Bangalore District Court
Narayannaswamy vs Kushal M. Revankar on 11 March, 2026
KABC020078392019
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES & ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU (SCCH-08)
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF MARCH - 2026
PRESENT: Smt. Kannika M.S.
M.A, LL.B.,
XII ADDL. SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
C.C. No.1801/2019
Complainant : Sri. Narayanaswamy,
No.401C, 4th Floor,
G.R. Queens Amber,
Arekere Gate,
B.G. Road,
Bengaluru -560076.
(By Sri. Anil Kumar K.R.,
Advocate)
:Vs:
Accused : Sri.Kushal M.Revankar
S/o Madhav Revankar
Aged about 30 years
R/o Opp: Prashanth
Near Rajadhani Finance
Marathi Koppa
SCCH-8 2 C.C.No.1801/2019
Sirsi
Uttara Kannada-581402.
(By Smt.Shakuntala M.M.,
Advocate)
Date of complaint : 14.12.2018
Date of commencement of
Evidence : 20.03.2019
Offence charged : Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act
Date of Judgment : 11.03.2026
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
JUDGEMENT
This is a private complaint filed U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the alleged offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that:
The accused is a friend and well acquaintance with the SCCH-8 3 C.C.No.1801/2019 complainant. The accused approached the complainant and sought for hand loan of Rs.7,00,000/- for improvement of his business. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.7 lakhs to the accused by way of cash during 2nd week of August 2018. While borrowing the said amount the accused has assured to repay the said amount within one month. In pursuance of his promise on the same day, towards the discharge of above said liability, the accused had issued two post dated cheques bearing No.491039 dt.26-9-2018 for Rs.3,50,000/- and another cheque bearing No.491040 dt.26-9-2018 for Rs.3,50,000/- both drawn on State Bank of India, Mahesh plaza, Nataraj road, Sirsi in favour of the complainant. The complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker Andhra bank Ltd., J.P. nagar branch, III phase, but the said cheques were came to be dishonored and returned with shara "Refer to drawer" dt.28-09-2018. Hence he has issued legal notice on 27-10-2018 to the accused. But the complainant has not received either postal acknowledgment, or returned SCCH-8 4 C.C.No.1801/2019 RPAD cover with respect to the notice sent the accused to this effect a complain also given to postal authority on 12-12-2018.
However postal authority issued tract consignments wherein it is mentioned that the notice has been delivered on 31-10-2018.
The accused has not repaid the amount nor replied to the notice. The accused has not paid the amount, and hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Court.
3. Cognizance was taken and sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Since there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, the summons was issued to accused. Accused appeared through his counsel and got enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation was framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, he denied the same and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for complainant's evidence.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant himself got examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and closed his evidence. After closure of complainant's SCCH-8 5 C.C.No.1801/2019 side evidence, the statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C was prepared and read over to accused, he has denied the same. The accused has examined himself as DW.1. One Raghu got examined as DW-2
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for accused and complainant. Perused the entire records in this case.
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, the accused has issued cheques bearing No.491039 dt.26-9-2018 for Rs.3,50,000/- and another cheque bearing No.491040 dt.26-9-2018 for Rs.3,50,000/- both drawn on State Bank of India, Mahesh plaza, Nataraj road, Sirsi and the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, but the same returned with an endorsements as "Funds Insufficient" ?
2. Whether the complainant further proves that he has got issued the legal notice dated: 27-10-
2018 to the accused demanding the cheque amount from the Accused within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the said legal notice is duly served on the accused but the accused has failed to make the payment of the cheque amount well within the prescribed time SCCH-8 6 C.C.No.1801/2019 and there by committed an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act?
3. What order?
7. The finding of this court on the above points is as under:
Point No.1 : In Affirmative,
Point No.2 : In Affirmative,
Point No.3 : As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
POINTS NO.1 & 2:
8. Since these points are interconnected, they are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
9. According to the complaint, the accused approached the complainant and sought for hand loan of Rs.7,00,000/- for improvement of his business. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.7 lakhs to the accused by way of cash during 2 nd week of August 2018. While borrowing the said amount the accused has assured to repay the said amount within one month. In SCCH-8 7 C.C.No.1801/2019 pursuance of his promise on the same day, towards the discharge of above said liability, the accused had issued two post dated cheques bearing No.491039 dt.26-9-2018 for Rs.3,50,000/- and another cheque bearing No.491040 dt.26-9- 2018 for Rs.3,50,000/- both drawn on State Bank of India, Mahesh plaza, Nataraj road, Sirsi in favour of the complainant. The complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker Andhra bank Ltd., JP nagar branch, III phase, but the said cheques were came to be dishonored and returned with shara "Refer to drawer" dt.28-09-2018. Hence he has issued legal notice on 27-10-2018 to the accused. But the complainant has not received either postal acknowledgment, or returned RPAD cover with respect to the notice sent the accused to this effect a complain also given to postal authority on 12-12-2018. However postal authority issued tract consignments wherein it is mentioned that the notice has been delivered on 31-10-2018. The accused has not paid the amount, hence the complaint.
SCCH-8 8 C.C.No.1801/2019
10. In support of his contention, he has filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief wherein reiterated the averments of the complaint and examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12. Ex.P1 and 3 are the cheques issued by the accused in favour of the Complainant, Ex.P2 and 4 are the bank endorsements, Ex.P.5 is the legal notice dt.27-10-2018, Ex.P6 is the postal receipt, Ex.P7 is the requisition to post office, Ex.P8 is the track consignment, Ex.P9 and 10 are the account statements, Ex.P11 is the receipt of sell the golden ornaments and Ex.P12 is the IT returns.
11. On careful perusal of material placed on record Ex.P1 and 3 are the cheques bearing No.491039 and 491040 dated 26.09.2018 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- each in favour of the complainant drawn on State Bank of India, Sirsi Branch. The complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker Andra Bank Ltd., J.P.Nagar Branch, Bengaluru, but the said cheques were came to be dishonored and returned with shara "Refer to Drawer" as per Ex.P2 and 4 SCCH-8 9 C.C.No.1801/2019 on 28.09.2018. Subsequently, complainant has issued a legal notice to the accused as per Ex.P5 through RPAD on 27.10.2018 and the said RPAD was served. Thereafter complainant has filed this case against the accused on 11.03.2022. Hence, complainant has complied the mandatory requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
12. Accused himself examined as Dw1, in his oral evidence he deposed that, himself and complainant were well known to each other. He has not borrowed any amount from the complainant. One Yogesh Jayaram Patel and himself doing the Garments business at that time he has given his cheques to him. The said Yogesh Jayaram Patel has obtained the loan from the complainant at that time he has given his cheques to complainant without his knowledge. Notice has not served upon him, even repayment the loan amount by the Yogesh complainant has misused the cheques and filed false case. Hence, he humbly pray that he may be considered innocent and be acquitted.
SCCH-8 10 C.C.No.1801/2019
13. Let me discuss whether the amount mentioned in the cheque is for a legally recoverable debt or for other liability. The interpretation of the expression for discharge of any debt or other liability occurring in section 138 of N.I. Act is significant and decisive in matter. The explanation appended to section 138 express the meaning of the expression debt or other liability for the purpose of section 138. This expression means a legally enforceable or other liability. Section 138 treats dishonour of cheque as an offence if the cheque has been issued in discharge of debt or any other liability. The explanation leaves no manner of doubt that to attract an offence under section 138 there should be legally enforceable debt or other liability. As per section 139 of N.I. Act there is a presumption in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued for discharge of debt or other liability. The said presumption is a legal presumption and it is in favour of the holder of cheque. It is open to the accused to rebut the said SCCH-8 11 C.C.No.1801/2019 presumption. The accused has not rebut the presumptions which is available in favour of the complainant.
14. It is the mandate of Section 139 that there is a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that the holder received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138, for the discharge in whole or in part or other liability. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under section 139 of N.I. Act is a rebuttable presumption. However the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the drawer of the cheque/accused. In Hiten P. Dalal V/s Bratindranath Banerjee reported in 2001 (6) SCC 16 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that both section 138 and 139 require that the court shall presume the liability of the drawer of the cheque for the amounts for which the cheque are drawn.
15. Section 139 introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof and shifts the onus on the accused. The presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act is a SCCH-8 12 C.C.No.1801/2019 presumption of law, as distinguished from presumption of facts.
16. In Laxmi Dyechem V/s State of Gujarat and others reported in 2012 (13) SCC 375 , the Hon'ble Supreme court reiterated that in view of section 139 it has to be presumed that a cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or other liability but the presumption could be rebutted by adducing evidence. The burden of proof was however on the person who wanted to rebut the presumption.
17. In K.N. Beena V/s Muniyappan and Anothers reported in 2001(8) SCC 458, the Hon'ble Supreme court held that in view of the provisions of section 139 of the N.I.Act read with section 118 thereof the court had to presume that the cheque had been issued for discharging a debt or liability. The said presumption was rebuttable and could be rebutted by the accused by proving the contrary. The accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. SCCH-8 13 C.C.No.1801/2019
18. It is the main defence of the accused that he has not borrowed any amount from the complainant. One Yogesh Jayaram Patel and himself doing the Garments business at that time he has given his cheques to him. The said Yogesh Jayaram Patel has obtained the loan from the complainant at that time he has given his cheques to complainant without his knowledge. The complainant has no capacity to lend the said amount. In this case there is no dispute regarding acquaintance between the accused and complainant. Accused himself has deposed that one Sharth introduced the complainant to him in the year 2017 -2018. Complainant also in his cross-examination stated that accused was introduced through common friend Sharth in the year 2018, the said fact corroborated with the evidence of the Dw1. These shown the acquaintance in between them.
19. In the cross-examination of the Pw1 accused counsel asked regarding the lending capacity and from which source he arranged the money and to the said question Pw1 deposed that SCCH-8 14 C.C.No.1801/2019 he has income tax payer, he paid income tax from 2016-2017 and he have accounts in the two banks and also he paid the amount by selling his gold ornaments. In support of the version, Pw1 has relied on Ex.P9 and 12 which are banks statement of accounts, receipt of selling of gold and IT return acknowledgment from the year 2016-2017 to 2023-2024. on perusal of the accounts statements of the complainant it indicates that complainant has well transacted through his account and financially well and also have a sources of income, Ex.P12 is the Income tax return acknowledgment form the year 2016-17 to 2023-24 those documents indicates that in the year 2016 to 2018 declared income more than 10 to 13 lakhs, those also clears that complainant financially capable to lend the loan and also Ex.P11 it discloses that complainant has sold his gold in the year 2018, but accused defence is that those documents are created by the complainant after filing of this case, complainant has established his financial capacity to lend the loan on production of the above said documents, the SCCH-8 15 C.C.No.1801/2019 onus of burden shifts on the accused to disprove the said documents are created except denial in the cross-examination of the Pw1 accused has failed to elicited from the mouth of the Pw1 he has not borrowed the loan and not given cheque for discharge of the said loan.
20. The accused counsel in the cross-examination of the Pw1 has taken defence that, Yogesh Jayarm Patel has borrowed the loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant on 24.07.2018 at that time accused has given his cheques as security for the said loan, in that loan Yogesh Jayaram Patel has returned Rs.4,88,000/- on 01.07.2022 for the remaining amount in order to wreck vengeance, complainant had misused the cheque of accused. Pw1 has admits the lend the loan of Rs.7,00,000/- to the Yogesh Jayaram Patel on 24.07.2018 through account transfer and it also reflects in his account statements i.e.,Ex.P9 and P10 and he denied further aspects and voluntarily stated Yogesh Jayaram Patel has repaid the amount which was borrowed by him. Accused in his chief SCCH-8 16 C.C.No.1801/2019 deposed that cheques not given by him to complainant it was given by Yogesh without his knowledge, the above said defecne of accused counsel in the cross-examination of Pw1 is contrary to the defence of the accused.
21. Accused in support of his defence he has examined one witnesses namely Raghavendra, who is the common friend of him and complainant, as Dw2 he has deposed that accused has given the cheque to the complainant as a guarantor of loan which was borrowed by the one Yogesh Jayarm in his presence, but the evidence of the accused in his chief is contrary to the evidence of the Dw2, the doubt arose in the mind of the court that whose evidence is correct, whether cheque has given by the accused as guarantor of loan or the cheque given by the Yogesh Jayaram without the knowledge of accused, these inconsistency of the evidence of the Dw1 and 2, is clears that accused has created false story to escape from the clutches of law.
SCCH-8 17 C.C.No.1801/2019
22. The accused counsel has cross examined the PW1 at length. He has denied all the suggestions of the accused counsel and accused has failed to elicit from the mouth of PW.1 that, accused has not borrowed loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant and at any point of time accused has not issued the cheque as per Ex.P1 and 3.
23. Further defence of the accused is that notice has not been served upon him, complainant has given the notice to the address which was accused not resides with an ulterior motive. But accused in his cross-examination admits that "It is true to suggest that the address mentioned in Ex.P5 and address mentioned in my election voter identity card are one and the same" and further deposed that " he has no document to show he was not resides in the address mentioned in the Ex.P5 at the time of issuance of notice", as per the said admission of the Dw1 clears that notice has issued to the correct address of the accused person. On perusal of the Ex.P8 which was the postal track consignment, it clearly mentioned that notice has duly delivered to address mentioned in the Ex.P5. Further in the cross- SCCH-8 18 C.C.No.1801/2019 examination of the Pw1 dated 05.01.2024 at page 6 last paragraph accused counsel suggested that " ನಾನು ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳನ್ನು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ಗೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿದಾಗ, ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿದಾಗ ನಾನು ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳನ್ನು ವಾಪಸ್ಸು ಕೊಡುವುದಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಿ ಈ ಸುಳ್ಳು ದೂರನ್ನು ಹಾಕಿದ್ದೇನೆ." the said suggestion was denied by the Pw1, but the suggestion clears that accused has knowledge about the dishonor of cheques on the date of its presentation, he had a certain knowledge of the cheque he has neither taken any legal steps nor replayed the notice.
24. As per Section 27 of General Clauses Act, there is a presumption that if the communications or letters are sent to the address wherein the person ordinarily resides or carry on his business, it is presumed to be valid service. As per Ex.P8 which is the postal track consignment, which clears that notice delivered to the address of the accused in the address mentioned in Ex.P5, the accused has got the knowledge about the notice, but he has not issued any reply. When he kept quite regarding the notice of the complainant and not issued the reply notice after getting to know about the notice and also dishonor of cheques, the complainant need not prove his financial capacity. At this SCCH-8 19 C.C.No.1801/2019 stage this Court has relied on decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tedhi Sing V/s Narayan Das Mahant(Tedi Singh) 2022 SCC Online SC302, in this case Court held that, "Where the accused has failed to send reply to the legal notice, challenging the financial capacity of the complainant, at the first instance, complainant need not prove his financial capacity".
25. The above said decision is aptly applicable to this case on hand, when the accused has kept quite without issuing the reply at the very earlier stage available to him to put forth him defence, he has no right to question the financial capacity of complainant.
26. The another main ground of attack by the accused is that, he has given the cheques to Yogesh Jayaram Patel for security of their business, the said Yogesh has given the said cheque to complainant without his knowledge. When the accused has taken the specific plea the burden on the accused to prove the said fact as per Sec.102 of Indian Evidence Act, but accused has not produced any document to prove the said defence, except his oral testimony, the Dw2 has adduced contrary to the said SCCH-8 20 C.C.No.1801/2019 defence that cheque given by the accused to the complainant as guarantor of the loan borrowed by the Yogesh Jayarm Patel. The accused counsel in the cross-examination of the Pw1 suggested that "when he presented the cheque to bank at that time accused inquired the complainant about the cheques, complainant has promised to return the cheques", the said suggestion of accused makes it clear that accused has knowledge about the presentation of cheques and its dishonor, but he kept quite without issuing the notice and taken legal action. If he has not borrowed any amount and the cheque was misused by some one, why he has not given complaint before police regarding the misuse of cheque against the complainant and Yogesh Jayaram Patel, is not answered by the accused. Any prudent man will not sit silently without taking legal action and he would have approached the police and also issued the reply notice and taken action against the person who has misused his cheque and at least given instruction to his banker for not to honor the cheque, but he has not made any efforts. SCCH-8 21 C.C.No.1801/2019 Therefore, the defence of the accused is not believable, escape from liability he has taken baseless defence.
27. Another contention raised by the accused is that the complainant filled the details in the cheques and presented it to the bank. As per Sec.20 of N.I. Act, signed blank cheque is inchoate instrument and any claim based on inchoate instrument will be subject to the provisos of Sec. 20. But when the instrument is cheque, presumption U/Sec. 139 shall have to be drawn. But the presumption is being rebuttable.
28. I have also gone through the ruling reported in; AIR 2000 Karnataka Page 169 (H. Marigouda /Vs/ Tippamma & others), which reads is as follows;
" As per Sec. 20 of N.I. Act, even if a blank cheque is given, the holder has authority to make or complete the instrument as a negotiable one. It means the accused has impliedly given permission to the holder of the cheque to fill up blanks in the cheque. Once all these things are established, Sec. 139 of N.I. Act states that the cheque has been issued SCCH-8 22 C.C.No.1801/2019 for the discharge of debt or liability unless the contrary is proved".
29. Therefore, after going through the above said ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, it is very clear that as per Sec. 20 of the N.I. Act, even if the blank cheque is given, the holder of the cheque has authority to complete the instrument as negotiable one as the accused has impliedly given permission to holder of the cheque to fill up the blanks in the cheque. The accused has not rebutted the said presumption and not produced the documentary and oral evidence in support of his defence.
30. The another contention of accused taken in the cross examination of Pw1 that, complainant has lend the loan to one Yogesh Jayaram Patel on 24.07.2018, the said Yogesh has given the cheques of accused to the complainant, later Yogesh repaid the amount of Rs.4,88,000/- on 01.07.2022 for the remaining amount in order to wreck vengeance complainant has falsely foisted him by misusing of the cheques. Pw1 admits SCCH-8 23 C.C.No.1801/2019 the lending of money to Yogesh and also stated Yogesh has repaid the said amount. When the accused taken defence that Yogesh had partly repaid and for remaining amount he has foisted, the burden in on the accused to prove the said facts, accused has not produced any other oral and documentary evidence in support of the said defence. The contrary to the said defence accused in his evidence deposed that Yogesh Jayarm had repaid the loan amount to the complainant and also Dw2 in his evidence deposed that he has not known whether Yogesh has repaid the loan amount to complainant. These evidence of Dw2 is not support the defence of the accused about part payment of amount by Yogesh to the complainant. Further Dw2 in his cross-examination deposed that " ಆರೋಪಿ ಮತ್ತು ಫಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರು ಏನು ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಆರೋಪಿ ಮತ್ತು ಫಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರು 2017-2018 ನೇ ಸಾಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಹಣಕಾಸಿನ ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು." These evidence of the Dw2 is corroborate the case of the complainant and also strengthen the case of the SCCH-8 24 C.C.No.1801/2019 complainant. The above said defence of accused and evidence of Dw1 and 2 are conflicting each other.
31. In support of his contention accused has not produced any document. Except his oral testimony nothing is produced with regard to the part repayment of the amount by the Yogesh. The above said contention urged by the accused does not hold any water in the eye of law, only to escape from the clutches of law he has taken the said defence. Though PW.1 is cross examined at length but the whole cross examination revolves round the alleged transaction between the Complainant and Yogesh, but the same was denied. The accused has failed to disprove the case of the complainant in the cross-examination.
32. To put in encapsulated form, a normal prudent man would file a complaint before the law enforcing agency if his cheque was misused, but the accused has not filed any complaint. Hence if is forthcoming that, the contention urged by the accused that he has not issued Ex.P1 and 3 cheque are baseless. Further, the accused has not given any instructions SCCH-8 25 C.C.No.1801/2019 to his bank to stop the payment in case of presence of the Ex.P1 and 3 cheque. The question arises as to what prevented the accused to give instructions to the bank when the cheque are not returned by the complainant as alleged by the accused. Under the presumption available under section 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, if the accused is taking up the defence of non- passing of the consideration mentioned in any Negotiable Instrument it is his/accused burden to rebut the presumption. Further Section 16 and 20 of N.I. Act has a provision to holder of a cheque to fill up the blanks in the cheque issued by the drawer. In the present case, the accused has admitted his signature.
33. The trial of cases under N.I. Act is supported with the presumption available under section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act. For the proper adjudication of the matter the accused has to rebut the above said presumption provided under the N.I. Act in favour of complainant through other evidence. It is the contention of the accused that he has not issued Ex.P1 and 3 SCCH-8 26 C.C.No.1801/2019 cheques to complainant. The said fact is not proved by the accused. Though the futile attempt has been made by the accused, but having regard to the his cross-examination his evidence will not inspire the confidence of this court. The said factum has been exhaustively discussed above. Hence, without any hesitation it can be held that the presumption available under section 138 of N.I. Act in favour of the complainant stands unrebutted.
34. Further more, the accused has not taken any action against the complainant and Yogesh Jayaram Patel for return of cheques after repayment of loan and as well as the closer of business in between him and Yogesh Jayaram Patel to return the security cheque which was given as security of their business. He also admitted that he has not issued any notice to the complainant to return the cheque, even filing of this case. If really there was transaction as alleged by the accused, then he would have certainly taken action against the complainant. In this regard it is relevant to rely on the decision reported in AIR SCCH-8 27 C.C.No.1801/2019 2023 SC 5018 in the case of Rajesh Jain V/s Ajay Singh, wherein it was held as here under :
Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the Court can straightaway proceed to convict him, subject to satisfaction of the other ingredients of Section 138. If the Court finds that the evidential burden placed on the accused has been discharged, the complainant would be expected to prove the said fact independently, without taking aid of the presumption. The Court would then take an overall view based on the evidence on record and decide accordingly.
35. The principles laid down therein aptly applicable to the case on hand. In the instant case on hand also the accused has taken a similar defence that the complainant has misused the cheque given in the transaction of the year 2018 but the SCCH-8 28 C.C.No.1801/2019 accused failed to initiate any legal action in this regard. The accused however failed to provide any substantial evidence or to file police complaint regarding alleged misuse of cheque. In contrast the case of the complainant remained consistent and the signature of the accused on cheque was unchallenged, allowing presumption has to legally enforceable debt to take effect. To trigger the presumption mere admission of the drawer's signature without admitting the execution of the entire contents in the cheque is sufficient. The said principles has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 2019 SC 2446 (Bir Singh V/S Mukesh Kumar) wherein the Hon'ble court held that:
"Negotiable Instrument Act(26 of 1881), S.138, S.139- Presumption as to legally enforceable debt- Rebuttal- signed blank cheque- If voluntarily presented to payee, towards payment, payee may fill up amount and other particulars and it in itself would not invalidate cheque- Onus would still be on accused to prove that cheque was not issued for discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence."SCCH-8 29 C.C.No.1801/2019
36. Further on the same point of law it is relevant to rely on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2020 SC 945 held regarding presumption is concerned that when the accused admits issuance of cheque, his signature on cheque and that cheque in question was issued for discharging the liability, there is always a presumption in favour of the complainant that there exists legally recoverable debt or liability.
37. Further on the same point of law it is relevant to rely on a decision of the Apex court 2021(1) DCR 625 between M/s. Kalamani Tex and another Vs P. Balasubramanian, wherein it is held that:
"Since signature on cheque was admitted and presumption raised upon accused was not sufficiently rebutted by accused, so passing acquittal is unjustified".
When such is the case the principles laid down therein aptly applicable to the case on hand.
SCCH-8 30 C.C.No.1801/2019
38. In the instant case, the accused has not raised any probable defence. Hence, in such an event the accused has not rebutted the presumption as contemplated under Sec.139 of N.I.Act. The accused though disputed financial capacity of the complainant, but the complainant had demonstrated his financial capacity. The accused also not disputed the signature in Ex.P.1 and 3. Therefore, it is clear as a cloud less sky that presumption envisaged under Sec.118 and 139 of N.I.Act has not been rebutted by the accused. The discussions made supra discloses that the accused failed to demonstrate that, he has given the Ex.P1 and 3 cheque as a security to the loan transaction between the Yogesh Jayaram Patel and the complainant and also Yogesh Jayarm Patel has given the cheques to complainant without his knowledge.
39. Furthermore, the transaction and issuance of cheque is proved before this court. Section 139 and 118 of N.I. Act has favourable presumptions in favour of the complainant. When the presumptions are not rebutted and defense is not proved by SCCH-8 31 C.C.No.1801/2019 the evidence placed by the complainant, the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the presumption. The accused has not placed any probable defence evidence to disprove the case of the complainant. Hence, the defence of the accused is not acceptable in the absence of proper evidence. Thereby, it can be concluded that the Ex.P1 and 3 cheques were issued in the nature provided under section 138 of N.I. Act. As there is admission regarding the signature on Ex.P1 and 3 cheque and issuance of Ex.P1 and 3 cheques. The accused has not made out any sufficient grounds to disprove the complainant's case. On the other hand, the complainant successfully proved his case beyond all reasonable doubts. In view of above discussion, this court answers Points No.1 and 2 is in the Affirmative. POINT No.3:-
40. Hence, considering the facts and circumstance involved in the case, I am of the opinion that, the complainant is entitled for the compensation as per section 80 of the SCCH-8 32 C.C.No.1801/2019 Negotiable Instrument Act. Accordingly, in the light of above detailed discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.7,10,000/-(Rupees seven lakhs ten thousand only).
In default of payment of the fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
Out of the fine amount collected from the accused, Rs.7,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation u/s. 357(1) of Cr.P.C, remaining Rs.10,000/- shall be forfeited to State towards expenses of the case.
It is made clear that in view of Sec.421(1) of Cr.P.C even if the accused undergoes the default sentence imposed above, he is not absolved of liability to the fine amount.
Bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
Office is directed to supply a free copy of the judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 11th day of March, 2026) KANNIKA M Digitally signed by KANNIKA M S S Date: 2026.04.02 11:52:52 +0530 (Kannika M.S.) XII Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.SCCH-8 33 C.C.No.1801/2019
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for complainant :-
P.W.1 : Narayanaswamy List of documents marked for complainant:-
Exhibits Particulars of the Document
Ex.P1 & 3 Cheques
Ex.P1 (a) & 3(a) Signature of the accused
Ex.P2 and 4 Bank endorsements
Ex.P5 Legal notice
Ex.P6 Postal receipt
Ex.P7 Requisition given to post office
Ex.P8 Track consignment
Ex.P9 & 10 Account statements
Ex.P11 Receipt
Ex.P12 IT returns
List of witnesses examined for accused:
DW.1 : Kushal M.Revankar
DW.2 : Raghu
List of documents marked for accused:-
---NIL--
KANNIKA M Digitally signed by KANNIKA M
S
S Date: 2026.04.02 11:52:56
+0530
(Kannika M.S.)
XII Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACJM, Bengaluru.