Bangalore District Court
Manappuram Finance Limited vs Raghu K G on 29 November, 2025
C.C.NO.15378/2024
KABC030259922024
Presented on : 13-05-2024
Registered on : 13-05-2024
Decided on : 29-11-2025
Duration : 1 years, 6 months, 16 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt.Nagamma.M.Ichchangi,
BA.,LL.B.,(Spl),
XXVIII A.C.J.M, Bengaluru City.
DATED; THIS THE 29th DAY OF NOVEMBER-2025
CC.No.15378/2024
COMPLAINANT : M/s.Manappuram Finance Ltd.,
Having its Head O/at: Manappuram
House, Valapad, Thrissur,
Kerala-680567 & Having Branch
O/at 6/5,1st Floor, Near Govt.
Hospital, Chamarajapet,
Bangalore-560018,
R/by its Authorized Signatory,
Mr.Sandesh Gowda.G.P.
Phone No.8095409565.
(By Sri.B.L.Tejas.,Adv.,)
V/s.
ACCUSED : Sri.Raghu.K.G
S/o Jayaramu Konanahalli,
Age: 26 Years, R/at: Near Ram
Mandira, Konanahalli,
Mandya, Karnataka-571403
Phone No.9742820755
C.C.NO.15378/2024
(By Sri.H.M.Umesh.,Adv.,)
Offence complained of : U/s.138 of N.I.Act
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 29.11.2025
:JUDGMENT:
The complainant company has complaint filed against the accused under section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 25 and 28 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act R/w section 138 & 141 of N.I.Act.
2. The case of the complainant's company in brief is as under:
It is the case of the complainant company that, the complainant is a public limited company engaged in the business of extending financial facility to its prospective customers under various finances schemes. In the course of its financial services, it has introduced digital personal loan for the benefit of its customers. Further under this facility, the accused had applied for digital personal loan and the same was sanctioned to the accused bearing loan No.72780 and had agreed to abide by the terms and conditions. As per the C.C.NO.15378/2024 terms and conditions of the said facility, the accused had agreed to pay the above said loan, together with interest by way of equated monthly installments, be besides other charges to the complainant. After availing the loan, the accused failed to honor the commitment and had became defaulter. The accused towards discharge of liability had issued NACH account No.72750100008387 for Rs.1,08,265/- drawn on Bank of Baroda. Further when the complainant executed the said auto debit instruction for encashment through its banker, but same was dishonored as 'Balance Insufficient" on 20.01.2024. Thereafter on 29.01.2024 the complainant got issued a demand notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the said amount. The said notice was return to the accused as "Unclaimed" on 12.02.2024. After issuance of the notice, the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the said amount. As such, the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act R/w Section 25(1) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court on 20.03.2024.
C.C.NO.15378/2024
3. After registration of the complaint, the cognizance of the offence cited therein was taken. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Since there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, an order was passed on 06.05.2024 to register the case in Register No.III and it was registered as criminal case.
4. Thereafter, summons was issued to the accused and he has appeared before the court through counsel and secured bail. He was furnished necessary papers as contemplated under section 208 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the plea of the accused was recorded by the court. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The complainant's company in support of its case has examined its Authorized Signatory as PW.1 and got marked 07 documents at Ex.P.1 to 07 and closed its side.
6. After closer of the evidence of the complainant, the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. He has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Inspite of sufficient opportunity the accused has not led defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence taken as nil.
C.C.NO.15378/2024
7. I have heard the arguments on complainant side and perused the material placed on record.
8. Upon hearing the arguments by complainant side and on perusal of the material placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the complainant proves the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability.?
2.Whether the complainant further proves that the accused had issued the Summary of NACH debit Mandate-Ex.P.1, towards the discharge of the said legally enforceable debt/liability.?
3.Whether the complainant further proves that Summary of NACH debit Mandate-Ex.P.1 was dishonored for the reasons "Balance Insufficient" in the account of the accused and thereafter the accused had failed to repay the same within the statutory period, inspite of receipt of legal notice.?
4.Whether the accused have thus committed an offence punishable under section 25 and 28 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act and section 138 of N.I.Act.?
5. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
C.C.NO.15378/2024 Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: In the Affirmative Point No.4: In the Affirmative Point No.5: As per final order, for the following:
:REASONS:
10. POINT NO.1 to 4: In order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence points No.1 to 4 are taken together for common discussion The complainant is a public limited company engaged in the business of extending financial facility to its prospective customers under various finances schemes. Further in the course of its financial services, it has introduced digital personal loan for the benefit of its customers. Further under this facility, the accused had applied for digital personal loan and the same was sanctioned to the accused and he had agreed to abide by the terms and conditions. Further as per the terms and conditions of the said facility, the accused had agreed to pay the above said loan, together with interest by way of equated monthly installments, other charges to the complainant. After availing the loan, the accused failed to honor the commitment and had became defaulter. Further towards discharge of liability had issued Summary of NACH debit mandate in favour of the C.C.NO.15378/2024 complainant. Further when the complainant executed the said auto debit instruction for encashment through its banker, but the same was dishonored as 'Balance Insufficient". Thereafter the complainant got issued demand notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the said said amount. Inspite of service of the notice, the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the said amount. As such, the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 25(a) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 R/w 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court.
11. In support of the case, the complainant has examined its Authorized Signatory as P.W.1 and the said PW.1 in his chief examination has reiterated the contents of complaint and got marked 07 documents at Ex.P.1 to 07. Ex.P.1 is the Summary of NACH Debit Mandate in question issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.1,08,265/-. Ex.P.2 is the bank memo dated: 20.04.2024 informing the dishonor of the Summary of NACH Debit Mandate as "Balance Insufficient". Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice dated: 29.01.2024. Ex.P.4 is the C.C.NO.15378/2024 postal receipt. Ex.P.5 is the Returned Postal Cover & Notice. Ex.P.6 is the Notarized copy of Minutes of meeting. Ex.P.7 is the complaint.
12. The counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused had approached the complainant to sanction loan for his urgent financial needs. The complainant had sanctions and disbursed the loan amount towards digital personal loan facility was due and payable by accused with respect to the same the accused had signed mandate for regular EMI through ECS/NACH transaction was presented for encashment ECS/NACH through its banker. But the said ECS/NACH was dishonored as "Balance Insufficient". He further argued that the accused has not denied Ex.P.1 being his Summary of Nach Debit Mandate drawn on his account. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the learned counsel for the accused has not cross examined the PW.1. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 25(2) of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.
13. In order to attract the offence punishable under section 25 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007, R/w. Sec.138 of N.I.Act, the complainant is firstly required to prove the C.C.NO.15378/2024 existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the Summary of NACH Debit Mandate came to be issued. The complainant has to prove all the requirements of section 25 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007, R/w. Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Ex.P.1 being his Summary of Nach Debit Mandate drawn on the account of the accused is not in dispute. The said NACH having been dishonored, when it was presented by the complainant before the bank for encashment is also not seriously disputed by the accused. Thereafter, the notice-Ex.P.3 being received by the accused further admitted. The accused has not taken up any contention that thereafter he had paid the amount within stipulated time of 15 days, after service of the notice the accused neither paid the amount nor replied to the notice to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before the court on 20.03.2024 within the period of one month from the date cause action. As such, the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 200 of Cr.P.C R/w Sec.25 & 28 of the Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 R/W Sec.138 and 141 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court.
C.C.NO.15378/2024
14. As per the section 25 & 28 of the Payment and Settlement System Act, there is a presumption regarding the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability. Such presumption is rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise defence discharging the existence of a legally enforceable debt/liability. In the case on hand the accused has disputed the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the Summary of Nach Debit Mandate-Ex.P.1 was issued. In the case on hand the defence of the accused is that for the accused has not availed any loan from complainant company and he has not issued any Summary of Nach Debit Mandate in favour of complainant company. The accused has contended that he has not issued Summary of Nach Debit Mandate amount in favour of complainant but not adduced oral or documentary evidence to rebut the presumptions U/s. 25 & 28 of the Payment and Settlement System Act. Though the counsel for accused cross examined the PW.1 at length but nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW.1 in their favour. Therefore, the contention of the accused cannot be acceptable that the accused has not issued Summary of Nach Debit Mandate in favour complainant without there being any cogent C.C.NO.15378/2024 evidence on accused side to probables his defence.
15. In the instant case though the accused has denied loan transaction and issuance of Summary of Nach Debit Mandate but not produced any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf to rebut the presumptions U/s.25 & 28 of the Payment and Settlement System Act. Hence, it is sufficient hold that the accused has issued the Summary of Nach Debit Mandate and the accused has not repaid the amount even after the receipt of notice. However, in any manner as the complainant has complied all the terms of ingredients of the provisions of 25 & 28 of the Payment and Settlement System Act. The accused is liable for dishonor of Summary of Nach Debit Mandate. In case of dishonor of Summary of Nach Debit Mandate, once the execution of Summary of Nach Debit Mandate is proved by the complainant, then it is for the accused to rebut presumption arising out of section 25 & 28 of the Payment and Settlement System Act. Accordingly, PW.1 has established the case of the complainant, the accused has issued the Summary of Nach Debit Mandate in order to repay the legally recoverable amount. Therefore, C.C.NO.15378/2024 the accused has failed to probables the defence taken by him. Therefore, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 25 & 28 of the Payment and Settlement System Act. Hence, the accused liable for dishonor of the Summary of Nach Debit Mandate. With these reasons, I answer point No.1 to 4 in the Affirmative.
16. POINT NO.5: The accused is held to have committed an offence punishable under section 25 & 28 of the Payment and Settlement System Act. The complainant has proved its case. The accused has failed to prove his rebuttal for the reasons mentioned above and in view of the mandatory requirements of section 25 & 28 of the Payment and Settlement System Act, being complied with. The accused is found to have committed an offence punishable under section 25 & 28 of the Payment and Settlement System Act. Since, the said offence is an economic crime, the accused is not entitled for the beneficial provisions of probation of offenders Act. In view of the above discussions and the findings on point No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDERS Acting under section 255(2) of C.C.NO.15378/2024 Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for an offence punishable under section 25 & 28 of the Payment and Settlement System Act R/w 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond of the accused hereby stands canceled.
The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,13,265/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five Only) to the complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the said fine amount an amount of Rs.1,08,265/- (Rupees One Lakh Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five Only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357(1)
(b) of Cr.P.C., and remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) shall be remitted to the State.
In default of the payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of 03 months.
The office is to furnish the free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment C.C.NO.15378/2024 pronounced in the open court on 29 th day of November 2025) (Smt.Nagamma.M.Ichchangi) XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Mr.Sandesh Gowda G.P S/o Puttaswamy B.J List of documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Summary of NACH debit mandate.
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement. Ex.P.3 : Office copy of legal notice. Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt. Ex.P.5 : Returned postal cover & notice. Ex.P.6 : Notarized Copy of Minutes of Meeting. Ex.P.7 : Complaint.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.15378/2024 29.11.2025 Accused absent. Counsel for accused absent. No EP filed. According to Section 353(6) of CrPC judgment can be pronounced in the absence of accused if the accused is sentenced with fine only. Since this C.C.NO.15378/2024 court is going to impose fine only.
Hence presence of accused is not necessary to pronounce the judgment.
Hence vide separate judgment pronounced in the open court.
(Judgment pronounced in the Open Court Vide Separate Sheet) :ORDER:
Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for an offence punishable under section 25 & 28 of the Payment and Settlement System Act R/w 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bond of the accused hereby stands canceled.
The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,13,265/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five Only) to the complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the said fine amount an amount of Rs.1,08,265/- (Rupees One Lakh Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five Only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357(1)
(b) of Cr.P.C., and remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) shall be remitted to the State.
C.C.NO.15378/2024 In default of the payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of 03 months. The office is to furnish the free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith.
XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.