Bangalore District Court
Jalajakshi S vs Krishnaveni D on 13 March, 2026
KABC030192832022
Presented on : 09-03-2022
Registered on : 09-03-2022
Decided on : 13-03-2026
Duration : 4 years, 0 months, 4 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ACJM, BENGALURU
-: Present :-
Smt.Asha K.S., B.A.L, L.L.B.,
XXIII ACJM, BENGALURU,
C.C. No.7222/2022
Dated: the 13th day of March, 2026
Complainant :- Smt.Jalajakshi,
W/o.Shivakumar.S.,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at No.41, 5th Cross,
Kengunte Circle, Honnappa Layout,
Malathalli Lake Road,
Near SLN Ceramic Shop,
Bangalore-56.
(By Sri.G.Vijayakumar., Advocate)
-V/s -
Accused :- Smt.Krishnaveni.D.,
D/o.Dharmalingam,
Aged about 41 years,
No.1145, 3rd Floor, 1 Main,
2nd Cross, Manuvana,
Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560040.
And also at:
No.377/H, 9th J Main Road,
Vijayanagar, Bangalore-40.
2
C.C.No.7222/2022
Office Address:
Office Admin.
Coolrich Solution,
14, Ground and I Floor,
12th Cross, Near Poornapragna
Samudhaya Bhavana,
Krishnaiah Layout, Uttarahalli,
Bangalore-61.
(By Sri.Krishna Naik., Advocate)
Offences complained of U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the Accused Not Pleaded guilty.
Final Order Accused is Convicted
Date of Order 13.03.2026.
Digitally signed
ASHA by ASHA K S
Date:
KS 2026.03.16
17:41:56 +0530
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the commission of an offense punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-
"The accused and complainant are known to each other from several years. The accused had approached the complainant for financial assistance of Rs.5 lakhs on 3 C.C.No.7222/2022 01.02.2020 for construction of house. The complainant also agreed paid said amount on 09.02.2020 through cheque and cash. The accused has assured to return the said amount within one year. Thereafter when the complainant has demanded for repayment of said amount, the accused had issued cheque bearing No.680049, dated 29.10.2021 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Vijayanagar branch, Bengaluru in favour of complainant. On presentation of said cheque by the complainant through her banker Bank of Baroda, Vijayanagar Branch. The said cheque has been returned for the reason "Funds Insufficient" on 01.11.2021.
3. Thereafter the complainant has got issued legal notice to the accused on 11.11.2021 and same has been served on 12.11.2021. Thereafter the accused has not chosen to issue reply notice and not paid amount.
4. After filing of complaint, cognizance was taken. In pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the Court and she had enlarged on bail. Substance of accusation has been framed and contents of its read over to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and she claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove her case complainant has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 10 documents at Ex.P.1 to 10 on behalf of the complainant. After closure of 4 C.C.No.7222/2022 complainant evidence, accused has been examined as under
section 313 of Cr.P.C and opted to lead evidence. Accused has been examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.9.
6. Thereafter arguments heard and perused the Record.
7. The following points arise for my determination: -
1) Whether the complainant has made out all the ingredients of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to prove the guilt of accused?
2) What Order?
8. On hearing the arguments and on perusal written arguments and the materials placed on record, my answers to: -
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative Point No.2:- As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
9. It is the case of complainant is that the accused is known to the complainant since many years. The accused had approached the complainant and borrowed amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant. To discharge the said liability, the accused had issued cheque. Ex.P.1. On presentation said cheque has been returned for the reason "Funds Insufficient". After service of notice the accused has not issued reply notice.
5C.C.No.7222/2022
10. To attract Sec.138 of NI Act it is necessary to fulfill the ingredients of said provision. I have carefully perused the section 138 of of N.I.Act, it has three ingredients which are as follows:
1. That there is a Legally enforceable debt,
2. That the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or any part of any debt or other liability which pre-supposes a legally enforceable debt.
3. That the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds.
11. Keeping in view the ingredients of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Now I proceed to reproduce the Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I.Act here itself.
12. Sec.139 of N.I.Act reads as follows "Presumes in favor of holder, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Sec.138, for the discharge, in whole or in part or any debt or other liability".
13. Sec.118(a) reads as follows "Presumption as to Negotiable Instrument Act until the contrary is proved, the following presumption 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 endorse, negotiate or transferred, was 6 C.C.No.7222/2022 accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration".
14. Keeping in view of the ingredients and provision of Sec.139 and 118(a) of N.I.Act, now I proceed to discuss the documents in the case. I am of the opinion that I need not repeat the entire case of the complaint once again since I have already stated the same at the beginning of this judgment.
15. To prove her case, the complainant has examined herself as PW-1 and produced 10 documents and same has been marked as Ex.P.1 to P.10. The cheque as per Ex.P.1 and signature thereon as per Ex.P.1(a). Bank memo as per Ex.P.2. Legal Notice as per Ex.P.3. Postal Receipts as per Ex.P.4 to P.6. Postal covers as per Ex.P.7 and P.8. Postal acknowledgment as per Ex.P.9. Bank Statement as per Ex.P.10.
16. In the cross-examination of PW-1, she has deposed that she is doing tailoring and saree business from 15 years. She knows the accused from 2021. She had two bank account. She has not obtained any document from the accused, at the time of alleged payment. As on 09.02.2020, there was a amount of Rs.40,062/- in her account. Karthikashree is her friend and Karthikashree working in housing finance. She does not know that whether Karthikashree was collecting documents, at the time of 7 C.C.No.7222/2022 granting loan or not. Accused only filled the cheque. On 29.10.2021 accused had issued cheque to her. She has saving her income in the home only. She was purchasing sarees in wholesale market. Accused was also purchasing sarees from her. She does not know about Uma and her husband. Now also she is in contact with Karthikashree. She had transferred chit amount to the accused. Accused had borrowed amount for construction of house and not for any other purpose. Ex.P.1 cheque has been written in three different pens. She denied other suggestions.
17. The accused has denied the case of complainant and to prove her case she has examined as DW-1. She has deposed that she and complainant are friends from several years. The complainant has requested to give sarees to her to start saree business. She took time to give sarees. On 25.09.2015, the complainant only prepared one agreement and she also signed to said agreement. Thereafter she used to purchase sarees from Kancheepuram and giving to complainant. Due to language problem, complainant was not coming to Kancheepuram for purchasing sarees. Till 2019 complainant was paying amount through cash to avoid income tax issues. After 2019 she has started to issue bills and complainant also started to pay amount through online. Complainant and Karthikashree also friends and Karthikashree and she were working in the same office. In the year 2020, accused has informed that she used to 8 C.C.No.7222/2022 sanction loans in the banks. For that reason she had kept passport, pan card, Aadhar card, salary slip, cheque book and appointment order in the file of office. After two days, she came to know that file was misplaced. In the year 2020- 2021 she had received message from bank with regard cheque bounce. Immediately she had called the complainant but complainant was not responded properly. In support of her case, she has produced documents and same has been marked as Ex.D.1 to D.9. Ex.D.1 to D.6 are bills. Cheque dated 24.12.2021 is D.7. MOU is D.8. Salary Certificate as Ex.D.9.
18. In the cross-examination of DW-1, she has deposed that from 2014 she knows the complainant. She and complainant were doing saree business. Earlier she was doing tailoring work. In the year 2020 she had borrowed amount of Rs.5 lakhs from the complainant. Ex.P.1 cheque belongs to her but signature not belongs to her. No notice has been served to her. Address shown in the Ex.P.9 postal acknowledgment is belongs to her. The original agreement is with the complainant. Karthikashree also filed complaint against her. But she does not know the case number. The complainant has paid amount of Rs.1,94,000/- on 10.02.2020, Rs.4,91,000/- on 11.02.2020 through cheques and Rs.2,91,000/- through cash. Karthikashree is her far relative. She kept her documents in the office but not 9 C.C.No.7222/2022 handed over to the complainant. She has not lodged any complaint against the Karthikashree. She does not know about the contents of Ex.P.3. She has not produced documents to show that she lost her cheques. Her passport and other documents are with her only. Airport officials will allow, if we have secured passport, pan card, aadhar card etc., documents. Ex.D.8 is not belongs to complainant but signature belongs to complainant's relative. She denied the suggestion that certificate is not in accordance with law and denied the other suggestions.
19. As per complainant accused had borrowed amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and to discharge the same, the accused had issued Ex.P.1 cheque. Here there is no dispute in signatures but disputed the issuance of cheque. The complainant has produced documents and same has been marked as Ex.P.1 to 10. Ex.P.1 cheque, Ex.P.2 memo Ex.P.3 is a legal notice, Ex.P.4 to P.6 Postal receipts, Postal Covers as Ex.P.7 and P.8. Postal acknowledgment as per Ex.P.9 and Bank Statement as per Ex.P.10. Admittedly both parties are known to each other. Here the question is whether accused has rebutted the presumption or not. The accused has an option to rebut the presumption by way of eliciting truth from PW-1 in the cross-examination, by way of entering into witness box and he can utilize materials available on record. In this case the accused has entered into witness box and cross-examined the PW-1 also.
10C.C.No.7222/2022
20. As per accused she used to purchase sarees at Chickpet and Kancheepuram in wholesale and doing saree business and she was also giving sarees to the complainant. For that complainant was paying amount to the accused. Initially complainant was paying amount through cash and thereafter complainant has started to pay amount through online. The accused has taken further contention that her documents and other things have been kept in the office and there misplaced the documents and complainant has filed false case against her. The complainant's case is that she lent amount of Rs.5 lakhs and to discharge said liability only accused had issued cheque in favour of complainant. Admittedly both were doing saree business and there is no dispute in that aspect. Here the question is whether the accused has proved that complainant has paid amount pertaining to sarees and there was no legally recoverable debt.
21. To prove her defernce accused has produced nine documents and same has been marked as Ex.D.1 to D.9. Ex.D.1 is mutual agreement pertaining to the year 2015 and also produced receipts produced by the Sri Sarvalakshmi Silks and Kancheepuram hand looms. Ex.D.4 also another receipt issued by Vannamayil Fashions. Ex.D.5 also receipt issued by Indira Wholesale Market Chickpet. Ex.D.6 also another receipt. Ex.D.2 to D.6 pertaining to 2019. Ex.D.7 is certified copy of cheque. Ex.D.8 is MOU. Ex.D.9 is Salary 11 C.C.No.7222/2022 Certificate. Ex.D.8 & D.9 and D.2 to 6 receipts shows that the accused had purchased many sarees. There might be true that the accused had purchased many sarees but that does mean that she had handed over those sarees to complainant and complainant has paid that amount through online. There is no document to show that there was a contract between the parties with regard to saree business and complainant was paying that amount to the accused.
22. During the evidence of accused she has deposed that there was an agreement between the parties with regard to saree business and payment. But till today the accused has not chosen to produce that document before this Hon'ble Court. If really transaction was genuine there was no hurdle for the accused to produce those documents. Here there is no piece of document to show that the complainant and accused were doing business jointly and it is not loan transaction. Because accused admits that she had received amount through bank only from the account of complainant. There is no dispute in that aspect. The only contention taken by the accused is that said amount was with regard to saree business and not pertaining to hand loan or any other money transaction. As stated above there is no such document to show that there was no hand loan transaction between the parties.
12C.C.No.7222/2022
23. During the cross-examination of DW-1, she admits that she had received amount from the complainant through cheque only in the year 2020. As discussed above the bills and receipts produced by the accused with regard to purchase of saree belongs to 2019 but here complainant has paid amount through online and cheque in the year 2020. Moreover as per Ex.D.1 to D.6 total amount of sarees is 5,65,050/-. It is not the case of accused is that she had handed over all the sarees to the complainant. Because as discussed above she was purchasing sarees for her business and she was giving some sarees to the complainant. In such circumstances, how could the complainant has paid Rs.5 lakhs to the accused. Total amount of sarees itself is Rs.5 lakhs and in that accused also retained some sarees for her business, in such circumstances, there was no necessity for the complainant to pay entire Rs.5 lakhs to the accused. Moreover all the receipts are not pertaining to sarees because in the Ex.D.2 it is shown as one piece for Rs.50/- but there is no description that what was that piece. In the Ex.D.4 also it is written in the Tamil language and in that also there is no description with regard to material.
24. The accused has taken another contention that she kept her cheques, passport and other documents in the office namely "Exide Life Insurance" Karthikashree was also working in the same office and she had misused the said cheque and given to the complainant herein. Both were 13 C.C.No.7222/2022 colluded with each other and filed false case. Except saying this, the accused has not produced any document to show that whether she had taken any steps against the Karthikashree or complainant. If really accused and Karthikashree were in the same office and she lost her cheque and other documents in the office then there was no hurdle for the accused to take steps against the Karthikashree. Moreover no person will simply sit, if she lost cheque. The accused has deposed that she kept her passport, pan card, aadhar card, salary slip, cheque book, appointment order in the office. Later she has deposed that all other documents are with her now also. If she lost those documents how could again those documents came into her hands. The accused has given explanation for that also that those documents are xerox documents and original documents were with her only. If all the documents are xerox means, why should she kept her original cheque book in the office. No explanation from the accused.
25. Ex.D.8 is MOU between the Karthikashree and accused herein. As per said document Karthikashree had lent amount of Rs.4 lakhs to the accused herein and accused had issued cheque in favour of Karthikashree. The accused has agreed to pay interest @ rate of 2% per month also. In the Ex.D.8 cheque numbers not shown and no witness has been examined to prove Ex.D.8. Ex.D.9 is salary certificate of "Cool Rich Solutions" to show that 14 C.C.No.7222/2022 Krishnaveni was working in the said company from 21.09.2019 and she was drawing salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. During the cross-examination of DW-1 she has deposed that she and Karthikashree were working in the Exide Life Insurance company but Ex.D.9 is not belongs Exide Life Insurance. It is not the case of accused is that she and Karthikashree were working in the Cool Rich Solutions company. It is also contrary to evidence of accused. Because in the document her company name shown as Cool Rich Solutions but in the cross-examination she has deposed that she and Karthikashree were working in Exide Life Insurance Company. Though Ex.D.9 shows that accused was working in Cool Rich Solutions but there is no document to show that both accused and Karthikashree were working in the said company. The accused has taken another contention that, after missing her cheque in the office, she had filed complaint to her Higher officer and he has taken action against the Karthikashree but to prove that aspect, accused has not produced any document.
26. Advocate for accused has contended that complainant only filled the cheque and signature also not belongs to accused. The cheque has been returned for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and not for "Signature Differs" or any other reason. If signature found in cheque is not belongs to accused, then definitely cheque would have returned for the 15 C.C.No.7222/2022 reason "Signature Differs" but here there is no such endorsement. It shows that signature found in the cheques belongs to accused. Moreover the accused has not filed any application for seeking expert assistance to ascertain that whether signature and handwriting found in cheque belongs to accused or not. The accused has further contended that handwriting of cheque also not belongs to her hence it is not valid. During the cross-examination of PW-1, she denied that aspect. Here the question is whether complainant can fill the cheque or not. In the authority in Sunita Dubey (Smt.) Vs. Hukum Singh Ahirwar. In that Hon'ble Apex Court held that blank cheque can be filled up by holder thereof. Which will be valid instrument in eye of law. The complainant has right to get benefit U/s.20 of Act. As per Section 20 of N.I.Act inchoate instruments are also valid and legally enforceable. In the case of a signed blank cheque, the drawer gives authority to the drawee to fill up the a great liability. Hence accused cannot contend that the cheque is not valid. Moreover the complainant has clearly deposed that the accused only filled cheque and issued. In such circumstances, the accused cannot take contention that cheque is not valid.
27. The accused has contended that no notice has been served to her. The complainant has issued notice to the accused as per Ex.P.3 and in the said notice address of accused shown as Smt.Krishnaveni D. D/o.Dharmalingam, 16 C.C.No.7222/2022 41 years, 1145, 3rd Floor, 1st Main, 2nd Cross, Manuvana, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru-40 and also at No.377/H, 9 th Main Road, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-40 and also at office Admin, Cool Rich Solution, No.14, Ground and First floor, 12 th Cross, near Poornapragna Samudaya Bhavan, Krishnayya Layout, Uttarahalli, Bengaluru-61. As per Ex.P.7 notice has been returned as addressee refused and as per Ex.P.8 door locked and as per Ex.P.9 notice has been served to the accused. During the cross-examination of PW-1, she admits that address shown in the Ex.P.9 postal acknowledgment is belongs to her but she has vacated said address in the year 2014. In the Ex.P.9 address of accused shown as No.377/H, 9th Main Road, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-40. It is not the case of accused is that she was not residing in the address shown in the Ex.P.7 and P.8. If really accused was not residing in the said address, definitely notice would have returned as no such person but here Ex.P.7 returned as addressee refused. It shows that the accused was residing in the very same address. For that reason only she has not chosen to receive the notice. Moreover the accused has not produced any documents to show that she is residing in the address shown in her evidence. If really accused was not residing in the address shown in the Ex.P.7, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 then the burden is on the accused to prove that where she was residing in that time. Here except showing new address, the accused has not 17 C.C.No.7222/2022 placed any document to show that she was residing in the said address shown in her evidence. All these aspects show that the complainant has sent notice with correct address. As per Sec.27 of General Clauses Act, if any notice sent with correct address, then it has to consider as deemed service. Here also the complainant has sent notice with correct address, hence it is considered as deemed service.
28. As discussed above, the advocate for accused has cross-examined the PW-1 but nothing has been elicited to prove the defence of the accused. Except suggesting that cheques have been misplaced in the office and complainant has misused the same by colluding with Karthikashree, nothing has been suggested. But the accused has not examined said Karthikashree to prove her defence and not even tried to secure the presence of Karthikashree. As discussed above no steps has been taken against the Karthikashree for alleged misuse of her cheque. Moreover the accused has not disclosed about the numbers of other cheques also. If really accused has lost her cheque book in the office then definitely she would have disclosed the numbers of other cheques also. Here the accused has not disclosed those aspects. Though accused has taken contention that there was an agreement between the parties with regard to terms of the saree business but till today she has not produced. If really there was such an agreement then there was no hurdle for the accused to produce that 18 C.C.No.7222/2022 document in support of her case. In the Ex.D.8 there is no recital with regard to cheque numbers. More particularly the accused has not chosen to examine Karthikashree to prove Ex.D.8. No witness has been examined to prove Ex.D.8. The accused has an option to examine any of her colleague to prove that she lost her cheques in the office and she had filed complaint against the Karthikashree, but accused has not exercised all those aspects to prove her case. It creates doubt regarding contention of accused.
29. The accused has taken another contention that the complainant has transferred her chit amount to her account. During the cross-examination of PW-1 also advocate for accused has suggested the same but witness denied that suggestion and stated that she paid said amount to the accused on the request of accused for construction of house. Though accused has admits that she had received amount from the complainant through bank but she has taken contentions that said amount pertaining to saree business and chit amount. Though she has taken several contentions but not proved her contentions. As discussed above there is no material to show that there was a contract between the parties with regard to saree business and for that reason, the complainant has paid amount to the accused. In the absence of such relevant evidence, the court cannot accept that amount paid by the complainant is pertaining to saree business. The another contention of 19 C.C.No.7222/2022 accused is that complainant has paid chit amount to her but accused has not given any information with regard to alleged chit transaction. If really accused was chit member under the complainant, then she would have disclosed information about the said chit transaction. Here there is no information about said alleged chit transaction. It shows that the accused has taken many contentions only to escape from her liability.
30. The accused has taken contention that complainant has no source of income to lend such a huge amount. The amount involved in this case is Rs.5,00,000/-. Admittedly both parties were doing saree business. PW-1 has clearly deposed she had obtained loan for construction, she was also doing tailoring work in her place. In such circumstances, it is not difficulty for the complainant to arrange amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. All those aspects show that the complainant had source of income. All these aspects show that the complainant has financial capacity to lend amount.
31. As per Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act court may presume that bill of exchange was accepted for good consideration. Issuance of cheque is proved. Hence presumption can be drawn. Therefore, it probabalizes that the transactions alleged in the complaint is genuine.
20C.C.No.7222/2022
32. The accused person has fails to prove her defence. The reason or explanation given by the accused with regard to how her cheque had been to the hands of the complainant is not at all acceptable one. The complainant has produced documents to prove her case. Hence there is no reasons to disbelieve the case of complainant. Hence presumption can be drawn in favour of complainant.
33. Regarding the burden of the accused to rebut the presumptions in N.I Act the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat in Crl.A.No.508 OF 2019 held:
"16.On the aspects relating to preponderance of probabilities, the accused has to bring on record such facts and such circumstances which may lead the Court to conclude either that the consideration did not exist or that its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration did not exist. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that though there may not be sufficient negative evidence which could be brought on record by the accused to discharge his burden, yet mere denial would not fulfill the requirements of rebuttal as envisaged under Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act..."
34. As discussed above the accused has fails to rebut the presumption. Under the criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the proceeding U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is quasi-criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond reasonable 21 C.C.No.7222/2022 doubt is subject to presumptions envisaged under sec.118, 139 and 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act. An essential ingredient of Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is that cheque in question must have been issued towards a legally or liability. Sec.118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act envisage certain presumptions. Under Sec.118 a presumption shall be raised regarding consideration, date, acceptance, transfer, endorsements and regarding the holder in due course of Negotiable Instruments. Even under Sec.139 a rebuttal presumption shall be raised that the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally enforceable debt. These presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in case of Negotiable Instruments. These presumptions are not conclusive presumptions, but are rebuttable.
35. In the authority reported in Crl Appeal No.348/2011 in Smt.Jayalakshmamma Vs.Shasikala. In that case the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that if accused has taken contention that complainant has misused her cheque, then there should be complaint before the police or any authority or intimation to the bank. If accused has not exercised these options then, her contention cannot be considered with regard to missing of cheque or alleged misuse of cheque. In the case on hand also the accused has taken contention that she had kept 22 C.C.No.7222/2022 cheques in the office, to avail loan but the complainant and Karthikashree were colluded with each other and filed false false case. She has also taken contention that no notice has been issued to the complainant and no complaint is lodged. Hence ratio held in above authority is applicable to case on hand.
36. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"26. In light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat [(2008) 4 SCC 54 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 166] may not be correct. However, this does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the decision in that case since it was based on the specific facts and circumstances therein. As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant.
28. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "preponderance of probabilities". Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence, which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is 23 C.C.No.7222/2022 conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own."
37. Such being the case it is for the accused to rebut the presumption under Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and to show that the cheque in question was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt or liability and accused has to prove the same not by mere possible explanation, but by cogent evidence. In this case the accused has fails to prove that she has not issued cheque towards legally enforceable debt. There is no dispute with regard to signatures. Till today accused has not filed any complaint against the complainant for alleged misuse of her cheque. She has not tried to take back her cheque. Silence of accused shows that she is admitting transaction and for that reason only, she has not tried to take back her cheque.
38. Advocate for complainant argued that transaction was in the year 2020 and till today the complainant has not received any benefit from the accused. Due to delay in proceedings also, the complainant has suffered a lot. In the authority reported in Crl. Revision Petition No.996/2016 of M/s.Banavathi and Company Vs.Mahaeer Electro Mech Pvt Ltd and another. In that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that as per Section 80 of N.I.Act When no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, interest on the amount due thereon shall, notwithstanding any agreement relating to interest between any parties to the instrument, 24 C.C.No.7222/2022 be calculated at the rate of eighteen per centum per annum, from the date at which the same ought to have been paid by the party charged, until tender or realization of the amount due thereon, or until such date after the institution of a suit to recover such amount as the Court directs. All discussed above transaction was in the year 2020 and now it is in the year 2026 and the complainant has suffered a lot of financial issue due to delay. If complainant would have invested and deposited in any bank or business, she would have get benefit. Hence the accused is liable to pay interest @ rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of complaint to till realization.
39. The complainant has proved that accused had issued cheques towards discharge of his legally recoverable debt or liability. There is no proper explanation from the accused that why she has not tried to take back her cheques. There is no effort from the accused to take steps against the complainant and Karthikashree for alleged misuse of her cheques. If there was no transaction between the parties, then no ordinary prudent man will simply sit by issuing cheques. After receiving of notice also the accused had an option to take steps against the complainant but the accused has not exercised any of option available to her. All these aspects show that there was a transaction between the parties and to discharge his liability only, accused had issued Ex.P.1. The accused has fails to prove that there is 25 C.C.No.7222/2022 no legally recoverable debt or liability. Hence, in view of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the complainant has proved her case. On careful perusal of materials on record I am of the opinion that there is a legally recoverable debt or liability. All these aspects show that accused had issued cheques to the complainant towards discharge of her liability. The complainant has proved the initial burden and accused has not proved her defence and not rebutted the presumption. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence corroborates with each other. During the cross-examination of PW-1 also nothing has been elicited. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the version of complainant appears to be true. The ingredients required to fulfill Sec.138 of NI Act also proved. Hence, I hold that there are materials available on record to conclude that accused has committed an offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act, hence I answered Point no.1 in the Affirmative.
40. Point No.2:- In view of the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following :-
-: ORDER :-
By invoking the power conferred under section 278(2) of B.N.S.S.,The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.26
C.C.No.7222/2022 Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five Lakhs only) along with interest @ rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of complaint to till realization till payment of amount. In default to pay the fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Further, acting under Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., on recovery of sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five Lakhs only along with interest @ rate of 18% per annum only, Rs.4,95,000/-along with interest shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the state exchequer.
Supply free copy of this order to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to stenographer directly on my computer, after clerical additions by him, script revised, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 13th day of March -2026) ASHA Digitally signed by ASHA K S Date: 2026.03.16 KS 17:42:38 +0530 (Smt.Asha K.S,) XXIII ACJM,Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1) List of Witnesses examined for complainant:-
PW.1 : Smt.Jalajakshi
2) List of documents marked on behalf of complainant: -
Ex.P.1 : cheque.
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of accused.
Ex.P.2 : Bank Memo,
27
C.C.No.7222/2022
Ex.P.3 : Legal Notice,
Ex.P.4 to P.6 : Postal receipts,
Ex.P.7 & P.8 : Postal Covers.
Ex.P.9 : Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.P.10 : Bank Statement.
3) List of witness examined on behalf of the Accused :-
DW-1 : Krishnaveni
4) List of documents marked on behalf of the Accused:-
Ex.D.1 to D.6 : Six Bills.
Ex.D.7 : Cheque dated 24.12.2021.
Ex.D.8 : Memorandum of Understanding.
Ex.D.9 : Salary Certificate.
ASHA Digitally signed
by ASHA K S
Date: 2026.03.16
KS 17:42:50 +0530
(Smt.Asha K.S,)
XXIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
28
C.C.No.7222/2022