Bangalore District Court
Ranganath C vs Shruthi Sampath Kumar on 5 November, 2025
KABC030273772024
Presented on : 17-05-2024
Registered on : 17-05-2024
Decided on : 05-11-2025
Duration : 1 years, 5 months, 19 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ACJM, BENGALURU
-: Present :-
Smt.Asha K.S., B.A.L, L.L.B.,
XXIII ACJM, BENGALURU,
C.C.No.16006 /2024
Dated: the 05th day of November, 2025
Complainant :- Sri.Ranganath.C.
S/o.Chikkanna,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.87, 5th Cross,
Bhagiratha Layout,
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Kengeri
Bangalore-560060.
(By Sri.G.H.Channagangaiah., Advocate)
-V/s -
Accused :- Smt.Shruthi Sampath Kumar,
W/o.Sampath Kumar,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.F-20, Eagleton Golf Village,
Bidadi, Bidadi Hobli,
Shayanamangala Post,
Ramanagara District-562109.
2
C.C.No.16006/2024
Mob No.9844704997, 9877704990
(By Sri.Hariprasad M.B., Advocate)
Offences complained of U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the Accused Not Pleaded guilty.
Final Order Accused is Convicted
Date of Order 05.11.2025.
ASHA Digitally signed
by ASHA K S
Date: 2025.11.15
KS 15:10:42 +0530
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the commission of an offense punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-
"The complainant submits that the accused and her husband are close friends from several years. In the fourth week of September 2023, the accused had approached the complainant for financial assistance of Rs.5 lakhs to meet her financial needs for her business purpose and also for clear loans. The complainant has paid amount of Rs.5 lakhs on 30.09.2023 through RTGS. The accused also assured to repay the said amount within one month. When 3 C.C.No.16006/2024 complainant demanded for repayment, the accused sought further time for payment. Thereafter the accused had issued two cheques bearing No.000049 and 000050 dated 29.11.2023 and 30.11.2023 respectively for Rs.2,34,000/- each and drawn on Bank of Baroda, Bidadi branch. The accused also agreed to pay balance amount of Rs.32,000/- as early as possible and also requested the complainant to present the cheques in the month of February 2024. On presentation of cheques by the complainant through his banker SBI Bank, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bengaluru, same has been returned for the reason "Funds Insufficient" on
03.02.2024. The complainant has informed the same to the accused but accused has given evasive reply.
3. Thereafter the complainant has issued legal notice to the accused on 19.02.2024 and same has been served. Thereafter the accused has not chosen to issue reply and not paid amount.
4. After filing of complaint, cognizance was taken. In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the Court and she had enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation has been framed and contents of its read over to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and she claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove his case complainant has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 08 documents 4 C.C.No.16006/2024 at Ex.P.1 to 08. After closure of complainant evidence, accused has been examined as under section 313 of Cr.P.C and not opted to lead evidence.
6. Thereafter arguments heard and perused the Record and written arguments.
7. The following points arise for my determination: -
1) Whether the complainant has made out all the ingredients of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to prove the guilt of accused?
2) What Order?
8. On hearing the arguments and on perusal written arguments and the materials placed on record, my answers to: -
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative Point No.2:- As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
9. It is the case of complainant is that the accused and her husband are family friends to the complainant and they are known to each other. The accused had borrowed amount of Rs.5 lakhs from the complainant for her family necessities and to discharge the said liability, Accused had issued Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheques. On presentation said cheques have been returned for the reasons "Funds 5 C.C.No.16006/2024 Insufficient". After service of notice the accused has issued reply and admitted the case of complainant and prays for time for payment. Thereafter, the complainant has filed this complaint.
10. To attract Sec.138 of NI Act it is necessary to fulfill the ingredients of said provision. I have carefully perused the section 138 of of N.I.Act, it has three ingredients which are as follows:
1. That there is a Legally enforceable debt,
2. That the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or any part of any debt or other liability which pre-supposes a legally enforceable debt.
3. That the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds.
11. Keeping in view the ingredients of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Now I proceed to reproduce the Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I.Act here itself.
12. Sec.139 of N.I.Act reads as follows "Presumes in favor of holder, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec.138, for the discharge, in whole or in part or any debt or other liability".
13. Sec.118(a) reads as follows "Presumption as to Negotiable Instrument Act until the contrary is proved, the 6 C.C.No.16006/2024 following presumption 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 endorse, negotiate or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration".
14. Keeping in view of the ingredients and provision of Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I.Act, now I proceed to discuss the documents in the case. I am of the opinion that I need not repeat the entire case of the complaint once again since I have already stated the same at the beginning of this judgment.
15. To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and produced 08 documents and same has been marked as Ex.P.1 to P.08. The cheque as per Ex.P.1 and P.2 and signatures thereon as per Ex.P.1(a) and P.2(a). Bank memos as per Ex.P.3 and P.4. Legal Notice as per Ex.P.5. Postal Receipt as per Ex.P.6. Complaint to Postal department as Ex.P.7. Reply given by the Post office as Ex.P.8.
16. In the cross-examination of PW-1, he has deposed that he has studied up to 10 th standard and he is running Rohit Bar and Restaurant at Eagle Town and he had licence. He is a tax payer and he had shown the amount involved in this case in his IT returns. He has not produced 7 C.C.No.16006/2024 his IT returns. The accused was Gramapanchayat President and his house was situated near to his Restaurant. He knows the husband of accused namely Sampathkumar also. Accused was doing milk business, water business and cool drink business and she was running Nandini Booth also.
17. He further deposed that in the year 2023 September last week accused has approached for hand loan but he does not recollect the date. After one month of borrowal, accused had issued cheque in his favour. Accused has sent her account details, for that reason only he sent amount to the accused account but at the time of discussion both accused and her husband were present. Sampath had issued Ex.P.1 and P.2 cheques but he does not know that who has filled the cheque. In the Ex.P.5 after Shanamangala it is written as Ramang (t). He does not know about the service of notice to the accused. His advocate has wrote a letter to the postal department on 06.03.2024 and he has received reply from the post office on next date. He does not know that he had paid amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the accused to purchase site. He denied other suggestions.
18. The accused has denied the case of complainant but to prove her defence she has not chosen to enter into witness box. Here the question is whether complainant had paid amount of Rs.3 lakhs to the accused as an advance amount to purchase property from the complainant or not.
8C.C.No.16006/2024 The complainant has produced documents in support of his case but accused has not placed any document to prove her case. Here the transaction through RTGS only. Bank statement produced by the complainant shows that he had transferred amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the accused on 30.09.2023 and there is no dispute in that aspect. As stated above, the accused has not placed any documents to show that she is an innocent and not issued any cheque. Advocate for accused has vehemently argued that the transaction was not between the complainant and accused and no notice has been served to the accused to take defence at the earliest stage. It is further argued that there are inconsistency in the evidence of PW-1 with regard to alleged transaction.
19. The first contention of accused is that there was no transaction between the parties. As discussed above, amount has been transferred to the accsued through RTGS by the complainant. The complainant has produced his bank statement also to prove this aspect. On the other hand the accused has not placed any documents to show that no amount has been transferred to her account. If really there was no such transaction then she would have produced any documents in support of her contention. With regard to transfer of amount, accused has taken contention that the complainant was intending to purchase property from the accused and for that purpose complainant had transferred 9 C.C.No.16006/2024 amount as an advance amount. It is the suggestion made by the advocate for accused during the cross-examination of PW-1 but no substantial evidence has been placed before the Court in support of that contention. No witness also examined on behalf of accused to prove that there was a negotiation between the parties with regard to alleged selling of property. When accused has taken contention that complainant has expressed his willing to purchase property, then accused has to prove that aspect but here there is no such evidence on behalf of accused. In the absence of any relevant evidence or material, court cannot accept the version of accused with regard to alleged selling of property.
20. The another contention taken by the accused is with regard to service of notice. As per accused no notice has been served to the accused. After dishonour of the cheque, the complainant has issued legal notice and same has been marked at Ex.P.5 and as per Ex.P.8 notice has been served to the accused on 21.02.2024. In this case there is no postal acknowledgment but as per Ex.P.8, postal authority has confirmed that the notice has been served on 21.02.2024. In the Ex.P.5 notice address of accused shown as Smt.Shruthi Sampthkumar, W/o. Sampath kumar, 38 years, residing at No.F-20, Eagleton Golf village, Bidadi Hobli, Shanamanagala Post, Ramanagara Taluk and District, mobile NO.9844704997, 9877704990. It is not the case of accused is that this address is not belongs to 10 C.C.No.16006/2024 accused. Accused has not furnished her address. It shows that the notice has been sent to accused with correct address. Advocate for accused argued that in the said address Ramanagara Taluk written in the handwriting and other words are in typed, and the complainant might have added Ramanagara Taluk later. Ex.P.5 is notice and in that address is clearly stated with door Number and phone number. In the absence of word Ramanagara Taluk also that can be reach to the addressee because there is a clear address with village name, hobli name, phone number and house number and it is sufficient to reach the addressee. Moreover, only because of word Ramanagara is in handwriting mode, it cannot be doubt that it has been inserted later. In generally if anything missing in the address then we use to add. Here also advocate for complainant might be added word Ramanagara before posting the notice.
21. As per Section 27 of General Clauses Act, if any notice sent to correct address, then it has to be consider as deemed service. As stated above accused has not furnished her address details.. Hence it is considered as deemed service.
22. Advocate for accused argued that during the cross- examination of PW-1, PW-1 has stated that husband of accused has handed over cheques to him. There is no 11 C.C.No.16006/2024 issuance of cheque, hence complaint is not maintainable. In the complaint, notice and evidence, complainant clearly stated that the accused and her husband both are family friends to the complainant and both were approached for hand laon. IN such circumstances just because of cheque given by the husband of accused will not take away the case of complainant. Because the accused has not taken any steps against her husband and it is not her case is that her husband had issued cheques without her knowledge. As per accused she had issued cheques with respect to transaction of property selling. It shows that the accused had knowledge about the issuance of cheque and she was present on every stage of transaction. In such circumstances accused cannot take contention that she had not issued cheque. If really accused has not issued cheque, then why she is kept quite without taking steps against the complainant and her husband. It shows that both accused and her husband have borrowed amount and issued cheques.
23. It is further argued that the advocate for accused that PW-1 admits in his cross-examination that she only filled the cheque, on that ground also complaint is not maintainable. On perusal of deposition of deposition of PW- 1, it is noticed that he has deposed that he filled his name in the cheque and he does not know that who has filled other writing in the cheque. It shows that accused handed over cheque by filling and accused has filled his name only.
12C.C.No.16006/2024 Moreover till today accused has not taken any steps to ascertain that handwriting found in Ex.P.1 and P.2 are not belongs to herself and she has not chosen to take assistance from the handwriting expert.
In the authority in Sunita Dubey (Smt.) Vs. Hukum Singh Ahirwar. In that Hon'ble Apex Court held that blank cheque can be filled up by holder thereof. Which will be valid instrument in eye of law. The complainant has right to get benefit U/s.20 of Act. In such circumstances, accused cannot contend that complainant only filled the cheque.In the case on hand Advocate for accused has contended that cheque has been filled by the complainant and not by the accused. It is an admitted fact that name of complainant in the cheque has been filled by the complainant and not all the contents of cheque. As per Section 20 of N.I.Act inchoate instruments are also valid and legally enforceable. In the case of a signed blank cheque, the drawer gives authority to the drawee to fill up the a great liability.
25. If really there was no transaction between the parties then what is necessity for the complainant pay Rs.5 lakhs to the accused and why the accused is kept quite. Here no such complaint has been lodged against the complainant for alleged misuse of her cheque and there is no sale agreement or any other document to show that there was a discussion between the parties with regard to 13 C.C.No.16006/2024 purchase of property. In the absence of document, it is difficult to accept the version of accused.
26. As discussed above the notice has been sent to correct address of accused and it is considered as deemed service. There is no explanation from the accused for non issuance of reply notice. If really no transaction between the parties then why the accused has kept quite after receiving of notice also. Accused is the right person to speak about that aspect but here accused has not chosen to enter into witness box and not taken any specific defence and not explained that why she has not issued reply notice. Though there is no mandatory to the accused to lead evidence and though accused can prove his defence by eliciting truth from PW-1 during the cross-examination and through materials available on record, but few aspects has to explain by the accused only.
27. The accused has to explain that why she had signed the blank cheques. There should be some transactions between any parties to issue cheques. but there is no proper explanation from the accused for issuance of cheques. As discussed above the accused never disputed her signature in the cheques. Admittedly cheque and signature pertaining to accused. It creates doubt regarding the version of the accused.
14C.C.No.16006/2024
28. The accused has not disputed her siganatures in the cheques but only to escape from her liability, she had taken different contentions without any basis and without any supportive documents. If really no liability on the accused then she would have sent notice to the complainant for take back her cheques or she would have send notice to the accused with regard to alleged sale transaction or she would have returned amount transferred by the complainant. Here no such effort from the accused to take back her cheques. Till today accused has not taken any steps against the complainant for alleged misuse of her cheques. No ordinary prudent man will simply issued signed blank cheques only for nominal purpose. All these aspects show that accused has received amount from the complainant and to discharge said liability only she had issued cheques. Now only to escape from her liability she is denying the case of complainant.
29. In the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Gorantla Venkateshwara Rao Vs. Kolla Veeraraghava Rao and another case, it was held that failing on the part of accused in giving reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant, is one of the strong circumstances to draw a inference that accused has borrowed amount from the complainant and cheque was issued towards payment of legally enforceable debt. Here, in 15 C.C.No.16006/2024 this case on hand also in spite of receipt of legal notice also the accused did not chose to give reply, hence it is also one of the circumstances which clear supports the case of complainant. If the accused raised any probable defence and if any strong circumstances was brought on record asked to passing of consideration then the burden would be upon the complainant to prove the same. But on careful perusal of the evidence, it is noticed that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption.
30. As per Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act court may presume that bill of exchange was accepted for good consideration. Issuance of cheque is proved. Hence presumption can be drawn. Therefore, it probabalizes that the transactions alleged in the complaint is genuine.
31. Advocate for accused has produced authority reported in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs.Dattatreya G.Hegde in (2008) 4 SCC 54. Advocate for accused argued that as per said authority there should be document with regard to alleged transaction. In this case there is no agreement, promissory note with regard to said transaction. Hence court cannot draw presumption U/s.139 of N.I.Act. It is true that there should be documents with regard to alleged transaction. At the same time accused has to explain that how his cheque had been to the hands of the accused. The facts and circumstances of above authority and case on 16 C.C.No.16006/2024 hand are entirely different. In the above said authority there is a dispute with regard to transaction and complainant has taken contention that his power of attorney holder has misused his signed cheque. Here advocate for accused also taken contention that husband of accused has misused the cheque belongs to accused but advocate for accused suggested that the cheque has been issued with regard to property transaction. It shows that there is no dispute in issuance of cheques and signature. Moreover accused has not chosen to enter into witness box to prove her defence. In the above authority also Hon'ble Apex Court held that accused shall enter into witness box, when there is a specific defence or he has to prove through available materials. Here accused has not proved her defence, hence she cannot take shelter of above said authority.
32. Accused has produced another authority reported in (2014) 2 SCC 236 John K.Abraham Vs. Simon C.Abraham. Another authority reported in (2014) 12 SCC 539 Indus Airways Pvt Ltd Vs. Magnum Aviation Pvt Ltd case. In that Hon'ble Apex Court held that if cheque issued for security purpose for site purchase and when there is no legally recoverable debt or liability then complaint is not maintainable. Here also advocate for accused has suggested during the cross-examination of PW-1 that cheque has been issued for property transaction but that has not been 17 C.C.No.16006/2024 proved by the accused by entering into witness box or through any other material available in the record. Hence ratio held in above authority is not supports the case of accused.
33. Advocate for accused has produced authorities reported in (2007) 6 SCC 555 in CC.Alavihaji Vs.Palapatti Mohammed and another. In that Hon'ble Apex Court held that if notice returned as unserved, there should be averments in the complaint. In the case on hand notice has been served and same has been stated in the complaint. Hence accused cannot take contention that notice has not been served.
34. Advocate for accused has produced authorities reported in The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441. And argued that there are some inconsistencies with regard to loan purpose and lack of interest terms. Hence presumption cannot be drawn. In the said authority it is also held that accused can rebut the presumption by probable defence but here the accused has not entered into witness box to prove her defence. The complainant has clearly stated about the purpose of loan and other aspects. Hence the ratio held in above authority is not supports to accused contention but it supports to case of complainant because accused has fails to rebut the presumption.
18C.C.No.16006/2024
35. Advocate for accused has produced authorities reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510 in K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan. In that Hon'ble Apex Court held that in proper or evasive notice service defeats cause of action U/s.138 (c) of N.I.Act. In the case on hand notice has been served and postal authority has given proper reply stating that the notice has been served and the complainant has stated same in the complaint. Hence accused cannot take contention that notice has not been served.
36. Advocate for accused has produced authorities reported in (2009) 1 SCC 720 in Harman Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs.National Panasonic India Pvt Ltd. In that Hon'ble Apex Court held that defect notice, if notice sent with wrong address, then complaint is not maintainable U/s.138 (c) of N.I.Act. In the case on hand notice has been served and postal authority has given proper reply stating that the notice has been served and the complainant has stated same in the complaint. On the other hand accused has not produced any document or any address to show that address furnished by the complainant in the notice and complaint is wrong. Hence accused cannot take contention that notice has not been served.
37. The accused has produced another Judgment reported in (2008) 13 SCC 689 in Subodh S Salaskar Vs.Jayprakash M Shah and (2022) SCC online SC 1598 in 19 C.C.No.16006/2024 Pavankumar Goel Vs.State of U.P with regard to service of notice. As discussed above, complainant has sent notice with correct address. Hence ratio held in above authorities not supports to the case of accused.
38. The accused has produced another Judgment reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513, (Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets) and submits that as per above said authority, the complainant has not produced documents with regard to financial capacity. AS discussed above the accused has admitted that the amount has been received with regard to property transaction. When accused admits with regard to receiving of amount then question of disputing financial capacity does not arise. Hence the ratio held in above authority is not supports the case of accused.
39. The accused has produced another Judgment reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 in M.S.Narayan Menon Vs.State of Kerala. And argued that there are in consistent statement by the PW-1 and PW-1 does not know the purpose for loan. The facts and circumstances of above said authority and case on hand are entirely different. Hence ratio held in above authority is not applicable to case on hand.
40. The accused has produced another Judgment reported in (2023) SCC online SC 1373 in Rajesh Jain 20 C.C.No.16006/2024 Vs.Ajay Singh. And argued that the accused can rebut the presumption by raising probable defence. It is true that the accused can rebut the presumption but there should be possible explanation. Here the accused has not elicited anything from PW-1 during cross-examination and not chosen to enter into witness box and not proved her defence. The accused has taken specific defence that there was a property transaction between the parties, in such circumstances she has to place some material but here not placed any material and not entered into witness box. Moreover The facts and circumstances of above said authority and case on hand are entirely different. Hence ratio held in above authority is not applicable to case on hand.
41. The accused person has fails to prove her defence and has not placed any documents or evidence to prove that she has no due to the complainant and there was no transaction between the parties. As stated above accused herself admits the issuance of cheques and also signature and not issued reply notice and not chosen to enter into witness box. There is no explanation from the accused for issuance of cheques. During the cross-examination of PW-1 also nothing has been elicited from PW-1. Hence there is no reasons to disbelieve the case of complainant. Hence presumption can be drawn in favour of complainant.
21C.C.No.16006/2024
42. Regarding the burden of the accused to rebut the presumptions in N.I Act the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat in Crl.A.No.508 OF 2019 held:
"16.On the aspects relating to preponderance of probabilities, the accused has to bring on record such facts and such circumstances which may lead the Court to conclude either that the consideration did not exist or that its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration did not exist. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that though there may not be sufficient negative evidence which could be brought on record by the accused to discharge his burden, yet mere denial would not fulfill the requirements of rebuttal as envisaged under Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act..."
43. As discussed above the accused has fails to rebut the presumption and he has fails to prove her defence. Under the criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the proceeding U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is quasi-criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions envisaged under sec.118, 139 and 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act. An essential ingredient of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is that cheque in question must have been issued towards a legally or liability. Sec.118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act envisage certain presumptions. Under Sec.118 a presumption shall be raised regarding consideration, date, 22 C.C.No.16006/2024 acceptance, transfer, endorsements and regarding the holder in due course of Negotiable Instruments. Even under Sec.139 a rebuttal presumption shall be raised that the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally enforceable debt. These presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in case of Negotiable Instruments. These presumptions are not conclusive presumptions, but are rebuttable.
44. Such being the case it is for the accused to rebut the presumption under Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and to show that the cheque in question was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt or liability and accused has to prove the same not by mere possible explanation, but by cogent evidence. In this case the accused has fails to prove that she has not issued cheque towards legally enforceable debt. There is no dispute with regard to issuance of cheque and also signature. Till today accused has not filed any complaint against the complainant for alleged misuse of her cheques. She has not tried to take back her cheques. Silence of accused shows that she is admitting transaction and for that reason only, she has not tried to take back her cheques.
45. Advocate for complainant has argued that the complainant has paid her hard earned money in the year 2023 to the accused and now it is 2025. If complainant 23 C.C.No.16006/2024 would have invested the said amount in any other business or deposited in bank, definitely he would have get interest. On that submission advocate for complainant prays to order interest on cheque amount. In the Judgment reported in Crl Appeal 1902/2011 in R.Vijayan Vs. Baby and another case. Hon'ble Apex Court held that when there is a conviction there should be a consequential levy of fine of an amount sufficient to cover the cheque amount and interest thereof at a fixed rate of 9% per annum. In the case on hand there is no dispute in payment made by the complainant. The complainant has paid his hard earned money in the year 2023 and till today he has not received any benefit from the accused. Hence he is liable to pay interest for said amount. Taking into consideration of all these facts accused is liable to pay proportionate fine amount along with 9% interest to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint.
46. The complainant has proved that accused had issued cheques towards discharge of her legally recoverable debt or liability. There is no proper explanation from the accused that why she had not tried to take back her cheques. There is no effort from the accused to take steps against the complainant for alleged misuse of her cheques. All these aspects show that there was a transaction between the parties and to discharge her liability only, accused had issued Ex.P.1. The accused has fails to prove that there is 24 C.C.No.16006/2024 no legally recoverable debt or liability. Hence, in view of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the complainant has proved his case. On careful perusal of materials on record I am of the opinion that there is a legally recoverable debt or liability. All these aspects show that accused had issued cheque to the complainant towards discharge of her liability. The complainant has proved the initial burden and accused has not produced any cogent evidence to disprove the contention of the complainant and not rebutted the presumption. The evidence of PW.1 and coupled with documentary evidence corroborates with each other. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the version of complainant appears to be true. The ingredients required to fulfill Sec.138 of NI Act also proved. Hence, I hold that there are materials available on record to conclude that accused has committed an offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act, hence I answered Point no.1 in the Affirmative.
47. Point No.2:- In view of the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following :-
-: ORDER :-
By invoking the power conferred under section 278(2) of B.N.S.S.,The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.25
C.C.No.16006/2024 Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) along with interest @ rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint to till realization till payment of amount. In default to pay the fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
Further, acting under Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., on recovery of sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only along with interest @ rate of 9% per annum only, Rs.4,95,000/- along with interest shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the state exchequer.
Supply free copy of this order to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to stenographer directly on my computer, after clerical additions by him, script revised, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 05th day of November-2025) ASHA K Digitally ASHA K S signed by S Date: 2025.11.15 15:11:14 +0530 (Smt.Asha K.S,) XXIII ACJM,Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1) List of Witnesses examined for complainant:-
PW.1 : Sri.C.Ranganath
2) List of documents marked on behalf of complainant: -
Ex.P.1 & 2. : Cheques.
Ex.P.1(a) & P.2a: Signatures of accused, Ex.P.3 & P.4 : Bank Memos, Ex.P.5 : Legal Notice, Ex.P.6 : Postal receipt, 26 C.C.No.16006/2024 Ex.P.7 : Complaint to Postal Dept.. Ex.P.8 : Reply given by the Postmaster.
3) List of witness examined on behalf of the Accused :-
: Nil :
4) List of documents marked on behalf of the Accused:-
: Nil :
ASHA Digitally signed
by ASHA K S
Date: 2025.11.15
KS 15:11:23 +0530
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
27
C.C.No.16006/2024
05.11.2025 (Judgment pronounced in the open
Court Vide Separate Sheet.)
-: ORDER :-
By invoking the power
conferred under section 278(2) of
B.N.S.S.,The accused is found
guilty for the offence punishable
under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
lakhs only) along with interest @
rate of 9% per annum from the
date of filing of complaint to till
realization till payment of amount.
In default to pay the fine, accused
shall undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one year.
Further, acting under
Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., on
recovery of sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five lakhs only along with
interest @ rate of 9% per annum
only, Rs.4,95,000/- along with
interest shall be paid to the
complainant as compensation and
Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the
state exchequer.
28
C.C.No.16006/2024
Supply free copy of this order
to the accused forthwith.
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.