Bangalore District Court
M. Shankara Reddy vs N. Vijay on 19 November, 2025
KABC030034602023
Presented on : 21-01-2023
Registered on : 21-01-2023
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 19th day of November 2025
PRESENT
Sri. Dinesh B.G, B.Com.,LL.M.
XXI ACJM, Bengaluru
CRIMINAL CASE NO.2146/2023
Complainant : M.Shankara Reddy,
s/o.Ashwathnarayana Reddy, aged
about 55 years, R/at.Motakapalli
village, Gulur post, Bagepalli taluk,
Chikkaballapura district-561207.
(By Sri.CN., Adv)
V/s
Accused : N.Vijay,
s/o.B.Nagaraj, R/at.Garden road,
Sidlaghatta town and taluk,
Chikkaballapura district-562105.
(By Sri.VSK., Adv)
JUDGMENT
(C.C.No.2146/2023 Judgement) 2 The accused has been tried for the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. The brief case of the complainant is that:-
The complainant is running a whole sale poultry business in and around Chikkaballapura district and accused purchased broiler chicks from him on 17/10/22 for Rs.51,317/- and on 7/11/22 for Rs.1,03,683/-, in total Rs.1,55,000/-. Towards payment of the said amount, he issued a cheque bearing no.325286 dtd:
17/11/22 for Rs.1,55,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Sidlaghatta branch, Chikkaballapura. When he presented the said cheque, it was returned unpaid for the reasons 'payment stopped by the drawer' on 18/11/22. He got issued the legal notice on 9/12/22 calling the accused to pay the cheque amount within stipulated period and said notice was duly served on 12/12/22. The accused has not paid the cheque amount but has issued the reply notice on 30/12/22. Hence, he is constrained to file the complaint.
3. The cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act having been taken on the basis of sworn statement filed in the form of affidavit and documents at Ex.P.1 to P.6, the process came to be issued against accused. In response to the (C.C.No.2146/2023 Judgement) 3 summons, the accused appeared and was enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation was framed, read over and explained to accused; who having pleaded not guilty has claimed to be tried.
4. The affidavit filed in lieu of sworn statement has been treated as evidence in view of direction issued by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Indian Bank Association and Others Vs.Union of India 2014 (5) SCC 59 and got the documents marked at Ex.P.1 to P.6.
5. Accused has been examined U/s 313 of Crpc after incriminating circumstances appearing against accused being read over and explained. He having denied the same has chosen to lead defence evidence. He examined himself as DW 1 and got marked Ex.D1.
6. Having heard both side and having gone through the complaint, evidence and materials on record the following points arise for consideration of the court.
1. Whether complainant has proved that accused issued a cheque bearing no.325286 dtd: 17/11/22 for Rs.1,55,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Sidlaghatta branch, Chikkaballapura in his favour towards discharge of legally recoverable debt/liability and thereby he (C.C.No.2146/2023 Judgement) 4 has committed the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act?
2. What order?
7. My answers to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 :- In the Affirmative Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following :-
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1:- It is the case of the complainant that he supplied broiler chicks to the accused for a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- on different dates and accused issued the cheque in question towards payment of the said amount. He has produced cheque bearing no.325286 dtd:
17/11/22 - Ex.P.1, bank memo - Ex.P.2, legal notice dtd:
9/12/22 - Ex.P.3, postal receipt - Ex.P.4 , postal acknowledgment - Ex.P.5, reply notice - Ex.P.6. The cheque was presented within its validity period and same was dishonoured for the reasons 'Payment stopped by the drawer'. Demand notice was issued within 30 days from the date of receipt of intimation from the bank. It was served on the accused on 12/12/22. The complaint has been filed on 20/1/23 within limitation. Thus, the requirements as contemplated u/s.138 of N.I.Act are satisfied with.
(C.C.No.2146/2023 Judgement) 5
9. It is the specific defence of the accused that the complainant is unknown to him and he is not doing poultry business and he has not purchased chicks from the complainant and not issued any cheque in favour of the complainant towards payment of the amount. He is an agriculturist. Two months ago, when he was travelling from Sidlaghatta to Bangalore, he lost blank cheque. Misusing the said cheque, the complainant has presented the cheque and filed the present case. In his examination in chief, DW1 has stated that he lost his cheque on 13/10/22 and he has lodged the complaint in that regard. He has also taken specific defence that the signature appearing on Ex.P.1 does not belong to him. He has relied upon an acknowledgment issued by the police - Ex.D1. Since the accused has disputed his signature on the cheque, burden lies on the complainant to prove the same. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that the cheque was not dishonoured for difference in the signature of the accused, but it was dishonoured for the reasons 'Payment stopped by the drawer'. It is submitted that if the signature of the accused appearing on the cheque - Ex.P.1(a) was not tallying with that of the specimen signatures available with the drawee bank, an endorsement would have been issued to the effect that the 'Signature differs'.
(C.C.No.2146/2023 Judgement) 6
10. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant, cheque return memo - Ex.P.2 is evident to show that the cheque was returned unpaid with an endorsement 'Payment stopped by the drawer'. If the signature of the accused did not tally with that of the signatures available with the drawee bank, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant, in addition to the endorsement 'Payment stopped by the drawer', an additional endorsement to the effect that 'signature differs' would have been issued. No such endorsement could be seen in Ex.P.2. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to contrary, it can be held that the initial burden of proving the disputed signature on the part of the complainant is said to have been proved and it can be held that the signature at Ex.P.1(a) belongs to the accused. So, burden shifts on the accused to show that the signature at Ex.P.1(a) does not belong to him. Although, the application filed by the accused u/s.45 r/w.75 of Indian Evidence Act, came to be allowed and the cheque in question was ordered to be referred to an handwriting expert for comparison of disputed signature of accused with that of admitted signatures, the accused failed to take any steps to see that the cheque was sent to FSL having remained absent continuously. In the absence of opinion of an expert, the version of the complainant that the signature on the cheque in question (C.C.No.2146/2023 Judgement) 7 belongs to the accused has to be accepted. Thus, the complainant has been able to prove execution of cheque in question. Therefore, as held in the case of Rangappa Vs.Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant, presumptions available u/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act have to be drawn in favour of the complainant that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and in discharge of the liability. As held in the above decision, burden shifts on the accused to rebut the presumption.
11. Besides his oral testimony the acknowledgment issued by Sidlaghatta Rural police - Ex.D1 has been relied upon to probabalize his defence. PW1 has denied the suggestion that there was no any chicks transaction between him and the accused and the cheque lost by the accused having been misused, present case has been filed against him to have wrongful gain. According to the accused, he is stranger to the complainant. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for complainant the address of the accused appearing in Ex.D1 and address of the accused appearing in demand notice and cause title of the complaint are one and the same. If really the accused is totally stranger to the complainant and there was no connection between them at any point of time, question of complainant finding the correct address of the (C.C.No.2146/2023 Judgement) 8 accused and issuing the demand notice to the said address would not have arisen. Further, PW1 has been suggested that the accused lost the cheque one year ago prior to the date of filing of the present case. This case has been filed on 20/1/23. If said suggestion made to PW1 is considered, the accused must have lost the cheque in the month of January 2022. It is pertinent to note that in reply notice - Ex.P.6, the accused has not whispered the date on which he lost the cheque. Whereas, in his examination in chief DW1 states that he lost the cheque on 13/10/22 and same has been mentioned in Ex.D1. The suggestion made to PW1 that the accused lost cheque in the month of January 2022 is in contradiction with that of evidence of DW1 .
12. That apart, Ex.D1 is evident to show that the accused lodged the complaint before Sidlaghatta PS on 13/10/22 on the allegations that on 13/10/22 when he was coming from his garden situated a Hanur village to his house at Sidlaghatta town, he lost the cheques bearing no.925557, 92558, 925559, 925560, 925571, 925572, 925573 pertaining to Canara Bank and cheque bearing nos.685561, 685562, 685563, 685564, 149759, 149760, 149761, 149762, 685559 pertaining to State Bank of India and cheques bearing No.094499, 094498, 095305, 072160, 072153, 072156 pertaining to Axis bank besides (C.C.No.2146/2023 Judgement) 9 RC card of his Scorpio vehicle and he has not signed on the said cheque. As against to the contents of Ex.D1, in reply notice at para no.6 it is the version of the accused that he lost the unsigned blank cheques when he was travelling from Sidlaghatta to Bengaluru. If the version of accused in his reply notice is believed to be true, the averments of the complaint appearing in Ex.D1 has to be disbelieved. If the allegations made in Ex.D1 that he lost the cheques while he was returning home from his garden is taken into consideration, the version of accused in reply notice that he lost cheque while travelling from Sidlaghatta to Bengaluru can hardly be believed. In the light of aforesaid contradictory statements, it is hard to believe the defence of accused that the unsigned blank cheque being lost has been misused by the complainant and present case has been filed against him to have wrongful gain. Even otherwise, it is relevant to note that the cheque in question which bears no.325286 does not find place in Ex.D1. What it indicates is the accused has not lost cheque in question while traveling. If he has lost the cheque in question, he would have mentioned the cheque number of the present case in Ex.D1. The accused has not placed cogent and convincing materials on record to probabalize his defence that the cheque which was allegedly lost has been misused and present case has been filed against him.
(C.C.No.2146/2023 Judgement) 10
13. It is relevant to refer to the decision in the case of A.V.Pooojappa Vs. Dr.S.K.Vagdevi Crl.Rev.Pet No.13/20, dtd: 4/6/25 wherein Hon'ble High court of Karnataka has held that while imposing the punishment, the courts are required to examine the following aspects :
1. The quantum of the loan
2. The defence taken by the accused, more particularly whether he has taken a false defence and failed to prove the same.
3. Whether the accused has dragged on the matter unnecessarily and thereby delayed the disposal of the case at the stage of trial, appeal, revision and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Whether the transaction relates to business between the parties or the parties are business class who would have utilized the amount for their business and flourish, or
5. In other cases, the returns the loan amount would have brought, if it was kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank etc,
14. In another decision in the case of M/s.Banavathi and company Vs.Mahaveer Electromech Pvt, Ltd., and others Crl.R.P.996/2016, Hon'ble High court of Karnataka has directed the trial courts to pass an order to pay future interest @ 9% on the compensation amount payable to the complainant by fixing time of one/two months to deposit the compensation amount so that even if the matter is (C.C.No.2146/2023 Judgement) 11 challenged before Sessions court in appeal and Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in revision, the interest of the complainant will be protected. Keeping in mind the principles laid down in the above decisions and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the accused should be directed to pay the compensation to be awarded out of the fine amount to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of cheque till the compensation amount is deposited. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
15. POINT NO.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused shall pay a fine of ₹1,60,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Out of said fine amount, ₹1,55,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the state towards expenses as contemplated U/s 357(1) of Crpc.
(C.C.No.2146/2023 Judgement) 12 The complainant is entitled to the compensation amount of Rs.1,55,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of cheque till realization.
The accused shall deposit the said compensation amount with interest @ 9% per annum as ordered above within a month.
The bail bond and surety bond stand canceled.
Office to furnish certified copy of the Judgment to the accused free of cost forthwith.
(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by her, revised by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 19th day of November 2025) (Sri. Dinesh B.G) XXI Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 - Shankara Reddy LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
DW1 Vijay.N LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 Cheque
Ex.P.2 Bank endorsement
Ex.P.3 Legal notice
Ex.P.4 Postal receipt
(C.C.No.2146/2023
Judgement)
13
Ex.P.5 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.6 Reply
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 Police Endorsement
(Sri. Dinesh B.G)
XXI Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.