Bangalore District Court
Mr. Mohan G vs Sri. T.C. Mudligowda on 9 January, 2026
CC.No.4718/2024
KABC030091652024
Presented on : 19-02-2024
Registered on : 19-02-2024
Decided on : 09-01-2026
Duration : 1 years, 10 months, 19 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 9th day of January 2026
Present: Smt.Tejaswini K.M., B.A.L.LL.M,
XVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
CC. No.4718/2024
Mr.Mohan
S/o Gangadhar
Aged major
R/at No.18, 6th Cross,
P.Playout, Uttarahalli,
Bengaluru.
....Complainant
(By Sri.Lohith D.M., Advocate)
Versus
2 C.C 4718/2024
Sri.T.C.Mudligowda
S/o Chikkaramegowda
R/o Thubinakere Village,
Kirisave Hobli,
Channarayapattana Taluk
Hassan District.
.... Accused
(By Sri.Sri.D.Narase Gowda, Advocate)
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Date of commencement
of evidence : 21.01.2024
Date of closing evidence : 24.06.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not guilty
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:
The complainant is acquainted with the accused from considerable time as family friend. During first week of January 3 C.C 4718/2024 2023 the accused had approached him and requested him for financial assistance of Rs.2,50,000/- to meet his urgent domestic problems and assured to repay it within 3 months. Believing the version of the accused the complainant has mobilized the funds from his savings and paid Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cash. After lapse of 3 months, the complainant requested to repay the amount. The accused has issued a cheque bearing No.855613 dated 10.03.2023 for Rs.2,50,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Channarayapattana Branch, Hassan. When it was presented to the bank it got dishonoured for the reason funds insufficient.
3. Therefore the complainant immediately brought it to the notice of the accused, that time he requested to present it in first week of June 2023. Accordingly, the complainant has again presented the cheque for second time and it has been dishonoured for the reason 'Alteration Required Drawer's Authentication' vide memo dated 02.06.2022. Later the accused has not repaid the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant has issued legal notice dated 27.06.2022 to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of service of legal notice and it has been served to the accused 08.07.2023. In spite of service of legal notice, the accused failed to make payment of 4 C.C 4718/2024 cheque amount. Hence the complainant has constrained to file the present complaint.
4. 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.
5. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and marked 6 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-6. As there were sufficient materials to constitute the offence, this court has proceeded to pass an order for issuing process against the accused.
6. 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.
7. 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 cross-examined PW.1.
5 C.C 4718/2024
8. The statement of accused as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded vide dated 05.09.2024 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 and he has denied the same. No evidence lead on behalf of the accused.
9. I have heard the arguments of the both side. I have carefully perused the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record.
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.855613 dated 10.03.2023 for Rs.2,50,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Kirisave Branch, Channarayapatna Tq, Hassan District in favour of complainant, on presentation of the same for encashment, it was dishonored for "Alteration Requires Drawer's Authentication" in the account maintained by the accused, then in-spite of issuing demand notice to the Accused and in complying with statutory requirement under Negotiable Instrument Act, 6 C.C 4718/2024 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 Negative,
Point No.II :- As per the final order for
the following....
REASONS
12. POINT No.I:- The Defense of the accused is as
follows;
One advocate by name Mr.Manjunath had appeared on behalf of the father of the accused in the cheque bounce case and that time disputed cheque was given to said advocate mentioning the date on it as 01.02.2023. The accused has colluded with Mr.Manjunath advocate altered the date in the cheque i.e. month as '3' and presented to the bank and false case is filed. Further the accused contends that there is no transaction with the complainant and the complainant has no financial capacity to lend such amount, he has not produced any documents to prove the loan transaction. The legal notice 7 C.C 4718/2024 is not served on the accused and no proof is produced to show that the service of notice as track consignment is not either signed by the postal authority or the Certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act is not produced in support of the same. On these grounds the accused prays to acquit him from this case.
13. Negotiable Instruments Act provides for 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."
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 8 C.C 4718/2024 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 evidence affidavit. To substantiate his case the complainant stepped into witness box and got examined as PW.1. He has got marked Ex.P1 to P6. 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:
27.06.2023 is marked as Ex.P-3, copy of postal receipt is marked as Ex.P-4, copy of track consignment is marked as Ex.P5 and complaint is marked as Ex.P6.
17. He has been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused, wherein, he deposed that he is the vegetable vendor, through one Mr.Mayanna Gowda, he met the accused, he has given money for Rs.2.5 lakhs to the accused on 03.01.2023. While taking money the accused had executed pronote and while giving the cheque, he has returned the pronote to accused. He admits that he knows the advocate by name Mr.Manjuanth and he comes to his shop. He admits that he is from Nagamangala and accused is from Kirisave. He deposed that the accused has visited to his shop twice and not more 9 C.C 4718/2024 that. He has not shown alleged loan transaction in his ITR. He deposed that accused has filled the details in the cheque before coming to him and while handing over the cheque accused has signed on Ex.P1 cheque infront of him and given to him.
18. PW1 denied that there is alteration in the date mentioned in the cheque. He deposed that he never visited the house of the accused and accused has also not come to his house. He deposed that he knows Mr.Manjunath advocate from 5-6 years, and he has his contact number. He denied the suggestion that before coming to the Cour,t in this case he spoke to Mr.Manjunath advocate. He denied the suggestion that he can produce his phone call list. He denied that accused has not given the disputed cheque to him, but it was dated 10.01.2023 and given to Mr.Manjunath advocate and by colluding with said advocate, he has filed false case. He denied that legal notice is not served on the accused and the accused never executed any pronote to him. The remaining suggestions of the counsel for accused are denied by him.
19. I have meticulously gone through the complaint, evidence and material placed on record and given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both side. At the outset the 10 C.C 4718/2024 accused admits that the cheque belongs to his account and it bears his signature. The cheque has been dishonoured for the reason 'alteration in date required drawer's signature' as per Ex.P2 memo. However, this contention will be discussed later, but the accused has not disputed his signature on the cheque. Therefore, initial presumption has to be raised in favour of the complainant as per Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act. 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."
20. Therefore, as per Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act initial presumption has to drawn infavour of the complainant that cheque is issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt. The burden lies on the accused to rebut the said initial presumption 11 C.C 4718/2024 on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof for establishing the defense is on the scale of preponderance of probabilities whereas the burden lies on the complainant to prove the case, beyond reasonable doubts, once the accused rebuts the initial presumption.
21. The case of the complainant is that he is acquainted with the accused as family friend and as per request of the accused he has lent loan of Rs.2.5 lakhs by way of cash to the accused. Even during cross-examination he deposed that he has given Rs.2.5 lakhs on 03.01.2023 and the accused sought the said money on 01.01.2023 to him. No doubt there is an initial presumption regarding passing of consideration to the accused ad unless and until said presumption is rebutted on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, the complainant need to prove his case further.
22. It is a well-settled position of law that the accused can rebut the statutory presumption by cross-examining PW-1 and by relying upon the materials placed on record, and such rebuttal is on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The crux of the defense is that one advocate by name Mr.Manjunath was handling the cheque bounce case of the father of the accused, that time disputed cheque was given 12 C.C 4718/2024 to said advocate by mentioning the specific date as 10.01.2023, but the complainant by colluding with said advocate has altered the date and filed false case.
23. During cross-examination of PW.1 dated 24.01.2025 he has admitted that he knows the advocate by name Mr.Manjunath and he used to visit his shop. In the cross- examination dated 24.06.2025 para No.6 also PW.1 has deposed that he knows the said advocate Mr.Manjunath from past 5-6 years and he has his contact number. He denied the suggestion that he frequently spoke with said advocate and more specifically the date when when this cross examination has been conducted and same is denied by PW.1 and he refused to produce his phone call list. Its materail to note here that the accused specifically contends that the cheque has been given with a specific date of 10.01.2023 to the advocate Mr.Manjunath and later the complainant by colluding with said advocate has materially altered the date mentioned in the cheque and presented to the bank. During cross-examination dated 24.06.2025 para No.7 PW.1 has denied the suggestion that he has altered the month in the date of cheque and presented to the bank. However, he categorically admitted that any alteration in the cheque is required to be countersigned by 13 C.C 4718/2024 the drawer. When it is suggested that the bank memo reflects that cheque has been dishonoured for the reason' alteration in the cheque', he answered the cheque has been dishonoured for the reason 'signature differs'.
24. Having regard to evidence stated supra, its crystal clear that PW1 doesn't know for what reason cheque has been dishnoured. On perusal of Ex.P1 it is apparent that some overwriting is made in the 'month' on date column and does not contain the signature of the drawer. Even the bank has dishonoured the cheque for the reason 'alteration in the date required drawer's signature' as per Ex.P2. Therefore, the burden lies on the complainant to give proper explanation for accepting such altered cheque. But strangely PW.1 has stated that cheque has been dishonoured for the reason 'signature differs', but memo does not reflecting the said reason.
25. In the complaint as well as evidence of PW.1 that stated that when he has presented the cheque to the bank for the first time, it got dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient', later at the request of the accused he has re- presented the cheque again for second time, that time the memo has been given stating 'alteration in date'. Had the complainant presented the cheque twice to the bank, he ought 14 C.C 4718/2024 to have plead specifically when he presented ie date, when it is dishoured as well as give proof to establish. He failed to produce the bank memo which was allegedly given as 'funds insufficient' at the time of presenting cheque for first time. However at least this time , the complainant could have seek for fresh cheque or counter signature on the alteration part at cheque. No further explanation given in the pleadings as well as evidence for accepting the cheque consisting the alteration pertaining to the date and same creates suspicions of the case of the complainant and also corroborates the defense of the accused that the cheque issued with the date 10.01.2023 to advocate Mr.Manjunath has been later altered by the complainant and presented to the bank.
26. Though the accused has not given any evidence to prove that the disputed cheque was given to advocate Mr.Manjunath and also not given any further explanation regarding why said cheque was given ie either for payment of fees or for loan transaction etc, the counsel for the accused has brought to the notice of the Court that in the legal notice at Ex.P3, in page No.2, 3 at the beginning of the page, whitener has been put over the place of the name and address of the 15 C.C 4718/2024 advocate at the top of the page, while the name of advocate Mr. Manjunath remains clearly visible.
27. On careful examination of Ex.P3, it is evident from the back side of page No. 4 that the name of K.S. Manjunath appears. Furthermore, a perusal of the vakalatnama filed by the complainant reveals that the name of advocate Mr. Manjunath has been struck out, and the name of the current advocate representing the complainant has been inserted afresh, which indirectly lends support to the defence's contention.
28. As stated above no concrete evidence is produced by the accused to prove that the disputed cheque was given to advocate Mr.Manjunath, but by showing the attending circumstances, the accused probalised that the cheque is given to said advocate Manjunath and not to the complainant. Therefore, by way of cross-examination PW.1 the accused has successfully established the nexus between the accused and said advocate Mr.Manjunath and probability of giving cheque to him which was subsequently altered by the complainant. Thereby he rebutted the initial presumption given U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act. Now the onus shifts back on the complainant to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
16 C.C 4718/2024
29. The complainant has unequivocally admitted that he knows the advocate Mr.Manjunath and he visits his shop. When such being the case, when the accused has taken specific defense that the cheque was given to Mr.Manjunath, the complainant had an opportunity to disprove the said defense by examining said advocate before the Court. However, he has not made efforts to bring said advocate Mr.Manjunath before the Court for the reasons best known to him.
30. Further the accused has seriously disputed the loan transaction with the complainant. During cross-examination, PW.1 has specifically stated that through one Mr.Mayanna Gowda he met with accused and in his presence he has given Rs.2.5 lakhs to the accused and even to the promissory note alleged to be executed by the accused said Mr.Mayanan Gowda is one of the witnesses. Therefore, the complainant could have examined the said witness before the Court to establish the transaction in question. Even such endeavor is not forthcoming from the complainant side.
31. Further during cross-examination PW.1 could not tell the family details of the accused. He deposed that he has met the accused only twice, that too through Mr.Mayanna Gowda in his shop. He has admitted that he never visited the house of 17 C.C 4718/2024 the accused and even accused never came to his house. When such being the case, it is strange to believe that the complainant had lent such huge amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs without taking any security, such as loan agreement, for having lent such amount.
32. Although it is stated that the accused executed a promissory note, it is peculiarly contended that the pronote was returned to the accused upon receiving the cheque. Such a claim is not reliable and does not reflect the conduct expected of a prudent person.
33. Interestingly, the complainant has not claimed any interest on the alleged loan. In such circumstances, without any proper cause, the complainant's case that he would lend Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the accuse to whom he met only twice and without any documentary evidence of the loan transaction, appears somewhat suspicious.
34. Further, the accused has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant. The complainant has not produced any evidence to substantiate his source of income. Moreover, during cross-examination, PW-1 gave contradictory statements ie at one breath, he deposed that the accused himself had written the cheque, while on another, he stated 18 C.C 4718/2024 that the cheque was already filled in, and he merely signed it infront of him. On perusal of Ex.P1, it is evident that the handwriting used to fill in the details such as the name and amount differs from that used by the accused to affix his signature, which raises further suspicion regarding the veracity of the complainant's case. Since accused is disputing the issuance of cheque to the complainant, he cannot seek benefit of sec 20 of NI Act. Thus PW1 is bound to give proper explanation for such difference in handwriting at cheque. However no such plausible explanation is forthcoming from PW1.
35. Although the accused contends that he has not received the legal notice, the legal notice has been given as per Ex.P3 through RPAD and it has been served as per track consignment as per Ex.P5 to the accused. The accused has not seriously disputed his address shown in the legal notice. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that he has not produced postal acknowledgment or Certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian evidence Act in connection with Ex.P5 track consignment, the contention of the accused regarding non service of notice cannot be accepted.
19 C.C 4718/2024
36. Further the counsel for the accused has produced a copy of the complaint filed by the father of the accused through advocate Mr.Manjunath i.e. CC.25743/2018, at the time of arguments, as this document is not marked in evidence, same does not have any evidentiary value.
37. Therefore, upon scrutinizing the entire evidence this Court is of the view that the complainant has failed to give proper explanation regarding alteration of date in the disputed cheque and same is fatal to his case. He failed to prove the loan transaction with the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Percontra, by showing attending circumstances, the accused has probablize his defense and created dent over the prosecution case.
38. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 that a reverse onus clause usually imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden and when an accused has to rebut the presumption under sec 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "preponderance of probabilities". Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. In view of 20 C.C 4718/2024 the lack of proper pleadings and the absence of sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim, this Court is of firm view that the complainant has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. Accordingly court proceed to answer POINT NO.I IN THE NEGATIVE.
39. POINT NO.II:- In view of above said reasons the allegations levelled against the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass following ORDER In excise of power conferred U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C, accused is not found guilt of the offense punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accused is acquitted.
Bail bond executed by accused stands cancelled. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment pronounced in the open court on this the 9th day of January 2026).
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M ), XVI ACJM, Bengaluru 21 C.C 4718/2024 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1: Sri.Mohan.G 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.
Ex.P-3 : Legal notice.
Ex.P-4 : Postal Receipt.
Ex.P-5 : Track Consignment. Ex.P-6 : Complaint.
III. List of witnesses for the accused:
Nil
IV. List of documents for accused:
Nil
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M ),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
22 C.C 4718/2024
09.01.2026
(Judgment pronounced in the open Court
vide separate)
ORDER
In excise of power conferred U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C, accused is not found guilt of the offense punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accused is acquitted.
Bail bond executed by accused stands cancelled.
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru