Bangalore District Court
C M Mahesh Kumar vs M/S Kapil Chits K Pvt Ltd on 10 February, 2026
1
Cri Appeal No.737/2024
KABC010117582024
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56)
DATED: THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
PRESENT
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU, M.A., LL.M.
LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.737 / 2024
Appellant/ C.M.MAHESH KUMAR
accused S/O LATE MANJUNATH D.C.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.6, 5TH CROSS,
WARD No.36, PIPELINE ROAD, NETHAJI
NAGARA, MATHIKERE,
BENGALURU - 560 054.
[R/by .A.JOHN BOSCO & ASSOCIATES,
Adv.]
Vs
Respondent/ M/S KAPIL CHITWS (K) PVT. LTD.
Complainant HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE,
No.52A, 4TH CROSS, MARENAHALLI 2ND
PHASE, J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
[R/by Sri B.J., Adv.]
2
Cri Appeal No.737/2024
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed U/s.374(3)of Cr.P.C. by the accused against the judgment of conviction dated:
02.04.2024 passed in C.C.No.676/2020 by learned XXIV Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACJM, Bengaluru, (SCCH-26) for the offence under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act [for short 'N.I. Act'] (2) The parties are referred to their rank before the trial court.
(3) The case of the complainant is briefly stated as follows:
The complainant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at No.52A, 4th Cross, Marenahalli, II Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru, and branch office, at Bashyam Circle, among others in Bengaluru and they are in the business of dealing and conducting chit as per provisions of Chit Funds Act, 1982. The accused had subscribers for chit group bearing No.BRL04F/16 with ticket No.16 for a chit value of Rs.1 lakh payable at Rs.2,500/- p.m. for a period 3 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 of 40 months at Bashyam Circle branch. The accused became successful bidder in the auction held on 27.03.2010 for bid value of Rs.22,100/-. The accused has received prize amount of Rs.77,990/- on 09.07.2010.
After accused furnishing requisite surety at the time of receiving the prize amount the accused had undertaken / promised to repay the future subscription to the complainant regularly. But the accused defaulted in payment / installment since from 11.08.2011., Subsequently, the chit also completed its full term of 40 month. The representative of the complainant approached the accused with account statement with penalty and interest that the accused owes complainant in all Rs.1,45,300/-. At that time, the accused had issued cheque bearing No.326002 for Rs.1,45,300/- drawn on Dena Bank, Chandra Layout Branch, Bengaluru dated 23.09.2019. At the time of issuing cheque the accused assured to the complainant that the said cheque would be honoured on its presentation. When the complainant presented the cheque through its banker, namely Union Bank of India, Chandra Layout Branch, Bengaluru to its 4 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 utter shock and surprise the cheque came to be dishonored with endorsement dated 04.11.2019 as 'cheque is non-CTS and hence, same cannot be honoured. Thereafter the complainant got issued notice dated 29.11.2019 to the accused calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. The notice sent by RPAD to the address of the accused has returned on 30.11.2019 that 'no such person in this address. Even though the accused residing in the same address he avoided to receive the notice. He has knowledge about the notice. The accused not repaid the cheque amount. He has not replied the notice. Hence, the complaint.
(4) Based on the complaint filed by the complainant the, learned Magistrate taken cognizance of the offence punishable u/S.138 of NI Act and registered a case as PCR No.281/2020. Thereafter recorded sworn statement of the complainant as he filed his affidavit, in lieu of sworn statement and the documents Ex.P1 to P10 came to be marked. On the basis of the sworn statement of the complainant, complaint averments and the 5 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 documents, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 21.01.2020 to register the case against the accused u/S.138 of NI Act in Register No.III and issued summons to the accused. Accordingly, the case in C.C.No.676/2020 came to be registered.
(5) The accused entered appearance before the Magistrate and engaged his counsel and released on bail. That the accusation read over to the accused for the offence u/S.138 of NI Act for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. The learned Magistrate also examined the accused u/S.313 of CrPC. The accused denied incriminating evidence. PW1 fully cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused. As a defence evidence the accused himself led his evidence as DW1. The accused has not got marked any documents. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate after hearing of both sides pronounced the judgment on 02.04.2025 and acting u/S.255(2) of CrPC the accused convicted for the offence punishable u/S.138 of NI Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,40,000/-. In default, shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Acting u/S.357(1)(b) 6 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 of CrPC it is ordered that out of fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,36,300/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. The remaining amount shall be defrayed as State expenses.
(6) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused has preferred this appeal, on the following among other grounds.
The trial court has not applied legal mind to render such judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The trial court has not at all considered that the Ex.P4 cheque issued in the year 2011 for security purpose as a security charge. It cannot be treated to be discharged of any liability. The said cheque being non-CTS cheque issued by the bank in the year 2008, at the time of availing loan the accused had issued Ex.P4 cheque towards security. The respondent in the year 2020 filled the cheque. From 2011, the respondent chit company calculated EMI. There is no acknowledgment of receipt. The accused is due only a sum of Rs.34,000/- payable to the respondent. The respondent company utilized the blank Ex.P4 cheque and by filling the same with an 7 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 amount of Rs.1,45,300/- presented the said cheque to the bank. The trial court not considered cross examination of PW1. The trial court has not appreciated the evidence of DW1. Without appreciating the evidence, the trial court on the basis of the presumption convicted the accused. The trial court has not taken into consideration that presumption available is rebuttal presumption. The legal notice dated 29.11.2019 returned to the complainant on 30.11.2019 as no such person in the address. Hence, there is no cause of action to file the complaint. Hence, on these grounds, the appellant prayed to allow this appeal and to set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the XXIV Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, Bengaluru (SCCH-26) in C.C.No.676/2020 and acquit the accused. Hence, on these grounds the appellant prayed to allow the appeal.
(7) The trial court records received.
(8) The respondent entered appearance by engaging its counsel.
(9) I have heard the arguments on the side of the learned counsel for the respondent. Despite sufficient 8 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 opportunity given to the learned counsel for the appellant arguments are not addressed. This court also given an opportunity to file written arguments. But the appellant / accused did not file written arguments also. I have perused the entire records.
(10) The following points would arise for my consideration:-
Point No.1:- Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed thereon is illegal, perverse and calls for interference?
Point No.2:- Whether there is sufficient grounds made out by the appellant to set aside the judgment dated 02.04.2024 passed in C.C.No.676/20202 as prayed for?
Point No.3:- What order?
(11) My findings to the above points are as below:-
Point No.1:- In the negative
Point No.2:- In the negative
Point No32:- As per the final order,
for the following
REASONS
(12) POINT NO.1 & 2:- These points are taken up 9 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of discussion in evidence and for the sake of convenience.
(13) It is the specific contention of the complainant is that, the accused had subscription in the chit group bearing No.BLR0fF 15 with ticket No.16 for chit value of Rs.1 lakhs payable at Rs.2,500/- p.m. for a period of 40 months at Bashyam Circle branch of the complainant.
The accused who became successful bidder in auction held on 27.03.2010 for bid value of Rs.22,100/- had received prize amount of Rs.77,900/- on 09.07.2010, after furnishing requisite surety. Thereafter, the accused has failed to pay the installment amount. Even though the chit completed its full term of 450 months. It is the case of the complainant is that when the representative of the complainant approached the accused with account statement consisting of principal amount, penalty and interest total amount of Rs.1,45,300/-, at that time the accused had issued cheque bearing No.326002 for Rs.1.45 lakhs drawn on Dena Bank, Nagashettihalli branch, Bengaluru dated 23.09.2019. When the 10 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through its bank Union Bank of India, Chandra Layout branch, the said cheque returned with endorsement dated 04.11.2019 as cheque is non-CTS and hence, the same cannot be honoured. Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice dated 29.11.2019 to the accused calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. But the notice sent to the accused returned with endorsement, no such person in the address. The complainant who has examined as PW 1 in his examination in-chief affidavit reiterated all these averments made in complaint. The documents Ex.P1 to P9 are marked through PW1. Ex.P1 is the copy of certificate of incorporation. Ex.P2 is the minutes of meeting. Ex.P3 is the authorization letter issued in favour of PW1. Ex.P4 is the cheque issued by the accused of his bank account. Ex.P4(a) is the signature of accused. Ex.P5 is the bank endorsement for dishonour of cheque for the reason cheque is non-CTS. Hence, cannot be honoured. Ex.P6 is the legal notice dated 29.11.2019 issued by the complainant to the accused calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. 11
Cri Appeal No.737/2024 Ex.P7 is the postal receipt for having sent notice. Ex.P8 unserved postal returned cover. Ex.P9 is the account extract.
(14) Since the appellant / accused has taken main contention that the notice sent to him returned with shara as no such person in the address, hence, cause of action to file this complaint does not arise. Hence, this appellate court firstly consider whether the notice sent to the accused is deemed service or not. The accused himself examined before the trial court as DW1. In his examination in-chief has deposed that notice not served to him as the notice returned to the complainant as no such person. But during the course of cross examination of DW1 in page No.4 in first two lines he has admitted the suggestion that his address which is mentioned in Ex.P9 is correct address. He has admitted the suggestion that address mentioned in Ex.P8 postal cover is his address. This admission given by DW1 in his cross examination is sufficient to hold that the complainant sent Ex.P6 legal notice dated 29.11.2019 to the correct address of the accused by mentioning the same in Ex.P8 12 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 postal cover. Since the complainant issued Ex.P6 legal notice by way of RPAD in Ex.P8 RPAD cover to the correct address of the accused it is deemed service. If at all the accused has taken any such contention that he was not at all residing in address mentioned in Ex.P6 legal notice and Ex.P8 postal cover the matter would have different. It is not the contention of the accused is that he was not residing in the address mentioned in Ex.P6 legal notice and Ex.P8 postal cover. On the other hand, DW1 / accused himself admitted the suggestion that the address which is mentioned in Ex.P8 postal cover is that of his address. Under such circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the trial court rightly held that the notice sent to the accused duly served upon the accused. There is presumption u/S.27 of General Clauses Act that, if any notice sent to the correct address it shall be deemed that it is served to the parties. Hence, first and foremost contention taken by the appellant / accused is that notice not served to him and therefore, there is no cause of action to file complaint holds no water. 13
Cri Appeal No.737/2024 (15) The next contention taken by the appellant is that since Ex.P4 is non-CTS cheque it is to bne held that which was issued in the year 2011 for security purpose. No doubt, in examination in chief of DW1 he has deposed that he issued Ex.P4 cheque bearing No.326002 in the year 2011 as security purpose. But on the other hand, PW1 in his examination in-chief by reiterating the complaint averments has deposed that the accused was due sum of Rs.1,45,300/-. Hence, the representative of the complainant approached the accused with statement, at that time, the accused had issued Ex.P4 cheque for Rs.1,45,300/- drawn on Dena Bank, Nagashettihalli branch, Bengaluru dated 23.09.2019. Hence, according to the complainant /PW1 accused issued Ex.P4 cheque in the year 2019. During the course of cross examination of PW1, the learned counsel for the accused made suggestion to him that Ex.P4 cheque was issued by the accused to the complainant in the year 2009-10 for security purpose. In his examination in-chief the accused has deposed that Ex.P4 cheque was issued by him in the year 2011. But during the course of cross examination of 14 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 PW1 the accused has taken defence that they have received Ex.;P4 cheque from the accused in the year 2009-10. Thus, the accused has taken inconsistent defence in his examination in-chief and during the course of cross examination of PW1. According to the complainant the accused received prize amount of Rs.77,900/- on 09.07.2010. In order to substantiate this contention the complainant has produced and got marked Ex.P9 account extract. The accused has not disputed regarding receiving of prize amount on 09.07.2010. If at all the accused received prize amount on 09.07.2010 itself what made him to issue Ex.P4 cheque to the complainant during the year 2011 is not made know to the court. During the course of cross examination of PW1, suggestion is put to him that the accused has paid sum of Rs.2,000/- on 09.02.2022, Rs.2,000/- on 02.09.2022, Rs.3,000/- on 21.06.2022, Rs.2,000/- on 08.12.2022. PW1 has admitted these suggestions. According to the accused he was due sum of Rs.48,000/- payable to the complainant. Out of which he has already paid a sum of Rs.9,000/- and he was due a 15 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 sum of Rs.39,000/- payable to the complainant. During the course of cross examination of DW 1 / accused, he has admitted the suggestion that all transactions were taken place between him and the complainant through bank account. If at all the accused was due only a sum of Rs.39,000/- payable to the complainant he should have produced his bank statement in order to show the payments made to the complainant. But there is no documents are produced by the accused to substantiate his contention that he was due only a sum of Rs.39,000/- payable to the complainant.
(16) The contention of the appellant / accused is that Ex.P4 is non-CTS cheque hence, provision u/S/139 of NI Act not attracts to this case is not acceptable. It is pertinent to note that the accused has not produced any documents such as bank account statement to show that as on the date of issuing Ex.P4 cheque he had sufficient amount not his bank account, so as to honour Ex.P4 cheque. Since there is no documents on the side of the accused to show that he had sufficient amount in order to honour Ex.P4 cheque, even though Ex.P4 is non-CTS 16 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 cheque provision u/S/138 of NI Act attracts to Ex.P4. The accused has not taken any such defence that as on the dat of issuance of Ex.P4 or as on the date of its presentation to the bank he had sufficient amount in his bank account to honour Ex.P4 cheque. According to the accused he is due only a sum of Rs.34,000/- payable to the complainant. The accused even not produced any documents to show that as on the date of issuance of Ex.P4 or as on the date of its presentation he had sum of Rs.34,000/- in his bank account so as to honour his Ex.P4 cheque. DW1 in his examination in-chief has deposed that he is ready and willing to pay balance amount of Rs.34,000/- to the complainant company, if the time provides by the complainant company. Thus according to the accused he is till due sum of Rs.34,000/- payable to the complainant. The accused has not produced any documents such as bank account to show that he had paid the installment amount after he was received the chit prize amount. Mere taking some defence without there being supporting documents is not sufficient to hold that the accused successful in proving his defence. The 17 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 accused must prove his defence by preponderance of probabilities. During the course of cross examination of PW1 nothing worth is elicited form his mouth to suggest that Ex.P4 issued by the accused for security purpose.
(17) In the present case, the complainant has followed proper procedure as contemplated u/S.138 of NI Act. Ex.P4 cheque is dated 23.09.2019. The complainant presented the same to the bank within its validity. Soon after the complainant received the bank endorsement as per Ex.P5. On 04.11.2019 within 30 days the complainant issued Ex.P6 legal notice dated 29.11.2019 to the accused. The complainant filed this complaint within 30 days after giving time to the accused, after he received Ex.P8 postal cover. Thus, the complainant has followed proper procedure as contemplated u/S.138 & 142 of NI Act. The trial court has rightly drawn presumption as required u/S.139 & 118 of NI Act. It is important to refer some of the judgments.
(18) In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Ranganath Vs Vitthala Shetty reported in 2022 [1] Crimes 454-[SC] wherein head note reads as 18 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 below:-
"Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 read with Sections 118 and 139- Dishonour of cheque-Conviction and sentence
- When a cheque is drawn out and is relied upon by drawee, it will raise a presumption that it is drawn towards a consideration which is a legally recoverable amount - Onus is on accused to raise a probable defence and standard of proof for rebutting presumption is on preponderance of probabilities-Defence sought to be put forth and witnesses examined in instant proceedings are only by way of improvement in respect of same cause of action-Defence sought to be put forth relating to cheque and other documents having been obtained by force, cannot be accepted as a probable defence when respondent successfully discharged initial burden cast on him-Appeal dismissed.(Paras 11, 17 and 19)"
(19) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Judgment in a case of Rangappa V/s Mohan in para no. 14 observed as follows:-
"In the light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent/ claimant that presumption mandated by section 139 of the act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent the impugned observations in Krishnajanardhana Bhat case may not be correct. However this does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the decision in that case since it was based on the specific facts and circumstance therein. As noted in the citations, this is ofcourse in the nature of a 19 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant."
(20) In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2019(1) DCR 401 between Bir Singh V/s Mukesh Kumar it is held that a meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act including, in particular, sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to he payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of section 138 would be attracted. In my humble view, the principles of these cited decision is aptly applicable to the present case because PW1 in his examination in chief clearly deposed regarding accused issuing Ex.P4 cheque towards discharge of legally 20 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 enforceable debt. Further, in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Sumeti Vij V/s M/s Paramount Tech Fab Industries, wherein it is held that to rebut the presumption, facts must be proved by the accused on a preponderance of probability. In the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in M Ramesh Kumar Case wherein in para No.5 observed that section 138 of N.I. Act, on proof of issuance of the cheque, the onus shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for discharge of any debt or liability in terms of section 138 of N.I. Act. In the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sitaram Gouda A V/s Isbu Kunhammade it is held that, accused not disputing issuance of cheque- but taking inconsistent stand later- accused not initiating any proceedings as regards misuse, or forgery of cheque and making of wrongful claim- except denial, accused not proving his case beyond reasonable doubt as obligation was on him to do so when he took a special plea.
(21) On perusal of trial court records, the trial court 21 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 has rightly drawn presumption under S.139 of N.I. Act, by following three ingredients as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs Mohan reported in 2010 SC 1898. Section 139 of N.I. Act empowers the court to presume that holder of cheque received it for discharge of any liability enforceable debt or liability. Burden is on the accused to rebut the said presumption.
(22) Section 118 of The Act reads thus:
118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. -- Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:--
(a) Consideration --that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration (23) Further, Section 138 of The Act reads thus:
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. --Where any cheque drawn by a person on an 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 22 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two 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
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(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 thirty 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 fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
(24) Further, Section 139 of The Act reads thus:
139. Presumption in favour of holder.--It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred 23 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
(25) Section 118 of The Act pertains to presumption of negotiable instrument which mandates that 'unless the contrary is proved.' Similarly, Section 139 of The Act also mandates that 'unless the contrary is proved.' Therefore, it has to be presumed that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 of the Act for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or liability. Needless to say that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Act is rebuttal presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of any debt or liability is on the accused. But in this case, the accused has failed to rebut the presumptions available to complainant u/S.139 of NI Act. It is relevant to cite the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Todi and others V/s State of Gujurat and another and in judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which are reported in 2021(2) KCCR SN 119 (DB), Judgment reported in 2006 (5) KLJ 323 and reported in 2006(3) KLR 24 Cri Appeal No.737/2024
333. When the cheque issued in blank, the holder of the cheque has authorized to fill the amount due.
(26) Further, The Hon'ble Apex Court in (2012) 13 SCC 3123 (Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat) has held thus:
"It has to be presumed that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or other liability but the presumption could be rebutted by adducing evidence. The burden of proof was however on the person who wanted to rebut the presumption. However, this presumption coupled with the object of Chapter XIV of The Act leads to the conclusion that by countermanding payment of post dated cheque party should not be allowed to get away from the penal provision of Section 138 of The Act. "
(27) In the present case PW 1 in his examination in- chief by reiterating the complaint averments deposed that Ex.P4 issued by the accused for payment of due amount with penalty and interest. In support of oral evidence of PW1 he has produced and got marked documents Ex.P1 to P9. During the course of cross examination of PW1 by the learned counsel for the accused nothing worth is elicited from his mouth to prove defence of the accused by preponderance of probabilities. The accused who has examined as DW 1 in 25 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 his examination in-chief has deposed that he had issued Ex.P4 cheque in the year 2011 for security purpose. But during the course of cross examination of PW1 the accused has taken contention that the complainant received Ex.P4 cheque during the year 2009 - 10 for security purpose. The very defence taken by the accused during the course of cross examination of PW1 and during the course of examination in-chief of DW1 is not corroborating with each other. More than that the accused has not produced any documents to substantiate his contention taken in this case.
(28) The trial court on proper appreciation of the evidence on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused has committed offence punishable u/S.138 of NI Act. The accused has failed to rebut presumption available to the complainant u/S.139 & 118 of NI Act. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed thereon and warrants no interference at the hands of this court.
(29) Considering on re-appreciation of entire evidence and after perusal of entire records, this court is 26 Cri Appeal No.737/2024 of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court in C.C. No.676/2020. Hence, I answer point No.1 & 2 in the negative.
(30) POINT NO.3:- In view of my findings on point No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant/ accused U/s.374 [3] of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned XXIV Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.676/2020 dated 02.04.2024 is hereby confirmed.
The office is directed to send back TCR forthwith to learned XXIV Addl.
Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, Bengaluru along with a copy of this judgment.
[Dictated to the SG-I, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this the 10th day of FEBRUARY 2026] (MOHAN PRABHU), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-56) 27 Cri Appeal No.737/2024