, "NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT, 1881- Section 138 and 139 - acquittal- If justified- Accused not disputing issuance of cheque and his signature on it- Plea that it was issued long back as security and that loan amount was repaid- Not supported by any evidence- Fact that date was printed, would not lend any evidence to case of accused - Acquittal not proper."
32
Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 To fortify this opinion, I would like to rely on the decision reported in, 2006 Cri.L.J.3760, Umaswamy Vs. K.N.Ramanath, the Hon'ble Court pleased to observe that;
"Negotiable Instrument Act (26 of 1881). S.138- Dishonour of cheque -
cheque even if issued as a security for payment, it is negotiable instrument and encashable security at the hands of payee -Merely because it is issued as security is no ground to exonerate the penal liability u/s.138."
In another decision reported in, IV (2013) BC 284 (P & H), Shalini Enterprises & Anr Vs. Indiabulls Financial Service Ltd., wherein their lordships pleased to observe that, "(iii) Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881- Section 138- Dishonour of cheque-
security cheque-Is integral part of commercial process entered into between petitioner and respondent /complainant -Security cheque can fasten liability on drawer under N.I. 33 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 Act.- Argument that security cheque is not handed over or issued in pursuance of any un-discharged liability -To hold so would defeat whole purpose of security cheque-
Security cheque is an acknowledgment of liability on part of drawer that cheque holder may use security cheque as an alternate mode of discharging his/its liability."
The latest decision on this aspect is found in the case of T.P.Murugan (Dead) through Lrs Vs Bojan, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 469 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the aspect of security and held that evidence is required to rebut the presumption. Said observation is reasserted the case of Shree Daneshwari Traders Vs Sanjay Jain, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 83.
29. Similar to the cited decision, in the present case also it is the only defence of the accused that, the cheques in dispute alleged to have been issued towards security to the complainant and he has filed this false 34 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 complaint by misusing the said cheques. However, the accused has admitted the issuance of cheques and his signature on the said cheques and also taken defence that, the cheques were issued towards security but no documents or proof given by the accused to prove his defence. In such circumstances by applying the principles of law laid down in the above decisions, this defence of the accused does not holds any water.
30. Section 138 of N.I.Act is a special statute, which provides for rising of statutory presumptions in favour of the complainant. It is for the accused to rebut the said presumptions through cogent and convincing evidence. In case the accused successfully rebut the presumptions, then only the reverse onus shifts on the complainant to prove the transaction in question in detail. As discussed supra, accused has not rebutted the presumption lied in favour of complainant and not 35 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 established the non-existence of legally recoverable debt. This aspect has reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.Rasiya V/s. Abdul Nazer and another in Crl.A.Nos.1233-1235 of 2022 dated 12.08.2022, the Hon'ble Court pleased to observe that;
" Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orders passed by the Appellate Court affirming the conviction of the accused U/s.138 of N.I.Act, the accused preferred three different Revision Applications before the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has reversed the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below and has acquitted the accused on the ground that, in the complaint, the complainant has not specifically stated the nature of transactions and the source of fund. However, the High Court has failed to note the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. As per Section 139 of N.I.Act, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for 36 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Therefore, once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant that the cheque was issued by the accused and the signature and the issuance of the cheque is not disputed by the accused, in that case, the onus will shift upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not for any debt or other liability. The presumptions under section 139 of the N.I.Act is a statutory presumptions and thereafter, once it is presumed that the cheque is issued in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which is in favour of the complainant/ holder of the cheque, in that case, it is for the accused to prove the contrary. The aforesaid has not been dealt with and considered by the High Court. "
The principles laid down in the decision is applicable to the case on hand.
31. In the celebrated decision of 3 Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rangappa's case and in the latest decision of 3 Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 37 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 742 in a case of Triyambak S. Hegde V/s. Sripad, it is clearly observed that, when drawer of the cheques admits the signature present on the disputed cheques, complainant is entitled to rely on the statutory presumptions, which includes the existence of legally enforceable debt.
32. From the discussions made supra, it is crystal clear that, complainant has placed convincing, corroborative oral and documentary evidence to prove the loan transaction of ₹.3,00,000/- and issuance of two cheques for Rs.30,000/- each towards partial discharge of the said loan amount within a period of six months. Apart from that, complainant has also proved that, on presentation, said cheques was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the bank account maintained by the accused. The service of legal notice is also proved. The accused has not repaid the amount covered under the 38 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 cheques till this day. He has not placed probable defence to dislodge the statutory presumptions raised in favour of the complainant. Therefore, this court opined that, the complainant has successfully established the guilt of the accused punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The learned trial Judge has considered all these aspects in proper perspective and rightly held that, accused has committed the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, Points No.1 and 2 under consideration are answered in the Affirmative.
33. POINT No.3:- The complainant has placed cogent material to show compliance of all the ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, which envisages raising of statutory presumptions in favour of the complainant. The accused is not successful in placing acceptable contentions to rebut the presumptions. Thus, 39 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
34. The trial court has assigned proper reasons in the impugned judgment of conviction as against the allegations made in the memorandum of appeal and proceeded to pass conviction and imposed sentence of fine amount. No grounds are made out in the memorandum of appeal to interfere with the Impugned judgment of conviction.
35. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, trial court has imposed sentence of fine directing the accused to pay fine of ₹.75,000/-(Seventy five thousand only ) to the complainant for dishonour of a cheque. Out of fine amount of ₹.73,000/- (Seventy Three thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant by way of compensation and ₹.2,000/-(Two thousand) shall be paid to State exchequer. In default of payment of fine amount, 40 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Fine amount imposed is within the purview of Section 138 of N.I.Act. Accused failed to establish the fact that, sentence imposed is exorbitant and excessive. There is no merit in the appeal. Order under appeal is sustainable in law. Hence, interference of this court is not necessary. Accordingly, point No.3 under consideration is answered in the Negative.
36. POINT No.4:- In view of findings on the above points No.1 to 3, this criminal appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed by confirming impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Hence, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER This Criminal Appeal U/s.374(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the appellant is dismissed.41
Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06/04/2021 passed in C.C.No. 18004/2018 on the file of 22nd ACMM, Bengaluru, is confirmed.
Appellant is directed to appear before the Trial Court to deposit the fine amount or to serve the default sentence.
Office is directed to transmit T.C.R. along with copy of this Judgment to the trial court, forthwith, for information.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this 6th day of November, 2025) (MALA N.D.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
42 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate judgment ORDER This Criminal Appeal U/s.374(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the appellant is dismissed.
Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06/04/2021 passed in C.C.No. 18004/2018 on the file of 22 ACMM, nd Bengaluru, is confirmed.
Appellant is directed to appear before the Trial Court to deposit the fine amount or to serve the default sentence.
Office is directed to transmit T.C.R. along with copy of this Judgment to the trial court, forthwith, for information.
(MALA N.D) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), 43 Crl. Appeal No.1044/2023 BENGALURU CITY.