Bangalore District Court
H Gnanadev vs Rohit .V on 1 August, 2025
KABC020250462019
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES & ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU (SCCH-08)
DATED THIS THE 01st DAY OF AUGUST - 2025
PRESENT: Smt. Kannika M.S.
M.A, LL.B.,
XII ADDL. SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
C.C. No.5575/2019
Complainant : Sri. H. Gnanadev,
S/o. Late. Hanumappa,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No.1146, 9th Cross,
J.P. Nagar 2nd Phase,
Bengaluru-560 078.
(By Smt. B. Saraswathi, Advocate)
:Vs:
Accused : Sri. Rohit V.,
S/o. Viji,
R/at No.1119/A, 11th Main Road,
West of Chord Road,
10th 'D' Cross,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Ward No.67, Nagapura,
Bengaluru-79.
(By Sri. V. Suresh, Advocate)
SCCH-8 2 C.C.No.5575/2019
Date of complaint : 30.09.2019
Date of commencement of
Evidence : 30.09.2019
Offence charged : Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act
Date of Judgment : 01.08.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty
JUDGEMENT
This is a private complaint filed U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the alleged offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that:
The accused and complainant were known to each other for several years. Having acquaintance with the complainant, accused approached him and requested the complainant for handloan of Rs.5,00,000/- to improve his school viz., Itsy Bitsy International Pre-School and to clear his debts and also for his family urgent financial needs and accused assured to repay the SCCH-8 3 C.C.No.5575/2019 same within one year with interest. Hence, complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cash on 01.11.2017 to the accused. After lapse of stipulated period, complainant approached accused to return the loan amount, but accused went on seeking time by giving lame excuses and finally to discharge his loan due to the complainant, the accused issued a post dated cheque bearing No.992203 dated 29.07.2019 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru, in favor of the complainant. As per the instruction of the accused, complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker Karur Vysya Bank, J.P. Nagar Branch, Bengaluru, but the said cheque came to be dishonored and returned with shara "Funds Insufficient". Hence he has issued legal notice on 17.08.2019 through RPAD to the accused address and the same was served. The accused has not paid the amount, and hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Court.SCCH-8 4 C.C.No.5575/2019
3. Cognizance was taken and sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Since there were sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, the summons was issued to accused. accused appeared through his counsel and got enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation was framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, he denied the same and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for complainant's evidence.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked the 16 documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 and and closed his evidence. During cross examination of PW.1, the learned Counsel for accused got marked the photocopies of bank challans as Ex.D2 to Ex.D12 through confrontation. After closure of complainant's side evidence, the statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C was prepared and read over to the accused, he has denied the same. The accused has adduced evidence and examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D.1(a) & (b) documents. Thereafter, case was posted for SCCH-8 5 C.C.No.5575/2019 arguments.
5. Both the parties have not led their arguments. Perused the entire records in this case.
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, the accused has issued the cheque bearing bearing No.992203 dated 29.07.2019 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru, for discharge of loan borrowed by him and the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment, but the said cheque returned with an endorsement as "Funds Insufficient" ?
2. Whether the complainant further proves that he has got issued the legal notice dated:
17.08.2019 to the accused demanding the cheque amount from the Accused within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the said legal notice is duly served on the accused, but the accused have failed to make the payment of the cheque amount well within the prescribed time and there by committed an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act?
3. What order?SCCH-8 6 C.C.No.5575/2019
7. The finding of this court on the above points is as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.3 : As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
POINTS NO.1 & 2:
8. Since these points are interconnected, they are taken up together to avoid repetition of facts.
9. According the complaint, accused approached complainant and requested handloan of Rs.5,00,000/- for their financial commitments, hence complainant paid the said amount to him. Thereafter, towards discharge of liability, the accused issued a post dated cheque bearing bearing No.992203 dated 29.07.2019 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru for discharge his debt. As per instruction of accused, presented the cheque same for realization, the said cheque dishonored and returned with shara "Funds Insufficient" on 06.08.2019, hence SCCH-8 7 C.C.No.5575/2019 he issued the legal notice to the accused on 17.08.2019 through RPAD and the same was served. The accused have not paid the amount, hence the complaint.
10. In support of her contention, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief wherein reiterated the averments of the complaint and examined as PW.1 and got marked EX P1 to P16 documents. Ex.P1 is the cheque dated 29.07.2019, Ex.P1(a) is the signature of accused. Ex.P2 is the bank endorsement which shows that cheque is dishonored for the reason Funds Insufficient on 06.08.2019. Ex.P3 is the legal notice dated 17.08.2019. Ex.P4 is the postal receipt, Ex.P5 is the Track consignment, Ex.P6 to 8 are the Bank Statements, Ex.P6(a) is the transaction related to Ex.P6, Ex.P7(a) to (c) are the transactions related to Ex.P7, Ex.P9 to 13 are the Rental Agreements, Ex.P.14 and 15 are the computerized sale deeds dated 23.06.2016 and 08.07.2016 respectively accompanied with the Certificate under Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.P16 is the downloaded copy of Order dated 05.10.2016 SCCH-8 8 C.C.No.5575/2019 issued by Chithradurga District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamps (DCRN).
11. On careful perusal of material placed on record Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing bearing No.992203 dated 29.07.2019 goes to show that, accused has issued cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant has presented the same for encashment but the said cheque was dishonored and returned for the reason as Funds Insufficient as per Ex.P2 on 06.08.2019. Subsequently, complainant has issued a legal notice to the accused as per Ex.P3 through RPAD on 17.08.2019. The said RPAD was served as per the Ex.P5 which was the postal track consignment. Thereafter complainant has filed this case against the accused on 30.09.2019. Hence, complainant has complied the mandatory requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act.
12. The accused has taken defense at the time of recording of plea that, he had taken an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- from the complainant through RTGS and cheque SCCH-8 9 C.C.No.5575/2019 belongs to his account and his signature. In order to prove his defence examined himself as DW.1 and produced the account statement as Ex.D1 and relevant entries are marked as Ex.D1(a) and (b) and also in the cross-examination of the Pw1, counsel of accused taken various defence and also marked Ex.D2 to 12 photo copies of receipts by confronted to the witness.
13. The accused in his chief examination has deposed that, the complainant and himself are friends. He has requested the complainant twice to lend Rs.3,00,000/-. The complainant transferred Rs.2,76,000/- twice after deduction of Rs.24,000/- each totally Rs.48,000/- to his wife's account. At that time, towards the security of the loan amount, he and his wife have given signed blank stamp paper and also 8 blank cheques. They have totally remitted Rs.5,52,000/- to the complainant on various dates. He has almost paid SCCH-8 10 C.C.No.5575/2019 Rs.2,00,000/- through cash. The complainant has misused the cheques and filed false case against him.
14. The complainant filed the complaint against the accused alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence Section 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act are set out herein below for convenience:
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 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--SCCH-8 11 C.C.No.5575/2019
(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;
(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 this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
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.
15. The object of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to infuse credibility to negotiable instruments including cheque and to encourage and promote SCCH-8 12 C.C.No.5575/2019 the use of negotiable instruments including cheque in financial transactions. The penal provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act is intended to be a deterrent to callous issuance of negotiable instruments such as cheque without serious intention to honour the promise implicit in the issuance of the same.
16. The date of cheque is 29.07.2019, and the complainant presented the cheque within time on which it is drawn. Subsequently the complainant issued a notice through his advocate within the prescribed period as per Ex.P3 after receipt of the endorsement from the bank. Thereafter the complainant filed the complaint within time as contemplated U/Sec 138 of NI Act.
17. The next question is whether the amount mentioned in the cheque is for a legally recoverable debt or for other liability. The interpretation of the expression for discharge of any debt or other liability occurring in section 138 of N.I. Act is significant and decisive in matter. The explanation appended to SCCH-8 13 C.C.No.5575/2019 section 138 express the meaning of the expression debt or other liability for the purpose of section 138. This expression means a legally enforceable or other liability. Section 138 treats dishonour of cheque as an offence if the cheque have been issued in discharge of debt or any other liability. The explanation leaves no manner of doubt that to attract an offence under section 138 there should be legally enforceable debt or other liability. As per section 118 of N.I. Act there is a presumption as to consideration, as to date , as to time of acceptance, as to time of transfer etc until the contrary is proved. As per section 139 of N.I. Act there is a presumption in favour of the complainant that the cheque were issued for discharge of debt or other liability. The said presumption is a legal presumption and it is in favour of the holder of cheque. It is open to the accused to rebut the said presumption.
18. It is the mandate of Section 139 that there is a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that the holder received the cheque of the nature referred to in section SCCH-8 14 C.C.No.5575/2019 138, for the discharge in whole or in part or other liability. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under section 139 of N.I. Act is a rebuttable presumption. However the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the drawer of the cheque/accused. In Hiten P Dalal V/s Bratindranath Banerjee reported in 2001 (6) SCC 16 The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that both Section 138 and 139 require that the court shall presume the liability of the drawer of the cheque for the amounts for which the cheque are drawn.
Section 139 introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof and shifts the onus on the accused. The presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from presumption of facts.
In Laxmi Dyechem V/s State of Gujarat and others reported in 2012 (13) SCC 375 The Hon'ble Supreme court reiterated that in view of section 139 it has to be presumed that a cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or other liability but SCCH-8 15 C.C.No.5575/2019 the presumption could be rebutted by adducing evidence. The burden of proof was however on the person who wanted to rebut the presumption.
In K.N. Beena V/s. Muniyappan and Anothers reported in 2001(8) SCC 458, the Hon'ble Supreme court held that in view of the provisions of section 139 of the N.I.Act read with section 118 thereof the court had to presume that the cheque had been issued for discharging a debt or liability. The said presumption was rebuttable and could be rebutted by the accused by proving the contrary. The accused has to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.
19. The proposition of law which emerges from the judgments referred to above is that the onus to rebut the presumption under section 139 that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused and the fact that the cheque might be post dated does not absolve the drawer of a cheque of the penal consequences of section 138 of N.I. Act. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the SCCH-8 16 C.C.No.5575/2019 N.I. Act including in particular, sections 20, 87 and 139 makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. 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 is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of section 138 would be attracted.
20. The accused main defence is that he has borrowed loan of 3 lakhs on two times, complainant has transferred Rs.2,76,000/- to his wife's account by deducting the interest amount of Rs.24,000/- each, at that time he his wife have given one blank stamp paper and 8 cheques as a security and then he had been deposited Rs.5,52,000/- on various dates to the account of the complainant and also paid Rs.2,00,000/- by cash. But the said say of the accused was seriously disputed by the complainant and PW1 has denied the said suggestions. To SCCH-8 17 C.C.No.5575/2019 prove the said defence accused has relied on Ex.D1 to D12, complainant has not disputed the transfer of amount through RTGS to the account of the accused and he has not denied the entries shown in the Ex.D1. But he has denied the Ex.D2 to 12 which are the colour photo copies of bank challan and receipts. These documents were marked through confront to the PW.1 by showing the account number on those documents, complainant admits only the account number shown in the said documents as his account number and also denied the said deposits made by the accused. When the complainant has denied the deposits it is the duty of the accused to prove that he has deposited. On perusal of those documents some are bank challans and some are the receipts of cash deposit in ATM Machines/Cash deposit machines. Those documents does not spell about who had transferred the amount and it does not contain the signs and signature of the person who has deposited the amount to the complainant's account. Accused person in his cross- examination has deposed that " it is not true to suggest that I SCCH-8 18 C.C.No.5575/2019 do not have originals of Ex.D2 to 12. I do not know whether I have submitted the originals of cash receipts". But the accused has not produced the original receipts for the reasons best to known to the accused.
21. The accused further defence is that complainant has no capacity to lend the loan of Rs.5,00,000/-, on the other hand complainant has produced his Bank Statements, Rent agreements and also Sale deeds, to show his financial capacity and those were marked as Ex.P6 to 15. On perusal of the said documents it is clear that there was sufficient balance in the said accounts and some amount has been withdrawn on the dates which are stated in the complaint. When such being the case, it can be easily presumed that the complainant was having financial stability to lend a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The accused has not placed any documents to show that the complainant is not having sufficient income to pay the amount. The accused counsel cross examined the PW.1 at length but nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW.1 to prove the SCCH-8 19 C.C.No.5575/2019 defence taken by him. According to the complainant accused seeking financial assistance to improve his school viz., Itsy Bitsy International Pre-school. In the cross-examination of the DW1/accused complainant has elicited the same from the mouth of the Dw1, he admits that he was running the said Pre- School from 2013 to 2019 and then he closed due to some problems.
22. Further defence of the accused is that notice is not been served, complainant has given notice to wrong address and he was not residing in the address shown in the Ex.P3. Ex.P5 establishes that the notice issued to the accused was served on him. For the sake of arguments, if we presume that the notice is not served on the accused, then Section 27 of General Clauses Act helps the complainant which says that 'the sender is required to send the article by mentioning the correct address and what the sendee does is irrelevant.' The accused shifted his house to some other address. He has not produced any document to show he was not residing in the address SCCH-8 20 C.C.No.5575/2019 mentioned in the cause title. So the address mentioned in the cause title is the last known address and the complainant sent the notice to the last known address which is sufficient. Whenever any cheque was issued, it is the duty of the person who issued cheque to given the present address the moment when he shifted his house. Hence, the say of the accused that notice is not served on him cannot be believable.
23. When notice was duly served and he was healthy, he has not made any efforts to issue reply. When he kept quite regarding the notice of the complainant and not issued the reply notice after service of notice, the complainant has no need to prove his financial capacity. At this stage this Court has relied on decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tedhi Sing V/s Narayan Das Mahant(Tedi Singh) 2022 SCC Online SC302, in this case Court held that, "Where the accused has failed to send reply to the legal notice, challenging the financial capacity of the complainant, at the first instance, complainant need not prove his financial capacity".
SCCH-8 21 C.C.No.5575/2019The said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
24. Accused main defence is that, he has borrowed only Rs.6,00,000/- in that complainant has transferred only Rs.5,52,000/- after deduction of the interest amount, at that time he and his wife have given signed blank stamp paper and 8 cheques as a security for the said amount. Thereafter he has repaid the same on various dates by deposit the amount to complainant's account. To prove this aspect he has relied on Ex.D2 to 12 which are the color prints/photo copies. If we presume for a moment that he has paid the said amount as per those documents, on calculation of amount it is not the same stated by the accused and he has not answered why he has not produced the original receipts and challans. When he has relied on those documents to prove the admissibility and genuinity of those documents stands on the shoulder of the accused but he has not made any efforts to prove those documents. Therefore those documents are not admissible under eye of law. SCCH-8 22 C.C.No.5575/2019
25. According to the accused he had given cheques in the year 2017 and he repaid the amount in the year 2017, after repayment of amount demanded for return of cheques, but complainant has not returned the same and misused and filed false case against him. When the accused has taken up the above said specific plea, then the onus of proof under Section 102 Indian Evidence Act shifts on the accused to demonstrate the same. But except oral testimony the accused has not produced any document. This court is not persuaded to accept the contention of the accused. Assuming for a moment, hypothetically only for the sake of appreciation of evidence, if the accused would have knowledge about the cheque which was given to the complainant, what prevented the accused to call upon the complainant to return the cheque. The accused would have at-least sent a legal notice calling upon the complainant to give back the cheques or given stop payment instruction to her bank. The evidence of DW.1 discloses that the accused has not taken any legal action whatsoever known SCCH-8 23 C.C.No.5575/2019 to law calling upon the complainant to give back the cheques which he has taken as a security. No ordinary prudent man will sleep over his rights from 2017 when his cheques are not given after repayment of loan. Without there being any documentary or independent oral evidence, mere contention taken up in the cross-examination of PW.1 does not avail any benefit to the accused. Hence, this contention urged by the accused is also not tenable in the eye of law.
26. If there was a really transaction as alleged by the accused then he would have certainly taken action against the complainant. In this regard it is relevant to rely on the decision reported in AIR 2023 SC 5018 in the case of Rajesh Jain V/s Ajay Singh, wherein it was held as here under :
Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has SCCH-8 24 C.C.No.5575/2019 the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the Court can straightaway proceed to convict him, subject to satisfaction of the other ingredients of Section 138. If the Court finds that the evidential burden placed on the accused has been discharged, the complainant would be expected to prove the said fact independently, without taking aid of the presumption. The Court would then take an overall view based on the evidence on record and decide accordingly.
The principles laid down therein aptly applicable to the case on hand. In the instant case on hand also the accused has taken a similar defence that the complainant has misused the cheque, which was taken as a security in the year 2017 but the accused failed to initiate any legal action in this regard. The accused however failed to provide any substantial evidence or to file police complaint regarding alleged misusage of cheque. In contrast the case of the complainant remained consistent and SCCH-8 25 C.C.No.5575/2019 the signature of the accused on cheque was unchallenged, allowing presumption has to legally enforceable debt to take effect. To trigger the presumption mere admission of the drawer's signature without admitting the execution of the entire contents in the cheque is sufficient. The said principles has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 in the case of Birsingh Vs. Mukhesh Kumar. When such is the case the principles therein aptly applicable to the case on hand.
27. Further on the same point of law it is relevant to rely on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of APS FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2020 SC 945 held regarding presumption is concerned that when the accused admits issuance of cheque, her signature on cheque and that cheque in question was issued for discharging the liability, there is always a presumption in favour of the complainant that there exists legally recoverable debt or liability. SCCH-8 26 C.C.No.5575/2019
28. In the instant case, the accused has not raised any probable defence. Hence, in such an event the accused has not rebutted the presumption as contemplated under Sec.139 of N.I.Act. The accused though disputed financial capacity of the complainant, but the complainant had demonstrated his financial capacity. The accused also not disputed the signature in Ex.P.1. Therefore, it is clear as a cloud less sky that presumption envisaged under Sec.118 and 139 of N.I.Act has not been rebutted by the accused.
29. Further the signature on the cheque was admitted by the accused. The discussions made supra discloses that the accused failed to demonstrate that, he has given the Ex.P1 cheque as a security to the transaction between the accused and the complainant. In this regard it is relevant to rely on a decision reported in Hon'ble Apex court reported in 2015(4) KCCR 2881 (SC), held in between "Vasanthakumar V/s Vijayakumari, wherein it is held that:
SCCH-8 27 C.C.No.5575/2019
"Accused not disputing issuance of cheque and his signature on it. Plea that it was issued long back as security and that loan amount was repaid".
And also relied on Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2019 SC 2446 (Bir Singh V/S Mukesh Kumar) wherein the Hon'ble court held that:
"Negotiable Instrument Act(26 of 1881), S.138, S.139- Presumption as to legally enforceable debt- Rebuttal- signed blank cheque- If voluntarily presented to payee, towards payment, payee may fill up amount and other pariculars and it in itself would not invalidate cheque- Onus would still be on accused to prove that cheque was not issued for discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence."
30. Another decision reported in 2021(1) DCR 625 between M/s. Kalamani Tex and another Vs P. Balasubramanian, wherein it is held that:
"Since signature on cheque was admitted and presumption raised upon accused was not sufficiently rebutted by accused, so passing acquittal is unjustified". SCCH-8 28 C.C.No.5575/2019
The aforesaid decisions are aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
31. The accused has not made any efforts to examine any other person who had knowledge about the loan transaction in between him and complainant, to prove that the Ex.P1 cheque was given as security and loan was repaid, then cheque was misused. The accused also failed to obtain favourable answer from the mouth of PW.1 to rebut the presumptions. Though there are some small discrepancies in the evidence of PW.1, that itself will not falsifies the case of the complainant. Merely non-production of documents to show his financial capacity does not mean that the accused rebutted the presumption. How the cheque gone to the hands of complainant if he has not given an amount to the accused is not culled out from the mouth of PW.1. Even for the sake of arguments if we believe that cheques were taken by complainant as security and misused by him, then why the accused kept silently without SCCH-8 29 C.C.No.5575/2019 taken any legal action to recover the cheques are all remained unanswered.
32. The Ex.P1 cheque was dishonored as per Ex.P2 and the complainant issued notice as per Ex.P3, thereafter he filed complaint. Hence the complainant by producing documents able to prove that the accused towards discharge of liability issued cheque which was dishonored when the same was presented for encashment. Accordingly, I answered the Point No. 1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
33. Point No.3: In view of the foregoing reasons, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable Under section 138 of N.I. Act. As per section 138 of N.I. Act the court may punish the accused with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or both. The N.I. Act is a special statute and as such section 29 of C.R.P.C does not come in the way to SCCH-8 30 C.C.No.5575/2019 impose fine of more than 10,000/- by the Magistrate. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following:
: ORDER:
The accused is found guilty of the offence punishable Under section 138 of N.I. Act.
Acting under section 255(2) of C.R.P.C the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,10,000/-, in default the accused shall under go for simple imprisonment for one year.
If the accused deposited the fine amount then the complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation U/Sec 357 of Cr.P.C and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- is remitted to the state.
It is made clear that in view of Sec.421(1) of Cr.P.C even if the accused undergoes the default sentence imposed above, he is not absolved of liability to the fine amount. The bail bond and surety bond stands as cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 1st day of August 2025) (Kannika M.S.) XII Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.SCCH-8 31 C.C.No.5575/2019
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for complainant :-
P.W.1 : Sri H. Gnanadev List of documents marked for complainant:-
Exhibits Particulars of the Document Ex.P1 Cheque Ex.P1(a) Signature of Accused Ex.P2 Bank Endorsement Ex.P3 Legal notice dated 17.08.2019 Ex.P4 Postal receipt Ex.P5 Track consignment Ex.P6 to 8 Bank statements Ex.P6(a) The transaction related to Ex.P6
Ex.P7(a) to (c) The transactions related to Ex.P7 Ex.P9 to 11 & 13 Rental Agreements Ex.P12 Lease Agreement Ex.P14 & 15 Properties Sale deed along with Certificate under Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.16 Downloaded copy of Order dated 05.10.2016 issued by Chitradurga SCCH-8 32 C.C.No.5575/2019 District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamps (DCRN) List of witnesses examined for accused:
DW.1 : Sri Rohit V.
List of documents marked for accused:-
Ex.D1 : Account Statement
Ex.D1(a) & (b) : The transactions related to Ex.D.1
Ex.D2 to 12 : Account numbers in Xerox receipts
(Kannika M.S.)
XII Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACJM, Bengaluru.