Bangalore District Court
Trinity Mep Services Pvt Ltd vs Aditya Enterprises And Others on 10 October, 2025
KABC0B0001802024
IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES &
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21).
PRESENT: Sri. Vijaykumar S. Hiremath,
LL.B
XVII ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & A.C.M.M,
Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 10th day of October, 2025.
C.C.No.15025/2024
Complainant/s : TRINITY MEP SERVICES PVT. LTD.,
No.34, C1 Royal Suites Hotel Apartments,
Hennur Cross, Kalyan Nagar,
Bangalore 560043.
Represented by its Director.
Mr. Anish Puthettu Chacko,
S/o P.G. Chaco,
aged about 39 yeas,
Residing at No.682,
2nd Cross, Shivamandir Road,
Udayanagar, Bengaluru-560016.
(By Sri.Chandra Shekar .L. Adv.,)
V/s
Accused/s : 1. ADITYA ENTERPRISES,
A Partnership Firm,
Having Office at:
No.2, C-330, MM Party Hall,
2nd Cross, OMBR Layout,
Opp. CMR Law college,
Banaswadi, Bangalore-560043.
Represented by its Partners
Sri.Gangadhara and
Sri.Sunil Kumar
SCCH-21 2 C.C. No.15025/2024
2. Sri. GANGADHARA,
Partner and Authorised Signatory,
Aditya Enterprises,
No.2, C-330, MM Party Hall,
2nd Cross, OMBR Layout,
Opp. CMR Law college,
Banaswadi, Bangalore-560043.
3. Sri.SUNIL KUMAR,
Partner and Authorised Signatory,
Aditya Enterprises,
No.2, C-330, MM Party Hall,
2nd Cross, OMBR Layout,
Opp. CMR Law college,
Banaswadi, Bangalore-560043.
(By Sri.K.Narasimha Murthy, Adv.,)
Date of institution of the : 22.08.2022
Complaint
Nature of the Complaint : U/Sec.138 of N. I. Act
Date of commencement of : 08.01.2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 10-10-2025
Judgment was pronounced
Duration of the Complaint Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 01 12
JUDGMENT
The accused in this case are tried for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, on the complaint of the complainant.
2. The summary of the complainant's case is that:
SCCH-21 3 C.C. No.15025/2024It is the case of the complainant that, it is a Private Limited company, engaged in the business of Supplying, Installation and Distribution of Air conditioner and cooling equipment.
3. It is contended that, during the course of business, the accused had placed order for supply and installation of Air conditions to rooms and operation theater of newly built hospital viz., Janapriya Super Specialty Hospital, Kasturinagar, Bangalore and Co-operate office at OMBR Layout, worth Rs.1,99,83,730/- and paid part payment of Rs.1,67,83,730/- on different dates and failed to pay the remaining due amount of Rs.32,00,000/-. Inspite of repeated requests and demands, the accused issued two cheques for Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- and promised to pay the remaining Rs.7,00,000/- in future. On presentation of said two cheques for encashment, same were dishonoured and returned with shara stating "Funds insufficient." Later on, the matter has been compromised and accused have issued following fresh six cheques in favour of the complainant.
Sl. Cheque Number Date Amount
No. (in rupees)
1. 744312 23-04-2022 Rs. 5,00,000-00
2. 744313 28-04-2022 Rs. 5,00,000-00
3. 744314 14-05-2022 Rs. 5,00,000-00
4. 744315 28-05-2022 Rs. 5,00,000-00
5. 744316 18-06-2022 Rs. 5,00,000-00
6. 744317 30-06-2022 Rs. 7,00,000-00
SCCH-21 4 C.C. No.15025/2024
All cheques were drawn on Punjab National Bank, Banaswadi branch, Bangalore. On presentation of cheques for encashment before Complainant's banker HDFC Bank, Old Airport road branch, Bangalore, the first four cheques were returned with shara stating "Exceeding Limits" and remaining two cheques were returned with shara stating "Stop Payment." Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 07-07-2022 and said notices were served on the accused on 08-07-2022. Inspite of issuance of legal notice, the accused has not made any payment. Hence, constrained by the same, the present complaint is filed against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N. I. Act.
4. On filing of the complaint, the cognizance was taken for an offence punishable under Section 138 of N. I. Act and sworn statement was recorded. As there was sufficient ground to proceed further, a criminal case has been registered against the accused and they were summoned. The substance of accusation is orally stated to the accused and their plea was recorded. The accused were pleaded not guilty and submitted that they have defence to make.
5. In support of the complainant's case, the Complainant filed Sworn statement by way of affidavit during the pre-summoning stage is considered as evidence of the complainant company as PW.1 and got marked SCCH-21 5 C.C. No.15025/2024 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31. The accused No.3 got examined as DW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.D1 and D2. During the course of cross-examination of DW.1, confronted 01 document on behalf of Complainant same is marked as Ex.P.32.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record.
7. The counsel for Complainant submitted following decisions:
Crl.A.No.41/2005 on the file of Hon'ble High court of Ernakulam, Kerala in the case of K.Basheer V/s C.K.Usman Koya and another.
8. The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the Complainant proves that, accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N. I. Act 1881?
2. What order?
9. My answer to the above Points is as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative,
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following:
SCCH-21 6 C.C. No.15025/2024
REASONS
10. POINT No.1: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has been enacted to lend credibility to the financial transactions.
11. The main ingredients of the offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act are;
(i) Drawing up of a cheque by the accused towards payment of an amount of money, for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or any other liability.
(ii) Return of the cheque by the Bank as unpaid.
(iii) The drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount within 15 days of the receipt of notice under the proviso (b) to Section 138.
The explanation appended to the section provides, that the debt or other liability, for the purpose of that section means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
12. The Director of complainant company by name Anish Puthettu Chacko is examined as PW.1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of oral evidence, wherein, he has reiterated the entire averments made in the complaint. In support of his evidence, PW.1 got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to 31. Ex.P.1 to 6 are the Cheques stands in the name of complainant, Ex.P.7 to 12 are the bank endorsements, Ex.P13 is the Certified copy of Minutes of meeting, Ex.P14 is SCCH-21 7 C.C. No.15025/2024 the Tax invoice copy, Ex.P15 is the List of materials supplied, Ex.P16 is the Notice dated 07-07-2022, Ex.P17 to 19 are Postal receipts, Ex.P20 to 22 are the Copies of complaint lodged before Post Master, GPO, Bengaluru, Ex.P23 to 25 are the three Postal Track consignments, Ex.P26 is the Certificate U/sec.63 of Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyama, Ex.P27 is the Board Resolution copy, Ex.P28 is the Copies of email Acknowledgment, Ex.P29 is the copy of Abstract for Janapriya Hospital, Ex.P30 is the Bill, Ex.P31 is the Copy of Whats app message conversation, Ex.P32 is the Xerox copies of two cheques in one sheet. Thus, the complainant has complied with the mandatory requirements of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the presumptions can be drawn in his favour as contemplated U/sec 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
13. On the other hand, accused No.2 is examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 and D2. In his evidence he has taken defence that, they have paid amount to the complainant through Aditya Enterprises and Adi Kesha hospital private ltd., to the tune of Rs.1,79,50,000/-. But, Complainant has filed the present complaint by misusing the cheques taken from them towards security purpose.
14. Keeping in view of aforesaid documentary evidence, now I proceed to discuss the other materials available on record. It is specific case of the complainant that, it is a Private Limited company, engaged in the business of Supplying, Installation and Distribution of Air SCCH-21 8 C.C. No.15025/2024 conditioner and cooling equipment. During the course of business, the accused had placed order for supply and installation of Air conditions to rooms and operation theater of newly built hospital viz., Janapriya Super Specialty Hospital, Kasturinagar, Bangalore and Co-operate office at OMBR Layout, worth Rs.1,99,83,730/- and paid part payment of Rs.1,67,83,730/- on different dates and failed to pay the remaining due amount of Rs.32,00,000/-. Inspite of repeated requests and demands, the accused issued six cheques in favour of the complainant. On presentation of cheques for encashment which were returned with shara stating "Exceeding Limits" and "Stop Payment." Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 07-07-2022 and said notices were served on the accused on 08-07-2022. Inspite of issuance of legal notice, the accused has not made any payment. Hence, Complainant filed this complaint.
15. There is no dispute regarding the business relationship between the Complainant and accused. The records shows that, the Complainant company has adduced its evidence through its Director viz., Anish Puthettu Chacko. As per the Ex.P.27 i.e., Board Resolution shows that, the complainant company has authorized the said Anish P.C. to prosecute this case, for and on behalf of the Complainant company. As such, PW.1 has power to represent the complainant company.
SCCH-21 9 C.C. No.15025/202416. The next question would be, Whether the cheques in question belongs to accused persons or not. On going through the cross-examination of PW.1 as well as evidence of DW.1 along with statement recorded U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C it clearly reveals that, accused have taken defence that, complainant has taken cheques in question for the security purpose and they have repaid the entire amount. In addition to that, in the cross examination DW.1 admits that, signatures in Ex.P1 to 6 Cheques in question are of the accused No.2 and 3. As such, the above admissions are sufficient to conclude that, the cheques in question belongs to the accused.
17. As such, having gone through the defence raised by the accused, they have not disputed that cheques in question and signatures thereon. It is well settled that, when once the issuance of the cheque and signature is admitted, the presumption as contemplated U/s 139 of N. I. Act has to be raised in favour of the complainant. The course open to the accused is to rebut the said presumption by raising a probable defence. In this context of matter, it is useful to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in APS FOREX SERVICES PRIVATE LTD., V/S SHAKTHI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 945, wherein, it has been observed and held that once the issuance of cheque and the signature of the cheque/s is admitted, there is always presumption in favour of Complainant that there exists legally enforceable debt or liability.
SCCH-21 10 C.C. No.15025/202418. It is also profitable to refer another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.RASIYA V/S ABDUL NAZEER AND ANOTHER reported in 2022 SCC Online Supreme Court 1131, wherein, it has been observed and held that once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant, that the cheque was issued by the accused and signature of the accused on the cheque is not disputed, then in that case, the onus will shift upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not for discharge or any debt or other liability.
19. The next question would be, whether so much of money was really due to be paid by the accused to the complainant. To substantiate this fact, the complainant has produced Invoice at Ex.P14. On careful perusal of the said Tax Invoice it reveals that, complainant has supplied and installation of HVAC and FAS work. Further, along with said Tax Invoice, the Complainant has produced one document at Ex.P15 it shows the description of supply and installation of materials connected to the A.C. These documents are sufficient to conclude that, complainant company had supply and installation of Air conditions to rooms and operation theater of accused hospital. In addition to that, during the cross-examination of PW.1, accused has not denied the work done by the Complainant company and also during the evidence accused no.2 himself deposed that, "Complainant company has done work in respect of installation of Air conditions to his hospital." It must be noted that SCCH-21 11 C.C. No.15025/2024 Complainant filed this case in respect of dishonour of 6 Cheques and if we add the amount in dispute mentioned in all the cheques it comes to Rs.32,00,000/-. Thus, it is the duty of this court to decide that whether so much of money was liable to be paid by the accused to the Complainant.
20. In this case accused have taken defence that, the accused firm has paid an amount of Rs.1,36,00,000/- from the Aditya enterprises and Rs.43,50,000/- from Adi Kesh hospitals i.e., totally Rs.1,79,50,000/- to the Complainant. As such they have not liable to pay the cheques amount. In support of their case accused no.2 has produced Ex.D1 and 2 i.e., bank statements pertaining to Aditya enterprises as well as Adi Kesh hospitals.
21. During the course of arguments Learned counsel for accused argued that, till 2021 accused have paid more than Rs.1,79,50,000/- to the Complainant, but Complainant has presented the cheques in question for more amount by mentioning the excess amount. Further he argued that, Complainant has not supplied any materials to the Adi Kesh hospital and Complainant not explained about the receipt of an amount of Rs.43,50,000/- from the accused sister concerned hospital. Further he argued that, Complainant has created Ex.P13 i.e., Minutes of meeting for the purpose of this case. In support of his argument he relied upon Ex.D2. On perusal of Ex.D2 it discloses that the Adi Keshava Hospital has paid certain amount to the SCCH-21 12 C.C. No.15025/2024 Complainant company between 15-09-2018 and 13- 07-2021.
22. On going through the Ex.D2 it reveals that Adi Keshava Hospitals has made certain payment to the Complainant company between 15-09-2018 and 13-07-2021 but, PW.1 during his cross examination denied the receipt of said payment. Learned counsel for accused argued that, they have produced Ex.D2 to show that they have made payment to the Complainant and thereby they have rebutted the presumption available to the accused and onus is shifts upon the Complainant and Complainant has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
23. It is well established principle of law that, Offence U/sec.138 of N.I. Act the Complainant has only to establish that the cheque was genuine, presented within time, and upon it being dishonour, due notice was sent within 30 days of such dishonour, to which repayment must be received within 15 days, failing which complaint can be preferred by the Complainant within one month. Admittedly, in this case Complainant has complied all the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I. Act. As such, presumption raised in favor of Complainant. In order to rebut the presumption accused relied upon the Ex.D2 but as stated above Complainant denied the receipt of the amount from Adi keshava hospital. Under such SCCH-21 13 C.C. No.15025/2024 circumstances, it is for the accused to prove that, he has paid amount as per Ex.D2 to the Complainant. As such, in such eventuality the burden not shifts on the Complainant.
24. In the present case as stated above there is no dispute in respect of issuance of cheques. But cheques were returned with an endorsements stating "Payment stopped by drawer & exceeds arrangements". For which Complainant has sent legal notice to the accused. Despite receipt of legal notice accused have not issued any reply notice to the Complainant. Learned counsel for accused argued that issuance of statutory notice by the Complainant to the accused is mandatory under the N.I. Act, but not vice versa. It is true that non reply of legal notice is not a substantive piece of evidence in itself to establish the guilt of a person, not is a punishable offence, however it is admissible in the court for corroboration with other evidence to establish the chain of circumstances as such, it is always prudent to reply to a legal notice. Moreover, Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Sanjabij Tari V/s Kishore .S. Borcar and another, reported in 2025 INSC 1158, wherein it is held that, "if the accused failed to reply the legal notice by establishing his defence, then adverse inference can be drawn against the accused and it has to be presume that the cheque was issued towards the discharge of liability." So, if the defence put forth by the accused SCCH-21 14 C.C. No.15025/2024 was true, then they would have issued reply notice by mentioning about repayment of entire amount.
25. Apart above grounds, on perusal of Ex.P13 i.e., Minutes of meeting dated 23-03-2022 it reveals that accused No.2 on behalf of accused company issued cheques in question to the Director of Complainant by name Anish for repayment of Rs.32,00,000/-. During cross examination of Accused No.2 / Dw.1, Dw.1 admits about his signature on Ex.P13. Though accused have taken defence that, Complainant has created said document, but there is no positive evidence on record to show that, accused have taken steps to prove that Ex.P13 is created by the Complainant.
26. Accused have also not explained why they have not set up their defence at the earliest point, i.e., at the stage of receiving the demand notice, even though DW.1 admits having received the demand notice in his cross examination. Further accused have not taken any positive action against Complainant for misusing the cheques. Nothing significant has been elicited in the cross examination of Complainant to raise any suspicion in the case set up by the Complainant.
27. Learned counsel for accused argued that Complainant has not mentioned details about the SCCH-21 15 C.C. No.15025/2024 Ex.P13 in his demand notice. On the other hand Learned counsel for Complainant argued that there is no necessity to mention each and every aspect in the notice and in support of his argument he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reported in 2021 KER 13922. In Catena of judgments Hon'ble Apex court clarified that, there is no requirement under law to mention each and everything in the demand notice and it is sufficient if Complainant demand the cheque amount. Admittedly, in the present case Complainant has demanded the cheques amount by issuing demand notice as per Ex.P16. Moreover, in the above judgment relied by the Learned counsel for accused Hon'ble High court of Kerala observed that no particular form has been prescribed under the N.I. Act with respect to notice U/sec.138 (b) of the Act except that the payee or holder in due course should make a demand for the payment of the amount of money within 30 days from the receipt of intimation from the bank regarding return of the cheque. As such the argument advanced by the Learned counsel for accused in respect of non mentioning of existence as well as nature of Ex.P13 in the demand notice itself fatal to the case of the Complainant, does not holds any water.
28. On perusal of entire materials available on record particularly, on going through the Ex.D2 it SCCH-21 16 C.C. No.15025/2024 shows that the Adi keshava hospital has made certain payment to the Complainant. However the accused have failed to show that it was against the total out standing amount. Thus, accused have failed to establish their defence even on preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, there was no occasion to shift the onus of proof on the Complainant to establish the existence of legally recoverable debt or liability.
29. It is pertinent to note that no proof has been furnished by the accused to establish their defence. It is settled law that the presumption under section 139 of NI Act cannot be rebutted upon a mere denial. The same can be rebutted by the accused only by leading cogent evidence. Thus, on the mere averment of the accused unsubstantiated by any cogent evidence, it is not proved that the cheques in question was given as security only and not for any legally enforceable debt/liability. Moreover, even for a moment, if it is believed that the cheques in question were given for security purpose, neither the accused demanded the complainant to return the cheques nor they issued any notice for the same. Accused have not place on record any document or examined any witness which proves that they have given the cheques in question as security against the work done by the Complainant. Accordingly, this defence of accused holds no water.
30. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the materials available on record are sufficient to conclude that SCCH-21 17 C.C. No.15025/2024 the accused are liable to pay amount to the complainant and to discharge their liability, the accused have issued the cheques in question to the complainant, but the cheques so issued have been dishonored. Hence, I hold that the materials available on record inspire the confidence of the Court to conclude that the accused has committed the offence u/s 138 of N. I. Act. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
31. POINT No.2: Section 138 of N. I. Act empowers the Court to sentence the accused upto two years and also to impose fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or with both. The cheques bearing Nos., 744312 to 744316 issued on 23-04-2022, 28-04-2022, 14-05-2022, 28- 05-2022, 18-06-2022 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each and Cheque No.744317 dated 30-06-2022 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. The complainant was deprived of money that was rightfully due to it for a period of about 28 months years. Hence, if the interest is calculated at 9% p.a. on the cheques amount for the above period certainly the complainant is entitled for suitable compensation to the cheques amount as per Sec.80 of N.I. Act. Hence, in this case Rs.32,00,000/- is the cheques amount and interest at 9% p.a for Rs.6,72,000/- if calculated will amounts to Rs.38,72,000/- as the case is pending about 28 month and as such the total amount including interest will be of Rs.38,72,000/-.
SCCH-21 18 C.C. No.15025/202432. However, having regard to the facts of the case and the amount involved, there are no warranting circumstances to award the sentence of imprisonment as substantive sentence. Directing the accused to pay fine and also awarding compensation to the complainant would meet the ends of justice. But adequate default sentence shall have to be imposed to ensure the recovery of fine imposed to the accused. Therefore, the complainant is required to be suitably compensated as per Section 80 and 117 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and also appropriate in default sentence. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N. I. Act. Further accused No.2 and 3 are jointly and severally sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.38,72,000/- to the Complainant.
In default to pay fine, the accused No.2 and 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months each.
Further, acting U/Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., on recovery of entire fine amount, a sum of Rs.38,72,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.SCCH-21 19 C.C. No.15025/2024
The office is directed to supply a free copy of judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, same is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 10th day of October, 2025) Digitally signed by VIJAYKUMAR VIJAYKUMAR S HIREMATH S HIREMATH Date: 2025.10.13 11:37:51 +0530 (VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH) XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE:
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant:
P.W.1 : Sri. Anish Puthettu Chacko
List of documents marked on behalf of the
complainant:
Ex.P.1 to 6 : Cheques
Ex.P.7 to 12 : Bank endorsements
Ex.P13 : Certified copy of Minutes of meeting,
Ex.P14 : Tax invoice copy,
Ex.P15 : List of materials supplied to accused,
Ex.P16 : Legal Notice
Ex.P17 to 19 : Postal receipts,
Ex.P20 to 22 : Copies of complaint lodged before
Post Master, GPO, Bengaluru,
SCCH-21 20 C.C. No.15025/2024
Ex.P23 to 25 : Three Postal Track consignments,
Ex.P26 : Certificate U/sec.63 of Bharathiya
Sakshya Adhiniyama,
Ex.P27 : Board Resolution copy,
Ex.P28 : Copies of email Acknowledgment
Ex.P29 : Copy of Abstract for Janapriya
Hospital,
Ex.P30 : Bill,
Ex.P31 : Copy of Whats app message and
conversation,
Ex.P32 : Xerox copies of two cheques in one
sheet.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
DW.1 : Sri.Gangadhara Mallappa List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D1 &
Ex.D2 : Two bank statements.
Digitally signed
VIJAYKUMAR by VIJAYKUMAR
S S HIREMATH
HIREMATH Date: 2025.10.13
11:37:59 +0530
(VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH)
XVII ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes &
ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.