Bangalore District Court
Somalingappa vs Anil Kumar on 5 March, 2026
KABC030799172022
IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 05th day of March, 2026
PRESENT: Smt. Namrata Rao .K.S
B.A.L, L.L.B., M.B.L.,
XV ACJM,.
BENGALURU.
C.C.No.32630/2022
Complainant : Sri. Somalingappa
S/o Harishchandra,
Since Deceased Rep by his
Legal Heirs
Sri. Sooraj Patil,
S/o Somalingappa,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.LF-58/12,
PWD Quarters,
Near Balamuri Ganesha
Temple, Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru-560 096.
(By Sri. Shivabasava S.
Ghante, Advocate )
2
CC.No.32630/2022
Judgment
V/s
Accused : 1. Sri. Anil Kumar 9
Aged about 45 years,
S/o Narasimha Murthy G.R
2. Smt. Bindu
W/o Anil Kumar
Aged about 43 years,
Both are residents of
No.0211, 5th Main road,
M.S. Ramayya Badavane,
8th Mile, Tumkur Road,
Benglauru-560 073.
(By Sri. Manjunath. N.P -
Advocate )
Cognizance taken on 17.10.2022
Plea recorded on 20.12.2022
Offence alleged U/s 138 NI Act
Evidence commenced on 17.10.2022
Evidence closed on 14.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on 05th Day of March 2026
Final order Accused No.1 and 2 are
Acquitted
XV ACJM, Bengaluru.
3
CC.No.32630/2022
Judgment
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed alleging the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act .
2. The germane facts necessary to adjudicate this case are as follows:
Both the accused and the complainant are well known to each other and the second accused with an assurance to avail a government job to the son of the complainant, received a sum of ₹6,00,000/- through cheques on various dates. When the second accused could not secure any government job, the complainant demanded his money back and the accused No. 1 on behalf of the Accused No.2 in discharge of the liability issued two cheques bearing numbers (1)100004 (2)100005 both the cheques are dated 4 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment 01.08.2022 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each and both drawn on CSB Bank, Formerly The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd, Nelamangala Branch, Bengaluru-562 123 in favour of the complainant.
3. Upon presentation of the cheques for encashment, the cheques were dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient" on 02.08.2022. A legal notice dt.26.08.2022 was issued to the accused and it came to be served upon the accused. Despite the service, the accused did not repay the amount within the statutory period. Hence, this complaint.
4. On taking the cognizance for the offence and pursuant to the appearance of the accused, he pleaded not guilty, claimed defense. 5
CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment
5. The Complainant has examined himself as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 are marked in substantiation of hers case. During the statement under section 313 CrPC, the accused has denied all the incriminating evidence against him. The Accused No.1 and 2 are examined as DW.1 and 2 and Ex.D1 to D.6 documents got marked on their behalf.
6. I have given a careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for both sides. I have carefully perused the records.
7. In view of the materials placed on record, The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Is there a legally recoverable debt?
2. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has 6 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment committed the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act?
3. What Order?
8. My findings for the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3: As per the final
order for the
following
REASONS
9. POINT No.1: It is the testimony of PW1 that the complainant and the accused no. 2 are known to each other. The accused does not dispute the acquaintance.
10. It is the further say of PW1 that with an assurance to avail a government job to the son of the complainant, the accused on various dates availed a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/-. The 7 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment accused No.2 does not dispute the reciept of this amount. It is the further testimony of PW1 that when the Accused no. 2 could not secure a government job to the son of the complainant, the Accused no. 1 on behalf of the Accused no. 2 in discharge of this legally recoverable debt issued the cheques marked at Ex. P1 and P2. The accused no. 1 does not dispute the cheques and the signatures therein.
11. Relying upon the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa V/s Mohan reported in 2010(11) SCC 441 a presumption under section 139 of the NI Act is raised. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the cheque is drawn from the account of the accused and the accused admits and accepts the signature on the cheque, the court is obliged to presume, as 8 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment per Section 139 of the N.I. Act, in favor of the complainant. Needless to say that this is a rebuttable presumption, and the accused may show the possibility of the absence of a legally binding obligation or debt.
12. As the presumption is raised, the onus shifts on the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued to the complainant in discharge of a legally recoverable debt or probabalise his defence on the hilt of preponderance of probabilities.
13. The defence raised by the accused are as under :
1. As per the allegations in the complaint, the amount claimed by the complainant in Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 does not come within the arena of legally recoverable debt.9
CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment
2. The accused has repaid the entire amount that was obtained from the complainant.
3. There is no contractual relationship between accused no. 1, the drawer of the cheque and the complainant, the payee of the cheque. LEGALLY RECOVERABLE DEBT:
14. It is the vehement argument of the counsel for the accused that the ground on which the complainant has based this complaint is not maintainable under law. As per the counsel for the accused, the averments in the complaint itself reveals that the amount in Ex P1 and Ex P2 cheques cannot be termed as a legally recoverable debt. I have gone through the complaint once again carefully. In para 2 of the complaint, it is specifically mentioned that the accused no. 2 with an assurance to secure a 10 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment government job to the son of the complainant received a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- through cheques on various dates. All along it the consistent stand of the complainant that the amount so given to the accused No.2 was for securing a government job.
15. To determine whether the amounts mentioned in Ex P1 and Ex P2 are legally recoverable debts, it is essential to examine whether a valid contract exists between the complainant and the accused under the Indian Contract Act. According to Section 2(h), an agreement that is enforceable by law constitutes a contract. Section 10 postulates that all agreements made with free consent, by parties competent to contract, for lawful consideration, and with a lawful object, are valid contracts, 11 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment unless explicitly declared void. Section 23 further clarifies that if the object or consideration is unlawful, the agreement becomes unenforceable.
16. In this context, any amount paid or received for securing a government job cannot be considered lawful consideration, as it involves illegal activity. Therefore, such an agreement is void and cannot be enforced under law.
Additionally, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only a legally recoverable debt can be claimed. Since the amount in question arises from an unlawful consideration, it cannot be deemed a legally recoverable debt.
17. On the face of the complaint, the amount claimed by the complainant does not 12 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment qualify as a recoverable debt, rendering the complaint not maintainable. In conclusion, any amount received in exchange for securing a government job through illegal means is not enforceable by law and cannot be regarded as a valid debt.
18. The counsel for the accused places reliance on the dictum of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in R Parimala Bai vs Bhaskar Narasimhaiah in Crl.P.No.1387 of 2011 dated:06.07.2018, Para 21 of the said judgment runs as under:
"As could be seen from the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, it is crystal clear that if on the basis of a void contract and particularly if the consideration is illegal, and consideration is for 13 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment immoral or illegal purposes or which is against the public policy, then the whole transaction becomes void, the consideration paid in such contract becomes an illegal consideration and when it is said it is legal or unlawful consideration, it can not be at any stretch of imagination called as a legally recoverable debt".
19. The following judgments cited by the counsel for the accused are on the same line and they are as under:
1. Smt. Veenashri v/s Sri. Shankar in CrL.Petition No.2129 of 2019 dated 19.10.2022 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
2. Sri. Khaleel Khan. P v/s Sri. Ranganatha in Cri.P.No.4095/2019 C/W Cri.P.No.4094/2019, Cri.P.No.4097/2019 dated:11.02.2021 By the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.14
CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment
3. Virendra Singh V/s Laxmi Narain and another reported in 2007 Crl.L.J 2262 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
Amount Is Repaid
20. As per the complaint at Para-2, the following are the dates and the amount alleged to be paid to the accused. They are as under.
Date Cheque No. Amount
30.05.2020 330582 Rs.3,50,000/-
04.06.2020 330584 Rs.1,50,000/-
22.06.2022 330586 Rs.1,00,000/-
Further Ex.D1 is the FIS given by the complainant before the Police Sub Inspector, Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru. As per Ex D1, which is admitted by the complainant himself during the course of cross-examination when confronted, both the accused no. 2 and one 15 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment Allah Baksh had received an amount of ₹ 15,00,000/- from him.
21. It is pertinent to mention here itself that a separate complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against this Allah Baksh. The Legal notice issued to Allah Baksh and the evidence in the said proceedings against him is marked at Ex.D3.
22. Ex.D2 is the legal notice issued to the third person by name Allah Baksh. As per Para 2 of the said legal notice, an amount of ₹ 6,00,000 has been transferred to the account of the accused no. 2. But it is also mentioned in the same legal notice that accused no. 2 has paid the entire amount to this third person by name Allah Baksh. When the complainant himself has 16 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment admitted as per Ex.D2 that this entire amount of ₹ 6,00,000/- has been paid to Allah baksh through accused no. 2, I do not find the existence of any legally recoverable debt from the accused no. 2 to the complainant.
23. Be that as it may, as per Ex.D1, on 14.09.2021, Allah Baksh had returned an amount of ₹ 2,00,000 through DD. Subsequently, the same Allah Baksh had returned an amount of ₹ 3,00,000 by way of cash. What amount is due from the accused No.2 and what amount is due from Allah Baksh is not clarified.
24. Accused No. 2 claims that in 2021, she returned a total amount of ₹ 6,00,000. She states that she repaid ₹ 4,00,000/- in cash and ₹ 2,00,000 through a demand draft (DD). She 17 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment admits that the ₹ 2,00,000 paid via DD was returned to her through Allah Baksh, which is acknowledged by the complainant in Ex D1 and Ex D2.
25. However, regarding the ₹ 4,00,000/- paid in cash, the accused has not provided sufficient proof or evidence to substantiate that this amount was indeed paid back to the complainant. While she claims repayment, she has not probabilized or convincingly demonstrated that the ₹ 4,00,000/- in cash was returned to the complainant. Further there is no clarity as to what amount was returned through Allah Baksh and why that Allah Baksh is not summoned as a witness in the present case. Therefore, her defense regarding the repayment of this amount remains unsubstantiated and 18 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment lacks credible evidence to support her claim. However it is pertinent to mention here itself that when the transaction itself is illegal, the question of considering whether the accused has probabilised her defence or not finds no use. Lack of Contractual Relationship
26. Another line of argument that is addressed by the counsel for the accused is that as they Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 cheques are from the account of the accused No.1, there does not arise liability on the part of the accused No.1.
27. I have gone through the case papers once again carefully. It is the specific case of the complainant from the initial stage of legal notice that he had transacted with accused no. 2 and had paid an amount of ₹ 6,00,000/- to the 19 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment accused No. 2. He specifically states that taking the liability on him, the accused no. 1 issued the cheque marked at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Therefore, the complainant admits that he has never transacted with the accused no. 1 at any point of time. If the accused no. 1 had not transacted with the complainant at any point of time, then the question of making accused no. 1 liable for any amount does not arise. Mere issuance of the cheque cannot fastened the liability on its signatory. Therefore the Ex.P1 and P2 which is from the account of the accused no. 1 cannot hold the accused no. 1 liable for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
28. I have already discussed on the assertion of the complainant that the 20 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment consideration that has passed from him to the accused No.2 is illegal. When that is so, any negotiable instrument that is obtained for unlawful consideration cannot be enforced unless he is a holder in due course. Section 58 of the Negotiable Instruments act itself clarifies on this point. The provision runs as under:
"58. Instrument obtained by unlawful means or for unlawful consideration.--When a negotiable instrument has been lost, or has been obtained from any maker, acceptor or holder thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for an unlawful consideration, no possessor or indorsee who claims through the person who found or so obtained the instrument is entitled to receive the amount due thereon from such maker, acceptor or holder, or from any party prior to such holder, unless such possessor or indorsee is, or some person through whom he claims was, a holder thereof in due course."
(underlined by me) In the present case, it is not the case of the complainant that he is a holder in due course. He 21 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment specifically claims that that the Ex.P1 and P2 cheques were issued to him. Therefore, the negotiable instrument (Ex.P1 and P2) obtained for unlawful consideration cannot claim the money on it.
29. I have discussed the aspect of legally recoverable debt in detail. Though presumption has been raised by virtue of the admission of the cheque and signatures in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 by the accused no. 1, at first the complainant has failed to establish the contractual relationship between him and the accused No. 1. Secondly and Significantly, the complainant has failed to probabilise the existence of legally recoverable debt. The very object of alleged contract between the complainant and the accused no. 2 is not in tune with the provisions under Indian Contract 22 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment Act, 1872. The courts cannot be used for recovering such an amount which is illegal.
30. In view of the admissions by both the parties, I find it appropriate to mention that a suitable legal action has to be taken against both the complainant and the accused No. 2 in the present case. The complainant is no more. Materials are placed before this court to the effect that based upon the first information statement given by the deceased complainant, Somalingappa, a criminal action has been initiated and As per Ex.D6, the criminal case is pending against accused No. 2 and also the third person Anna Baksh. In the opinion of this Court, the proceedings as per Ex D6 would take care of it.
23
CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment
31. Therefore even though a presumption was raised under section 139 of the NI Act, the accused has rebutted the presumption and as a counter, the complainant has failed to prove the existence of legally recoverable debt to the hilt of beyond reasonable doubt. I am inclined to arrive at the conclusion that the complainant has failed in proving the offence under section 138 of the NI Act. Hence, I answer the point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
32. Point No.2: The Cheques marked at Ex.P1 & 2 are dated 02.08.2023 and Ex.P4 and 4 are dishonoured for Funds Insufficient. A legal notice was issued within the statutory period on 26.08.2022. The complaint is presented on 28.09.2022. The complaint is in time and the complainant has complied with all 24 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment the requirements of the section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
33. On the basis of the entire materials on record, I am of the opinion that the accused has committed an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly I answer the POINT NO.2 In The NEGATIVE.
34. Point No.3: For the foregoing reasons and in view of the above findings, I pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty.
In Exercise of the Powers vested under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are 25 CC.No.32630/2022 Judgment acquitted for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The personal bond executed by the accused No.1 and 2 and the bond executed by the surety shall stand cancelled after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05th day of March, 2026).
(SMT. NAMRATA RAO K.S) XV ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 : Sri. Somalingappa LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 & 2 : 2 Cheques
Ex.P1(a)2(a) : Signatures
Ex.P3 & 4 : 2 Bank endorsements
Ex.P5 : Office copy of Legal Notice
26
CC.No.32630/2022
Judgment
Ex.P6 & 7 : 2 Postal receipts
Ex.P8 & 9 : 2 returned postal
envelopes
Ex.P8(a)&9(a):2 notices found the in the returned envelopes Ex.P10 to 14 :5 challans Ex.P15 : Letter LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:-
DW.1 : Sri. Anil Kumar DW.2 : Smt. Bindu
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
Ex.D1 : C/c of compliant
Ex.D2 : Notice
Ex.D3 : C/c of Sworn statement
filed in PCR 4862/2021
Ex.D4 : C/c of DD dt:16.09.2021
Ex.D5 : C/c of Judgment
in CC.No.8490/2022
Ex.D6 : C/c of FIR
(SMT. NAMRATA RAO K.S)
XV ACJM, Bengaluru.
27
CC.No.32630/2022
Judgment
05.03.2026
(Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty.
In Exercise of the Powers vested under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. The personal bond executed by the accused No.1 and 2 and the bond executed by the surety shall stand cancelled after the appeal period is over.
(Vide separate judgment) [ XV ACJM, Bengaluru.