Bangalore District Court
Devaraju T.R vs Rathanamma on 8 April, 2026
KABC020570762024
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 8th day of April 2026
CC NO.17111/2024
1. Sl.No. of the Case : C.C.No.17111 of 2024
2. The date of : 01-07-2024
commission of the
offence
3. Name of the : Mr. Devraju T R
Complainant Aged about 40 years,
S/o Ramaiah,
R/at No.6/8,
Sanjevappa Building
4th cross, 1st main
Byataranapura,
Mysore road,
Government Electric Factory,
Bengaluru South -560026.
(By Sri. Anand M.N, Advocate)
SCCH-24 2 C.C.17111/2024
4. Name of the Smt. Rathanamma
Accused W/o Gangappa B
No.17, 1st main, 1st floor,
Opp Rajivghandi Politechnic
GSR Auto Mobile,
Next to Life Care Medical,
Kengunte cross, Malathalli,
Bengaluru -560056.
(By Sri Avinash A.P, 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 : 08-04-2026
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 accused and complainant are known to each other since several years. In that acquaintance, during the 4th week of March 2024 the accused had approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- for her family legal necessities. The complainant had withdraw the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from his bank account on SCCH-24 3 C.C.17111/2024 30-03-2024 and paid it to the accused. The accused agreed to repay the amount within 15 days. Even after expiry of 15 days, the accused has not repaid the amount. Thereafter, the accused issued post dated cheque bearing No.889562 dated 25-04-2024 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Nagarabhavi 2nd stage Branch, Bangalore. As per the instruction, when the complainant presented the cheque through his banker, same was dishonor and returned with memo "Account Blocked and Stopped by Home Branch". Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 11-06-2024 through RPAD. The notice was returned with shara "Insufficient Address". Accordingly, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I Act.
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 her counsel, enlarged on bail and her plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for evidence of the complainant.
SCCH-24 4 C.C.17111/20244. The complainant got examined himself as PW.1, and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 9. 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 her and claimed to be tried. The accused got examined herself as DW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. Hence the case was posted for argument.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
6. 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:
SCCH-24 5 C.C.17111/2024
-: R E A S O N S :-
8. POINT No.1:- It is the definite case of the complainant that, towards the discharge of liability, the accused has issued disputed cheque and when the cheque was presented, same was dishonoued for the reason "Account Blocked and Stopped by Home Branch". Though the said fact was brought to the notice of the accused by issuing legal notice, but the accused has failed to repay the cheque amount.
9. To substantiate the contention, the complainant got examined himself as PW1. The PW.1 in his examination in chief has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. Ex.P1 is the cheque which bears the signature of accused. It is deposed by Pw-1 that cheque in question was issued by the accused towards discharge of liability. The cheque in question was presented by the complainant through his banker which was returned with memo as per ExP2 stating 'Account Blocked and Stopped by Home Branch". Hence, he got issued legal notice to the accused through RPAD, which is produced at Ex.P.3. The postal receipt is marked at Ex.P.4. Postal cover is marked at Ex.P5. The postal envelope was opened in the court, the notice inside it was marked as Ex.P6. Bank statement, Registration SCCH-24 6 C.C.17111/2024 certificate and Sec.65 B certificate are marked at Ex.P7 to Ex.P9.
10. The accused while admitting that complainant is known to her through the mother in law of the complainant has taken the defence that she was running chit business and complainant invested sum of Rs.50,000/- in the chit business, at no point of time she had borrowed sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant. It is the specific defence of the accused that the complainant had given assurance to the accused that he will provide loan facility of Rs.5,00,000/- from the bank and brought the bank officials to her house. At that time she had given blank cheque to the bank official. Since the complainant did not made arrangement to get the loan from the bank, it constrained her to avail loan from some other bank. But the complainant instead of returning the cheque, has misused the said cheque by forging her signature. The accused in further has denied the service of legal notice to her.
11. In order to substantiate the defence, the accused got examined herself as DW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
SCCH-24 7 C.C.17111/202412. If the entire evidence of accused is perused, no where she has disputed the financial capacity of the complainant to lend sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to her. Hence, there is no need to discuss on the financial capacity of the complainant.
13. So far as the dispute raised as to the service of legal notice is concerned, the complainant has issued legal notice to the accused through RPAD. It is relevant to state here that the complainant having mentioned one address in the legal notice, when it has turned to the RPAD cover, in the RPAD cover he has given some other address. It is deposed by PW.1 that the address mentioned in the legal notice is the address mentioned in the pass book of the accused and the address mentioned in the RPAD cover is the complete address of the accused in which accused is residing and for proper service of legal notice he has mentioned the said address in the RPAD cover. Admittedly the legal notice issued to the accused was returned un-served with shara insufficient address. In the RPAD cover the complainant even has mentioned the mobile number of the accused. As per the postal shara, the accused has not responded to the phone call. The accused has admitted the address mentioned in the legal notice but denied the correctness of the address mentioned in the SCCH-24 8 C.C.17111/2024 postal cover. She has produced her Aadhar card as at Ex.D1 to prove that she is residing in the address stated in the Aadhar card which itself is the address mentioned in the legal notice. But if the Bail bond executed by the accused which is in the case file is perused, wherein she has given her address which is the address mentioned in the postal cover at Ex.P5. Further in the cause title of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned the address of the accused which is the address mentioned in the postal cover. The court summon was issued to the very same address and summons issued to the accused to the said address was personally served through the Jurisdictional PS which is evident from the summons copy in the case file which bears the signature of the accused. Further accused has admitted the service of court summons. It is not in dispute that complainant and accused are known to each other since several years. The Pw.1 has deposed that he had gone to the house of accused to the address mentioned in the Ex.P5. The accused has not denied the said evidence of the PW.1. Hence, when summons was served to the address mentioned in the Ex.P5 and when in the bail bond the accused herself has furnished her address which is the address mentioned in the Ex.P5 and when even the phone number of accused was also mentioned in the Ex.P5 and even after giving call to the SCCH-24 9 C.C.17111/2024 said number, she has not responded by not picking the call it clearly reveals that accused has intentionally avoided the service of legal notice. The intention behind in issuance of legal notice is to give an opportunity to comply the demand made in the legal notice. But accused had no intention to comply the demand made in the legal notice for the reason that if she had intention to comply the demand, on her appearance before the court she would have paid the alleged cheque amount. But accused has contested the case in tooth and nail by denying the hand loan transaction of Rs.6,00,000/- held between her and the complainant. If the address mentioned in the Ex.P5 is perused, address of the accused is given in detail by mentioning Door Number and other particulars. In spite of that it was returned as insufficient address. The postal cover was not returned with shara "incorrect address". The learned counsel for the complainant at this juncture, has referred the judgment reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510 between K.Bhaskaran V/s Sankaran Vidyabalan and others., wherein referring Sec.27 of General Clauses Act it was held that, "Where sender has dispatched the notice by post with correct address written there on, such notice can be deemed to have been served on sender unless he proves that it was never actually SCCH-24 10 C.C.17111/2024 served and that he was not responsible for the non service."
14. In (2014) 12 SCC 685 between Ajith Seeds Limited V/s K. Gopalakrishnaiah, wherein also similar observation was made stating that notice sent to correct address by Registered post, is deemed to have been served unless and until the contrary is proved.
15. As observed supra in the present case the accused has disputed the correctness of the address mentioned in the Ex.P5. In support of the argument the learned counsel for the accused has referred the judgment reported in 2025 (1) KCCR 194 between Channaveera Naik V/s Santhosh Pandu. In the said case service of legal notice was not proved as legal notice was not issued to the proper address of the accused. Apart from that, the complainant has not proved his source of income and existence of legally enforceable debt. Under the given set of facts, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has acquitted the accused.
16. In Crl. Appeal No.287/2023 between Mysore District Women Co-operative Bank ltd., V/s Chandrashekar .R. decided on 05-08-2024 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein, the PW.1 in SCCH-24 11 C.C.17111/2024 his cross examination has categorically stated that accused is the resident of Bettada Madahalli but, the address mentioned in the Ex.P3 is of Hallada Madahalli. There is absolutely no explanation given by the complainant as to why notice was issued to Hallada Madahalli, when the accused was working at Bettada Madahalli. According to the PW.1 it may be a mistake to mention the name of village as Hallada Madahalli, instead of addressing it to Bettada Madahalli. Under the given set of facts it was held that there was no compliance of requirement of Sec.138(b) of the N.I. Act. Hence the accused was acquitted.
17. But in the present case, the PW.1 has given explanation as to why he has addressed the legal notice to the address mentioned in the postal cover. Hence, there is every reason to believe that accused intentionally has avoided the service of legal notice to her. Hence, it can be said that complainant has complied the mandatory requirement u/Sec.138(b) of the NI Act.
18. It is relevant to state here that the accused nowhere has disputed the financial capacity of the complainant to lend sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to her. Even then the complainant has produced his statement of SCCH-24 12 C.C.17111/2024 account as per Ex.P7. It is the definite case of the complainant that, accused has asked for financial assistant to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- in the 4 th week of March 2022 and on 30-03-2024 by withdrawing money from the bank he has given sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused. The complainant has relied upon Ex.P7 to prove that as on 30-03-2024 he had sufficient amount in his credit and on the said date he had withdrawn sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and given it to the accused. When it was questioned to the PW.1 as to why he has not transferred the said amount through account transfer, for which the PW.1 states that since accused demanded to give the said amount by way of cash to meet her urgent needs, instead of account transfer he has given the said sum by way of cash.
19. The learned counsel for accused has much argued about non disclosure of the alleged loan transaction in the income Tax Returns and lending of alleged sum of Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cash, even though it is prohibited to have cash transaction more than Rs.2,00,000/-.
20. The PW.1 has deposed that he has not disclosed the loan transaction of Rs.6,00,000/- in his Income Tax Return. PW.1 has given explanation as to SCCH-24 13 C.C.17111/2024 why he has not disclosed the said transaction in his Income Tax Return stating that since accused had given assurance of returning the said sum within 15 days, he has not disclosed the said transaction in the Income Tax Returns. So far as non disclosure of loan transaction in the Income Tax Returns is concerned, it is relevant to refer the judgment reported in Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No.175/2010 decided on 25-09-2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding an Appeal against a Bombay High Court judgment observed that the Kerala High Court's recent judgment in P.C. Hari Vs. Shine Varghese and Anr., delivered on 25-06-2025 was wrong. It is observed that "a violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which restricts cash transactions above Rs.20,000/- does not render such transactions illegal, void or unenforceable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "the breach of Section 269SS merely attracts the statutory penalty prescribed u/Sec.271D and cannot by itself invalidate a debt for the purpose of proceedings u/Sec. 138 of the NI Act 1881. Holding that the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act remain unaffected, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the view taken in P.C.Hari that cash transactions above Rs.20,000/- are void and do not qualify as "legal enforceable debt". Hence, non disclosure of alleged loan transaction in the SCCH-24 14 C.C.17111/2024 Income Tax Returns does not affect the case of the complainant in proving the alleged loan transaction.
21. Learned counsel for accused in further has argued that though the alleged cheque was issued in the name of God King Enterprises and though the Account Statement at Ex.P7 is relating to God King Enterprises and though as per the case of complainant, by withdrawing sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the account of God King Enterprises, the complainant had given amount to the accused, but the complainant has not made God King Enterprises as party to the proceedings, hence, on that count also the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
22. In the light of the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for accused, if the materials placed on record is perused, in the Legal notice, in the Complaint and in the evidence in chief, the Complainant has categorically stated that he is the Proprietor of God King enterprises. The Complainant has produced Registration Certificate as per Ex.P8 which discloses that he is the sole Proprietor of God King Enterprises. When complainant himself is the Proprietor of God King Enterprises, under such circumstances, even if cheque is issued in the name of God King Enterprises and SCCH-24 15 C.C.17111/2024 amount was paid from the account of the aforesaid Proprietorship concern it would not make the complaint invalid. The learned counsel for the Complainant at this juncture has referred the judgment reported in (2008) SCC 536 between Shankar Finance and Investments V/s State of Andhra Pradesh and Others., wherein question was raised, Who should represent the Payee where the payee is a company or how the payee should be represented where payee is a sole Proprietary concern. It was observed that, company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 is a legal entity distinct from its share holders while a Proprietary concern is not a legal entity distinct from its Proprietor but an individual trading under a trade name.
23. When complainant is the Proprietor of God King Enterprises, even if cheque is issued in the name of Proprietorship concern the complaint filed by the Complainant in his individual capacity is maintainable.
24. At the cost of repetition the accused has disputed her signature in the Ex.P1 and contended that, the Complainant under the guise of providing loan facility to her in the bank has taken the blank unsigned cheque and also her signature on the blank papers and documents and even though loan was not provided to SCCH-24 16 C.C.17111/2024 her from the bank, the complainant instead of returning the blank unsigned cheque, by forging the signature of the accused and by filling the blank cheque according to his whims and fancies has lodged false complaint against her. The accused has relied upon Whatsapp conversation held between her and the Complainant to substantiate the defence taken by her.
25. According to the Complainant, the accused is known to him since 5 years as accused is residing nearby the house of his mother-in-law and accused is the close associate of his mother-in-law and in that acquittance he came to know of the accused. According to the PW.1, accused is running Chit business. Even the accused in her evidence in chief has admitted that she is running chit business in small scale. The accused in further has deposed that, Complainant had invested sum of Rs.50,000/- with her in the chit business and that except the chit transaction she had no other transaction with the complainant. The complainant denied his having chit transaction of any amount with the accused but deposed that, his mother in law had chit transaction with the accused and during the said transaction the relationship between the accused and his mother-in-law has strained. It is relevant to state here that, the accused having admitted in her evidence SCCH-24 17 C.C.17111/2024 in chief of her running chit business, but during the cross examination recorded on 13.02.2026, she has denied her running chit transaction at any point of time and deposed that, the complainant at no point of time had invested any amount with her in the chit business. Having deposed so, again in the further cross examination recorded on 02.03.2026 the accused deposed that, prior to Corona she was running chit business but, after the pandemic, she closed her chit transaction. At the cost of repetition it is the defence of the accused that, the complainant assured her of providing loan to the tune of Rs.5 lakh and in that regard collected blank un signed cheque and signature on some blank papers but later on failed to provide any loan amount to her. Though the accused has stated that she is financially sound as she is fetching rental income to the tune of Rs.50 to 60 thousand per month but from the evidence of accused it can be gathered that in the year 2023 she had borrowed some of Rs.10 lakh to meet her family necessities. According to the accused, the complainant had brought the bank Officials to her house under the guise of providing loan facility to her at that time she had given blank cheque to the Bank Officials. It is admitted by DW.1 that she had not given blank unsigned cheque to the complainant. When accused has not given any blank unsigned cheque to SCCH-24 18 C.C.17111/2024 the complainant and according to the evidence of accused, she had given blank unsigned cheque to the Official of the bank, under such circumstances question of complainant misusing the alleged blank unsigned cheque given to the bank Official does not arise. So far as the whatsapp conversation allegedly held between the complainant and accused regarding the assurance given by the complainant to provide loan facility to her from the bank is concerned, the said conversation was held in the year 2023 but the case of complainant that the disputed transaction was held in the year 2024. Further, in the Ex.D2 there is no whisper regarding the blank unsigned cheque given by the accused to the complainant. Hence, Ex.D2 would no way assist the accused in proving the defence taken by her. As observed supra accused has disputed her signature in the Ex.P1. But if the disputed signature in the Ex.P1 is compared with the admitted signature in the Plea, 313 Statement, deposition of Dw.1, Bail bond etc., it tallies with each other and there is no dissimilarities to any extent. Hence, it can safely be held that signature in the Ex.P1 is the signature of the accused alone. At the risk of repetition, when as per the own evidence of DW.1, she had given blank unsigned cheque to the bank Officials but not to the Complainant, it is for the accused to SCCH-24 19 C.C.17111/2024 explain how the cheque in question has reached the hands of the Complainant.
26. From the materials placed on record, it can be said that the complainant has proved his case of lending sum of Rs.6 lakhs to the accused and the cheque in question issued towards the discharge of the debt.
27. As per the documents relied by the complainant, cheque was returned for the reason "Account blocked and account stopped by home branch (11819)."
28. The learned defence counsel by referring the aforesaid endorsement has vehemently submitted that, as per the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High court when the cheque is dishnour for the reason Account Blocked, the complaint u/Sec. 138 N.I Act is not maintainable. The learned counsel at this juncture has referred the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in CRM-M- 14537/2018 between Rajesh Meena V/s State of Haryana and others, decided on 01-07-2019. In the said case the cheque was returned with remarks "Account blocked." The Hon'ble High court has SCCH-24 20 C.C.17111/2024 dismissed the complaint on the ground that as on the date of presentation of the cheque before the bank, the account holder was not maintaining the said account. It was observed that if an account holder is deprived off his authority, control and dominance over the bank account, it cannot be said that the account is being maintained by the said account holder.
29. In the said case the post dated cheques date 27-06-2017 and 27-07-2017 were issued by the accused. The proceedings against the accused company were initiated under the provisions of IB Code 2016 and the order in terms of Sec.14 of IB Code was passed on 21-07-2017 i.e., subsequent to the issuance of the cheque dated 27-06-2017. The cheque was dishonoured for the reason "Account blocked." The complainant proceeded to serve the statutory notice dated 4-10-2017 which was served to the accused on 09-10-2017. The accused had sent reply notice on 16-10-2017. In the reply notice the accused had clearly stated that because of prohibitory orders by NCLT New Delhi, the account in question stood blocked and thereby request was made by the accused to the complainant to withdraw the legal notice. It was further requested that as and when the accused would get the permission to operate the account of the company, the payment in respect of the SCCH-24 21 C.C.17111/2024 cheques in question would be made to the Complainant. In the reply notice it is also stated that intervention by the company - NCLT was conveyed to the complainant even before the presentation of the cheque and request was made to the complainant not to present the cheque. Inspite of that the complainant presented the cheque and it was dishonoured. In the given set of facts the Hon'ble High Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has dismissed the complaint.
30. The learned defence counsel has referred one more judgment rendered by Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.1107/2025 between M/s ND. Developers Pvt. Ltd., and others V/s Ritesh Raushan decided on 4-3-2026. In the said case also the cheque was dishonoured for the reason "Account blocked." The Hon'ble High court was pleased to quash the proceedings by allowing the Criminal Petition filed by the accused on the ground that when the cheque was dishonoured for the reason "Account block situation covered in 2125 it would means that withdrawal is stopped in lieu of insolvency of the account holder, therefore it is a situation where the drawer of the cheque has no control or authority over the account in the case of debit freezement and in order to become liable for the offence U/sec.138 of the Act, the accused SCCH-24 22 C.C.17111/2024 is require to have control over the account when the cheque becomes due for presentation / realization."
31. In the said case, cheque was issued for Rs.41 lakh on 9-3-2024. Two crimes are registered against the petitioners / accused in Cr.92/2022 and 116/2023 for the offences punishable U/sec.406, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC. The Investigating Officer investigate into the said case directed debit freezement of the account of the accused company and its Managing Director on 24-05- 2024 till the investigation in the said crime would get completed. The police notice dated 24-05-2024 was given to the bank requesting debit freezement. It is after issuance of the cheque in issue, the account was frozen. The cheque dated 9-3-2024 was returned for the reason "Account blocked situation covered in 2125." The complainant then issued notice to the accused. The notice was replied by the accused. At the time when the reply was rendered by the accused, they were not aware of the fact of debit freezement of the account. They came to know of it only on 26-7-2024, when the bank communicates to the accused about debit freezement. In the said case attachment by an order of the court was passed after the alleged cheque was issued. The Hon'ble High court has held that, "The attachment of the bank account of the petitioner had the affect of disabling the SCCH-24 23 C.C.17111/2024 petitioner / accused from operating or maintaining the said account. The accused could not exercise his right either to deposit into or withdraw from the said account. The act of attachment of the bank account of the drawer / accused cannot be said to be a voluntary act of the drawer / accused. It cannot be said that the accused contrived to have the account attached only for the purpose of warding of the penal consequences u/Sec.138 of the Act. It also cannot be said that, after attachment of the bank account, the same was been maintained by the petitioner. For an account to be maintained by an account holder, it is essential that he is in a position to operate the said account either by depositing monies therein or by withdrawing money there from. He should be in a position to give effective instruction to his banker with whom the account is maintained. As long as attachment under the court order continues, the accused could not have issue any binding instruction to his banker and the banker was not obliged to honor any of the instructions of the accused in relation to the said account." It was further observed that, when the cheque was issued the account was active and later on as per the order of the court the account was blocked / frozen, hence drawer of the cheque had no control or authority over the account.
SCCH-24 24 C.C.17111/202432. In the light of the observation made in the aforesaid judgments if the materials placed on record in the present case is perused, as observed supra the cheque was dishonoured for the reason "Account blocked - account stopped by Home branch (11819)." The common reason for this block is not updating the KYC documents or if the account is not used for a long time. Unless and until the said issue is resolved the account holder is prevented from making withdrawals or transfer. If an account is blocked specifically because the account holder failed to update KYC details, it can be said that the said act is a voluntarily act or negligence by the account holder. Maintaining KYC is a process within the control of the account holder. It is no where the case of the accused that, it is subsequent to the issuance of the disputed cheque, her account was blocked. In the two cases referred above the account was blocked by a statutory authority due to the reason beyond the control of the drawer. But, in the present case the accused has not demonstrated that at the time when she issued the cheque the account was active and there was sufficient balance in the account and it is only after the issuance of the cheque account was blocked and she was not aware of the same. Hence the observation made in the aforesaid two judgments has no application to the case in hand.
SCCH-24 25 C.C.17111/202433. In the light of the discussion made herein above, this court is of the considered opinion that complainant has proved that accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
34. POINT No.2 :- The Negotiable Instruments Act is a Special Enactment, and the provisions of the Act prevail over the general provision contained in the 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.6,10,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ten Thousand only), out of which Rs.6,05,000/- shall be paid as SCCH-24 26 C.C.17111/2024 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 4 months.
It 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 8th day of April 2026) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl.SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
SCCH-24 27 C.C.17111/2024:ANNEXTURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF THE COMPLAINANT P.W.1 : Mr. Devaraju T R LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2 : Endorsement.
Ex.P.3 : Copy of legal notice.
Ex.P.4 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P.5 : Postal Cover
Ex.P6 : The postal envelope was opened in
the court, the notice inside it was
marked
Ex.P7 : Bank statement
Ex.P8 : Registration certificate
Ex.P9 : Certificate Sec. 65 B
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED:
D.W.1 : - Rathnamma LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Ex.R1 : Notarized copy of Aadhar card
Ex.R2 : Typed the conversation on the
pendrive and make a typed copy
Ex.R3 : PEN drive
Ex.R4 : Certificate u/sec.63B of Indian
Evidence Act
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru.
Digitally
signed by
ROOPASHRI
ROOPASHRI Date:
2026.04.08
17:24:14
+0530