Bangalore District Court
Classic Estate vs Ramadevi on 13 October, 2025
KABC030257942019
IN THE COURT OF XXXVI ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2025
Present: Sri.NITIN YESHWANTH RAO., B.Com.,LLB, (Spl)
XXXVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru.
C.C.No.8426/2019
Complainant Classic Estate
Rep. by its Proprietor;
Sri.A.Manjunatha,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of Arjunappa,
R/at at No.601, B-Block,
B.Amoda Valmark Apartment,
Kammanahalli, Gottigere Post,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru-560 083.
(By Sri.T.Srinivasa, Advocate)
V/s
Accused Smt.Ramadevi.S
W/o Praveen Babu,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.16, Sri.M.Vishweshwaraiah
Layout, D.C.Halli, Bannerughatta Road,
Near Raghavendra Temple,
Bengaluru-560 076.
Also at: Smt.Ramadevi.S,
No.47-A, 11th Main, Malleshwaram,
BENGALURU-560 017.
(By Sri.K.Akram Pasha., Advocate)
2
CC.No.8426/2019
Date of Institution of case 05.04.2019
Nature of case Private complaint
Date of recording of evidence 30.03.2019
Date of Judgment 13.10.2025
Offence complained of U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
Final order Acquitted
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 of Cr.P.C
This is a case arising out of the private complaint
filed by the complainant U/sec.200 Cr.P.C. against the
accused alleging the offence punishable U/sec.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Complaint averments in brief:
The accused who is well known to the complainant
since several years, sought for financial assistance.
Considering his request, complainant transferred a sum
of ₹25,00,000/- to the bank account of the accused
through RTGS on 28.12.2016. Complainant also paid a
sum of ₹30,00,000/- in cash to the accused in the month
of October, 2016. The accused who borrowed the said
amounts for purchasing land, promised to repay the same
within one and half year, but failed to keep up his words.
3. Pursuant to the repeated requests and demands by
the complainant, the accused finally issued a Cheque
bearing No.771223 dated:12.10.2018 for ₹30,00,000/-
drawn on Vijaya Bank, MSRS Nagar branch, Bengaluru
3
CC.No.8426/2019
and assured the complainant that it would be honoured on
presentation.
4. Believing his words, complainant presented the
Cheque for realisation through his banker i.e. the Canara
Bank, Hulimavu branch, Bengaluru, on 16.10.2018. The
cheque however, was dishonoured and returned with an
endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The complainant
immediately informed about the dishonour of the cheque to
the accused who requested him to represent the cheque in
the third week of November, 2018. Accordingly,
complainant represented the cheque to his banker on
27.11.2018 but the cheque was again dishonoured and
returned with endorsement 'funds insufficient". Thereafter,
complainant issued legal notice to the accused on
15.12.2018 calling upon him to pay the cheque amount
within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice.
The legal notice issued to both the address of the accused
through RPAD returned with endorsements 'no such
number comes in this address/returned to sender' and 'no
such number comes in this 11 th Main/returned to sender'.
As the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within
the stipulated period, complainant came up with this
private complaint.
5. After recording the Sworn statement of the
complainant and after verifying the documents, cognizance
was taken of the offence punishable under Sec.138 of
4
CC.No.8426/2019
N.I.Act. A criminal case was registered against the accused
and summons was issued to him. The accused on receiving
the summons, appeared before this Court through his
Counsel and was enlarged on bail. The complaint copy and
documents were served to accused as contemplated
U/sec.208 of Cr.P.C. Substance of accusation was read
over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted
for cross-examination of PW.1.
6. Sworn statement of the complainant is treated as
his examination in chief. In order to prove his case,
complainant got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked
12 documents as Ex.P.1 to 12. Complainant Sri. A.
Manjunath who is examined as PW.1, reiterated the
complaint averments in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief-
examination. The Vijaya Bank Cheque bearing No.771223
dated 12.10.2018 is marked as Ex.P.1 and the signature of
the accused on the same is marked as Ex.P.1(a); Bank
Memo is marked as Ex.P.2; the office copies of the legal
notice dated: 15.12.2018 are marked as Ex.P.3 and
Ex.P.5 and the two postal receipts are marked as Ex.P.4
and 6 respectively, the statement of account pertaining to
the Bank account of Classic Estate with the Canara Bank
is marked as Ex.P.7; the unserved RPAD covers are
marked as Ex.P.8 and 9 respectively. The certified copy of
the charge-sheet pertaining to Crime No.378/2016 of
Hulimavu P.S was confronted to the accused during the
5
CC.No.8426/2019
cross-examination and marked as Ex.P.10. The Statement
of Account pertaining to the Bank account of Classic
Estates with the Canara Bank is marked as Ex.P.11 and
the return memo is marked as Ex.P.12.
7. On completion of complainant evidence, 313
Statement of the accused was recorded wherein the
accused was given an opportunity to explain the
incriminating circumstances appearing against her in
complainant's evidence. The accused denied all allegations
leveled against her and in defence got herself examined as
DW.1 and got marked one documents as Ex.D.1.
8. Heard the arguments on both the sides.
9. The following points arise for my consideration :
Point No.1 Whether the complainant proves
that the accused committed the
offence punishable under Section
138 of N.I.Act?
Point No.2 What Order?
10. My findings on the above points are answered as
under:
Point No.1 In the Negative.
Point No.2 As per final order for the
following:
6
CC.No.8426/2019
REASONS
11. Point No.1: To establish his case, the
complainant got himself examined as PW.1 and got
marked twelve documents as Ex. P.1 to P.12.
12. A careful perusal of these documents would
reveal the compliance by the complainant of all the
essentials enshrined in Sec.138 of N.I. Act. He not
only produced the cheque within time for collection but
also issued legal notice to the accused when it was
dishonoured by the bank. When the accused failed to
pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period,
he filed this complaint. Therefore, complainant is
entitled to the presumption available U/sec.118(a) and
139 of the N.I. Act.
13. Legally recoverable debt is a sine qua-non to
attract the offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act 1881. The following ingredients must
be present:
1. There must be legally enforceable
debt.
2.The cheque was drawn from the
Bank account of the accused for
discharge in whole or in part of any
debt or other liability which
presupposes legally enforceable debt.
7
CC.No.8426/2019
3. The cheque so issued had been
returned due to insufficient funds or
any other reason.
14. In the case of Rangappa V/s Mohan
reported in 2010 (1) DCR 706 the Hon'ble Apex court
has held thus ;
"The Statutory presumption
mandated by sec.139 of the Act,
does indeed include the existence of
a legally enforceable debt or
liability. However, the presumption
U/S 139 of the Act is in the nature
of a rebuttable presumption and it
is open for the accused to raise a
defence wherein the existence of a
legally enforceable debt or liability
can be contested".
15. Therefore, in view of the above decision,
once the cheque is admitted, the statutory
presumption that the alleged cheque was issued for
discharge of an existing legally enforceable debt or
liability would automatically fall in favour of the
complainant and against the accused and the burden
would shift on to the accused to rebut the same.
16. Let me now consider whether the accused has
successfully rebutted the presumption available in favor of
the complainant with probable and convincing evidences. It
is well settled principle of law that, once the cheque is
admitted there will be a statutory presumption in favor of
8
CC.No.8426/2019
the holder or holder in due course U/sec.118 and 139 of
the Act. However, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
our own Hon'ble High Court in a catena of decisions,
presumption under the said sections are in the nature of
rebuttable presumptions and as such, the accused can
very well rebut the same by leading reasonable and
probable defense. Let me examine, the same on the basis of
the materials available on record.
17. In her defence, the accused got herself examined as
Dw.1 and got marked one document as Ex.D.1. The
accused Smt.Ramadevi who is examined as Dw.1, stated in
her chief-examination that no financial transaction ever
took place between her and the complainant and that she
saw the complainant for the very first time in the Court.
One Mr. Srinivas who is well known, approached her for
getting a favourable order from the AC office. The accused
asked the said Mr. Srinivas to meet Ramesh Babu who
works in the Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru. The said
Mr.Ramesh Babu demanded 40 lakhs to get an order from
the A.C. office. On 20.08.2016, Mr. Srinivas transferred a
sum of ₹25,00,000/- from the Classic Estate Bank Account
to the Bank account of the accused. This accused then
transferred a sum of ₹15,00,000/- to the bank account of
Ramesh Babu on 06.01.2017 and paid the balance amount
in cash as there was demonetization of currency by the
Government and the transaction between the accused and
Mr.Srinivas thereby concluded. In the month of July, 2018
9
CC.No.8426/2019
the Hulimavu Police who called the accused for enquiry in
respect of the case bearing C.C. No.13459/2024 forcibly
obtained her signature on the cheque and handed it over to
Srinivas who was also present in the Police station. The
said cheque was then misused by this complainant to file
this false case. The Bank Pass book pertaining to the bank
account of the accused with the Vijaya Bank is marked as
Ex.D.1.
18. As noted supra, it is the main defence of the
accused that she did not borrow any money from the
complainant and that the ₹25,00,000/- transferred to her
account by the complainant's brother Mr.Srinivas was
meant to be paid to Mr.Ramesh Babu who had assured a
favourable order from the Asst. Commissioner Office in a
land related case. It is the say of the accused that she paid
a sum of ₹15,00,000/- to Mr.Ramesh Babu through RTGS
and the balance amount of ₹10,00,000/- by way of cash
as the Govt demonetized currency. To give credence to her
contentions, the accused relied upon her Bank Pass book
marked at Ex.D.1. On perusal of the said Ex.D.1, it is
noticed that the accused indeed transferred a sum of
₹15,00,000/- to Mr.Ramesh Babu by way of RTGS on
06.01.2017.
19. To rebut the presumption U/Sec.139 of N.I. Act,
accused thoroughly cross-examined the complainant. The
line of questioning clearly demonstrates the intent to probe
the complainant's alleged lending of ₹30,00,000/- in cash
10
CC.No.8426/2019
to the accused. When grilled about the source of the
alleged advanced amount, complainant came up with an
all together new story that he himself arranged
₹5,00,000/-, borrowed a sum of ₹10,00,000/- each from
his friends Chandru and Prakash and a sum of
₹5,00,000/- from his other friend Raghu and advanced a
total sum of ₹30,00,000/- in cash to the accused. However,
the complainant neither produced any document that
support his assertions nor did he examine any of his
friends who according to him helped him advance a sum of
₹30,00,000/- to the accused.
20. When questioned whether the alleged loan
transaction of ₹30,00,000/- was reflected in the income tax
returns for the relevant period, the complainant feigned
ignorance and submitted that his auditor is aware of the
same. Nevertheless, complainant failed to produce his
income tax returns for the relevant period. Also, the
complainant was not forthcoming about the balance
amount. It is needless to state here that the accused
issued the cheque for ₹30,00,000/-only, but the actual
loan availed by him as per the complainant's case is
₹55,00,000/-. It is hard to swallow that the complainant
did not whisper anything about the ₹25,00,000/- loan and
whether it was repaid by the accused.
21. The other striking aspect in the instant case is
that the complainant did not secure any document from
the accused for the security of the alleged advanced
11
CC.No.8426/2019
amount. It is very much unlikely that a person would
advance a substantial sum of ₹30,00,000/- in cash to
someone whom he hardly knows and without obtaining
any security. Therefore, this Court is disinclined to buy the
complainant's story that he advanced a sum of
₹30,00,000/- in cash to the accused. It is very much
apposite at this juncture to take note of the following
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
1. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Crl. Appeal No.3257/2024
between Dattreya V/s Sharanappa.
2. The decision reported in AIR 2019 SC
1983 between Basalingappa V/s
Mudibasappa and
3. The decision reported in (2015) 1 SCC
99 between Subramani V/s K.Damodar
Naidu.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe
thus in the afore-cited authorities:- Section 138, 139 and
118 of N.I. Act- Legally recoverable debt - burden lies on
the complainant to prove the source of income. His failure
to prove financial capacity to advance substantial amount-
Accused entitled to acquittal. Reverting to the case on
hand, in this case too, the complainant failed to prove the
source of the alleged advanced amount as he neither
produced any document nor did he examine any witness to
show that he was financially sound enough so as to lend a
substantial amount of ₹30,00,000/- to the accused.
12
CC.No.8426/2019
22. It is true that the learned counsel for the accused
managed to secure some admissions from the accused
pertaining to the case registered against her but the said
admissions would not prove the complainant's case herein.
Therefore, considering all the aforementioned
circumstances, this court has come to the conclusion that
the complainant miserably failed to establish the existence
of legally enforceable debt beyond reasonable doubt
whereas, the accused managed to rebut the presumption
through the cross-examination of PW.1 and also by way of
her own evidence. The contention of the accused that the
cheque in question was forcibly obtained from her by the
Police and misused by the complainant herein seems to be
more probable as the complainant failed to prove his case
beyond all reasonable doubt. In consequence, Point No.1
is answered in the negative.
23. Point No.2: For the afore-going reasons, I
proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
Accused is not found guilty of the offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.
Exercising powers U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C.,the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/sec.138of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.
13CC.No.8426/2019 Bail bond of the accused shall continue until the expiry of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and typed by him, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of October, 2025) (NITIN YESHWANTH RAO) XXXVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witness examined for the complainant:
PW.1 Sri.A.Manjunath List of documents marked for the complainant:
Ex.P.1 Vijaya Bank Cheque bearing No.771223 dated 12.10.2018 Ex.P.1 (a) Signature of the accused Ex.P.2 SBI bank Cheque bearing No.100251 dated 26.07.2021 Ex.P.3 and 5 Office copies of the legal notice dated:
15.12.2018 Ex.P.4 and 6 Postal receipts Ex.P.7 Statements of account pertaining to the Bank account of Classic Estate with the Canara Bank Ex.P.8 and 9 Un-served RPAD covers Ex.P.10 Certified copy of the chargesheet pertaining to Crime No.378/2016 of Hulimavu P.S Ex.P.11 Statement of Account pertaining to the Bank 14 CC.No.8426/2019 account of Classic Estates with the Canara Bank Ex.P.12 Return memo List of witness examined for the defence:
DW.1 Ramadevi List of documents marked for the defence:
Ex.D.1 Bank Pass book XXXVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru.