Bangalore District Court
Anantha.N vs G.S.Suresh Gupta on 26 June, 2025
KABC020420922023
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND A.C.J.M, AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JUNE - 2025
PRESENT:
Smt.Nirmala.M.C, B.Com.,L.L.B
JUDGE & ACJM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
C.C.No.14546/2023
Complainant: Sri. Anantha.N.,
S/o. Narasimaiah,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at # 4/1, Grama Devata Street,
Susheela Road, Chikka Mavalli,
Bengaluru South,
Bengaluru - 560 004.
(By Sri.T.R. - Adv.)
-Vs-
Accused: Sri. G.S.Suresh Gupta,
S/o Unknown,
Aged about Major,
Wife of Chandrashekhar,
R/at No.23/4, 1st Cross,
Swimming Pool Road,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bengaluru - 560086.
(By Sri. V.S.P. - Adv.)
SCCH-9 2 CC.No.14546/2023
// J U D G M E N T //
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant
u/Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence
punishable u/Sec 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881
(hereinafter referred as 'Act').
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:
The accused is one of the known person to the
complainant. The accused has approached the complainant to
avail hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- on 13.06.2019 in order to
discharge the debt for accused family liabilities and accused
agreed to pay an interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and also
agreed to return the loan amount within 3 months. On the
assurance of the accused, complainant has paid Rs.2,50,000/-
to the accused out of his hard earned savings money. The
accused was irregular in payment of interest as and when it
accrues. Further complainant demanded the accused for
interest and principal amount but, accused had postponed the
same on one or the other pretext. Finally in the first week of
SCCH-9 3 CC.No.14546/2023
August, accued had issued three cheques i.e., cheque bearing
No.000035 dated 03.08.2023 for Rs.1,00,000/-, cheque
bearing No.000036 dated 03.08.2023 for Rs.1,00,000/- and
cheque bearing No.000037 dated 03.08.2023 for Rs.50,000/-,
all are drawn on PMC Bank, Mahalakshmi layout Branch
towards discharge of the loan and assured the complainant
that said cheques will be dishonoured and entire interest will
be paid within end of August 2023. The complainant
presented the cheque through his banker Canara Bank,
V.V.Puram Branch, but the said cheque came to be
dishonored and said cheque belongs to the accused was
returned as "Unable to scan cheque as Invalid MICR Code"
dated 05.08.2023.
3. It is further case of the complainant that, the
complainant got issued legal notice dated 31.08.2023 by way
of RPAD to the accused calling upon accused to pay the
cheque amount, which is issued by the accused. The said
notice was returned unserved as not claimed on note door
SCCH-9 4 CC.No.14546/2023
locked. Thus, accused not paid the cheque amount. Hence,
complainant has filed this private complaint against the
accused for the alleged offence punishable U/sec.138 of NI
Act.
4. After filing the complaint, cognizance was taken for
the offence punishable U/Sec 138 of N.I. Act. The sworn
statement of the complainant was recorded and registered the
case as Criminal Case and the process was issued against the
accused.
5. In response to the summons, the accused has
appeared before the court and enlarged on bail. The accused
was on bail during the trial. As per the directions of Hon'ble
Apex Court in a case between INDIAN BANK ASSOCIATION
V/s UNION OF INDIA in the instant case on the same day of
appearance of the accused, the substance of accusation was
framed and read over and explained to the accused in the
language known to her. The accused pleaded not guilty, but
claims to be tried. On the same day sworn statement affidavit
SCCH-9 5 CC.No.14546/2023
of complainant was treated as chief examination affidavit and
evidence of complainant treated as PW1. The documents
which were marked at the time of sworn statement i.e., Ex.P.1
to P.13 were also considered as documentary evidence to the
chief examination. Then the statement of accused as required
U/sec 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied all
the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the
evidence to be false. Then accused was permitted to cross
examine the PW.1 on the basis of application filed by him and
the accused himself examined as DW.1 and got marked
documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D.4.
6. Heard the arguments of both sides. The learned
counsel for the complainant has relied on the following
decisions:
1 AIR 1985 SC 3043
2 AIR 2009 SC 386
3 AIR 2020 SC 945
4 Crl.A.No.1233-1235 of 2022 (arising out
of SLP (Crl) No.7430-7432/22 @
D.No.13470/2019
5 (2010) 11 SCC 441
SCCH-9 6 CC.No.14546/2023
6 (2003) 3 SCC 232
7 (2012) 1 SCC 260
The learned counsel for the accused has relied on the
following decision:
1. Judgment in Neutral Citation No.2024:
AHC: 102434 dated 05.06.2024
7. I have perused the materials available on record.
8. Now the points that arise for my consideration are
as under:
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that, the accused had
issued cheque bearing No.000035 dated
03.08.2023 for Rs.1,00,000/-, cheque
bearing No.000036 dated 03.08.2023 for
Rs.1,00,000/- and cheque bearing
No.000037 dated 03.08.2023 for
Rs.50,000/-, all are drawn on PMC Bank,
Mahalakshmi layout Branch in favour of
complainant to discharge his liability and on
presentation of the said cheques for
encashment, the same were returned as
"Unable to scan cheque as invalid MICR
Code" on 05.08.2023 and in spite of service
of notice, the accused failed to pay the
cheque amount within the statutory period
and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2. What order?
SCCH-9 7 CC.No.14546/2023
9. My answer to the above points for my
consideration are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1 : It is the specific case of the
complainant that, accused approached the complainant to
avail hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- on 13.06.2019 in order to
discharge the debt for his family liabilities and accused agreed
to pay an interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and also agreed to
return the loan amount within 3 months. On the assurance of
the accused, complainant has paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the
accused out of his hard earned savings money. The accused
was irregular in payment of interest as and when it accrues.
Further complainant demanded the accused for interest and
principal amount but, accused had postponed the same on
one or the other pretext. Finally in the first week of August,
accused had issued three cheques i.e., cheque bearing
No.000035 dated 03.08.2023 for Rs.1,00,000/-, cheque
SCCH-9 8 CC.No.14546/2023
bearing No.000036 dated 03.08.2023 for Rs.1,00,000/- and
cheque bearing No.000037 dated 03.08.2023 for Rs.50,000/-,
all are drawn on PMC Bank, Mahalakshmi layout Branch
towards discharge of the loan and assured the complainant
that said cheques will be dishonoured and entire interest will
be paid within end of August 2023. The complainant presented
the cheque through his banker Canara Bank, V.V.Puram
Branch, but the said cheque came to be dishonored and said
cheque belongs to the accused was returned as "Unable to
scan cheque as Invalid MICR Code" dated 05.08.2023.
Thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice. The
accused has not paid the cheque amount. Hence, complainant
filed the private complaint for the offence punishable
U/Sec.138 of NI Act.
11. I have perused all the materials available on
record with cautiously. As stated above, in order to prove the
guilt of the accused, the complainant himself examined as
PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P13. The PW1/complainant has
SCCH-9 9 CC.No.14546/2023
filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated all the
facts mentioned in his complaint. The Ex.P.1 to 3 are the
Cheques, Ex.P.1(a) to P.3(a) are the signatures of accused,
Ex.P.4 to 6 are the Bank Endorsements, Ex.P.7 is the office
copy of legal notice, Ex.P.8 is the returned postal cover,
Ex.P.8(a) is the legal notice dated 16.08.2023, Ex.P.9 and 10
are the Postal receipts, Ex.P.11 & 12 are the track
consignments and Ex.P.13 is the Account statement.
12. The learned counsel for complainant has argued
the case and submitted that accused has committed an
offence punishable u/Sec 138 NI act by issuing bounced
cheques, thus accused is liable to be convict for the offence
punishable U/sec 138 of NI Act by imposing the cheques
amount.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for accused has
vehemently argued that accused has not at all committed any
offence as alleged by the complainant. Complaint is barred by
limitation and disputed cheques are invalid cheques. Thus he,
SCCH-9 10 CC.No.14546/2023
requested for acquittal of the accused. In support of his
defence arguments, he relied upon the evidence of the DW.1
and Ex.D1 to Ex.D4.
14. Before discussion of case of the complainant, it is
better to have important ingredients as contemplated under the
Act, which constitute the offence punishable u/Sec 138 of the
said Act which reads as under:-
a) The cheque has been presented to the bank
within a period of 3 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 30 days) of
the receipt of information from 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 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
15. Perused the material available on record. It is not in
dispute that accused and complainant well known to each
SCCH-9 11 CC.No.14546/2023
other. It is also not in dispute that, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 are the
disputed cheques and signatures of the cheques belongs to
accused.
16. The complainant contended that accused
approached him and borrowed the loan of Rs.2,50,000/- on
13.06.2019 and accused agreed to repay the same within
three months. Thereafter, the accused has not repay the said
amount with interest. Finally, accused issued the disputed
cheques in the 1st week of August to discharge his liability. In
support of his contention, complainant filed affidavit wherein
reiterated all averments of the complaint and examined as
PW.1 and produced the documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. On the
other hand, accused denied the contention of the complainant.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently
argued and same defence taken during the cross-examination
of the PW.1 that complaint filed by the complainant is barred
by limitation. In this regard perused the cross-examination of
the PW.1, wherein learned counsel for the accused put a
SCCH-9 12 CC.No.14546/2023
suggestion at para No.3 of the cross-examination of the PW.1
that, 2019 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಹಣ ನೀಡಿದ್ದು , 2023 ರವರೆಗೆ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಯಾವುದೇ
ಕಾನೂನು ಕ್ರ ಮ ಕೈಗೊಂಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ಆರೋಪಿಯು
ಮನೆಯನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಹೋಗಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಮನೆಯ ಬಳಿ
ಹೋದಾಗ ಆರೋಪಿ ಸಿಗದಿದ್ದಾ ಗ ಆತನ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಲಿಖಿತವಾಗಿ ದೂರು ದಾಖಲಿಸಿದ್ದೀರಾ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಆ ರೀತಿ ದೂರು ದಾಖಲಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ದಿನಾಂಕಃ
13.06.2019 ರಿಂದ ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 03.08.2023 ರವರೆಗೆ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ವಿರುದ್ಧ
ಯಾವುದಾದರೂ ಸಿವಿಲ್ ದಾವೆಯನ್ನು ಹೂಡಿದ್ದೀರಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಆ ರೀತಿ ದಾವೆ
ಹೂಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಈ ಮೆ ೕಲ್ಕಂಡ ದಿನಾಂಕದ ಅವಧಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿಯು
ಸಾಲ ಮರುಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಹಾಗೂ ಆತನಿಂದ ಸಾಲ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ
ಯಾವುದೇ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಹಾಗೆಯೆ ೕ ನಾನು ಕೂಡ
ಸಾಲ ಬಾಕಿ ಇರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆದು ಸಾಲ ಮರುಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡುವಂತೆ
ಕೋರಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
17. As above, PW.1 clearly admitted that, he has lend
the amount in the year 2019 and he has not taken any legal
action against the accused to recover the said amount.
Further, he clearly deposed that, accused has not executed
any document with respect to extension of the time. It is
SCCH-9 13 CC.No.14546/2023
settled principle of law that, there is a three years of limitation
to recover the debt. It is also settled principle of law that,
before completion of three years of limitation, if the borrower
executes any acknowledgment of paid part payment that, three
years of limitation would gets extended again for three years
from the date of acknowledgment or part payment. In the
instant case, there is no such instance that the accused
executed the acknowledgment or paid part payment in
between 13.06.2019 to 03.08.2023 in favour of complainant to
extend the period of limitation. The complainant categorically
alleges that, after several demands, accused has issued
alleged three cheques in the 1st Week of August 2023. If that is
so, it is nearly after lapse of four years one month cheques
have been issued. As stated above, there is a three years of
limitation for recovering the money or debt. In this case, after
lapse of four years one month, the cheque in question were
issued to discharge the liability or debt beyond limitation period
it appears that the complainant is claiming debt is absolutely
time barred. Such debt cannot be considered as legally
SCCH-9 14 CC.No.14546/2023
enforceable debt and would not attract offence punishable
U/sec 138 of NI Act. In this regard, I am relied upon the
judgment reported in 2020 SCC Online Kar 3415 (The Bidar
Urban C-operative Bank Ltd. V/s. Girish) wherein our own
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was please to held at para 39
as under:-
"39. In view of the principles stated in the
above referred decision and discussion, it is
evident that the penal provision of Section 138 of
the N.I. Act is applicable only to the cheques which
are issued for the discharge in whole or in part, of
any debt or other liability, which according to
explanation must be a legally enforceable debt or
other liability. A cheque given in discharge of a
time barred debt will not constitute on
unconditional undertaking or promise in writing
either expressly or impliedly so as to attract the
criminal offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. This
was elaborated in Sasseriyil Josesph's case,
(supra) which is affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as stated above. A cheque given in
discharge of a time barred debt will not constitute a
promise in writing not even an implied promise so
as to attract a criminal liability under Section 138 of
N.I. Act."
The above decision is aptly applicable to the present
facts and circumstances of the case wherein Hon'ble High
SCCH-9 15 CC.No.14546/2023
Court of Karnataka held that, issued the disputed cheques to
time barred debt, it will not attract a criminal liability U/s.138 of
N.I. Act. In the present case, the complaint itself is cleared
that, accused has borrowed the loan in the year 2019 and
accused issued the cheque in the year 2023, it shows that
complainant has filed this complaint with respect to time barred
debt. If the debt is time barred debt, it cannot be considered
as legally recoverable debt, therefore the above citation is
clearly applicable to the present case on hand with regard to
time barred debt.
18. Further, the learned counsel for the accused
argued and the same defence taken in the defence evidence
that, the disputed cheques are invalid as the cheques in
disputed were issued from the account maintained in the
Punjab and Maharashra Co-operative Bank Limited. It is
merged with another bank. Hence, the invalid disputed
cheques will not attract the liability U/s.138 of N.I. Act. On the
other hand, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently
SCCH-9 16 CC.No.14546/2023
argued that, accused borrowed the loan and issued the
disputed cheques for legally recoverable debt in the year 2023.
Accused clearly admitted that disputed cheques and
signatures on the cheques belongs to him, hence accused is
liable to pay the amount mentioned in the cheques. In this
regard, perused the disputed cheques, it is not in dispute that
disputed cheques and signature on the cheques belongs to
accused which is account maintained the accused in the
Panjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank Limited. Ex.P.4
to Ex.P.6 are the endorsement issued by the bank wherein
mentioned as other reason unable to scan cheque as invalid
MIRC code. These documents are shows that, cheque were
returned with endorsement as invalid MRIC Code. Therefore,
in this regard, accused relied upon the decision reported in
2024 AHC:102434 in between Diwakar Tiwari, Gyanendra
Singh V/s. Ashish Pandey G.A., Vivek Kumar Singh wherein,
Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad held at para 11.
In view of the above analysis, the cheque
in question, which was issued form the account
SCCH-9 17 CC.No.14546/2023
maintained in erstwhile Allahabad Bank after its
merger with Indian Bank, was not the valid
cheque on the date of presentation before the
Indian Bank as required by proviso (a) of
Section 138 of N.I. Act; therefore, dishonouring
the same will not attract the liability U/s.138 N.I.
Act.
The above decision is amply applicable to the present
case, wherein Hon'ble High Court held that, Alhabad Bank
after its merge with Indian Bank was not valid cheque on the
date of presentation before the Indian Bank as required by
proviso (a) of Section 138 of NI Act. In the present case is also
not in dispute, Punjab and Maharastra Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
merged with Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd., it is not in
disputed by the complainant, complainant is also clearly
admitted that, Punjab and Maharastra Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
merged with Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd., As per notification
of the RBI dated 25.01.2022 Punjab and Maharastra Co-
operative Bank Ltd., merged with Unity Small Finance Bank
Ltd., in the year 2022.
19. The complainant contended that, accused has
issued the disputed cheque in the first week of August 2023.
SCCH-9 18 CC.No.14546/2023
On the other hand accused has denied the same and taken
the contention that in the year 2018, complainant has lend the
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to one K.T.Srinivas, at that time
complainant has received the 3 cheques bearing Nos.000035,
000036 and 000037 from the accused for security purpose
towards that transaction. Accused never borrowed the loan
from the complainant. In support of his defence, accused
produced the Ex.D.4, perused the same, it clearly supported
the defence of the accused. Learned counsel for the
complainant cross-examined the DW.1, wherein put a
suggestion that you have created the Ex.D.4, it is denied by
the accused. Perused the Ex.D.4, it shows that complainant
has lend the amount to the accused. But, he has lend the
amount to one K.T.Srinivas dated 18.08.2018, at that time
complainant received the disputed cheque from the accused
for security purpose. Further in that document appeared the
signature of the complainant, signature on Ex.D.4 is not denied
by the complainant. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve
the defence of the accused and Ex.D.4 that in the year 2018,
SCCH-9 19 CC.No.14546/2023
complainant has collected the disputed cheques from the
accused for security purpose towards transaction between
complainant and K.T.Srinivas. Further PW.1 during his cross-
examination clearly deposed that he wrote his namem and
date on disputed cheques. This version is also supported the
defence of the accused that he has not issued the disputed
cheque in the year 2023, when the accused issued the
disputed cheque, at that time he has not written the name and
date on the disputed cheques. It shows that accused has
issued the disputed cheque without mentioning the date.
Therefore, the contention of the complainant is not believable
that accused has issued the disputed cheque in the first week
of August 2023. However, accused has clearly established that
he has issued the disputed cheques in the year 2018 for
security purpose.
20. Ex.P.1 to 3 are the disputed cheques belongs to
accused who maintained the account with Punjab and
Maharastra Co-operative Bank Ltd., dated 03.08.2023. Ex.P.4
SCCH-9 20 CC.No.14546/2023
to 6 shows that, disputed cheques returned with endorsement
on 05.08.2023. These documents shows that, complainant has
presented the disputed cheques in the year 2023 i.e., after
merging with the Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd., It shows that,
at the time of presentation of disputed cheques, those cheques
were invalid. As per the proviso (a) of Section 138 of N I Act
cheques must be presented during its validity. But in the
present case, complainant has not presented cheques during
its valid period. When the complainant presented the disputed
cheques, they were become invalid cheques. Therefore, Bank
has issued the endorsement "Unable scan cheque as invalid
MICR code". At this juncture I am relied upon the decision
reported in 2021 SCC Online Jhar 482 (Md.Nasim Ansari Vs.
State of Jharkhand) wherein Hon'ble Court held that, "where
the cheque was dishonored because of it being a non MICR
cheque as held that, an offences under Section 138 of N I Act
will not be made out".
The above decision is aptly applicable to the present
SCCH-9 21 CC.No.14546/2023
case. In the present case has also Bank has issued the
endorsement "Unable scan cheque as invalid MICR code". In
such situation, complainant has not made out his case that,
accused is committed offence under Section 138 of N I Act.
21. In the present case, complainant contended that,
accused has borrowed the loan of Rs.2,50,000/- dated
13.06.2019 and the accused has agreed to repay the said
amount within 3 months, But accused has not paid the said
amount within stipulated period and after repeated demands
made by the complainant, the accused has issued disputed
cheques in favour of the complainant to discharge his legally
enforceable debt. The Learned counsel for the complainant
vehemently argued that, it is not in dispute, disputed cheques
and signatures are belongs to accused, accused has clearly
admitted during his cross examination. Further it is also not in
dispute issuance of cheques, therefore, accused is liable to
pay the amount mentioned in the cheques. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the following decisions:
SCCH-9 22 CC.No.14546/2023
AIR 1985 SC 3043
AIR 2009 SC 386
AIR 2020 SC 945
Crl.A.No.1233-1235 of 2022 (arising out of SLP
(Crl) No.7430-7432/22 @ D.No.13470/2019
(2010) 11 SCC 441
(2003) 3 SCC 232
(2012) 1 SCC 260
22. No doubt it is true issuance of the cheques and
signatures on disputed cheques are not disputed by the
accused. But, accused taken the defence that those cheques
were invalid at the time of presentation. Accused has issued
the disputed cheques in the year 2018. As per notification of
the RBI, Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
merged with Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd. In the year 2022.
After that cheques were invalid. This defence is clearly
established by the accused. However, complainant failed to
prove his contention that accused has issued the disputed
cheques for legally recoverable debt. Mere issuance of cheque
and admission of signature is not sufficient, at this juncture I
am relied upon the decision reported in 2012 (3) KCCR 2057
SCCH-9 23 CC.No.14546/2023
in between Veeraiah Vs. G.K.Madivalar, wherein Hon'ble court
held that mere issuance of cheque is not sufficient unless it is
shown that said cheque was issued towards discharge of
legally recoverable debt. The above decision is aptly
applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
In the present case, though the accused admitted his signature
on the disputed cheques and issuance of cheques, he clearly
denied the transaction between himself and the complainant.
When the accused denied the financial transaction, it is the
burden of proof upon the complainant, he had to prove the
same through cogent oral and documentary evidence, but,
complainant failed to prove that, accused has issued the
disputed cheques for legally recoverable debt. When the
complainant failed to prove his contention, he cannot get any
relief as prayed in the complaint. Further complainant failed to
prove that he has filed this present case for legally recoverable
debt and he has presented the valid cheques for encashment.
Accused has clearly rebut the presumption raised in favour of
the complainant that he never issued the disputed cheques in
SCCH-9 24 CC.No.14546/2023
favour of the complainant for legally recoverable debt.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that complainant has not proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed
an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act by issuing disputed
cheque. Hence I answered Point No.1 in the Negative.
23. POINT NO.2: As per above discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 255[1] of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence Punishable U/s.138 of the N.I. Act.
The bail bond of the accused is hereby stand canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her and corrected then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of June, 2025.) (Nirmala.M.C) Court of Small Causes, Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 - Ananth.N. SCCH-9 25 CC.No.14546/2023 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
DW.1 - G.S.Suresh Gupta LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 to 3 - 3 Cheques Ex.P1(a) to - Signatures of accused 3(a) Ex.P4 to 6 - Bank endorsements Ex.P7 - Legal notice dated 16.08.2023 Ex.P8 - Unserved Postal cover Ex.P8(a) - Legal notice dated 16.08.2023 found in returned postal cover Ex.P9 & 10 - Postal receipts Ex.P11& 12 - Track consignments Ex.P13 - Account statement LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED:
Ex.D1 - Reply notice dated 14.10.2023 Ex.D2 - Postal receipt Ex.D3 - Returned postal cover Ex.D3(a) - Reply notice dated 14.10.2023 in Ex.D.3 Ex.D4 - Acknowledgment (Nirmala.M.C) Court of Small Causes, Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.