Bangalore District Court
T Srinivas vs Prashanth B.C on 5 January, 2026
SCCH-2 1 C.C.No. 7193/2023
KABC020255662023
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-2).
C.C.No. 7193/2023
:: Present ::
Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
6th Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM, Bengaluru.
Dated: On this the 05th day of January, 2026.
Complainant : Sri T Srinivas
S/o Sri Thimmaiah,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at:No.48/16, 6th A main road,
Dattatreya nagar, Hosakerehalli,
Banashankari III stage, Bangalore South,
Bangalore 560085.
(By Sri. Rajesh Gowda, Advocate)
- Vs. -
Accused : Sri Prashanth B C
S/o late Chamaiah,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at: New No. 122,
SCCH-2 2 C.C.No. 7193/2023
Old No. 120/8, 26th main road,
Jayanagar 6th block,
Banashankari II stage,
Bangalore 560070.
(By Sri. V Anand, Advocate)
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The complainant has filed the present complaint U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred as N.I.Act).
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:-
The complainant and accused are known to each other since several years. Based on the said acquaintance, the accused approached the complainant during the last week of April 2022 for financial assistance of Rs.10,00,000/- which is required to cancel the registered agreement of sale dated 13.03.2012 which is executed by the father of accused.
During the 1st week of May 2022, the complainant has paid the amount to the accused and accused also assured to repay the same within 8 months. After the lapse of stipulated period, the accused failed to repay the same and issued post dated cheque bearing No. 236241 dated 22.06.2023 for Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank SCCH-2 3 C.C.No. 7193/2023 Ltd., Rajajinagar 5th block, Bangalore towards the discharge of his liability.
As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker Canara Bank, Girinagar branch, Bangalore on 26.06.2023. However, the said cheque was dishonored and returned unpaid with an endorsement as "Non cts cheque". Thereafter, the complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused on 10.07.2023 which was received by the accused on 17.07.2023. In-spite of service of notice also the accused neither paid the amount nor sent any reply. Hence, cause of action arose to file the complaint.
3. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/ Sec.138 of N.I.Act. After filing of the complaint, the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and it prima- facie found that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, criminal case was registered and the summons was issued to the accused.
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and thereafter plea was recorded. The accused was denied the accusation leveled against him, claimed to be tried and stated that he has defence to make. Further, the statement of the accused as contemplated U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused has denied SCCH-2 4 C.C.No. 7193/2023 the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of complainant and submitted that he has defence evidence. It is relevant to note that counsel for accused filed memo to dispense the recording of additional 313 statement of accused. Accordingly recording of additional 313 statement of accused was dispensed.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Indian Bank Association and Others vs Union Bank of India and Another reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528, held that "Sworn Statement of the complainant has to be treated as examination in chief". In the instant case, the complainant got examined as P.W.1 and documents have been marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. Thereafter, P.W.1 was subject to the process of cross-examination from the side of accused. Per contra, the accused has not adduced any evidence. It is relevant to note that Ex.D1 & Ex.D2 got marked by way of confrontation.
6. Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the materials available on record.
7. Now the points that arise for consideration of this Court are as hereunder:
SCCH-2 5 C.C.No. 7193/20231. Whether the complainant has proved that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act?
2. What Order?
8. The findings of this Court to the above-referred points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative. Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
9. POINT No.1: In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 by filing affidavit in support of his oral examination-in-chief. In the affidavit, P.W.1 has reiterated the complaint averments in verbatim. Hence, this Court need not to recapitulate the same once again at this juncture. In support of his oral testimony, P.W.1 got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4.
10. Now itself it is appropriate to see the documents marked at Ex.P-Series.
SCCH-2 6 C.C.No. 7193/2023Ex.P-Series.
Ex.P.1 is the cheque in question. Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of accused. Ex.P.2 is the bank endorsement dated:27.06.2023. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of the legal notice dated:10.07.2023. Ex.P.3(a) is the postal receipt and Ex.P.4 is the acknowledgment due card.
Ex.D-Series.
Ex.D1 is the registered agreement to sell dated 13.03.2012 and Ex.D2 is the registered cancellation of agreement to sell.
11. Before going to discuss the main aspect, it is worth to reproduce the provisions of Sec.138 and 139 of N.I.Act, the same as hereunder:
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account: -
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money SCCH-2 7 C.C.No. 7193/2023 standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for (a term which may be extended to two years), or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of Six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (The period of 6 months has been reduced to 3 months, vide R.B.I. notification No.RBI/2011- 12/251,DBOD.AMLBC SCCH-2 8 C.C.No. 7193/2023 No.47/14.01.001/2011-12, dated:4 th November 2011 (w.e.f. 01.04.2012))
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation: - For the purposes of the section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
139. Presumption in favour of holder:- It shall be presumed, unless SCCH-2 9 C.C.No. 7193/2023 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.
12. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898, between Rangappa V/s Mohan wherein their lordships have observed at para 26 as hereunder:
"No doubt that there is a initial presumption which favours the complainant".
13. It is germane to note that the proceedings U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act is an exception to the general principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent until the charge leveled against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the proceedings initiated U/Sec.138 of the N.I. Act proof of beyond reasonable doubt is subject to the presumption envisaged under Sec.139 of the N.I. Act. Once the requirement of Sec.138 of the N.I. Act is fulfilled, then it has to be presumed that the cheque was issued in discharge of legally recoverable debt or liability. The presumption envisaged under Sec.139 of N.I. Act is mandatory SCCH-2 10 C.C.No. 7193/2023 presumption and it has to be raised in every cheque bounce cases.
14. Now, the important question before this Court is whether the complainant has complied the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I.Act or not? In this connection, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 are relevant. Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing No. 236241 dated:22.06.2021 for Rs.10,00,000/-. Ex.P1(a) is the signature of the accused. Ex.P.2 is the bank endorsement dated:27.06.2023. On careful perusal of these documents, it appears to this court that, the complainant has presented the cheque for encashment within the stipulated period.
15. As per Ex.P2 the cheque in question was returned with reason as "Non cts cheque''. Now the important question before this court is whether the endorsement "Non CTS cheque" attracts the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act or not?. In this regard, it is appropriate to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka decided in the case of Crl. Petition No.4978/2023 between Sri Rohith Vs. Sri Anil Kumar J wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka while dismissing the Crl. Petition filed by the petitioner observed that, "the cheque truncated scheme was introduced by the Reserve Bank of India in the year 2011 and the scheme was still in operation upto 31.12.2018. Therefore, on and from 01.01.2019, the non CTS cheque would loose its validity. The Reserve Bank of India further SCCH-2 11 C.C.No. 7193/2023 clarifies that though the Non CTS Cheque looses its value from 01.01.2019, it would still be valid as a Negotiable Instrument''. Further the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka referred the circular of Reserve Bank of India which hold that Non CTS Cheques are valid as a Negotiable Instrument and clarification by the Reserve Bank of India is as follows:
"4. Are non-CTS cheques invalid? Banks have been advised to issue only CTS 2010 standard compliant cheques from September 30, 2012. Earlier, there were separate clearing sessions for non- CTS cheques. However, they were discontinued with effect from December, 31, 2018. As of now, non-CTS cheques cannot be presented in CTS. Banks have been advised to withdraw the non-CTS cheques from the customers. However, non-CTS cheques remain to be valid as a negotiable instrument."
16. In the instant case, the accused has not taken steps to hand over the old cheques viz. Non CTS cheque to the concerned bank. It would show that after expiry of the cheque, in order to cheat the complainant the accused has issued Non CTS Cheque to the complainant towards discharge of his liability. Therefore, with the help of the above referred decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, it is crystal clear that, if the endorsement SCCH-2 12 C.C.No. 7193/2023 issued by the bank as "Non CTS cheque" also attracts an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I Act.
17. Now, the question before this court is whether Ex.P.1 belongs to the accused and signature found in Ex.P.1 is the signature of the accused or not?. It is relevant to note that, the accused has examined as contemplated U/Sec.313 of CrPC. At which point of time, he has expressed his ignorance regarding how the cheque in question got into the possession of the complainant. In other words, the accused has not disputed the cheque and also his signature. Therefore, it can be inferred that, Ex.P1 is pertaining to the bank account of accused and Ex.P1(a) is his signature.
18. Now, the next question before this court is whether the complainant has issued the legal notice in accordance with law or not?. In this connection Ex.P.3 & Ex.P3(a) are relevant. Ex.P.3 is the legal notice dated:10.07.2023 and Ex.P.3(a) is the RPAD receipt. On careful perusal of these documents, it appears to this court that, the complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused on 10.07.2023 and same was dispatched on 14.07.2023. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the complainant has issued the legal notice within 30 days from the date of receiving of endorsement from the bank.
SCCH-2 13 C.C.No. 7193/202319. Now, the next important question before this Court is whether notice was served on the accused or not?. In this connection Ex.P.4 is relevant. A careful perusal of Ex.P.4, it appears to this Court that, the notice was received by one person namely Gowramma on 17.07.2023. It is pertinent to note that, at the time of examination of accused as contemplated Under Sec.313 of CrPC, the accused has admitted that notice has been served. Moreover the accused has not disputed the address mentioned in Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Therefore, it is manifestly clear that the notice issued by the complainant is in accordance with law. In addition to the above referred aspects, as per Sec.118 and Sec.139 of NI Act presumption favours the complainant. Hence the complainant has complied the ingredients of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
20. Now, it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court between Hiten P Dalal V/s Brathindranath Manarji reported in 2001(6) SCC 16, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, "under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant is not required to establish either the legality or enforceability of the debt or liability since he can avail the benefit of presumption U/Sec.118 and Sec.139 of N.I. Act in his favour".
SCCH-2 14 C.C.No. 7193/202321. It is also settled position of law that, the presumption available U/Sec. 138 of N.I Act is a rebuttable presumption. Further, to rebut the said presumption the accused need not to enter into the witness box. However, the accused can establish his probable defence by creating a doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
22. Further, it is also settled position of law that, the standard of proof of rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. It is also settled position of law that, if the accused succeeded in rebutting the presumption then the burden shifts back to the complainant. At this juncture, again it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 1898, between Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, "the standard of proof to rebut the presumption is that one of preponderance of probabilities".
23. It is also settled position of law that, "it is immaterial that, the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque otherwise valid, within the provisions of Sec.138 would be attracted".
SCCH-2 15 C.C.No. 7193/202324. Now, the question before this court is whether the accused has rebutted the presumption or not?. According to the complainant, the accused has approached him during the last week of April 2022 for financial assistance of Rs.10,00,000/- in order to cancel the agreement to sell dated 13.03.2012 executed by his father. The complainant has lent Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused during the 1 st week of May 2022 and towards the discharge of the same the accused has issued the cheque in question.
25. The complainant examined himself as PW.1. The learned counsel for accused cross examined the PW.1 at length. After cogitating the cross-examination of PW.1 and also the statement given by the accused while recording 313 statement, it appears to this court that, the accused side has taken a contention that there was no necessity for the accused to obtain Rs.10,00,000/-. Further, the accused has taken the contention that the complainant has not taken any loan agreement from accused. It is relevant to note that, at the time of cross-examination of PW.1 or at the time of recording statement of accused as contemplated U/.Sec.313 of CRPC, the accused has not specifically stated that how the cheque in question was got into the possession of the complainant. That apart the accused side has not disputed the cheque and also the signature.
SCCH-2 16 C.C.No. 7193/202326. According to the complainant during the 1 st week of May 2022 the accused obtained Rs.10,00,000/-. The case of the complainant is that the accused has availed loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to cancel the agreement. In the instant case the accused side has produced agreement to sell as well as cancellation of agreement. The said documents have been marked as Ex.D1 & Ex.D2. On perusal of Ex.D1, the father of accused executed the registered sale agreement in favour of one Sri V Harsha. Further, the said document reveals that the father of accused received Rs.10,00,000/- towards advance. Further, Ex.D2 is the cancellation of agreement dated 09.05.2022. The contents of the said document reveals that the accused and his family members are the first parties and V Harasha is the 2 nd party. Further, the document reveals that they have mutually executed the cancellation of agreement. Further, the said document reveals that the accused and his family members have paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the agreement holder namely V Harsha. After cogitating the case of the complainant and execution of Ex.D2, it appears to this court that the accused had obtained an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to execute the cancellation of agreement to sell executed by his father.
27. At the cost of repetition, on going through the entire cross-examination of PW.1, this court do not find any single suggestion regarding how the cheque in question got into the possession of complainant. In other words the accused side SCCH-2 17 C.C.No. 7193/2023 has utterly failed to explain how the Ex.P1/cheque got into the possession of complainant. Moreover the accused has not taken any steps to get back his cheque. He has not lodged any complaint regarding missing of cheque.
28. Further, it is pellucid that the accused has issued the cheque in question towards the discharge of his liability. Therefore, the contentions put forth by the accused are failed to inspire the confidence of this court. As such, the defence raised by the accused is not probable, not believable and amounts to vague defence. Hence, the accused has not raised probable defence. Based on the said vague defence the accused cannot rebut the presumption. At this juncture, it is worth to rely on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2018(8) SCC 165 between Kishan Rao V/s Shankar Gouda, Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "Mere denial regarding existence of debt shall not serve any purpose".
29. At the cost of repetition, the initial presumption favours the complainant. However, the said presumption is rebuttable. If the accused rebutted the presumption then burden shifts back to the complainant. Interestingly, in the instant case, the accused has not put forth plausible defence to rebut the presumption. In the absence of cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of liability, the defence raised by the accused failed to inspire SCCH-2 18 C.C.No. 7193/2023 the confidence of this Court to believe his version or to meet the standard of 'Preponderance of Probabilities'. Hence, with the help of presumption and also on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court has come to the conclusion that, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, this Court is answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
30. POINT No.2:- In view of the discussions referred to above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
:: O R D E R ::
Acting U/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused shall pay fine of
Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven lakhs Only) to the complainant and in default to payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
However, it is clarified that, mere serving of default sentence by the accused, does not absolve him from the SCCH-2 19 C.C.No. 7193/2023 liability of payment of fine amount as ordered by this court.
By exercising the powers conferred U/Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C, the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven lakhs Only) is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation.
Office is hereby directed to provide free copy of judgment to the accused forthwith.
Bail bond of the accused shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and corrected by me, and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 05th January, 2026) (H.P. Mohan Kumar) VI Addl. Judge and ACJM., Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
:ANNEXURE:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 : Sri. T Srinivas.
SCCH-2 20 C.C.No. 7193/2023
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P.1 : Original Cheque bearing No.236241
dated 22.06.2023.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of the accused.
Ex.P.2 : Bank endorsement dated:27.06.2023.
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of legal notice dated:10.07.2023.
Ex.P.3(a) : Postal receipt.
Ex.P.4 : Acknowledgment due card.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE ACCUSED:
- None -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 : Registered agreement to sell Ex.D.2 : Registered cancellation of agreement to sell.Digitally signed by H P
HP MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR
Date: 2026.01.13
10:12:44 +0530
(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge and ACJM.,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.