Bangalore District Court
Suresh vs Chalapathi A on 3 December, 2025
CC.No.4801/2023
KABC030075012023
Presented on : 15-02-2023
Registered on : 15-02-2023
Decided on : 03-12-2025
Duration : 2 years, 9 months, 16 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 3rd day of December 2025
Present: Smt.Tejaswini K.M., B.A.L.LL.M,
XVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
CC. No.4801/2023
Sri.Suresh
S/o Late.Krishnappa Naidu
Aged about 52 years
R/at No.32, 12th Cross, 3rd Block,
Thyagarajanagar,
Bengaluru - 560028.
....Complainant
(By Sri D.Nagegowda., Advocate)
Versus
2 C.C.4801/2023
Sri.Chalapathi.A
S/o Krishnamurthy
Aged about 32 years
R/at No.354, 4th Line Dead End,
Near Annamalai House,
Yadalam Nagar,
Subramanayapura,
Bengaluru - 560061.
.... Accused
(By Sri Sathish Kumar., Advocate)
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Date of commencement
of evidence : 14.02.2023
Date of closing evidence : 19.04.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
JUDGMENT
3 C.C.4801/2023 This case is registered against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Factual matrix of the complainant's case is as under:
The complainant knows the accused from several years. The accused has approached the complainant in the month of August 2016 seeking loan of Rs.5,50,000/- for the purpose of development of his travelling business. During the request, the complainant had paid loan of Rs.5,50,000/- to the accused and in turn the accused has agreed to repay it with interest @ 2% per annum within one year. The cheque given by the accused for its repayment has been dishonoured.
3. Thereafter, during the pendency of CC.No.1606/2018 filed against the accused, the accused has approached the complainant and agreed to settle the dispute and undertook to pay the entire amount in 2 installments. Accordingly, towards part payment the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.812964 dated 22.06.20202 for Rs.3,00,000/-, drawn on State Bankof India, ISRO Layout Branch, Bengaluru and assured that he 4 C.C.4801/2023 will pay the remaining amount with interest within 6 months. But when the complainant presented the said cheque to the bank, it got dishonorued for the reason 'funds insufficient' vide memo dated 27.07.2022. The complainant has also issued the legal notice dated 11.08.2022 through RPAD to the accused demanding the accused to make payment amount within 15 days. Said notice has been returned with a shara 'unclaimed' on 19.08.2022, even after intimation delivered to the accused, the accused has intentionally failed to receive the notice. However, the accused has not paid the cheque amount. Hence the complainant has constrained to file the present complaint.
4. After receiving the complaint, this court has meticulously gone through the documents and affidavit filed along with it and then took cognizance of the offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered for registration of the compliant as P.C.R.
5. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and marked 14 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-14. As there were sufficient materials to constitute the offence, 5 C.C.4801/2023 this court has proceeded to pass an order for issuing process against the accused.
6. In pursuance of summons, accused has appeared through his counsel and applied for bail. He was enlarged on bail. Then the substance of accusation was read over to the accused in the language known to him, for which he pleaded not guilty.
7. As per the direction of Hon'ble supreme court in "Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others reported in (2014)(5) SCC 590, this court treated the sworn statement of the complainant as complainant evidence and posted matter for cross-examination of PW.1. The counsel for the accused has fully cross- examined PW.1. Thereafter the complainant closed his side of evidence.
8. The statement of accused as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded vide order dated 11.09.2024 and the incriminating evidence as such forthcoming against the accused in the evidence of PW.1 and the documents has been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. He denied all incriminating evidence. 6 C.C.4801/2023
9. In order to substantiate his defense, the accused got himself examined as DW.1 and he had been cross- examined by the learned counsel for the complainant.
10. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the side. Learned Counsel for accused filed written arguments. I have perused it along with the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record.
11. Points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused towards discharge of his liability issued a cheque bearing No.812964 dated 22.06.2022 for Rs.3,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, ISRO Layout Branch, Bangalore in favour of complainant, on presentation of the same for encashment, they were dishonored for "Funds Insufficient" in the account maintained by the accused, then in-spite of issuing demand notice to the Accused and in complying with statutory requirement under Negotiable Instrument Act, Accused did not repay the cheque amount, thereby 7 C.C.4801/2023 he has committed an offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What Order?
12. My Answer to above points are as under:-
Point No.I :- In the Affirmative,
Point No.II :- As per the final order for
the following....
REASONS
13. POINT NO.I:- Defense of the accused is as follows:
The complainant is stranger to him. In 2013 he has borrowed loan of Rs.2 lakhs from one Mr.Vinay Kumar and Mr.Rajesh Kumar, that time, for security purpose, he had issued his 3 signed cheques and one cheuqe of his brother by name Mr.Madhubabu to Mr.Vinay Kumar. Said loan transaction was completed in the year 2014 itself. There was a fight between him and Mr. Vinay Kumar about the interest amount, and the issue went to the police station. Mr.Vinay Kumar has not returned back the blank cheques and filed case in CC.No.23141/2015 against 8 C.C.4801/2023 and Mr.Rajesh Kumar has filed case in CC.No.23144/2015 against his brother Mr.Madhu Babu.
14. Thereafter, he issued stop-payment instructions with respect to the other two cheques that had been given to Mr. Vinay Kumar and Mr. Rajesh Kumar. Since both cases filed by Mr. Vinay Kumar and Mr. Rajesh Kumar ended in acquittal in the year 2018, and due to the existing enmity, Mr. Vinay Kumar and Mr. Rajesh Kumar have misused his cheques and, through the complainant, have filed this false case. Hence, on these grounds, the accused prays to acquit him from this case.
15. Negotiable Instruments Act provides for some presumption in favour of the complainant i.e., Section 118 reads as here: - "That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration".
16. Further Sec 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for presumption in favour of a holder. It reads as here: - "It shall be presumed, unless the contrary 9 C.C.4801/2023 is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in sec 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability."
17. Combined reading of above said sections raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. However, it is settled principle of law that the presumption available u/s 139 NI Act can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable defense.
18. The complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint in his chief-examination and in support of his case, he got examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P14. He has produced the cheque issued by accused and the same is marked as Ex.P-1, the signature of the accused is marked as Ex.P-1(a), copy of bank memo is marked as Ex.P-2, copy of demand notice dated:11.08.2022 is marked as Ex.P-3, copy of postal receipt is marked as Ex.P-4, copy of postal acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P-5, copy of returned notice is marked as Ex.P-6, postal cover is marked as Ex.P- 10 C.C.4801/2023 7, postal receipt is marked as Ex.P-8, complaint is marked as Ex.P-9, C/c of complaint in CC.No.23141/2015 is marked as Ex.P-10, C/c of complaint in CC.No.23144/2015 is marked as Ex.P-11, copy of driving licence of accused is marked as Ex.P-12, copy of reply notice is marked as Ex.P- 13 and complaint before Subramanya police station is marked as Ex.P-14.
19. During cross-examination Pw1 deposed that when the accused took money from him, he was residing in Vasanthapura, Bengaluru while giving the notice he was residing in Gubbalala, Bengaluru. He deposed that during pendency of CC.No.16062/2018 the accused has agreed to settle the matter and issued cheque for Rs.3 lakhs and also assured that if he withdraw CC.No.16062/2018 he will pay the remaining amount. He deposed that the accused has given cheque on 22.06.2022, in parking area of the Court, the settlement talks were happened. He denied that no such settlement talks were made by the accused and he has not issued the disputed cheque to him. He denied the suggestion that the cheque was given to Mr.Vinay Kumar and it has been misused and false case is filed.
11 C.C.4801/2023
20. Percontra, the accused has also stepped into witness box and orally deposed about his evidence as stated supra. The advocate for the complainant has cross- examined him.
21. I have meticulously gone through the pleadings, evidence of both side and documents placed on record and given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both side. The complainant has pleaded that in October 2016 he has lent loan of Rs.5,50,000/- to the accused and in discharge of the said loan, the accused has issued the cheque and same got dishonoured. When he filed cheque bounce case, during pendency of said CC 1606/2019, accused gave subject cheque for settlement.
22. It is material to note here that the accused has deposed in his chief-examination that he had given four signed cheques to Mr. Vinay Kumar and Mr. Rajesh Kumar for security purposes, and that the disputed cheque was one of those security cheques. Therefore, the statement of the accused itself shows that he had signed the disputed cheque. On perusal of Ex.P1 cheque it appears that it stands in the name of accused and it bears his signature. The cheque has been dishonoured for the 12 C.C.4801/2023 reason 'Funds insufficient' as per Ex.P2 memo. The cheque has not been dishonoured for the reason 'drawer signature differs'. Therefore, it is proved that the cheque has been duly signed by the accused, it has been issued in the name of the complainant.
23. The Honorable Supreme Court of India in "Triyambak S Hegde v Sripad" (2022) 1 SCC 742 while relying upon the the constitution bench judgment of Basalingappa v Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, under para 14 of its judgment reiterated that "once the cheque was issued and that the signatures are upon the cheque are accepted by the accused, the presumptions undee Sec 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise against the accused. That is, unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the cheques in question were drawn by the accused for a consideration and that the complainant had received the cheque in question in discharge of debt/liability from the accused."
24. Therefore, as per Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act initial presumption has to drawn infavour of the complainant that cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt. The burden lies on the accused 13 C.C.4801/2023 to rebut the said initial presumption on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. Both these initial presumptions are rebuttable in nature and standard for rebutting the said presumption is of preponderance of probabilities.
25. The accused has taken a specific defence that, while borrowing Rs. 2 lakhs from Mr. Vinay Kumar and Mr. Rajesh Kumar in 2013, he had given his three cheques and one cheque belonging to his brother to them for security purpose. Admittedly, both Mr.Vinay Kumar and Mr.Rajesh Kumar have filed 2 cheque bounce cases against the accused and his brother wherein the accused got acquitted.
26. During the cross-examination of the accused, counsel for the complainant has confronted copy of the compliant filed by Mr.Vinay Kumar against him in CC 23141/2015 and copy of reply given by him to Mr.Vinay Kumar on 12.08.2015 and same are admitted by accused as such they are marked as Ex.P10 and 13 . On perusal of this reply at Ex.P13, in page No.2, the accused has clearly mentioned that for the loan of Rs.2,50,000/- he had given his one cheque bearing No.812952, drawn on State Bank 14 C.C.4801/2023 of India, ISRO Layout Branch, Bangalore and from his brother cheque bearing No.000018, drawn on Bank of Baroda, ISRO Layout Branch, Bangalore for security purpose and the accused has admitted the said contents of the reply was prepared by advocate as per his instructions during the cross-examination.
27. Further the counsel for the complainant has confronted copy of the complaint given to the Subramanyapura police station by the accused against Mr.Vinay Kumar on 19.10.2015 and same has been admitted by the accused as such it has been marked as Ex.P14. Even in this complaint at Ex.P14 the accused has stated for security purpose he has issued his cheque bearing No.812952 and his brother's cheque bearing No.000018.
28. Further even in chief-examination the accused in CC.No.231418/2015 has specifically deposed that he had given his one cheque and his brother's one cheque for security purpose. In these Ex.P10 and 13 the accused has consistently taken a contention that he had given his one cheque and his brother's one cheque to Mr.Vinay Kumar and Mr.Rajesh Kumar for security purpose and no 15 C.C.4801/2023 where taken contention that he had given his 3 cheques for security purpose to Mr.Vinay Kumar. Only before this court , for the first time he has taken contention that he had given multiple cheques for security to Mr.Vinay Kumar and Mr.Rajesh Kumar. Therefore, his own documents falsifies the defense of the accused that he had given the disputed cheque of this case to Mr.Vinay Kumar and Mr.Rajesh Kumar for security purpose.
29. Except his self-serving statement, the accused has not produced even an iota of evidence before the Court to prove that the disputed cheque was given to Mr. Vinay Kumar or Mr. Rajesh Kumar in the year 2013 for security purposes, as alleged. Therefore, in view of the clear and unequivocal admissions made by the accused in his cross-examination regarding Ex.P10, 11 and 13 ie his stand in the two criminal cases concerning the issuance of one cheque for security, this Court declines to accept the defence that the disputed cheque was given to Mr. Vinay Kumar and not to the complainant.
30. It's an admitted fact that the complainant has filed CC.No. CC 16062/2018 against the accused before 16 C.C.4801/2023 this case, wherein cheque has been dishonored for the reason payment stopped by the accused. But the disputed cheque of this case was dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient'. It is noticed that the disputed cheque of this case has been dishonoured for the reason funds insufficient' , whereas the cheque presented in CC.No. CC 16062/2018 the cheque has been dishonoured for the reason 'payment stopped by drawer'. As per the accused soon after lodging the complaint against Mr.Vinay Kumar for not returning his cheques, he had given stop payment instructions to his banker to prevent his cheques being misused. When such being the case if he had given stop payment instructions to 2 cheques which are subject matter of these two CC cases, then in this case also the cheque ought to have been dishonoured for the reason 'payment stopped by drawer', but i.e. not the case here. Therefore, it is very apparent that only pertaining to the disputed cheque of CC 1606/2019 the accused has given stop payment instructions. Therefore, unless the accused handover the cheque produced in this case to the complainant, there was no any possibility to lay the complainant his hands on the disputed cheque. 17 C.C.4801/2023
31. Further accused has disputed service of notice to him. The complainant has given a legal notice to the accused after cheque got dishonoured as per Ex.P3 on 11.08.2022 through RPAD and speed post and same has been returned with postal shara 'address absent' as per Ex.P7 . The counsel for the accused has disputed the address shown in the legal notice. However, during cross- examination, PW.1 has deposed that the accused was residing in the address shown in the legal notice at the time of giving notice, later he changed his address and was residing at Gubbalala. During cross-examination of the accused, counsel for the complainant has suggested that his address shown in the present complaint as well as Ex.P 10 and 11 ie CC 23141/2015 and CC 23144/2015 are one and the same and accused has denied it. Further in the complaint given by the accused against Mr.Vinay Kumar as per Ex.P13, accused himself has mentioned that his address is No.354, 4th Cross, Yadalam Nagar, Bengaluru and said address is clearly mentioned in the complaint of this case as well as the legal notice at Ex.P3. Therefore, the complainant clearly proved that the notice has been given to the correct address of the accused and 18 C.C.4801/2023 accused has failed to receive it. Therefore, as per Sec.27 of General Clauses Act the notice is deemed to be served to the accused. However, the accused has not given any reply and same is fatal to the defense.
32. For the reasons assigned, CC.16062/2018 judgment which has been taken up along with this case for adjudication, the very transaction between parties is proved beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, issuance of disputed cheque during the pendency of CC 16062/2018 makes it clear that accused knows that he is liable to pay the loan amount to the complainant. Therefore, having scrutinized the entire evidence this Court is of the firm view that the complainant has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, nothing worth is elicited from his mouth to disprove his case. Percontra, the accused has utterly failed to probablize his defense in any manner and also failed to rebut the initial presumption given U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act. With these observations court proceed to answer POINT NO.I IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
33. POINT NO.II:- In view of the reasons assigned in above point, it is ample clear that accused has committed 19 C.C.4801/2023 the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act. A bare reading of sec.138 of the NI Act indicates that the purport of sec.138 is to prevent and punish the dishonest drawers of cheques who evade their liability. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent decision in M/s. Meters & instrument Pvt Ltd. Vs. Kanchana Mehta reported in (2018)1 SCC-560 held at para 18(ii) that"(ii) The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found." In view of the reasons assigned in above point, it is ample clear that accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act.
34. In R. Vijayan vs. Baby and Another reported in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 528, Apex court held that 'that unless there were special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, the Court should uniformly exercise the power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount and keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss, direct payment of such amount as compensation. This Court rightly observed that uniformity and consistency in 20 C.C.4801/2023 deciding similar cases by different courts not only increases the credibility of the cheque as a Negotiable Instrument but also the credibility of the Courts of Justice'.
35. M/S Kalamani Tex vs P. Balasubramanian reported in AIRONLINE 2021 SC 82, Apex court reaffirmed aforementioned principle and held that "20. As regard to the claim of compensation raised on behalf of the respondent, we are conscious of the settled principles that the object of Chapter XVII of the NIA is not only punitive but also compensatory and restitutive. The provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for realisation of the cheque amount. It is also well settled that there needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding compensation and unless there exist special circumstances, the Courts should uniformly levy fine up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum."
36. Keeping in mind of above principles, having regard to the amount advanced, time from which it is lying with the accused, defence taken by the accused and his failure to prove it and keeping in mind the primary object of the provision, this court is of the opinion that, rather than imposing punitive sentence, if sentence of fine of Rs.3,10,000/-is imposed with a direction to 21 C.C.4801/2023 compensate the complainant for his monitory loss, by awarding compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass following .....
ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,10,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ten Thousand Only), in default of payment fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
Out of the fine amount collected from the accused, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three5 Lakhs only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining fine of Rs.10,000/- shall be adjusted towards the cost of state expenses. 22 C.C.4801/2023
The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force till the appeal period is over as contemplated under the provisions of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
Office to supply the copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment pronounced in the open court on this the 3 rd day of December 2025).
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M), XVI ACJM, Bengaluru ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1: Sri.Suresh II. List of documents on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P-1 : Original Cheque.
Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of the accused. Ex.P-2 : Bank memo.
Ex.P-3 : Legal notice.
Ex.P-4 : Postal receipt.23 C.C.4801/2023
Ex.P-5 : Postal Acknowledgment. Ex.P-6 : Returned Notice.
Ex.P-7 : Postal Cover.
Ex.P-8 : Postal Receipt.
Ex.P-9 : Complaint.
Ex.P-10 : C/c of Complaint in CC.No.23141/2015. Ex.P-11 : C/c of Complaint in CC.No.23144/2015. Ex.P-12 : Copy of Driving Licence of accused. Ex.P-13 : Copy of Reply Notice. Ex.P-14 : Complaint before Subramanyapura Police. III. List of witnesses for the accused:
D.W.1: Sri.Chalapathi.A
IV. List of documents for accused:
Nil
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M ),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
24 C.C.4801/2023
03.12.2025
(Judgment pronounced in the open Court vide separate) ORDER The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Hence, acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,10,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ten Thousand Only), in default of payment fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
Out of the fine amount collected from the accused, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three5 Lakhs only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining fine of Rs.10,000/- shall be adjusted towards the cost of state expenses. 25 C.C.4801/2023
The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force till the appeal period is over as contemplated under the provisions of Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.
Office to supply the copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith at free of cost.
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru