Bangalore District Court
Harish.M vs Mehul on 3 February, 2026
1
C.C. No.20074/2015
KABC030563082015
IN THE COURT OF THE XLVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU
DATED: THIS THE 03rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
PRESENT: SMT. JYOTI SHANTAPPA KALE
LLM
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 20074/2015
COMPLAINANT :- Harish. M
S/o S. Marulappa,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at #1041, 5th A Main,
3rd Blok, 3rd Stage,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru - 560 079.
(Represented By. Sri.
B.H.M.Advocate )
ACCUSED PERSON :- Mehul
S/o Gulab Chand,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.572, 1st Floor,
3rd Stage, 4th Block,
Basaveshwara Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 079.
(Represented By. Sri. B.R.P.
Advocate)
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT 29.04.2016
OF EVIDENCE
DATE OF CLOSING OF 20.10.2016
EVIDENCE
2
C.C. No.20074/2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT 03.02.2026
ACCUSED ARE CHARGED U/s. 138 of NI Act
FOR OFFENCES
UPSHOT OF THE CASE Accused is convicted of the
alleged charges
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed complaint under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and to pass necessary order for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/ due to the complainant from the accused and to grant such other reliefs.
2. The case of the complainant is that the accused is well known to the complainant from past several years. As the accused was facing financial crisis he approached the complainant in the month of July 2014 seeking financial assistance. Initially the complainant expressed his inability to cater to the accused but the accused made repeated requests seeking financial help. Thus the complainant by pooling the amount from his well-wishers paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash and accused agreed to repay the said loan amount within 6 months from the date of borrow. The complainant approached accused and requested for 3 C.C. No.20074/2015 repayment of the amount. As the complainant requested the accused to repay the amount in order to discharge the loan amount the accused issued cheque bearing no.455247 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Nandini Layout Branch, Bengaluru dated 22.11.2014. The accused requested the complainant to present the said cheque. As per the instructions of the accused the complainant presented the cheque through his banker Janatha Co-operative Bank Ltd., Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru and the said cheque was returned on 24.11.2014 with an endorsement "Account Closed". Thereafter complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 16.12.2014 through registered post. The notice sent to accused was duly served to the accused on 17.12.2014. The accused sent a reply notice on 26.12.2014. The complainant has further alleged that the accused deliberately issued a cheque with a pre-intention of not paying the cheque amount thereby cheating the complainant and also committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of NI Act. The said complaint is filed by the complainant within one month from the date of expiry of 15 days time given under registered notice for payment of the said cheque amount and the complaint is well 4 C.C. No.20074/2015 within time. Hence the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint.
3. After filing of the complaint sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and cognizance was taken and summons was issued to accused.
4. On service of summons accused appeared before the Court through his counsel Sri. MHM and was enlarged on bail.
5. The substance of accusation was read over, interpreted and explained in the Kannada Language known to the accused. Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence posted the case for complainant evidence.
6. The complainant got examined as PW.1 and produced Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. Statement of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C is recorded and accused denied the incriminating evidence against him and submitted he has defense evidence and documents to produce. Accused is examined as DW.1 and he produced documents marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D8. 5
C.C. No.20074/2015
7. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the documents and evidence adduced by the parties. Perusal of entire order sheet shows that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has remanded the matter with a direction to dispose off matter within 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed in Crl.Pet. No.6169/2019 dated 02.09.2025. The order sheet further shows that the court of 19th ACMM has received the certified copy of order passed in Crl.Pet.No.6169/2019 dated 03.11.2025. By a notification No.ADM/1/2022/2025 dated 02.12.2025 by the Hon'ble CJM the case was transferred to this court from the court of 19th ACMM Bengaluru on 22.01.2026. Thereafter arguments were heard by learned counsel for complainant on 31.01.2026 and arguments were heard by learned counsel for accused on 02.02.2026 and case is posted for judgment. Thus the case is taken for disposal within the 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed in Crl.Pet. No.6169/2019 dated 02.09.2025.
6
C.C. No.20074/2015
8. Upon hearing arguments and on perusal of the material placed on record, following points arise for consideration.
1) Whether complainant proves beyond reasonable doubts that, accused issued a cheque bearing no.
455247 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Nandini Layout Branch, Bengaluru dated 22.11.2014 towards discharge of legally recoverable debt to the complainant, when the complainant presented the said cheque for encasement through his Banker, Janatha Co-operative Bank Ltd., Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru the said cheque had been dishonoured for the reason "Account Closed" on 24.11.2014, complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 16.12.2014, the same was received by the accused and he failed to make payment within the prescribed period and thereby committed an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2) What Order?
9. My findings to the above points are as under;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : As per Final Order, for the following:
REASONS
10. Reasoning On Point No.1:- It is the case of the complainant that the accused is well known to the complainant. He approached the complainant on in the month of July 2014 seeking financial assistance of Rs.3,00,000/-. 7
C.C. No.20074/2015
11. The complainant had given loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash and accused agreed to repay the said loan amount within 6 months. After lapse of 6 months the complainant approached the accused and demanded for repayment of the loan amount. In order to discharge the loan amount the accused issued cheque bearing no. 455247, for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Nandini Layout Branch, Bengaluru dated 22.11.2014. The accused requested the complainant to present the said cheque. As per the instructions of the accused the complainant presented the cheque through his banker Janatha Co-operative Bank Ltd., Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru and on 24.11.2014 and the said cheque was returned on 24.11.2014 with an endorsement "Account Closed". Thereafter complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 16.12.2014. The notice sent to accused was served to the accused on 17.12.2014. But he sent an untenable reply.
12. The burden is on the complainant to prove that there is legally recoverable debt. Existence of legally recoverable debt is a sine qua non for prosecuting the case under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. For convenient purpose the 8 C.C. No.20074/2015 essential ingredients to constitute offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are summarized as below:
(i) a cheque was issued;
(ii) the same was presented;
(iii) but, it was dishonoured;
(iv) a notice in terms of the said provision was served on the person sought to be made liable; and
(v) despite service of notice, neither any payment was made nor other obligations, if any, were complied with within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice.
13. It is the core contention of the complainant that accused borrowed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant to discharge his other loans. Towards discharge of said recoverable debt, accused issued the cheque in question.
14. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 and reiterated complaint averments in his examination-in-chief affidavit. He has also placed on record, original cheque bearing No. 455247 dated 22.11.2014 at Ex.P1 is the cheque Ex.P3 is the bank challan which shows the complainant had presented the said cheque for encashment. It could be seen from Ex.P1 that the complainant presented the said cheque within three months from the date of its issuance. Ex.P2 is the endorsement issued by Janatha Co-operative Bank Ltd., Malleshwaram Branch, 9 C.C. No.20074/2015 Bengaluru dated 24.11.2014 intimating the dishonour of cheque on the ground "Account Closed" at Ex.P4 is the office copy of legal notice issued to the accused in compliance of Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act dated 16.12.2014, Ex.P4(a) is the postal receipt, Ex.P5 is the acknowledgment, Ex.P.6 is the reply notice dated 26.12.2014. It could be seen from Ex.P.4 that complainant had issued the notice within 30 days from the date of receipt of intimation of dishonour of the cheque.
15. It is specifically contended by the accused that he had not at all borrowed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant and the complainant had no financial capacity to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused. He has also contended that he has not issued any cheque to the complainant but in fact the old cheque of the accused was stolen by the complainant. In order to prove his defense the accused got examined as DW.1 and has produced Ex.D.1 to Ex.D8. Ex.D1 is the complaint dated 07.04.2014 given by the present accused before the Basaveshwara Nagar Police station against the complainant herein alleging assault by the complainant, 10 C.C. No.20074/2015 Ex.D.2 is the statement of complainant herein before the Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station, Ex.D.3 is the certified copy of NCR No.931/2014 dated 20.12.2014, Ex.D.4 is the petition filed u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act in MC No.3679/2015 between Ramachandra and Hema Ramachandra, Ex.D.5 is the copy of complaint given against the present complainant dated 20.1.2014, Ex.D.6 is the copy of email dated 18.05.2012, Ex.D.7 is the C.D. and Ex.D.8 is the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act.
16. It is also pertinent to consider that complainant has placed on record Ex.P2 issued by Janatha Co-operative Bank Ltd., Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru, dated 24.11.2014 intimating the dishonour of cheque on the ground "Account Closed" Ex.P.2 reveals that Ex.P.1 Cheque had been dishonoured for the reason "Account Closed". It is also worthwhile to note that, there is a presumption under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act regarding Ex.P2 Bank endorsement which is prima-facie evidence of dishonour of cheque for the reasons mentioned therein. Of course, presumption arising under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable one. It is for the accused to rebut 11 C.C. No.20074/2015 the said presumption by placing sufficient material on record. To disprove the Ex.P2 the accused has not produced any documentary evidence and has also not contended that at the date of presentation of said cheque, he had sufficient funds in his account. The accused has not explained as to why his account was closed on the said date of presentation of the cheque. Therefore it is clear that the Ex.P1 was dishonoured for "Account Closed". It is also important to note that, learned counsel for the accused has cross-examined PW.1 touching all aspects of the case. He has not at all cross-examined the complainant in respect of Ex.P2 i.e., endorsement issued by the Bank. This document is not at all denied by the accused either during the cross examination or at the subsequent stage. Under such circumstances, it is to be held that accused has failed to rebut the presumption arising under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of bank endorsement Ex.P2. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that Ex.P1 has been dishonoured for the reasons "Account Closed" as mentioned in Ex.P2.
17. The Negotiable Instruments Act raises two presumptions. One contained in Section 118 and the other in 12 C.C. No.20074/2015 Section 139 thereof. The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act indeed does extend to the existence of legally recoverable debt. Of course, the said presumption is rebuttable one. Accused has to rebut the presumption by taking probable defence.
In the decision reported in:
ILR 2000 Kar.1570 Between Dr. K.G. Ramachandra Gupta V/s Dr. G. Adinarayana A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act No.2 Instruments Act 1881 (Central Act No.26 of 1881) Sections 138 and 139 Burden of proving that the cheques are issued in discharge of debts or other liability cannot be put on the Complainant Drawee, particularly in view of the presumption available in Section 139.
18. Now the Core question arises for determination is whether the accused issued Ex.P.1 Cheque towards discharge of legally recoverable debt. On careful perusal of contents of Ex.P.1 and suggestions made to the PW.1 in his cross- examination, it essentially presupposes that accused has admitted the that of cheque belongs to his account and also admitted his signature in Ex.P.1. To emphasis the same it would be helpful to go through the evidence of DW.1. In the cross-examination the DW.1 has specifically admitted that the 13 C.C. No.20074/2015 said cheque which is at Ex.P.1 belongs to his account and the signature found in the Ex.P.1 is his signature. More particularly he admits as ನಿಪಿ.1 ಚೆಕ್ ನನ್ನ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.1(ಎ) ಸಹಿ ನನ್ನದೇ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. When the accused has not denied the issuance of cheque and his signature thereon, presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act arises in favour of the complainant. It is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by placing cogent and clinching material. The complainant has discharged initial onus laid on him. When the complainant has discharged initial onus, it raises presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
19. As far as the transaction between the accused and complainant is concerned, it is disputed. The accused has denied that the complainant had given loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused. The DW.1 in his examination in chief has contended that the complainant had no financial capacity to pay such amount to the accused and that there was no transaction between them.
14
C.C. No.20074/2015
20. The specific defense of accused is that he knows the complainant from the date of admission in Karate class conducted by the complainant and also he is the voluntary member of Harsha Kriya Foundation Trust wherein the complainant is one of the trustee to the said trust and at that point of time they become close to each other. This evidence of the DW.1 in his examination-in-chief evidence clearly shows that the accused and the complainant are acquainted with each other and that they are not strangers.
21. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the complainant was not financially stable to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused and therefore there was no any kind of transaction between the complainant and the accused at any point of time. In this regard the learned counsel for the accused cross- examined PW.1 and suggested that he was not financially stable to give the hand loan amount to the accused, to which the PW.1 has answered that he has pooled the money from his well-wishers i.e., one Suma and paid the amount to the accused as he was in need of money. Even in the complaint the complainant has stated that he has pooled the money from his well-wishers and paid the amount to the accused as he was in 15 C.C. No.20074/2015 need of money. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence by the accused only on bare suggestion to the PW.1 touching his financial capacity the accused has not proved his contention that the complainant was not financially stable to give amount to the accused. The accused ought to have summoned the said Suma to disprove the case of complainant, but not efforts are made by the accused.
22. The another specific defense of the accused is that he has never issued a cheque to the complainant, but in fact in his examination in chief affidavit the DW.1 has deposed at para No.7 of his affidavit that without his knowledge the complainant has taken the old cheque from his erstwhile Residence during his visit and when he was in good terms and the said old cheque was mis-utilized with an intention to take revenge against the accused and harass him financially.
23. As stated above the accused has specifically admitted his signature in Ex.P.1 and stated that the said cheque belongs to his account. The another contention of the accused is that the complainant has stolen the old cheque and old cheque leaf was mis-utilizied by the complainant. It is 16 C.C. No.20074/2015 pertinent to note here that the Ex.P.1 is a old cheque or a CTS cheque, but the fact still remains is why the accused had kept signed old cheque in his custody if he was using the CTS cheque. This question is not answered by the accused. Mere fact that the Ex.P.1 is the old cheque does not disprove the case of the complainant.
24. The another defense of the accused is that since 2011 he and the complainant were not in good terms with each other and therefore when their relationship was constrained and not cordial, there was no occasion for the complainant to lend amount of Rs.3,00,000/-to the accused. In support of this arguments the learned counsel for the accused has drawn the attention of this court towards the documents produced by the accused marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.8. Ex.D.1 is the complaint dated 07.04.2014 lodged by the accused herein alleging assault by the complainant herein before the Basaveshwara Nagara Police Station. Ex.D.2 is the statement of the complainant herein. The Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 shows that based on the Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 no FIR was registered and no action was taken against the complainant herein. On the mere statement given by the complainant in the month of April 2014 17 C.C. No.20074/2015 before the Basaveshwara Nagara Police Station does not in itself conclusively prove that the relationship between the complainant and the accused was strained and not cordial. The Ex.D.4 is the petition in MC No.3679/2015 between one M.B. Ramachandra and Hema Ramachandra. The learned counsel for the accused stated that there is reference of name of the complainant herein in the MC petition. Perusal of the Ex.D.4 shows that the said document is irrelevant to this case and cannot be relied upon. The accused has also produced Ex.D.5 dated 20.12.2014 wherein the present accused had lodged the complaint against Harish. M for registration of case against him alleging that the complainant has stolen cheque belonging to the accused. In the Ex.D.5 he has also mentioned that the complainant Harish without his knowledge has taken the old cheque from his residence during his visit while they were in good terms.
25. Thus based on the Ex.D.5 which is lodged by the accused after issuance of legal notice by the complainant further shows that the contention of the accused is that a cheque was stolen from his residence. It is pertinent to note here that in the cross-examination of PW.1 the learned counsel 18 C.C. No.20074/2015 for the accused suggested the PW.1 as ಆರೋಪಿ ತನ್ನ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದ ಉದ್ದೇಶಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಅಂಗಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿ ಇಟ್ಟಿದ್ದ ಖಾಲಿ ಚೆಕ್ನ್ನು ನಾನು ಕಳುವು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. This suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused to the PW.1 creates the doubt about if the cheque was stolen from the residence of accused or from his shop. If the said cheque is old cheque and only new cheques are into existence, then why the accused had kept signed the old cheques in his house or in his shop is not again explained by the accused. Mere filing of complaint after receipt of legal notice from the complainant does not prove the contention of the accused that the complainant had stolen the signed cheque from the house of the accused or from the shop of the accused.
26. The records shows that the learned counsel for the accused had filed the application u/s 45 of Indian Evidence Act dated 09.01.2016 before this court for referring the Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3 to verify the writing on both of the documents to the FSL Madiwala Bengaluru. The said application was allowed and the documents were sent to the FSL Madiwala. The FSL Madiwala have issued a letter dated 10.04.2017 19 C.C. No.20074/2015 stating that due to the acute shortage of staff and lots of cases are pending for examination in questioned document section, in this regard the Hon'ble Registrar General of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru has been already approached to issue appropriate instruction to the subordinate court to temporarily defer referring of documents cases to FSL Bengaluru until the pendency is reduced to minimal level. On receipt of the said letter from FSL Bengaluru the accused sought for referring the Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3 to the Truth Lab for verification of hand writings on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3. the Truth Lab has submitted a letter stating that to ascertain the exact time and age of hand writing and signature on a cheque Ex.P.1 and on challan Ex.P.3 there is no such tool or technic available to ascertain exact age of the signature or writings in the laboratory and secondly since the disputed cheque and challan are of the year 2014 if the court provides the admitted genuine hand writings and signature of the concerned person for the year 2014 in sufficient numbers then the relative age can be expressed on the whether the writings and signature on the cheque and challan both belongs to the year 2014 are not. On receipt of such letter from Truth Lab Bengaluru the 20 C.C. No.20074/2015 accused has not made any efforts to collect the hand writings pertaining to the year 2014 of the disputed person to ascertain the veracity of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3. Thus the efforts made by the accused were futile as he did not make any further efforts.
27. Though the accused has taken several defense such as financial capacity of the complainant in lending the money, the contention of stolen cheque, the constrained relationship between him and the complainant, the hand writings in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3, but in statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C the accused has not explained anything about the incriminating evidence against him except bare denial. The accused has not produced any documents to show when was his account closed and why he had got closed the said account. If the account of the accused was closed by him without any pre-intention then the accused ought to have given the details as to when his account was closed and why he had got closed the said account. No witnesses are examined in support of case of the accused.
28. On going through the entire chief examination of DW.1 it shows that the specific defense of accused is that the complainant had stolen the old cheques. Therefore the defense of the accused stating that complainant has stolen the cheque 21 C.C. No.20074/2015 is not substantiated by any supporting oral and documentary evidence and is not acceptable. The learned counsel for the accused subjected PW1 for lengthy cross-examination. Many suggestions are made to PW1 to show that the PW1 had no financial capacity to lend amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused. In the cross examination the PW1 has stated that he borrowed money from one Suma. But on going through the evidence of PW1 it clearly show that he had lending capacity. To rebut the presumption U/s 139 of the NI Act, the accused has to produce probable rebuttal evidence to rebut the presumption but the accused though has cross examined PW1 at length regard to financial capacity of PW1, he has not been able to rebut such presumption.
29. On going through the cross-examination of PW1, it can be seen that the accused and the complainant are acquainted with each other as the DW.1 himself admits that he was member in the Karate class of complainant. The accused in the entire cross examination has not suggested the PW.1 regarding the issuance of cheque as well as the circumstances under which the Ex.P1 came into the custody 22 C.C. No.20074/2015 of complainant. The accused has also not denied his signature on Ex.P1.
30. In the cross-examination of DW1, he has admitted that he filed Ex.D.5 after issuance of legal notice by the complainant and also admits that after filing of Ex.D.5 no FIR was registered. Mere deposing about the same does not rebuts the presumption available to the complainant.
In a decision reported in: AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2895 Between K.N. Beena, Appellant V/s Muniyappan and Another, Respondents Negotiable Instrument Act (26 of 1881) Ss.138, 139,
118. Cheque dishonour complaint. Burden of proving that cheque had not been issued for any debt or liability. Is on the accused Denial/averments in reply by accused are not sufficient to shift burden of proof onto the complainant. Accused has to prove in trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. Setting aside of conviction on basis of some formal evidence led by accused.
31. On careful perusal of Ex.P1 and the cross- examination of PW.1, it becomes clear that the accused admitted the transaction with the complainant. Therefore, acquaintance with the complainant is not at all in dispute.
32. It is also well settled principle of law that, mere issuance of cheque is sufficient to constitute offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 23
C.C. No.20074/2015 Mere issuance of cheque and its dishonor constitute an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Issuance of the cheque is adequate proof of the fact that the debt or claim is enforceable and is liable to be discharged and if there is evidence to the contrary, then it is for the defense to place such evidence before the Court.
33. In the present case, accused has denied the transaction with the complainant. But accused has not at all produced any iota of evidence to prove his contention. When the accused insisted the complainant to prove his case with cogent evidence, it is also equally important for the accused to prove his case preponderance of probabilities. But the accused must place on record some believable material to support his version. When the accused has not placed any iota of evidence to support his version the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, arises in favour of the complainant.
34. The accused has not denied his signature on Ex.P1. Once signature on the negotiable instrument is admitted, in that circumstance Section 20 of N.I. Act comes into play. In the decision reported in:
24
C.C. No.20074/2015 ILR 1998 Kar.1825 Between J. Rajanna Setty V/s Sri. Patel Thimmegowda Negotiable Instruments Act 1887 (Central Act No.26 of 1887) Sec.20. In a suit for recovery of money defendant admitted that he had signed a Blank Promissory Note and given to the plaintiff. Both the Courts below dismissed the suit. In second Appeal by the plaintiff the High Court Held. Though the defendant claims to have given blank pronote signed by him, he cannot escape his liability in view of Sec 20.
35. Therefore, when accused has admitted the signature on negotiable instrument i.e. cheque it is prima-facie proof of authorizing the holder in due course to fill up the remaining contents of the Negotiable Instruments. Therefore, it cannot be held that the complainant had misused the cheque. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. In order to determine the question whether offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is made out against the accused, it will be necessary to examine the scope and ambit of presumptions to be raised as envisaged by the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. 25
C.C. No.20074/2015 Whenever the accused has to rebut the presumption arising under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, he must adduce the evidence which is probable. It is also significant to consider that the accused has not explained the circumstances under which Ex.P.1 Cheque came in possession of the complainant. Failure to do so entails in drawing adverse inference against the accused. This court has already opined that, defense taken by the accused is neither probable nor acceptable as no acceptable oral and documentary evidence is produced by the accused.
36. Considering all these aspects of the case and totality of the circumstances and on careful and meticulous appreciation of evidence let on behalf of the complainant, complainant has successfully established beyond reasonable doubts that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, I answer the point No.1 in the affirmative.
37. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the transaction took place in the year 2014. Therefore, considering the time gap between the date of transaction and date of judgment, complainant is to be reasonably compensated. 26
C.C. No.20074/2015 In the decision reported in:
ILR 2004 Kar 695 between Sri Kunhambu Nair V/s B.T. Dinesh Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act No.2 of 1974) Sections 357, 418, 427 and 482 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 Magistrate is required to impose fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque Section 357 Cr.P.C. enables a court to award compensation to compensate an injury or loss sustained by the complaint. The compensation awarded has to be treated as fine amount for the purpose of recovery of the same. On Facts Held The learned Magistrate had recorded a finding of conviction and had imposed the sentences of imprisonment and fine and also the compensation amount. The order of the Magistrate confirmed by the Sessions Court. Both the Courts had directed payment of compensation amount out of the fine amount. Impugned orders are proper and legal, petition dismissed.
38. Considering all these aspects of the case and totality of the circumstances, in my considered opinion that the complainant is required to be compensated reasonably. Hence, I proceed to award reasonable compensation.
39. Reasoning On Point No.2:- For the discussion made above, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused is convicted for the 27 C.C. No.20074/2015 offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay fine
of Rs.6,00,000/- in default to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for 03 (Three) months.
Acting under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is hereby ordered that out of fine amount Rs.5,90,000/- shall be given to the complainant as compensation.
Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this Judgment to the accused in compliance of Section 363(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(Dictated by me on computer, typed by the stenographer, same was corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 03rd day of February 2026) (JYOTI SHANTAPPA KALE) XLVIII ACJM, BENGALURU ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:-
PW.1 Harish. M LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:-
Ex.P.1 Original cheque bearing No. 455247 dated
22.11.2014
Ex.P.2 Endorsement
28
C.C. No.20074/2015
Ex.P.3 Bank challan
Ex.P.4 Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P.4(a) Postal receipt
Ex.P.5 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.6 Reply notice dated 26.12.2014
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:-
DW.1 Mehul LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:-
Ex.D.1 Complaint dated 07.04.2014 Ex.D.2 Statement of complainant Ex.D.3 Certified copy of NCR No.931/2014 dated 20.12.2014 Ex.D.4 Petition filed u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act in MC No.3679/2015 Ex.D.5 Copy of complaint Ex.D.6 Copy of email dated 18.05.2012 Ex.D.7 DC Ex.D.8 Certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act (JYOTI SHANTAPPA KALE) XLVIII ACJM, BENGALURU