Bangalore District Court
Praveen Kumar J vs Naperla Kalyan on 14 November, 2025
KABC030785462022
IN THE COURT OF XX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: BHOLA PANDIT,
B.Com.,LL.M.,
XX ADDL. C.J.M.
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 14th day of November 2025
C.C.No. 31791/ 2022
Complainant : Sri.Praveen Kumar J
S/o. Sri. Lakshmaiah
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at No.30, Venkatesh House,
1st Main, 3rd Cross,
Behind Mariyamma Temple,
Kaveri Nagar,
Mahadevapura,
Bengaluru - 560 048
{ By Sri.S B Mohan Kumar- Advocate }
2 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022
Vs.
Accused : Sri. Naperla Kalyan
S/o. Sri. Naperla Yesu Dass
aged about 24 years,
Residing at Room No. A-6, Shree Sai Balaji
Laxury PG
No.5 3rd Cross, 3rd Main Road, Singayyana
Palya
Beside Phoenix V R Mall
Mahadevapura Post,
Bengaluru - 560 016
also working at
Mech Mold Techonologes as VMC Operator
Site No. 1 , 41/60, 9th Cross Shed No.1
Singayyana Palya, Mahadevapura Post,
Bengaluru - 560 048
{ By Sri.Harish Jayakumar- Advocate }
Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act.,
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of Order : 14.11.2025
3 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022
JUDGMENT
The present complaint is filed under section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish him for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act").
02. The fact which leads to file the present complaint are briefed as under.
It is stated that, the Complainant and accused are relatives and childhood friends. In the month of December 2020 the accused has borrowed Rs.20,000/- and again in the month of August 2021 the accused has approached the Complainant to advance him a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and has under taken to repay Rs.20,000/- as well as Rs.3,50,000/- together within short period. Therefore in the month of October 2021 the Complainant has paid him a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cash and in the month of November 2021 has paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh by way of cash. In all the accused has borrowed a total sum of 4 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 Rs.3,70,000/- from the Complainant agreeing to repay the same within 2 months and has acknowledged about the receipt of the said amount. It is further stated that, to repay the debt of the Complainant the accused has issued cheque bearing No. 324842 dated 09.02.2022 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on SBI, Balaji Complex, Annapoorna Nagar, Udayagiri, Nellore District of Andhra Pradesh . The Complainant has presented the the said cheque with his banker on 16.02.2022 for encashment, but it was returned unpaid due to "Funds insufficient" in the account of the drawer as per bank return memo dated 17.02.2022. Thereafter on 16.03.2022 the Complainant got issued demand notice to the accused through his advocate by RPAD and the accused had received RPADs sent to his both the addresses on 18.03.2022, in spite of that, the accused neither had paid the cheque amount nor has given any reply. On all these grounds, it is sought to convict the accused under section 138 of NI Act and grant him compensation under section 357 of Cr.P.C. 5 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022
03. On presentation of the complaint, this court has verified the averments of the complaint and also annexed documents. Having made out prima facie case cognizance has been taken for the offense punishable u/s 138 of NI Act. As per the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association V/s. Union of India and others sworn statement of the Complainant has been recorded as PW1 and got marked 7 documents. Another document at Ex.P8 got marked during the cross of DW1. Having made out prima facie case it is ordered to register the complaint in register No.III and to issue process against the accused.
04. In response to the court summons, the accused put his appearance before the court through his counsel and filed bail application under section 436 of Cr.P.C., along with necessary applications, since the alleged offense is bailable in nature, accused has been enlarged on bail. The plea has been recorded and read over to the accused he pleaded not guilty and wanted to put forth his defense. As per section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sworn 6 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 statement of the Complainant has been treated as affidavit evidence and the accused has been permitted to cross- examine of PW1. After terminating the Complainant side evidence, the statement of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained to accused the incriminating evidence, the accused denied the same in toto and wanted to lead his side evidence. The accused by name Naperla Kalyan has entered in the witness box and has adduced his oral evidence as DW1 and got marked 4 documents on his behalf as Ex.D1 to D4 and closed his side.
05. Both the learned counsel have advanced their oral arguments and also submitted written arguments.
In support of his oral argument the Learned prosecuting counsel has relied the following cites. 1 (2019) 18 SCC 106 Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel 2 AIR 2023 SC 5018 Rajesh Jain V/s Ajay Singh 3 2021(3) SCC 283 Kalamani Tex and another 7 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 4 2010 (11) SCC 441 Rangappa V/s Mohan In support of his written arguments the Learned defense counsel has relied the following citations. 1 2019 (5) SCC 418 Basalingappa Vs Mudibasappa 2 (2006) 6 SCC 99 M S Narayana Menon Vs State of Kerala 3 (2015) 1 SCC 99 K Subramni Vs K Damodara Naidu 4 (2014) 2 SCC 236 John K Abraham Vs. Simon C Abraham
06. The following points that arise for my consideration are as under;
POINTS
1. Does the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubts that, the accused has issued cheque No. 324842 dated 09.02.2022 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on SBI, Balaji Complex, Annapoorna Nagar, Udayagiri, Nellore District of Andhra Pradesh towards the discharge of his lawful liability of the 8 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 complainant and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned unpaid due to shara as "Funds insufficient" as per banker's memo and in-spite of issuance of demand notice, the accused have failed to pay the cheque amount, thereby has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act?
2. What Order or sentence ?
07. My findings to the above points is as follows;
1. Point No.1: In the Affirmative
2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS POINT No.1:
08. It is the specific case of the complainant that, on various dates in all the accused has borrowed a total sum of Rs.3,70,000/- from him and to repay the said amount has issued disputed cheque. When the said cheque was presented with the banker, it has returned unapid due to 9 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 "Funds insufficient" in the account of the accused and in spite of issuance of demand notice and also service of the same the accused neither has paid the cheque amount nor has given any replyAccordingly, it is sought to convict the accused under section 138 of NI Act.
09. To substantiate and to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts, the sworn statement of the complainant has been treated as affidavit evidence and got marked in all 8 documents. Ex.P1 to 3 are the disputed, cheque, bank return memo and demand notice, Ex.P4 and P5 are the postal receipts, Ex.P6 and P7 are the postal track consignment report, Ex.P8 is the true copy of complaint in NCR 108 / 2022. To disprove the case of the Complainant and also to rebut the Legal presumptions which could be drawn in favour of complainant the accused by name Neperla Kalyan has adduced his oral evidence as DW1 and got marked in all 4 documents. Ex.D1 is the copy of acknowledgment issued by the Mahadevapur PS in NCR No.102/2022 and Ex.D2 is the acknowledgemnet of the 10 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 said PS in respect of Ex.D1. Ex.D3 is the screen shot of payment made through phone pay. Ex.D4 is the certificate under section 63(4) BSA. Both the learned counsels have subsequently cross examined their rival witnesses.
10. Before to appreciate oral and documentary evidence produced on records, it is imperative on this court to find out whether the Complainant has proved the necessary ingredients of section 138 of NI Act before filing the present complaint.
11. Looking upon the disputed cheque, bank return memo and demand notice, it can be seen that, the disputed cheque was presented with bank within its valid period and that, the demand notice was issued within 30 days from the date of receiving the bank return memo.
Looking upon the report of the postal authority and postal tract report it can be seen that the demand notice sent under Ex.P4 and P5 have been personally served upon the accused. Even in his oral evidence as well as cross 11 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 examination of the accused has clearly admitted that he has received the demand notice personally. The present complaint is filed before this court on 27.04.2022. Thus, without hesitation, it can be concluded that, the present complaint has been filed before this court within 30 days after the expiry of the cooling period of 15 days.
12. As per section 118 of NI Act unless the contrary is prove the presumption shall be made that every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and it has been accepted, negotiated or transferred for consideration. As per section 139 of NI Act there is another presumption which speaks that, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is prove that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature refered to in section 138 in the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or lability.
13. The Learned defense counsel has relied the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2014(2) SCC 239 in the 12 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 case of John K Abraham Vs. Simon C Abraham and would contend that unless the Complainant prove his case Legal presumptions shall not be drawn in favour of complainant. On the contrary the Learned prosecuting counsel has relied the judgment of larger bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa V/s. Mohan reported in 2010(11) 441, another judgment in the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs State of Gujarath reported (2019) 18 SCC 106 and would contend that, once the issuance of cheque and signature thereon is admitted, the Legal presumptions shall be raised in favour of complainant. With due respect in the relied judgments now by the larger bench judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which are relied by the Learned prosecuting counsel it is well settled law that Legal presumptions under section 139 of NI Act shall indeed includes the issuance of cheque for discharge of legally recoverable debt or lability and that, the Complainant is the due holder of the said cheque. The judgment relied by the Learned defense counsel is not applicable to the case on hand. In the instant case on hand during his cross 13 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 examination the accused has clearly admitted that, the cheque at Ex.P1 belongs to his account and it bears his signature, therefore the Legal presumptions under section 118 and 139 of NI Act shall goes in favour of complainant and would operates against the accused. As per the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa reported in 2019 (5) SCC 418 relied by the Learned defense counsel it is well settled law that, the accused shall put forth probable defense and to prove the same by producing cogent evidence and only there upon the onus shifts on the Complainant to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. Undisputedly the accused has failed to give reply to the demand notice and thereby not put forth his defense in the begging itself. However, there is no bar for the accused to put forth his defense during the trial. On considering entire oral evidence of Complainant as well as accused it is the defence of the accused that, he has lost his cheque and the same was found by the Complainant and by misusing the same this false complaint has been filed against him. It is another 14 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 defense of the accused that he has taken only Rs.20,000/- from the Complainant and has repaid the same. However, when the Complainant continued in the same employment from where the accused is left the job, having illwill on that fact the Complainant has filed this false case against him. In order to establish this defense the Learned defense counsel has conducted marathon cross examination of PW1 and also has adduced his oral evidence.
14. During the cross examination of PW1 it is elicited that, the Complainant did not taken any documents from the accused for advancing of alleged loan. So also he has not paid any tax on the alleged amount. It is further elicited that he has not produced any bank account statement to show that, he had sufficient amount in his account while advancing the alleged hand loan. In spite of this evidence culled from the Complainant much has been argued from the defense side oral as well as in the written arguments. To appreciate this evidence culled out from the mouth of PW1, it is necessary for the accused first he shall put forth 15 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 his defence and prove the same and thereby to rebut the Legal presumptions. By referring the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K Subramni Vs K Damodara Naidu the defense counsel contended that, the Complainant has failed to establish his financial capacity. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tedhi Singh Vs. Narayana Das Mahant and also in the recent judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 4171/2024 in between Ashok Singh Vs. State of UP and another decided on 02.04.2025 held that, in order to question the financial capacity of the Complainant the accused shall take defense initially in his reply notice only there upon the Complainant has oblige to prove the said fact before the rebuttal Legal presumptions Therefore I do not find any merit in the contention of the Learned defense counsel except the above discussion evidence nothing has been culled from the mouth of PW1 16 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 during his further cross examination. On the other hand, the accused himself has entered in the witness box and adduced his oral evidence stating that, himself and the Complainant are relatives. In the year 2021 he borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the Complainant . Both of them working together in one private company and since the Complainant has on one month leave on the birth of his child, the Complainant was insisting him to leave the said job as such when the Complainant has left job how could he continue in the said company. He further deposed that, when he was residing in the PG he has kept 2 signed blank cheques which were stolen accordingly he lodge complaint before the police and also intimated to his banker. He has denied the alleged transaction of the Complainant . He further deposed that, in the month of September 2024 he has paid Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant . He got marked 4 documents on his behalf. The Learned prosecuting counsel has cross examination DW1 and during the said cross examination PW1 has admitted that he has not given any reply to the demand notice even though he has 17 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 received notice at Ex.P3. When the accused has received notice and did not given reply then subsequently contended that, his cheques were stolen do not appears to be probable defense. As per the evidence DW1 and document at Ex.P8 his cheque was stolen on 23.12.2021 but he has lodged complaint on 17.02.2022 only when the cheque at Ex.P1 was dishonoured when it was presented to the bank. If at al in reality his cheque was stolen or lost he could have filed the complaint before the police before the presentation of the cheque to the bank. Even otherwise, he could have filed application with his banker for making stop payment order but no such efforts has been made. On other hand, when the accused himself has admitted that, during the pendency of this case he has paid Rs.20,000/- the Complainant through phone pay. Meaning thereby he has indirectly admitting the debt of the Complainant . On the other hand, in the cross examination dated 18.09.2025 the accused himself admitted that, after filing this case, he along with Jayakumar had been to the house of Complainant . When 18 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 this being the evidence of DW1 as rightly suggested by prosecuting counsel that, he went to the house of Complainant just to get compromise of the case clearly seems to be true and correct and thereby very much supports the case of the Complainant . If at all the accused gives any stop payment letter to his banker then the cheque at Ex.P1 could not have dishonoured for the reason as "Funds insufficient" but it could have dishonoured as stop payment order by drawer. Considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the accused coupled with evidence culled out during the cross of PW1 I am of the considered opinion that, the accused has failed to put forth probable defense and prove the same thereby not rebutted the Legal presumptions Accordingly, I answered point No.1 in the Affirmative. POINT NO.2:
14. In the case of M/s. Banavathy & Company V/s.
Mahavir Electro Mech (P). Ltd. And others in Criminal Revision Petition No.996/ 2016 the Hon'ble High Court of 19 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 Karnataka pleased to direct the trail court to impose for further interest @9% p.a. on the compensation amount. In the light of guidelines issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under section 255 (2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, accused is
hereby convicted for the offence
punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,60,000/-
(Rs.3,50,000/- + Rs.10,000/-). In default, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6(six) months.
Acting under section 357(1) of
code of criminal procedure, it is
ordered that an amount of
Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Fifty Thousand only) there from shall be paid to the complainant as a 20 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022 compensation together with future interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default to till the date of deposit.
Remaining fine amount of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only) is defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in the prosecution.
The bail bond of accused stands canceled subject to appeal period.
Supply free copy of judgment to the accused .
{Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this 14th day of November 2025}.
(BHOLA PANDIT) XX ACJM, ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1 Praveen Kumar J List of documents produced on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque
Ex.P. 1(a) Signature of the accused
21 C.C. No. 31791 / 2022
Ex.P. 2 Bank endorsement
Ex.P. 3 Copy of the legal notice
Ex.P. 4 & 5 Postal receipts
Ex.P. 6 Letter written by postal
department
Ex.P. 7 Track consignment reported
Ex. P8 True copy of complaint in NCR
108 / 2022.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
D.W.1 Neperal Kalyan List of documents produced on behalf of accused:
Ex.D.1 Copy of acknowledgment issued by the Mahadevapur PS in NCR No.102/2022 Ex.D.2 Acknowledgemnet of the said PS in respect of Ex.D1.
Ex.D.3 Screen shot of payment made
through phone pay.
Ex.D.4 Certificate under section 63(4)
BSA.
XX A.C.J.M. Bengaluru.