Bangalore District Court
Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd vs Sundru Bai on 8 September, 2025
KABC020198602021
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY.
-:: PRESENT ::-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
XXIII ASCJ & XXI ACJM.
1. Sl. No. of the : CC No.6998/2021
Case
2. The date of 08.03.2021
complaint of :
commission
of offence
3. Name of the M/s. Shriram Transport
Complainant : Finance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office at
No.29/A, 2nd Floor,
K.H.Road,
Bangalore - 560 027.
Rep. by its POA Holder,
Mr.GIRISH K.V.
S/o Veerabhadraiah,
Aged about 43 years.
(By Sri.Manjunatha S.,
Advocate.)
4. Name of the Smt. Sundru Bai
Accused : W/o Narayana Singh,
At No.51, Geetha clinic
Road,
Devasandra, Gollarapalya,
Krishnarajapuram,Near
Geetha Clinic,Bangalore -
SCCH-25 2 CC No.6998/2021
560 036.
(By Sri. T.G.Srinivasaiah,
Advocate.)
5. The offence : u/Sec.138 of Negotiable
complained Instruments Act
of
6. Plea of the : Pleaded not guilty
Accused
7. Final order : Accused is Convicted
8. Date of such : 08.09.2025
order
JUDGMENT
This criminal case arises out of private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence p/u/s 138 of NI Act.
2. Complainant pleads that the complainant is a company duly incorporated and engaged in the business of providing financial services under Loan-Cum- Hypothecation Agreement Scheme for vehicles and its registered office is situated at Chennai, the accused is one of the customer of the complainant company and the accused has availed loan on 22.08.2014 for a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- including financial charges for the purpose of purchase of PASSENGER COMMERCIAL, Manufacturing year 2012, Model TOYOTA ETIOS-P, vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-41-A-6122. She has also executed a Loan SCCH-25 3 CC No.6998/2021 Agreement on 22.08.2014, under the Agreement No.YELAH0408210003, one Shivarama T.N. S/o Nathaiah is the Guarantor, agreed that the entire amount would be paid till the settlement of the principal amount together with interest and other expenditure accrued thereon and the accused not paid the monthly installments regularly and she was in chronic defaulter of the payment of monthly installments. The complainant company demanded the accused to repay the outstanding due loan amount, under the said agreement towards the part payment (balance EMI), the accused has issued following cheque:
bearing No.506035, Dated: 12.01.2021, for Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on The South Indian Bank Ltd., Maruthisevanagar Branch, Bangalore - 560 033. When Complainant was presented for encashment through their banker namely State Bank of India, Bangalore Main Branch, Cubbon Park, Bangalore, the accused banker returned it unpaid citing reasons "Account Blocked Situation Covered in 2125" by return dishonor endorsement memos Dated: 22.01.2021. Complainant issued a notice on 06.02.2021 to the accused about the dishonor of Cheque. The Accused intentionally avoided to receive the notice same is returned with endorsement refused on 08.02.2021. Despite service of notice, the complainant did not receive the payment under the returned unpaid cheque and aggrieved thereby filed a complaint before this Court.SCCH-25 4 CC No.6998/2021
3. Acting upon the complaint, this court took cognizance of the offence p/u/s 138 NI Act and issued summons to the accused. Upon summons, accused appeared before the court. Plea of accused was recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty.
4. Complainant had filed affidavit in lieu of sworn statement. On request by the complainant, the same affidavit was read as evidence. Exhibits P.1 to P.5 were marked. The version of the PW.1 has remained unchallenged. Hence, statement under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code is dispensed.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for complainant. Arguments on accused side taken as nil. Matter was reserved for judgment.
6. The sole point that arise for my consideration is
-
"does the complainant prove that the accused issued the cheque in discharge of his liability, without having maintained sufficient credit with his banker to honor the cheque, as a result of which the cheque is returned unpaid and despite notice has failed to make payment and thereby committed offence u/s 138 of NI Act, 1881."SCCH-25 5 CC No.6998/2021
7. My finding to the above point is in affirmative for the reasons assigned below.
REASONS
8. Complainant got examined as PW1. Cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- is marked as Ex.P1. The signature of the accused in the said cheque is marked as Ex.P.1(a). Cheque Return memo is marked as Ex.P2. Statutory notice, Postal receipt, RPAD acknowledgment marked as Exs.P3 to 5 respectively.
9. Having perused the above said documents, the complainant has complied with the mandate of Section 138 of NI Act. Above exhibited documents are sufficient to draw presumption u/s 139 of NI Act that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v/s Sri Mohan, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 held that:
"once issuance of a cheque and signature thereon are admitted, presumption of a legally enforceable debt in favour of the holder of the cheque arises."
10. The accused had obtained bail from the Court and pleaded not guilty. But, he has not cross examine the complainant or PW.1 or lead any kind of evidence. So, the materials on record is clearly depicts that the accused have SCCH-25 6 CC No.6998/2021 issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant towards repayment of the outstanding due and the complainant has produced the documentary proof to show that the accused is liable to pay the outstanding due as per Ex.P.1 i.e. the amount covered under the cheque. Even though if it presumes that the cheque in question was issued by the accused as a security but the accused did not proved that the said cheque was handed over to the complainant only towards the part payment, not for discharge of any legally recoverable debt.
11. As per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590, the sworn statement of the complainant was treated as complainant evidence. The accused has filed application under Section 145(2) of NI Act for recall of PW1 for the purpose of cross-examination. The said application came to be allowed but the accused has not made any attempt to cross examine the Complainant or PW.1 despite of giving reasonable opportunities. Hence cross-examination of PW1 taken as Nil vide order dated 28.08.2025. The statement of the accused under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code is dispensed. In this regard I would like to rely on the decision of Our Hon'ble High Court in the case of 1Sunil Yadav Vs Y.C.Manju. The Hon'ble High Court has held in paragraph No.17 and 18 that, "17. The learned counsel for revision petitioner 1 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.664/2020 dated 07.02.2025 SCCH-25 7 CC No.6998/2021 though contend that the Trial Court committed an error in relying upon the Indian Bank case, dispensed the 313 statement and Court has to take note of the material and also the judgment which is relied upon by the revision petitioner's counsel in a case reported in (2022) 4 KARLJ 467, Court has to take note of the factual aspects of the case. The judgment relied upon by this Court which is referred above in case of Mr.G.H.Abdul Kadri V/s Mr.Mohammed Iqbal and in that case when the summons was issued, the same was served but accused did not appear before the Trial Court. The Trial Court proceeded without securing him before the Court, but in the case on hand, it has to be noted that the Trial Court issued the summons against him and same was served, but he did not appear bailable warrant. Thereafter, he had appeared before the Court and even he was subjected for recording of plea and he did not plead guilty and claims trial. Hence, an opportunity is given to consider the evidence available on record under Section 145 of N.I Act, posted the case for cross- examination of witness, but he did not chose to cross examine the witness when the case set-down for cross-examination of PW1. The Trial Court has given an opportunity, but he did not utilize the opportunity and then only the Court taken as no cross and also dispensed with 313 statement and even after dispensing 313 statement also once again an application was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C and the same was allowed by imposing cost of Rs.500/- and posted the case for cross-examination of PW1 and he did not choose to cross examine the witness and again sought time and time was also given by SCCH-25 8 CC No.6998/2021 imposing further cost of Rs.500/- and he did not choose to cross examine the witness by paying the cost. Hence, taken as nil and thereafter dispensed the 313 statement once again. Even after dispensing the 313 statement also case was posted for defence evidence of the accused and given several time to lead his defense evidence also, he did not choose to lead defense evidence also and he did not make any application again for recalling of witness to cross examine him and he did not bothered to appear before the Court. When such being the case, it is not the duty of the Court to issue non-bailable warrant and secure the accused and once already taken recourse to secure him by issuing NBW, each and every stage the Court cannot issue NBW and secure him and once he claims the trail without pleading guilty and he shall co-operate and take the opportunity to cross examine the witness and inspite of several opportunity was given for cross-examination and lead his defense evidence, but he did not do so. He did not avail the said benefit and in view of the discussions of the judgments which have been referred above by the different High Court as well as the Apex Court judgment, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in dispensing the 313 statement since he did not avail any opportunity for cross examine the witness and lead any defense evidence and then only Court was proceeded to dispense the 313 statement. Even inspite of opportunity was given to lead defense evidence also, did not avail the opportunity and hence, now the counsel cannot contend for remand the matter only on the ground that 313 statement was not recorded. Both the Bombay High Courts SCCH-25 9 CC No.6998/2021 discussed in detail in both the orders referred supra and this Court also discussed in R.V.Kulkarni's case for dispense of non examination of 313 statement as the opportunity was not availed inspite of sufficient time was given.
18. Having considered the factual aspects of this case is concerned, not a case for remanding the matter only on the ground that 313 statement was not recorded and the same is a discretion of the Magistrate to dispense the same having considered the factual aspects of the case and hence I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in dispensing the same and proceeded against the petitioner and the same cannot be a whims and fancy of the accused to seek for remand the matter when the opportunity was given to him and not utilized the same and no grounds to set-aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration."
12. As I referred above, the accused neither put forth his defense by leading evidence nor cross examined the complainant. No relevant and convincing evidence is tendered to show that the cheque was not issued for discharge of any liability.
13. When presumptions u/s 139 and 118 of NI Act are raised, it is for the accused to rebut such presumption by placing cogent evidence. It can be either by leading evidence or by denting the case of complainant. In the present case, the accused has not placed any material to persuade this court to believe that the cheque were not SCCH-25 10 CC No.6998/2021 issued for any liability. The presumption drawn in favour of the complainant has remained un-rebutted.
14. Given the above discussion, there is no reason to decline the contentions of the complainant. I find no reason to acquit the accused. Thus, I answered above point in affirmatively and proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
Acting u/s 255 (2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, I hereby convict the Accused for the offence Punishable Under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881.
Bail bond of the accused and her surety stands canceled.
Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for two (2) months.
If accused delays the payment of fine, she shall also pay interest on the outstanding fine amount @ 12% p.a., commencing from 08.09.2025 until realization of fine amount. However, the sum of interest which could be levied under this would be to the maximum of Rs.2,50,000/-.
SCCH-25 11 CC No.6998/2021Entire fine amount shall be paid to complainant as compensation.
Office is directed to issue a free copy of this judgment to accused, free of cost and forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on 8th day of September 2025) (RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXI Addl.C.M.M & XXIII ASCJ, Bangalore.
:ANNEXURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Sri. Girish K.V. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:
--- NIL ---
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P.4 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P.5 : Undelivered Postal Envelope
SCCH-25 12 CC No.6998/2021
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:
- NIL -
(RAGHAVENDRA R) XXI A.C.M.M & XXIII ASCJ, Bangalore.Digitally signed by RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA RAGHAVENDRA Date: 2025.09.10 17:15:21 +0530