Bangalore District Court
Tata Capital Services Ltd vs Babu V on 8 October, 2025
1 CC No.12724/2022
KABC020324022022
IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, SMALL
CAUSES & ACJM AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025
Present: Smt. Gayathri S Kate,
B.Com., LL.B.
XVIII Addl JUDGE & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bangalore.
C.C.No.12724/2022
M/s Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.,
Registered office at Dr.V.B.Gandhi Marg,
Fort Mumbai-400 001,
Branch Office at No.82/1, 2nd Floor,
Krishna Towers,
Richmond Road,
Bengaluru-560 025,
Represented by its POA Holder,
Mr.Renu V.M. S/o Mallesh D.H.,
Aged about 39 years.
.....COMPLAINANT
/Versus/
Babu.V,
No.3, K.No.2874/186/01/03,
Muneshwara Layout,
3rd Cross, Kattigenahalli,
Bengaluru-560 064.
2 CC No.12724/2022
.......ACCUSED
Date of offence : 19.02.2020
Date of report : 06.09.2022
Arrest of the accused : Accused released on bail
Name of the complainant : TATA Capital Financial
Services Ltd.,
Date of recording of evidence : 31.10.2022
Offence alleged : S.25 and 27 of the Payment
and Settlement Systems
Act 2007 R/w 200 of CRPC.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable under section 25 and 27 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007.
2. Factual Matrix of the complainant's case is as follows:
The complainant is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and registered with the Reserve Bank of India under section 45-1A of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934 and classified as a Systemically Important Non- Deposit Accepting Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), carrying on the business of providing various financial services such as Car Loans, Personal Loans, Business Loans, Consumer finance, Home Loan, Investment, Insurance and etc for its various customers across the country for the benefit of their customers, on the basis of applications of the perspective 3 CC No.12724/2022 customers and upon executing require documents and declarations by the customers Mr.Renu.V.M. is the duly authorized representative under the Power of Attorney to represent on behalf of the complainant.
The complainant further states that, the accused had applied for sanction of personal loan fiance, the complainant also disburse the same as requested by the accused vide loan account No.TCFPL0485000010801369 and the accused have also agreed to abide by the terms and conditions and agreed to repay the loan amount in equated monthly installments without fail or any delay.
The complainant respectfully submits that, The accused has issued a NACH bearing No. (UMRN) HDFC2020055000001355 for a sum of Rs.99,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Bengaluru and assured the complainant that sufficient balance would be maintained in the bank account. Believing the words of the accused, the complainant has presented the said NACH for encashment through his Banker at HDFC Bank Ltd., Richmond Road, Bengaluru. The said NACH was returned with an endorsement "Account Blocked/Frozen" dated: 22.06.2022. Thus, the complainant has issued legal notice on 13.07.2022 to the accused calling upon the accused to repay the NACH amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice was duly served upon the accused. But, the accused did not repay amount. Hence, the complainant constrained to file present complaint 4 CC No.12724/2022 against the accused for the alleged offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The court has perused the complaint and annexed documents and has recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and marked 11 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11. As there were sufficient materials to constitute the offence, cognizance was taken and this court proceeded to pass an order for issuing process against the accused.
4. On finding a prima-facie case against the accused, he was summoned consequent to the service of summons, the accused has appeared through his counsel and offered bail. He was enlarged on bail. Then, the substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. The accused has not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. As per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India & Others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590, this court has treated the sworn statement of the complainant as complainant evidence. Then, in compliance with the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned ruling, the case was posted for defence evidence after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused was given sufficient opportunity to conduct cross of PW.1, and also to lead his defence evidence. Since accused has failed to conduct cross of PW.1 and defence evidence on his behalf, the said cross of PW.1 5 CC No.12724/2022 and defence evidence was taken as nil. Hence, the case was posted for arguments.
6. Heard learned counsel for complainant and the accused. Perused entire materials available on record.
7. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
POINTS i. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused has issued a NACH bearing No. (UMRN) HDFC2020055000001355 for Rs.99,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., towards discharge of his liability in favour of the complainant. On presentation for encashment through his banker HDFC Bank Ltd., Richmond, Bengaluru it was dishonoured for "Account Blocked/Frozen" on 22.06.2022, then in-spite of issuing demand notice to the accused in compliance of statutory requirement under Negotiable Instruments Act, accused did not repay the NACH amount, thereby he has committed an offence punishable under section 25 and 27 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007?
ii. What order or sentence?
8. My answer to above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:
6 CC No.12724/2022
REASONS
9. Point No.1: To substantiate the case of the
complainant, complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 11 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11. In support of his testimony, he has produced the certified copy of NACH as per Ex.P.1, Bank return memo as per Ex.P.2, Legal notice as per Ex.P.3, Postal Receipt as per Ex.P4, unserved RPAD cover as per Ex.P.5, certificate of section 65 B of Indian evidence Act as per Ex.P.6, certified copy of the power of attorney as per Ex.P.7, computer generated loan application as per Ex.P.8, computer generated loan agreement as per Ex.P.9, Computer generated re-payment schedule as per Ex.P.10 and computer generated statement of account as per Ex.P.11.
10. In the affidavit filed along with the complaint, the complainant has re-iterated the contents of complaint stating that he has lend money to the accused and about issuance of NACH by the accused towards repayment of legally enforceable debt. When the testimony of the complainant and supporting documents like Ex.P-1 and Ex.P2 are looked into, prima-facie appears that, the accused has issued NACH in discharge of his legally enforceable debt and when the same was present, it was bounced due to Account Blocked/Frozen at accused bank account. The Ex.P-3 is the demand notice which was issued by the complainant to the accused, in compliance with statutory requirement under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, calling upon the accused to repay the NACH amount. On 7 CC No.12724/2022 perusing Ex.P4 and 5, the demand notice was addressed to the accused and the same was duly served upon the accused.
11. On perusal of the documents relied by the complainant shall reveal that, statutory requirements under section 138 of NI Act is complied with. Thus, the complainant relied on the statutory presumptions enshrined under section 118 R/W Sec. 139 of NI act. Section 118 of NI Act reads as here:
"That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument, negotiated, or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration".
12. Further, Section 139 of NI Act speaks about presumption in favour of a holder. It reads as here:
"It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, or the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability".
13. Combined reading of above said sections raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that, he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. However, it is settled principle of law that, the presumption available under section 139 of NI act can be 8 CC No.12724/2022 rebutted by the accused by raising a probable defence.
14. Presentation of the NACH in question for encashment and dishonour of the NACH for the reason "Account Blocked/Frozen" is not disputed as it is a matter of record proved by the return memo at Ex.P-2. Therefore, it has been proved that, the NACH was presented within the validity period and dishounoured by the banker of the accused. It is also not disputed that, the NACH was issued by the accused and was drawn on his bank account as he has not denied his signature on the NACH.
15. It is pertinent to note here that, though the accused has appeared before this court has not chosen to contest the case and though has claimed defence on his behalf. When such being the case an adverse inference has to be drawn against the accused and this court has to presumed that accused has admitted the allegation made in the complainant.
16. In K. Nagaraj V/s P.N. Lingesh Babu reported in 2022(1) KCCR 63 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has opined that:
"The defence taken up by the accused contending that, the cheque in question was issued to the complainant in a previous loan transaction and the same has been misused by the complainant is found only to be a mere suggestion without proof, without any 9 CC No.12724/2022 corroboration. Thus, the same cannot rebut the presumption that has been already formed in favour of the complainant".
17. In this case, plea of the accused was recorded asper Section 251 of Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty. Asper section 251 of Cr.P.C, the accused has to state about her defence. Here accept pleading not guilty, the accused has not stated her defence at the time of recording of Plea. Asper the direction reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528 (Indian Bank Association V/s Union of India), criminal pet.NO.8943/2010 M/S Mess Transgare Pvt. Vs Dr.R.Parvathreddy and in Rajesh Agarwals Case, wherein, it is held that, accused cannot simply say "I am innocent" or " I pleaded not guilty". Here also the accused not stated any defence. She simply pleaded not guilty. Inspite of that, this court has given an opportunity to the accused to prove the case but the accused has failed to rebut the presumption.
18. Therefore, the complainant has successfully proved that, accused has issued NACH in question in discharge of legally enforceable debt. Per contra, the accused has failed to rebut the evidence of the complainant. When such being the case, it shall be presumed that, the complainant has received the NACH in discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability.
19. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, it 10 CC No.12724/2022 is crystal clear that the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. Per contra, the accused has failed to rebut the evidence of the complainant. Accordingly, this court proceeds to answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
20. Point No.2: The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent decision in M/s Meters and Instruments Pvt., Ltd., V/s Kanchana Mehtha reported in (2018) 1 SCC 560 held that "the object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the Court.
21. Therefore, having regard to loan amount, time from which it is lying with the accused, I am of the opinion that, if accused is directed to pay fine of Rs.1,05,000/- and out of that, amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 357 of Cr.P.C. for suffering monetary loss, would meet the ends of justice. Hence, this court proceed to pass the following::
ORDER In exercise of powers conferred under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay fine 11 CC No.12724/2022 of Rs.1,05,000 /- and in default she shall undergo simple imprisonment for the term of 6 months.
Out of fine amount of Rs.1,05,000/- a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant towards compensation under section 357 of Cr.P.C. and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to state as defraying expenses.
It is made clear that in view of Section 421(1) of Cr.P.C. even if the accused undergoes the default sentence imposed above, he is not absolved of liability to pay the fine amount.
Office is directed to supply free copy of the judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this 8 th day of October-2025 ) (Smt. Gayathri.S. Kate) XVIII Addl.Judge and ACJM., Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES I. List of witness examined on behalf of the complainant:-
PW-1 : Sri.Renu V.M., II. List of Witness examined on behalf of the Defence:-
NIL III. List of documents marked on behalf of the complainant:-
Ex.P-1 : Certified copy of NACH
Ex.P-2 : Bank return memo
Ex.P-3 : Legal Notice
Ex.P-4 : Postal receipt
12 CC No.12724/2022
Ex.P-5 : Unserved RPAD cover
Ex.P-6 : Certificate of section 65 B of Indican
evidence Act
Ex.P-7 : Certified copy of the power of attorney
Ex.P-8 : Computer generated loan application
Ex.P-9 : Computer generated loan agreement
Ex.P-10 : Computer generated Re-payment schedule
Ex.P-11 : Computer generated statement of account
IV. List of documents marked on behalf of for the Defence:-
NIL (Smt. Gayathri.S. Kate) XVIII Addl.Judge and ACJM., Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by GAYATHRI GAYATHRI S KATE S KATE Date:
2025.10.24 15:26:03 +0530