Bangalore District Court
Ramanjini vs Muniraju on 15 April, 2026
KABC0A0026172024
IN THE COURT OF LXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (CCH.74)
PRESENT:
Smt. Anitha N.P., B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 15th day of April, 2026.
Crl. Appeal No.25290/2024
Appellant/ Sri. Ramanjini,
Accused: S/o: late Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at: Navarathna Agrahara Village,
Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
(Rep by Sri. Chetan N., - Adv.)
V/S
Respondent/ Sri. Muniraju,
Complainant: S/o: Kavalappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at House No.20, 2nd Cross,
Jyothi Nagar, Horamavu Agrara,
Horamavu Post, Bengaluru East Taluk,
Bengaluru 560043.
(Rep by Sri.Anil Kumar D.K.,- Adv.)
2
Crl.A. No.25290/2024
JUDGMENT
This is an Appeal filed by accused under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.07.2024 passed in C.C. No.54544/2022 on the file of XXXIV Addl. CMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act', for brevity] and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.7,67,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.7,62,000/ is directed to be paid to the respondent/complainant as compensation and remaining Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be remitted towards State expenses.
2. The parties are referred to their original ranking as referred in trial court for convenience sake. The appellant is the accused and respondent is the complainant before the trial court.
3. Brief facts of the complainant before the trial court is as under:-
The complainant and accused were family friends and on the basis of said friendship accused approached the complainant on 20.09.2020 and sought hand loan of 3 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 Rs.6,50,000/- for his personal problem and on the same day complainant paid Rs.6,50,000/- to accused. The accused agreed to pay the said amount within 3 months but failed to repay the amount as agreed. Towards discharge of said amount the accused has issued post dated cheque bearing No.126143 dated 07.04.2021 for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- drawn on SBI, Biarsettigere Branch. The complainant presented the said cheque before his banker on 07.04.2021. However the said cheque returned unpaid with endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer' vide endorsement dated 08.04.2021. The complainant hence issued notice to accused on 23.04.2021 and the said notice returned on 08.05.2021 as 'door locked' as the accused managed with postal authority. Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint u/Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/sec.138 of NI Act. Thereafter learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same in C.C.No.52879/2019.
4. After taking cognizance of the complaint, summons has been issued to the accused. Responding to the summons, he appeared before the trial court, enlarged on bail, plea was recorded, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4Crl.A. No.25290/2024
5. That to prove the case of the complainant, he himself got examined as PW.1, in his affidavit filed in the form of Examination in Chief he has reiterated the averments of the complaint. In support of his case, he has relied on the documents marked as Ex.P1 to 8.
6. Thereafter, statement of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Accused has denied all the incriminating material available in the evidence of complainant and got examined himself as DW.1 and he has produced and got marked one document which is copy of application given to bank as per Ex.D1.
7. After hearing the arguments, the trial court passed the impugned judgment and order dated 10.07.2024 convicting the accused. That highly aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order, the accused has filed present appeal on the following grounds:-
a) The impugned Judgment and order is not sustainable either in law or on facts. In the complaint the complainant stated that the accused borrowed Rs.6,50,000/- on 20.09.2020.
Whereas in the cross-examination complainant deposed that accused borrowed amount on 20.03.2021. The same shows that complainant has created false story.
5Crl.A. No.25290/2024
b) The complainant got marked Ex.P7 sale agreement dated 18.12.2019 and sale deed dated 15.09.2021 as Ex.P8. However in the cross- examination PW1 admits that in the Ex.P7 it is mentioned that due to family problem they are selling the property, he received Rs.20,000 by way of cash and Rs.80,000/- by way of cheque. The said fact was not considered by the trial court. Ex.P8 is dated in 15.09.2021 whereas alleged transaction is prior to that and hence the said document has not relevancy.
c) The contradictions in the cross-examination of PW1 was not considered by the trial court. The complainant in his cross-examination could not deposed cheque number, the branch name of alleged cheque and date of legal notice. The said facts were not considered by the trial court.
d) It is the defence of the accused that complainant is stranger and not relative and he has not availed any hand loan and not issued cheque to complainant. The alleged signed cheque along with another cheque were lost when the accused went to Devanahalli on 14.05.2020 on his bike. On 16.05.2020 he given letter to his 6 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 manager, SBI, Settigere Branch to stop payment of cheque bearing 126143 and 126144 and the said letter is marked as Ex.D1. The rebuttal evidence of accused is not considered by the trial court. Hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside by intervention of this court. Hence prayed for allowing the appeal.
8. After service of notice, the respondent appeared through his counsel. Records secured from trial court.
9. Heard. Perused the entire Trial Court records, including the impugned judgment.
10. On re-appreciation of the evidence, documents on record, the following points would emerge for the consideration of this court.
1. Whether the Appellant proves that the cheque in question was not issued towards any legally recoverable debt?
2. Whether the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court calls for interference by the hands of this court?
3. What Order?
11. My finding on the above points are as under:
7Crl.A. No.25290/2024 Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
12. POINT NOs.1 and 2:-
Since the above two points are interlinked, in order to avoid repetition of facts the above points have been taken up together for consideration.
13. Before re-appreciating the evidence on record, it is necessary to refer some of the latest rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2019 (3) KCCR 2473 (SC) (Basalingappa V/s Mudibasappa), the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering several earlier rulings on the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act and also on the presumption U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act, at Para 23 was pleased to observe as follows:
23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in following manner:-
(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the 8 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 Accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the Accused to rely on evidence led by him or Accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the Complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the Accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Sec.139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the Accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.
14. In another ruling reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 (Rangappa V/s Mohan), observed as under:-
"Existence of legally recoverable debt or liability- The presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. This is of course in the nature of a 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. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the 9 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 rebuttable presumption under Section 139, is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the Accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an Accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the Accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. The Accused can rely on the materials submitted by the Complainant and it is conceivable that in some cases the Accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own."
15. Keeping in mind the broad principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, let me re-appreciate the evidence and documents on record.
16. The definite case of the Complainant/Respondent is that The complainant and accused were family friends and on the basis of said friendship accused approached the complainant on 20.09.2020 and sought hand loan of Rs.6,50,000/- for 10 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 his personal problem and on the same day complainant paid Rs.6,50,000/- to accused. The accused agreed to pay the said amount within 3 months but failed to repay the amount as agreed. Towards discharge of said amount the accused has issued post dated cheque bearing No.126143 dated 07.04.2021 for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- drawn on SBI, Biarsettigere Branch. The complainant presented the said cheque before his banker on 07.04.2021. However the said cheque returned unpaid with endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer' vide endorsement dated 08.04.2021. The complainant hence issued notice to accused on 23.04.2021 and the said notice returned on 08.05.2021 as 'door locked' as the accused managed with postal authority.
17. The complainant in order to prove his case got examined himself as PW.1 and in support of his oral evidence he has produced Ex.P1 to 8 documents. Ex.P1 is cheque dated 07-04-2021, Ex.P2 is bank challan, Ex.P3 is bank endorsement, Ex.P4 is legal Notice, Ex.P5 is postal receipt, Ex.P6 is returned postal cover, Ex.P7 is copy of agreement of sale dated 18-12-2019.
18. The accused so as to prove his defence got examined himself as DW.1 and he has produced Ex.D1 the copy of letter given to SBI, Settigeri.
11Crl.A. No.25290/2024
19. Now let us go through the cross-examination of PW-1/complainant. On perusal of the cross-examination of complainant/PW1 he deposed that accused is his relative, there are 4 members in the house of accused and on 20.03.2021 the accused sought Rs.6,50,000/- and on the same day he paid Rs.6,50,000/-. The accused taken loan for construction of house. The accused assured to return amount on 10.03.2021. He cannot say the cheque number and branch name. ON presentation of said cheque it is dishonored as no amount. He is Auto driver by profession, there is no other transaction except the above transaction. Under Ex.P7 he received Rs.80,000/- by way of cheque and Rs.20,000/- by way of cash.
20. On perusal of the evidence of accused this accused deposed in his chief examination affidavit that he has not seen complainant in his life until he came to see in the court and he has no monetary transaction with complainant. He has no personal problem. He denied the entire case of the complainant. He has not issued any cheque to complainant. The complainant has not issued any legal notice to him. He has given letter before Manager, SBI on 16.05.2020 stating that his signed cheques were lost and he requested to stop payment of cheques bearing No.126143 and 126144.
12Crl.A. No.25290/2024
21. On perusal of the cross-examination accused deposed that he is B.com graduate and working as guest Teacher in GHPS Navrathna Agrara since last 4 years. He is residing in the address shown in his chief examination affidavit since 30 years, along with his family members. On 16.05.2020 he has given request letter to bank and thereafter he went to police station to lodge complaint but police have not received his complaint. His cheques were in his pocket and he do not know how the same were lost. He went to Chikkajala Police Station to lodge complaint and the said Chikkajala is nearly 13 to 14 k.mtrs away from Devanahalli. In respect of said cheques he has not given any paper publication, his mobile nubmer is linked to his SBI bank account. He admits that if any transaction is held in connection to his account he will receive message. On 07.04.2021 when cheque was preseted by the complainant he received the message. After receiving said message he has not lodged any complaint in respect of misuse of his cheque. He being B.com Graduate he is having knowledge of bank transaction. He do not know whether any other case is registerd in respect of his another lost cheque number 126144. He has no impediment to submit his bank statement to show his entire bank transaction. Even after receiving summons when he informed his advocate, 13 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 his advocate stated him that as there is already case they cannot take any action.
22. In the case on hand the accused has taken contention that the complainant is stranger and there is no legally recoverable debt. The accused however not denied the Ex.P1 cheque is pertains to his account and the signature thereon is his signature. Hence, there is an intial presumption in favor of complainant as contemplated under Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act and the burden is on the accused to rebut the said presumption by placing cogent and convincing evidence.
23. With this factual matrix, firstly the court has to appreciate whether there are materials to ascertain the existence of legally enforceable debt. At the outset, the Court has to appreciate whether Section 138 of The Act is made out. When the cheque is produced before the Court and when it came to be dishonored for funds insufficient or for any other reason and when the legal notice was issued within the statutory period then the presumption available under Sections 118 & 139 of The Act is made out in favour of the complainant. The provisions of Section 118 of The Act are separated from the general rule applicable to the contracts and it provides presumption in favour of the party. The said 14 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 presumptions are that: unless the contrary is proved the Court has to presume that the consideration had passed between the parties as enumerated under Section 118 of NI Act. Likewise, unless the contrary is established Section 139 of the NI Act clearly establishes that the holder of the cheque had received the same towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt either towards whole or partial liability. The said presumptions have to be read conjointly in order to ascertain whether the ingredients are made out. Further, the said presumptions are rebuttable and the same has to be appreciated with the factual aspects of the case. The impugned cheque at Ex.P1 and 2 was drawn during the period of its validity and was accordingly presented to the bank and after its dishonor the notice was also issued and later on after completing all the statutory bound obligations. The complaint came to be filed. This clearly indicates that initial presumption is drawn in favour of the complainant. It is also relevant to note that the said presumption is rebuttable one and as such the defence of the accused has to be appreciated in order to ascertain whether the presumption which is drawn initially in favour of the complainant has been successfully rebutted.
15Crl.A. No.25290/2024
24. The law is well settled that the accused need not enter the witness box to rebut initial presumption. At the same time, the defense which is taken up by the accused is to be appreciated so as to ascertain whether the same was probable or not. The accused has taken contention that, there is no transaction between him and complainant and hence he is not liable to pay any amount. The accused also taken contention that he lost his 2 cheques while he was proceeding from Devanahalli to his village on bike. In corroboration of his argument has mainly relied upon request letter given by him before his banker. It is necessary to note that this accused specifically admits that in respect of loss of his signed cheques in between Devanahalli and Navarathna Agrahaara he has not lodged any complaint before the police station. The accused also admits that he has not given any paper publication about loss of cheque. The accused also admits that when the cheque was presented on 07-04-2021 he received message and even after that he has not lodged any police complaint. He is having knowledge in respect of bank transaction.
25. It is necessary to note that as discussed supra the accused not denied the cheque and not denied his signature on the cheque. The accused also admits he has received message from the bank when the cheque was 16 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 presented on 07-04-2021. On perusal of Ex.D1 the accused has not mentioned the date of giving of said application/letter before the banker. The accused not chosen to examine the concerned official of said bank who has received the said letter Ex.D1. Except marking Ex.D1 the accused has not taken least risk to examine the manager of his bank to prove the said Ex.D1 as per law.
26. If he had given the letter as per Ex.D1 to his banker how the message came to him on 07-04-2021. The accused though in Ex.D1 stated that he lost his chques on 14-05-2020 then how come the cheque in question came to the hands of complainant. When the accused taken contention that he lost his signed cheque while he was travelling in bike no ordinary prudent man will keep quite without lodging complaint before the jurisdictional police in respect of said loss of cheque. That apart when a signed cheque is lost ordinary prudent man will issue paper publication or paper notice and he will warn the bank promptly with full particulars and will take action immediately after its misuse. When this accused received message on 07-04-2021 he could have taken criminal action immediately as agains the person who presented the said cheque. The conduct of the 17 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 accused clearly falsifies his defence. The defence taken by the accused itself is doubtful.
27. The accused tried to take defence that the complainant has no capacity to lend amount to accused. However, except taking bald contention the accused failed to prove the said contention by placing cogent and convincing evidence. In respect of service of legal notice is concerned the accused admits he is residing in the address shown in his chief examination affidavit and the careful study of Ex.P4 legal notice shows the very same address shown in the chief examination affidavit of accused. When a particular legal notice is addressed to the correct address of accused the presumption is notice is correctly addressed and the same is duly served on addressee.
28. The court is well aware of the cardinal principle of law, that the burden will be upon the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, a duty is also casted upon the Accused to successfully rebut the presumption which is raised by the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant has discharged the initial burden as already discussed supra and as such the onus will be shifted upon the accused to rebut the same.
18Crl.A. No.25290/2024
29. In the above case the defense of the accused is the complainant has not examined any independent witness and not produced any evidence to corroborate his claim. In this regard it is worth to note that this accused first and foremost not denied the Ex.P1 cheque is pertains to his account and signatures on Ex.P1 is his signature. Hence, there is presumption in favour of complainant. With respect to the presumption and also the defense of misuse of cheque taken up by the Appellant the court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2018)8 SCC 165 (Kishan Rao V/s Shankaregowda) wherein it has been held thus:
Section 139 of the Act, 1881 provides for drawing the presumption in favour of holder. Section 139 is to the following effect:
"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 to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."
18. This Court in Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets, 2009 (2) SCC 513, had considered the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act as Referring to 139, this Section well Evidence Court laid following in paragraphs 14, 15, 18 and 19:
Section 139 of the Act provides that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
15. Presumptions are devices by use of which the courts are enabled and entitled to pronounce 19 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 on an issue notwithstanding that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence. Under the Evidence Act all presumptions must come under one or the other class of the three classes mentioned in the Act, namely, (1) "may presume"
(rebuttable), (2) "shall presume" (rebuttable), and (3) "conclusive presumptions" (irrebuttable). The term "presumption" is used to designate an inference, affirmative or disaffirmative of the existence of a fact, conveniently called the "presumed fact" drawn by a judicial tribunal, by a process of probable reasoning from some matter of fact, either judicially noticed or admitted or established by legal evidence to the satisfaction of the tribunal. Presumption literally means "taking as true without examination or proof".
18. Applying the definition of the word "proved" in Section 3 of the Evidence Act to the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, it becomes evident that in a trial under Section 138 of the Act a presumption will have to be made that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for discharge of debt or liability once the execution of negotiable instrument is either proved or admitted. As soon as the complainant discharges the burden to prove that the instrument, say a note, was executed by the accused, the rules of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act help him shift the burden on the accused. The presumptions will live, exist and survive and shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability. A presumption is not in itself evidence, but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists.
19. The use of the phrase "until the contrary is proved" in Section 118 of the Act and use of the words "unless the contrary is proved" in Section 139 of the Act read with definitions of "may presume" and "shall presume" as given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, makes it at once clear that presumptions to be raised under both the provisions are rebuttable. When a presumption is 20 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 rebuttable, it only points out that the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence, on the fact presumed and when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed, the purpose of the presumption is over."
19. This Court held that the accused may adduce evidence to rebut the presumption, but mere denial regarding existence of debt shall not serve purpose. Following was held in paragraph 20:
"20....The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non- existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist..."
20. In the present case, the trial court as well as the Appellate Court having found that cheque contained the signatures of the accused and it was given to the appellant to present in the Bank of the presumption under Section 139 was rightly raised which was not rebutted by the accused. The accused had not led any evidence to rebut the aforesaid presumption. The accused even did the not come in the presumption. The accused even did not come in the witness box to support his case. In the reply to the notice which was given by 21 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 the appellant the accused took the defence that the cheque was stolen by the appellant. The said defence was rejected by the trial court after considering the evidence on regard with regard to which no contrary view has also been expressed by the High Court.
21. Another judgment which needs to be looked into is Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, 2010 (11) SCC 441. A three Judge Bench of this Court had occasion to examine the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, 1881. This Court in the aforesaid case has held that in the event the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubt with regard to the existence of a debt or liability, the presumption may fail. Following was laid down in paragraphs 26 and 27:
"26. In light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the 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 Krishna Janardhan Bhat, (2008) 4 SCC 54, 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 circumstances therein. As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a 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.
27. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better 22 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the17 nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant-accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof."
22. No evidence was led by the accused. The defence taken in the reply to the notice that cheque was stolen having been rejected by the two courts below, we do not see any basis for the High court coming to the conclusion that the accused has been successful in creating doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the existence of the debt or liability. How the presumption under Section 139 can be rebutted on the evidence of PW.1, himself has not been explained by the High court.
30. The sum and substance is that there is a presumption in favour of holder of cheque in due course. The accused failed to prove contrary. Lastly the Court has also appreciated the statement of Accused recorded under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. regarding the evidence under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., is not a bald formality. In fact, it is an opportunity rendered to the Accused to explain the incriminating materials against him. However, the Accused has only denied and failed to rebut the presumption available in favor of complainant. Whether this Accused has taken any legal action as against the complainant in respect of misusing of his cheque is not forthcoming. The accused not placed any evidence to establish that, on the date of issuing instructions to his 23 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 banker to stop payment what was the amount available in his account. The accused not proved that, there was sufficient balance in his account so as to honor the cheque in question. Under the circumstances, the burden of proof is successfully established by the complainant and as such, with respect to the existence of legally enforceable debt and its presumption, the Court has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2019) 10 SCC 287 (Uttam Ram V. Devinder Singh Hudan and another) wherein it has been held as;
18. We find that the approach of the learned Trial Court and that of the High Court is perverse; irrational as well as suffers from material illegality and irregularity, which cannot be sustained in complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act.
19. A negotiable instrument including a cheque carries presumption of consideration in terms of Section 118(a) and under Section 139 of the Act. Sections 118(a) and 139 read as under:
"118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.- Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:--
(a) of 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;....
xxx xxx xxx
139. Presumption in favour of holder.--It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the 24 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."
20. The Trial Court and the High Court proceeded as if, the appellant is to prove a debt before civil court wherein, the plaintiff is required to prove his claim on the basis of evidence to be laid in support of his claim for the recovery of the amount due. A dishonour of cheque carries a statutory presumption of consideration. The holder of cheque in due course is required to prove that the cheque was issued by the accused and that when the same presented, it was not honoured. Since there is a statutory presumption of consideration, the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability.
21. There is the mandate of presumption of consideration in terms of the provisions of the Act. The onus shifts to the accused on proof of issuance of cheque to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for discharge of any debt or liability in terms of Section 138 of the Act which reads as under:
"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 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...."
22. In Kumar Exports, it was held that mere denial of existence of debt will not serve any purpose but 25 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 accused may adduce evidence to rebut the presumption. This Court held as under:
"20. The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non- existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non- existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non- existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arising under 26 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 Sections 118 and 139 of the Act." (emphasis supplied)
23. In a judgment reported as Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda6, this Court referring to Kumar Exports and Rangappa returned the following findings:
"22. Another judgment which needs to be looked into is Rangappa v. Sri Mohan [Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 477 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 184] . A three-Judge Bench of this Court had occasion to examine the presumption under Section 139 of the 1881 Act. This Court in the aforesaid case has held that in the event the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubt with regard to the existence of a debt or liability, the presumption may fail. Following was laid down in paras 26 and 27: (SCC pp. 453-54) "26. In light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the 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 Krishna Janardhan Bhat [Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 166], 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 circumstances therein. As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a 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.
27. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to 27 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant-accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof."
24. In a judgment reported as Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar7, this Court held that presumption under Section 139 of the Act is a presumption of law. The Court held as under:
"20. Section 139 introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof and shifts the onus on the accused. The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, which requires the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law and presumptions of fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact as held in Hiten P. Dalal [Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 960] .
xxx xxx xxx
33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments 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 the payee remains liable unless 28 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 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.
xxx xxx xxx
36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt."
25. In other judgment reported as Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Another8 this Court held as under:
"18. So far the question of existence of basic ingredients for drawing of presumption under Sections 118 and 139 the NI Act is concerned, apparent it is that the accused- appellant could not deny his signature on the cheques in question that had been drawn in favour of the complainant on a bank account maintained by the accused for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs each. The said cheques were presented to the Bank concerned within the period of their validity and were returned unpaid for the reason of either the balance being insufficient or the account being closed. All the basic ingredients of Section 138 as also of Sections 118 and 139 are apparent on the face of the record. The Trial Court had also consciously taken note of these facts and had drawn the requisite presumption. Therefore, it is required to be presumed that the cheques in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques i.e., the complainant received the same in discharge of an existing debt. The onus, therefore, shifts on the accused-appellant to establish a 29 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 probable defence so as to rebut such a presumption."
xxx xxx xxx
20. On the aspects relating to preponderance of probabilities, the accused has to bring on record such facts and such circumstances which may lead the Court to conclude either that the consideration did not exist or that its nonexistence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration did not exist. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that though there may not be sufficient negative evidence which could be brought on record by the accused to discharge his burden, yet mere denial would not fulfil the requirements of rebuttal as 8 AIR 2019 SC 1876 envisaged under Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act.....
xxx xxx xxx
32. The result of discussion in the foregoing paragraphs is that the major considerations on which the Trial Court chose to proceed clearly show its fundamental error of approach where, even after drawing the presumption, it had proceeded as if the complainant was to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Such being the fundamental flaw on the part of the Trial Court, the High Court cannot be said to have acted illegally or having exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the judgment of acquittal. As noticed hereinabove, in the present matter, the High Court has conscientiously and carefully taken into consideration the views of the Trial Court and after examining the evidence on record as a whole, found that the findings of the Trial Court are vitiated by perversity. Hence, interference by the High Court was inevitable; rather had to be made for just and proper decision of the matter."
30Crl.A. No.25290/2024
31. To sum up it is noticed that the Accused has admitted the impugned cheque at Ex.P1and also admitted his signature whereas he has taken defence that he lost signed cheque and complainant has misused his cheque. But as discussed above the defence of accused is not corroborated by any evidence. There is absolutely no explanation that why he had kept quiet without lodging any complaint before jurisdictional police about misuse of cheque by the complainant. In the entire defence of the accused there is no explanation in this regard. The same shows that the accused has not taken defence which is certain and which is probable and as such the Accused has failed to rebut the presumption. For all above reasons, I hold that, the complainant has duly proved that the cheque at Ex. P1 is issued towards discharge of lawful liability. Once this conclusion is reached and when there are no technical defects in the complainant and all the conditions of section 138 of NI Act are complied it follows that the learned magistrate came to the correct conclusion in holding that the accused has committed the offence under section 138 of NI Act. The total value of the cheque is Rs.6,50,000/- but under section 138 of NI Act, the Learned magistrate can impose sentence of upto twice the cheque amount and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned magistrate was perfectly justified in imposing the fine of Rs.7,67,000/- and therefore, the impugned judgment and sentence does not call for 31 Crl.A. No.25290/2024 interference. Accordingly, none of the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum, deserve acceptance. I have already held supra for the detailed reasons discussed that, the learned magistrate came to the correct conclusion in convicting the appellant and sentencing him as afore stated. Accordingly, for all these reasons, I answered Point Nos.1 & 2 in the Negative.
32. Point No.3: In view of the findings on the above points the appeal filed by the Appellant deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal filed by the Appellant u/sec.374 (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed with costs.
The Judgment of conviction passed by the Learned XXXIV ACJM Bengaluru, in CC.No.54544/2022, dtd. 10.07.2024, is hereby confirmed.
Send back the records with a copy of this Judgment to the Trial Court.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 15th day of April 2026.) Digitally signed by ANITHA ANITHA NANJANAGUDU NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY PARASHIVAMURTHY Date: 2026.05.11 14:42:24 +0530 [Smt. Anitha N.P] LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-74).