Bangalore District Court
S Nataraja vs Roopakala R on 2 August, 2025
KABC020410462024
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ACJM, BENGALURU CITY.
(SCCH-5)
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT: SMT. SHARMILA KAMATH K.
B.A. LLM.,
VIII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND ACJM,
BENGALURU.
C.C No.11792/2024
COMPLAINANT : Sri. S. Nataraja
S/o. Late. Shivanna
Aged about 52 years
Residing at No.240,
1st A Main Road,
Shiva Nagar,
West of Chord Road,
Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 010.
(By Sri.H.C.Ramesh, Adv.,)
V/s
ACCUSED : Smt. Roopakala R.
W/o. Vishwanath
Aged about 40 years
No.19/20, III Floor,
4th Cross, 5th Main,
2 CC No.11792/2024
SCCH-5
Rajajinagar Industrial Town,
Agrahara Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 044.
(By Sri.Praveen C.P. Adv.,)
*****
::JUDGMENT::
The complainant filed complaint Under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for the offence punishable Under section 138 of Negotiable instrument Act.
2. The factual matrix of complaint is as under :-
The accused had borrowed hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cash from the complainant on 10.05.2023 to meet her urgent domestic and family necessities and out of the said amount, accused has repaid a sum of Rs.12,800/- to the complainant. The accused towards partial discharge of outstanding debt issued the cheques bearing No.000232 dated 11.12.2023 3 CC No.11792/2024 SCCH-5 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and cheque bearing No.000231 dated 15.12.2023 for a sum of Rs.87,200/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Magadi Road Branch, Bengaluru. The complainant presented the said cheques for encashment but the said cheques returned with an endorsement dated 13.03.2024 as "Instrument Outdated Stale" and "Funds Insufficient". On 22.03.2024 the complainant issued legal notice through RPAD calling upon the accused to repay the cheques amount. Inspite of service of notice the accused failed to make payment of cheque amount. Hence the complaint.
3. After taking cognizance for the offence Under Section 138 of N.I.Act, sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Considering the facts that there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused the process was issued. After issuance of the 4 CC No.11792/2024 SCCH-5 summons the accused appeared before the court and enlarged on Bail.
4. As per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association, the sworn statement is considered as evidence of complainant and the documents produced at the time of sworn statement considered as documents on behalf of complainant. Subsequently the statement of the accused has been duly recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused had denied entire incriminating evidence and he submits that, he has defence evidence.
5. The complainant in order to prove his case examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. Statement of accused recorded.
6. Heard arguments.
7. The following points arise for determination; 5 CC No.11792/2024
SCCH-5 ::POINTS::
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused towards repayment of loan amount had issued a cheque bearing No.000232 dated 11.12.2023 for Rs.50,000/- and cheque bearing No.000231 dated 15.12.2023 for Rs.87,200/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Magadi Road Branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant and the complainant has presented the said cheque through its banker for encashment but the same has been returned on 13.03.2024 with an endorsement "Instrument Outdated Stale" and "Funds Insufficient"
thereafter on 22.03.2024 got issued legal notice to the accused calling upon him to repay the cheque amount, inspite of service of the said notice, the accused not repaid the cheque amount and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What Order?
8. My findings on the aforesaid points are;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
6 CC No.11792/2024
SCCH-5 ::REASONS::
9. Point No.1:- It is the case of the complainant, the accused towards discharge of debt issued the cheque bearing No.000232 dated 11.12.2023 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and cheque bearing No.000231 dated 15.12.2023 for a sum of Rs.87,200/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Magadi Road Branch, Bengaluru. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment but the said cheque returned with an endorsement dated 13.03.2024 as "Instrument Outdated Stale" and "Funds Insufficient". On 22.03.2024 the complainant issued legal notice through RPAD calling upon the accused to repay the cheque amount. Inspite of service of notice the accused failed to make payment of cheque amount.
10. The complainant has to establish the ingredients for making out the case under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The complainant has to establish that : 7 CC No.11792/2024
SCCH-5 Person issued a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of service of amount and money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any debt or liability.
That the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier.
That the cheque is returned by the bank unpaid either because the amount of money has been in credit of the account is insufficient to hand the cheque or that it exceeds amount arranged to be paid from that account by agreement made with the bank.
The payee, the holder in due course of the cheque makes demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving notice in writing to drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipts of information by him from the accused regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.
The drawer of the said cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. The said ingredients are to be established by the complainant. In the light of the above discussions the oral 8 CC No.11792/2024 SCCH-5 as well as documentary evidence placed on record by the parties has to be considered.
11. The complainant in order to prove his case examined himself as PW-1 and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 got marked. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant produced and got marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are cheques, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are bank endorsements, Ex.P.5 office copy of notice, Ex.P.6 postal receipt and Ex.P.7 postal acknowledgment. The factum of issuance of cheque is not disputed by the accused. It is not the case of the accused that cheque is not belonging to his account. It is not in dispute that the accused obtained handloan from complainant. The cheque as per Ex.P.1 and 2 were issued on 11/12/2023 and 15/12/2023 for Rs.50,000/- and 87,200/- respectively towards payment of outstanding handloan amount. None of the documents produced by the accused 9 CC No.11792/2024 SCCH-5 regarding repayment of loan amount obtained nor the accused replied to the notice dated 22/03/2024. The issuance of cheque as per Ex.P.1 and 2 on 11/12/2023 and 15/12/2023 for Rs.50,000/- and 87,200/- was not rebutted by the accused. The complainant proved that Ex.P.1 and 2 cheque were issued towards legally recoverable debt. Regarding presentation of cheque for encashment endorsement issued by bank as per Ex.P.3 and 4 regarding instrument outdated stale and insufficiency of funds, issuance of notice is not disputed by the accused nor produced any document to disprove the said facts. The complainant proved ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act. Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been enacted to lend credibility to the financial transactions. The Explanation appended to the Section provides that, the "debt or other liability" for 10 CC No.11792/2024 SCCH-5 the purpose of this Section means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
12. Apart from this, Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lays down a presumption in favour of the holder of cheque in the following terms:-
"It shall be presumed, unless the contrary 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, of any debt or other liability".
Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act states, "Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-(a) That every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument, when 11 CC No.11792/2024 SCCH-5 it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."Thus, the Act clearly lays down presumptions in favour of the Complainant with regard to the issuance of the cheque by the Accused towards the discharge of his liability in favour of the Complainant. Under the scheme of the Act, the onus is upon the Accused to rebut the presumptions in favour of the Complainant by raising a probable defence. It is a well settled position of law that, the defence of the Accused, if in the nature of a mere denial of the case of the Complainant will not be sufficient to hold it as a probable defense. The bare denial of the passing of consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable must be brought on record for getting the 12 CC No.11792/2024 SCCH-5 benefit of shifting the onus of proof to the Complainant.
13. It is also a well settled position of law that, once the cheque is proved to be relating to the Account of the Accused and she accepts and admits the signature on the said cheque, then the initial presumption as contemplated under Sec. 139 of the N.I.Act has to be raised by the courts in favour of the Complainant. The presumption referred to in Sec.139 of the N.I.Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the Accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption. What is required to be established by the Accused in order to rebut the presumption is different from each case under given circumstance. But the fact remains that a mere plausible explanation is not expected from the Accused and it must be more than a plausible explanation by way of rebuttal evidence. The defence 13 CC No.11792/2024 SCCH-5 raised by the Accused by way of rebuttal evidence must be probable and capable of being accepted by the court. The Complainant has fulfilled the mandatory requirements of Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act. Hence I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on the above point I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
In exercises of the powers conferred U/Section.255 (2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.1,42,200/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Two Thousand Two Hundred Only) in default accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 6 months.14 CC No.11792/2024
SCCH-5 Acting under Section 357 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C out of fine amount, the complainant is entitle for Rs.1,37,200/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Only) cheque amount as compensation.
Acting under Section 357 (1)(a) of Cr.P.C the balance amount Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) is defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in the prosecution.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 2 nd day of August, 2025) (SHARMILA KAMATH K.) VIII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & ACJM BENGALURU.
::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
PW-1 : Sri. Nataraja S.
15 CC No.11792/2024
SCCH-5
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque dated 11.12.2023 Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of accused Ex.P.2 : Original Cheque dated 15.12.2023 Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of accused Ex.P.3 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P.4 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P.5 : Copy of Legal Notice Ex.P.6 : Postal Receipt Ex.P.7 : Postal Acknowledgment LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:
-NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:
-NIL-
(SHARMILA KAMATH K.) VIII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & ACJM BENGALURU.