Bangalore District Court
Muniswamappa. M vs Venkatesh. S on 3 October, 2025
CC.No.30384/2022
KABC030759722022
Presented on : 22-09-2022
Registered on : 22-09-2022
Decided on : 03-10-2025
Duration : 3 years, 0 months, 11 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 3rd day of October 2025
Present: Smt.Tejaswini K.M., B.A.L. LL.M,
XVI Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru City.
CC. No.30384/2022
Sri.Muniswamappa.M
S/o Munibyrappa
Aged about 75 years
R/at Sy.No.1/3, Library Road,
Thalaghttapura Post,
Thalaghattapura,
Bangalore - 560109.
....Complainant
(By Sri.K.Devaraj., Advocate)
Versus
2 C.C.30384/2022
Sri.Venkatesh.S
S/o Sanjeevaiah
Aged about 48 years
R/at Rachanamadu Village,
Tataguni Post, Kanakapura Road,
Bangalore -82.
and also
R/at No.6165, Shanaba Hill View
Apartment, Gangirapalya,
Thalghattapura Post,
Bangalore - 5600109.
.... Accused
(By Sri.G.N.Dhananjaya., Advocate)
Offence complained : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act.
Date of commencement
of evidence : 19.09.2022
Date of closing evidence : 31.01.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not guilty
3 C.C.30384/2022
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:
The complainant and the accused are the good friends for a long time and known to each other. The accused was in need of finance to meet the family necessity and accordingly approached the complainant in the year 2020 and requested him to lend loan of Rs.11 lakhs. Accordingly, the complainant has given Rs.11 lakhs by way of cash and the accused has agreed to repay the same within a year. During first week of January 2022, the complainant has requested to repay the amount to the accused, but the accused postponed to repay it. Finally in discharge of the said loan, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.000038 dated 15.03.2022 for Rs.11,00,000/-, 4 C.C.30384/2022 drawn on Andhra Bank, Raghuvanahalli Branch, Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore in favour of the complainant. When it was presented to the bank, it was returned with an endorsement as 'Other reasons' i.e. 'The bank is not under clearing' vide memo dated 10.05.2022. Thereafter, the complainant got issued demand notice to the accused on 25.05.2022 through RPAD calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount, it has been served upon the accused on 09.06.2020. However, the accused has not repaid the loan amount. Hence the complainant has constrained to file the present complaint.
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. 5 C.C.30384/2022
4. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and marked 11 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-11. 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. As per the direction of Hon'ble supreme court in "Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others reported in (2014)(5) SCC 590, this court treated the sworn statement of the complainant as complainant evidence and posted matter for cross-examination of PW.1. The counsel for the accused has fully cross-examined PW.1. Further the Bank Manager of Canara Bank has been examined as PW.2. The 6 C.C.30384/2022 counsel for the accused has fully cross-examined PW.2 Thereafter the complainant closed his side of evidence.
7. The statement of accused as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded vide dated 13.06.2024 and the incriminating evidence as such forthcoming against the accused in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and the documents has been read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him and he has denied the same.
8. In order to substantiate his defense, the accused got himself examined as DW.1. The counsel for the complainant has cross-examined DW1.
9. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for accused. Counsel for complainant has not addressed the arguments on merits. I have perused the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record.
7 C.C.30384/2022
10. Points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused person towards discharge of his liability issued a cheque bearing No.000038 dated 15.03.2022 for Rs.11,00,000/-, drawn on Andhra Bank, Raghuvanahalli Barnch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant, on presentation of the same for encashment, it was dishonored for "other reasons i.e. The bank is not under clearing" 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?
11. My Answer to above points are as under:-
Point No.I :- In the Negative,
Point No.II :- As per the final order for
the following....
8 C.C.30384/2022
REASONS
12. POINT NO.I:- In nutshell, case of the complainant is that he has lent loan of Rs.11 lakhs to the accused in 2020 and in discharge of the said loan, the accused has issued cheque in question, but same got dishonoured for the reasons 'other reasons i.e. the bank is not under clearing'. Despite of giving notice, the accused has not repaid the loan amount. Hence the present complaint.
13. To substantiate his case the complainant stepped into witness box and got examined as PW.1. He has got marked Ex.P1 to P11. 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: 25.05.2022 is marked as Ex.P-3, copy of the postal receipts are marked as Ex.P-4 & P-5, copy of postal acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7 is the copy of returned notice, postal cover is marked as Ex.P-8, copy of 9 C.C.30384/2022 postal receipt is marked as Ex.P-9, copy of postal acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P-10, complaint is marked as Ex.P-11.
14. Defense of the accused is that:
He does not know the complainant, he never taken loan from the complainant. The cheque in question belongs to his account in Andhra Bank and said bank is not existed. He has not given the disputed cheque to the complainant. He knows the complainant's brother's son by name Mr.Munesh from several years. Accused contends that his wife was contesting to the Taluk Panchayat Elections that time Mr.Munesh accompanying with them and seeking money for election campaign, he did not give money to Mr.Munesh, thereafter transferred his office that time also Mr.Munesh was with him. He has taken Ex.P1 cheque and misused the same through the complainant and filed this case. He has also not taken any money from Mr.Munesh. He has not received the demand 10 C.C.30384/2022 notice and the notice is given to the wrong address. Hence on this grounds prays to acquit him from this case.
15. Negotiable Instruments Act provides for presumption in favour of the complainant i.e., Section 118 reads as here: -
"That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration".
16. Further Sec 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for presumption in favour of a holder. It reads as here: - "It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in sec 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability."
17. Combined reading of above said sections raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has 11 C.C.30384/2022 received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. However, it is settled principle of law that the presumption available u/s 139 NI Act can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable defense.
18. The complainant has reiterated the contents of the complaint in his chief-examination. During cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, PW1 has deposed that along with him his brother's son Mr.Munesh has came to the Court. He knows the accused and the accused is from Rachanamadu Village. He does not know when the father and brother of the accused have died. He deposed that he has received Rs.11 lakhs from his land same was deposited to his bank account. He has withdrawn Rs.17 lakhs and out of that he has given Rs.11 lakhs to the accused and given Rs.3 lakhs each to his sons. He does not know when he has withdrawn the amount. He admits Mr.Munesh has brought him to the Court to file this case. He admits that every time whenever Mr.Munesh comes 12 C.C.30384/2022 with him to the Court, Munesh takes leave as he is Central Government Servant.
19. He deposed that the accused sought money in the year 2020 and he does not remember the date. He deposed that on the same date when he given Rs.11 lakhs he has received cheque from the accused. He deposed that he has not produced his bank account statement. He has deposed that he has kept money to purchase site and same was given to the accused. He deposed that accused told that he does site business, but he has not sought any site documents from him. He does not know when he has presented the cheque to the bank. He deposed that accused has not told him the date when the cheque has to be presented. He deposed that he does not remember whether he has mentioned the date of dishonour of the cheque in his complaint and evidence. He admits that in Ex.P2 bank memo the dishonoured date is shown as 18.02.2022. He denied the suggestion that he has not given 13 C.C.30384/2022 legal notice within stipulated period. He deposed that he does not remember the date when the complaint is given in the police station. He has not produced the copy of the said police complaint. He deposed that he has given money near his house to the accused, that time Mr.Munesh was also present. He deposed that while presenting the cheque to the bank Mr.Munesh was accompanying with him. The remaining suggestions are denied by PW.1.
20. The complainant has examined the branch manager namely Smt.Sangeetha T.V. as PW.2 and in her chief- examination she deposed that the complainant is maintaining her account in their bank and presented the cheque No.000038 dated 15.03.2022 to their bank for encashment on 17.03.2022 and same was dishonoured for the reason the 'bank is not under clearing' as the Andhra Bank got merged with Union Bank. They have given the bank memo on 10.05.2022 as per Ex.P2 in this regard. During cross-examination by the counsel 14 C.C.30384/2022 for the accused, she deposed that she has not taken any explanation from merged bank for validation of the cheque.
21. On the other hand, the accused stepped into witness box and got examined as DW.1 and he deposed that he does not know the complainant, he never taken loan from the complainant. The cheque in question belongs to his account of Andhra Bank and said bank is not existed. He has not given the disputed cheque to the complainant. He knows the complainant's brother's son by name Mr.Munesh from several years. His wife was contesting to the Taluk Panchayat Elections that time Mr.Munesh accompanying with them and seeking money for election campaign, he did not give money to Mr.Munesh, thereafter he transferred his office that time also Mr.Munesh was with him. That time munesh has taken Ex.P1 cheque and misused the same, through the complainant he filed this case. He has also not taken any money from 15 C.C.30384/2022 Mr.Munesh. He has not received the demand notice and the notice is given to the wrong address.
22. During cross-examination by the counsel for the complainant he deposed that his wife has contested Taluk Panchayath Elections of Doddabele in 2013. He has shifted his office in December 2021. He denied the suggestion that Mr.Munesh is Government Servant, he never accompanied him for election campaign. He denied the suggestion that he resides in the address shown in the complaint and notice. He deposed that he resides Shobha Forest View Apartment, but he has not produced document to show it. He denied his signature at Ex.P6. He denied that notice is served to him, but he has not received it. He denied that he has taken loan from the complainant and Mr.Munesh during elections for its expenditure. He denied the suggestion that he has given the cheque for repayment of the said loan. He denied the 16 C.C.30384/2022 suggestion that cheque bears his signature and in order to evade liability of the cheque he is giving false evidence.
23. I have heard the advocate for accused on merits. Despite of giving sufficient time the complainant counsel has not addressed the arguments. I have meticulously gone through the pleadings, complaint and evidence placed on record. It is significant to note here that cheque in question belongs to Andhra Bank. The cheque has been dishonoured for the reason 'other reasons i.e. bank is not under clearing'. The accused has disputed his signature at Ex.P1 cheque.
24. Firstly, the accused has disputed the very loan transaction with the complainant and also acquaintance with the complainant and issuance of the old cheque belonging to the Andhra Bank which is already merged with Union Bank. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 after consultation with the 17 C.C.30384/2022 Reserve Bank of India has notified the Amalgamation of Andhra Bank and Corporation Bank into Union Bank of India Scheme, 2020 ("Amalgamation Scheme") vide gazette notification dated March 4, 2020. It shall come into force on April 1, 2020.
25. The disputed cheque bearing No.000038 is dated 15.03.2022. Old cheque books are being phased out with new ones w.e.f. 01.01.2021 as per official website of Concerned bank. Therefore, the burden lies on the complainant to prove that the cheque is legally valid as on the date of its presentation. The Andhra Bank got merged with Union Bank and same is widely circulated in the society. Despite of the same the complainant has presented the old invalid cheque. Even the bank manager who is examined as PW.2 in this case has deposed that the cheque is not valid.
18 C.C.30384/2022
26. In Ganta Kavitha Devi v. State of AP, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5115, decided on 25-10-2024]...
"The Hon'ble High Court of Andra pradesh has noted that on perusal of Section 138(a) of NI Act, if any invalid cheque is presented before the Bank and the same is dishonored, it can be said that there is no liability under Section 138 of NI Act. In the instant case, the subject cheque was issued on 20-09-2021 and the same was drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad. By that date, State Bank of Hyderabad was merged with State Bank of India and the cheques of the said bank were valid till 31-03-2018 only. As per proviso (a) of Section 138, if the cheque itself is invalid, the Bank is bound to dishonor the same. As such, on presentation of the said cheque before 6 ICICI Bank, the same was returned on 22-09-2021 with an endorsement "Invalid cheque (SBH)".
Therefore, it can be presumed that the cheque in question was invalid on the date of presentation before the ICICI Bank. The Court concluded that the subject cheque, which was issued from the account maintained in erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad after its merger with State Bank of India, was not a valid cheque on the date of its presentation before the ICICI Bank as required by proviso (a) of Section
138. Hence, dishonoring the same will not attract liability under Section 138 of NI Act. Therefore, it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner...."
19 C.C.30384/2022
27. In Archana Singh Gautam v. State of U.P., Application u/s 482 No. - 9536 of 2024, Decided on 05-06- 2024]...
"The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has noted that Allahabad Bank merged with Indian Bank on 01-04-2020, and a public notice had been issued indicating that cheques of Allahabad Bank would only be valid until 30-09-2021, and that any cheque from Allahabad Bank presented after this date would be considered invalid. In its analysis, the Court differentiated between reasons for dishonour due to insufficiency of funds and the presentation of an invalid cheque, observing that Section 138 explicitly requires the cheque to be valid at the time of presentation, and since the cheque in question was issued from an account in Allahabad Bank post its merger and past the validity date, it was deemed invalid... "
28. As per principles laid down in above case laws, the complainant has filed this case pertaining to the invalid cheque, hence compliant is not maintainable.
20 C.C.30384/2022
29. Secondly, the accused has disputed his signature at Ex.P1 cheque, but the complainant has not made any endeavor to prove that it bears the signature of the accused. Neither specimen signatures of the accused are summoned from bank , nor produced any admissible documentary evidence to prove the signature of the accused . Therefore, as the accused denied his signature, initial presumption given U/Sec.139 of NI Act cannot be drawn by the Court in favour of the complainant.
30. Thirdly, the accused has disputed the acquaintance with the complainant, the loan transaction and financial capacity of the complainant to give loan to an extent of Rs.11 lakhs. Admittedly, complainant is a senior citizen, aged about 75 years, whereas the accused is aged about 45 years old. The averment in the complaint that the complainant and the accused shared a close friendship appears to be somewhat ambiguous, particularly in view of the considerable age disparity between the two.
21 C.C.30384/2022
31. Be that as may be, throughout cross-examination of complainant the counsel for the accused has extensively questioned the complainant regarding the alleged loan transaction , particulars as to when the loan amount was given, how he could arrange said Rs.11 lakhs, where it was given, in whose presence etc.
32. In the complaint it is stated that in 2020 he has given Rs.11 lakhs to the accused. Even during cross-examination he has stated the same but deposed that he does not remember the date and the month. It is pertinent to note that the complainant further deposed that he had received Rs. 17 lakhs from the sale of his land, which was deposited into his bank account, and subsequently withdrawn. Out of the said amount, he claims to have given Rs. 11 lakhs to the accused and the remaining Rs. 6 lakhs to his children. In order to substantiate this claim, the complainant ought to have produced documentary evidence demonstrating the receipt of Rs. 17 22 C.C.30384/2022 lakhs as consideration from the land, along with proof of its deposit into his bank account. However, no bank statement or any other admissible evidence has been placed on record to establish the existence of such a source of income or the financial capacity to advance the alleged loan.
33. Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant reported (2022)6 SCC SCC 73, it is observed that "However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity 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. It is also open to him to establish the very same aspect by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself. He can further, more importantly, achieve this result through the cross examination of the witnesses of the complainant. Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the Courts to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the 23 C.C.30384/2022 evidence and then come to a conclusion whether in the given case, the accused has shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason that the accused has established a probable defence. "
34. In APS Forex Service Private Limited v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers AIR 2020 SC 945, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified and explained the issue as follows:
"We are of the view that whenever the accused has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant in support of his probable defence, despite the presumption under sec 139 of the N.I. Act about the presumption of legally enforceable debt and such presumption is rebuttable, thereafter the onus shifts again on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and at that stage the complainant is required to lead the evidence to prove his financial capacity, more particularly when it is a case of giving loan by cash and thereafter issuance of a cheque. "
35. Further PW1 did not remember when exactly he has given money to the accused. It is material to note here that 24 C.C.30384/2022 Rs.11 lakhs is substantial and cannot be considered a trivial amount. PW1 is a senior citizen, retaining such funds for his personal use and future expenditure like medicines, or hospitals expenditure or etc exigencies would be expected. In such a context, the claim that PW1 advanced Rs. 11 lakhs in cash to the accused without executing any security document such as a loan agreement, promissory note, or any written acknowledgment nor seeking any interest on such a significant amount, renders the statement of PW1 vague, doubtful.
36. PW1 has consistently deposed that he was always accompanied by one Mr. Munesh to the Court, who was present both at the time of handing over the money to the accused and when presenting the cheque to the bank. Under such circumstances, the complainant ought to have examined Mr.Munesh before the Court to prove his loan transaction. However, he has not examined the said prime witness to the transaction despite the witness being available on every date 25 C.C.30384/2022 and knowing that there is no documentary proof of the loan transaction. Examination of Mr.Munesh is vital to this case. However, the complainant has not chosen to examine him before the Court for the reasons best known to him.
37. During cross-examination dated 07.12.2023 PW.1 deposed that he kept Rs.11 lakhs with him to purchase the site and same was given to the accused as accused told as he was doing site business. However, no iota of evidence brought before the Court by the complainant to prove said site business. Even PW.1 could not depose the site details in his cross-examination.
38. Interestingly, during cross-examination of of the accused counsel for the complainant has suggested that while election campaign of his wife who contesting for Taluk Panchayath Elections, he has borrowed loan from the complainant and Mr.Munesh and said suggestion is denied by DW.1. Thus, this suggestion of the counsel for the complainant 26 C.C.30384/2022 reflects that the complainant has given loan for a election campaign and not for site purchasing. Even there is improvisation of the case of the complainant that both complainant and Munesh has advanced loan to accused. Therefore, there is contradiction in the contention of the complainant regarding reason for lending such huge amount and improvisation of case.
39. The accused contends that the complainant's brother son Mr.Munesh was accompanying him while election campaign of his wife's and while shifting his office also Mr.Munesh was with him and that time Mr.Munesh has taken his cheque and same has been misused. The cross-examination of PW.1 shows that on every date PW.1 came to the Court with said Mr.Munesh and same is elicited from his mouth. Despite being a Central Government servant, Mr. Munesh consistently took time off from his work to accompany PW1 on each occasion, but to give evidence on behalf of complainant. 27 C.C.30384/2022
40. When there is serious allegation against Mr.Munesh that he accompanied the accused in the election campaign and misused the cheque of the complainant, said Mr.Munesh could have been appear before the Court in witness box on behalf of the complainant to give evidence. However, his conduct of abstaining from work to accompany PW1 to Court on every hearing date, while simultaneously refraining from giving evidence in this case, raises suspicion about the complainant's case and also corroborates support to the defense of the accused. However, the complainant has failed to prove his source of income and there is no proof for the loan transaction. Inconsistent stands of PW1 taken during evidence, with holding of his account statement and not examining the material witness i.e. Mr.Munesh before the Court makes the entire case of the complainant suspicious. Moreover, the cheque in 28 C.C.30384/2022 question itself is a invalid cheque. Therefore, the complaint U/Sec.138 of NI Act is not maintainable.
41. Though accused contended that the notice is not served to him as per the postal acknowledgment at Ex.P6 and postal shara at Ex.P8 'not claimed' it is deemed to be served as per Sec.27 of General Clauses Act. Except denying his address the accused has not produced any iota of evidence to prove his correct address to show that as on the date of issuance of the legal notice, he was not residing in the given address. Therefore, his contention regarding non service of notice cannot be accepted.
42. Having regard to the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that there is a lack of sufficient evidence on the part of the complainant. The accused has denied the signature on the cheque marked at Ex.P1 and the complainant has failed to prove that the said cheque was duly signed by the accused. In view of the reasons stated above, the complainant 29 C.C.30384/2022 has not established the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly court proceed to answer POINT NO.I IN THE NEGATIVE.
43. POINT NO.II:- In view of above said reasons the allegations levelled against the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass following ORDER In excise of power conferred U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C, accused is not found guilt of the offense punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accused is acquitted.
Bail bond executed by accused stands cancelled. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and then judgment pronounced in the open court on this the 3rd day of October 2025).
Digitally
signed by
Tejaswini K M
Tejaswini Date:
KM 2025.10.06
11:42:04
+0530
(Smt.Tejaswini K.M ),
XVI ACJM, Bengaluru
30 C.C.30384/2022
ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses on behalf of complainant:
P.W.1: Sri.Muniswamappa.M P.W.2: Smt.Sangeetha T.V.
II. List of documents on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P-1 : Original Cheque. Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.P-2 : Bank memo.
Ex.P-3 : Legal notice.
Ex.P-4 & 5 : Postal Receipts. Ex.P-6 : Postal Acknowledgment. Ex.P-7 : Returned Notice. Ex.P-8 : Postal Cover.
Ex.P-9 : Copy of Postal Receipt. Ex.P-10 : Postal Acknowledgment. Ex.P-11 : Complaint.
III. List of witnesses for the accused:
D.W.1: Sri.Venkatesh.S IV. List of documents for accused: Digitally signed
Nil Tejaswini by Tejaswini K M Date: KM 2025.10.06 11:42:10 +0530 (Smt.Tejaswini K.M ), XVI ACJM, Bengaluru 31 C.C.30384/2022