Bangalore District Court
Tanindo Pvt Ltd vs Siddaling Fertilizers And Chemicals on 7 January, 2026
KABC020190692021
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY.
-:: PRESENT ::-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JANUARY 2026
XXIII ASCJ & XXI ACMM.
1. Sl. No. of the Case : CC No.6858/2021
2. The date of 16.07.2021
complaint of :
commission of
offence
3. Name of the M/s. Tanindo Seed Pvt.
Complainant : Ltd.,
No.41, Ravishankar
Residency,
Behind Sterling Apartment,
Sanjeevinagar,
Sahakarnagar,
Kodigehalli Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 092.
Rep. By its Zonal Manager
and authorized signatory,
Mr. Venkatesh Murthy.
(By Sri.D.Prabhakar,
Advocate.)
SCCH-255 2 CC No.6858/2021
4. Name of the Accused Siddaling Fertilizers and
: Chemicals
Shop No.8/1431/5,
Udanoor Complex,
Nehru Gunj,
Gulbarg - 585 104.
Karnataka.
Represented by its
Proprietor /Authorized
Signatory,
Mr.Sadashiva
S/o Channabasayya.
(By Sri.Manjunatha B.
Advocate.)
5. The offence : u/Sec.138 of Negotiable
complained of Instruments Act
6. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Accused is Acquitted.
:
8. Date of such order : 07.01.2026
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this complaint u/s.200 Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offense punishable u/s. 138 of N.I. Act.
2. The complainant's case in brief is as follows:
SCCH-255 3 CC No.6858/2021The complainant is a Company registered under the Companies Act. The Complainant company is manufacturer, importer and exporter of seeds. The complainant is duly represented by its zonal manager and authorized signatory. The accused is a proprietor concern and carrying on business in sale and purchase of fertilizer and seeds. Accused is one of the customers of the complainant and used to purchase seeds under credit invoices and the complainant has supplied the seeds as per orders placed by the accused. As per the Books of account of the complainant, the accused has fallen due in a sum of Rs.2,95,888/-. The accused issued a Cheque bearing No.023898 dated 30.12.2020 for a sum of Rs.2,95,888/- drawn on State Bank of India Ltd., Gulbarga, in favour of the complainant and assured him that the cheque would be honored when presented. But when the complainant presented the same before the Union Bank of India, Service Branch, ECB Sahakarnagar, Bangalore, the same was returned with endorsement "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT" dated 04.01.2021. The said fact was brought to the notice of the accused by sending demand notice through RPAD on 21.01.2021 and the said notice was duly served. The accused has issued untenable reply. In spite of repeated request and demands, the accused failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque. Hence this complaint.SCCH-255 4 CC No.6858/2021
3. Since it was a complaint filed u/s. 200 Cr.P.C., after taking cognizance, the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and process was issued against the accused. The accused appeared through his counsel and got enlarged on bail. The plea was recorded and the accused pleaded not guilty.
4. Thereafter the complainant got examined its Zonal Manager and authorized representative as PW.1 and got marked 5 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 5. Thereafter, the incriminating evidence was read over to him as required u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., and his answers were recorded. To disprove the case of the complainant, the accused has not led any evidence.
5. Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court.
The counsel for the Accused has relied upon the following decision:
1. 2008 (4) SCC 54: Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
SCCH-255 5 CC No.6858/20211. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.023898 dated 30.12.2020 for Rs.2,95,888/-, which was drawn on the State Bank of India Ltd., Gulbarga, in its favour towards the discharge of legal debt and the same has been returned unpaid for the reason "Insufficient Funds" on 04.01.2021 and even after service of legal notice, accused has not paid the debt covered under the said cheque within the statutory period and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
7. My findings to the above points are:
Point No.1: In the Negative;
Point No.2: As per final order
For the following:
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1: Section 139 of NI Act, encompasses the words 'shall presume'. The term 'unless and until it is disproved' appearing in definition of 'shall presume' makes it incumbent to 'disprove' the fact presumed. The term disproved is defined under Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as below:
"Disproved" -- A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes SCCH-255 6 CC No.6858/2021 that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist."
9. The test to be applied is to view the case from the vision of an ordinary prudent man. Thus, it is for the accused to disprove the case of complainant.
10. Accused explains the possession of cheque in the hands of complainant. It is undisputed fact that the accused has not led the evidence in support of their case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa v/s Mudibasappa1 has held that:
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Section 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in the following manner:
25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
1 (2019) 5 SCC 418 SCCH-255 7 CC No.6858/2021 25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence.
Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
25.4. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence. Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence."
SCCH-255 8 CC No.6858/202111. In the view of the above decision, non leading of the defense evidence is not fatal to the defense of the accused. The burden is on the complainant initially to prove that he has followed all the mandatory requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act. In this connection, the complaint averments reveal that the accused towards the payment for seeds purchased from the complainant, has issued cheque bearing No.023898 dated 30.12.2020 for a sum of Rs.2,95,888/- drawn on State Bank of India Ltd., Gulbarga. The same is reiterated in the affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of his chief examination. In support of the same, he has produced and marked original cheque as per Ex.P.l, the signature of the accused as Ex.P.1(a). Having perused the above said documents, the complainant has complied with the mandate of Section 138 of NI Act.
12. The accused has not disputed his signature on the cheque and cheque belongs to his company's account. But contention of the accused is the complainant has obtained the cheque for security purpose and no balance to pay.
13. Relevant portion of cross examination of the PW.1 is herewith reproduced for better appreciation of the case on hand. "ನಿ.ಪಿ.1ನ್ನು ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ? ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಡಿಸ್ಟ್ರಿಬ್ಯೂ ಟರ್ ಅವರು ನಮಗೆ ಭದ್ರತೆಯ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಯಿಂದ ಬ್ಲಾಂಕ್ ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ನಿ.ಪಿ.1ರಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಸಹಿ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬೇರೆಲ್ಲವೂ SCCH-255 9 CC No.6858/2021 ಬೇರೆಯವರ ಬರವಣಿಗೆಯಲ್ಲಿದೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾವು ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಆರ್ಡರನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದ ನಂತರವೇ ಸಾಲದ ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಬೀಜಗಳನ್ನು ಸರಬರಾಜು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದವು.
14. ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಕೆಲವೊಂದು ಬಾರಿ ನೆಫ್ಟ್ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ಮತ್ತು ನಗದು ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ಡಿಸ್ಟ್ರಿಬ್ಯೂ ಟರ್ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ರಸೀದಿಯನ್ನು ನೀಡಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದು ಅದು ಕಚೇರಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುತ್ತದೆ. 2019ರಂದು ಅರೋಪಿಯು ವ್ಯವಹಾರವನ್ನು ಕ್ಲೋಸ್ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯ ಕ್ಲೋಸ್ ಮಾಡಿದ ನಂತರ ನಮಗೆ ಹಣ ಪಾವತಿಯಾಗದ ಕಾರಣ ಕೇಸನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ನಿ.ಪಿ.1 ಆರೋಪಿ ನೀಡಿದ ಖಾಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ದಿನಾಂಕವನ್ನು ತಾವೇ ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತೀರಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ತಾವು ಎಷ್ಟು ಹಣ ಬಾಕಿ ಕೊಡಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಯಾವುದೇ ನೋಟಿಸ್ ಮತ್ತು ಹಿಂಬರಹ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ. ಮತ್ತು ಅದನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ಕನ್ಫರ್ಮೇಷನ್ ಆಫ್ ಅಕೌಂಟ್ಸ್ ಅನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದು ಸದರಿ ದ್ದಾ ಕಲೆಯು ನಕಲು ಪ್ರತಿಯಾಗಿರುವ ಕಾರಣ ನಿಷಾನೆಯಾಗಿ ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನೀ ಐ ಒಂದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಮೊತ್ತಕ್ಕೂ ಕೇಸಿನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನೋಟಿಸ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವ ಹಣ, ಚೆಕ್ ಹಣ ತಾಳ ಹೊಂದುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು 24 ಪತಿಶತ ಬಡ್ಡಿಯನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸಿ. ಕೇಸ್ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ಆರೋಪಿಯು ತಮ್ಮ ಬಳಿ ಬೀಜಗಳಿಗಾಗಿ ಕೋರಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಪೂರೈಸಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ. ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಕಚೇರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ದ್ದು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನು ತ್ತಾ ರೆ."
15. U/s.118 and 139 of N.I. Act the presumptions are available regarding consideration, as to the date and also the holder in due course about the cheque. When the complainant presents the cheque, it implies that it has been given to him by the accused for some purpose. Therefore, the presumption is raised in favour of the complainant.
16. In order to rebut the presumption, the accused has taken the following defences:
16A. The 1st contention taken by the accused is that, the Cheque was issued only as a security and therefore the SCCH-255 10 CC No.6858/2021 complaint is not maintainable. During the cross examination of Pw.1 he has admitted that one blank Cheque was taken by the distributor as per Ex.P.1, dated 30.12.2020. However, as per the say of the complainant, the accused became due of Rs.2,95,888/- only in the year 2020 and the complainant has misused the Cheque given as security and filled in the details. Since the cheque was given as security, the complaint u/Sec.138 of NI Act is not maintainable.
17. In this regard it is relevant refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in 2021 SCC Online 2 1174 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring the earlier decision of it in the case of M/s. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd., & Ors., Vs. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd., and held that in paragraph No.22 to 30 that, "22. A Later judgment of two Judge Bench in "Sampelly Satyanarayan Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd.,"
considered the decision in Indus Airways in Sampelly, the appellant was the Director of the Company which was engaged in renewable energy, the respondent agreed to advance a loan for setting up payment of installments of the loans would be given by way of security. The cheques quashing petitions filed before the High Court. The submission which was 2 Sunil Todi & Ors., Vs. State of Gujarath and Anr., SCCH-255 11 CC No.6858/2021 urged before this court was that dishonor of the post dated cheques given by way of security did not amount to legally enforceable debt or liability u/Sec.138 in presentia this court held, after adverting to the decision in Indua Airways thatif on the date of cheque, a liability or debt exists or the amount has become enforceable, Sec.138 would stand attracted and not otherwise. The decision in Indus Airways was distinguished in Sampelly (supra) on the ground that in that case, the cheque had not been issued for discharge of liability but as advance for purchase order which was cancelled. On the other hand in Sampelly the cheque was for repayment of a loan towards the repayment of the installments was described as security in the loan agreement, the true test was whether the cheque was in discharge of an existence enforceable debt or liability or it was towards an advance payment without there being subsisting debt or liability.
23. Besides the distinguishing features which were noticed in Sampelly,, there was another ground which weighed in the judgment of this Court. The Court adverted to the decision in HMT Watches v. MA Habida13 to hold that whether the cheques were given as security constitutes the defense of the accused and is a matter of trial. The extract from the SCCH-255 12 CC No.6858/2021 decision in HMT Watches, which is cited in the decision in Indus Airways is thus:
"10. Whether the cheques were given as security or not, or whether there was outstanding liability or not is a question of fact which could have been determined only by the trial court after recording evidence of the parties. In our opinion, the High Court should not have expressed its view on the disputed questions of fact in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to come to a conclusion that the offence is not made out. The High Court has erred in law in going into the factual aspects of the matter which were not admitted between the parties.
24. In a more recent judgment of a two judge Bench in Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand14, an order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing summons on a complaint under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 of the NI Act was challenged before the High Court. There was a transaction between the second respondent and the complainant pursuant to which the appellant had advanced sums of money. Several cheques were handed over but they were dishonored on presentation. The High Court allowed the petitions. An appeal was filed before this Court. Before this Court, the appellant urged SCCH-255 13 CC No.6858/2021 that a cheque issued towards discharge of the loan and presented for recovery could not be construed as a security for the transaction. In appeal, this Court noted that there were four loan agreements under which the second respondent agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 2 crores and six cheques were issued as security. The High Court had held that since under the loan agreement the cheques were given by way of security, the complaint could not be maintained. Justice AS Bopanna, speaking for the two judge bench, adverted to the earlier decision in Indus Airways and the distinguishing features which were noticed in the decision in Sampelly. The Court held that where in the case of a loan transaction, the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified time frame and issues a cheque as a security to secure the repayment and the loan is not repaid, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation. The Court observed:
"17. A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. 'Security' in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment. It is given, deposited or pledged to make certain the fulfilment of an obligation to which the parties to the transaction are SCCH-255 14 CC No.6858/2021 bound. If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified timeframe and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow."
25. Moreover, as the Court explained:
"18. When a cheque is issued and is treated as 'security' towards repayment of an amount with a time period being stipulated for repayment, all that it ensures is that such cheque which is issued as 'security' cannot be presented prior to the loan or the installment maturing for repayment towards which such cheque is issued as security. Further, the borrower would have the option of repaying the loan amount or such financial liability in any other form and in that manner if the amount of loan due and payable has been discharged within the agreed period, the cheque issued as security cannot thereafter be presented. Therefore, the prior discharge of the loan or there being an altered situation due to which there would be understanding between the parties is a sine qua non to not present the cheque which was SCCH-255 15 CC No.6858/2021 issued as security. These are only the defences that would be available to the drawer of the cheque in a proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, there cannot be a hard and fast rule that a cheque which is issued as security can never be presented by the drawee of the cheque. If such is the understanding a cheque would also be reduced to an 'on demand promissory note' and in all circumstances, it would only be a civil litigation to recover the amount, which is not the intention of the statute. When a cheque is issued even though as 'security' the consequence flowing therefrom is also known to the drawer of the cheque and in the circumstance stated above if the cheque is presented and dishonoured, the holder of the cheque/drawee would have the option of initiating the civil proceedings for recovery or the criminal proceedings for punishment in the fact situation, but in any event, it is not for the drawer of the cheque to dictate terms with regard to the nature of litigation."
28. In Sampelly, and Sripati Singh, post- dated cheques were issued as a security for loan installments that were due. On the dates on which the cheques were drawn, there was an outstanding debt. In the present case, the cheques were issued on 30 June 2016. The second respondent commenced the supply of electricity immediately from the next day that is from 1 July 2016. The facts of this case are in contrast with the facts in Indus Airways. In Indus Airways, since the purchase agreement SCCH-255 16 CC No.6858/2021 was cancelled, there was no outstanding liability incurred before the encashment of the cheque. The transaction between the parties did not go through as a result of the cancellation of the purchase orders.
29. The explanation to Section 138 of the NI Act provides that 'debt or any other liability' means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. The proviso to Section 138 stipulates that the cheque must be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within its period of validity. Therefore, a cheque given as a gift and not for the satisfaction of a debt or other liability, would not attract the penal consequences of the provision in the event of its being returned for insufficiency of funds. Aiyar's Judicial Dictionary defines debt as follows:"Debt is a pecuniary liability. A sum payable or recoverable by action in respect of money demand." Lindey L.J in Webb v.
Strention15 defined debt as "... a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in the future by reason of a present obligation, debitum in praesenti, solvendum in futuro." The definition was adopted by this Court in Keshoram Industries v. CWT16. Justice Mookerjee writing for a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Banchharam Majumdar v. Adyanath Bhattacharjee17 SCCH-255 17 CC No.6858/2021 adopted the definition provided by the Supreme Court of California in People v. Arguello18:
"Standing alone, the word 'debt' is as applicable to a sum of money which has been promised at a future day as to a sum now due and payable. If we wish to distinguish between the two, we say of the former that it is a debt owing, and of the latter that it is a debt due. In other words, debts are of two kinds : solvendum in praesenti and solvendum in future ... A sum of money which is certainly and in all events payable is a debt, without regard to the fact whether it be payable now or at a future time. A sum payable upon a contingency, however, is not a debt or does not become a debt until the contingency has happened."
30. Thus, the term debt also includes a sum of money promised to be paid on a future day by reason of a present obligation. A post-dated cheque issued after the debt has been incurred would be covered by the definition of 'debt'. However, if the sum payable depends on a contingent event, then it takes the color of a debt only after the contingency has occurred."
The evidence of the PW.1 has clearly depicts that the accused has issued a blank cheque at initial stage for security purpose only and not for any enforceable debt.
SCCH-255 18 CC No.6858/202117A. The 2nd contention taken by the accused is that, the blank cheque was filled in by the complainant without instructions of the accused. During the cross-examination of PW.1 he has admitted that except the signature of the accused, the rest of the thing were written by other person. He has stated that the amount was filled in by the accounts section. The complainant has not placed any material worth before the Court to hold that the accused has issued a cheque to clear the balance amount. Further more, the complainant has not made attempt to produce work order and supply of items as required by the accused and also actual due at the time of presenting the cheque in dispute. It is worth to note that the PW.1 himself admitted that they have presented the cheque by including accured interest @ 24% on the balance amount. The complainant has not produced any piece of document in respect to interest on their transaction. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumar Exports v/s Sharma Carpets3, in para No.11 held as under:
"The use of the phrase "until the contrary is proved" in Section 118 of the Act and use of the words "unless the contrary is proved" in Section 139 of the Act read with definitions of "may presume" and "shall presume" as given in 12 Section 4 of the Evidence Act, makes it at once clear that presumptions to be raised under both 3 (2009) 2 SCC 513 SCCH-255 19 CC No.6858/2021 the provisions are rebuttable. When a presumption is rebuttable, it only points out that the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence, on the fact presumed and when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed, the purpose of the presumption is over. The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him.
However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non- existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of SCCH-255 20 CC No.6858/2021 the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The accused has also an option to prove the non-existence of consideration and debt or liability either by letting in evidence or in some clear and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. Once such rebuttal evidence is SCCH-255 21 CC No.6858/2021 adduced and accepted by the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant and, thereafter, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act will not again come to the complainant's rescue." Emphasis added
18. Relying on case of Kumar Exports (supra), when the accused successfully rebuts the presumption, it is for the complainant to prove his case beyond reasonable doubts. Onus shifts back on complainant. Presumption is only a rule of evidence and is not conclusive. In the present set of facts, accused was able to demonstrate that there was no existing liability or legally enforceable debt for which he could have issued Ex.P1 cheque. That apart, accused has given a plausible explanation for possession of cheque in the hands of complainant. Complainant's version was less probable while the case of accused was more probable. Complainant has not established his case, beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negatively.
19. Point No.2 In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
SCCH-255 22 CC No.6858/2021ORDER Acting u/s 255 (1) of CrPC, 1973, I hereby acquit the Accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act, 1881.
Bail bond of the accused is canceled forthwith.
Accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/-, undertaking to appear before appellate or revisional court, as the case may be, as required under Section 437A of CrPC, 1973.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, then corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 7th day of January 2026) (RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXI Addl.C.M.M & XXIII ASCJ, Bangalore.
:ANNEXURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Sri. Venkatesh Murthy K.R. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:
-- NIL --SCCH-255 23 CC No.6858/2021
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque; Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Accused Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo Ex.P.3 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt Ex.P.5 : Postal acknowledgment
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:
-- NIL ---
Ex.I.1 : Ledger Account from 01.04.2020 to 04.01.2021 (RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXI Addl.C.M.M & XXIII ASCJ, Bangalore.Digitally signed by RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA RAGHAVENDRA Date: 2026.01.20 13:51:43 +0530