Bangalore District Court
Nutri Feeds And Farms Pvt Ltd vs Syed Abdul Aleem on 4 March, 2026
(SCCH-3) 1 CC No.2655/2023
KABC020345122023
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 04th DAY OF MARCH 2026
PRESENT: Sri.B.S.HONNASWAMY (B.A., LL.M)
VII Addl. SCJ and ACJM,
Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru.
CC.No.2655/2023
Complainant : M/s Nutri Feeds and Farms Pvt. Ltd.,
A Company incorporated under
provisions of the companies act,1956 and
having its registered Office 904,
9th Floor, Brigade Rubix,
H.M.T. Factory Main Road,
Bangalore.
(By Sri.R.K, Advocate)
V/s
(SCCH-3) 2 CC No.2655/2023
Accused : Sri.Syed Abdul Aleem,
S/o Syed Abdul Khader
Aged about 35 years,
No.9/1, Ground Floor, 9th Cross,
Chinnappa Garden,
Bangalore North.
(By Sri.HCR, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
1. The complainant has filed a private complaint U/Sec 200 of Cr.P.C. against the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 138 of N.I.Act.
2. As per the orders of Hon'ble chief judge small causes Bangalore in No.ADMI/08/24 dt:5.06.2024. This case is transferred to this court.
3. The brief facts of the case of complainant is It is submitted that the complaint was established in the year 1994 and is engaged in the poultry and poultry feed business. It has established itself as a leading player in (SCCH-3) 3 CC No.2655/2023 the market. For such goods. The complaint is represented in these proceedings by its director and authorized representative Mr. who has been authorized by the Board. Resolution dated 03.02.2023. complainant was established in the year 1994and is engaged in the poultry and poultry feed business. It has established itself as a leading player in the market for such goods. The complainant is represented in these proceedings by its director and authorised representative MR.Venkataraman G. Hegde, who has been authorised vide Board resolution dated 03-0202023. In 2021, the accused had contacted the complainant and sought supply of live broiler chickens. The company agreed to provide to the accused the live broiler chickens'.
4. In the year 2021, the accused had contacted the complainant and sought supply of live broiler chickens. The company agreed to provide to the accused the live broiler chickens at a mutually agreed price. It was also (SCCH-3) 4 CC No.2655/2023 agreed that payments for such chickens would be made not later than one week from the date of supply.
5. The supply of live broiler chickens to the accused began in the month of May 2021 and continued till November 2022. Over the course of their commercial relationship, the complainant began to notice that the accused would repeatedly breach his payment obligations, and that accused has become habituated in delaying payments to the complainant. The perusal of the ledger account statement of the company dated 01.04.2022 till 30.01.2023 will disclose the aforesaid, and consistently delayed nature of the accused's payments to the complainant.
6. Such being the case, the complainant was constrained to issue several reminders to the accused through telephone requesting him to complete pending payments. The accused has reasoned to become more brazen in his conduct towards the company and it is his (SCCH-3) 5 CC No.2655/2023 deliberate and willful non-compliance with payment obligations to the company that has given rise to the present complaint.
7. It is submitted that between March and November 2022, the complainant and accused have entered into 46 transactions for sale of broiler bird live poultry with respect to the invoices issued. Accused in the respect of said 46 transactions, the accused has only partially cleared one invoice dated 27.03.2022 to an extent of ₹ 1,69,980. The remaining 45 invoices have not been cleared at all. As of 01.01.2021, the aggregate sum owed to the complainant by the accused towards purchase of broiler bird was ₹ 35,93,617. Only. The invoices issued by the complainant to the accused between 27.03.2022 and 05.11.2022.
8.Despite repeated reminders and entries to the accused by the complainant, he refused to clear the above- mentioned payments, citing one or the other reasons.
(SCCH-3) 6 CC No.2655/2023 Finally on 10.01.2023, the accused provided the
complainant a cheque bearing number 000005 drawn on Kottak Mahendra Bank, Nandi Durga Road Branch in favour of the company for a sum of ₹ 35,93,617. Being the legally enforceable debt owed by the accused to the complainant in respect of purchase of live broiler chickens. At the time of providing the aforementioned cheque, informed and assured the complainant that his bank account had sufficient sums to honour the said cheque and that the said cheque would be honoured upon presentation.
9.In order to realise its legally enforceable and outstanding dues, the complainant presented the cheque bearing number. 000005, dated 10.01.2023 to its banker HDFC Bank, Richmond Road Branch. However, two days later to the complainant's shock and surprise the cheque was returned by complainant's banker with memo endorsement titled Funds Insufficient dated 12.01.2023.
(SCCH-3) 7 CC No.2655/2023
10.Thereafter, the complainant was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 18.01.2023 in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, making a demand for payment of ₹ 35,93,617 to the accused. The complainant sent the aforementioned notice to the accused's address as per his Aadhar card via registered post, the receipt of the same was acknowledged by the accused.
11.After issuance of the above legal notice to the accused, he made a payment of ₹ 50,000 on 30.01.2023. vide IMPS transfer to the complainant's account as against much larger liability. As on date, the sum due to the complainant from the accused is ₹ 35,43,617.
12.Despite being aware of the extent of his dues, the accused has only made a meager payment of ₹ 50,000 towards the demand in the notice of ₹ 35,93,617. It is stated that despite issuance of the legal notice dated 18.01.2023, the accused is set to clear the outstanding (SCCH-3) 8 CC No.2655/2023 payments owed to the complainant giving rise to the cause of action for the present complaint.
13.The deliberate and intentional act of the accused is issuing the said cheque and his deliberate refusal to discharge his liability towards the complainant has caused wrongful loss to the complainant and has caused wrongful gain to the accused. Wherefore the complainant prays to take cognizance of the offence committed by the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and try the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 Act and impose punishment upon the accused as provided therein and direct the accused to pay the complainant a compensation to an extent of ₹ 10,00,000 or such sum as the Hon'ble Court may deem it fit to. Cover the entire cost incurred in connection with the above complaint.
(SCCH-3) 9 CC No.2655/2023
14.The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After filing of the complaint, the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and the prime officer found that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, criminal case was registered and summons was issued to the accused.
15.In response to the summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and accused was released on bail. The court had complied with the provision of section 207 Cr.p.c. there after plea was recorded, the substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused accused was denied the accusation levelled against him further, the statement of substance was read over and (SCCH-3) 10 CC No.2655/2023 explained to the accused in Kannada language. Accused pleaded not guilt and claims to be tried.
16. In order to prove the case the complainant got examined as PW1 and got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P103 and closed its side. The statement of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. Accused has denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of complainant and submitted that he has defence evidence. The accused further as per the submission of the counsel for the accused The accused's evidence was recorded.
17.The Hon'ble Apex Court of India and Indian Bank Association v. Union of India AIR 2014 SC 2528 reported, held that sworn statement of the complainant has to be treated as examination-in-chief. In the incident case the complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked the (SCCH-3) 11 CC No.2655/2023 documents as Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P103. PW1 was subject to the process of cross-examination from the side of accused. No documents were marked.
18.Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the materials available on record.
19.The points that arise for consideration of this Court are, as hereunder;
1. Whether the complainant has proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act?
2. What order?
20. After careful observations of evidences and after hearing both sides my findings to the above points are as follows;
Point 1;.In the affirmative.
(SCCH-3) 12 CC No.2655/2023 Point2.;As per final order, for the following REASONS
21.POINT No.1;-In order to prove the case, the complainant examined himself as PW1 by filing affidavit in support of his oral examination in chief. In the affidavit PW1 has reiterated the complaint averments in verbatim. This Court need not recapitulate the same once again at this juncture. It is the case of the complainant that the accused deliberately issued the cheque by not maintaining sufficient funds in his account and cheated the complainant for the clearance of the due amount raised with them. So when the said cheque was presented it was dishonoured and hence the accused an offence punishable under section 138 Of N.I.Act. In support of his oral testimony PW1 has marked documents at Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P-101 documents.
(SCCH-3) 13 CC No.2655/2023
22. PW1 in his cross examination the complainant has not issued the legal notice to the accused is denied. He denied that if the accused received the notice he could have reply .Pw1 admitted that there is no signature of the directors he admitted that the company has passed the board of resolution. He admitted that no signature of the accused was obtained in invoices. But there is no denial from the accused that accused has not issued Ex.P2 and the signature of the accused is not found in Ex.P2a. But as per the postal receipt and acknowledgement and postal track consignment it shows notice is received by the accused. The PW1 had denied all other suggestion of the accused counsel.
23. In the instant case it is the allegation of the complainant that the accused had taken live broiler chicken even opening balance is very clear Pw1 denied that the accused had paid excess amount. Later not paid (SCCH-3) 14 CC No.2655/2023 the amount but accused issued cheque for a sum of Rs35,93,617/-
24. Further it is the allegation of the complainant towards discharge of due amount the accused had issued the cheque got marked Ex.P2 for a sum of RS.35,93,617/-. The legal debt means a debt which can be legally claimed. In the instant case the complainant had filed this complaint for the due by the accused.
25. Further Pw1 got marked copy of legal notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgement and postal track consignment. Further is is disputed that the complainant have issued legal notice to the accused demanding repayment of due amount which was served upon the accused. But the accused taken contention he has not received the notice. AS per settled principles of law if a notice is sent to the correct or last known address of the of the accused then it is returned also it is deemed as proper service of notice. The said notice is duly served.
(SCCH-3) 15 CC No.2655/2023 Hence as per the general clauses act the notice which was sent by the complainant was deemed to be served upon the accused.
26. Ex.P9 to 54 are the invoices so as per these documents it is true that as on the date of filing this complaint the accused was due for a sum of Rs35,93,617/-including principal and interest thereon.
27. ExP1 is the registration certificate of the company. In favour of PW1 to give evidence on their behalf. The accused had denied the very execution of Ex.P1.
28. But on perusal of the complaint and Ex.P1 it can be gathered that the complaint was filed by the PW1 and even in complaint there is no irregularity or illegality as stated by the accused. Ex.P1 even though executed but it in existence as n the date of giving evidence.
(SCCH-3) 16 CC No.2655/2023
29. So on perusal of these documents it is clear that the complaint is doing live broiler chicken business. And they have lend the live broiler chicken to the accused.
30. The accused by way of rebuttal got examined himself as DW1 and stated that for the purpose of live broiler chicken he had approached the complainant. Company. He had issued the cheque and admitted the signature Ex.P2a but he stated that only for security purpose he issued the cheque. Further he stated that he had paid excess amount to the complainant but he admitted that it is adjusted for earlier transaction but accused has not issued any notice to the complaint to return the cheque since he has paid excess amount. And not filed any other details. But he stated that there is difference amount in bank statement. The complainant have not informed the accused before cheque was presented that the legal notice was not served upon the accused as per accused contention.
(SCCH-3) 17 CC No.2655/2023
31.Now itself, it is appropriate to see the documents marked at Exhibit P-series Exhibit P1 is the board resolution. Exhibit P2 is the cheque. The accused has put his signature as Exhibit P2A. Exhibit P2 is the signature of the accused. Exhibit P3 is the bank endorsement. Exhibit P4 is the office copy of the legal notice. Exhibit P5 is the postal receipt. Exhibit P6 is the postal endorsement. Ex.P7 postal track consignment. ExP7A certificate under Section 165B of the Indian Evidence Act. EXP8 ledger account. P9 to P54 are the invoices. P55 to P100 are delivery challans. Exhibit P101 is the bank challan.
32.Before going to discuss the main aspect, it is worth to reproduce the provisions of Section 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the same as hereunder; 138 of NI Act dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account;
(SCCH-3) 18 CC No.2655/2023 Where any cheque drawn by a person on account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an unpaid Agreement made with that bank, such persons will be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provenance of the said, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both;
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless.
(SCCH-3) 19 CC No.2655/2023 a. The cheque has been presented to the bank within a. Period of 6 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the. Of its validity whichever is earlier; within bracket this. Of 6 months has been reduced to 3 months, vide RBI notification number RBI. /2011-12/251,DBOD, AMLBCN0.47/14.01.001/2011-12,dated 14-01-2011. b. The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and c. The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. Now this court has to see whether the complainant has complied (SCCH-3) 20 CC No.2655/2023 ingredients of Section 138A to C of Negotiable Instruments Act or not?
In this connection Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P2A Explanation for the purpose of this section, common debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
139. Presumption in favour of holder; It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received a cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or over in part, of any debt or over other liability.
33.The learned counsel for the complainant has relied on the documents.
34.The learned counsel for the accused has relied on the following rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 1.2019 (5) supreme court cases418.Basalingappa v/s Mudibasappa.
(SCCH-3) 21 CC No.2655/2023 A.Debt, financial and monetary laws-Negotiable
Instruments Act1818. Section 118,138 1nd 139- Drawing of presumptions can be rebutted-standard of proof-While prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt,accused to prove a defend must meet standard of preponderance of probabilities-principles summarised. 2.2006 (6) SCC 39M. S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State of Kerala and Anr AIR 2006 SC 3366 and others. A. Negotiable instrument act1881-sec 1189a) and section 138 and 139-Presumption under,that negotiable instrument act was drawn for consideration-held, court has to presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless the evidence of consideration is disproved- that is unless on consideration does not exists or considers the non-existence of the consideration (SCCH-3) 22 CC No.2655/2023 so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case to act upon the supposition that the consideration does not exist meaning word s proved and disproved. As defined under the evidence act.
3.2013 (3)SCC 86. Vijay v. Laxman and othersA others AIR 2003 SC 3331 and others. A.Debt, financial and monetary laws-Negotiable instruments act,1881-sections 139 118aand 138 -dishonoured cheque-Presumptions in favour of holder of cheque as to consideration having been paid by holder and cheque having been rece9ved for discharge of debt owed to holder-scope and rebutability of presumptions
35.I have carefully gone through the rulings read by the counsel for the complainant and accused and applied the principles to the case on hand.
(SCCH-3) 23 CC No.2655/2023
36.At this juncture, it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2010 SC 1898 between Rangappa versus Mohan, wherein their Lordship have observed that Parade 26 has hereunder "No doubt that there is a initial presumption which favours the complainant".
37.on perusal of Exp1.Extract of the resolution passed by the board directors of the company. Meeting held on 03.02.2023. which is issued by the Nutri feeds. .
38.Exhibit P2 is the cheque issued by the accused dated 10.01.2023 for a sum of ₹ 35,93,617. cheque bearing number 00005. Exhibit P2A is the signature of the accused, which is admitted. Ex.3.Is the postal receipt. Exhibit P6 is the postal appointment. Ex.P3 is the bank endorsement of Kottak Mahindra Bank, which shows that funds insufficient the cheque has been dishonoured. Dated:12.01.2023. Ex.P4 is the legal notice issued by the complainant company in favour of the accused. Ex.P5 Is (SCCH-3) 24 CC No.2655/2023 the postal receipt. Exhibit P6 is the postal acknowledgment. Exhibit P7 is the postal track consignment. To show that the legal notice was served upon the accused. Exhibit P7A is the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Exhibit P8 is the voucher from 01.04.2022 till 01.02.2023 of HDFC Bank. Account opening balance dated 01.04.2022 is 42,81,630.And closing balance in last page ₹ 35,43,617 and opening balance is ₹ 42,81,630. Exhibit P9 to Exhibit P54 are the invoices to show that the accused has purchased the poultry farm of broiler chickens from the complainant company. Ex.P55 to 100 are the delivery chalans. Exhibit P101 is the bank chalan.
39.A scrupulous perusal of Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2 coupled with Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P4, it appears to this Court that the complainant has presented the cheque in question for encashment within the stipulated. Further, the said cheques got bounced on 2.01.2023. Therefore, it (SCCH-3) 25 CC No.2655/2023 is crystal clear that the complainant has presented his cheques in question for encashment within the stipulated.
40.Even in complaint there is no irregularity or illegality as stated by the accused. The Ex.P1 even though executed but it is existence as on the date of giving evidence.
41.Now, the next question before this court is whether the complainant has issued the notice in accordance with law or not? In order to answer this aspect, it is appropriate to take Exhibit P4 legal notice dated18.01.2023. Exhibit P5 is the postal receipt. Exhibit P6 is the attachment. Exhibit P7 is the track consignment.
42..Learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that before filing this complaint the complainant has not issued the legal notice to the accused and the Board of Director Resolution copy not produced all the director's (SCCH-3) 26 CC No.2655/2023 signature not found in the complaint. The said flaw cannot be cured and the complainant filed by the complainant without issuing notice to the accused is fatal and liable to be dismissed. He also Pointed out that, without issuing notice to managing director, complaint cannot be filed.
43.Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant admits that accused has admitted the complainant case and he has admitted his signature and he has also admitted the invoice. He has received the legal notice as per Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P6. Further argued that the complainant bonafidely believed that, accused has issued cheque and the said cheque was dishonoured for insufficient of funds. Hence at the first instance he has arrived as the accused. He also argued that, the accused affixed his signature on Exhibit P2 cheque. After searching this internet, the complainant came to know that Accused has issued a cheque for legally liability (SCCH-3) 27 CC No.2655/2023 debt. He also pointed out that, the complainant has sent the notice to the accused which is served. The accused accepted his liability while chatting with the complainant. He also pointed out that he has issued the legal notice to the accused. The accused duly represented by his counsel and received the legal notice. Moreover, the order of Complaining has not been challenged till today. Police have therefore come and said the order attains finality. Now the accused cannot escape by assigning technical default.
44.The accused by way of rebuttal got examined himself as DW1 and stated that for the purchase of live broiler chicken he had issued a cheque for security purpose. At the time of sanction of live broiler chicken the complainant had demanded issuance of bank cheque hence he had issued mEx.P2 by only signing to it and filled any other details. But With this backdrop, this Court has to analys the case on hand with respect to the (SCCH-3) 28 CC No.2655/2023 issuance of notice. First up admittedly, the complainant has issued the legal notice on 18.01.2023 to accused. As per Exhibit P7, it is interesting to note that the cause title of the notice revealed that accused is residing in the same address. However, the case of the accused is that the complainant has not issued the notice to him.
45.Now the important question before this court is whether the complainant has issued the legal notice to accused or in this connection, it is ideal to take Exhibit P7 for discussion. Exhibit P7 is the legal notice sent through registered post-acknowledgement due which is duly served and Exhibit P7 track consignment is also produced before this court. Further, the contents of the said document reveals that the legal note is sent through registered post. In other words, the complainant has sent the notice to the accused. In instant case it is not the defence of the accused that he is not residing in the above address. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the (SCCH-3) 29 CC No.2655/2023 complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused which is duly served. Hence, the contention of the accused regarding complainant has not issued the legal notice to him cannot be accepted and holds no water. Apart from that, the notice issued by the complainant was duly served on accused. It is relevant to note that the accused, after receiving the said notice, not paid any amount nor replied the same. With these discussions, this Court has come to the conclusion that, the complainant has issued the legal notice in accordance with law.
46.Now, the next question before this court is whether the legal notice issued by the complainant was served on the accused or not. In this condition, it is appropriate to take. Exhibit P5 is the postal receipt. Exhibit P6 is the postal appointment. Exhibit P7 is the postal track consignment. It appears to this court that, the notice has been duly served on the accused. Further, notice sent to (SCCH-3) 30 CC No.2655/2023 the accused was duly served. It is relevant to note that during the course of cross-examination of PW1 Exhibit P, 5 and 6 was not challenged. In other words, Exhibit P5 to 7 is remained as unchallenged. Further, there was no suggestion regarding the notice was not duly served. Exhibit P5 and P6 pertaining to the accused therefore, it is crystal clear that the complainant has issued the legal notice not only to the accused's address but Accused where is residing in Chinnappa garden, Bangalore. The same has been duly served on the accused. Therefore with great respect to the decision laid by the learned counsel for the accused will not come to a said and the said decisions are rendered in a factually distinguishable case.
47.Now, the next aspect is whether Exhibit P2. are pertaining to the bank account of accused and Exhibit P2 (SCCH-3) 31 CC No.2655/2023 is the signature of the accused or not. It is relevant to note that, after service of notice, the accused filed vakalath on behalf of the accused under the capacity of . Further, after careful perusal comparison of the vakalath filed by the accused in his individual capacity also filed vakalath under the Through his advocate, it appears to this Court that, both signatures are one and the same. Let this Court put it another way, accused has affixed his signature in his individual capacity as well as The signature found in Exhibit P2 cheque tallies. Apart from that, it is not the case of the accused that Exhibit P2 are not pertaining to the accused and the signature found in Exhibit P2 does not belong to him. Apart from that, as per Section 118 and Section 139, presumption favours the complainant. With the help of discussion referred to above, the complainant has complied the ingredients of Section 138A to C of Negotiable Instruments Act.
(SCCH-3) 32 CC No.2655/2023
48.Now, the next question before this court is whether the accused has diverted the presumption or not. Before going to the discussion of the said aspect, it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court between P. H. Paul Manoj Pandian v. P. Veldurai AIR 2011 SC 1660 reported in 2001 ( 6) SCC 16 where in the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that under Section 138 of Agricultural Instruments Act, the complainant is not required to establish either illegality or enforceability of the debt or liability since he can avail the benefit of presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of NI Act in his favour.
49.It is also a settled position of law. The presumption available under Section 138 of NI Act is a rebuttable presumption. Further, to rebut the said presumption the accused did not enter into the witness box. The accused can establish His probable defence by creating a doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
(SCCH-3) 33 CC No.2655/2023 The accused had not produced any documents to show that he had made full repayment of the loan amount. Hence in absence of any supportive documents it is difficult to believe that the accused is not due to the complainant.
50.Further, it is also contented that the Ex.P2 was not issued towards any recoverable debt but it was obtained at the time of granting live broiler chickens. It is true that there is mention of obtaining blank cheque is on the accused to prove that the Ex.P2 was issued at the time of obtaining live broiler chicken. Even there are no documents and evidences to show that the complainant had obtained Ex.P2 at the time of sanction live broiler chicken.
51. That if the accused had issued the cheque at the time of obtaining the chicken then he was not prevented to file complaint to the police when case is filed even after alleged payment of excess amount. The accused had kept (SCCH-3) 34 CC No.2655/2023 silent without taking any action. So the conduct of remaining silent by the accused shows that the had issued the cheque to the complainant knowingly towards the existence of legal debt.
52. It is pertinent to note that the accused had not denied his signature found on cheque. In the instant case the accused had not proved that he head not issued Ex.P2 towards existence of legal debt in favour of the complainant. Hence in absnece of any rebuttal documents on behalf of the accused and with the help available documents I am of the opinion that the accused had issued Ex.p2 in favour of the complainant towards legally recoverable debt only.
53. So on perusal of Ex.P2 it is clear that the cheque was issued towards clearance of the due amount to the complainant. Even on presentation of then Ex.p2 it was not honoured and hence the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
(SCCH-3) 35 CC No.2655/2023
54. So in absence of any supportive oral or documentary evidence on behalf of the accused it is difficult to disbelieve the contention of complainant. Hence there is no believable evidence that the Ex.P2 was not issued by the accused towards existence of legal debt.
55. On bare perusal of the cheque the Ex.P2 is clear that it was issued in favour of the complainant. So with the available documents and evidence from the liability which will be imposed under section 138 of NIAct against him. If a cheque is bounces then the alleged offences it attracted. It cannot be made ground to exonerate penal liability. But the complainant through marking Ex.P2 to ExP101 is able to prove the case against the accused. The oral evidence of the PW1 in this regard will suffice the matter in dispute. But the accused is not able to disprove the case of the complainant.
56. AT this stage I would like to rely upon the dictum reported in 1. 2010(1) KCCR176- Siddappa V/ (SCCH-3) 36 CC No.2655/2023 S.K.Nanjappa- it is held that accused issued cheque for repayment and on its presentment dishonoured issue of notice. Demand not complied. Then complaint lodged, blank cheque taken from him and the same misused by complainant issue of cheque not denied by accused so also filling up of the amount in it. Burden on accused to explain under what circumstances he issued the cheque. Appreciation of evidence is correct particularly in view of presumption under section 139 and 118.
b. 2004(3) KCCR1816-L.Mohan V/s mohan Naidu-when once the issue of cheque and the signature of nit is admitted, court has TO PRESUME THAT THE CHEQUE has been issued for discharging of the debtor liability. The burden of proof shifts on the accused to prove that there was no liability or that the cheque was issued to a different person.
c. AIR 1996Sc 2339-Electronics T and T.D corporation Ltd. M/S V/s Indian T NS E PVT LTD.,- IT IS HELD THAT (SCCH-3) 37 CC No.2655/2023 OBJECT OF BRINING SECTION 138 on statute appears to be to in-calculate faith in he efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business on Negotiable instruments. Despite civil remedy section 138 intended to prevent dishonestly on the part of the drawer of negotiable instrument to draw a cheque without sufficient funds and induces the payee or holder in due course to act upon it. Section 139 draws presumption that one commits the offence if he issues the cheque dishonestly. It is seen that once the cheque has been drawn and issued to the payee and the payee has presented the cheque and thereafter, if any instructions are issued to the payee and the payee has presented the cheque and thereafter, if any instructions are issued to the bank for non-payment.
d. AIR 2001 SC 2895(K.N.Beena v/s Muniyappa and others- it is held by his lordship that the burden to prove the consideration for the cheque lies on te accused. If not (SCCH-3) 38 CC No.2655/2023 rebutted, The presumption is that the cheque was issued for consideration. It is for the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued a debt or liability. He has to lead credible evidence for rebuttal of this presumption. Mere denial of the averments will not suffice to shift this burden on to the complainant.
e. AIR 2010SC 1898-Rangappa v/s Mohan- It is held by his lordship that the very fact that the accused had failed to statutory notice under section 138 of the act leads to inference that there was merit in complainant's version of spending his own money. Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he admits the signatures on the cheque then the presumption as contemplated U/s section 139 of the act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The above presumption is mandatory presumption and not a neral presumptions.
(SCCH-3) 39 CC No.2655/2023 f. ILR 2000(2) Kar 1570-Burden of proving that the
cheques are issued in discharge of debts or other liability cannot be put on the complainant. There is legal presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act that the cheque was issued for discharging an antecedent liability. The aforesaid presumption is in favour of the holder of the cheque. It is not mentioned in the section that the said presumption is in in favour of the holder of the cheque. It is not mentioned in the section that the said presumption would operate only against the drawer. After all the presumption is only for casting the burden of proof as to who should adduce evidence to rebut the said presumption. As the signature in the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, The presumptions envisaged in section 118 of the act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn fro consideration on the date which the cheque bears. The section 139 of the act (SCCH-3) 40 CC No.2655/2023 enjoins on the court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability. The burden was on the accused to rebut the afore said presumptions.
57. The presumption U/s 139 of the act is a presumption of law. It is not a presumption of fact. This presumption has to be raised by the court in all the cases once the factum of dishonour is established. .the onus of roof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused. The standard of such rebuttal evidence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Such evidence must be sufficient,cogent and should prove beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore mere explanation is not enough to repel this presumption of law. So mere issue of cheque by not maintaining sufficient amount in the account is an offence if it bounces. PW1 in his cross examination (SCCH-3) 41 CC No.2655/2023 admitted ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ 3 ಜನರ ಸಹಿ ಇಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಬೋರ್ಡ್ ರಿಸಲ್ಯೂ ಷನ್ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಲು ಯಾವುದೇ ತೊಂದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಆ ರೀತಿ ಕೋಳಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪೂರೈಸಿದಾಗ ಇನ್ವಯಿಸಸ್ ಅಂಡ್ ಡೆಲಿವರಿ ಚಾಲನ್ಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಸಹಿ ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ ವು ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಯಾವುದೇ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಭದ್ರತೆಗಾಗಿ ಪಡೆದಿಲ್ಲ. ಆರೋಪಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನಿ,ಪಿ.9 ರಿಂದ 54 ರ ಮೇಲೆ ಆರೋಪಿ ಸಹಿ ಪಡೆದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಿ.ಪಿ.55 ರಿಂದ 100 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವ ವಾಹನ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ಆರೋಪಿಯದ್ದಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ವಾಹನ ಕಳಿಸಿರಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಕೋಳಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪೂರೈಸದ ಕಾರಣ ಅವುಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಸಹಿ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಅಲ್ಲಗಳೆದಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ಓಪನಿಂಗ್ ಬ್ಯಾ ಲೆನ್ಸ್ ಬಾಕಿ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಲಿಲ್ಲ ಹಾಗೂ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ, ನಿ.ಪಿ.8 ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಓಪನಿಂಗ್ ಬ್ಯಾ ಲೆನ್ಸ್ ಮೊತ್ತ ರೂ.42,81,630/- ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಅನ್ನ ೋದನ್ನು ಅಲ್ಲಗಳೆದಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ದಿಃ01.04.2022 ರಿಂದ 01.02.2023 ರವರೆಗೆ ಇದೆ ಎನ್ನು ವುದನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಿ ಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ಆರೋಪಿ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ವರಿ ಮೊತ್ತ ಸಂದಾಯ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ.
ನಿ.ಪಿ.2 ರಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ, ಮೊತ್ತವನ್ನು ನಾನೇ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದ ೇನೆ ಎನ್ನು ವುದನ್ನು ಅಲ್ಲಗಳೆದಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ಆರೋಪಿ ಖಾಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಪಡೆದು ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ ಮತ್ತು (SCCH-3) 42 CC No.2655/2023 ಮೊತ್ತವನ್ನು ನಮೂದಿಸಿ ಸುಳ್ಳು ಕ್ಲೇಮ್ ಮಾಡಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ
ಅಲ್ಲಗಳೆದಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ನೋಟಿಸ್ ಜಾರಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿ ನನಗೆ ರಿಪ್ಲ ೈ ನೋಟಿಸ್ ಕೊಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
58.For sake of arguments, Exhibit P2 were not issued by the accused and the contents of the cheque were returned by the complainant. How the accused got the possession of Exhibit P2 is not forthcoming from the side of accused. In other words, the accused has not properly and convincingly explained regarding how he possessed Exhibit P2. There is a suggestion that if accused could have received the notice, then he could have definitely replied to the said notice. Apart if there was no liability on the part of the accused, then what was the necessity for the accused to chat with the complainant. If the accused really paid the excess amount of ₹ 42,01,630, then he could have given a notice to the complainant asking to refund the excess amount.
(SCCH-3) 43 CC No.2655/2023
59.Therefore, it can be inferred that the accused has issued the cheques in question to the complainant over discharge of liability. In spite of that, he has taken a vague defence by contending that Exhibit P2 were not issued by him. His intention is not only amongst a vague, but also hard to believe. Therefore, the contentions put forth by the accused failed to inspire the confidence of this Court. As such, the defence raised by the accused are not probable, not believable and amounts to vague differences hence, accused have not raised probable defence.
60.At the cost of reputation, the initial presumption favours the complainant. However, the said presumption is rebuttable. If the accused rebutted the presumption, then burden shifts back to the complainant. Interestingly, in the instant case, the accused has examined as DW1. In his evidence he stated that There is no any due towards the complainant in the business (SCCH-3) 44 CC No.2655/2023 transaction. There is no any amount of ₹ 35,93,617 due to the complainant as per Exhibit P2. During the business transaction, the complainant has taken Exhibit P2 blank cheque. As per Exhibit P9 to Exhibit P100 there was no any transaction took place which is created one and the complainant not obtained any signature on the said invoices. Exhibit P8 ledger as per ledger account ₹ 35,93,617 there is no due towards the complainant. The complainant has not issued any legal notice for dishonouring of the cheque. Hence, he has not committed any offence. What are all the defences taken by the accused amounting to vague defences. Bases on said vague defences the accused cannot report the presumption. ನನ್ನ ಮನೆಯ ವಿಳಾಸ 9-1, ground floor, Chinnappa Garden ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿ.ಪಿ.4 ರಲ್ಲಿ ದಿಃ18.01.2023 ಎಂದು ನಮೂದಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿ.ಪಿ.7 ರಲ್ಲಿ ದಿಃ20.01.2023 ರಂದು ಸದರಿ ನೋಟೀಸ್ ಜಾರಿಯಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಬರೆದಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎನ್ನು ವುದನ್ನು ಅಲ್ಲಗಳೆದಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ.
ದಿಃ30.01.2023 ರಂದು ನಾನು ರೂ.50,000/- ಹಣವನ್ನು (SCCH-3) 45 CC No.2655/2023
ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೆ ೕನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನಮ ್ಮ ಕಡೆಯಿಂದ ತಪ್ಪಾ ಗಿ ಹೋಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ಮೂಲ bank statement ತೋರಿಸಲಾಗಿ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ 50 ಸಾವಿರ ಬರೆದಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ಆ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ನಿ.ಪಿ.102 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತು ಮಾಡಲಾಯಿತು. ನನ್ನ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರು ನಮ ್ಮ ಕಡೆಯಿಂದ ಖಾಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೆ ೕನೆ ಎಂದು ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ಖಾಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ಕನ್ನು ವಾಪಸ್ಸು ಕೊಡುವಂತೆ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರ ಕಂಪನಿಯವರನ್ನು 3-4 ಸಲ ಹೋಗಿ ಕೇಳಿದ್ದೆ ೕನೆ. ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರ ಕಂಪನಿಯವರು ನನಗೆ ದೂರವಾಣಿ ಕರೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದರು. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಿ.ಪಿ.4 ಕ್ಕೆ ಉತ್ತರ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೀರಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನಿ.ಪಿ.4 ನನಗೆ ಬಂದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ನಿ.ಪಿ.9 ರಿಂದ 100 ರ ದಾಖಲೆ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಕೋಳಿಗಳನ್ನು ನಾನು ತೆೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೆ ೕನೆ. 2021 ರಿಂದ 2023 ರವರೆಗೆ 2 ವರ್ಷದ ಒಳಗಡೆ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಮುಗಿದಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಲಿಖಿತವಾಗಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿಲ್ಲ. ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರಿಗೆ ತಪ್ಪಾ ಗಿ ನಾನು 50 ಸಾವಿರ ಹಣ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ whatsapp ನ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇದೆ. ಅದನ್ನು ಹಾಜರು ಪಡಿಸುತ್ತೆ ೕನೆ. ನಾನು ಕೋಳಿ ವ್ಯಾ ಪಾರ ಮಾಡಲು ದಳ್ಳಾ ಳಿ. ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಇಬ್ಬರು ಕೆಲಸಗಾರರು ಇದ್ದಾ ರೆ.
(SCCH-3) 46 CC No.2655/2023
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು whatsapp screen shot xerox ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು
ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ತಪ್ಪಾ ಗಿ 50 ಸಾವಿರ ಹಣ ಪಾವತಿಸಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಮೂದು ಇಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ದೂರವಾಣಿ ಸಂ.8884042222 ಎಂದು ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ದಿಃ30.01.2023 chats ನ್ನು ಓದಿ ಹೇಳಿದಾಗ ಅವರು ಅದನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ನಿ.ಪಿ.103 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ಕೈ ಬರವಣಿಗೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಲಾಗಿ ಅದನ್ನು ನಾನು ಬರೆದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ನಾನು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಗೆ ನಮ ್ಮ business ಮುಗಿದಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಯಾವುದೇ ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಗೆ 35 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣ ಕೊಡಬೇಕಾಗಿದೆ ಎನ್ನು ವುದನ್ನು ಅಲ್ಲಗಳೆದಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ.
61.Again at the cost of risk, the version of the accused failed to inspire the confidence of this Court. In the absence of cogent evidence to show that the sex were not issued in the discharge of a liability, the defence raised by the accused failed to inspire the confidence of this Court to believe his version or to meet the standard of preponderance of probabilities. With the help of (SCCH-3) 47 CC No.2655/2023 presumption and also on the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record this Court has come to the conclusion that the accused has Has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Investment Act.
62. If we come to the real crux of this complaint i.e, provisions of section 138 of N.I.Act then this complaint is filed for the caseof dishonour of cheque gi en by the accused. The most crucial point to be considered is that the accused never disputed about the cheque stnding in nis name.The silen e of the accused amounts to estoppel and from this admissionthe necessary ingredient to constitute an offence punishable u/S 138 of N.I.Act is attracted.
63. In a case like this in hand the initial burden shifts on the complainant and the standard of proof initially cast upon the complainant and they have proved their case of legally enforceable debt beyond all preponderance of (SCCH-3) 48 CC No.2655/2023 probabilities. This complaint being filed for the alleged offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I.act. No needs to apply strict interpretation to discard the case of the complainant. Hence I am of the opinion that the complainant is able to prove that the Ex.P2 was issued for the existence of legally enforceable debt. Therefore the Ex.P1 was issued towards the dues by the accused in favour of the complainant and so it is termed as legally enforceable debt. Thereby it is clear from the settled principles of law that the burden of proving that the cheque was issued for the existence of legally enforceable debt lies on the accused and from the above finding he had not discharged it.
64. Further as per the settled principles of low according to section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act the presumption lies in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e, the complainant. Therefore in the instant case the accused had not rebutted the presumption that the cheque was not issued (SCCH-3) 49 CC No.2655/2023 for the discharge of any legal debt and at the same time the complainant had proved that Ex.P2 was issued to them towards existence of legal recoverable debt. So the presumptions under section 139 and 118 of the act will hold the hand of the complainant.
65. On my above fining it is clear the fact of existence of legally enforceable debt is proved as required to attract the section 138 of N.I.Act. The accused has not rebutted the case of the complainant that he had not issued the cheque for the legal existence debt to the complainant. The complainant has satisfy the court with this regard. As it is the case of the complainant and the burden lies on them to to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is for the complainant to prove their case and from the above finding it is clear that they have proved that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt. So it will attracts the basis ingredients of section 138 of N.I.act.But the accused is not successful in rebutting the same.
(SCCH-3) 50 CC No.2655/2023 Hence the complainant had made out a case punishable U/s 138 of N.Iact. Hence I answered the POINT NO.1 IN the affirmative against the accused and in favour of the complainant.
66. Point No.2: In view of my above finding on the above points I found the accused as guilty and I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting u/S 255(2) of CR.P.C the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/S 138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for one year.
The accused is sentenced to pay a total amount of Rs.37,63,617/- as a fine amount. In default of payment of amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
(SCCH-3) 51 CC No.2655/2023 After deposit of fine amount, an amount of Rs.35,63,617/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation provided U/s 357(3)of Cr.P.c the remaining amount of Rs.2,000/- shall be appropriated as fine to the state.
The bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled. Supply a free copy of Judgement to the accused. Issue conviction warrant.
(Dictated to the adalat Ai directly on system ,corrected transcribed and then pronounced by me in open court on 3rd day of March 2026).
B.S.HONNASWAMY.
VIIthADDl.JudgeandACJM, BENGALORE.
(SCCH-3) 52 CC No.2655/2023
ANNEXURE.
01.LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE
COMPLAINANT.
PW.1 : Venkataram G.Hegde.
02.LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE
ACCUSED;
DW-1 : Syed Abdul Aleem.
03.LIST OF DOCUMENTS FOR THE COMPLAINANT.
Ex.P.1: Board Resolution. Ex.P.2: Cheque. Ex.P.2a: Signature of the accused. Ex.P.3: Bank Endorsement. Ex.P.4: Office copy of the legal notice.. (SCCH-3) 53 CC No.2655/2023 Ex.P.5: Postal Receipt. Ex.P.6: postal Acknowledgement. Ex.P.7: Postal track consignmnt. Ex.P.7a: Certificate under section 65Bof Indian Evidence Act.. Ex.P.8: Ledger Account.. Ex.P.9 to 54: Invoices. Ex.P.55 to 100: Delivery challans. Ex.P.101: Bank challan. Ex.P.102: Bank statement. Ex.P.103: Whatsapp document. B.S.HONNASWAMY. VIIth ADDl. Judge and ACJM, BENGALORE.