Bangalore District Court
M/S. Smart Craft Pvt Ltd vs Y L Triveni on 4 October, 2025
KABC0C0051282023
IN THE COURT OF XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (ACJM-34)
PRESENT: Smt.PARVEEN A BANKAPUR,B.Com.LLB.
XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
Dated : This the 4th day of October, 2025.
C.C.No.51351 of 2023
COMPLAINANT : M/s. Smart Craft Pvt. Ltd.,
Office At No.136, Hub Town Solaris,
N S Phadke Marg, Andheri East
Mumbai - 400 069.
Having Bengaluru Office
Rep by its Director
Mrs.Mythili Srinivasan
(By Mr. Krishna Kishore - Advocate)
V/s
ACCUSED : 1. Mrs. Y L Triveni
W/o. Sri jayanth,
Major in age,
2. Jayanth
Major in age,
Both are R/at No.555
1st Main, 1st Cross
8th Block, Koramangala
Bengaluru - 95.
(By Mr. K.R. Prabhu - Advocates)
1 Date of Commencement 31.10.2022
of offence
2 Date of report of offence 27.01.2023
3 Presence of accused
3a. Before the Court 25.03.2024
3b. Released on bail 25.03.2024
4 Name of the Complainant M/s. Smart Craft Pvt. Ltd.,
5 Date of recording of 03.03.2023
evidence
6 Date of closure of evidence 11.06.2025
7 Offences alleged U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused are not found guilty
2
C.C.No.51351 of 2023
JUDGEMENT
The Private Complaint is filed by the Complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused alleging that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submits that the Accused had entered into a rent agreement dtd.19.12.2020 renting out of the premises situated at No.48/2, Bock -2, First Floor, Kudlu Main Road, Bengaluru total measuring 5000 sqft. with water and electricity facilities. The duration of the said lease was fixed for one year commencing from 1.1.2021 to 31.12.2021 and rent was fixed for Rs.80,000/- per month to the schedule premises. The Complainant had paid Rs.7,20,000/- as advance of the schedule premises. Out of the said security deposit amount, Rs.4,20,000/- was paid to the first Accused and Rs.3 lakhs was paid to the second Accused as security deposit of the tenanted premises. As per the said rent agreement, the security deposit /advance amount paid by the Complainant is refundable by the Accused without any interest, at the time of vacating the premises.3
C.C.No.51351 of 2023 It is further submitted that the Complainant had issued notice dtd.1.3.2022 to the Accused, intimating regarding vacating the schedule premises as per the said rent agreement.
Further on the request made by the Accused, the Complainant had vacated the schedule premises in the month of May 2022.
Thereafter the Accused have deducted the rent amount of Rs.72,000/- for the month of April and Rs.72,000/- toward the month of of May out of the advance/security deposit amount.
The Complainant had received partial advance amount from the Accused for Rs.1.5 lakhs. Out of the remaining amount of Rs.4,26,000/- advance amount the Accused had requested the Complainant to allow them to make the payment of Rs.4,26,000/- in 2 installments and towards the fist installment, the Accused have issued a Cheque No.623208 dtd.31.10.2022 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Koramangala branch, Bengaluru and requested the Complainant to present the same on or after 31.10.2022.
It is further submitted by the Complainant that as per the request of the Accused, he presented the said cheque through his banker i.e., ICICI Bank, Yelahanka branch, Bengaluru for encashment on 3.12.2022. However, the said Cheque was dishonoured for "Drawer's signature differs" on 5.12.2022.4
C.C.No.51351 of 2023 Thereafter, the complainant has got issued demand notice on 16.12.2022, by RPAD, calling upon both the Accused to pay the Cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice.
The notice was served upon the Accused on 17.12.2022. Despite receipt of notice, the Accused have neither paid the Cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Hence, the Complainant has filed present complaint against the Accused persons for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
3. Based on the complaint, the sworn statement affidavit, and documents etc., took cognizance of an offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act by following the guidelines of Apex Court issued in Indian Bank Association case and ordered to be registered a criminal case against the accused persons for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
4. After issuance of summons, accused appeared before the court and enlarged themselves on bail. Plea was recorded, read over and explained to the accused, who pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for complainant's evidence.
5
C.C.No.51351 of 2023
5. The Chief Manager of the Complainant company himself examined as PW.1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11.
6. Accused was examined U/S 313 of Cr.P.C.
Incriminating evidence appearing in the complainant's evidence was read over and explained to the accused who denies the same. The learned counsel for Accused submits that no defence evidence and its side closed.
7. Heard both counsels at length in great detail. The learned Counsel for Complainant has placed the following citations;
1. 2025(1) AKR 264
2. 2025(2) AKR 342
3. 2025(2) AKR 313
4. 2025(2) AKR 45 The learned Counsel for Accused has placed the following citations;
1. Cri.Apl.No.194/2015 in the case of A.C. Shreeram V/s. Sumija J.
2. A.C. Narayanan V/s. State of Mahrashtra & Another
3. Alka Khandu Avhad V/s. Amar Syamprasad Mishra 6 C.C.No.51351 of 2023
4. Aparna A Shah V/s. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Another
8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the materials placed on record, the following points arise for my consideration.
1) Whether complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused in discharge of legally recoverable debt have issued a Cheque No.623208 dtd.31.10.2022 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Koramangala branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant which came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "Drawer's signature differs" and inspite of receipt of notice accused has not paid the Cheque amount and thereby committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2) What Order?
9. My findings on the above points is:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS Point No.1:-
10. 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 essential 7 C.C.No.51351 of 2023 ingredients to constitute offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is summarized as below:
(i) That there must be a legally enforceable debt.
(ii) That the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes the legally enforceable debt.
(iii)That the cheque so issued had been returned due to "funds insufficient".
11. It is core contention of the Complainant that, the Accused had entered into a rent agreement dtd.19.12.2020 renting out of the premises situated at No.48/2, Bock -2, First Floor, Kudlu Main Road, Bengaluru total measuring 5000 sqft. for one year commencing from 1.1.2021 to 31.12.2021 and rent was fixed for Rs.80,000/- per month to the schedule premises. The Complainant had paid Rs.7,20,000/- as advance of the schedule premises. Out of the said security deposit amount, Rs.4,20,000/- was paid to the first Accused and Rs.3 lakhs was paid to the second Accused as security deposit of the tenanted premises. As per the said rent agreement, the security deposit /advance amount paid by the Complainant is refundable by the Accused without any interest, at the time of vacating the premises.
8
C.C.No.51351 of 2023
12. It is further submitted that the Complainant had issued notice dtd.1.3.2022 to the Accused, intimating regarding vacating the schedule premises as per the said rent agreement. Further on the request made by the Accused, the Complainant had vacated the schedule premises in the month of May 2022. Thereafter the Accused have deducted the rent amount of Rs.72,000/- for the month of April and Rs.72,000/- toward the month of of May out of the advance/security deposit amount. The Complainant had received partial advance amount from the Accused for Rs.1.5 lakhs. Out of the remaining amount of Rs.4,26,000/- advance amount the Accused had requested the Complainant to allow them to make the payment of Rs.4,26,000/- in 2 installments and towards the fist installment, the Accused have issued a Cheque No.623208 dtd.31.10.2022 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Koramangala branch, Bengaluru and requested the Complainant to present the same on or after 31.10.2022 which was dishonoured for "Drawer's signature differs" on 5.12.2022. Thereafter, the complainant has got issued demand notice on 16.12.2022, by RPAD. The notice was served upon the Accused on 17.12.2022. Despite receipt of notice, the Accused have neither paid the Cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Hence, the 9 C.C.No.51351 of 2023 Complainant has filed present complaint against the Accused persons for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
13. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, The Chief Manager of the Complainant company got examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents of Complaint and relied Ex.P1 is Authorization letter, Ex.P2 is the original Cheque No.623208 dtd.31.10.2022, Ex.P3 is the bank endorsement, Ex.P4 is the office copy of legal notice issued by the Complainant to the Accused 16.12.2022, Ex.P5 and 7 are the postal receipts, Ex.P7 and 8 are the postal acknowledgements, Ex.P9 is the MOA and AOA, Ex.P10 is the detail information of the Complainant company and Ex.P11 is the ICICI Bank account statement.
14. The documents produced by the complainant of course established that the complainant meets out the procedural requirements of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, but it is to be considered whether all these documents establish the offence committed by the accused.
15. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the complainant, it reveals that the present complaint is filed well within time in accordance with the provisions of 10 C.C.No.51351 of 2023 Negotiable Instruments Act. Moreover, there is no dispute with regard to taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
16. The Negotiable Instruments Act raises two presumptions. One contained in Section 118 and the other in Sec. 139 thereof. For the sake of convenience Sec 118(1) of the N.I. Act is extracted here below:
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 for consideration.
1. To (g) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Provided that where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from an person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence of fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence of fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him".
11
C.C.No.51351 of 2023 Further Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under;
"139, Presumption in favour of holder. It shall 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."
17. Scope and ambit and function of the presumption U/ s 118(a) and Sec 139 of NI Act came to be considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court of Indian in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde (2008 NIAR (Criminal 151) The Supreme Court has laid down the law in the following phraseology.
"D Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Secs. 139, 138
--Presumption under-same arises in regard to second aspect of the matter provided under Sec 138
--Existence of legally enforceable debt is not a matter of presumption under Sec 139- It merely raises presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability - Merely an application of presumption contemplated under Section 139 of N.I.Act should not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction."12
C.C.No.51351 of 2023
18. Further, said decision was followed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Kempanarasimhaiah Vs P.Rangaraju & Others (2008 (5) KCCR 3371). Relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: -
"12. As to the provisions of Sections 138 of N.I.Act, the following principles emerge from the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court at para Nos. 21, 23, 25, 26 and 34 of its Judgment in the above said case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde, AIR 2008 SC 1325.
(i) Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption that the cheque was issued towards discharge in whole or in part in any debt or other liability, which presupposed legally enforceable debt. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability." (para 21)
(ii) The question as to whether the presumption stood rebutted or not, must be determined keeping in view the other evidences on record. Where the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration. (para 26) 13 C.C.No.51351 of 2023
(iii) An accused, for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute, need not examine himself.
He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on records (para 23)
(iv) Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different. Further more where as prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is "preponderance of probabilities'" (para 23 &
25)
(v) Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies (para 25)
(vi) Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 should be deliberately balanced (para 34)
19. Thus from the observations extracted above, it is clear that presumption Under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is only to the extent that the cheque was drawn for discharge in full or in part of any debt or other liability and the said presumption do not relate to the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore, before drawing the presumption under section 139 of 14 C.C.No.51351 of 2023 the N.I.Act, it is the duty of the Court to see whether or not the complainant has discharged his initial burden as to existence of legally enforceable debt. No doubt, as per Section 118(a) of the Act, there is a rebuttable presumption that every negotiable instrument, is accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."
20. Factual matrix of the case is required to be tested on the anvil of principles emerging from the above-referred decisions.
21. The defence taken by the Accused is that, PW1 is not competent to depose in the case and Accused has not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant company.
22. To substantiate the claim, the Complainant examined his Chief Manager as PW1. He deposed that, He deposed that he aware the facts of the case. He further deposed that Complainant company was tenant under the Accused and entered a rent agreement dtd.19.12.2020 for one year for the period 1.1.2021 to 31.12.2021 and fixed rent of Rs.80,000/- per month and Rs.7,20,000/- advance fixed deposit. It is further deposed that out of security deposit Rs.4,20,000/- was paid to 15 C.C.No.51351 of 2023 the Accused and Rs.3 lakhs was paid to the Accused and as per the rent agreement security deposit is refundable without any interest at the time of vacating the premises. It is further deposed that the Complainant company had issued notice to the Accused on 1.3.2022 intimating regarding vacating the premises. It is further deposed that thereafter the Complainant company vacated the premises in the month of May 2022 and thereafter the Accused had deducted rent amount of Rs.72,000/- for the month of April and another Rs.72,000/- for the month of May and Complainant received partial advance amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs from the Accused and Accused requested remaining amount of Rs.4,26,000/- will be paid by him in two installments. It is further deposed that the Accused has issued Ex.P2 cheque for Rs.2 lakhs and requested to present the cheque for collection on 3.12.2022. It is further deposed that, as per the request the Complainant presented the said cheque for encashment on 5.12.2022 and same was returned unpaid with shara that drawer signature differ as per Ex.P3. It is further deposed that, the Accused has intentionally signed on the cheque in a different style with intention to avoid the payment. It is further deposed that, thereafter the Complainant got issued legal notice to the Accused as per Ex.P4 16 C.C.No.51351 of 2023 which was duly served upon the Accused as per Ex.P7 and 8. It is further deposed that, inspite of receipt of the notice, neither the Accused paid the cheque nor reply the notice.
23. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, prima facie presumed that Ex.P2 Cheque was issued by the Accused towards discharge of partial legally enforceable debt and liability. To rebut the presumption the learned Counsel for accused cross examined the PW1 in full length. In the cross-examination he stated that, Ex.P1 is the authorization letter issued by Mr.V. Srinivasan. He further stated that, Ex.P1 was issued in the year 2021 and Mr.V.Srinivasan is not a Director of the Complainant company. He admits that, there is a transaction between Mrs.Mythili Srinivasan and Accused. He further stated that, he does not know who are the Accused No.1 and 2. He further stated that he does not know the husband's name of the Accused No.1 and fathers name of Accused No.2. He denied that Accused No.1 and 2 are not made any transaction with Complainant company. He further admits that he did not have authority to file this complaint and depose in the case. He identified the signatures of the Accused persons in vakalathnama. He further stated that he does not know that, 17 C.C.No.51351 of 2023 Ex.P2 cheque belongs to him and whose account. He further stated that he does not know who was signed on Ex.P2 cheque. He denied that, Accused has not issued Ex.P2 cheque to the Complainant company. He admits that, signature on Ex.P2 was not belongs to the Accused.
24. The defence of the Accused is that, the PW1 is not have any authority to file the complaint and depose before the court. It is pertaining to note that the complaint was filed by Director of the Complainant company by name Mrs.Mythili Srinivasan. At the time of presentation of the complaint before the court she was present and seek time for recording of sworn statement and when case posted for recording of sworn statement one Mr.Darshith V. present before the court and filed his sworn statement affidavit and examined as PW1. He produced authorization letter as per Ex.P1 which issued Mr. V. Srinivasan, Director. As per Ex.P1 it is authorized to PW1 who is the Chief Manager of Complainant company to depose evidence. Ex.P10 and 11 are which discloses that, Mr. V. Srinivasan also Director of the company. Therefore, by authorization letter issued by the Director of the Complainant company, PW1 depose before the court. On perusal of cross- 18
C.C.No.51351 of 2023 examination of PW1, he clearly stated that, Mr.V. Srinivasan is not Director of the company and also clearly admits that, he have not authority to file the complaint and depose before the court in the present case. He further stated that he does not know that Ex.P2 which is the subject matter of the case belongs to whom. He further stated that he does not know that, Ex.P2 cheque was belongs to whose account. He further stated that, on Ex.P2 which signature was appeared. He further admits that the signature appeared on Ex.P2 was not belongs to the Accused. For the evidence it appears that, PW1 was not known the facts of the case and he was not witness to the transaction between Complainant and Accused and also not present at the time of issuance of cheque. In this regard, the learned counsel for Accused relied on decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Cri.Apl. 194/2015 dtd.5.2.2025 in the case of A.C.Sreeram V/s. Sumija J. wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that;
"The said aspect probabilize the defence of the Accused. Considering the said aspect, the Accused has rebutted the presumption drawn u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act. The Complainant has not entered into witness box to prove the alleged transaction of handloan and issuance of cheque- Ex.P1 for making payment of said debt. As GPA Holder of the Complainant is not having knowledge of the transaction between the Accused and 19 C.C.No.51351 of 2023 Complainant is not competent to give evidence. Considering all the aspects, the Complainant has not proved that Accused has committed offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act."
Further the learned counsel for Accused relied on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Cri.Apl.No.73/2007 in the case of A.C. Narayana V/s. State of Maharashtra and another wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that;
"While holding that, there is no serious conflict between the decisions in MMTC(Supra) and Janki Vashdeo Bhojvani (Supra) we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner;
i. Filing of complaint petition u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act through Power of Attorney is perfectly legal and competent.
ii. The Power of Attorney Holder can depose and verity on oath before the court in order to prove the contents of the complaint. However, the Power of Attorney Holder must have witnesses the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions.
iii. It is required by the Complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the Power of Attorney Holder int eh said transaction explicitly in the complaint and the Power of Attorney Holder who has no knowledge regarding the transactions cannot be examined as a witness in the case.
25. In the present case as above stated PW1 is the authorized representative of the Complainant company has not 20 C.C.No.51351 of 2023 filed the present complaint and after filing of complaint, he filed his sworn statement affidavit by authorizing him to depose evidence before the court in the evidence he stated that he does not knowledge about the cheque, issuance of cheque and also he clearly stated that cheque was not signed by the Accused persons. In the evidence he also unable to say the full name of the Accused persons and also stated that he does not know that who were Accused No.1 and 2. He further stated that, Mr.V.Srinivasan is not Director of the Complainant company. All these admissions and deposition of the PW1 clearly shows that the PW1 i.e., authorized person is not knowledge about the transaction and issuance of cheque. Hence, PW1 is not competent to depose in the present case.
26. As per the complaint averments Ex.P2 cheque was signed by Accused No.2 - Sri Jayanth. On perusal of signature on Ex.P2 cheque and admitted signatures of Accused No.2 are completely different. Moreover, neither in the complaint nor in the deposition of PW1 it is stated that who was signed on Ex.P2.
27. The learned counsel for Complainant argued that signature was admitted by the Accused hence, no question of denying the signature of the Accused. In this regard, the 21 C.C.No.51351 of 2023 learned counsel for Accused relied on above stated decisions. But, in the present case the PW1 himself stated in the cross- examination that, the signature on Ex.P2 cheque was not belongs to the Accused. Hence, the Complainant has not clearly stated about who signed on the cheque. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Accused relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Cri.Apl.No.813/2013 in the case of Aparna A. Shah V/s. M/s. Seth Developers Pvt. Ltd., and another wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that;
"In the light the above discussion, we hold that u/Sec.138 of the Act, it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be prosecuted. In the case on hand, admittedly, the Appellant is not a drawer of the cheque and she has not signed the same. A copy of the cheque was brought to our notice, though it contains name of the Appellant and her husband, the fact remains that her husband alone put his signature. In addition to the same, a bare reading of complaint as also the affidavit of examination in chief of the Complainant and a bare look at the cheque would show that, the Appellant has not signed the cheque."
We also hold that, u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act, in case of issuance of cheque from joint accounts, a joint account holder cannot be prosecuted unless the cheque has been signed by each and every person who is a joint account holder. The said principle is an exception to Sec.141 of N.I. Act which would have no application in the case on hand. The proceedings filed u/Sec.138 cannot be used as an arm twisting tactics to recover the amount allegedly due from the 22 C.C.No.51351 of 2023 appellant. It cannot be said that the Complainant has no remedy against the appellant, but certainly not under section 138. The culpability attached to dishonour of cheque can in no case "except in case of Sec.141 of N.I. Act" be extended to those on whose behalf the cheque is issued. This court reiterates that it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be made an Accused in any proceeding u/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Even the High Court has specifically recorded the stand of the Appellant that she was not the signatory of the cheque but, rejected the contention that the amount was not due and payable by her solely on the ground that the trial court is in progress. It is to be noted that only after issuance of process, a person can approach the High Court seeking quash of the same on various grounds available to him.
Accordingly the High Court was clearly wrong in holding that the prayer of the Appellant cannot even be considered. Further, the High Court itself has directed the Magistrate to carry out the process of admission/denial of documents. In such circumstances the appeal deserved to be allowed and process in criminal case in No.1171/SS/2009 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai, deserves to be quashed, accordingly, quashed against the appellant herein. The appeal is allowed."
28. In the present in case in hand also there is no clarity that, who was signed the cheque. As above stated PW1 clearly stated that, Accused No.1 and 2 are not signed on the cheque. Hence, cheque issued by the Accused is itself doubtful. Moreover, Ex.P3 Bank endorsement, as per the bank 23 C.C.No.51351 of 2023 endorsement the reason for dishonour of cheque is signature differs. Hence, Accused are not signed on the cheque. Hence, Complainant failed to prove that, towards discharge of liability, Accused have issued Ex.P2 cheque in favour of Complainant. Therefore, the Accused is not liable to punish u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. In the present case the Complainant has not proved that, the Ex.P2 cheque amount is not legally enforceable debt. The Complainant has not proved his case as to commission of offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act by the Accused persons. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
29. Point No.2 : In view of discussion held in Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/S 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Their personal bond stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 4th October, 2025) Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN A A BANKAPUR BANKAPUR Date: 2025.10.06 17:34:05 +0530 (PARVEEN A BANKAPUR) XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 Mr. Darshith V
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:24
C.C.No.51351 of 2023 Ex.P.1 Authorization letter Ex.P.2 Cheque Ex.P.3 Bank endorsement Ex.P.4 Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.5 & 6 Postal receipts Ex.P.7 & 8 Postal acknowledgements Ex.P.9 Memorandum of Association & Articles of Association Ex.P.10 Detail information of the Complainant Ex.P.11 Bank statement
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused: NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused : NIL Digitally signed PARVEEN by PARVEEN A (PARVEEN A BANKAPUR) A BANKAPUR XXXIV ACJM, BENGALURU.
BANKAPUR Date: 2025.10.06
17:33:56 +0530