Bangalore District Court
Raghavendra K Thane vs Goutham Debnath on 12 December, 2025
1
CC.NO.1080/2023
KABC030017512023
Presented on : 11-01-2023
Registered on : 11-01-2023
Decided on : 12-12-2025
Duration : 2 years, 11
months, 1 days
IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 12th of December, 2025.
:Present:
Smt. Dhanalakshmi.R
XII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore.
CC.No.1080/2023
Complainant : Sri.Raghavendra K Thane
Aged about 44 years,
S/o. Krishnarao Thane
No.C-018, Raghuram Residency,
F-1130, Brigade North Ridge,
Kogilu Main Road,
Yelahanka, Bangalore-560064.
(By Sri.VKN, Advocate)
V/s
Accused : Sri.Goutham Debnath,
AGed about 38 years,
S/o. Harekrishna Debnath,
No.330, 5th Cross, 1st Main
Vinayaka Nagar,
Annasandrapalya,
Near Rama Temple,
Bengaluru North,
Vimanapura Bangalore-560017.
2
CC.NO.1080/2023
KABC030017512023
(By Sri.S.R., Advocate)
1. The date of : 19.11.2022
commission of the
offence
2. Date of the filing of : 11.01.2023
offence
3. Name of the : Sri.Raghavendra K
Complainant Thane
4. Date of recording of : 11.01.2023
evidence
5. Date of closing of : 19.05.2025
evidence
6. Offence Complained : 138 of NI Act
of
7. Opinion of the Judge Accused is convicted
8. Date of such order for : 12.12.2025
the following
JUDGMENT
01. This case is registered U/sec. 200 of Cr.P.C based on the written complaint given by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter called as NI Act for the purpose of brevity).
3
CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023
02. The case of the complainant in brief is as under : -
The accused is a football coach. At the request of the accused, the complainant has paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 02.07.2019, Rs.3,00,000/- on 20.08.2019, Rs.10,00,000/- on 22.08.2019 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 25.09.2019 in order to maintain the football ground. Hence the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- by way of cash as stated above. The accused inspite of executing a on demand promissory note on 02.07.2019 has failed to repay the said amount within 3 months as agreed by him. The accused has repaid a sum of Rs.9,90,000/- on various dates and for the remaining amount, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.074239 dated 15.07.2022 drawn on Punjab National Bank, HAL, Vimanapura branch for sum of Rs.16,00,000/-. As per the instruction of the accused, when the said 4 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 cheque is presented for encashment by the complainant through his Banker, it came to be dishonored with an endorsement as "Advise not Received" on 19.07.2022. When the said fact brought to the knowledge of the accused, he has issued another cheque bearing No.074238 dated 26.07.2022 for sum of Rs.50,000/-. Even the said cheque came to be dishonored for the reason "Funds insufficient". Again when the said fact brought to the knowledge of the accused, he has issued another cheque bearing No.074235 dated 16.11.2022 for sum of Rs.16,00,000/- drawn on Punjab and National Bank, HAL, Vimanapura Branch. As per the instruction of the accused, when the said cheque is presented for encashment through his banker, the same came to be dishonored with an endorsement as a "Advice not received" on 01.10.2022. Again, as per the request of the accused, the complainant has re-presented 5 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 the cheque for encashment and again also it is dishonored on 19.11.2022 for the reason "Advice not Received". As such the complainant has issued demand notice dated: 08.12.2022 to the accused calling upon him to repay the cheques amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Inspite of receiving the said notice, the accused has not repaid amount. Hence, the present complaint.
3. On filing of the complaint, cognizance of the offence is taken and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and marked 12 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The complainant has complied all the statutory requirements under Sec.138 of NI Act. Thereafter, the case is registered against the accused and summons issued.
6
CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023
4. On service of summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and he was enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. As per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India & Others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590, this court has treated the sworn statement of the complainant as his evidence and in compliance with the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid citation the statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On application filed by the counsel for the accused under Section 145(2) of NI Act, permission was accorded to cross examine PW1. Accordingly, PW1 was cross examined by learned counsel for the accused. The learned counsel for the accused submitted no defence evidence.
7
CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023
05. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the records.
06. The following points arise for consideration:
POINTS
1) Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued the cheques for the legally recoverable debt as alleged by him?
2) Whether the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 138 Act?
3) What Order or Sentence?
07. The above points are answered as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative, Point No.2: In the Affirmative, Point No.3: As per the final order for the following:8
CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 R E A S O N S
08. POINT No. 1 : This Court is of the opinion that it need not repeat the entire averments made in the complaint here also, as this Court has already narrated the same at the inception of this judgment.
9. In order to bring home a liability under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, following elements must spring out from the averments in the complaint and the evidence adduced by the complainant, viz.
1. A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain sum of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability;
2. The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date mentioned on the cheque or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
3. The cheque is returned by the bank unpaid either because the amount of 9 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
4. The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 40 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
5. The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
10. It is well settled that whenever complainant alleges that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, obviously, the complainant has to establish that there was a legally enforceable debt and to discharge the said legally enforceable debt the accused has issued the cheques and subsequently the said cheques have been dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds in 10 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 the account of the drawer/accused. Keeping in view of these main and important ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act, this Court proceeds to discuss the evidence available on record.
11. As been stated above, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1. The PW-1 has filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief under Section 145 of N I Act reiterating the entire averments of the complaint.
12. The Ex.P-1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 are the cheques dt: 15.07.2022, 26.07.2022 and 16.11.2022 respectively. On perusal of Ex.P-1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 are makes it clear that it supports the stand taken by the complainant herein. The Ex.P2, Ex.P4 and Ex.P6 are the Bank endorsements discloses that the aforesaid cheques have been dishonoured on 19.07.2022, 28.07.2022 and 19.11.2022 respectively for the 11 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 reason of "Advice not Received" and "Funds Insufficient" in the account of the drawer. As per clause (a) of proviso to Section 138 of NI Act the cheques are to be presented for encashment within three months or within the period of its validity from the date on which the cheques have issued. The Ex.P-1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 bares the date dt:
15.07.2022, 26.07.2022 and 16.11.2022 respectively and it was presented on 18.07.2022, 27.07.2022 and 18.11.2022 which is within the prescribed period.
13. Further, as per clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of N I Act, the complainant is required to issue legal notice, in writing, to the drawer/accused making a demand for repayment of the said cheque amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of information about the dishonor of the cheque. The Ex.P2, Ex.P4 and Ex.P6 are the drawee's bank endorsement dated 19.07.2022, 12 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 28.07.2022 and 19.11.2022 respectively. The Ex.P-7 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 08.12.2022 and the Ex.P.8 is the postal receipt dt:
08.12.2022. Therefore, the complainant has issued legal notice within 30 days from the date of knowledge of dishonor of cheque. Thus, the provisions of clause (a) & (b) of proviso to Section 138 of N I Act have been complied with.
The Ex.P-9 is the postal Envelop and it shows that the legal notice got issued by the complainant is returned with an endorsement as addressee left on 10.12.2022. As per clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of N I Act, the drawer/accused is entitled to have 15 days time to make the payment of the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant was required to wait till 25.12.2022. According to the complaint, no payment was made by the drawer/accused within that period. Thus the cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 13 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 25.12.2022. Further the clause (b) of Section 142 of N I Act makes it clear that the complaint has to be filed within 30 days from the date of cause of action arose. Thus this complaint was required to be filed on or before 26.01.2023. The endorsement made by this Court on the complaint reveals that the complainant presented this complaint on 11.01.2023 and as such, this complaint is well within the time limit. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that that the complainant has complied all the necessary components of Section 138 of NI Act.
14. The accused has nowhere disputed his signature in the cheques that Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 respectively. Rather he has admitted that the accused has borrowed only ₹ 2,00,000/- from the complainant on 05.04.2018. At that time the accused has issued his 5-6 signed blank cheques to the complainant. By misusing the same, the 14 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 complainant has filed false case. Hence the execution of the cheque at Ex.P1, P3 and P5 is not in dispute. Hence the presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the holder of the cheque received the said cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability arises against the accused.
15. The accused, in order to rebut the said presumption, has cross examined the complainant, but not lead any defence evidence. As held in catana of cases that the accused need not enter the witness box to rebut the presumption but he can rely upon the documents produced by the complainant. The accused has taken a contention that he has not served with the legal notice as per Ex.P7. The accused except stating that he has not resided in the said address as on 15 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 the date of service of notice, he has not produced any documents before the court to show that he has not resided in the said address. As per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897, once a party properly posts letter by registered post to a proper address, it establishes a legal presumption that service of a documents by register post is effective, unless evidence proves otherwise. At this stage this court relies upon the Judgment reported in (2014) 8 SCR 880 between M/s. Ajith Sheets Ltd. v. K. Gopalakrishnaya, wherein it is held that, "as per Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered poster. It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to 16 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 have been served or the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until contra is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business."
16. The above said judgment is aptly applicable to this case as the address of the accused mentioned in the complaint, Legal Notice at Ex.P3 and Postal acknowledgment at Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are of the same address. Hence the burden shifts to the accused to prove the non-receipt of the notice. But the accused except bare denial that he has not resided in the address mentioned in Ex.P7 as on the date of service of notice, has not lead any evidence to show as to where he has resided as on the date of service of notice at Ex.P7. Such being the case, the contention of the accused that the legal notice at Ex.P7 is not served on him 17 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 to the address mentioned in Ex.P7 cannot be accepted.
17. The accused has taken another contention that The complainant has not shown his financial capacity to lend sum of Rs.16,00,000/- to the accused. The complainant after his cross examination has produced the profit and loss account statement pertaining to the year 2020 as per Ex.P12. Hence on careful reading of the entire evidence of the complainant in total, this Court does not find any reason to held that the complainant has no wherewithal to lend the sum of Rs.16,00,000/- to the accused.
18. It is the specific defence of the accused that he has taken only Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 05.04.2018 and towards the security of the said amount transaction he has given his 5 to 6 signed blank cheques to the 18 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 complainant for the security purpose. The complainant by misusing the said cheques has filed false case against him. It is pertinent to note that the accused has nowhere specifically suggested to the complainant as to when and how he has repaid sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. Further though the accused has stated that he has issued 5-6 signed blank cheques to the complainant and the complainant has not returned the said cheques to the accused, but the accused has not taken any positive action like filing police complaint or issuing a Legal notice or filing the civil proceedings in respect of the alleged misuse of the cheque. the accused has not taken any action against the complainant for not returning his cheque even in spite of payment of the entire amount as alleged by him. It is to be seen that even after receipt of the legal notice also the accused has not taken any action against the 19 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 complainant. As stated earlier, the execution of the cheque and issuance of the same to the complainant is not in dispute. Further, as admitted by the accused himself, he has borrowed hand loan from the complainant. The accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "Preponderance of probability". Therefore if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of the legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. But it is to be seen that in this case the accused has failed to rebut the presumption. Hence, for the above said reasons it is held that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. As such, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the AFFIRMATIVE.
19. Point No.3: Negotiable Instruments Act was enacted to bring credibility to the cheque. The 20 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 very purpose of the enactment is to promote the use of the Negotiable Instrument, while to discourage the issuance of the cheque without having sufficient funds in the account. Such being the case, the intention of the legislature is that complainant be suitably compensated while the accused be punished for his act.
20. When compensation is awarded enforcement of the same come into question. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for imposing default sentence for enforcing the payment of compensation. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2002 (2) SCC 420 between Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagadeeshan was pleased to hold that "the court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default". The same is reaffirmed in latest decision in 2010 AIR SCW 3398 between K.A.Abbas H.S.A. Vs Sabu Joseph. Therefore, it is 21 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 deemed fit to provide default sentence in order to enforce the payment of compensation. Ex.P.1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 cheques are of the year 2022. Therefore, the complainant is deprived of the money that was rightfully due to him for about 3 years. Accordingly, it is deemed fit that a compensation of Rs.17,72,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand only) be granted. It is to be seen that as per the reportable judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P.No.996/2016 dt: 09.07.2025 between M/s.Banavathy and company Vs. Maheer Electro Mech (P) Ltd., and to others the Hon'ble High Court at paragraph No.21 has held as under:
"while passing the order of the sentence after determining the fine/Compensation the court shall also pass an order to pay future interest at the rate of 9% p.a on the compensation amount payable to the complainant by fixing time of one or two months to deposit compensation 22 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 amount so that even if the matter is challenged before the Session Court in appeal and High Court in Revision the interest of the complainant will be protected".
21. Hence, as per the above judgment the complainant is entitled for future interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the compensation amount from the date of judgment till its repayment. Further the accused is directed to deposit the compensation amount before this court within three months from the date of this order. Accordingly, in the light of above discussions, this court proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.17,72,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand only) and in default 23 CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.
If the fine amount is recovered a sum of Rs.17,70,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation as per the provisions under Section 357 of Cr.PC. and the remaining amount of Rs.2,000/- is to be appropriated to the State.
The complainant is entitled for future interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the compensation amount from the date of judgment till its complete repayment.
The accused is directed to deposit the compensation amount before this court within three months from the date of this order.
The Bail Bond and cash surety of the accused shall stand canceled. 24
CC.NO.1080/2023 KABC030017512023 Supply a free copy of this Judgment to the accused.
(Dictated directly using mobile Adalath AI app, copied and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this 12th day December, 2025).
(Smt.Dhanalakshmi.R) XII Addl. CJM, Bengaluru ANNEXURES Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 : Sri.Raghavendra.K Thane s Documents exhibited for the Complainant:
PW.1, P3 & P5 Cheqeus
Ex.P.2 , P4 & P6 Memo of the Banker,
Ex.P.7 Copy of Legal Notice,
Ex.P.8 Postal Receipt
Ex.P.9 Unserved RPAD envelop
Ex.P10 On Demand Promissory note
and Consideration receipt
Ex.P11 Confirmation from Bangalore
Soccer Galaxy
Ex.P12 Statement of Profit and loss
in the year 2019 to 2020
25
CC.NO.1080/2023
KABC030017512023
Witnesses examined for the defence Accused:
NIL [ Documents exhibited for the defence Accused:-Digitally signed
NIL by
DHANALAKSHMI DHANALAKSHMI
R R
Date: 2025.12.23
15:31:44 +0530
(Smt.Dhanalakshmi.R)
XII Addl. CJM, Bengaluru
CC.No.1080/2023
12.12.2025
For Judgment
(Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate Order) ORDER Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.17,72,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand only) and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.
If the fine amount is recovered a sum of Rs.17,70,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation as per the provisions under Section 357 of Cr.PC. and the remaining amount of Rs.2,000/-/- is to be appropriated to the State.
CC.No.1080/2023 The complainant is entitled for future interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the compensation amount from the date of judgment till its complete repayment.
The accused is directed to deposit the compensation amount before this court within three months from the date of this order.
The Bail Bond and cash surety of the accused shall stand canceled.
Supply a free copy of this Judgment to the accused.
XII ACJM, Bengaluru