Bangalore District Court
Prashanth B M vs Gopala Krishna on 1 April, 2026
KABC020558362024
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
(SCCH-24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated: On this day of 1st day of April 2026
CC NO.16895/2024
1. Sl.No. of the Case : 16895 of 2024.
2. The date of : 03-01-2024
commission of the
offence
3. Name of the : Sri Prashanth B.M
Complainant S/o late B T Munisubbaiah,
R/at No.14, SLV Apartment
D-19, Angadi Thimmaiah
Layout,
Nagashettyhalli, Sanjaynagar,
Bangalore -560094.
(By Sri Suneeal S Narayan,
Advocate)
4. Name of the Sri Gopala Krishna
Accused Allahalli village,
Kasaba Hobli,
SCCH-24 2 C.C.16895/2024
Aralumallige Post,
Doddaballapura -561 203.
(By Sri M B Muralidhara,
Advocate)
5. The offence complained : Under Section 138 of the
of or proves Negotiable Instrument Act.
6. Plea of the accused and : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination
7. Final Order : Accused found guilty
8. Date of such order for : 01-04-2026
the following
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed under Sec. 200 of Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is the case of the complainant that:
The complainant and accused are well known to each other since 2023. In the first week of February 2024, the accused approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- to form new layout at Majarahosahalli village and for family necessities. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cash on 14-02- 2024. The accused agreed to repay the said amount within 15 days. In the first week of March, 2024, the SCCH-24 3 C.C.16895/2024 complainant demanded the accused to repay the said amount, but the accused requested the complainant to grant another one month time to repay the same and issued post dated cheque bearing No.121775 dated 03-04- 2024 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Doddaballapura. As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant presented the cheque through his banker ie., Bank of India, Sahakarnagar Branch, Bangalore, but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient" dated 09-04-2024. The complainant has personally approached the accused and brought to his knowledge regarding dishonour of the cheque. At that time, the accused requested the complainant to present the cheque once again. As per the assurance given by the accused, the complainant again presented the cheque through his banker, but again the cheque was returned with an endorsement "Payment stopped by Drawer" dated 23-05-2024. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 13-06- 2024 through RPAD . The notice was duly served on 19- 06-2024. Accordingly, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I Act, hence, the complaint.SCCH-24 4 C.C.16895/2024
3. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and verifying the documents, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. The accused on receiving the summons appeared before this Court through his counsel, enlarged on bail and his plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for arguments.
4. The complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 7. During the cross-examination of DW2 the learned counsel for complainant has confronted the documents and got marked Ex.P8 to Ex.P12. Then, the case was posted for recording the statement of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. In the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and claimed to be tried. The accused got examined himself as DW.1 and one witness is examined as DW.2 and got marked documents as Ex.D1 to D3(a). Hence, the case was posted for arguments.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
SCCH-24 5 C.C.16895/20246. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that accused has committed offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
-: R E A S O N S :-
8. POINT No.1:- It is the definite case of the complainant that, towards the discharge of legally recoverable debt, the accused has issued disputed cheque and when the cheque was presented two times, same was dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and Payment Stopped by Drawer". Though the said fact was brought to the notice of the accused by issuing legal notice, but accused has failed to repay the cheque amount.
9. In order to substantiate the contention, the complainant got examined himself as Pw1 and got marked in all 12 documents as ExP1 to Ex.P12. If the documents produced by the complainant are perused, Ex.P1 is the SCCH-24 6 C.C.16895/2024 cheque which bears the signature alleged to be of accused. The accused nowhere has disputed the cheque which relates to his account. He even has not disputed his signature in the Ex.P1. It is deposed by Pw1 that cheque in question was issued by the accused towards discharge of his legal liability. The cheque in question was presented by the complainant through his banker which was returned with memos as per ExP2 and 3 stating 'Funds Insufficient" and Payment Stopped by Drawer". Hence, he got issued legal notice to the accused through RPAD, which is produced at Ex.P.4. The postal receipt is marked at Ex.P.5. Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are the postal Track consignment and Sec.65 -B certificate. Ex.P8 is the Certified copy of complaint. Ex.P9 is the certified copy of chief examination in PCR No.151/2024. Ex.P10 is the certified copy of Memo for withdrawal. Ex.P11 is the certified copy of order sheet in CC No.2704/2024. Ex.P12 is the statement of accused u/Sec 313 of Cr.PC.
10. The accused while admitting that complainant is known to him through one Kempegowda since 2023 has taken the defence that he had no transaction what so ever with the complainant and that his brother by name Ramachandra had purchased property from one Kempegowda and in that property the accused had SCCH-24 7 C.C.16895/2024 started development work. Even accused had also transaction with Kempegowda and accused was due of Rs.2,50,000/- to H V Kempegowda and towards the repayment of said amount the accused as security had given his cheque and even though the accused had repaid the said amount but Kempegowda did not return the said cheque. The said Kempegowda and his family members without informing the accused and his brother had executed an agreement of sale of the property in respect of which agreement was earlier executed in favour of the brother of accused. On that issue, misunderstanding was crop up between the accused and Kempegowda and Kempegowda had misused the cheque given by the accused towards security by handing over the said cheque to the complainant. When accused demanded Kempegowda to return the unsigned blank cheque bearing No.121775, at that time Kempegowda informed him that after registration of the sale deed he will return the cheque but did not return the cheque . The complainant by misusing the said cheque has filed false complaint against him.
11. In order to substantiate the defence, the accused got examined himself as DW.1 and one witness is SCCH-24 8 C.C.16895/2024 examined as DW.2 and got marked documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D3(a).
12. If the entire materials placed on record is perused, the accused nowhere has disputed the financial capacity of the complainant to lend sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. So far as the service of notice is concerned, during the cross examination of PW.1 the learned counsel for accused has posed suggestion that the legal notice is not served to the accused and that the legal notice was issued to the incorrect address of the accused, hence legal notice was not served to the accused. Even during the cross examination of DW.1 he has deposed that legal notice was not served to him
13. If the document placed by the complainant is perused, Ex.P4 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 13-06-2024. Legal notice was send through RPAD. Ex.P5 is the postal receipt and Ex.P6 is the track consignment report. As per the track consignment report, the legal notice was duly served to the accused. The accused nowhere has disputed the correctness of the address mentioned in the legal notice so also in the complaint. During the cross examination of DW.1, the learned counsel for complainant has marked Ex.P8 to Ex.P12.
SCCH-24 9 C.C.16895/2024Ex.P8 is the complaint lodged by H. V Kempegowda against the accused in CC No. 2704/2024 u/Sec. 138 of NI Act before the JMFC Court at Doddaballapura. The said case was ended in compromise which is evident from the Memo filed before the said court. In the Ex.P8 the address of the accused was given which is in consonance with the address stated in the legal notice. Further the accused in his evidence in chief has given his address which is in accordance with the address mentioned in the legal notice. Hence, it can be said that legal notice was issued to the correct address of the accused. Though the accused in his evidence has denied the service of legal notice but if the statement of the accused recorded u/Sec. 313 of Cr.PC is perused, wherein the accused has admitted the service of legal notice and stated that since complainant is stranger to him he did not opt to issue reply to the said notice. Hence, from the very statement of the accused given u/Sec. 313 Cr.PC coupled with the track consignment report it can be said that legal notice is duly served to the accused. In spite of service of legal notice the accused did not give reply. So far as the explanation given by the accused for not giving reply as stated in his statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.PC is concerned, as observed supra, the accused has stated in his statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.PC that the complainant is stranger to him SCCH-24 10 C.C.16895/2024 so he did not give reply to the legal notice. Even during the cross examination of PW.1 the learned counsel for accused has put suggestion to the PW.1 that Pw.1 is totally stranger to the accused and no transaction what so ever was held between the accused and complainant. But the evidence in chief of the accused begins with the word "ಫಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರ ಪರಿಚಯ ಇದೆ". As per the evidence in chief of the DW.1 since 2023 complainant is known to him through H V Kempegowda ie., DW.2. Hence, the explanation given by the accused for not giving reply to the legal notice found not satisfactory.
14. As observed supra, the disputed cheque at the first instance was returned with shara "Drawers Signature Differs" and when it was presented for second time, the same was returned with shara "Payment stopped by Drawer". The accused has disputed his signature in the Ex.P1 and taken the contention that he has issued blank unsigned cheque to H V Kempegowda as security for the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- borrowed by him from Kempegowda and the said cheque was given by Kempegowda to the complainant and complainant in turn misused the said cheque.
SCCH-24 11 C.C.16895/202415. So far as the defence taken by the accused is concerned, if the cross examination of PW.1 and the evidence of DW.1 is perused, it can be culled out that DW.2- H V Kempegowda had executed an agreement of sale in respect of Sy No. 49/2 in favour of the brother of accused and later on Kempegowda executed sale agreement in respect of the very same property in favour of the complainant. IN that regard civil and criminal case was regisrered against H V Kempegowda and the complainant herein. It can further be gathered that there was money transaction held between the accused and H V Kempegowda and with regard to the said money transaction, the accused had issued cheque to H V Kempegowda and the said chdeque was dishonoured. Hence, complaint u/Sec. 138 of NI Act as per Ex.P8 was registered against the accused and later amicable settlement was arrived at between the accused and H V Kempegowda and the said criminal case was withdrawn as settled. The accused is known to H V Kempegowda since 10 years. Accused has examined H V Kempegowda as DW.2. The relationship between the accused and DW.2 is cordial one.
16. It is deposed by PW.1 that he had given sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused on 14-02-2024 at SCCH-24 12 C.C.16895/2024 Doddaballapura in the presence of his friend Arun Kumar and that when the cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured, the said fact was intimated to the accused near Taluk Office at Doddaballapura in the presence of his friend Chandan. The learned counsel for accused has argued much that the complainant has not examined Arun Kumar and Chandan as witness. So far as examination of Arun Kumar to prove the lending of sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the accused is concerned, the PW.1 in his evidence has stated that Arun Kumar is residing at North Karnataka and if necessary he will examine Arun Kumar as witness. Admittedly, complainant has not examined Arum Kumar as witness. Whether non examination of Arun Kumar as witness goes to the root of the case of the complainant is the fact it will be considered by this court at the later stage. So far as non examination of Chandan is concerned, it will no way effect the case of the complainant for the reason that the dishonour of cheque is not disputed by the accused . Hence, question of examination of Chandan would not arise.
17. At the cost of repetition, the accused has given explanation as to how the cheque in question has reached the hands of the complainant. According to the accused he had given blank unsigned cheque to the DW.2 as SCCH-24 13 C.C.16895/2024 security for the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- received by him and though he had repaid the said amount to the DW.2 but DW.2 instead of returning the cheque to the accused has given it to the complainant. The accused by posing suggestion to the PW.1 to the aforesaid effect has taken the defence that DW.2 had voluntarily handed over the disputed cheque to the complainant with an intention to cause unlawfully loss to the accused. But if the evidence of DW.2 is perused, wherein he has stated that accused had given unsigned blank cheque way back in the year 2021 as security for the hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- received by the accused and the said amount was repaid by the accused in the year 2022 but he did not return the cheque to the accused and in the later days an agreement was entered between the DW.2 and complainant in respect of immovable property at that time the cheque given by the accused to the DW.2 was reached the hands of the complainant. The DW.2 by giving evidence to the aforesaid effect has tried to submit before the court that he had not given disputed cheque voluntarily to the complainant but accidentally it reached the hands of the complainant. It is not made known by the DW.2 when exactly an agreement was entered between him and the complainant and when exactly the cheque in question has accidentally reached the hands of the complainant. Hence, SCCH-24 14 C.C.16895/2024 the evidence given by the DW.1 and DW.2 is contradictory to each other. If really, accused had borrowed sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the DW.2 and if really cheque in question was given as security in the year 2021 to the DW.2 and if really accused had repaid the said amount in the year 2022, then at the time of repayment of amount , the accused definately would have demanded the DW.2 to return the cheque given as security. As per the evidence of DW.1, when he demanded DW.2 to return the cheque at that time the DW.2 told the accused that after registration he will return the cheque. Hence, from the aforesaid evidence of DW.1 it can be gathered that the cheque allegedly given by accused to the DW.2 towards security was with the DW.2 only and it was not either voluntarily or accidentally given to the complainant. If really even after the repayment of the amount of Rs.2,50,000/ to the DW.2, if DW.2 failed to return the cheque to the accused or if DW.2 had given the said cheque to the complainant then the accused would not have keep quite for all these years without taking any legal action against the DW.2. Hence, silence on the part of the accused in not taking any action against the DW.2 for the alleged fraud played by him, would clearly demonstrate that the defence taken by the accused or the explanation given by the accused as to how the cheque in question reached the hands of the SCCH-24 15 C.C.16895/2024 complainant is far from truth and such defence is taken just to escape from the legal liability. If the version of the DW.2 is accepted as true then if really the chedque in question has accidentally reached the hands of the complainant and complainant has misused the said cheque, then DW.2 would not have keep quite without taking any legal notice against the complainant. Hence, silence on the part of both the accused and DW.2 in not taking any action against the complainant would lend support to the case of the complainant in proving that cheque in question was issued to the complainant towards the discharge of liability.
18. It is further relevant to state here that as per the evidence of DW.2 the cheque in question was issued to him by the accused in the year 2021. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer the cheque number mentioned in the Ex.P8. As per the case of the accused and as per the evidence of DW.2, the cheque bearing No. 121772 was issued by the accused to the DW.2 on 12-04-2024. As per the evidence of DW.2 the disputed cheque bearing No. 121775 was given to him by the accused in the year 2021. The disputed cheque is the subsequent cheque to the cheque No.121772. When cheque No. 121772 was stated to have been given to the DW.2 in the year 2024 there is SCCH-24 16 C.C.16895/2024 no reason to believe that the subsequent cheque ie., disputed cheque bearing No. 121775 was given to the DW.2 by the accused way back in the year 2021.
19. So far as the cheque in question returned for the reason "Signature Differs" and for the stop payment is concerned, so also the dispute raised by the accused denying his signature in the Ex.P1 is concerned, it is vehemently argued by the learned defence counsel that even though cheque was dishonoured at the first instance for the reason signature differs but the complainant has not made any effort to establish that the signature found on the cheque was that of the accused by not referring the disputed and admitted signature to the hand writing expert. The learned counsel at this juncture has referred the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court, Karntaka in Crl. Appeal No.1244/2019 between V Ravichandra Vs. Rosi Line Reena Rani. In the said case also the accused had taken the specific defence that the signature found on the cheque in question does not belong to her and she has not at all received any amount from the complainant and cheque was dishonoured for the reason that Drawer Signature Differs. The court after considering the entire evidence on record has acquitted holding that SCCH-24 17 C.C.16895/2024 complainant has failed to prove that the accused has issued cheque to discharge the legally enforceable debt.
20. In Crl Appeal No. 222/2015 the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has observed that "while dealing with the presumption under section 139 of the Act, an accused has two options. The first option is by proving that the debt/liability does not exist ie., by leading defence evidence and conclusively establishing with certainty that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The second option is to prove the non-existence of debt/ liability by a preponderance of probabilities, referring the particular circumstances of the case. In view of the above prepositions of law, an accused can rebut the presumption under section 139 of N.I Act by a preponderance of probabilities also. If neither of the above options are satisfied, the Court is bound to accept the case of the complainant on the basis of the presumptions, proved the other legal requirements under the statute are complied with".
21. Coming to the case in hand, it is true that cheque was dishonoured at the first instance for the reason signature differs. It is also true that the accused has disputed his signature in the Ex.P1. It is also true SCCH-24 18 C.C.16895/2024 that even if cheque was dishonoured for the reason signature differs and even if accused had denied his signature in the Ex.P1 the complainant has not taken any steps to refer the disputed and admitted signature to the hand writing expert. But if the admitted signature of the accused in the plea, 313 statement, his deposition in the Ex.P12, Ex.D2(a) and Ex.D3(a) is compared with the signature in the Ex.P1 which is the disputed signature, it can be said that the accused is in the habit of putting different signature to different documents. One can see to the naked eyes the difference in the signature of the accused in each and every document. The signature of the accused in the plea and 313 statement is entirely different from the specific-men signature of the accused given before the bank as per Ex.D2. Further the signature of the accused in his deposition is entirely different from the signature of the accused given in plea and 313 statement. Further the signature of the accused in the Ex.P12 ie., statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.PC given in CC No. 2704/2024 is entirely different from the signature in the Ex.D2. The admitted signature of the accused itself not matches with the specific-men signature at Ex.D2. Hence, merely because cheque in question was returned for the reason that signature differs on that ground, the court cannot accept the defence taken by the accused. As observed SCCH-24 19 C.C.16895/2024 supra the accused has made it practice to put his signature in different ways in different document.
22. If really, the defence taken by the accused is true then nothing prevented the accused from taking said defence at the earlier instance by giving reply notice and by taking said defence in his statement under/Sec. 313 Cr.PC. The accused in his statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.PC and in the cross examination of PW.1 has gone to the extent of saying that complaint is stranger to him. Hence, from the materials placed on record it can be said that accused has failed to probablize the defence. Hence, even if the complainant, has failed to examine Arun Kumar as witness to prove the money transaction held between him and the accused it would not effect the case of the complainant when complainant otherwise has proved his case by relying upon the very evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 so also the documents referred above.
23. In the light of the discussion herein above, this court is of the considered opinion that complainant has proved that accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
SCCH-24 20 C.C.16895/202424. POINT No.2 :- The Negotiable Instruments Act is a Special Enactment, and the provisions of the Act prevail over the general provisions contained in Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, keeping the relevant provisions of the Act in mind the sentence is to be passed. In the light of the reasons on the Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Sec. 278(2) of BNSS the
accused is found guilty of the offence
punishable under section 138 read with section 142 of NI Act.
` Consequently, accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,65,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only), out of which Rs.2,60,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant under Sec.396 of BNSS and Rs.5,000/- shall be payable to the State.
In the event of default in payment within a period of one month, the accused shall be convicted to simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
SCCH-24 21 C.C.16895/2024It is made clear that in view of Sec.430 of BNSS, even if the accused under goes the default sentence imposed above, he is not absolved of liability to pay the fine amount.
The bail bond of accused and that of surety stands canceled.
Office to furnish the copy of this judgment free of cost to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 1st day of April 2026.) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl.SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
:ANNEXTURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEALF THE COMPLAINANT P.W.1 : Prashanth B M LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused. Ex.P.2 & 3 : Endorsements. Ex.P.4 : Copy of legal notice. Ex.P.5 : Postal Receipt SCCH-24 22 C.C.16895/2024 Ex.P.6 : Postal Track consignment Ex.P.7 : Certificate Sec.65-B Ex.P8 : Certified copy of complaint. Ex.P9 : Copy of chief examination in PCR No.151/2024. Ex.P10 : Certified copy of Memo for withdrawal. Ex.P11 : Certified copy of order sheet in CC No.2704/2024 Ex.P12 : Statement of accused u/Sec 313 of Cr.PC in CC no.2704/2024
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED DW.1 : Gopalakrishna DW.2 : H V Kempegowda LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Ex.D1 : - Bank Statement issued by SBI
Doddaballapura Branch,
Ex.D2 : - Letter issued by SBI, Doddaballapura
Branch
Ex.D2(a) : - Signature of accused in Ex.D2 Ex.D3 : - DL Extract issued by RTO Devenahalli Ex.D3(a) : - Signature of accused in Ex.D3.
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by ROOPASHRI ROOPASHRI Date:
2026.04.01 13:27:05 +0530