Bangalore District Court
P Sudheer vs Lakshmi Keshava Dixit M C on 13 October, 2025
CC.No.35709/2024
KABC030602772024
Presented on : 04-11-2024
Registered on : 04-11-2024
Decided on : 13-10-2025
Duration : 0 years, 11 months, 9 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 13th day of October 2025
Present: Smt.Tejaswini K.M., B.A.L. LL.M,
XVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
CC. No.35709/2024
P.Sudheer
S/o Parashuram
Aged about 70 years
R/at No.705, Virama, 1st Block,
BSK 6th Stage, R.R.Nagar Post,
Bengaluru - 560098.
....Complainant
(By Sri Siddaramu.N., Advocate)
Versus
2 C.C.35709/2024
Lakshmi Keshava Dixit M.C
S/o M.R.Chennakeshava Dixit
Aged about 65 years
R/at Mattur Post & Village,
Shivamogga Taluk,
Shivamogga District - 577203.
.... Accused
(By Sri G.M.R., Advocate)
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Date of commencement
of evidence : 30.10.2024
Date of closing evidence : 02.05.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
3 C.C.35709/2024
JUDGMENT
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:
It is stated that the accused and the complainant are friends from past 15 years. The accused used to barrow hand loans from the complainant for the purpose of improvement of his business as well as development of lands. Likewise he has borrowed the amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- by way of cash as well as through account transfer from the complainant between 2012 - 2033 to 2019 - 2022. The complainant has also paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash during the year 2022. 4 C.C.35709/2024 Thereafter, accused has repaid part of the amount of Rs.75,00,000/-. The accused is liable to pay balance amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. Towards discharge of liability, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.098984 dated 31.05.2024 for Rs.50,00,000/-, drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Gajanoor Branch. The complainant has presented the cheque before the bank, but it got dishonoued for the reason 'funds insufficient' vide memo dated 21.08.2024. Despite of intimating the same, the accused has not repaid the amount. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 19.09.2024 demanding the accused to make payment of cheque amount within stipulated period. The notice has been served upon the accused on 24.09.2024. However, the accused has not repaid the amount and not given reply to the demand notice. Hence the complainant has constrained to file the present complaint. 5 C.C.35709/2024
3. 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.
4. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and marked 8 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-8. As there were sufficient materials to constitute the offence, this court has proceeded to pass an order for issuing process against the accused.
5. 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.
6 C.C.35709/2024
6. 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 cross-examined PW.1.
7. The statement of accused as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded vide dated 17.01.2025 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. The accused has not led any evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for complainant and accused. Learned Counsel 7 C.C.35709/2024 for both have also filed memo with citations. I have perused the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record and gone through those case laws.
9. 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.098984 dated 31.05.2024 for Rs.50,00,000/-, drawn on Karnataka Bank Ld., Gajanoor Branch in favour of complainant, on presentation of the same for encashment, it was 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 he has committed an offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What Order?8 C.C.35709/2024
10. 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
11. POINT NO.I:- In nutshell, case of the
complainant is that he knows the accused from several years and accused has borrowed loan to an extent of Rs.1,25,00,000/- from the complainant by way of account as well as through cash between 2012 to 2022. Out of that amount the accused has repaid part amount of Rs.75,00,000/- and for remaining balance of Rs.50,00,000/- the accused has issued the disputed cheque. But the said cheque got dishonoured for the reason 'Funds Insufficient'. Despite of giving notice, the accused has not repaid the amount. Hence the present complaint. 9 C.C.35709/2024
12. To substantiate his case the complainant stepped into witness box and got examined as PW.1. He has got marked Ex.P1 to P7. 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:19.09.2024 is marked as Ex.P-3, copies of postal receipts are marked as Ex.P-4 & P-5, copies of postal acknowledgments are marked as Ex.P-6 & P-7 and copy of loan agreement is marked as Ex.P8.
13. Advocate for complainant has relied on the citations reported (2021) 5 SCC 283 in between Kalamani Tex and another V/s P.Balasubramanian, (2019) 18 SCC 106 in between Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel, Crl.A.Nos.1269- 1270/2021 in between Sripati Singh (since deceased) Through his son Gaurav Singh V/s The State of Jharkhand & another, (2018) 8 SCC 469 in between 10 C.C.35709/2024 T.P.Murugan (Dead) Through Legal Representatives V/s Bojan, Crl.A.Nos.849-850/2011 in between Triyambak S.Hegde V/s Sripad, AIR 2023 SC 5018 in between Rajesh Jain V/s Ajay Singh, (2018) 8 SCC 165 in between Kishan Rao V/s Shankargouda, (1999) 7 SCC 510 in between K.Bhaskaran V/s Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, Crl.A.No.140/2011 in between Sri.Muralidhar Rao V/s Sri.P.Nagesh Rao, I have gone through these case laws.
14. Defense of the accused:
The complaint is vague, as the exact date of payment of money to the accused is not pleaded in the complaint. Further the complaint is filed with respect to time barred debt, hence it is not maintainable. The blank signed cheque given by the accused in the year 2012 has been misused by the complainant and false case is filed. The accused has repaid around Rs.88,00,000/- to the 11 C.C.35709/2024 complainant for the amount he has received between 2012 to 2019. He has not borrowed any loan after 2019 from the complainant by way of cash. Hence prays to acquit him from this case.
15. Advocate for accused has relied on the citations reported in 2001 CRI.L.J 24 in between Sasseriyil Joseph V/s Devassia, Crl.A.No.200057/2016 in between The Bidar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., V/s Mr.Girish and (2023) 1 SCC 578 in between Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel V/s Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, I have gone through these case laws.
16. 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, 12 C.C.35709/2024 negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration".
17. 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 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."
18. 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.
13 C.C.35709/2024
19. The complainant has reiterated the contents of the complaint in his chief examination. During the cross- examination of PW.1 by the counsel for the accused, PW.1 has deposed that he knows the accused, from 2012-13 the accused is borrowing loan from him and repaying it. He deposed that on 18.03.2024 the accused has executed a loan agreement agreeing to repay it. The counsel for the accused has suggested to PW.1 that he has given Rs.1,40,000/- on 18.05.2013, Rs.7,00,000/- on 11.06.2013, Rs.14,00,000/- on 14.06.2013, Rs.1,00,000/- on 02.10.2013, Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.11.2013, Rs.1,00,000/- on 14.01.2014, Rs.2,00,000/- on 09.03.2014, Rs.1,30,000/- on 17.03.2014, Rs.2,00,000/- on 20.04.2014, Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.10.2014, Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.03.2015, Rs.50,000/- on 06.04.2015, Rs.50,000/- on 28.04.2015, Rs.50,000/-03.10.2015, Rs.50,000/- on 14.01.2016, Rs.50,000/- on 01.08.2016, Rs.50,000/- on 16.08.2016, Rs.50,000/- on 25.08.2016, 14 C.C.35709/2024 Rs.50,000/- on 08.09.2016, Rs.2,00,000/- on 12.09.2016, Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.10.2016, Rs.2,00,000/- on 06.10.2016, Rs.1,50,000/- on 12.10.2016, Rs.3,00,000/- on 30.03.2017, Rs.50,000/- on 07.11.2016, Rs.50,000/- on 29.11.2017, Rs.200,000/- on 07.08.2017, Rs.50,000/- on 05.05.2018, Rs.3,00,000/- on 14.05.2018, Rs.5,50,000/- on 23.05.2018, Rs.4,00,000/- on 04.10.2018, Rs.1,00,000/- on 15.10.2018, Rs.1,50,000/- on 20.10.2018, Rs.3,50,000/- on 05.12.2018, Rs.2,00,000/- on 20.12.2018, Rs.7,00,000/- on 03.01.2020, Rs.10,00,000/- on 26.02.2020 to the accused, for which PW.1 has stated that he will verify the account and without verifying the account statement he cannot say the answer now.
20. Further PW1 denied the suggestion that accused has repaid entire amount to him. He deposed that the accused has given only the profit and not returned the principal amount. He admits the suggestion that he has 15 C.C.35709/2024 given the alleged money to the accused before 2020. He deposed that in 2020 he had no impediment to transfer money to the account of the accused, but as per the accused request, he has given cash. The counsel for the accused has suggested that accused has transferred Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.2,22,828/- on 04.12.2020, Rs.2,76,335/- on 18.04.2019, Rs.2,82,000/- on 18.08.2020, Rs.5,00,000/- on 01.12.2020, Rs.3,44,000/- on 15.12.2020, Rs.3,31,022/- on 21.12.2020, Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/- on 14.09.2022, Rs.5,00,000/- on 24.09.2022, Rs.5,00,000/- on 01.10.2022, Rs.10,00,000/- on 21.10.2022, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- on 05.11.2022, Rs.9,40,000/- on 18.11.2022, Rs.10,00,000/- on 27.01.2023, Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.90,000/- on 30.01.2023, Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.03.2023, Rs.15,00,000/- on 26.04.2023, Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.12.2024, Rs.2,00,000/- on 06.02.2025, Rs.2,00,000/- on 19.02.2025 16 C.C.35709/2024 to him, for which PW.1 deposed that he needs to verify it. He denied the suggestion that for the amount given by him to an extent of Rs.86 lakhs between 2012 to 2019 to the accused, the accused has repaid Rs.1,25,00,000/-. He deposed that the amount paid by the accused so far has been adjusted to the interest and principal, but the accused has not repaid the entire amount.
21. The advocate for accused has questioned when exactly he has given Rs.50 lakhs to the accused, he answered that as on 18.03.2024 after deducting the amount paid by the accused, accused still owes Rs.60 lakhs, that time accused has agreed to pay Rs.50 lakhs and given the disputed cheque. He deposed that for the amount given to the accused, he added 10 to 12% interest to the principal amount every year. He admits that in the complaint he has not mentioned about how much interest accused has paid and what is the outstanding balance. 17 C.C.35709/2024
22. He denied that the complaint is filed with respect to time barred debt. He deposed that still the accused is paying the money to him. He denied that accused has not borrowed Rs.2 lakhs in 2022 from him. He denied the suggestion that security cheque which was given by the accused in 2012 has been misused and false case is filed by him. He deposed that he resides in Bengaluru and accused resides in Shivamoga District. He admits that as there was long distance between the place of accused and him, there was no possibility to do cash transaction. He voluntarily deposed that accused has borrowed Rs.2 lakhs by way of cash from him on 18.01.2024. Again he deposed that in 2022 he has given Rs.2 lakhs to the accused. He denied that there is no relation for the transaction between 2012 to 2019 with the accused and for the transaction shown to be made in 2022,. He admits the suggestion that during 2012 to 2019 the accused has 18 C.C.35709/2024 transferred money through account to him. He denied the suggestion that in order to bring the case within the limitation, he has deliberately shown that he has given money in 2022 to the accused. When it is suggested that for the said Rs.2 lakhs given in 2022, the accused has repaid Rs.5 lakhs including interest, PW.1 has answered that the accused still owes money to him. He denied that though accused has repaid the entire amount in order to gain illegal profit he has filed false case. He deposed that there is no pleading about Ex.P8 document in the complaint. He deposed that accused has borrowed loan for the purpose of growing Aircanut and land development. He deposed that accused has told him that he has purchased a site in Shivamoga. He deposed that accused has borrowed money from him, but he does not know for what purpose said amount has been invested by the accused. He admits that he himself has written 19 C.C.35709/2024 agreement at Ex.P8 and he deposed that accused has read it and signed to it. He deposed that Ex.P8 has been written on 18.03.2024. He admits the suggestion that in Ex.P8 there is no clear reference about every dates when he has given money to the accused and how much he has given. He deposed that in Ex.P8 what was due from the accused has been mentioned. He deposed that he is not doing money lending business. He deposed that accused has agreed to give 10% interest as per Ex.P8.
23. He deposed that he has given a summary details to show the interest paid by the accused so far. He denied that Ex.P10 has been created by him. He admits that in his ITR documents he has not clearly shown the exact amount due from the accused. He denied the suggestion that while taking cheque from the accused he has also taken signature to the blank paper at Ex.P8 from the accused and thereafter he has filled the details in it on 20 C.C.35709/2024 18.03.2024. He admits that in Ex.P8 in the place where the cheque number is mentioned, blank space was left and thereafter it is filled. He denied that it shows that Ex.P8 was signed by the accused in 2012 and thereafter the details are filled in 2024 to suit the case. He admits that after filing this case accused has paid Rs.5 lakhs. He denied that despite of repayment of the entire amount the cheque of the accused has been misused and false case is filed.
24. The accused counsel has argued that the complaint is vague as there is no proper pleadings about dates when the amount were paid by the complainant to the accused between 2012 to 2019 and payment made by the accused till filing the complaint. He argued that the complaint is filed with respect to time barred debt and to bring the complaint within limitation, it is falsely stated that the complainant has given Rs.2 lakhs to accused in 21 C.C.35709/2024 2022 by way of cash. He argues there is no pleadings about Ex.P8 document in the complaint and same is created for the purpose of case. There is no reflection about the transaction of money in his ITR details of the complainant. There is no endorsement about the part payment made by the accused on the cheque. Hence he prays to acquit the accused.
25. Percontra, the counsel for the complainant has argued that except making suggestion to PW.1 about repayment of money, accused has not produced his account statement to prove it. The accused has not given defense evidence and not given reply to the demand notice. Even after filing of this case, accused has paid Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant which shows that he owes cheque amount to the complainant and during recording the statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. the accused has 22 C.C.35709/2024 admitted that he will pay money after selling his property. Hence he prays to convict the accused.
26. I have scrupulously gone through the pleadings and evidence placed on record and also given by anxious consideration to the arguments canvassed by the advocate for both side. At the outset the acquaintance between the parties and the monetary transaction between them from very long time i.e. 2012-2019 and the partial payment of money paid by the accused to the complainant is not in dispute.
27. The accused has unequivocally admitted that cheque belongs to his account and it bears his signature. The cheque has been dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient' as per Ex.P2 memo. The Honorable Supreme Court of India in "Triyambak S Hegde v Sripad" (2022) 1 SCC 742 while relying upon the the constitution bench 23 C.C.35709/2024 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."
28. Therefore, as accused admits his signature on cheque 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 to rebut the said initial presumption on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. The accused taken various grounds to rebut the presumption as stated supra.
24 C.C.35709/2024
29. The complainant has pleaded and deposed that he has lent a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- by way of cash as well as account to the accused between 2012 to 2022. Out of that amount the accused has repaid part amount of Rs.75,00,000/- and for the remaining balance the disputed cheque has been issued for Rs.50,00,000/-. During cross- examination the counsel for the accused has asked about the dates and exact amount paid by the complainant to the accused between 2013 to till 2020, but PW.1 could not exactly depose the dates and amount, but he deposed that accused has paid part amount and for the remaining balance the disputed cheque has been issued. PW1 has produced his account statement before the Court after part cross-examination made by the counsel for the accused. In the entire cross-examination of PW.1 the counsel for the accused has not disputed the financial capacity of the complainant to pay Rs.1,25,00,000/-. 25 C.C.35709/2024 Indeed the suggestion of the counsel for the accused in the cross-examination of PW.1 dated 04.04.2025 page No.1 to 6 makes it clear that the accused admits that he has borrowed money from the complainant from 2012, 2013 to till 2019-2020. Though the counsel for the accused has suggested that the accused has not borrowed Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant in 2022 by way of cash at one breath and at another breath he himself has suggested to PW1 that for the said Rs.2 lakhs, the accused has repaid Rs.5 lakhs along with interest and same is admitted by him and said suggestion makes it clear that accused has admitted that he has borrowed money from the complainant till 2022.
30. As per the complaint averments the accused has repaid Rs.75,00,000/- and the outstanding balance shown as Rs.50,00,000/- i.e. the cheque amount. In the cross- examination of PW.1 dated 04.04.2025 in para No.5 last 26 C.C.35709/2024 line the counsel for the accused has suggested that for the amount of Rs.86,00,000/- given by the complainant to the accused, the accused has repaid Rs.1,25,00,000/- and same is denied by PW.1. The said part of cross- examination is reiterated here for more clarity.
"2012 ರಿಂದ 2019 ರ ನಡುವೆ ನಾನು ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ರೂ.86 ಲಕ್ಷಕ್ಕೆ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ರೂ.1,25,00,000/- ಹಿಂದಿರುಗಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ."
31. But in the cross-examination of PW.1 dated 02.05.2025 para No.9 page No.4 the counsel for the accused has suggested that for an amount paid by the complainant to an extent of Rs.88,00,000/- the accused has paid Rs.38,00,000/- towards interest and same is not admitted by PW1. He further suggested that accused has paid Rs.5 lakhs after filing this case to the complainant and same is admitted by PW.1.
27 C.C.35709/2024
32. Therefore, the accused is not clear that how much amount he has paid to the complainant so far. It is pertinent to note here that the monetary transaction took place from very long time i.e. 2012-2022 between the complainant and accused. Though there is no clear pleadings as to the different dates when the amounts were paid to the accused, the complainant has clearly pleaded that he has paid Rs.1,25,00,000/- to the accused between 2012-2022 and the accused has paid Rs.75,00,000/- out of it and same is suffice for the purpose of this case. Even the accused admits that he has made payments from time to time. Except making suggestion to PW1 that accused has paid various amount on different dates, to prove the same, accused has not produced any iota of evidence and also not led any evidence. The complainant enjoys the initial presumption U/Sec.118 of NI Act about passing of consideration to the accused. 28 C.C.35709/2024
33. In Ashok Singh V State of Uttar prasdesh and and another reported in 2025 Live law (SC)_ 383, Apex court by relying on M/s S. S. Production v. Tr. Pavithran Prasanth, 2024 INSC 1059, held that "Pausing here, the Court would only comment that the reasoning of the High Court as well as the First Appellate Court and Trial Court on this issue is sound. Just by taking a counter-stand to raise a probable defence would not shift the onus on the complainant in such a case for the plea of defence has to be buttressed by evidence, either oral or documentary, which in the present cases, has not been done. Moreover, even if it is presumed that the complainant had not proved the source of the money given to the petitioners by way of loan by producing statement of accounts and/or Income Tax Returns, the same ipso facto, would not negate such claim for the reason that the cheques having being issued and signed by the petitioners has not been denied, and no evidence has been led to show that the respondent lacked capacity to provide the amount(s) in question. In Tedhi Singh v Narayan Dass Mahant, (2022) 6 SCC 735: '10. The trial court and the first appellate court have noted that in the case under Section 138 of the NI Act the complainant need not show in the first instance that he had the capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is not a civil suit. At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity. To that extent, the courts in our view were right in holding on those lines. However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity 29 C.C.35709/2024 and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents."
34. Apex court in the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2019 (5) SCALE 138, it is held that "even after purportedly drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the trial court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that this approach of the trial court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. After such presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt on the complainant's case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused."
35. Thus unless accused rebuts it, the complainant need not to be called upon to prove his case further. 30 C.C.35709/2024 When such being the case , the accused ought to have proved that he has paid entire amount, if so when and what is the exact amount and documentary evidence has to be produced to establish it. However same is missing in present case.
36. The complainant has prepared his own transaction summary pertains to the money paid by him to the accused as per Ex.P10. According to which the outstanding balance after deducting the amount paid by the accused comes to an extent of Rs.60,32,340/-. He has mentioned in detail when exactly amount paid by him to the accused in the said summary. The complainant has produced his ITR details and also produced his account statement before the Court to show his bonafide. But the accused has not produced his account statement or any specific documentary evidence to prove that he has paid entire Rs.1,25,00,000/- to the complainant. Even if we 31 C.C.35709/2024 calculate the various amounts paid by the accused to the complainant as suggested by the counsel for the accused, to PW.1 in the cross-examination, that will not come to an extent of Rs.1,25,00,000/-.
37. Furthermore, the very suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused has repaid a sum of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- against a loan of Rs. 86,00,000/- received from the complainant clearly indicates that the accused had agreed to repay the principal amount along with interest or profit. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the accused to repay an amount significantly exceeding the sum actually received. The conduct of the accused is therefore highly relevant and indicative of the understanding between the parties. The accused cannot be permitted to take inconsistent stands on one hand, denying agreement to pay interest as per Ex.P8 and on the other hand, asserting repayment 32 C.C.35709/2024 of an excess amount. Such contradictory stands taken by the accused shakens the credibility of the defence.
38. Since the accused has admitted his signature at Ex.P1 cheque, unless and until the presumption given U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act are rebutted on the scale of preponderance of probabilities the complainant need not to be called upon to further prove his case. However the complainant has voluntarily produced his account statement and ITR details and transaction details in his evidence.
39. AIR 2023 SC 5018 in between Rajesh Jain V/s Ajay Singh, Apex court held that "62. The fundamental error in the approach lies in the fact that the High Court has questioned the want of evidence on part of the complainant in order to support his allegation of having extended loan to the accused, when it ought to have instead concerned itself with the case set up by the accused and whether he had discharged 33 C.C.35709/2024 his evidential burden by proving that there existed no debt/liability at the time of issuance of cheque.."
40. Principle laid down in above case law aptly applicable to present case, the accused has not stepped into witness box to give evidence in support of his defense nor he discharged his evidential burden by proving that there existed no debt/liability at the time of issuance of cheque.
41. The accused has not disputed the service of demand notice to him as per Ex.P6 and P7 postal acknowledgments. The demand notice at Ex.P3 has been served to the accused. Had the accused repaid the entire amount as contended in the cross-examination of PW.1, the accused could have given suitable reply to the complainant soon after receiving the demand notice from the complainant. However he has not given reply at the 34 C.C.35709/2024 earliest and not introduced his defense. Therefore, it creates suspicion about the defense.
42. Further during giving explanation while recording statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. the accused admitted that he owes money to the complainant and he will pay money after selling his property. Such explanation has came from the mouth of accused voluntarily before the Court and same makes the defense as untrustworthy.
43. In a similar situation in AIR 2023 SC 5018 in between Rajesh Jain V/s Ajay Singh, Apex court held that "53. In his 313 statements, he admits of having taken a loan of Rs 20 lakh and having repaid some interest but in the cross examination of the complainant, a suggestion is made that the accused had no financial dealings with the complainant. Whereas in his 313 statement, the accused states that his cheque book and passbook is kept in his sister in law's house, yet, in the cross examination of Gita Sunar, the accused's sister-in- law, no suggestion is made to that effect. In fact, she has plainly denied that any blank cheque was given to her by her brother-in-law. We find it highly unnatural to presume that the accused would leave his signed 35 C.C.35709/2024 cheque leaves and passbook in his sister-in law's house. Even if he did, there is no reason(s) or motive attributed on part of his sister-in- law, for her to collude along with the complainant. The accused has also not explained as to why he has not set up his defense at the earliest point, that is, at the stage of receiving the demand notice, even though he admits having received the demand notice in his 313 statement, yet he makes a suggestion to the complainant in his cross examination that no legal notice had been issued. The theory of 'blank cheque' being misused has been suggested, only to be denied by both, the complainant and Gita Sunar- CW-3. No action has been taken by way of registering a police complaint in order to prosecute the alleged illegal conduct of his blank cheque having been misused by CW-3.
54. Nothing significant has been elicited in the cross- examination of complainant to raise any suspicion in the case set up by the complainant. Other than some minor inconsistencies, the case of the complainant has been consistent throughout as can be noticed from a perusal of the complainant, demand notice and affidavit evidence. In fact, the signature on the cheque having not been disputed, and the presumption under sec 118 and 139 having taken effect, the complainant's case stood satisfied every ingredient necessary for sustaining a conviction under sec 138. The case of the defense was limited only to the issue as to whether the cheque had been issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The accused having miserably failed to discharge his evidential burden, that fact will have to be taken to be proved by force of the presumption, without requiring anything more from the complainant."
36 C.C.35709/2024
44. In present case also while recording statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. the accused admitted that he owes money to the complainant and he will pay money after selling his property.
45. Though, the counsel for the accused has contended that only till 2019 the accused has received money from the complainant and entire amount was repaid to the complainant, no cogent evidence is produced to prove it. Even if we assume that the accused has repaid entire amount, then he could have been taken steps to recover his security cheque alleged to be given to complainant in the year 2012. But no such endeavor is made by the accused for the reasons best known to him and such inaction of the accused makes the defense improbable.
37 C.C.35709/2024
46. He has also not given stop payment instructions to his banker to prevent his cheque being misused, if he repaid the entire amount and also not given police complaint against the complainant for misusing of his cheque or not returning of his cheque. Such imprudent conduct of the accused demonstrating that the defense is vague and such contention is taken to evade the liability of the cheque and nothing else. More over the accused has paid Rs 5 lakhs to complainant after filing of this case . If there was no any outstanding due, no prudent person would pay lakhs together.
47. The counsel for the accused has argued that the complaint is filed with respect to time barred debt. It is significant to note here that there is continuous monetary transaction and it's repayment between the complainant and the accused and same is evident from the cross- examination of PW.1 as well as documentary evidence 38 C.C.35709/2024 produced by the complainant. The accused has paid Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant after filing this case which again corroborates that there is continuous transaction with the complainant. Under such circumstances, it cannot be construed that the complainant is filed with respect to time barred debt. In recent case law Sri Sudhakar Reddy C.B vs Smt Pushpa decide on 12 October, 2023 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.256/2022 , Hon'ble karnataka High court held that "39. Thus, when the questions formulated by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Bombay was referred to the Division Bench, it took pains in considering the matter from various facets and answered both the questions in the Affirmative. Thereby, holding that issuance of cheque is a promise in writing within the meaning of sub section (3) of Section 25 of the Contract Act and it is an exception to the general rule that the agreement without consideration is void. Thus, issuance of a cheque satisfies the ingredients of sub section (3) of Section 25, i.e., promise made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith to pay wholly or in part a dent of which the creditor might have enforced payment, but for the law for the limitation of suits and as such, the 39 C.C.35709/2024 cheque becomes a cheque drawn towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt as contemplated by the explanation to Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, the position of law is laid down by the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay and there is no reason for not accepting the same.
40. In view of the settled position of law, even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cheques were issued towards a time barred debt is to be accepted, by applying the above principle of law to the present case, issuance of cheques in question amount to written promise to pay the said debt, as provided under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act and it creates legally enforceable debt. Hence, it squarely attracts Section 138 of NI Act. "
48. As per above case law the issuance of cheque in question amount to written promise to pay the said debt, as provided under sec 25(3) of the Contract Act and it creates legally enforceable debt. Hence, it squarely attracts offence under sec 138 of NI Act.
49. Further more as per Section 19. of LIMITATION ACT says that Effect of payment of account of debt or of interest on legacy.40 C.C.35709/2024
"Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made"
50. The Court has to calculate the limitation from the last date of payment made by the accused as per Sec.19 of Limitation Act. Even from that angle the complaint is well within time.
51. The counsel for the accused has further argued that the complainant has not endorsed on the cheque about he receiving Rs.75,00,000/- i.e. part payment made by the accused and he relied upon the citation that (2023) 1 SCC 578 in between Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel V/s Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel. In the said case it is observed in para no 30 that 41 C.C.35709/2024 "(iv) The first respondent has made part- payments after the debt was incurred and before the cheque was encashed upon maturity. The sum of rupees twenty lakhs represented on the cheque was not the 'legally enforceable debt' on the date of maturity. Thus, the first respondent cannot be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act when the cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds; "
52. It is important to note that if the cheque had originally been issued for the entire amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-, and the accused had subsequently made a part payment of Rs. 75,00,000/- before the cheque was presented to the bank, the complainant would have been required to make an endorsement on the cheque acknowledging such part payment. However, that is not the situation in the present case. Here, the accused made a part payment of Rs. 75,00,000/- and thereafter issued a cheque for the remaining outstanding balance of Rs. 50,00,000/-, which has been clearly pleaded in the 42 C.C.35709/2024 complaint. Hence the citation relied by the accused counsel has no bearing on the present case facts.
53. Further much is cross-examined to PW.1 regarding Ex.P8 i.e. agreement executed by the accused in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the outstanding balance and issuance of the cheque. Thought there is difference in the ink used to written the details in Ex.P8 and to put the signature of the accused, PW.1 has clearly mentioned that he himself has written the said document and after reading the contents, the accused has put his signature. It is material to note here that the accused has not disputed his signature at Ex.P8, but he is disputing the contents. The present case is filed based on Ex.P1 cheque and the document at Ex.P8 is mere corroborative evidence, as such difference in the ink in Ex.P8 does not exonerate the liability of the accused to prove his defence.43 C.C.35709/2024
54. In a similar situation in Triyambak S.Hegde vs Sripad 2022(1) SCC 742, Apex court held that "18. The Learned Single Judge however while accepting the said story has referred to certain discrepancies in the agreement (Exhibit P6) relating to the details of the property and the appellant having admitted with regard to not having visited the property or having knowledge of the location of the property. Such consideration, in our opinion, was not germane and was beyond the scope of the nature of litigation. The validity of the agreement in the manner as has been examined by the learned Single Judge may have arisen if the same was raised as an issue and had arisen for consideration in a suit for specific performance of the agreement. The decision in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. AIR 1962 SC 1788 relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent would not be of assistance in the present facts. Firstly, in the said decision this Court has expressed the limited power available to the High Court in Revision Petition. Even otherwise, we have disapproved the manner in which the learned Single Judge has proceeded to examine the matter on contentions which were not raised as a foundation before the Trial Court. In the instant case, the said agreement (Exhibit P6) had been relied upon only to the limited extent to indicate that there was a transaction between the parties ".
55. The above case applies to present facts of the case. No iota of evidence produced to prove that he has 44 C.C.35709/2024 signed to blank paper at Ex.P8 and it was given in the year 2012 to the complainant. Indeed the accused ought to have stepped into witness box to prove this fact. However he has conveniently kept himself away from witness box and mere making suggestion to PW.1 that Ex.P8 has been created, cannot be considered to believe the version of the accused. The complainant has produced necessary documentary evidence to prove his transaction with the accused.
56. Recently in ((2019) 4 SCC 197) ie Bir Singh V Mukesh Kumar, Apex court has held that "A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted". 45 C.C.35709/2024
57. Thus difference in ink , handwriting in cheque and Exp 8 makes no difference here as the accused admits his signature on both Ex.P1 and 8. Thus he is precluded from claiming such defence.
58. It is pertinent to note that under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts a fact. Except making suggestion to PW.1, regarding repayment of entire amount, the accused has not adduced evidence and not brought any cogent, concrete evidence to believe that he has repaid entire amount to the complainant. If, as alleged, there was no subsisting transaction or liability in the year 2019 to 2022, the accused ought to have taken timely steps to recover his security cheque or give stop payment of the cheque in question. His failure to do so strengthens that 46 C.C.35709/2024 the complainant's case that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
59. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubts and the accused has utterly failed to prove his defense in any angle in the manner known to law. Accordingly court proceed to answer POINT NO.I IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
60. POINT NO.II:- 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. 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) 47 C.C.35709/2024 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.
61. 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 deciding similar cases by different courts not only increases the credibility of the 48 C.C.35709/2024 cheque as a Negotiable Instrument but also the credibility of the Courts of Justice'.
62. 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."
63. Therefore, having regard to the amount advanced, time from which it is lying with the accused, part payment made by the accused towards interest and 49 C.C.35709/2024 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 is imposed with a direction to compensate the complainant for its 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.80,10,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Ten Thousand Only), in default of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.
50 C.C.35709/2024
Out of the fine amount collected from the accused, an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty 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.
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 13 th day of October 2025). Digitally signed by Tejaswini K M Tejaswini Date:
KM 2025.10.16
17:52:08
+0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
51 C.C.35709/2024
ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1: Sri.P.Sudheer 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 : Copy of Legal notice. Ex.P-4 & 5 : Postal receipts. Ex.P-6 & 7: Postal Acknowledgments. Ex.P-8 : Copy of Loan Agreement. III. List of witnesses for the accused:
Nil
IV. List of documents for accused:
Nil Digitally signed
by Tejaswini K
Tejaswini M
KM Date:
2025.10.16
17:52:14 +0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M ),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
52 C.C.35709/2024