Bangalore District Court
K. Bhaskar vs Sudhakar .S on 3 February, 2026
CC.No.15031/2020
KABC030553682020
Presented on : 10-11-2020
Registered on : 10-11-2020
Decided on : 03-02-2026
Duration : 5 years, 2 months, 23 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 3rd day of February 2026
Present: Smt.Tejaswini K.M., B.A.L.LL.M,
XVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
CC. No.15031/2020
Sri.K.Bhaskar
Aged 63 years
S/o Late.Kannaiah Naidu
R/at No.16, Anjaneya Temple Road,
Second Main, Ittumadu,
Banashankari Third Stage,
Bengaluru - 560085.
....Complainant
(By Sri M.K.Venkatramana., Advocate)
Versus
2 C.C.15031/2020
Sri.Sudhakar.S
Aged 38 years
S/o Late.Swamy Naidu
No.1/A, 9th Main Road,
4th Cross, Papaiah Garden,
Banashankari Third Stage,
Bengaluru - 560085.
.... Accused
(By Sri Mohan S Reddy., Advocate)
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Date of commencement
of evidence : 10.11.2020
Date of closing evidence : 07.08.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
3 C.C.15031/2020
JUDGMENT
This case is registered against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Factual matrix of the complainant's case is as under:
It is stated that the accused is relative of complainant and he is electrical contractor and doing real estate business. He sought financial assistance to the complainant in the year 2018 for a sum of Rs.12 lakhs. But the complainant has paid Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cash on 10.04.2018 for improvement of his business and the accused has executed MOU in the name of the complainant and his son Sri.K.Bharath Kumar on 10.04.2018 for having received the said amount. He agreed to repay it within one year. After the stipulated time, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.139903 dated 13.09.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/-, drawn on ICICI Bank, OTC Road Branch, Bengaluru in discharge of the said 4 C.C.15031/2020 loan. When it was presented to the bank, it got dishonoured for the reason 'account closed' vide memo dated 17.09.2019. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice on 26.09.2019 demanding the accused to make payment amount within 15 days and it has been served on the accused on 28.09.2019. However, the accused has not paid the cheque amount. Hence the complainant has constrained to file the present complaint.
3. After receiving the complaint, this court has meticulously gone through the documents and affidavit filed along with it and then took cognizance of the offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered for registration of the compliant as P.C.R.
4. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and marked 8 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-8. As there were sufficient materials to constitute the offence, this court has proceeded to pass an order for issuing process against the accused.
5 C.C.15031/2020
5. In pursuance of summons, accused has appeared through his counsel and applied for bail. He was enlarged on bail. Then the substance of accusation was read over to the accused in the language known to him, for which he pleaded not guilty.
6. As per the direction of Hon'ble supreme court in "Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others reported in (2014)(5) SCC 590, this court treated the sworn statement of the complainant as complainant evidence and posted matter for cross-examination of PW.1. The counsel for the accused has fully cross- examined PW.1. Thereafter the complainant closed his side of evidence.
7. The statement of accused as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded vide order dated 26.04.2023 & 28.10.2022 and the incriminating evidence as such forthcoming against the accused in the evidence of PW.1 and the documents has been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. He denied all incriminating evidence.
6 C.C.15031/2020
8. In order to substantiate his defense, the accused got himself examined orally as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D3 and he had been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the complainant.
9. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the side. The counsel for the accused has filed written arguments. The counsel for the complainant has filed memo with citations. I have perused the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record and gone through those case laws.
10. Points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused towards discharge of his liability issued a cheque bearing No.139903 dated 13.09.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/-, drawn on ICICI Bank, OTC Road Branch, Bangalore in favour of complainant, on presentation of the same for encashment, it was dishonored for "Account Closed" in the account maintained by the accused, then in-spite of issuing 7 C.C.15031/2020 demand notice to the Accused and in complying with statutory requirement under Negotiable Instrument Act, Accused did not repay the cheque amount, thereby he has committed an offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What Order?
11. My Answer to above points are as under:-
Point No.I :- In the Affirmative,
Point No.II :- As per the final order for
the following....
REASONS
12. POINT NO.I:- The Defense of the accused that:
He has borrowed loan of Rs.1 lakh from the complainant's son in 2018 and he has repaid the said loan through IMPS on 10.01.2019 by making payment of Rs.50,000/- twice to the complainant's son. While availing said Rs.1 lakh, he has given 2 cheques to the complainant's son for security purpose. Despite of repayment of the said loan, the complainant and his have 8 C.C.15031/2020 misused the cheque, filed this case and filed another case through his son against him. He has not executed any MOU in favour of the complainant. He has not received the notice from the complainant. Hence, on these grounds, accused prays to acquit him from this case.
13. Negotiable Instruments Act provides for some presumption in favour of the complainant i.e., Section 118 reads as here: - "That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration".
14. Further Sec 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for presumption in favour of a holder. It reads as here: - "It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a 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."
9 C.C.15031/2020
15. Combined reading of above said sections raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. However, it is settled principle of law that the presumption available u/s 139 NI Act can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable defense.
16. The complainant has reiterated the contents of the complaint in his chief-examination. PW.1 got marked Ex.P1 to P8. He has produced the cheque issued by accused and the same is marked as Ex.P-1, the signature of the accused is marked as Ex.P-1(a), copy of bank memo is marked as Ex.P-2, copy of demand notice dated:26.09.2019 is marked as Ex.P-3, copy of postal receipt is marked as Ex.P-4, copy of track consignment is marked as Ex.P-5, Certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act is marked as Ex.P-6, complaint is marked as Ex.P-7 and copy of MOU is marked as Ex.P-8.
17. The complainant has examined witness to MOU marked at Ex.P8 as PW.2 and he has deposed in his chief- examination that in his presence the complainant's son 10 C.C.15031/2020 has given Rs.4,50,000/- and complainant has given Rs.3,00,000/- to accused, that time he has signed to Ex.P8 i.e. MOU as a witness. PW.1 and PW.2 have been cross- examined by the counsel for the accused.
18. Advocate for complainant has relied on the citations reported in Crl.A.No.362/2022 in between Tedhi Singh V/s Narayan Dass Mahant, (2020) 12 SCC 724 in between APS Forex Services Private Limited V/s Shakti International Fashion Linkers and others, (2012) 13 SCC 375 in between Laxmi Dyechem V/s State of Gujarat and others, (2012) 13 SCC 398 in between Aircel Limited and others V/s Bharti Aircel (sic) Limited, AIR 2019 SC 4003 in between M/s Shree Daneshwari Traders V/s Sanjay Jain and another, 2022 (1) KCCR J (SC) in between K.S.Ranganatha V/s Vittal Shetty, 2022 (1) KCCR 13 in between M/s Metropoli Overseas Limited V/s Sri.H.S.Deekshit and others, (2021) 5 SCC 283 in between Kalamani Tex V/s Balasubramanian, AIR 2018 SC 3601 in between T.P.Murugan V/s Bojan and I (2023) BC 248 (SC) in between Rajaram V/s Maruthachalam, I have gone through those case laws.
11 C.C.15031/2020
19. Percontra, the accused has also stepped into witness box and orally deposed about his defense as stated supra and he has been cross-examined by the counsel for the complainant.
20. I have heard the arguments of counsel for the complainant and he has submitted to the Court that the acquaintance between the parties is not dispute, issuance of cheque is also not not in dispute, but the accused has not probablized his defense. Therefore, he prays to convict the accused.
21. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has filed written arguments and submitted that the complainant has failed to prove his source of income. It is further argued that there are material inconsistencies in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. The counsel submits that PW-2 is not aware of the contents of the Memorandum of Understanding. It is also contended that on the very same day, both the father and son have filed two separate cases against the same accused by misusing cheques belonging to the same series, which were 12 C.C.15031/2020 allegedly issued only as security. On these grounds, the learned counsel prays that the accused be acquitted.
22. I have meticulously gone through the pleadings, evidence and given my anxious consideration to the arguments canvassed by both side. At the outset both parties have admitted that they know to each other. It is an admitted fact that 2 cases are filed against the accused i.e. CC.No.8157/2020 by Mr.Bharath Kumar ie complainant's son and CC.No.15031/2020 Mr.K.Bhaskar.
23. The stand taken by the accused in both the cases are one and the same and the cross-examination of both the parties in both the cases are almost on similar lines. Both the cases are taken up together for the adjudication of case on merits.
24. In the present case, during his cross- examination para No 2 accused has unequivocally admitted that the cheque belongs to his account and it bears his signature. Therefore, the complainant has proved that the accused has issued the disputed cheque in his name and same got dishonoured for the reason 13 C.C.15031/2020 'account closed' as per Ex.P2 bank memo. Therefore, initial presumption U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act has to be drawn in favour of the complainant as the Honorable Supreme Court of India in "Triyambak S Hegde v Sripad"
(2022) 1 SCC 742 while relying upon the the constitution bench judgment of Basalingappa v Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, under para 14 of its judgment reiterated that "once the cheque was issued and that the signatures are upon the cheque are accepted by the accused, the presumptions undee Sec 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise against the accused. That is, unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the cheques in question were drawn by the accused for a consideration and that the complainant had received the cheque in question in discharge of debt/liability from the accused."
25. Therefore, as per Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act initial presumption has to drawn infavour of the complainant that cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt. The burden lies on the accused to rebut the said initial presumption on the scale of preponderance of probabilities.
14 C.C.15031/2020
26. The complainant has pleaded in the complaint that though accused has sought loan of 12 lakhs, he as given Rs.3 lakhs by way of cash to the accused in 2018 and on same day the accused has executed MOU and agreed to repay the amount within a year.
27. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined PW.1 on different dates at length. PW.1 in his cross- examination dated 12.10.2022 has stated that in 2018 accused sought money. He has withdrawn amount of Rs.3 lakhs. He deposed that he does not know Mrs.Leelavathi and Mr.Chandru. He pleaded ignorance to the suggestion that said Mr.Chandru is a practicing advocate working in Bengaluru. He denied the suggestion that he has received Ex.P8 i.e. MOU and cheque at Ex.P1 from Mr.Chandru. He denied that by misusing the cheque and stamp paper which were given to Mr.Chandru, he false case is filed.
28. PW.1 in his cross-examination dated 10.04.2024 has deposed that he does not remember the exact when he gave Rs.3 lakhs. But the accused has executed MOU he got read it to others and signed to it. He denied that his relative by name Mr.Chandru has filed cheque bounce 15 C.C.15031/2020 case against the accused. He denied that he took the stamp paper from said Mr.Chandru, misused and false case is filed. He admits his son also filed another cheque bounce case against the accused. He denied that accused has taken Rs.1 lakh loan from his son and repaid it through online. He denied the accused had given 2 security cheques to his son and among them he has misused one cheque.
29. Therefore, PW1 has deposed about the lending loan to the accused in 2018 by way of cash in consonance with his complaint. In view of initial presumption given U/Sec.118 of NI Act, this Court has to consider that the cheque is drawn for consideration. In AIR 2023 SC 5018 in between Rajesh Jain V/s Ajay Singh, Apex court held that " 31. Presumption, on the other hand, literally means "taking as true without examination or proof". In Kumar Exports v. Sharma Exports, this Court referred to presumption as "devices by use of which courts are enabled and entitled to pronounce on an issue notwithstanding that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence." 16 C.C.15031/2020
30. Under such circumstances, before questioning financial capacity of the complainant, the accused shall rebut the initial presumption given U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act the disputed cheque has been issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt.
31. The defense of the accused is that for the loan of Rs.1 lakh taken by complainant's son in 2018, he had given 2 cheques for security purpose, but he has repaid said amount on 10.01.2019 by way of IMPS, however the these security cheques are misused. To substantiate his defense accused has orally deposed about the defense and he has produced Ex.D2 i.e. IMPS details and Ex.D3 account statement. During the cross-examination dated 10.04.2024 the counsel for the accused has suggested to PW.1 that accused has paid Rs.50,000/- twice on 10.01.2019 to his son even then the security cheqes of the accused are misused by him and his son and same is denied by PW.1.
17 C.C.15031/2020
32. Thus the complainant has not admitted that his son had given loan of Rs.1 lakh to accused and received 2 cheques for security from the accused. Therefore, the burden lies on the accused to prove it with cogent evidence. Ex.D2 shows that on 10.01.2019 he had transferred Rs.50,000/- twice to a person by name Mr.Bharth Kumar. Even same is reflected in his account statement marked at Ex.D3. Now the point to be considered is whether said Mr.Bharath Kumar is the complainant's son or some other person. The account number to which said amount has been transferred is not either reflected in Ex.D2 or Ex.D3.
33. It is worth mentioning here that since there is an initial presumption given U/Sec.118 of NI Act regarding passing of consideration to the accused, the burden lies on the accused to rebut it. As the complainant failed to produce his son's account statement, the accused ought to have get the proper details from his banker to show to which account he has transferred money as per Ex.D2. The bank would definitely give details about the beneficiary to whom the amount has been transferred 18 C.C.15031/2020 through IMPS. Such endeavor is not made by the accused for the reason best known to him. He has not examined the bank manager to substantiate his defense.
34. Nevertheless it is noticed by the Court that the disputed cheque has been issued on 13.09.2019 and same was presented to the bank on 16.09.2019 and it has been dishonoured for the reason 'account closed'. If at all, the accused has repaid Rs.1 lakh to the complainant's son on 10.01.2019 itself till September 2019, the accused ought to have made efforts to get back his security cheques, if they were truly given to the complainant. What was impediment to the accused to make such efforts is not forthcoming. Why the account has been closed subsequently is also not explained by the accused.
35. It is noticed that account of the accused was very much active till January 2019, as per Ex.D2 and D3. Within the span of 8 months from January 2019, what made the accused to close his account is not forthcoming. When he had given such request to close his account to his banker, whether he had intimated about the issuance of cheques to the complainant's son to bank before 19 C.C.15031/2020 closing his account to his banker is also not forthcoming. Had he repaid the entire amount to the complainant' son and complainant's son refused to return back his security cheques, the accused could have given 'stop payment instructions' to his banker or also lodge a complaint against the complainant or complainant's son. No such endeavor is made by the accused for the reasons best known to him.
36. During his cross-examination accused has stated that as the complainant is his relative he has not taken any legal action against him and same is not acceptable explanation. No prudent person would leave their security cheques even after repayment of the entire loan with the lender. Such inaction of the accused at relevant point of time makes his defense weak and not believable.
37. Further, the complainant has produced Ex.P8, i.e., the MOU, to substantiate that the accused executed a common MOU in acknowledgment of having received amounts from him and his son. However, during his evidence, the accused disputed the execution of Ex.P8 in favour of the complainant or his son. PW.1 was 20 C.C.15031/2020 extensively cross-examined regarding the name of the second party mentioned on the stamp paper in Ex.P8, which is shown as one Mr. Chandru.
38. Firstly, the accused has not made any concrete efforts to prove that the signature appearing on Ex.P8 at Ex.P8(a) and 8(b) are not of him. Mere denial of signature is not suffice as signatures of the accused at Ex.P8 and P1 cheque are tallied with each other.
39. Secondly, it is observed from the cross- examination of PW.1 dated 12.10.2022, at page No.2, paragraphs 3 and 4, that the counsel for the accused suggested that the stamp paper marked as Ex.P8 and the cheque marked as Ex.P1 were given to an advocate by name Mr. Chandru, whose wife is Mrs. Leelavathi. The said suggestions were denied by PW.1.
40. From these suggestions, it appears that the accused is aware of the existence of Mr. Chandru and his wife, Mrs. Leelavathi, and is acquainted with them. If the said Mr. Chandru is a practicing advocate, the accused could have easily furnished complete details about him. In 21 C.C.15031/2020 view of the specific suggestion made by the accused's counsel regarding the said advocate, the burden shifts to the accused to explain why Ex.P1 and Ex.P8 were allegedly given to Mr. Chandru or to establish the nexus, if any, between the said Mr. Chandru and the complainant in the present case. However, the accused has not deposed anything in his chief-examination regarding these two persons.
41. During the cross-examination of PW.1, accused has taken a stand that Ex.P8 and P1 were given to the said advocate by name Mr.Chandru, whereas in his chief- examination accused taken a different stand that the disputed cheque along with other cheque produced in connected case i.e. CC.No.8157/2020 were given for security purpose to the complainant's son. Therefore, it is evident that the accused has taken double stand regarding issuance of cheque, these inconsistencies creates suspicion about the defense of the accused.
42. The accused has failed to explain why the cheque was allegedly given to Mr. Chandru, on what date it was given, and for what purpose it was left with him. He 22 C.C.15031/2020 has also not clarified how the complainant came into contact with the said Mr. Chandru, or why no action was taken against Mr. Chandru for allegedly handing over the cheque and the stamp paper relating to Ex.P8 to the complainant. The absence of any explanation on these material aspects amounts to suppression of vital facts, which is fatal to the defence set up by the accused.
43. In Ashok Singh V State of Uttar prasdesh and and another reported in 2025 Live law (SC)_ 383, Apex court by relying on M/s S. S. Production v. Tr. Pavithran Prasanth, 2024 INSC 1059, held that "Pausing here, the Court would only comment that the reasoning of the High Court as well as the First Appellate Court and Trial Court on this issue is sound. Just by taking a counter-stand to raise a probable defence would not shift the onus on the complainant in such a case for the plea of defence has to be buttressed by evidence, either oral or documentary, which in th present cases, has not been done. Moreover, even if it is presumed that the complainant had not proved the source of the money given to the petitioners by way of loan by producing statement of accounts and/or Income Tax Returns, the same ipso facto, would not negate such claim for the reason that the cheques having being issued and signed by the petitioners has not been denied, and no evidence has been led to show that the respondent lacked capacity to provide the amount(s) in question. In 23 C.C.15031/2020 Tedhi Singh v Narayan Dass Mahant, (2022) 6 SCC 735: '10. The trial court and the first appellate court have noted that in the case under Section 138 of the NI Act the complainant need not show in the first instance that he had the capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is not a civil suit. At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity. To that extent, the courts in our view were right in holding on those lines. However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents.'
44. As per above case law it is crystal clear that even if it is presumed that the complainant had not proved the source of the money given to the accused by way of loan by producing statement of accounts and/or Income Tax Returns, the same ipso facto, would not negate such claim in view of presumption given U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act and no evidence has been 24 C.C.15031/2020 led to show that the complainant lacked capacity to provide the amount in question.
45. The complainant issued a legal notice after the cheque was dishonoured, as evidenced by Ex.P3, through RPAD, and the same was served, as reflected in the track consignment report at Ex.P5. Although the counsel for the accused suggested to PW.1 that the legal notice was not served upon the accused, the accused himself, during cross-examination, clearly admitted that he was residing at the address mentioned in the legal notice.
46. The accused has contended that he was working in Uttara Karnataka at the relevant time and, therefore, does not know who received the notice. However, no acceptable evidence has been produced to establish that he was out of station or employed in North Karnataka during the relevant period. In view of his admission regarding the correctness of the address mentioned in the legal notice, the defence of non-service is untenable.
47. Issuance of the legal notice to the last known correct address of the accused is sufficient to establish 25 C.C.15031/2020 compliance with the requirement under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Furthermore, the accused has not issued any reply to the said legal notice, which is also fatal to his defence.
48. Apex court in MMTC Ltd. and Another vs. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. and Another, (2002) 1 SCC 234 has specifically held that when a statutory notice is not replied, it has to be presumed that the cheque was issued towards the discharge of liability.
49. It is held in 2006 CRI.L.J.1, in a case of Gorantala Venkateswara Rao. V/s. Kolla Veera Raghava Rao and another, that;
"(B) Negotiable Instrument Act ( 26 of 1881), S.138 - Dishonour of cheque- Legally enforceable debt- Failure of accused in giving reply to legal notice issued by complainant- Is one of the strong circumstances to draw inference that accused borrowed amount from complainant and cheque was issued towards part payment of legally enforceable debt."26 C.C.15031/2020
50. Had there been discrepancies in the outstanding balance shown by the complainant in the cheques, the accused ought to have given the reply to the demand notice. No such endeavour is made by them for the reasons best known to them.
51. In C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr (2007) 6 SCC 555, the Hon'ble Apex court has held; "
17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Sec 138 the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Sec 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as under Sec 138 , by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Sec 27 of the G.C. Act and Sec 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation... "27 C.C.15031/2020
52. Therefore, defense of the accused that notice is not served holds no water as he failed to deposit the cheque amount before court soon after his appearance as laid down by Apex Court in above case law. Not responding to notice by way of giving reply is also fatal to the defence.
53. The complainant has examined one of the witnesses i.e. PW.2 to Ex.P8 i.e. MOU and he has clearly deposed that in his presence complainant and his son gave money to the accused and he has signed to Ex.P8. During cross-examination though he could not deposed the date of the MOU, he has clearly stated that while giving money in front of him to the accused by the complainant and his son i.e. Rs.4.5 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs, he has signed to Ex.P8 MOU. Though it is suggested that PW.2 is the relative of the complainant as such he is giving false evidence to support the case of the complainant, no circumstances made out to suspect the evidence of PW.2. Merely because he is relative witness, his evidence cannot be doubted as he does not have any ill motive to give 28 C.C.15031/2020 evidence against the accused, and as he clearly identified the signature in MOU and deposed in his own words that while giving money to the accused by the complainant and his son, Ex.P8 has been executed. The evidence on record must be appreciated in it's entirety, and not by isolating stray sentences or statements. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused during arguments, a stray sentence cannot be taken out of context to draw adverse inferences, rather, the evidence must be read as a whole to ascertain its true import and effect.
54. Mere denial of Ex.P8 is not suffice as accused has not proved that it has not been executed by him with cogent evidence. Even it is noticed that he has contended that he had given Ex.P8 stamp paper to one Mr.Chandru. Therefore, the accused is well within the knowledge about the stamp paper taken for Ex.P8. Since the accused has failed to prove that the cheque and Ex.P8 were given to Mr.Chandru, it has to be considered by the Court that both the documents are given to the complainant as narrated in the present case.
29 C.C.15031/2020
55. Therefore, having scrutinized the entire evidence this Court is of the view that the accused has failed to probablize his defense that he has repaid Rs.1 lakh to the complainant's son and the disputed cheque was given for security purpose. Subsequent to alleged repayment, he had not taken necessary steps to recover his security cheques or giving stop payment instructions to his banker or to give reply to the demand notice of the complainant. Hence self interested testimony of DW.1 itself is not sufficient to rebut the initial presumption given U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act. Therefore, Court holds that the complainant has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. With these observations court proceed to answer POINT NO.I IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
56. POINT NO.II:- In view of the reasons assigned in above point, it is ample clear that accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act. A bare reading of sec.138 of the NI Act indicates that the purport of sec.138 is to prevent and punish the dishonest drawers of cheques who evade their liability.
30 C.C.15031/2020
57. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent decision in M/s. Meters & instrument Pvt Ltd. Vs. Kanchana Mehta reported in (2018)1 SCC-560 held at para 18(ii) that"(ii) The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found." In view of the reasons assigned in above point, it is ample clear that accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act.
58. In R. Vijayan vs. Baby and Another reported in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 528, Apex court held that 'that unless there were special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, the Court should uniformly exercise the power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount and keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss, direct payment of such amount as compensation. This Court rightly observed that uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts not only increases the credibility of the cheque as a Negotiable Instrument but also the credibility of the Courts of Justice'. 31 C.C.15031/2020
59. M/S Kalamani Tex vs P. Balasubramanian reported in AIRONLINE 2021 SC 82, Apex court reaffirmed aforementioned principle and held that "20. As regard to the claim of compensation raised on behalf of the respondent, we are conscious of the settled principles that the object of Chapter XVII of the NIA is not only punitive but also compensatory and restitutive. The provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for realisation of the cheque amount. It is also well settled that there needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding compensation and unless there exist special circumstances, the Courts should uniformly levy fine up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum."
60. Therefore, having regard to the extent of loan, time from which it is lying with the accused and defense taken by the accused and failure to prove it, length of time taken for adjudicating the matter and keeping in mind the primary object of the provision, this court is of the opinion that, rather than imposing punitive sentence, if sentence of fine of Rs.5,10,000/- is imposed with a direction to compensate the complainant for his monitory loss, by awarding compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C, 32 C.C.15031/2020 would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass following .....
ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,10,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand Only), in default of payment fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
Out of the fine amount collected from the accused, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining fine of Rs.10,000/- shall be adjusted towards the cost of state expenses. 33 C.C.15031/2020
The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force till the appeal period is over as contemplated under the provisions of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
Office to supply the copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment pronounced in the open court on this the 3 rd day of February 2026).
Digitally signedby TEJASWINI
TEJASWINI KM
KM Date:
2026.02.12
17:46:33 +0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1: Sri.K.Bhaskar II. List of documents on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P-1 : Original Cheque. Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of the accused. Ex.P-2 : Bank memo.34 C.C.15031/2020
Ex.P-3 : Legal notice. Ex.P-4 : Postal Receipt. Ex.P-5 : Track Consignment. Ex.P-6 : Certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P-7 : Complaint.
Ex.P-8 : Copy of MOU.
III. List of witnesses for the accused:
D.W.1: Sudhakar.S
IV. List of documents for accused:
Ex.D-1 : C/c of Complaint in CC.No.8157/2020. Ex.D-2 & 3 : Account Statements.
Digitally
signed by
TEJASWINI
TEJASWINI KM
KM Date:
2026.02.12
17:46:40
+0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M ),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
35 C.C.15031/2020