Bangalore District Court
Govindaraju R vs A M Narasimha Murthy on 22 July, 2025
KABC010301102024
IN THE COURT OF LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-59)
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT:
Sri. BALACHANDRA N BHAT,
B.Sc, LL.B, PGDHRL
LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.A.No.1943 / 2024
APPELLANT / Sri.Govindraju R,
ACCUSED S/o. Srirama,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.1962, 5th Cross,
Manganahalli Cross, SMV Layout,
5th Block, Ullalu, Ullalu Upanagara,
Bengaluru North -560 056.
(By Sri.T.R.Manjunathachar, Adv.)
- VS -
RESPONDENT / Sri.A.M.Narasimha Murthy,
COMPLAINANT: Aged about 55 years,
R/at No.20, New No.3,
Near Kashi -Eshwara Temple,
Agara, Sarjapur Road,
Bengaluru-560 102.
(By Sri.Akshay Kumar Jain V, Adv.)
***
2 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant
under Section 415 (3) of the Cr.PC against the
impugned judgment and sentence passed by the
Court of the learned XIX ACJM, Bengaluru (ACMM
then) in C.C.No.30237/2022 on 27.09.2024 for the
offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
2. The parties shall be referred to by the rank
held by them before the learned trial Court for the
sake of convenience, clarity and to avoid confusion.
3. The history of the case in a nut shell could
be summarised as follows;
The complainant is a businessman and philanthropist engaged in the business of
construction and several social service activities. The
accused is said to have been introduced to the
complainant through a person with acquaintance.
The accused is said to have introduced himself to the
complainant as a police officer employed in the
Karnataka State Police. Recently, the accused is said
to have requested for interest free hand loan on the
pretext that, he was suspended from service on false
3 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
allegations and was involved in legal proceedings
challenging his suspension order. The accused is
said to have even appraised to the complainant that,
he had very good chances of success. The accused
had requested for the loan of Rs.1,75,000-00 during
January, 2022 promising to repay the amount within
a month. The complainant claims to have then
transferred the amount of Rs.1,75,000-00 from
FDRL0002167 dated 28.02.2022 from the bank
account No.001001003070 held in Chartered
Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Bengaluru to the bank
account bearing No.21670100042113 held by the
accused in Federal Bank, Vishweshwaraya Layout
Branch, Bengaluru. A copy of the statement of
account pertaining to the complainant was produced.
The accused is said to have tendered a post-dated
cheque bearing 10098670 dated 20.03.2022 for
Rs.1,75,000-00 drawn on the account bearing
no.21670100042113 held by the accused in Federal
Bank. The complainant claims to have requested
with the accused for repayment of the loan, but all
the requests had fallen on a deaf ear. Thereafter, the
complainant had presented the cheque to the drawee
bank through the bank of the complainant Apex Co-
operative Bank. The cheque was returned
4 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the
account of the accused that came to be informed to
the complainant through endorsement dated
18.06.2022. The complainant had then got issued
legal notice to the accused 29.06.2022. The accused
had failed to respond to the legal notice and hence
the cause of action for the complaint.
4. The complainant had presented the
complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure on 10.08.2022 and took cognizance for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. Sworn statement was
recorded by way of affidavit on 20.09.2022. In
pursuance of the summons, the accused appeared
through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. The
accusations were read over and plea of the accused
recorded. The accused had pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
5. The accused had sought exemption for
personal appearance by filing an application under
Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On
23.12.2022, the accused had filed bail application
and was enlarged on bail and had sought for
permission to cross-examine the witness. The
5 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
application under Section 145 (2) of the application
was allowed on the same day. On 1.04.2023 PW.1
was present but the accused remained absent and
non-bailable warrant was ordered to be issued.
6. On 24.06.2023, the complainant had filed
an application under Section 143A of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The accused had failed to cross-
examine the witness PW.1. The accused had then
absconded and remained absent without sufficient
cause and non-bailable warrant was issued against
him. An order came to be passed on the application
under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act
on 23.11.2023. The cross examination of PW.1 was
finally taken as nil on 22.04.2024.
7. The statement of the accused was recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The accused had stated that, he had defence
evidence. But again it was only a conduct to dilate
the proceedings. Accused had again demonstrated
his true colour. Hence, the learned trial Court had
proceeded to pass the judgment. Being aggrieved by
the impugned judgment and sentence the accused is
before this court in appeal.
6 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
8. After hearing the counsel for the
complainant and by considering the materials on
record, the learned Trial Judge has found the
accused guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Act. Accordingly, the accused was
convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,30,750/-.
In default of payment of fine amount, he shall
undergo simple imprisonemtn for 6 months. Further,
acting under Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.PC, it is ordered that,
2,25,750/- shall be paid to complainant as a
compensation, remaining fine amount of Rs.5,000/-
to the State for the expenses incurred in the
prosecution.
9. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment
and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal
on the following grounds:
9a) The order passed by the learned Magistrate
is not according to law, biased and against tot he
settled principles of law and therefore, the said order
is liable to be quashed. The learned Magistrate
gravely erred in failing to see the background and
conduct of the parties as well as nature of the
transaction and failed to consider that, the
7 Crl.A.No.1943/2024complainant has not at all proved his own complaint
averments under Section 138 of the NI Act.
9b) The accused after obtaining the bail from
the trial Court, posted the matter for cross-
examination of the complainant. The counsel for the
accused not cross-examined the complainant. After
that, it was posted for defence evidence. Later,
posted for judgment. At the stage of judgment, the
counsel for the accused filed the recall application to
recall the PW.1 to cross-examine the complainant.
For the recall application filed by the accused, the
complainant not filed any objection for the said
application. The trial Court was not taken into
consideration of the objection not filed to recall the
application, passed an order that, the application of
recall was rejected. The trial Court not given
sufficient time even to challenge the said order before
the Appellate Court and finally convicted the accused.
9c) The learned Magistrate has totally failed to
consider that, there is no legally enforceable debt and
the alleged exhibits were hit by Section 58 of the NI
Act. The learned magistrate gravely erred in failing to
see the entire evidence of the respondent together
with the documents. The learned Magistrate has not
8 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine PW.1.
The learned Magistrate gravely erred in failing to see
that, the appellant has established their case to the
hilt and there was no consideration at all, therefore,
hit by section 43 of the NI Act.
9d) The learned Magistrate gravely erred in
failing to see that, the respondent virtually got the
reward for his own wrong. Learned Magistrate
committed an error of law in so far as presumption
under Section 139 and 118 of the NI Act vis-a-vis
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. In other words,
the learned Magistrate failed to consider as to what
constitutes set of probables to take them as proved or
not proved or disproved. The learned Magistrate
gravely erred in attributing utmost significance to the
most insignificant conduct and probabilities of the
facts. The learned magistrate erred in holding that,
the appellant has not at all cross-examined the
respondent. The conclusion of the magistrate not
only makes mockery of justice, but also opposed to
the prudent appreciation of evidence. The learned
Magistrate made several assumptions to reach the
conclusion to the absence of the evidence and
material.
9 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
9e) The learned Magistrate has not granted
sufficient opportunity to the accused to cross-
examine the respondent and lead his defence
evidence, if the court granted opportunity to cross-
examine the PW.1 and to lead defence evidence, the
accused may won the case. The learned Magistrate
not granted sufficient opportunity to the appellant to
argue his case. Hence, on these grounds, the
appellant / accused prays to allow the appeal.
10. The notice of this appeal was duly served
on respondent / complainant and he has appeared
before this Court through his counsel. The trial
Court Records called and placed along with this
appeal.
11. Heard arguments. Perused the entire
materials on record.
12. Now, the points that arise for my
consideration are :
1. Whether the appellant / accused has
made out grounds to set aside the
Judgment of conviction and sentence
passed in C.C.No.30237/2022, dated
27.09.2024, on the file of the learned
XIX ACJM, Bengaluru ?
10 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
2. Whether the appellant has made out
grounds to remand the matter to the
trial Court for fresh trial ?
3. What order?
13. My answer to the above points are as
under:
Point Nos.1 & 2 : In the Negative,
Point No.3 : As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
14. Point Nos.1 & 2: The accused is said to
have introduced himself to the complainant as Police
Officer and had requested for loan of Rs.1,75,000-00
during January, 2022. The amount of Rs.1,75,000/-
was transferred from the account of the complainant
to the account of the accused. The accused had
issued a postdated cheque as security to the
complainant.
15. Ex.P.6 is the statement of account
pertaining to the complainant with the Chartered
Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Bengaluru. The
transaction dated 28.02.2022 would show that,
Rs.1,75,000-00 was transferred to the account of
Sri.Govindaraju, the accused in this case. It is not
11 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
the case of the accused that, he had lent the amount
to the complainant and not the other way round. It
is also not the case of the accused that, he was given
the money for other work in which case it would have
been a clear case under the Prevention of Corruption
Act. Therefore, the plea of the complainant that, on
the request of the accused, he had transferred the
amount from his account to the account of the
accused. It is also not the case of the accused that,
the account bearing Number 21670100042113 does
not belong to him. The account number belonging to
the accused is found referred to in the statement. The
complainant had asserted that, the accused had
requested for the loan during January, 2022 and the
complainant did not immediately lend the amount,
which cannot be doubted and start filling one’s
personal experiences or prejudices into the
transaction between the accused and the
complainant. Therefore, there is a flow of
consideration, which is proved by Ex P 6.
16. Ex.P.1 is the cheque in question also
drawn on the same account. The contents of the
cheque do not raise any suspicion. The accused is not
a lay man and illiterate, but as projected to the
12 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
complainant, he was employed in the Karnataka
State Police. The accused cannot plead ignorance of
law as well. The accused was also conscious of the
consequences of drawing a cheque and tendering it to
the complainant. Ex.P.1 was drawn on Federal Bank
by the accused. The presumption raised in favour of
the complainant under Sections 139 and 118 of NI
Act are not rebutted by the accused.
17. Ex.P.2 Bank memo is dated 18.06.2022
and the complainant had given sufficient time for
repayment of the loan and only when the validity of
the cheque was about to end, he had presented the
cheque. This also could not be found fault with the
complainant. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of the legal
notice dated 28.06.2022. Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt
for having sent legal notice as per Ex.P.3 on
29.06.2022. Ex.P.5 is the endorsement issued by
the postal department confirming the delivery of the
article No.EK936695114N on the addressee on
30.06.2022. Ex.P.7 reveals the whatsapp message
and audio files to Raju police. Now, the accused
appears to have not bothered to respond to the legal
notice sent to him at Ex.P.3. The accused also had
demonstrated scarce regards to the Court trying the
13 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
case. The entire materials of the learned trial Court
would lead to the inference that, the accused had
dared to misuse the opportunities given to him for
dilating the proceeding and tried to mock the system.
18. The question now would be whether the
accused was given sufficient opportunities or could
he still be able to weep beating around the bush
pleading ill-health, ailments of age old parents or
some grounds of similar nature. The accused had
sought the permission of the Court to cross examine
the witness. In fact, the learned trial Court was
generous enough to grant time when infact there were
none. This is on account of the fact that, the law
makers in their wisdom and in the light of the
purpose for which the provision of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act came to be introduced
had laid down the following provision;
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
14 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall,
without prejudice to any other provision 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–
(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.
19. The drawer is given 15 days’ time after the
notice in writing is served on him informing him of
the dishonour of the cheque drawn by him to respond
to it. The accused had even at this stage appears to
be too callous and to put it in a colloquial language
“what would the complainant do, if I do not respond”.
The application filed by the accused was allowed on
23.12.2022. Thereafter, the accused appears to have
15 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
managed to dilate or procrastinate the proceeding till
22.04.2024, which would be a year and three
months. This in my view was more than sufficient
time enabling the accused to cross-examine the
witness. The accused did not stop at that but thought
of evil design to dilate the proceeding further even
after recording of the statement under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure under the guise of
leading defence evidence, when in fact, he was not
serious in adhering to his words. This is nothing
more than a mockery of justice.
20. The provisions of Section 143 (3) of the
Negotiable Instruments Act also provided for the
following;
(3) Every trial under this section shall be conducted as
expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made
to conclude the trial within six months from the date of
filing of the complaint.
21. The proceedings of the entire case is a
reflection as to how the accused was successful in
dilating the proceedings. When the accused had failed
to place materials demonstrating his defence the
question of interfering with the impugned judgment
does not arise. Further, the complainant is held
16 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
entitled to interest at 18% p.a. on the cheque amount
from 20.03.2022 till realisation. The complainant is
also entitled to the costs of the entire proceedings.
The complainant is further entitled to Rs.5,000-00 by
way of damages. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1
& 2 are in the Negative.
22. Point No.3: In view of the above, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal preferred by the appellant /
accused under Section 415(3) of Cr.P.C., is
dismissed.
Consequently, the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated
27.09.2024 passed in C.C.No.30237/2022
on the file of XIX ACJM, Bengaluru City, is
confirmed.
In addition to the amount the
complainant was held entitled to by the
learned trial Court, the complainant is
entitled to interest at the rate of 18% p.a on
the cheque amount from 20.03.2022 till
realisation, with costs.
The complainant is further entitled to
Rs.5,000/- by way of damages.
17 Crl.A.No.1943/2024
Send back records to the learned trial
Court along with copy of this judgment.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III directly on computer, corrected by me
and then pronounced in open Court on this the 22nd day of July, 2025)
(Balachandra N Bhat)
LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
