Bangalore District Court
Latha R vs Yashavanthraju K on 7 November, 2025
KABC030889642018
IN THE COURT OF XX ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: BHOLA PANDIT,
B.Com.,LL.M.,
XX ADDL. C.J.M.
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 7th day of November 2025
C.C.No. 32425/ 2018
Complainant : Smt. Latha R
w/o. Late B Narasimhamurthy
aged about 45 years,
R/at No.160,
Tippenahalli, Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore - 560 073
Represent by her son as SPA holder
Sri. Bharath N
{ By Sri. B. Siddesawara - Advocate }
Vs.
2 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018
Accused : Sri. Yashvanthraju K
S/o. Krishnappa
Aged about 31 years
R/at 242/9, Near Police Chowki
Adarsha Nagara,
Arasinakunte,
Nelamangala Taluk
Bangalore Rural District
Bangalore - 562 123
(By Sri. K. Murthy - Adv.)
Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act.,
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is convicted
Date of Order : 07.11.2025
3 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018
JUDGMENT
The present complaint under section 200 of code of criminal procedure is filed through SPA holder against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act"). It is stated that, the SPA holder is none other than son of the Complainant and has personal knowledge about the transaction between the Complainant and the accused.
02. The fact which leads to file the present complaint are briefed as under
It is stated that, the Complainant and sister of the accused have been good friends for the several years. On the strength of the said friendship and the accused and his sister have approached the Complainant in the month of May 2015 seeking loan of Rs.15,50,000/- for starting the garments factory and that the sister of the accused has promised to stand as guarantor for the repayment of the loan. Since the Complainant already had amount in the 4 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 hand and by pledging her gold ornaments has raised loan amount by accumulating amount in cash she has paid Rs.15,50,000/- to the accused by way of cash on 18.05.2015 in presence of son of the Complainant and sister of accused by name Eramma wife of Gangaraju and Yashodamma wife of Ramaiah. The accused has promised to repay the said amount together with minimum interest on monthly basis along with monthly installments of principle amount and also issued undated cheque bearing No. 485866 drawn on Axis Bank, Peenya Branch, Bangalore for a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs and directed the Complainant to deposit the said cheque only after the instructions from the accused regarding the date on which he could present the cheque. It is further stated that, as per the direction of the accused the Complainant has entered date as 22.06.2018 on the cheque and has presented the same with his banker for encashment on 26.06.2018 but the same was returned unpaid with endorsement as "Payment stopped by the drawer".
Thereafter when the Complainant has informed this fact to 5 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 the accused, the accused has refused to repay the loan amount and behaved in harsh terms, therefore on 04.07.2018, the Complainant has filed the complaint against the accused before the Peenya PS who have registered the case in NCR No.699 / 2018 at that time the accused under took before the police to repay her entire principle amount along with interest. However, in the meanwhile, on 20.07.2018 the accused has issued the legal notice containing the fabricated story and the Complainant has given reply to the said notice through her advocate in the month of August 2018.
It is further stated that, on 01.08.2016 the Complainant has approached the accused and demanded for repayment of loan amount, at that time the accused has threatened the Complainant's life. If she dares to approach him again for the repayment of the loan. Therefore the Complainant has filed another complaint against the accused on 01.08.2018 before the Peenya PS, the police have registered the case in Crime No.397/2018, 6 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 by recording FIR for the offense under section 420, 504, 506 of IPC R/w section 34 of IPC when the police have summoned the accused for investigation, at that time the accused has approached the Complainant and requested her to represent the cheque in the last week of August 2018 and ensured that the cheque would be honoured. The accused also promised to repay remaining amount of Rs.9,50,000/- along with interest. As per request of the accused the Complainant has represented the aforesaid cheque with his banker in the last week of August 2018 for encashment , but again the said cheque was come to be dishnoured on 23.08.2018 with an endorsement as 'payment stopped by the drawer ', Therefore on 4.09.2018 the Complainant got issued demand notice to the accused by RPAD and the accused has received the said notice and given reply. On all these grounds, it is sought to convict the accused under section 138 of NI Act and impose maximum fine amount and direct him for the payment of double of the cheque amount and she shall be award compensation.
7 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018
03. On presentation of the complaint, this court has verified the averments of the complaint and also annexed documents. Having made out prima facie case cognizance has been taken for the offense punishable u/s 138 of NI Act. As per the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association V/s. Union of India and others sworn statement of the Complainant has been recorded as PW1 and in all got marked 8 documents at Ex.P1 to P8. Having made out prima facie case it is ordered to register the complaint in register No.III and to issue process against the accused.
04. In response to the court summons, the accused has rushed to the court by engaging his own advocate and filed bail application under section 436 of Cr.P.C., along with necessary applications, since the alleged offense is bailable in nature, accused has been enlarged on bail. The plea has been recorded and read over to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and wanted to conduct enquiry. As per section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sworn 8 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 statement of the Complainant has been treated as affidavit evidence and the accused has been permitted to cross- examine of PW1. After terminating the Complainant side evidence, the statement of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained to accused the incriminating evidence, the accused denied the same in toto and wanted to adduced his oral evidence. The accused himself has entered in the witness box and adduced his oral evidence as DW1 and got marked in all 24 documents. Both the learned counsels have cross examined comprehensively their rival witnesses.
05. Heard the oral arguments advanced by both the learned counsels.
06. The following points that arise for my consideration are as under;
POINTS
1. Does the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubts that, the accused has issued cheque 9 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 No.485866 dated 22.0.2018 for Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Bengaluru . towards the discharge of his lawful liability of the complainant and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned unpaid due to shara as " Payment stopped by the drawer" as per banker's memo and in-spite of issuance of demand notice, the accused have failed to pay the cheque amount, thereby has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act?
2. What Order or sentence ?
07. My findings to the above points is as follows;
1. Point No.1: In the Affirmative
2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS POINT No.1:
08. It is the specific case of the complainant that, the accused being the brother of her friend has requested the Complainant for advancing the loan of Rs.15,50,000/- to start garment factory, therefore on 18.05.2015 the Complainant has advanced Rs.15,50,000/- by way of cash 10 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 to the accused and at the same time the accused has issued undated disputed cheque with a direction that only on his instruction eh can deposit the said cheque for encashment. Therefore only on the direction of the accused the Complainant has put date on the cheque and presented with his banker for encashment but it has return unpaid due to stop order made by the drawer and after registering two criminal cases by the Complainant the accused has under take and requested to represent his cheque, therefore when the Complainant has represented the said cheque with his banker, again it has returned unpaid due to payment stopped by the drawer and thereafter in spite of service of the demand notice the accused has failed to make payment of cheque amount by giving untenable repay. Accordingly, it is sought to convict the accused under section 138 of NI Act.
09. To substantiate and to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts, the SPA holder of the Complainant has filed the sworn statement and the same has been treated 11 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 as affidavit evidence as PW1 and got marked in all 8 documents. Ex.P1 is the disputed cheque, Ex.P2 and 3 are the bank return memos, Ex.P4 is the demand notice, Ex.P5 and 6 are the postal receipts and speed post acknowledgment , Ex.P7 is the reply notice, Ex.P8 is the Special Power of Attorney executed in favour of PW1. In his affidavit evidence PW1 has replicated averments of complaint. To disprove the case of the Complainant and also to rebut the Legal presumptions which could be drawn in favour of complainant the accused himself entered into the witness box and led his oral evidence as DW1 and got marked in all 24 documents. Ex.D1 is the CC copy of complaint lodged before the Peenya PS, Ex.D2 is the FIR relating to Ex.D1 , Ex.D3 is the CC copy of charge sheet, Ex.D4 is the 161 statement of Sri. Bharat made before the police, in respect of charge sheet at Ex.D3. Ex.D5 is the CC copy of order sheet in CC No.14459/2019 on the file of 45 th ACJM court, Bangalore. Ex.D6 and D7 are the 161 statements of one Sri Narasimhamurthy and Smt. Eramma relates to Ex.D3, Ex.D8 and 9 are the legal notice and 12 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 reply, Ex.P10 is the acknowledgment of speed post, Ex.P11 is the another interview notice relating to PMRY scheme 2006-07, Ex.D12 is the acknowledgment with regard to receipt of application submitted under the PMRY scheme, Ex.D13 is the partnership deed, Ex.D14 is the form No. ST-2 of Central Excise and customs, Ex.D15 is the business registration certificate relating to Bhairaveshwara Enterprises, Ex.D16 the allotment of PAN number in the name of Bhairaveshwara Enterprises, Ex.D17 is the PAN card of Bhairaveshwara Enterprises, Ex.D18 is the corresponding letter issued to the accused by his partner, Ex.D19 is the MLC visiting book, Ex.D20 and 21 are the wound certificates relating to two persons, Ex.D22 is the CC copy of the order sheet in CC No. 3943/2021 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Nelamangala, Ex.D23 is the CC copy of complaint made under section 138 of NI Act and Ex.D24 is the copy of complaint made before Suprintendent of Police Bangalore Rural District by name one Krishnappa. Both the learned counsels have cross examined their rival witnesses comprehensively. 13 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018
10. Before to appreciate oral and documentary evidence produced on records, it is imperative on this court to find out whether the Complainant has proved the necessary ingredients of section 138 of NI Act before filing the present complaint.
11. Looking upon the disputed cheque, bank return memo and demand notice at Ex.P1 to P4 it can be seen that, the disputed cheques at Ex.P1 was presented with bank within its valid period and that, the demand notice was issued within 30 days from the date of receiving the bank return memo at Ex.P3. As per the speed post acknowledgment at Ex.P6 the demand notice was sent under Ex.P4 has been served o the accused personally and only on service of the same the accused has got issued reply notice through his advocate at Ex.P7. Further during the entire cross examination of PW1 and also in the oral evidence of DW1 the service of demand notice is neither disputed nor has been denied. The present complaint is field before his court on 03.11.2018. thus, after the expiry 14 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 of cooling period of 15 days and within 30 days from the service of demand notice, the present complaint has been filed before this court. Hence, now it can be concluded that the present complaint has been filed only after the fulfillment of the requirements of section 138 of NI Act.
12. The Learned defense counsel would contend forcefully that, on the Complainant did not stepped into the witness box and she never appeared before the court. It is further contended that, why the Complainant did not present before the court. Her absence before the court itself leads doubt in the case put forth by the Complainant and on these ground itself the complaint is not maintainable. On the other hand looking to the averments of complaint in para No.2, wherein it is specifically pleaded that, the SPA holder by name Bharath N is only the son of the Complainant and that, he is well aware of the facts and personal knowledge of the transaction between the Complainant and the accused. In support of this pleadings the SPA holder of PW1 by name Bharath N is 15 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 produced the SPA executed by Smt. Latha R. in his favour as her attorney for the purpose of conducting this case. In para No.2 of Ex.P8 the Complainant has expressed as how she is unable to appear before this court. In the case of Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra reported in AIAR 2013 (Criminal) SC 1041(LB) larger bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, " The power of attorney holder can file complaint depose to the affidavit on behalf of Complainant , whether or not, to issue process on the complaint.
However, the SPA holder must hve witnessed the transaction or process due knowledge regarding the said transaction, and the knowledge or personal witness of the transaction must be asserted in the complaint.
13. In the light of above ratio by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering the pleadings in para No.2 of the 16 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 complaint, the arguments advanced by the Learned defense counsel is not sustainable and on the other hand when the SPA holder is none other than the son of the Complainant and also even in para No.3 of the complaint there is specific pleadings that at the time of advancing alleged hand loan on 18.05.2015 the son of the Complainant was very much present. Therefore when the present SPA holder is personal knowledge about the alleged transaction of the case, he can very well depose before this court on behalf of the Complainant and his mother and in this regard the contention taken by the Learned defense counsel is not acceptable.
14. Section 118 & 139 of NI Act are two important provisions and they provides for raising mandatory presumptions in favour of the complainant until the contrary is proved by the accused. Even in the catena of decisions i.e., in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2010(11) SCC 441, in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported in 2019(4) SCC 197, in the case of APS 17 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 Forex Services (P) Ltd., Vs.Shakthi International Fashion Linkers reported in 2020(12) SCC 724, in the case of Rajeshbai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2020(3) SCC 794, in the case of Triyambak S. Hegde Vs. Sripad reported in Live Law 2021 SC 492 and in the relied judgments , a precedent is laid down that, " Once the issuance of cheque and the signature thereon is admitted by the accused, the court is required to raise presumption in favour of the the complainant stating that, the accused has issued the cheque for some consideration towards discharge of his legal debt or liability of the complainant and that the complainant is the due holder of the said cheque. The burden or reverse onus shifts on the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions under sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act." Now, it is well established law that, the presumption mandated by section 139 of NI Act, thus indeed includes the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and it is open for the accused to raise a probable defense wherein the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested and he shall prove before the 18 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 court on preponderance of probabilities, only thereupon a statutory presumption raised in favour of the complainant stands rebutted.
15. In the instant case during his cross examination dated 20.12.2024 the accused has clearly admitted that, the cheque at Ex.P1 belongs to his account at Axis Bank and it bears his signature. Therefore the Legal presumptions under section 118 and 139 of NI shall operates in favour of complainant and works against accused. As per the dictum of the above relied judgment once the Legal presumptions under section 118 and 139 of NI Act shall goes in favour of complainant and operates against the accused, the burden shifts on the accused to rebut said Legal presumptions. Now it is well settled law that, in order to rebut the Legal presumptions the accused shall take a probable defense and to prove the said defense by producing cogent and acceptable evidence on preponderance of probabilities. While doing so the accused need not enter into the witness box. Instead, he can very 19 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 well make use of the evidence produced by the Complainant . Once the accused succeeds in rebutting the Legal presumptions the onus shifts on the Complainant to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts. In the case on hand, as pe Ex.P7 the accused has given his reply notice to the demand notice issued by the Complainant. In his reply notice at Ex.P7 the accused has categorically denied the very case put forth by the Complainant by giving para-wise reply. In this reply notice no specific defense has been taken by the accused except contending that, the Complainant is stranger to the accused. Therefore the accused has failed to put forth his defense in the beginning even though he has given reply notice. However, there is no bar for the accused to put forth his defense during the trial of the case.
16. The Learned defense counsel has conducted marathon cross examination of PW1 and during the said cross examination many factual aspects have been asked such as disputing the financial capacity of the 20 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 Complainant, denying the advancement of alleged hand loan, registering criminal cases and also running partnership business by accused and the Complainant . Further the accused by name Yashwantharaju K. has adduced his oral evidence at length. By considering the cross examination of PW1 and also oral evidence of the accused as DW1 it appears that, the defense of the accused is that the accused and the Complainant have started partnership firm in the name of Bhairaveshwara Enterprises for the supply of man powers, skilled and non skilled workers to the garment factories and other companies in and around Bangalore and the said Bhairaveshwara Enterprises firm was started in the 3 rd floor building of the Complainant and at that time the accused was used to keep his personal record and signed cheque leafs and movables in the Bhairaveshwara Enterprises office. Thereafter the dispute was started between the Complainant and the accused regarding sharing of business amount. Therefore the Complainant has thrown the accused out of the office and took his 21 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 signed blank cheques and thereby misusing his signed blank cheque the Complainant has filed this false case against the accused. In order to prove this defense on preponderance probabilities the accused has placed on record some of the material documents which are marked at Ex.D3 to D17. As per Ex.D13 the partnership deed entered between the Complainant Smt. Latha R and the accused by name Yashwantharaju K. on 19.08.2015 for supply of man power and this this firm has been registered with the labour department as per certificate produced under Ex.D15. This firm was also registered with the Central Excise Department as per certificate under Ex.D14 regarding payment of service tax. As per Ex.D16 and D17 the PAN card was also issued in the name of M/s.Bhaireshwar Enterprises. The addressee of the firm office shown in the document at Ex.D14 and 15 as of the same address where the residential address of the Complainant is shown in the complaint as well as in the evidence of PW1. Even during further cross examination of PW1, PW1 has admitted same of the facts even during 22 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 cross examination of DW1 on page No.3 of dated 20.12.2024 the suggestion has been made from the Complainant side that, the amount which was suppose to be deposited in the name of Bhairaveshwara Enterprises the said amount was deposited to the personal account of the accused due to non opening of current account of the Bhairaveshwara Enterprises. By this suggestion, the Complainant indirectly admitting about running partnership business in the name of Bhairaveshwara Enterprises. Apart from that, on 06.03.2025 the suggestion has been made from the Complainant side to DW1 stating that, he along with Complainant have runned the said partnership firm about one year and it was closed in the year 2019 , though DW1 has answered stating that, it was runed fully for 6 months, but by this suggestion made to DW1 clearly reveals that, the Complainant also admitting that, Bhairaveshwar Enterprises partnership firm was jointly runed by the accused and the Complainant. The accused in the reply notice at Ex.P7 in the 2nd para of page No.4 contended that, the Complainant 23 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 is stranger to him, but on the other hand he himself took the defense that Complainant and himself have runned partnership firm in the name of Sri.Bhairaveshwara Enterprises. By considering this reply notice of accused contending that, the Complainant is stranger to him , then it appears that, the accused is not taking specific and particular defense. Any how , by considering the entire oral chief evidence of PW1 and also DW1 coupled with their evidences culled out during their cross examination, it is admitted fact that, the Complainant and accused belongs to same community they are known to each other since long time and as per the documents at Ex.D13 to D17 they were running Sri. Bhairaveshwara Enterprises in respect of supplying man powers to the Garment Industries at Bangalore having other office in the house of Complainant itself. During the entire cross examination of PW1 no where it has been suggested or any evidence is culled out that, in which month or year the accused was restrained from coming to the office of Bhairaveshwar Enterprises. Even in his oral evidence also the accused did not spoken 24 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 in which month or year he was estoppel from entering into the office of Bhairaveshwar Enterprises. The defense side have produced the some of the documents at Ex.D1 to D7 by confronting to PW1 during his cross examination . Ex.D1 is the CC copy of the complaint lodged by the Complainant Smt. Latha R against the present accused and one Channamma stating that, when the Complainant has appraoched the for repayment of her hand loan of Rs.15,50,000/- both have abused her in filthy language and have cheated her on 01.08.2018 based on this complaint Peenya Police have registered Criminal case against the present accused and one Channamma fowarded FR to the court. Thereafter on completing investigation charge sheet have been filed as per Ex.D3. Ex.D4 and D6 are the statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the present PW1 Bharath and his father Narasimhamurthy in the said Criminal case Ex.D7 si another statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. by one Smt. Eramma. In all these statements there is a recital with regard to making repayment of hand loan of 25 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 Rs.15,50,000/-by Smt. Latha R to the present accused and one Channamma on the basis of charge sheet Ex.D3 the 45th ACMM court has taken cognizance and proceeded in the matter. These documents at Ex.D1 to D7 rather helps more to the Complainant then that of the accused. In these documents no such material evidence is found to support the defense of the accused. The accused has also produced one notice dated 20.07.2018 and reply given to the said notice as per notice at Ex.D8 it discloses that, in the premises of Complainant the Bhairaveshwar Enterprises was running and further in the said notice it is alleged that, several signed cheques belonging to the accused have been taken by the Complainant along with movables from the Bhairaveshwar Enterprises office and by misusing one of the cheque she has filed present complaint. For the said notice the Complainant has also given her reply through her advocate as per Ex.D9. In Ex.D9 the entire contents of the Ex.D8 has been denied. Therefore these two documents at Ex.D8 and D9 do not help the accused to prove his defense. Even otherwise for 26 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 the sake of discussion, in reality, if at all the Complainant has taken the signed blank cheques of the accused along with movables and other records, what has prevented the accused to lodge the complaint before the police. That apart, the notice at Ex.D8 has been given after the presentation of the disputed cheque to the bank for encashment and also after issuance of bank return memo. Therefore it can be seen that, just to escape from the cultches of the law this notice at Ex.D8 might have been caused. Further the accused has produced one more document at Ex.D18 which has been issued by the banker of the accused stating that, the accused has given stop payment order relating to cheque No. 485864 to 485870 on 17.02.2016. The reason for instructing stop payment order was cheque lost. As per Ex.D18 when he gave stop payment order to his banker for the lost of the alleged cheques then the very defense of the accused appears to be not probable and acceptable. The accused have also produced medical records at Ex.D19 to D21 and based on this medical record they have filed complaint to the 27 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Rural District as per Ex.D24. Even the alleged incident shown in Ex.D24 appears to have been taken place only after the return of cheque from the bank and these documents also do not help the accused to prove his defense. Ex.D22 and D23 are the order sheet of the court and copy of the complaint filed under section 138 of NI Act by one Sri. Girish Kumar K against the present accused before the 1 st Additional JMFC at Nelamangala contending that by misusing his another cheque the Complainant has filed another cheque bounce case through one Girish Kumar at Nelamangala Court. I have carefully scrutinized the complaint at Ex.D23 in order to connect the alleged filing of the case through the present complaint no other documentary evidences are forthcoming or the accused did not adduced any independent witness evidence to corroborate his oral testimony, hence document at Ex.D23 also do not support the defense of the accused. Further the accused himself has entered in the witness box and adduced his oral evidence stating that, since 2006 to 2010 he has supplied 28 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 man powers to the garment factories and he came in contact with the Complainant in 2015-16 and on 19.08.2015 both have started Bhairaveshwara Enterprises in the house of Complainant, accordingly in the said office he has kept his signed blank cheques, ledger books, laptop and other movables. He further deposed that, the son of the Complainant by name Bharath was used to take money relating to partnership firm and did not mentioned in the ledger books, in this regard the rift has arose between him and family of the Complainant and thereby they have restrained him from entering the office of the firm. He further said that, in spite of his request for the return of his cheques and laptops they have not return to him and even in his absence they have continued the firm for more than 3 months. In this regard he gave stop payment letter to his banker and also lodged criminal case against the Complainant and her son. He further categorically deposed with regard to registration of firm with various authorities and in spite of that, the Complainant and her family members have cheated him. 29 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 He further deposed that, the Complainant along with gundas have assaulted him accordingly he lodged complaint against them. He has denied of his receiving of Rs.15,50,000/- from the Complainant . The Learned prosecuting counsel has cross examined DW1 comprehensively on various factual aspects and elicited from his mouth that, the accused himself was working in the firm as Managing Partner and the Complainant was the sleeping partner, when such being the case since they were running partnership firm they ought to have opened current account in the name of firm and could have under taken all the financial transactions only through the said account. How could the accused has used his personal bank account in respect of financial transaction of the partnership firm. By considering these documentary evidences coupled with the oral evidence of DW1 I am of the considered opinion that, the accused has not put forth the probable defense and also not produced cogent and acceptable evidence thereby has failed to rebut the Legal presumptions. During the cross examination of PW1 much 30 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 been concentrated relating to financial capacity of the Complainant to pay such amount. In the judgment reported in 2022 (6) SCC 735 in the case of Tedhi Singh Vs. Narayana Das Mahant and also in the recent judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 4171/2024 in between Ashok Singh Vs. State of UP and another decided on 02.04.2025 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, unless a case is set up in the reply notice it cannot be expected of the Complainant to initially lead evidence to show that, he had the financial capacity in the reply notice at Ex.P7 except denial of the contents of the demand notice no specific financial capacity of the Complainant has been questioned. Therefore even the argument advanced by the Learned defense counsel in this regard is not sustainable. When the accused has failed to rebut the Legal presumptions the onus do not shift on the Complainant to prove his beyond all reasonable doubts. I carefully perused judgment relied by defense court with due respect, this ratio is no applicable to the case on hand. Accordingly, I answered point No.1 in the Affirmative. 31 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 POINT NO.2:
17. In the case of M/s. Banavathy & Company V/s.
Mahavir Electro Mech (P). Ltd. And others in Criminal Revision Petition No.996/ 2016 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka pleased to direct all the trail court to impose for further interest @9% p.a. on the compensation amount. In the light of guidelines issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under section 255 (2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, accused is
hereby convicted for the offence
punishable under section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.6,00,000/-
(Rs.6,00,000/- + Rs.10,000/-). In default, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1(one ) year .
32 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018
Acting under section 357(1) of
code of criminal procedure, it is
ordered that an amount of
Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs
only) there from shall be paid to the
complainant as a compensation
together with future interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default to till the date of deposit. Remaining fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in the prosecution.
The bail bond of accused stands canceled subject to appeal period.
Supply free copy of judgment to the accused.
{Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of November 2025}.
(BHOLA PANDIT) XX ACJM, 33 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1 Bharath N List of documents produced on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1 Cheque Ex.P. 1(a) Signature of the accused Ex.P. 2 & 3 Bank endorsements Ex.P. 4 Copy of the legal notice Ex.P. 5 Postal receipt Ex.P. 6 Speed post receipt Ex.P.7 Reply notice Ex.P.8 Special Power of Attorney
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
D.W.1 Yashvanthraju K 34 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018 List of documents produced on behalf of accused:
Ex.D1 CC copy of complaint lodged
before the Peenya PS,
Ex.D2 FIR relating to Ex.D1
Ex.D3 CC copy of charge sheet
Ex.D4 161 statement of Sri. Bharat
made before the police, in respect
of charge sheet at Ex.D3.
Ex.D5 CC copy of order sheet in CC
No.14459/2019 on the file of 45th
ACJM court, Bangalore.
Ex.D6 and D7 161 statements of one Sri
Narasimhamurthy and Smt.
Eramma relates to Ex.D3
Ex.D8 and 9 Legal notice and reply
Ex.D10 Acknowledgment of speed post
Ex.D11 Another interview notice relating
to PMRY scheme 2006-07
Ex.D12 Acknowledgment with regard to
receipt of application submitted
under the PMRY scheme
Ex.D13 Partnership deed
Ex.D14 Form No. ST-2 of Central Excize
35 C.C. No. 32425 / 2018
and customs
Ex.D15 Business registration certificate
relating to Bhairaveshwara
Enterprises
Ex.D16 Allotment of PAN number in the
name of Bhairaveshwara
Enterprises
Ex.D17 PAN card of Bhairaveshwara
Enterprises
Ex.D18 Corresponding letter issued to the
accused by his partner,
Ex.D19 MLC visiting book,
Ex.D20 and 21 Wound certificates relating to two persons, Ex.D22 CC copy of the order sheet in CC No. 3943/2021 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Nelamangala Ex.D23 CC copy of complaint made under section 138 of NI Act Ex.D24 Copy of complaint made before Superintendent of Police Bangalore Rural District by name one Krishnappa.
XX A.C.J.M. Bengaluru.