Bangalore District Court
Premila N Kalro vs Goutham Malik on 1 December, 2025
KABC020143672023
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY.
(SCCH-6)
Present: Smt. Chetana S.F.
B.A., L.L.B.,
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
CC. No.4249/2023
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
COMPLAINANT/S Smt.PREMILA.N.KALRO,
Aged about 76 years,
R/at Flat 405,
4th Floor, Gulbahar Apartments,
Hare Krishna Road,
Near Shivananda Circle,
Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru - 560001.
represented b y SPA Holder
Mr.Srinivas .N.
(By Sri. Srinivas M.T., - Advocate)
-Vs-
ACCUSED Sri. GOUTHAM MALIK,
No.3/a 3rd Floor,
Faraha Fort Manor,
Jayamahal, Bengaluru-46.
(By Sri. Lakshmish G., - Advocate)
SCCH-6 2 CC No.4249/2023
-: J U D G M E N T :-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec. 200
of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Secs.138 and 142
of N.I. Act as against the accused praying to punish the
accused for the said offence.
2. The case of the complainant is that, complainant
and the accused well known to each other from past 10 years.
In this regard the accused requested the complainant for
provide hand loan to improve business and promised to return
the same with interest. Believing the words of the accused the
complainant has paid Rs.2,34,00,000/- to the accused on
various dates. After receiving the amount, the accused made
part payments and failed to pay the remaining due amount.
Thereafter towards discharge of his liability the accused has
issued one cheque bearing No.387269 dated 23-08-2021 for a
sum of Rs.1,30,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate bank,
Basavanagudi branch, Bengaluru 560004. As per the
instructions of the accused, when the complainant has
presented the cheque for encashment before IDFC First bank
SCCH-6 3 CC No.4249/2023
ltd., Malleshwaram branch, Bangalore, same was dishonoured
and returned with bank endorsement dated 24-08-2021
stating " BANK CD -025 EXC WEF010721." Hence, the
complainant got issued legal notice dt.11-09-2021 to the
accused through courier. Inspite of service of legal notice,
neither the accused replied nor paid the cheque amount, thus
the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of
NI Act. Hence, this complaint.
3. After recording the sworn statement of the
complainant by way of affidavit and also verifying the
documents, cognizance was taken against the accused for the
offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act. The accused
appeared before this court through his counsel and enlarged
on bail and his plea was recorded. The accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for
evidence of the complainant.
4. The complainant got examined her SPA Holder as
PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.8. Thereafter,
the case was posted for recording the statement of accused
SCCH-6 4 CC No.4249/2023
under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. In the statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C.,
the accused has denied all the incriminating evidence
appearing against him. Accused got examined as DW.1 and
got marked documents at Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 and also examined
one witness Sri.Shabeer Ahmed, the Manager, Canara Bank,
Nandi Durga branch, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru as DW.2.
5. Heard the arguments of both side and Perused the
records.
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
1.Whether the complainant proves that the cheque No.387269 dt.23-08-
2021 for Rs.1,30,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, 26, Dr. D.V.G. Road, Basavanagudi branch, angalore 560004, issued by the accused has been dishonored on the ground of "BANK CD -025 EXC WEF010721" dated 24-08-2021.
Even after receiving the intimation regarding the dishonor of cheque failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
SCCH-6 5 CC No.4249/2023
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
-: R E A S O N S :-
8. POINT NO.1:- In view of the present legal position as held by our Hon'ble High Court as well as Apex Court of India in a catena of decisions as well as relevant provisions of the Act, this court has to see whether the complainant has complied all the requirements as contained in Sec.138 of NI Act so as to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence. If so, whether the accused is able to rebut the legal presumption available to the complainant under Sec.139 of the Act by adducing probable defense or not. However, it is held by the full bench of our Apex Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in 2010 (1) DCR 706 that;
"The Statutory presumption man- dated by sec.139 of the Act, does in-SCCH-6 6 CC No.4249/2023
deed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. However, the presumption U/S 139 of the Act is in the nature of a rebuttable pre- sumption and it is open for the ac- cused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested".
9. Therefore, in view of the above decision, once the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption would automatically fall in favour of the complainant that, the alleged cheque was issued for discharge of an existing legally enforceable debt or liability against the accused and the burden will shift on to the accused to rebut the same.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE AND DISCUSSION:-
10. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In order to establish the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the prosecution must fulfill all the essential ingredients of the offence. Perusal of the bare provision reveals the following necessary ingredients of the offence:-
SCCH-6 7 CC No.4249/2023
First Ingredient: The cheques were drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity;
Second Ingredient: The cheques were drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;
Third Ingredient: The cheques were returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;
Fourth Ingredient: A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the SCCH-6 8 CC No.4249/2023 receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;
Fifth Ingredient: The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.
-APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE-
11. The accused can only be held guilty of the offence under Section 138 NI Act if the above-mentioned ingredients are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Additionally, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled. Notably, there is no dispute at bar about the proof of only first, third, and fifth ingredient. The complainant had proved the original cheque vide Ex.P.2 which the accused person had not disputed as being drawn on the account of the accused. It was not disputed that the cheque in question was presented within its validity period. The cheque in question was returned unpaid vide return memo dated 24.08.2021 vide Ex.P.3 due to the reason, "BANK CD 025 EXC WEF010721". The complainant had proved the service of legal demand notice SCCH-6 9 CC No.4249/2023 dated 11.09.2021 vide Ex.P.4 by bringing on record the postal receipt vide Ex.P.5, postal Acknowledgment vide Ex.P.6, Bank Statement vide Ex.P7 and Certificate under Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.P8. Thus, there is a dispute only with regard to the second ingredient to the offence. As such, the 1st,3rd,4th& 5th ingredient of the offence under section 138 of the NI Act stands proved.
12. As far as the proof of second ingredient is concerned, the complainant has to prove that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for discharging a legally enforceable debtor any liability. In the present case, the issuance of the cheque in question is not denied. As per the scheme of the NI Act, once the accused admits signature on the cheque in question, certain presumption are drawn, which result in shifting of onus. Section 118(a) of the NI Act lays down the presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Another presumption is enumerated in Section 139 of NI Act. The provision lays down the presumption that the holder of the cheque received it for the SCCH-6 10 CC No.4249/2023 discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.
13. The combined effect of these two provisions is a presumption that the cheque is drawn for consideration and given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections use the expression "shall", which makes it imperative for the court to raise the presumptions once the foundational facts required for the same are proved. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16.
14. Further, it has been held by a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act includes the presumption of existence of a legally enforceable debt. Once the presumption is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the same by establishing a probable defence.
15. The presumptions raised under Section 118(b) and Section 139 NI Act are rebuttable presumptions. A reverse onus is cast on the accused, who has to establish a probable SCCH-6 11 CC No.4249/2023 defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities to prove that either there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability. In this case, the arguments raised by the Ld. counsel for the accused to rebut the presumption are discussed below:
16. The learned counsel for accused argued that PW.1 being the GPA Holder of the complainant does not have any personal knowledge about the transactions and hence his evidence cannot be accepted and believed. In this regard, the learned counsel for accused cross examined PW.1 at length, for which, PW.1 clearly stated that he was working under the complainant Pramila N Kalro and the present transaction was done in his presence and hence he has complete information and personal knowledge about the present transaction. Further learned counsel for accused argued that in the Ex.P1 Special Power of Attorney and in the complaint, it is not stated that, PW.1 was having the personal knowledge about the present transaction and hence the evidence of PW.1 cannot be accepted and believed.
SCCH-6 12 CC No.4249/2023
17. In this regard, on perusal of the Ex.P1, the SPA at page No.2, it is clearly stated that the complainant has authorized and empowered her personal assistant, Mr.Srinivas N., PW1 who knows all the facts and circumstances of the case, as her attorney. Thus it is clear that PW.1 has personal knowledge about the facts and circumstances of the case and about the present transaction. Hence the evidence of PW.1 can be accepted and considered.
18. Further, learned counsel for accused argued that the complainant has never transferred the amount of Rs.2,34,00,000/- to the account of the accused and accused is not liable to pay Rs.1,30,00,000/- to the complainant. In this regard, it is worth to refer here the cross-examination portion of the DW-1 at para No.3 to 5 as follows:
3. " ನಿಪಿ.7ರಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ 15.03.2019ರಂದು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರು 50 ಲಕ್ಷ ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಟ್ ಟ್ರೇಡಿಂಗ್ ಕಾರ್ಪೋರೇಷನ್ಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ದಿನಾಂಕ 10.06.2019 ರಂದು 34 ಲಕ್ಷ, ದಿನಾಂಕ 21.06.2019 ರಂದು 15 ಲಕ್ಷ, ದಿನಾಂಕ 26.09.2019ರಂದು 30 ಲಕ್ಷ, ದಿನಾಂಕ 27.09.2019 ರಂದು 30 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
4. " ದಿನಾಂಕ 04.12.2019ರಂದು 13 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರು ನಾನು ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ Fortius Capital ಕಂಪನಿಗೆ SCCH-6 13 CC No.4249/2023 ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಮುಂದುವರೆದು Fortius Global Consulting ಮತ್ತು ನನಗೆ 13 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
5. " ದಿನಾಂಕ 10.12.2019ರಂದು 56 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರು ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಟ್ ಟ್ರೇಡಿಂಗ್ ಕಾರ್ಪೋರೇಷನ್ ಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಈ ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರು ಸಾಲ ಎಂದು ನಮ್ಮ ಕಂಪನಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರು ಬೇರೆ ಕಂಪನಿಗೆ ಹೂಡಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಲು ನಮ್ಮ ಕಂಪನಿ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಟ್ ಟ್ರೇಡಿಂಗ್ ಕಾರ್ಪೋರೇಷನ್ ಪ್ರೋಪ್ರೆೃಟರ್ ಶಿಪ್ ಕನ್ಸರ್ನ್ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಸದರಿ ಕಂಪನಿಯ ಪ್ರತಿ ನಿತ್ಯದ ಕಾರ್ಯ ಕಲಾಪಗಳಿಗೆ ನಾನೇ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾ ರಿ. ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರಿಂದ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಬೇರೆ ಕಂಪನಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಹೂಡಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
19. Thus from the above said evidence, admission of the DW.1, it is clear that accused has received Rs.2,34,00,000/- from the complainant.
20. Further, it is worth to refer here the cross- examination portion of the DW-1 at para No.6 " ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರಿಗೆ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಮರುಪಾವತಿಸಿರುತ್ತೀರಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಹೌದು. ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರಿಗೆ ನಾನು 1 ಕೋಟಿ 17 ಲಕ್ಷ 50 ಸಾವಿರ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ಖಾತೆಗಳು ಇರುವ ಸಿಂಡಿಕೇಟ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಮತ್ತು ಹೆಚ್ ಡಿ ಎಫ್ ಸಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ಗಳಿಂದ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಈ ವರೆಗೂ ಇನ್ನೂ 1 ಕೋಟಿ 30 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಡಲು ಬಾಕಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಬ್ಯಾ ಲೆನ್ಸ್ ಹಣದ ಕುರಿತು ರಾಜಿ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಪಿರ್ಯಾದುದಾರರು ಬಾಕಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಮರುಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಲು ಕೇಳಿದಾಗ ಚೆಕ್ ಅನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೀರಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
SCCH-6 14 CC No.4249/2023
21. Thus from the above said admission of the DW.1 it is clear that accused has repaid Rs.1,17,50,000/- out of Rs.2,34,00,000/- only and there is balance amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- to be payable.
22. Further accused has taken the specific defence that the signature in the cheque Ex.P2 is not his signature and the notice has not been served to him. In this regard, in the cross examination of PW.1, even PW.1 denied the suggestion that the signature in Ex.P2 cheque is not of the accused. When the accused has denied the signature in Ex.P2 cheque, the burden lies on the complainant to prove that the signature in Ex.P2 cheque is of the accused. On perusal of Ex.P.3, reason for return of cheque with bank memo, it is clearly stated that cheque has been returned for the reason code No.CD025. The complainant has not tried to prove the signature in the Ex.P2 cheque is of the accused by filing necessary application. Thus complainant has failed to prove the signature in Ex.P2 is that of the accused.
SCCH-6 15 CC No.4249/2023
23. Further it is pertinent to note here that accused counsel nowhere in the cross examination of the PW.1 has taken the specific defence with regard to how the cheque in question has gone into the hands of the PW.1. Only in his defence evidence for first time, accused has taken the specific defence that Ex.P2 cheque belongs to Syndicate Bank and the said Syndicate bank has merged with the Canara Bank and the Syndicate bank cheque has become invalid and hence he has thrown the said cheque in the dustbin near the bank and the same has been taken by the complainant and misused.
24. Further learned counsel for accused argued that the cheque Ex.P2 belongs to the Syndicate bank and it has been dated 23.08.2021 and it has been presented to the bank on 24.08.2021 and as per Ex.D.1 Gazetted notification, the Syndicate bank has been merged with the Canara Bank on 1 st April 2020 and all the old cheques of Syndicate Bank has become invalid from 30.06.2021 and even Ex.P3, the bank to which the cheque has been presented was dishonored for the SCCH-6 16 CC No.4249/2023 reason BANK CD 025 EXC WEF010721 and hence cheque deserves to be invalid and section 138 of NI Act does not attract for invalid cheque.
25. Further in support of his contention accused examined Manager, Canara Bank as DW.2. It is worth to refer here the evidence of the DW-2 " ನಿಪಿ.2 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಖಾತೆಯು ಸದರಿ ಈಗ ನಮ್ಮ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಚಾಲ್ತಿಯಾಲ್ಲಿದೆ. ದಿನಾಂಕ 30.06.2021 ರಿಂದ ಸಿಂಡಿಕೇಟ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಖಾತೆಯ ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳು ಇನ್ವ್ಯಾ ಲಿಡ್ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ನಿಪಿ.2 ಚೆಕ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿದ ದಿನಾಂಕ 23.08.2021ರ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ಚೆಕ್ ಗೆ ಮಾನ್ಯತೆ ಇತ್ತಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾನ್ಯತೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನಿಪಿ.3 ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಹಿಂಬರಹದಲ್ಲಿ ರೀಸನ್ ಫಾರ್ ರಿಟರ್ನ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಕೋಡ್ ಅನುನ ನಮೂದಿಸಿದ್ದು , ಯಾವ ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ ಚೆಕ್ ಅಮಾನ್ಯಗೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಸಿಡಿ-025 ಕೋಡ್ ದಿನಾಂಕ 01.07.2021 ರಿಂದ Eclude ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಸಿಡಿ-025 ಕೋಡ್ ಅನ್ನು ಇನ್ ವ್ಯಾ ಲಿಡ್ ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳಿಗೆ ನೀಡುತ್ತೇವೆ. ನಿಡಿ.3 ಮತ್ತು ನಿಡಿ.4 ನಮ್ಮ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನಿಂದ ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ".
26. Though DW.2 cross examined at length, but, nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of DW.2. Even learned counsel for complainant has not at all denied and disputed Ex.P3. Further learned counsel for the accused in support of his contention produced Ex.D.3 the messages sent by the SCCH-6 17 CC No.4249/2023 bank about the amalgamation of the Syndicate bank with the Canara Bank.
27. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for accused has relied on the decisions reported in 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5115 between Ganta Kavitha Devi and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Another, wherein it is held at para No.7, 9 and 11 as follows:
7. From the perusal of Section 138 N.I Act, it is clear that if any invalid cheque is presented before the Bank and the same was dishonored, then there is no liability under Section 138 N.I. Act would be attracted, and the cheque of Allahabad Bank is invalid after 30.09.2021 after merging the Allahabad Bank into the Indian Bank on 01.04.2020. Therefore, dishonoring such cheques after 30.09.2021 will not attract liability u/s 138 N.I. Act.
9. In the present case, a cheque dated 02.06.2023 of erstwhile Allahabad Bank was presented to the Indian Bank on 21.08.2023, and the same was returned on 25.08.2023 with the endorsement "wrongly delivered not drawn on us". Therefore, the cheque in question was invalid on the date of presentation before the Indian Bank.
11. In view of the above analysis, the cheque in question, which was issued from the account maintained in erstwhile Allahabad. Therefore, SCCH-6 18 CC No.4249/2023 the cheque issued by the Allahabad Bank was valid till 30.09.2021, and all the cheques of Allahabad Bank which were presented before the Indian Bank till 30.09.2021, were honored by the Indian Bank, and after 30.09.2021, cheques issued from the account maintained by the erstwhile Allahabad Bank were declared invalid for honoring. Section 138 N.I Act prescribes the condition for initiation of proceeding on bouncing the cheque in the proviso(a) of Section 138 N.I. Act. As per the Proviso (a) of Section 138 of N.I Act, cheque must be presented to the Bank during its validity.
28. Further learned counsel for accused relied on Suo Moto Writ Petition ( C ) No.3/2020 wherein it is held at page No.6:
Extension of validity of NI Act, 1881-IA. Nos.48461 and 48672/2020 (IA No.48671/2020, 48673/2020) I.A. No.48671/2020 for impleadment is allowed. With reference to the prayer, that the period of validity of a cheque be extended, we find that the said period has not been prescribed by any statute but it is a period prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India under Sec.35-A of the Banking Regulation Act,1949. We do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the period prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India, particularly, since the entire banking system functions on the basis of the period so prescribed.
The Reserve Bank of India may in its discretion, after such period as it thinks fit. Ordered accordingly.SCCH-6 19 CC No.4249/2023
29. Now coming to the facts of the present case, in the present case, the cheque is of Syndicate Bank dated 23.08.2021 and it has been presented to the IDFC Bank for encashment on 24.08.2021. As per Ex.P3 Bank Endorsement memo, the cheque has been dishonored for the reason " BANK CD 025 EXC WEF010721". Even DW.2 bank manager clearly stated that ಯಾವ ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ ಚೆಕ್ ಅಮಾನ್ಯಗೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಸಿಡಿ-025 ಕೋಡ್ದಿನಾಂಕ 01.07.2021 ರಿಂದ Eclude ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಸಿಡಿ-025 ಕೋಡ್ ಅನ್ನು ಇನ್ವ್ಯಾ ಲಿಡ್ಚೆಕ್ಕು ಗಳಿಗೆ ನೀಡುತ್ತೇವೆ.
30. As per Ex.D.1 Gazetted notification, Syndicate Bank was merged with the Canara Bank on 01.04.2020 and as per Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.3, the cheques of the Syndicate Bank will be valid upto 30.06.2021 only. Therefore the cheque in question Ex.P1 is dishonoured as it is invalid cheque.
31. In view of the forgoing discussions and the decisions held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present cheque being dishonored for the reason invalid cheque due to merging of the Syndicate Bank into Canara Bank on 01.04.2020. Therefore, dishonour of such cheque after 30.06.2021 will not attract SCCH-6 20 CC No.4249/2023 liability under Sec.138 of NI Act. Hence, in view of the above said reasons, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the dishonoring of the cheque due to its invalidity does not attract liability under Sec.138 of NI Act.
32. POINT NO.2:- In view of my answer to point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
-: O R D E R :-
The complaint filed under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., R/W Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is hereby dismissed.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her. After her typing, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the 01st day of December, 2025).
(CHETANA S.F.) IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 :- Sri. Srinivas N., SCCH-6 21 CC No.4249/2023 List of documents marked for the Complainant:-
Ex.P.1 : Special Power of Attorney
Ex.P.2 : Cheque
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P.3 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P.4 : Legal Notice
Ex.P.5 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P.6 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.7 : Copy of Bank statement
Ex.P.8 : Certificate U/sec. 65-B of Indian
Evidence Act.
List of witnesses examined for the accused:-
DW.1 : Sri. Goutham Malik
DW2 : Sri. Shabeer Ahmed
List of documents marked for the accused:-
Ex.D1 - Copy of Gazette Notification of India Ex.D2 - Certificate U/sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.D3&4 - Copies of e-mail print outs
(CHETANA S.F.)
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge &
ACJM, Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.