Bangalore District Court
M/S. Sree Gokulam Chit And Finance Co. ... vs Seetharamulu on 9 January, 2026
KABC030424642024
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 9th day of January 2026
Present : SRI. GOKULA. K
B.A.LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore City.
C.C.No.24260/2024
Complainant : M/s Sree Gokulam Chits & Finance Co.(P)
Ltd.,
Having its Corporate office at
"Sree Gokulam Towers" NO.66
Arcot Road, Kodambakam
Chennai 600 024
Having its branch at
No.678/1, M.R.Layout
Hosur Main Road
Near Rail Over Bridge
Chandapur,
Bangalore.
Rep by its GPA Holder
Sri Murali M.
(By HKS -Advocate )
V/s
Accused : Sri Seetharamulu
S/o Sri Rajanna S
M/s. Ullas Medicals & General Store
No.241/206, Shop No.1
Madhapattna, Jigani
Bangalore 562 105.
(By RL - Advocate )
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
2
C.C.No.24260/2024
Final Order: Accused is Convicted
Date of judgment 09.01.2026
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief case of the complainant is as under:
That the complainant is carrying on chit business. The accused is the subscriber of chit group No.G2G 0569 with ticket No.07 for value of Rs.3,00,000/-. The accused participated in the bid and received bid amount of Rs.2,23,875/- on 10.10.2017. It is pleaded that after receiving the bid amount, the accused became a defaulter and failed to remit the future installments. On regular follow up made by the complainant the accused accepted the total outstanding liability of principal and interest of Rs.3,31,115/- and agreed to pay the same. Towards payment of outstanding due amount the accused issued a cheque bearing No.111352 for Rs.3,31,115/- dated 10-04-2024 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Jigani Branch, Bangalore. The complainant has presented the cheque for realization through its banker i.e. CSB Bank Ltd, Bommasandra Branch, Bangalore and said cheque returned dishonored on 11.04.2024 for the 3 C.C.No.24260/2024 reason "Contact Drawer or Drawee Bank". Hence, the complainant has issued legal notice dated 30.04.2024 by RPAD and speed post calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered in the cheque. The notice sent through RPAD returned unserved on 04.05.2024 but the speed post notice has been served on the accused. Inspite of service of notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant within the statutory time. Therefore, the accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Therefore the complainant has filed the complaint. [
3. On the basis of Private complaint filed by the complainant, this court has taken cognizance of offence and registered the case in PCR No.8115/2024 and recorded sworn statement of the representative of the complainant as PW 1 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P 1 to P10. This court by considering the material on record issued process under Section 204 of Cr.PC by registering the criminal case. In response to the process issued by this court, the accused appeared before this court and he is released on bail. The copy of the complaint is served to the accused along with the summons as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.
4
C.C.No.24260/2024
4. The substance of the acquisition as provided under Section 251 of Cr.P.C is read over to the accused and plea is recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India and others reported in AIR 2014 SCW 3463, the affidavit filed by the complainant at the stage of taking cognizance and documents marked is treated as evidence under section 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As the evidence is on record, the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of PW 1 is read over to the accused and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. recorded. The accused has denied the same as false. The accused has filed application to recall PW1 for cross examination. But PW 1 has not appeared for cross examination since PW 1 left the employment with the complainant company. Hence the complainant has got the evidence of PW 1 expunged. The complainant examined another representative as PW 2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P 12 and he is subjected to cross examination. The incriminating circumstances in the evidence of PW 2 is read over to the accused and his additional statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C is recorded. He has denied the incriminating 5 C.C.No.24260/2024 circumstances as false. The accused himself examined as DW 1 and got marked the documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.
6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and arguments of learned counsel for the accused and the reply of the complainant and perused the material on record.
7. On the basis of the material on record the following points arise for the consideration of this court :
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused issued cheque bearing No.111352 for Rs.3,31,115/-
dated 10-04-2024 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Jigani Branch, Bangalore towards discharge of legally recoverable debt and on presentation of the same through its banker i.e. CSB, Bommasandra branch Bangalore, it is dishonoured for the reason "Kindly contact drawer/drawee bank and please present again"
on 11.04.2024 and inspite of receipt of demand notice dated 30-04-2024 on 04.05.2024, the accused has not complied the demands in the notice and thus the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ?
2. What Order of Sentence?
8. The findings of this court to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 In the affirmative ,
6
C.C.No.24260/2024
Point No.2 As per final order
for the following :
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1: To prove the case the authorised representative of the complainant is examined as PW-2 and in his evidence affidavit he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The complainant is a registered company under the Companies Act doing chit fund business. To prove incorporation of the company the complainant has produced the Certified Copy of the Incorporation Certificate as Ex.P1. This document proves the legal status of the complainant. The complainant has produced the Certified Copies of Board Resolution and the GPA infavour of PW 1 as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 and also produced the true copy of GPA and the Board Resolution in favour of PW 2 as per Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12. As per Ex.P 2, Ex.P.3, ExP11 and ExP.12, PW1 and PW 2 are authorized to file the complaint and to represent the complainant and to do all such acts detailed in the GPA.
10. The accused in the cross examination of PW 2 has denied the authority of PW 2 to represent the case and his knowledge about the transactions. The accused has contended that the complainant has not produced the authorization issued by the company and also stated that the GPA produced is forged GPA. 7
C.C.No.24260/2024 He has also contended that the PW 2 is no way connected to the complainant company. The PW 2 has denied all such suggestions of the accused.
11. On perusal of Ex.P 11 GPA the Managing Director of the complainant company has executed power of attorney as per the resolution passed by the board of directors in the meeting held on 03-03-2025. The company being the juristic person cannot appear itself before the court of law and it should be represented by its board of directors. The board of directors can also delegate such powers to the authorized person by passing the resolution. The complainant has produced said meeting proceedings dated 03-03-2023 before this court as Ex.P 12. Therefore as per Ex.P 12 board resolution PW 2 is authorized by Board of directors to represent the complainant before the court of law. The trustworthiness and credibility of evidence is matter of appreciation of evidence which will be considered in the later part of discussion. Therefore the contention of the accused that the PW 2 is not having authority to represent the complainant cannot be accepted.
8
C.C.No.24260/2024
12. The accused has further taken contention that the complainant has not produced the licence issued by the government for running the chit business. But the accused has admitted that he has subscribed the chit and participated in the chit transaction. His defence is that he has repaid entire chit amount to the complainant. Therefore non production of the chit licence issued by the concerned authority itself does not bar the complainant from initiating the legal proceedings. Therefore these contentions raised by the accused will not oust the complainant from prosecuting the accused.
13. The PW 2 has deposed that accused is the subscriber of chit group No.G2G 0569 with ticket No.07 for value of Rs.3,00,000/- and the accused participated in the bid and availed a sum of Rs.2,23,875/- on 10.10.2017. The accused has also not denied that he is the subscriber of chit and he has received bid amount of Rs.2,23,875/-. He has produced the surety and security form executed by the accused as Ex.P.9. The accused has not disputed these facts deposed by PW 2.
14. The PW 2 has deposed that after receiving the chit amount, the accused became a defaulter and failed to remit the future installments. He has deposed that the accused has admitted and accepted that the outstanding liability including the principal and the interest is Rs.3,31,115/-. The PW 2 has 9 C.C.No.24260/2024 deposed that towards discharge of liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.111352 for Rs.3,31,115/- dated 10-04- 2024 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Jigani, Bangalore. He has produced said cheque as Ex.P.4. He has deposed that they have presented said cheque through its Banker CSB Bank Ltd, Bommasandra branch, Bangalore for collection and the said cheque returned dishnoured for the reason "Insufficient funds"
11.04.2024. The complainant has produced the cheque dishonor memo as Ex.P.5. In Ex.P 5 it is clearly stated that the cheque is dishonoured for the reason contact the drawer drawee bank and present again. The PW 2 has deposed that they have issued demand notice to the accused through RPAD and through speed post on 30.04.2024. The office copy of legal notice is produced as Ex.P 6 and he postal receipts as Ex.P 7. He has deposed that notice issued through RPAD returned unserved on 04.05.2024 and notice issued through speed post served on the accused. and the notice has been unserved but the speed post notice has been served on the accused. The complainant has produced the returned postal envelope as Ex.P.8. On perusal of Ex.P 8 returned postal envelop it shows the postal endorsement as '02-05-2024 refused addressee returned to sender'. He has deposed that inspite of issuance of 10 C.C.No.24260/2024 legal notice the accused failed to make payments. Thus the accused has committed an offence.
15. Now it is proper to consider where the complainant has complied all the statutory requirements for commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The essential ingredients of section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act to be complied are i) drawing of the cheque by the accused ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank with in the period of three months, iii) returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank iv) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding of the payment of cheque amount with in the period of 30 days, v) failure of the drawer to make payment within the period of 15 days after receipt of the demand notice and v) Presentation of the complaint within a month by the complainant after expiry of 15 days of service of notice to the accused. Therefore it is proper to consider whether the statutory requirements for constituting the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied by the complainant.
16. The cheque is dated 10.04.2024 it is presented for collection and dishonored on 11.04.2024 for the reason contact drawer/ drawee bank. The demand notice is issued on 30.04.2024 and it is returned on 04.05.2024 with postal 11 C.C.No.24260/2024 endorsement that addressee refused on 02-05-2024. As provided under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act, law presumes that on production of banker slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonored, presume the fact of dishonor of such said cheque, unless and until same is disproved. The accused has not disputed issuance of cheque and it is drawn from his bank account and its dishonor.
17. The accused has taken the contention that the cheque is dishonoured for the reason "kindly contact drawer drawee Bank and please present again". Therefore there is no compliance of the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and there is no dishonour of the cheque by the banker. In this regard it is proper to place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 13 SCC 375 wherein in para 16 it is observed that -
16. The above line of decisions leaves no room for holding that the two contingencies envisaged under Section 138 of the Act must be interpreted strictly or literally. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the decision in Magma case [(1999) 4 SCC 253 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 524] that the expression "amount of money ... is insufficient"
appearing in Section 138 of the Act is a genus and dishonour for reasons such "as account closed", 12 C.C.No.24260/2024 "payment stopped", "referred to the drawer" are only species of that genus. Just as dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the account has been closed is a dishonour falling in the first contingency referred to in Section 138, so also dishonour on the ground that the "signatures do not match" or that the "image is not found", which too implies that the specimen signatures do not match the signatures on the cheque would constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act:
Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in this decision, even the cheque is dishonoured for the reason contact the drawer drawee bank and present again, will also attract penal provisions under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, if the accused has failed to make good the amount covered in the cheque with in the statutory time. Therefore this defence of the accused will not aid the accused to contend that there is no offence committed by him. The accused has contended that in the evidence the PW 2 has deposed cheque is dishonoured for the reason funds insufficient. But as per Ex.P 5 shows that the cheque dishonoured for the reason contact the drawer. When the documentary evidence is placed on record, the contrary statement made in oral evidence itself not create doubt about the credibility of evidence.13
C.C.No.24260/2024
18. The accused has also disputed service of legal notice. But in his cross examination as DW 1 he has admitted that the address mentioned in the complaint, EX.P 6 demand notice and Ex.P 8 envelop cover is his correct address. Therefore it is clear that the notice is issued to the correct address of the accused.
To deny the postal endorsement the accused has not examined the postal authority. As provided under Section 27 of General Clauses Act, if the notice is sent to the correct address, it is sufficient service of notice and burden is on the accused to show that the notice is not served on him. But the accused has not brought on record any evidence to prove that notice is not served on him and the postal endorsement is incorrect. Therefore, it is clear that the notice is duly served on the accused on 02-05-2024 and the accused has intentionally refused to receive the notice. Therefore contention of the accused that the notice is not served on him cannot be accepted.
19. The PW 2 has deposed that inspite of service of notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant with in the statutory time. The accused has also not issued reply to the demand notice. Therefore cause of action for prosecution arose on expiry of 15 days of service of notice on 18-05-2024. The complaint is filed before this court on 18.06.2024. Thus the 14 C.C.No.24260/2024 complainant has complied all the statutory requirements for constitution of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for presumption under Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The provisions of Section 118 provides for presumption as to negotiable Instruments which reads as follows -
118- Presumptions as to negotiable Instruments - Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made - (a) of consideration - that every negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; (b) as to date - that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date; (c) .................. The provisions of Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act reads as under:-
139- Presumption in favour of holder - It should be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. [ 15 C.C.No.24260/2024
20. In the decision relied by both the parties, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 411 between Rangappa V/s Sri Mohan Hon'ble Supreme court has held that -
The presumption mandated by Section 139 of the act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
It is also observed that Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instrument. It is also held that in such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant caused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high slandered or proof.
Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in the decision the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption under 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
21. In this case the accused has admitted that cheque is drawn from his account. The accused has also admitted issuance of cheque to the complainant but contended that it is issued for security. He has also admitted his signature on the cheque. The accused has also admitted that he has subscribed the chit of Rs.3,00,000/- with the complainant at Jayanagara Branch in 16 C.C.No.24260/2024 the month of February 2017. He has also admitted that he has received bid amount of Rs.2,23,875/-.
22. The contention of the accused is that he has also subscribed chit for Rs.5,00,000/- with the complainant at Bilekahalli branch. In respect of said chit he has not availed bid amount. His contention is that in respect of said chit of Rs.5,00,000/- he has paid a sum of Rs.50,834/-. He has produced the Chit passbook issued by the complainant as Ex.D 2. It is further contention of the accused that in respect of chit of Rs.3,00,000/- he has paid a sum of Rs.1,74,550/- as per Ex. D 1 pass book. Thus in total he has paid a sum of Rs.2,25,384/- to the complainant. Therefore he has repaid all the due amount and there is no legally recoverable debt payable to the complainant.
23. The complainant admitted that the accused has subscribed the chit of Rs.3,00,000/- and another chit of Rs.5,00,000/-. He has also admitted issuance of pass book as per Ex. D 1 for the chit of Rs.3,00,000/- and pass book as per EX. D 2 for the chit of Rs.5,00,000/-. But the complainant has disputed some of the entries in Ex. D 1 and 2 and contended that such entries are overwritten by the accused after verification and authentication by the complainant.
17
C.C.No.24260/2024
24. To prove the existence of liability of the accused the complainant has produced the statement of accounts as Ex.P.10. As per Ex.P.10, the closing balance is Rs.3,31,115/-. With regard to the entries in Ex.D.1, the Pass book, the complainant has admitted the verification made in page No.32 on 24.02.2018 that the accused has paid sum of Rs.1,39,800/- and they have given bonus of Rs.24,750/-. Thus the accused has paid a sum of Rs.1,64,550/- to the chit account. But the complainant has denied further entries for sum of Rs.50,800/- and Rs.10,000/- by giving reference to Book No.2. The Book No.2 referred in page 32 of Ex.D.1 is produced as Ex.D.2. In Ex.D.2 the complainant has admitted the verification made on 22.07.2017 that the accused has paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- and bonus of Rs.5,000/- totally sum of Rs.40,000/-. He has also admitted that in October , 2017 accused paid sum of Rs.10,000/- as per Ex.D2. The Ex.D2 is the pass book in respect of the chit bearing No.G2H/0299/MSR Ticket No.8 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. The accused has taken contention that the amount of Rs.50,800/- in respect of Ex.D2 is to be adjusted to the chit group in Ex.D.1. The complainant also not disputed that the accused has paid a sum of Rs.50,800/- inrespect of chit of Rs.5,00,000/- and also not disputed that the accused has not availed any bid in the said chit. The complainant has stated that as per Ex.P10 the 18 C.C.No.24260/2024 statement of account, on 10.09.2021, they have given credit of Rs.22,800/- as collection of Rs.22,800/- which is the amount in credit of the accused in the chit group of Ex.D.2. The complainant has contended that out of Rs.50,800/- they have deducted Rs.25,000/- as company commission and 12% GST and balance of Rs.22,800/- is adjusted to the dues of the accused in respect of chit of Rs.3,00,000/-. In this regard in the cross examination of DW 1 it is elicited that " It is true to suggest that in page No.7 of Ex.D.2 there is mention about deducting company commission of Rs.25,000/-". It is further suggested that "It is not true to suggest out of Rs.50,800/- deposited in Ex.D.2, the chit, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is adjusted to the company commission and 12% GST is paid to the Government and the remaining amount of Rs.22,800/- is credited to Ex.D.1, the chit account". Therefore, the entire amount of Rs.50,800/- cannot be credited to the credit of the accused in respect of Ex.D.1, the chit account. As per the terms mentioned in condition No.14 mentioned in Ex.D.1 and D2, the complainant is entitled to deduct company commission of Rs.25,000/- which is 5% of the chit value. Further the complainant is also required to pay the GST. Thus it is clear that the contention of the accused that entire amount of Rs.50,800/- should be credited to the dues in Ex.D.1, the chit account cannot be accepted. The 19 C.C.No.24260/2024 additional entries in page 32 of Ex.D.1 is not verified by the complainant, therefore said entries cannot be considered as valid entries made by the complainant.
25. Further, the complainant has submitted that the period of the chit subscription is 10.02.2017 to 10.09.2018. As the accused had defaulted in payment of the chit installments, the complainant has levied interest @ 1.5% as found in Ex.P10, the statement of account. As discussed above the complainant has admitted that accused has paid a sum of Rs.1,64,550/- including dividend as verified in Ex.D 1. The complainant has also given credit of Rs.22,800/- inrespect of the amount in Ex.D 2 chit account after the deductions discussed above. Therefore it is clear the that accused has repaid a sum of Rs.1,87,350/- to the chit account including dividend and amount in credit in Ex.D 2 chit account. Therefore, the contention of the accused that he has paid a sum of Rs.2,25,350/- and he has cleared entire chit amount cannot be a probable ground to hold that there is no legally recoverable debt. In Ex.P 10 statement of accounts the complainant has shown credit of total amount of RS.1,87,350/- and the complainant has shown the closing balance is Rs.3,31,115/-. As per Ex.P.10, the Statement of Account the accused has not made regular payment to the chit account and he has committed default and not cleared the dues 20 C.C.No.24260/2024 within the period of chit. Therefore after termination of chit the complainant has calculated the interest at 1.5 % and arrived the due amount for Rs.3,31,115/-. To doubt correctness of Ex.P 10 statement of accounts the accused has not produced any material evidence before this court. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the contention of the accused that he has repaid entire due amount and there is no due amount payable in the chit account cannot be accepted.
26. The accused in his evidence as Dw 1 has taken contention that the complainant has obtained 2 cheques at Jayanagar branch and 2 cheques at Bilekahalli branch towards security at the time of subscription of the chit. The accused has taken the defence that he has got the chit subscription through the employee of complainant Ravi Kumar. He has stated that after repayment of the amount he has asked for return of cheque with Ravi Kumar. But he was removed from his employment with complainant with charge of misappropriation. It is pertinent to note that the accused has taken this defence only in his evidence as DW1. He has not put any suggestions to PW 2 about the role of Ravi Kumar in the transactions. The accused has also not made any suggestions to PW 2 that he has sought for return of the cheques. The accused has not taken any legal steps demanding return of cheques allegedly given to the complainant 21 C.C.No.24260/2024 for security, which is expected for a prudent person. The accused has not produced any material or not brought on record any admission from the mouth of PW 2 to probablise that the Ex.P 4 cheque is issued for security purpose. It is specific contention of the complainant that the accused has issued the cheque for repayment of outstanding amount in the chit account by admitting outstanding liability. Therefore this contention of the accused is also not substantiated with probable evidence.
27. Therefore, on considering the entire evidence on record, it can be safely concluded that the defence put forward by the accused that he has repaid entire chit amount and the complainant has misused the blank cheque issued at the time of subscription of the chit is not established with probable evidence. Therefore, the contentions raised by the accused is not trustworthy to rebut the presumption of existence of debt and issuance of cheque towards discharge of legal liability under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this court concludes that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore it is to be presumed about existence of legally recoverable debt and that EX.P 4 cheque is issued towards discharge of such legally recoverable debt. All the statutory requirements for constitution of offence under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments 22 C.C.No.24260/2024 Act is complied by the complainant. Therefore this court concludes that the complainant has successfully proved that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore this court answers the above point No.1 in the Affirmative.
28. POINT NO. 2 : While answering the point no. 1 this court concluded that the complainant proved that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Amount covered under the cheque is Rs 3,31,115/- . The cheque issued by the accused is dated 10.04.2024. The money involved in the case is used in commercial transactions. Therefore, the fine amount is calculated for a sum of Rs. 3,88,300/-
29. The Ho'ble High Court of Karnataka in the reportable decision in CRL.RP No. 996 of 2016 dated 09-07-2025 between M/s Banavathy and Company VS Mahaveer Electro Mech (P) Ltd at para 21 has held that -
21. In case lesser interest is awarded and only default sentence is imposed, the rigor of offence under Section 138 will be diluted and thereby the object of the Statute will be defeated. If recovery and compensatory part is not taken care of while determining the quantum of sentence and appropriate interest is not awarded, until the date of recovery of the entire amount, the complainant will be forced to file civil suit on the same subject matter. In view of Section 143(3) the trial for offence under 23 C.C.No.24260/2024 Section 138 of N.I.Act has to be completed within six months. If the said provision is not adhered to and the trial for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act takes 4 to 5 years, in the mean time, the claim of the complainant for recovery of the cheque amount by filing civil suit becomes barred by limitation. Not only that the accused who is convicted for offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act challenges the same before the Sessions Court wherein the matter takes 2 to 3 years. The accused unsuccessful in the said appeal prefers revision petition before the High Court and it is seen that the disposal of revision takes more than 5 years. After all this if the complainant has to receive the fine/compensation as awarded by the trial Court, if it is cheque amount or little higher than the cheque amount, he will be at loss and put to injustice. Therefore, while passing the order of sentence after determining the fine/compensation, the Court shall also pass an order to pay future interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation amount payable to the complainant by fixing time of one/two months to deposit compensation amount so that even if the matter is challenged before the Sessions Court in appeal and High Court in revision the interest of the complainant will be protected.
In view of the directions issued in the above refereed judgment, it is also proper to direct the accused to pay future interest on the fine amount at the rate of 9 % P.A. till payment. Therefore considering all these aspects this court proceed to pass the following -
ORDER By exercising powers conferred U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under 24 C.C.No.24260/2024 Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3,88,300/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand and Three Hundred Only) with in a month and in default, pay interest at the rate of 9% from this day till payment of fine amount, and in default to pay the fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months.
Further acting U/s 357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
Further acting U/s 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs. 3,83,300/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand and Three Hundred Only) and interest out of the fine amount on recovery shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Supply free copy of the judgment to the accused. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of January 2026).
(GOKULA.K) XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW.1 : Ranjith K.S.
PW.2 : Murali.M.
25
C.C.No.24260/2024
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Certified Copy of the Certificate of Incorporation Ex.P2 : Certified Copy of Board Resolution Ex.P3 : Certified Copy of GPA Ex.P4 : Cheque Ex.P5 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P6 : Office copy of Legal Notice.
Ex.P7 : Postal receipts Ex.P8 : Postal envelope Ex.P9 : Surety form Ex.P10 : Ledger Extract Ex.P11 : True copy of GPA Ex.P12 : True copy of the Board Resolution
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
DW.1 : Seetaramulu.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
Ex.D1 : Account Book (Jayanagar Branch)
Digitally
Ex.D2 : Account Book (Bilekahalli Branch) signed by
GOKULA K
GOKULA
Date:
K 2026.01.09
17:37:47
+0530
(GOKULA.K.)
XXV A.C.J.M., BANGALORE CITY.