Bangalore District Court
B Ramaiah vs Meena A on 7 February, 2025
KABC020085122021
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES & ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU (SCCH-08)
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY - 2025
PRESENT: Smt. Kannika M.S.
M.A., LL.B.
XII ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
C.C. No.2380/2021
Complainant : 1. Smt. Ranjana Ramaiah,
Legal Representative,
W/o. Late Mr. B. Ramaiah.
2. Uday Kiran Ramaiah,
Legal Representative,
S/o. Late B. Ramaiah,
Aged about 27 years.
Both are residing at:
No.188, BSK 3rd Stage,
3rd Phase, 6th Block,
6th Cross,
Bangalore - 560085.
(By Sri. S. Sangameswaran,
Advocate)
:Vs:
SCCH-8 2 C.C.No.2380/2021
Accused : Smt. Meena A.
W/o. Ningoli Rao N.,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at Ravutanahalli,
Bengaluru - 562130.
(By Sri. Harisha M.T., Advocate)
Date of complaint : 09.06.2020
Date of commencement of
Evidence : 24.02.2021
Offence charged : Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act
Date of Judgment : 07.02.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found
guilty
JUDGEMENT
This is a private complaint filed U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the alleged offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. SCCH-8 3 C.C.No.2380/2021
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that:
The accused approached the complainant during the month of May 2018 for handloan of Rs.9,00,000/- and the said amount paid by the complainant through bank transfer to the account of the accused on various dates. The accused agreed to repay the dues along with 1% interest per month.
Thereafter, towards the discharge of liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.000019 dated 19.02.2020 for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-, drawn on Andhra Bank,Nagarbhavi Branch, Bengaluru. As per the instruction of the accused, complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker Canara Bank, Bengaluru, but the said cheque came to be dishonored and returned with shara "Funds Insufficient" on 07.03.2020. It is contended that there was National lockdown due to Covid-19 and hence he has sent the legal notice through Whatsapp to the accused on 06.04.2020 and the same was acknowledged by the accused. The accused has not paid the amount, and hence, SCCH-8 4 C.C.No.2380/2021 the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Court.
3. Cognizance was taken and sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Since there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, the summons was issued to the accused. Accused appeared through her counsel and got enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation was framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to her, she denied the same and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for complainant's evidence.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 5 documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and closed his evidence. After closure of complainant's side evidence, the statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C was prepared and read over to accused, he has denied the same. The accused has not led his defence evidence. Thereafter, case was posted for arguments. SCCH-8 5 C.C.No.2380/2021
5. I have perused the written arguments filed by the complainant and also the entire records in this case. On given sufficient time accused has failed to address the arguments. During the pendency of the case, complainant was died and his legal heirs came on record.
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, the accused has issued the cheque bearing No. 000019 dated 19.02.2020 for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Nagarbhavi Branch, Bengaluru and the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, but the said cheque returned on
07.03.2020 with an endorsement as "Funds Insufficient" ?
2. Whether the complainant further proves that he has got issued the legal notice dated:
06.04.2020 to the Accused demanding the cheque amount from the Accused within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the said legal notice is duly served on the accused, but the accused has failed to make the payment of the cheque amount well within the prescribed time and there by committed an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act?
3. What order?
SCCH-8 6 C.C.No.2380/2021
7. The finding of this court on the above points is as under:
Point No.1 : In Affirmative
Point No.2 : In Affirmative
Point No.3 : As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
POINTS NO.1 & 2:
8. Since these points are interconnected, they are taken up together to avoid repetition of facts.
9. According the complaint, accused has taken handloan of Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant for her domestic requirement, with an assurance to pay 1% interest per month on the said amount, but she has not paid the amount. When demanded to repay the amount, the accused issued the post dated cheque bearing No.000019 dated 19.02.2020 for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Nagarbhavi Branch, Bengaluru, and when he has presented the said cheque for collection and for realization, SCCH-8 7 C.C.No.2380/2021 the said cheque dishonored and returned with shara "Funds Insufficient" on 07.03.2020, hence he issued the legal notice to the accused on 06.04.2020 through whatsapp and the same was acknowledged by the accused. The accused has not paid the amount, hence the complaint.
10. In support of his contention complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief wherein reiterated the averments of the complaint and examined as PW.1 and got marked EX P1 to P5 documents. Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.000019 dated 19.02.2020 for Rs.9,00,000/- issued by the accused in favour of the Complainant. EX.P2 is the endorsements dated: 07.03.2020 issued by the Bank with respect to the dishonour of the said cheque. It is shows that cheque is dishonored for the reason Funds Insufficient. Ex.P3 the legal notice dated 06.04.2020 issued by the complainant through his counsel to the accused for the repayment of the said loan amount. Ex.P4 is the statement of account and Ex.P5 is the copy of the whats app chat, it SCCH-8 8 C.C.No.2380/2021 shows that complainant has sent the notice through Whats- app messenger and it was served and accused has requested for some time to pay the amount. The accused has not repaid the amount. Thereafter complainant has filed this case against the accused. Hence, complainant has complied the mandatory requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
11. According to the complaint averments he has lend the amount through bank transfer, in support of it he has relied on his accounts statement which was marked as Ex.P4 on perusal of the said document it clears that complainant has transferred the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 24.05.2018, Rs.6,00,000/- on 28.09.2018 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 12.02.2019 to the accused through bank transfer. On the other hand, the Accused counsel did not cross examine PW.1 even though sufficient time has been granted, hence cross-examination of PW.1 is taken as nil. Therefore, the evidence of the PW.1 is unchallenged. SCCH-8 9 C.C.No.2380/2021
12. It is well settled principle of law presumption under Sec.138 of NI act is rebutable presumption. But accused did not either issued the reply notice or not put forth in the witness box to denied the contention of the complainant. At the time recording 313 statement accused stated that he had given blank cheque and the same was misused by the complainant. But he has not made any effort give evidence on his behalf and also he has not cross- examined the PW.1 to rebut the presumption. Therefore complainant has established his case through cogent material and documentary evidence.
13. The complainant has fulfilled the conditions provided U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Except argument of the counsel for the accused, no materials and documents have been produced in order to reveal the circumstance under which the cheque has came to the hand of the complainant. The proceedings under section 138 of N.I. Act is limited in order to come to the conclusion that, holder of the cheque is SCCH-8 10 C.C.No.2380/2021 bonafide holder and is having a cheque towards the debt that is legally recoverable. Though such presumption is rebuttable one, still the presumption is not rebuttable. Hence, I have answered point No.1 and 2 in Affirmative. POINT No.3:-
14. Hence, considering the facts and circumstance involved in the case, I am of the opinion that, the complainant is entitled for the compensation as per section 80 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Accordingly, in the light of above detailed discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act and she is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 9,10,000/-(Nine lakhs Ten thousand Rupees only).
In default of payment of the fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.SCCH-8 11 C.C.No.2380/2021
Out of the fine amount collected from the accused, Rs.9,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C, remaining Rs.10,000/- shall be forfeited to State towards expenses of the case.
Bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
Office is directed to supply a free copy of the judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 07th day of February, 2025) KANNIKA Digitally signed by KANNIKA M S MS Date: 2025.02.11 13:14:41 +0530 (Kannika M.S.) XII Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for complainant :-
P.W.1 : B. Ramaiah List of documents marked for complainant:-
Exhibits Particulars of the Document
Ex.P1 Cheque
Ex.P1(a) Signature of Accused
Ex.P2 Bank Endorsement
SCCH-8 12 C.C.No.2380/2021
Ex.P3 Whatsapp
Ex.P4 Bank statement
Ex.P5 Whats-app chat messages
List of witnesses examined for accused: None List of documents marked for accused:-
Nil
Digitally signed
KANNIKA by KANNIKA M S
MS Date: 2025.02.11
13:14:46 +0530
(Kannika M.S.)
XII Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACJM, Bengaluru.