Bangalore District Court
Babu vs Jeba Kumar James C on 10 April, 2026
1 C.C.No.51598/2021
KABC0B0101922023
XV ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES &
23rd ACJM(SCCH-19), MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
PRESENT:-
SRI. MOHAN SADASHIV POL,
B.A., L.L.B(Spl)
XV ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small
Causes & 23rd ACJM, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 10th day of April 2026
C.C.No.51598/2021
1) Sri. Babu S/o. Jahangir Khan,
Age 49 years,
R/at No.31, 6th Main,
Vaddarapalya, Near Yuvaloka School,
Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bangalore-43. ...... Complainant
(By Sri.V.M. Adv.,
V/s.
1) Sri. Jeba Kumar James C.
S/o. J. Chellaiah, Age 38 years,
R/o No.10, 53/2, Kannur Village,
Biddarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore-562149. ......... Accused
(By Sri.D.M. Adv.,)
2
C.C.No.51598/2021
LIST OF DATES
01 Date of Cheque 01-06-2018
02 Date of Dishonour 10-07-2018
03 Date of issuance of 07-08-2018
Statutory Notice
04 Date of Service of Notice 17-08-2018
05 Date of Complaint 04-10-2018
06 Offences Charged with U/Sec.138 of NI Act.
07 Date of Judgment 10-04-2026
08 Whether Acquitted or Convicted
Convicted
09 Sentence imposed Fine of Rs.21,38,850/-
and in default S.I. of 6
(Six) months.
JUDGMENT
This case is arising out of a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused alleging commission of offense punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case in a nutshell that, the Complainant and the accused are known to each other from last 6 years and the accused approached the complainant in the month of May 2016 for hand loan of Rs.8,00,000/- in order to construct the house in Kannur Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, the complainant has lent sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on June 2016 by way of cash and the 3 C.C.No.51598/2021 accused has agreed to return the same within a period of one year. Further, the accused has repaid a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant in the month of December 2016. Further, in the month of July 2017 again the accused approached the complainant for further hand loan of Rs.7,00,000/- to meet his personal and domestic needs. The complainant has lent Rs.7,00,000/- in the month of August 2017 by way of cash. The accused was in due of Rs.14,55,000/-. Further, on demand for the repayment of the loan amount, the accused has executed a receipt dated 09-02-2018 and issued a post dated cheque bearing No.970360 dtd:01-06-2018 for a sum of Rs.14,55,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, D.Costa Square Branch, Bangalore and assured for realization of the said cheque. As per the instructions of the accused, complainant had presented the said cheque for collection on 10-07-2018, but it was dishonoured on 10-07-2018 with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Therefore, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 07-08-2018. Despite of issuance of notice, the complainant did not receive the payment under the returned unpaid cheque and aggrieved thereby filed a complaint before the Court.
4C.C.No.51598/2021
3. Initially the complaint was registered as P.C.No.56958/2018 before Hon'ble 14 th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru Court. The Court by its order has condoned the delay of 6 days in filing the complaint. Acting upon the complaint, this Court took the cognizance of the offence P/U/Sec.138 of NI Act. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and got marked Ex.P.1 to 8. Being satisfied that there are prima- facie materials to proceed against the accused, Private Complaint was converted to Criminal Case and issued summons to the accused.
4. As per notification No.ADM-I(A)08/23 dtd:24-05-2023 of Hon'ble CMM, Bengaluru this case is transferred to this Court.
5. After receipt of the case, the accused appeared before this Court and enlarged on bail. Plea was recorded as per section 251 of Cr.P.C. Accused has not pleaded guilty and submitted that he has defense to make.
6. As per the guidelines and direction of Hon'ble Supreme court in Indian Bank Association and others Vs. Union of India Bank Association and others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590, this Court treated the sworn statement 5 C.C.No.51598/2021 of the complainant as complainant evidence, the complainant got examined two witness as PW.2 and 3. during the cross-examination of DW1, the complainant got marked additional documents as Ex.P.9 and P.10. The accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating circumstances. The accused has examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 6.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant and the accused have files written arguments. Ld. Counsel for the complainant filed memo with citations. Matter is reserved for judgment.
8. On the basis of the above said materials, evidence and pleadings the points that would arises for my determinations are;
Point No.1:- Whether the Complainant proves that the cheque drawn on the account of the accused is issued for the discharge of legally enforceable liability/debt and it has been dishonoured with an endorsement as "Funds Insufficient" and inspite of service of legal notice and demand, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within stipulated period as such he has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
Point No.2:- What order?
6C.C.No.51598/2021
9. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : As per the final order, for the following:
:R E A S O N S:
10. Point No.1:- The complainant in order to prove its case, examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the entire complaint averments. In support of his oral testimony he relied upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. Ex.P.1 is the cheque, Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of the accused, Ex.P.2 is the Bank Endorsement, Ex.P.3 is the copy of Legal Notice, Ex.P.4 and 5 are the Postal Receipts, Ex.P.6 is the Letter issued to the post office, Ex.P.7 is the Postal Track Consignment, Ex.P.8 is the Receipt executed by the accused, Ex.P.9 is the copy of Sale Deed and Ex.P.10 is the Xerox copy of Complaint.
11. In cross-examination PW.1 has denied that, he was working with the accused as a Driver and accused was paying salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. He admitted that Car No.KA-03/AE-7950 was with him and used by his son. Further admitted that, the accused has filed complaint against him for non returning of the car. But denied that, he was driving the said Car under Ola Company and he has stolen three cheques of the accused from the said Car.
7C.C.No.51598/2021
12. Ld. Counsel for complainant has submitted written arguments by contending that, the complainant and the accused are the friends. The accused has issued the cheque at Ex.P.1 for a sum of Rs.14,55,000/- towards re-payment of the loan. It is further argued that the said cheque got dishonoured. Despite of service of notice. The accused has not paid the cheque amount. Therefore, committed the offence U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act and prayed to convict the accused. The counsel for the complainant relied upon the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl.Appl.No.4171/2024 in between Ashok Singh Vs. State of UttarPradesh & ANR and in Crl.Appl. No.508/2019 in between Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarath & Another.
13. Ld. counsel for the accused has submitted written arguments by contending that, the complainant has not proved his case, the accused is not due to the complainant, three cheques have been stolen by the complainant from the Car and misused, therefore, the accused has given complaint as per Ex.D.1. Ex.P.8 is a created document. The complaint has not produced any Bank statement and not proved his financial capacity. Ex.P.3 the demand notice is 8 C.C.No.51598/2021 not served on the accused. Therefore prayed to acquit the accused. The counsel for the accused relied upon the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510, between K. Bhaskaran Vs. Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (2020) 12 SCC 724, between APS Forex Service Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Shakti International Fashion Linkers and Ors, (2019) 5 SCC 418, between Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa. Further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reported in 2020 SCC Online KER 1750 between Sunitha Vs. Sheela Antony. Further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2012 (3) KCCR 2057 with respect to the financial capacity of the complainant. Further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 between Rangappa Vs. Mohan with respect to the rebuttal of presumption.
14. On perusal of Ex.P.1 the cheque, it appears that, it bears the signature of the accused and issued by him. On perusal of Ex.P.2 the bank endorsement, it appears that the cheque got bounced and dishonored for the reason of "Funds insufficient" and Bank intimation was issued on 10-07-2018. On perusal of Ex.P.3 the notice, Ex.P.4, 5 and 7 the postal receipts and postal track consignment, it appears that, the 9 C.C.No.51598/2021 complainant has issued a notice to the accused on 07-08- 2018 informing about the dishonor and demanded the cheque amount.
15. On the basis of facts of the case and evidence led by the complainant, it appears that, the cheque has been presented within time as required, further within 30 days the notice was issued after receipt of Bank intimation with respect to the dishonour of the cheque. The notice was deemed to be served on the accused on 17-08-2018 and after lapse of 15 days statutory period the complaint has been filed (the delay of 6 days is condoned). Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that, the complainant has fulfilled the mandatory requirements under Sec.138 of N.I Act. Therefore this court is of the considered opinion that the cheque has been issued by the accused to discharge the legal liability.
16. The complainant has examined two independent witness as PW.2 & 3, in chief-examination they have stated that, the accused has taken hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant and repaid Rs.45,000/- and in due of Rs.14,55,000/-. The accused has executed the receipt dated 09-02-2018 and issued post dated cheque for Rs.14,55,000/-. During cross-examination PW.2 has stated 10 C.C.No.51598/2021 that, from 2013 to 2019 he was residing in Sai Garden Waddar Palya. Further denied that, the complainant has not lend the loan in front of him and PW.3 and accused has not issued the cheque. Further denied that, complainant was working as a driver under the accused. PW.3 in his cross- examination has denied that, he is not residing in the area of the accused. Further stated that, the accused has repaid Rs.45,000/- to the complainant in the year 2018. Further denied that, the complainant has not lend the loan and Ex.P.8 has not been executed before him.
17. The accused to prove his defence examined himself as DW.1 and deposed that, the complainant was working under him as a School Van Driver from 2016, the accused has purchased Car No.KA-03/AE-7950 in his name and gave it to the complainant for his own use. The accused has kept his ATM Card in the said Car. Further, the accused has requested to return the ATM Card and pay the EMI, but the complainant has not returned the ATM Card and not paid the EMI of the Car. Further, the accused has stated that, on 29-05-2018 the complainant has assaulted him and he has lodged complaint on 30-05-2017 before Hunnur Police Station. Therefore, the complainant has returned the Car and ATM.
11C.C.No.51598/2021
18. Further, he has stated that, he has not received the notice. He has kept signed blank cheques in the said Car and the complainant has stolen the same and misused. He has not taken loan from the complainant and neither issued the cheque and nor executed the receipt. He has sufficient income and hence, there is no necessity of taking loan from the complainant. He has constructed the house from his own savings, chit amount and loan obtained by CAN FIN Homes Ltd., Devanahalli Branch, Bangalore. In support of his case, he has produced the documents marked as Ex.D.1 to D.6. Ex.D.1 is the NCR acknowledgment, Ex.D.2 to D.4 are the Chit receipts, Ex.D.5 and 6 are the Bank Statements. During the cross- examination, he has stated that, he had no impediment to lodge police complaint against the complainant after receiving the notice from the Court. He admits the copy of the complaint lodged by him and same is marked as Ex.P.10. Further admitted that, he has not produced any documents to show that, the complainant was working under him. Further admitted that, there was dispute regarding ATM. Ex.P.1 cheque has been given by him. The address shown in Ex.P.3 is correct.
12C.C.No.51598/2021
19. The accused has contended that, he has not obtained any loan from the complainant. The complainant was driver of his Car and the signed cheques kept in the Car were stolen by the complainant and misused. He is not due to the complainant and denied issuance of the cheque to him. It is the defence of the accused that, three cheques were stolen by the complainant from Car of the accused and misused the same. During the cross examination of PW1, Ld. counsel for the accused has suggested that, he was working as a Car driver under the accused and three singed blank cheques kept in the car were stolen and misused and same is denied by PW1, further, PW1 has denied that, he has no financial capacity to lend such huge amount and the accused is not due.
20. The learned Counsel for accused has argued that, the cheques have been stolen by the complainant from the Car and misused, therefore, the accused has given complaint as per Ex.D.1. Ex.D.1 is the acknowledgment of NCR No.336/2018, Ex.P.10 is the copy of complaint lodged by the accused against the complainant and 02 others. On perusal of Ex.P.10 it appears that, there was a dispute between the complainant and the accused with regard to Car No.KA-03/AE-7950. The said Car was purchased by the 13 C.C.No.51598/2021 accused and in the possession of the complainant. The complainant was using the said Car and one ATM Card of the accused was with the complainant. Further as per Ex.P.10 the complainant was returned the said Car to the accused and not returned the ATM Card. Therefore, for non- returning of the said ATM Card and alleged assault, the complaint at Ex.P.10 was filed. In Ex.P.10, the accused has nowhere stated that, the complainant was working as a driver under him. Further, there is no reference about the unsigned blank cheques kept in the Car. PW.1 in his cross- examination has clearly denied that, he was working under the accused as a Driver. DW.1 in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that, he has not produced any documents to show that, the complainant was working under him as a Driver. Therefore, the accused has failed to prove that, the complainant was working under him as a driver.
21. PW.1 has admitted that, Car No.KA-03/AE-7950 was with him and used by his son. Further admitted the suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused that, the accused filed complaint against him for non-returning of the Car. DW.1 has stated that, he has purchased the said Car in his name and gave it to the complainant for his own use and he has kept ATM Card in the said Car. On perusal of the 14 C.C.No.51598/2021 same, it appears that, the accused has some financial transactions with the complainant. Further, it appears that, the accused has not denied the signature on the cheque.
22. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted his arguments by contending that, 03 cheques have been stolen by the complainant from the Car of the accused and misused. Therefore, the complaint as per Ex.D.1 has been filed. DW.1 in his chief-examination has stated that, for non-returning of the Car and ATM Card, he lodged the complaint against the complainant. But on perusal of Ex.D.1 and Ex.P.10 it appears that, the complaint has been filed only with respect to the alleged assault and non-returning of the ATM Card. As per Ex.P.10 there is nothing on record regarding the theft of the cheques.
23. Ex.P.8 is the receipt dtd:09-02-2018. On perusal of Ex.P.8 it appears that, the accused had admitted the loan of Rs.15,00,000/- received by him and repaid Rs.45,000/- and due of Rs.14,55,000/-. Further, accused has issued a postdated cheque bearing No.970360 dtd:01-06-2018 for sum of Rs.14,55,000/-. The accused has denied the execution and signature on Ex.P.8. But, mere denial of 15 C.C.No.51598/2021 signature on Ex.P.8 is not sufficient. Therefore, on perusal of Ex.P.8 it appears that, the accused has executed the receipt and admitted the loan transaction and issuance of the cheque.
24. Ex.P.1 the cheque is dtd:01-06-2018. Ex.P.8 is the receipt dtd:09-02-2018. Ex.D.1 and Ex.P.10 are dtd:31-05- 2018. The complaint at Ex.P.10 has been lodged after execution of Ex.P.8 receipt. The accused has not at all mentioned anything about the alleged stolen cheques in Ex.P.10. As per Ex.P.10 the Car was handed over, but ATM Card was not returned by the complainant. The dispute as per Ex.P.10 is only of non-returnin of the ATM Car and alleged assault. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that, the accused has taken any action for theft of the cheques. Except oral evidence there is nothing on record to prove the contention of the accused. The accused neither took any legal action or issued legal notice against the complainant for having stolen of the cheques. The accused has not at all attempted to take back his cheques. In the cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that, he has not taken any action against the complainant. On perusal of this cross examination it appears that, the accused has neither demanded to return the cheques nor taken any 16 C.C.No.51598/2021 legal action against the complainant. Therefore, the defence of the accused that, the cheques were stolen by the complainant is only an afterthought story and holds no significance.
25. The accused/DW.1 in cross-examination has clearly admitted that, there was a quarrel between himself and complainant regarding ATM Card, he has issued the ATM Card and Ex.P.1 cheque to the complainant. His address shown in Ex.P.3 is correct. The said portion of the said cross-examination is extracted as under:
""ದೂರುದಾರ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಮಧ್ಯ ಎಟಿಎಂ ವಿಷಯವಾಗಿ ಜಗಳವಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಸದರಿ ಎಟಿಎಂ ಅನ್ನು ನಾನು ದೂರುದಾರನಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದೆನು. ನಿಪಿ.1 ಚೆಕ್ ಅನ್ನು ದೂರುದಾರನಿಗೆ ನಾನು ನೀಡಿದ್ದೆನು. ನಿಪಿ.3 ರಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿಸಿರುವ ನನ್ನ ವಿಳಾಸ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.'' On perusal of this portion of the cross-examination of DW.1 it is clear that, the accused has financial transaction with the complainant and himself has issued the cheque to the accused. The accused has failed to prove that, he has not issued the cheque to the complainant and it was stolen by the complainant. If really the accused has not issued the cheque to the complainant and it was stolen as contended by him, then what prevented him to take legal action against the complainant. On perusal of the defence story of 17 C.C.No.51598/2021 the accused that, the cheque is stolen is all nothing but an afterthought story. The accused has not replied to the notice issued by the complainant, which leads to the inference that there was merit in the complainant's version. Hence, it is evident that the accused has not rebutted the presumption available in favour of the complainant. In the present case, the accused has not placed any material to persuade this court to believe that the cheque was stolen and not issued for any liability. Hence, complainant succeeds in proving his case.
26. The counsel for the complainant has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Crl.Appl.No.508/2019 in between Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarath & Another. Wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held about the presumption regarding existence of legally recoverable debt and liability, same is aptly applicable to the facts of the complainant's case.
27. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that, the complainant has not proved his financial capacity to lend the alleged loan. DW1 has stated that, the complainant was working under him as a driver. PW1 in his cross 18 C.C.No.51598/2021 examination has denied the suggestion of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that, he was working under the accused as driver and receiving salary of Rs.15,000/-P.M. PW1 has clearly stated that, he do water supply and welding work and had income of Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/-P.M. He had Chit amount and other amount with him and same has been paid to him. PW2 and 3 have also speaks about the lending of the loan. Therefore it appears that the complainant has financial capacity. The accused has not only issued the cheque but also executed the receipt for receiving of the loan and issuance of the cheque. The accused has also not taken any legal action against the complainant to support his contention that, the complainant has stolen the cheque. The execution of receipt at Ex.P.8 it self is sufficient to show that, the complainant has lent the loan to the accused.
28. The accused has further stated that, he has sufficient income and funds with him. There was no necessity to avail the loan from the complainant. Further stated that, he has constructed his house from his own income and chit amount and he obtained the house loan of Rs.13,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- from CAN FIN Homes Ltd., Devanahalli Branch. Ex.D.2 are the Chit Receipts of the year 2016, 19 C.C.No.51598/2021 Ex.D.3 are the Chit Receipts for the year 2017, Ex.D.4 is the Chit Receipts for the year 2018. On perusal of these documents, it appears that, the accused has taken financial assistance from the Chit Funds and on perusal of Ex.D.5 and D.6 the Bank Statements, it appears that, the accused has taken loans to construct his house. Therefore, it is clear that, the accused has taken financial assistance and loan facilities from the chit fund and private financial institution. Therefore, the contention of the accused that, he had sufficient income and not in the need of the loan holds no significance.
29. The counsel for the accused relied upon the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510, between K. Bhaskaran Vs. Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (2020) 12 SCC 724, between APS Forex Service Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Shakti International Fashion Linkers and Ors, (2019) 5 SCC 418, between Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa. Further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reported in 2020 SCC Online KER 1750 between Sunitha Vs. Sheela Antony. Further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2012 (3) KCCR 2057 between Veerayya Vs G. K. Madivalar, with respect to 20 C.C.No.51598/2021 proving of the financial capacity of the complainant. This Court has carefully gone through the above said judgments. The said judgments are related to the proving of the financial capacity of the complainant. In the present case, the complainant has produced Ex.P.8 the receipt executed by the accused in support of the cheque at Ex.P.1. The accused has merely denied the execution of Ex.P.8 and nothing more has been done to disbelieve the execution of Ex.P.8. Further, as already discussed accused/DW.1 himself has admitted that, he has issued Ex.P.1 cheque. Further, accused has not taken any legal steps against the complainant for alleged theft of the cheque. PW.2 and 3 have also deposed about the loan issued by the complainant to the accused. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2 and 3 with respect to the issuance of the debt. Therefore, this Court has held that, the complainant has proved that, he lent the loan to the accused and the accused has failed to rebut the presumption. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, the above said judgment doesn't come to aid the contention of the accused.
30. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court 21 C.C.No.51598/2021 Crl.Appl.No.4171/2024 in between Ashok Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ANR, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, the complainant can prove his financial capacity by examining witnesses and producing the documents. In the present case the complainant has examined PW.2 and 3 independent witnesses and produced Ex.P.8 with regard to the issuance of the loan. Hence, the above said judgment is amptly applicable to the case of the complainant.
31. The counsel for the accused has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa V/s Sri Mohan, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 & (2010)11 SCC 441, on the ground that, the standard proof to rebut the presumption is that one of preponderance of probabilities. In the said Judgment Hon'ble Apex court has held that:
14) ... "It is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability,"...22
C.C.No.51598/2021 Further it is held that:
15) ......"Furthermore, the very fact that the accused had failed to reply to the statutory notice under section 138 of the Act leads to the inference that there was merit in the complainant's version.
32. In the light of above ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court, the accused can rebut the presumption by preponderance of probabilities by raising probable defense. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if accused has not taken proper defence, the failure to reply the statutory notice leads to the inference that there is a merit in complainant's case. Therefore, this court by considering the material of this case, ascertain that, the accused has not rebutted the presumption as he has not taken proper defence and proved the same and not replied to the notice of the complainant. Hence, the above said judgment doesn't come to aid the case of the accused, but instead it came to aid the case of the complainant.
33. The accused has taken multiple defences in the present case, during cross examination of DW1 he stated that the Cheques were stolen from the Car. Further, in cross examination he state that, he has issued the cheque.
23C.C.No.51598/2021 Therefore, the changing version itself shows that to avoid the liability, he has taken false defence.
34. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the cheque in question is issued by the accused to discharge the legally recoverable debt or liability. The accused can place rebuttal evidence so as to show that the cheque was not issued for consideration. As appreciated supra, accused has failed to put acceptable and satisfactory evidence to probability the defense. Therefore, the accused has failed to prove that the cheques were not issued for liability.
35. Further, the accused has contended that, as per Ex.P.7 item was not delivered to the accused, but it has been returned to the complainant and he has not received the notice. On perusal of the complaint, postal receipt and address in Ex.P.3 notice, the address of the accused is one and the same. The same address of the accused has been shown in the cause title and on the same address the summons is served and the accused is appeared. In the cross-examination also he has admitted that, the address shown in Ex.P.3 is correct. Therefore, it appears that notice is issued on the correct address of the accused, further on perusal of Ex.P.7, it appears that, the notice is duly served 24 C.C.No.51598/2021 on the accused and not returned to the complainant as contended by the accused. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the demand notice issued by the complainant is duly served on the accused. Hence, the contention of accused that, he has not received the notice is not sustainable.
36. The accused has not denied the signature on the cheque or not contended that, the cheque is not belonging to his bank account. It is proved that on the Cheque the accused was signed. Therefore, complainant has discharged his initial onus laid on him. When he has discharged his initial onus, it raises presumption U/Sec.118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused has failed to rebut the presumption either in cross-examining PW-1 or on his evidence.
37. The accused has not denied his signature on the cheque. Once the foundational facts that the cheque in question bears the signature of the accused and the same has been drawn on account maintained by him are established, a factual base is established to invoke the presumption of cheque having been issued in discharge of a legally recoverable debt and drawn for good consideration by 25 C.C.No.51598/2021 virtue of Sec.118(a) r/w Sec.139 of NI Act. It is a mandatory presumption, though the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Sec.139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
38. Since, Sec.138 of NI Act is a technical offence, all ingredients as mentioned in above including the necessary compliance in terms of Sec.138 of N.I.Act must be established for the accrual of cause of action in favour of the Complainant. In view of the above detailed discussion, this court hold that the Complainant has establish the essential ingredients of Sec.138 of NI Act.
39. Since, the complainant has complied with the statutory requirement, when presumptions U/Sec.139 and 118 of NI Act is raised, it is for the accused to rebut such presumption by placing cogent evidence. It can be either by leading evidence or by denting the case of complainant.
40. It would be relevant to note that in case of trial of cheque dishonor cases, the act of issuance of cheque would subsume within itself the fact of an existing liability. The liability need not be proved independently. That is the purpose of presumption under Sec.139 NI Act. The 26 C.C.No.51598/2021 complainant has furnished sufficient documents in his support to establish that there was transaction between the accused and himself in relation to the cheque. The complainant has succeeded in establishing legally enforceable liability and hence attracted the provision of Sec.139 of N.I.Act. Hence, complainant succeeds in proving his case. Accordingly, accused is entitled for conviction. Hence, this court proceed to answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.
41. Point No.2:- For the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to be compensated with the entire cheque amount. Since, the liability is of year 2018, the accused shall along with entire cheque amount also pay an interest of 6% p.a. from date of issuance of cheque on principle amount of Rs.14,55,000/- along with the interest of Rs.6,83,850/-. Thus, this court proceed to pass following....
-: ORDER :-
Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973, I hereby convict the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act, 1881.
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.21,38,850/- and in default of payment of 27 C.C.No.51598/2021 fine, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (Six) months. Out of the fine amount Rs.21,33,850/-
shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and rest Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State.
Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled. Issue free copy of Judgment to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, and then corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2026) Digitally signed by MOHAN MOHAN SADASHIV SADASHIV POL (Mohan Sadashiv Pol) POL Date:
2026.04.22 XV ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small 13:44:45 +0530 Causes & XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
:ANNEXURE:
1.List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1 : Mr. Babu.
P.W.2 : Mr. S. Nazeer Khan.
P.W.3 : Mr. Mohammed Riyaz.
2. List of documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2 : Bank Endorsement.
Ex.P.3 : Legal Notice.
28
C.C.No.51598/2021
Ex.P.4 & 5: Postal Receipts.
Ex.P.6 : Letter issued to Post Office.
Ex.P.7 : Track Consignment.
Ex.P.8 : Receipt executed by the accused.
Ex.P.9 : Copy of Sale Deed.
Ex.P.10 : Copy of Complaint.
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
D.W.1 : Mr. Jaba Kumar James C.
4. List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D.1 : Police Acknowledgment.
Ex.D.2 : Chits Bills (17 in Nos.)
Ex.D.3 : Chits Bills (17 in Nos.)
Digitally
Ex.D.4 : Chits Bills (15 in Nos.) signed by
MOHAN
MOHAN SADASHIV
Ex.D.5 & 6: Bank Statements. SADASHIV
POL
POL
Date:
2026.04.22
13:44:53
+0530
(Mohan Sadashiv Pol)
XV ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small
Causes & XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.