Bangalore District Court
M/S Gokulam Chits Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Smt. Lakshmi on 30 April, 2026
0
C.C.No.22392/2019
KABC030694222019
Presented on : 23-09-2019
Registered on : 23-09-2019
Decided on : 30-04-2026
Duration : 6 years, 7 months, 7 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt.Nagamma.M.Ichchangi,
BA.,LL.B.,(Spl),
XXVIII A.C.J.M, Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF APRIL 2026
C.C. NO: 22392/2019
COMPLAINANT : M/s Gokulam Chits Finance Co.Pvt.Ltd
having its corporate office at No.66
Arcot Road, Kodambakam,
Chennai-6000024.
Having one of its branch at #205, 1st
Floor, 7th Cross, 6th Block, BSK 3rd Stage,
Bangaloe-85
Rep by its GPA Holder
Sri.Ranjith.K.S.
S/o Sathya Prakash .K.R.
Aged about 27 years.
(By Sri.Suresh Subbaiah.C, Adv)
V/s.
ACCUSED : Smt.Lakshmi Major in age
Re/at: #297, New No.11,
17th Cross, Ittumadu Main Road BSK 3rd
Stage Bangalore-85 And also residing at:
No.2228/1, 2nd Cross,
1
C.C.No.22392/2019
Kuvempunagar,
B.M.Road, Channapatna,
Ramanagar-562160.
(By Sri.T. Sathisha,Adv.,)
Offence complained of : U/s.138 of N.I.Act
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of order : 30.04.2026
:JUDGMENT:
The complainant company has filed complaint against the accused under section 200 of Cr.P.C., for an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant's company in brief is as under:
It is the case of the complainant company that, the complainant is a company registered under company's act and is engaged in chits and finance business. Further one Girish M is a chit subscriber in the chit No.G2G/0423/TNR/07 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and the accused is a surety/guarantor to the above said subscriber. The subscriber became a successful bidder and received the prize amount from the complainant. Thereafter the subscriber became a chronic defaulter. The subscriber and surety holder both have to pay the 2 C.C.No.22392/2019 monthly installments to the complainant company. Inspite of repeated demands and requests by the complainant both have failed to pay the monthly installments to the complainant. At last the accused had issued the cheque No.020671 dated: 18.09.2018 for Rs.51,725/- drawn on the Central Bank Of India, Katriguppe Branch, Bangalore. As per the assurance of the accused the complainant had presented the said cheque on 25.09.2018 for realization through its banker the Axis Bank, Banashankari branch, Bengaluru. But the said cheque was dishonored on 26.09.2018 as "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, on 23.10.2018 the complainant got issued a demand notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. The said RPAD notice was duly served to accused on 24.10.2018. After service of the notice, the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice.As such, the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court on 24.11.2018.
3. After filing of the complaint, the cognizance of the offence cited therein was taken and it was registered as P.C.R.No.1926/2019. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Since there were sufficient 3 C.C.No.22392/2019 materials to proceed against the accused, an order was passed on 20.09.2019 to register the case in Register No.III.
4. Thereafter, summons was issued to the accused and the accused has appeared before the court through advocate and secured bail. She was furnished necessary papers as comtemplated under section 208 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the plea of the accused was recorded by the court. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. As earlier Office Representatives of the complainant's company who were examined as PW.1 to 3 in support of complainant's case have left the company. Hence, the complainant company has examined its GPA holder as PW.4 by filing substitution application and got marked 15 documents at Ex.P.1 to 15 and closed its side..
6. After closer of the evidence of the complainant accused remained absent. Despite of multiple opportunities accused has deliberately abstained from appearing before this court and willfully evade the proceedings. Hence, as per the principles laid down in decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P.No.664/2020 in between Sunil Yadav V/s. Y.C.Manju dated: 07.02.2025 the statement of accused 4 C.C.No.22392/2019 U/s.313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed and the defence evidence is taken as nil.
7. Heard the arguments on the complainant side and also perused the material placed on record
8. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the learned counsel for the accused did not appear before the court and not addressed their arguments. Hence, the arguments on the defence side taken as nil. Further inspite of sufficient opportunity, the counsel for the accused failed to file their written arguments.
9. On perusal of the material placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the complainant proves the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability.?
2.Whether the complainant further proves that the accused had issued the cheque-
Ex.P.5 , towards the discharge of the legally enforceable debt/liability.?
3.Whether the complainant further proves that the cheque-Ex.P.5 was dishonored for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and thereafter the accused had failed to repay the same within the statutory period, inspite of receipt of legal notice.?
4. Whether the accused have thus committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.?
5.What order?
5C.C.No.22392/2019
10. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: In the Affirmative Point No.4: In the Affirmative Point No.5: As per final order, for the following:
:REASONS:
11. POINT No.1 to 4: In order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence points No.1 to 4 are taken together for common discussion.
The complainant is a company registered under company's act and is engaged in chits and finance business. Further one Girish M is a chit subscriber in the chit No.G2G/0423/TNR/07 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and the accused is a surety/guarantor to the above said subscriber. The subscriber became a successful bidder and received the prize amount from the complainant. Thereafter the subscriber became a chronic defaulter. The subscriber and surety holder both have to pay the monthly installments to the complainant company. Inspite of repeated demands and requests by the complainant both have failed to pay the monthly installments to the complainant. At last the accused had issued the cheque No.020671 dated: 18.09.2018 for Rs.51,725/- drawn on the Central Bank Of India, 6 C.C.No.22392/2019 Katriguppe Branch, Bangalore. As per the assurance of the accused the complainant had presented the said cheque on 25.09.2018 for realization through its banker the Axis Bank, Banashankari branch, Bengaluru. But the said cheque was dishonored on 26.09.2018 as "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, on 23.10.2018 the complainant got issued a demand notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. The said RPAD notice was duly served to accused on 24.10.2018. After service of the notice, the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice. As such, the accused persons have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court.
12. In support of the case, the complainant's company has examined its GPA Holder as P.W.4 in his chief examination has reiterated the contents of complaint and got marked 15 documents at Ex.P.1 to 15. Ex.P1 is the Incorporation Certificate. Ex.P.2 is the Board Resolution. Ex.P.3 is the GPA. Ex.P.4 is the Account Extract. Ex.P5 is the cheques dated: 18.09.2018 Rs.51,725/- . Ex.P.6 is the bank memo dated:
25.09.2018 and informing the dishonor of the cheques as "Funds Insufficient". Ex.P.7 is the office copy of legal 7 C.C.No.22392/2019 notice dated: 23.10.2018. Ex.P.8 is the postal receipt.
Ex.P. 9 is the postal Aknowledgement. Ex.P.10 is the GPA. Ex.P.11 is the Minutes Of Proceedings. Ex.P.12 is the GPA. Ex.P.13 is the Minutes Of Proceedings. Ex.P.14 is the GPA and Ex.P.15 is the Minutes Of Proceedings.
13. The counsel for the complainant has argued that One Girish M is a member of chit bearing No.G2G/0423/TNR/07 and the accused is a surety/guarantor to the above said subscriber. The subscriber became a successful bidder and received the prize amount from the complainant. Thereafter the subscriber became a chronic defaulter. The subscriber and surety holder both have to pay the monthly installments to the complainant company. But inspite of repeated demands both have failed to repay the monthly installments to the complainant. Further at last on 18.09.2018 the accused has issued cheque in question in favour of the complainant. The complainant has presented the said cheque to its banker for encahsment. But the said cheque has been dishonored for the reasons Funds Insufficient. Further argued that the accused has not denied Ex.P.5 being her cheque drawn on her account. When the signature is not disputed, the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act is to be drawn in favour of the complainant and accused is liable for punishment under section 138 of N.I.Act.
8C.C.No.22392/2019
14. In order to attract the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant is firstly required to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the cheques came to be issued. The complainant company has to prove all the requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act. Ex.P.5 being her cheque drawn on the account of the accused is not in dispute. The said cheque has been dishonored, when its was presented by the complainant before the bank for encashment is also not seriously disputed by the accused. Thereafter, the notice-Ex.P.7 being issued by the complainant further admitted. After issuance of notice accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the cheque amount to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before the court on 24.11.2018 within the period of one month from the date cause action. As such, in the present case from perusal of documents, the essential requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act, have been complied with.
15. Under section 139 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption regarding the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability. Such presumption is rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise defence discharging the existence of a legally enforceable debt/liability. In the case on hand the accused persons have not disputed the existence of 9 C.C.No.22392/2019 legally enforceable debt/liability, for which cheque- Ex.P.5 was issued. In order to prove her defense, the accused has not produced any oral or documentary evidence on her behalf. Further she has not chosen to cross examine PW.1. Hence, evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged.
16. In the case on hand the accused has not taken any specific defence regarding issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant. The accused in her defence has not disputed the cheque in question has been issued by her. Accused has also not disputed her signature appearing on the said cheque. The complainant and the accused is having some transaction has not been seriously disputed by the accused . It is not disputed that the complainant is a limited company and the accused is a surity to the subscriber Girish M and she had issued the cheque-Ex.P.5. Once issuance of the cheque and signature are admitted, the statutory presumptions would arise under sections 139 and 118 of the N.I.Act, that the cheque was issued by the drawer for legally payable debt/liability and for valid consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Rangappa V/s Mohan, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 296, the presumption that the cheque was drawn in discharge of legally recoverable debt is a presumption of law that ought to be raised in every case, The principle of law laid-down in the 10 C.C.No.22392/2019 above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. In the instant case, the accused has nowhere denied the transaction and her signature on cheque. It is sufficient to hold that the accused had issued the cheque-Ex.P.5 and even after she had not repaid the cheque amount after issuance of notice. The complainant company has complied all the terms of ingredients of the provisions of 138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, PW.1 has established the case of the complainant, the accused had issued the cheque in order to repay the legally recoverable amount. Therefore, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act. Hence, the accused is liable for dishonor of the cheque. With these reasons, I answer point No.1 to 4 in the Affirmative.
17. POINT NO.5: The accused is held to has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. The complainant has proved its case. The accused has failed to prove her rebuttal for the reasons mentioned above and in view of the mandatory requirements of section 138 of N.I.Act, being complied with. The accused is found to have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Since, the said offence is an economic crime, the accused is not entitled for the beneficial provisions of probation of offenders Act. In view of the above discussions and the findings on point No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following 11 C.C.No.22392/2019 ORDERS Acting under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
The bail bonds of the accused hereby stands canceled.
The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.78,500/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the complainant.
It is further ordered that out of the said fine amount an amount of Rs 73,500/- (Rupees Seventy three Thousand Five Hundred Only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) shall be remitted to the State.
In default of the payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of 03 months.
Office is hereby directed to furnish free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment pronounced in the open court on 30th day of April 2026) Digitally signed by NAGAMMA NAGAMMA ICHCHANGI ICHCHANGI Date: 2026.05.05 17:36:10 +0530 (Smt.Nagamma.M.Ichchangi) XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
12C.C.No.22392/2019 ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of the complainant:
PW.1 : Dharashan K.M PW.2 : Somaiah.I.B. PW.3 : Ranjith.K.S. PW.4 : Murali
List of documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 : Certificate of Incorporation Ex.P.2 : Minutes of meeting Ex.P3 : GPA Ex.P4 : Statement Ex.P5 : Original cheque No.020671 dated 18.09.2018 Ex.P6 : CTS return memo Ex.P7 : Legal notice dated 23.10.2018 Ex.P.8 : Postal receipt Ex.P.9 : Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.10 : Certificate of incorporation Ex.P.11 : General power of Attorney Ex.P.12 : Board of directors meeting on 01.02.2022 Ex.P.13 & 14 : GPA Ex.P.15 : Minutes of the proceedings of the board of directors List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
-Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of accused:
-Nil-Digitally signed
NAGAMMA by NAGAMMA ICHCHANGI ICHCHANGI Date: 2026.05.05 17:36:15 +0530 XXVIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.13
C.C.No.22392/2019 30-04-2026 Accused absent. Counsel for accused absent. No EP filed.
According to Section 353(6) of
CrPC judgment can be
pronounced in the absence of
accused if the accused is
sentenced with fine only. Since
this court is going to impose fine
only. Hence presence of accused
is not necessary to pronounce the
judgment. Hence vide separate
judgment pronounced in the open
court.