Bangalore District Court
K R Govinda vs Manjula M on 12 January, 2026
KABC0A0008562024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
(CCH-75)
Dated: This the 12th day of January, 2026.
PRESENT:
Sri.PRAKASH CHANNAPPA KURABETT, B.Sc., LL.B.,(Spl.),
C/C IV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
(CCH-21)
CRL. APPEAL No.25111/2024
APPELLANT/
ACCUSED: K.R.Govinda,
S/o.Rathnaiah Shetty,
aged about 53 yrs,
R/at.No.235/3,
Near Surya Kalyana Mantapa,
V.V.Puram, Gauribidanur,
Chickkaballapura-561208.
(Rep.by Sri.A.C.Patil, Advocate)
V/S
2
CRL.A. No.25111/2024
RESPONDENT/
COMPLAINANT: Smt.Manjula.M.,
W/o.Late.Krishnappa,
aged about 53 yrs,
R/at.No.116/1, 2nd Floor,
Kavari Layout, Aravind Nagar,
Oil Mill Road, Kammanahalliu,
Bengaluru-84.
(Rep.by Sri.B.Raghavendra, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved against the judgment passed by XXXIII ACMM, Bengaluru, in CC No.51071/2020 on 06.01.2024 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable u/S 138 of N.I. Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.25,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
2. The appellant was the accused and respondent herein was the complainant before the trial court and 3 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 hereinafter they are referred to as per the ranks assigned to them before the trial court.
3. In brief the appellant/accused has stated in the memorandum of appeal that the trial court has convicted him in C.C. No.51071/2020 for the offence punishable u/S 138 of N.I. Act by holding that he has issued post dated cheque bearing No.853400 dated 04.7.2019 for a sum of Rs.19,75,000/- in favour of the complainant. The said judgment has been challenged by the accused on the following grounds:-
1. That there was no debt or liability that was required to be discharged by the appellant in favour of the respondent and the subject matter of the cheque Ex.P.1 was not at all given in discharge of any alleged debt or liability.
2. That the trial court fail to take note of the fact that, what was due amount payable by the accused to the complainant which is not stated either in the complaint nor in the evidence of the respondent.4
CRL.A. No.25111/2024
3. That no where in the complaint, the complainant has not stated the date or week or month or year when the appellant requested her and his daughter for withdrawing criminal cases.
4. That the trail court fail to consider the fact that there was no financial transaction took place between the appellant and the respondent and there was legal liability or debt payable by the appellant to the respondent.
5. That the trial court seriously erred by holding that accused had issued cheque in question in favour of complainant towards legally enforceable debt at the same time ignored to read statement of the complainant in para-8 that the complainant herself stated that cheque in question issued by the accused for the amount received from the complainant husband. This fact clearly establish fact that there was no financial transaction taken place between the appellant and respondent.
6. That the trial court without any basis proceeded to believe the false story of the respondent. In the complaint, it is falsely alleged that accused introduced himself as astrologer and told her that he was engaged in doing black magic to 5 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 remove problems in her family and it is further alleged that accused misused complainant innocent and coerced in the guise of black magic and forcibly married complainant younger daughter Smt.K.Rashmi by giving threats to her life etc. Therefore, the trial court ought to have held that story stated by the complainant in the complaint and in the evidence is unbelievable.
7. That the trial court judgment is only on the ground that accused has fail to be present for 313 statement of Cr.P.C., and not leading evidence, ignoring the provision of law that burden is on the complainant to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and also ignored to see that legal notice issued by the complainant Ex.P.3 is not at all served to the accused and same is returned for the reasons of insufficient address.
Hence, finding of the trial court is perverse and unsustainable in law in as much as the complainant fail to prove the ingredient of Section 138 of N.I. Act.
8. That the appellant has lost opportunity to contest the case on merits firstly due to his ill health as he is a handicapped person and unable to move out or walk or stand. In this regard Govt. of India has issued a Unique disability ID card 6 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 which shows that his disability is 75%. In such physical bad condition he could not receive the information from his lawyer about the status of the case.
9. That the appellant is in such bad health condition and there was no information from his advocate about status of the case in question in the trial court as such he was not aware about the trial court judgment. Only recently he came to know about the trial court judgment by others.
Thereby on all these grounds the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment dated 06.01.2024 passed by XXXIII ACMM.
4. After filing of this appeal, the presence of the respondent was secured. The trial court record was called and received.
5. Heard arguments and perused the entire materials placed on record.
7
CRL.A. No.25111/2024
6. The points that would arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the judgment passed by the trial court is in accordance with law and facts of the case?
2. If, not whether the interference of this court is required in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court?
3. What order?
7. My answer on the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative, Point No.2: In the Negative, Point No.3: As per the final order, for the following:-8
CRL.A. No.25111/2024 REASONS
8. POINT Nos.1 & 2: Both these points are interrelated, they have been taken up for consideration together.
9. In brief it is the case of the complainant before the trial court that the complainant is an illiterate and poor lady and when she was in critical condition in the year 2009 accused introduced himself as an Astrologer and further represented that he is engaged in black magic to remove all the problems of her family. At that time her husband was bed-ridden and two daughters out of 3 daughters were unmarried. The complainant believed the accused representations and he has misused her innocence and coerced in the guise of black magic and forcibly married to her younger daughter by giving threats to her life which she came to know and her family members in the year 2012. After the marriage the accused kept her in confinement at 9 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 various places and threatened her daughter not disclose about the marriage and as such her daughter did not disclose the same to the complainant and her family members.
10. Further it is the case of the complainant before the trial court that apart from it the accused threatened the complainant and her husband to execute certain documents in respect of property bearing No.114/4 situated at K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru and when she and her husband refused to execute any documents in respect of the said property. Accused threatened her with dire consequences that he would kill her daughter doing black magic and the complainant without no other alternative had to execute the documents before the Registrar office in the month of February and March 2014. The accused misused the documents executed by the husband of the complainant and took bank loan under the guise of purchasing the above 10 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 said property from Syndicate Bank, Bengaluru. The said loan amount initially transferred to the husband of the complainant account and thereafter without the knowledge of her husband misusing the signatures obtained by her husband got it transferred in his account. The husband of the complainant died on 4.6.2017 and thereafter the accused tried to mislead the complainant and her daughter.
11. Further it is the case of the complainant before the trial court that thereafter the complainant's daughter Smt.K.Rashmi came to know about the alleged transactions of the accused and came out of his house and lodged a complaint against the accused. So thereafter accused requested them withdraw the complaint and further agreed to come forward to apply for mutual divorce. The accused had promised the complainant that he would pay the entire due to the complainant in order to come out from the criminal cases and in the circumstances the complainant and her 11 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 daughters who are not in a position to proceed with the case against the accused and come out of their financial constraints and as such they were forced to accept the proposal made by the accused and agreed to accept post dated cheque bearing No.853400 dated 4.7.2019 for a sum of Rs.19,75,000/- towards initial payment and further the accused promised that he would pay the some more money after withdrawing the case and obtaining the decree of divorce. When the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment on 4.7.2019, but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient' on 05.07.2019. Thereby the complainant got issued a notice to the accused on 03.08.2019. In spite of it, the accused has neither paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Thereby she filed the complaint against the accused on 16.09.2019 for the offence punishable u/S 138 of N.I. Act. 12
CRL.A. No.25111/2024
12. The trial court records would show that after filing of this complaint the court has taken the cognizance of the offence and has recorded the sworn statement, registered the case against the accused. Further the records would also show that after the presence of the accused has been secured, substance of accusation has been recorded, the accused has not pleaded guilt and thereafter the trial court has recorded the evidence of the complainant and subsequently the accused has not led any evidence, on the basis of the material on record, the trial court has convicted the accused for the offence u/S 138 of N.I. Act sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.25,00,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The said conviction judgment is challenged before this court.
13. This court being the appellate court is duty bound to look into the entire material and the evidence on record to come to conclusion whether interference of this court is 13 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 required in the judgment passed by the trial court and to hold whether the judgment passed by the trial court is in accordance with the law or on facts or not.
14. The main grounds on which the appeal has been challenged are the trial court has not considered the evidence on record has only relied on the complainant's evidence and has convicted accused and it is the case of the accused that there was no dischargeable liability and no cogent evidence for due of such huge amount and alleged charges not proved and if the Ex.P.1 was drawn by the accused without accepting liability of another in writing it would not attract Section 138 of N.I. Act and no supporting material evidence were produced and failed to show his competency to pay such an huge amount. But, the learned Magistrate to appreciate this fact on defence side even though the complainant has admitted the above mentioned 14 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 facts during trial. Thereby the conviction is liable to be set aside.
15. In the light of grounds urged by the accused if the trial court records are perused, it would show that the complainant has produced the documents such as Ex.P.1 the cheque in issue, bank endorsement, copy of the notice and the postal receipt, etc., at Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5. These documents and the oral evidence of the complainant are sufficient for the court to raise the statutory presumption in favour of the complainant. There is nothing wrong on the part trial court in raising the presumption in favour of the complainant on the basis of the records and the evidence.
16. The question before the court is whether the accused has rebutted the presumption and has shifted the burden on the complainant to prove the case on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. 15
CRL.A. No.25111/2024
17. In respect of the proof of the fact that the cheque has been issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt, there is a presumption of law under Sec.139 of N.I. Act, in favour of the holder of the cheque, which reads as follows:-
'Sec.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. The presumption u/S 139 of N.I. Act is a presumption of law and not the presumption of fact. The presumption has to be raised in all the cases once the factum of issuance of cheque and its dishonour is established. U/S 118 (2) of N.I. Act, there is a presumption in respect of passing of consideration in favour of the complainant. The onus of proof to rebut the presumption lies on the accused. The accused need not rebut the presumption beyond all reasonable doubt. But, the accused has to place sufficient 16 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 materials to convince the court that his case is more probable when it is compared with the case of the complainant. Accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability. He may also rely upon the averments in the complaint, statutory notice and the circumstantial evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. Accused need not enter into the witness box to rebut the presumption.
19. In the case on hand, the complainant has established the factum of issuance of cheque and its dishonour. Therefore, this court shall raise a presumption u/ S 139 of N.I. Act that the accused has issued cheque towards discharging the legally enforceable debt. After raising initial presumption it is for this court to consider whether the presumption has been rebutted by bringing in cogent 17 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 materials on record with reference to the defence raised by the accused that no existence of legally recoverable debt.
20. From the materials available on record, it clearly goes to show that the accused had issued cheque in question in favour of the complainant towards legally enforceable debt. The date on which the cheque Ex.P.1 was issued is on 4.7.2019. But, the accused has to failed to pay the cheque amount in spite of issuance of Ex.P.3 and hence, the complainant is to be suitably compensated for the delay caused by the accused in its repayment.
21. The learned Magistrate has exhaustively discussed the entire contentions of the accused as well as the complainant and has given well reasons regarding the facts that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption which lies in favour of the complainant. Merely because, the cross-examination of P.W.1 is taken as Nil, it cannot be said that the burden shifts on the complainant. The defence shall 18 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 be a probable defence, which any reasonable person can believe that such a thing has happened or believes in the probability. The defence taken by the accused is not at all a probable defence and it cannot be believed that the person who was knowing the worldly affairs has given the signed cheques to the complainant without there being any liability. Hence, there is nothing on record to say that the accused has disproved the case of the complainant or raised any probable defence to shift the burden. Hence, the probabilities in the case of the complainant are more rather than in the defence taken by the accused. The trial court has rightly come to conclusion and has convicted the accused.
22. The trial court by considering the entire materials on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption, which lies in favour of the complainant and more over recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl.Appeal at Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 19 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 No.12802/2022, dated 09.10.2023 between Rajesh Jain v/s Ajay Singh has in detail discussed as to how the presumption operates and once the presumption operates, the onus rests on the accused to prove the non-existence of debt/liability. Wherein in the said above referred case, the accused was tried for the offence u/S 138 of N.I. Act. The trial court had acquitted the accused by considering that the onus of rebutting the presumption lay on the accused was discharged by raising a probable defence and the complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and the defence of the accused has created a doubt regarding the truthfulness of the complainant case. Against the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, the complainant had preferred the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. Wherein the Hon'ble High Court also upheld the order of acquittal holding that the complainant has failed to prove that the cheque was issued in respect of legally enforceable debt. Wherein in the said case, it was the 20 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 defence taken by the accused that the complainant had failed to mention the date, month and the year on which he advanced various sum of money towards the loan to the accused. The version of the complainant was doubtful, since the cheque was admittedly issued in part payment of outstanding dues and no where in the complaint or demand notice complainant disclosed the total amount loan to the accused. The court found that the complainant therein was an Orthopedic Surgeon could not have advance huge amount to an accused who was a Class-IV employee without an agreement or acknowledgement of loan advance etc. When the matter went up to Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court in detail have discussed as to when a presumption is raised, how the accused have to rebut the said presumption and when the burden shifts on the complainant and at para- 56, page-33 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed;
'56. At the stage when the courts concluded that the signature had been admitted, the Court ought to have 21 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 inquired into either of the two questions (depending on the method in which accused has chosen to rebut the presumption): Has the accused led any defense evidence to prove and conclusively establish that there existed no debt/liability at the time of issuance of cheque? In the absence of rebuttal evidence being led the inquiry would entail: Has the accused proved the nonexistence of debt/liability by a preponderance of probabilities by referring to the 'particular circumstances of the case'?'
23. The facts and circumstances of the present case are aptly applicable in the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment. Because, in this case also neither the accused has entered the witness box nor he has raised any probable defence with which the court can doubt the case of the complainant. The grounds made out by the appellant are not proved by the appellant. The trial court has rightly on the basis of the evidence on record come to conclusion that there is absolutely no material on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant and has rightly come to conclusion that the 22 CRL.A. No.25111/2024 accused has intentionally committed an offence u/S 138 of N.I. Act and he has issued the cheque in spite of having knowledge that he was not having sufficient funds in his account. Thereby I hold the question of interfering by this court in the judgment passed by the trial court will not arise. The judgment passed by the trial court is well reasoned and in accordance with the law and facts. Accordingly, I hold point for consideration No.1 in Affirmative and No.2 in Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
The Judgment passed by the
Learned XXXIII ACMM, Bengaluru,
in CC No.51071/2020 dated
06.01.2024 convicting the
accused for the offence
punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act is
confirmed.
23
CRL.A. No.25111/2024
Send back Trial Court
Record (TCR) to the Trial Court
along with copy of judgment.
No order as to costs.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of January, 2026].Digitally signed by
PRAKASH PRAKASH
CHANNAPPA
CHANNAPPA KURABETT
KURABETT Date: 2026.01.13
11:22:26 +0530
[PRAKASH CHANNAPPA KURABETT]
C/C IV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
24 CRL.A. No.25111/2024