Bangalore District Court
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd vs Ramachandra R on 7 January, 2026
KABC0B0113022023
IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES &
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21).
PRESENT: Sri. VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH,
LL.B.,
XVII ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & A.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 07th Day of January-2026
C.C. No.57936/2022
Complainant/s : M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,
Having its branch Office at,
Umiya Landmark, 10/7,
Lavelle Road, Bangalore-560 001.
Represented by Deputy Legal Manager
Miss. Nagarathna. K
(By Sri. Chandrashekar. S. N, Adv.,)
V/s.
Accused/s : Mr. Ramachandra. R
No.57, 30th Cross, Ms Building Thilak
Nagar, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 041.
(By Sri. Manjula. D. G, Adv.,)
SCCH-21 2 C.C. No.57936/2022
Date of institution of the : 12.08.2022
Complaint
Nature of the Complaint : U/Sec.138 of N. I. Act
Date of commencement of : 03.09.2025
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 07.01.2026
was pronounced
Duration of the Complaint Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 04 25
JUDGMENT
The accused in this case is tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, on the complaint of the complainant.
2. The summary of the complainant's case is that:
The complainant is a Banking Company registered under the Banking Regulation Act, 1956 and in the course of its business, the accused had approached the complainant seeking financial assistance. Based upon the request of the accused, the complainant company had sanctioned the LCV loan of Rs.4,60,744/- which the accused is required to repay the same as per the terms of the facility agreement bearing No. LCV1261360. The accused towards partial discharges of existing legally enforceable contractual debts or liabilities has issued the cheque bearing No. 727615 dtd: 17.06.2022 for sum of Rs.4,13,541/- drawn on State Bank of India. On SCCH-21 3 C.C. No.57936/2022 presentation of the said cheque for encashment through its banker, Kotak Mahindra Bank, M. G. Road, Bangalore, the said cheque came to be dishonoured for the reason "Cheque irregularly drawn/amount in words and figures differ'' on 22.06.2022. Thereafter on 17.07.2022 complainant got issued legal notice to accused which was returned served on 22.06.2022. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint.
3. On filing of the complaint, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of N. I. Act and sworn statement was recorded. As there was sufficient ground to proceed further, a criminal case has been registered against the accused and he was summoned. The substance of accusation is orally stated to the accused and plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and also submitted that he has defence evidence.
4. In support of the complainant's case, initially the sworn statement of the authorized representative of the complainant company filed by way of affidavit during the pre- summoning stage is considered as evidence of the complainant as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 6 and another authorized signatory of the complainant Bank is examined as PW.2 and got marked a document at Ex.P.7.
SCCH-21 4 C.C. No.57936/20225. Heard the argument by the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant. Despite providing sufficient opportunities accused failed to address his arguments.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are:
1.Whether the Complainant proves that accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881?
2. What order?
7. My answer to the above Points is as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative,
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT No.1: Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act has been enacted to lend credibility to the financial transactions.
9. The main ingredients of the offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act are;
(i) Drawing up of a cheque by the accused towards payment of an amount of money, for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or any other liability.
(ii) Return of the cheque by the Bank as unpaid.
SCCH-21 5 C.C. No.57936/2022(iii) The drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount within 15 days of the receipt of notice under the proviso (b) to Section 138.
The explanation appended to the section provides, that the debt or other liability, for the purpose of that section means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
10. Apart from this, Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act lays down a presumption in favour of the holder of cheque in the following terms;
"It shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that - the holder of the cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to him section 138, for the discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."
11. Under the scheme of the act, the onus is upon the accused to rebut the presumptions, which are in favour of the complainant by raising a probable defence. The presumption referred to in section 139 of N. I. Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption. What is required to be establish by the accused in order to rebut the presumption is different from each case under given circumstances. However, the fact remains that a mere plausible explanation is not expected from the accused and it must be more than a SCCH-21 6 C.C. No.57936/2022 plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. The defence raised by the accused by way of rebuttal evidence, must be probable and capable of being accepted by the court.
12. In the present case, the authorized signatory of the Complainant has examined himself as PW.1 by filing his affidavit evidence in lieu of oral evidence, wherein, he has reiterated the entire averments made in the complaint. In support of his oral evidence, PW.1 has produced Board Resolution as per Ex.P.1, Cheque as per Ex.P.2, Bank Endorsement as per Ex.P.3, Office copy of legal notice as per Ex.P.4, Postal Receipt as per Ex.P.5 and Postal Acknowledgment as per Ex.P.6.
13. Now the question before this Court is that, whether complainant has filed the complaint well within time. As per the version of complainant accused has issued cheque for Rs.4,13,541/- i.e., Ex.P.2 and it bears date: 17.06.2022. As per Ex.P.3 the said cheque is returned on 22.06.2022 for the reason of 'cheque irregularly drawn/amount in words and figures differ'. So this itself shows that, complainant has filed the cheque within 03 months. On perusal of Ex.P.4 i.e., demand notice as well as postal receipt at Ex.P.5, it reveals that, complainant has issued the notice to the accused on 16.07.2022 i.e., within 01 month from the date of return of the cheque. As per Ex.P.6 i.e., Postal acknowledgment, demand SCCH-21 7 C.C. No.57936/2022 notice is served upon the accused on 18.07.2022. As such, complainant has to file present complaint after 02.08.2022 or before 18.08.2022. Admittedly, complainant has filed this complaint before the Court on 12.08.2022 i.e., within 01 month from the date of cause of action. As such, complainant has filed the present complaint well within time.
14. Now the next question before this Court that, whether reason for dishonour of cheque i.e., 'cheque irregularly drawn/ amount in words and figures differs' does fall within the ambit of Sec.138 of N. I. Act. A person in whose favour the cheque has been issued is entitled to have an amount mentioned in the cheque and it is the duty of the drawer to maintain the sufficient balance in his account. In this case, after issuance of return memo, complainant has issued the demand notice to the accused in compliance of Sec.138 (b) of N. I. Act by mentioning reasons for return of cheque as per Ex.P.4 and same was served upon the accused as per Ex.P.6. Despite said receipt of notice, accused failed to pay the amount. Thus, accused has got an opportunity to know in advance before filing of this complaint that, his cheque was dishonored for the reason of 'cheque irregularly drawn/amount in words and figures differ'. But admittedly, accused has not made any attempt to pay the amount. So, when an opportunity has been given to the accused by inviting his attention in respect of reasons for return of the cheque but he has not paid the amount. In SCCH-21 8 C.C. No.57936/2022 addition to that, despite appearance accused failed to produce any bank statement to show that, he had sufficient amount in his account to honor the cheque at the time of presentation of the said cheque. Despite providing sufficient opportunities also accused neither produce any document nor cross examine the complainant in respect of said aspect. As such, in view of above discussion cheque dishonored for the reason 'cheque irregularly drawn' also falls under Sec.138 of N. I. Act. In view of above discussion as well as on perused of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, it appears that, the complainant has complied with the mandatory requirements of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the presumptions can be drawn in his favour as contemplated U/s 118 and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
15. In this case, as discussed above, cheque is returned for the reason of 'cheque irregularly drawn/amount in words and figures differ'. In Ex.P.2 amount mentioned in figure is 'Rs.4,13,541/-' and amount mention in the words is 'Four lakh thirteen thousand five hundred and fourteen Rupees only'. But as per Sec.18 of N. I. Act if the amount undertaken or order to be paid is stated differently in figures and in words, the amount stated in the words shall be the amount undertaken or order to be paid. As such, in view of above provision this Court opine that, error in writing the cheque amount in words does not invalidate the cheque and this Court consider the amount SCCH-21 9 C.C. No.57936/2022 mentioned in the words as cheque amount. Moreover, accused has not disputed the said aspect also. It is pertinent to mention here that, as stated above, the accused in the present case has failed to discharge his onus in rebutting the presumption available in favour of the complainant by raising a probable defence. It is pertinent to mention here that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant have remained unchallenged. Even after providing sufficient opportunities, accused failed to cross examine PW.1.
16. It is a well settled that the unchallenged evidence of the witness cannot be discarded unless it is rebutted. Therefore, in view of the unchallenged testimony of the complainant i.e., both oral and documentary evidence it would be safe to hold that the accused has not disputed the cheque belonging to him, he has issued the said cheque to the complainant towards discharge of his legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant. It would be profitable to refer the decision reported in 2003(1) SCC 240 between Sarwan Singh V/s State of Punjab, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that;
"In respect of appreciation of the evidence in criminal trial that, generally whenever the deponent declines to avail himself of the opportunity to put his cross examination, it must follow that the SCCH-21 10 C.C. No.57936/2022 evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted."
Applying the said principles of law to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, it can be held that whatever the version of the complainant i.e., PW.1 is to be accepted in toto as true, as admittedly the accused has not subjected PW.1 to the cross examination or denied the contents of the affidavit of the PW.1 and the documents produced by the complainant in support of his oral evidence.
17. It is a well settled principle of law that, if either of the parties to the proceedings, even after knowing the status of their case, does not choose either to prosecute or to defend the case as the case may be, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against such party.
18. Even in the present case, the entire case of the complainant has remained unchallenged and un-rebutted. It is not the situation that in the present case the accused is not aware of the accusation leveled against him by the complainant, since this court has not only recorded his substance of accusation but also examined the accused as contemplated U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence of the accused is of total denial one.
SCCH-21 11 C.C. No.57936/202219. No doubt, the defence version claimed by the accused in his plea stage and in his examination as provided U/s 313 of Cr.P.C., would be considered as his defence as envisaged in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590. However, during the subsequent stages of the proceedings, the accused has failed to substantiate his defence version either by cross examining PW.1 or adducing either of oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.
20. Moreover, when the accused has not specifically denied the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant, it clearly leads to an inference that, indirectly the accused admitted the accusations made against him by the complainant. Therefore, it is clear enough that except having denied the case of the complainant in his plea and in his examination as provided U/s 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has not taken any interest so as to prove his defence.
21. In the present case on hand, the accused has failed to make use of his right of fair trial by not cross examining PW.1. Resultantly, the conduct of the accused clearly goes to show that his defence is one of bare denial one and he has not taken any pain or interest in order to defend him by adducing sufficient oral and documentary evidence.
SCCH-21 12 C.C. No.57936/202222. On over all perusal of the materials on record, in the absence of any dispute or challenge to the unchallenged testimony of PW.1, this court has no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to the benefit of the presumptions available U/s 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In view of the discussions made above, I answer point No.1 in the "Affirmative".
23. POINT No.2: Section 138 of N. I. Act empowers the Court to sentence the accused upto two years and also to impose fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or with both. The cheque in question was issued on 17.06.2022 for Rs.4,13,514/-. The complainant was deprived of money that was rightfully due to it for a period of 03 years 04 months. Hence, if the interest is calculated at 7% p.a. on the cheque amount for the above period certainly the complainant is entitled for suitable compensation to the cheque amount as per Sec.80 of N. I. Act. Hence, in this case Rs.4,13,514/- is the cheque amount and interest at 7% for 40 months if calculated will amounts to Rs.96,480/- and as such the total amount including interest will be of Rs.5,09,994/-.
24. However, having regard to the facts of the case and the amount involved, there are no warranting circumstances to award the sentence of imprisonment as substantive sentence. Directing the accused to pay fine and also awarding SCCH-21 13 C.C. No.57936/2022 compensation to the complainant would meet the ends of justice. But adequate default sentence shall have to be imposed to ensure the recovery of fine imposed to the accused. Therefore, the complainant is required to be suitably compensated as per Section 80 and 117 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and also appropriate in default sentence. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N. I. Act and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,09,994/- (Rupees five lakh nine thousand nine hundred and ninety four Only).
In default to pay fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Further, acting U/Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., on recovery of entire fine amount, a sum of Rs.5,09,994/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
The office is directed to supply a free copy of judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, same is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 07th day of January-2026) (VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH) XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.SCCH-21 14 C.C. No.57936/2022
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
P.W.1 : Miss. Nagarathna. K
P.W.2 : Mrs. Prameela
List of documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Board Resolution Ex.P.2 : Cheque Ex.P.3 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P.4 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.5 : Postal receipt Ex.P.6 : Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P.7 : Board Resolution
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
-None-
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
(VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH) XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.