Bangalore District Court
S.Nagaraj vs Ankayya on 24 July, 2025
KABC0C0169892023
IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2025
Present: Sri.SANTHOSH S.KUNDER., B.A.,LL.M.,
XIV Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 of Cr.P.C
C.C.No. 55513/2023
Complainant Mr.S.Nagaraj,
S/o Late. Siddiah,
R/at Bharathipura Village,
Dobaspet hobli, Billinakote post,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District-562111.
(By Sri.Raju.P.T., Advocate)
V/s
Accused Mr.Ankayya,
S/o Late Venkatesh,
R/at Oddi Kandriga Village,
Sadasivapuram Post,
Kalahasti Taluk,
Chittoor District,
Andrapradesh-517643.
And also at,
No.88, Vajarahalli Village,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural Dist-562123.
(By Sri.Rohith.S., Advocate)
2
C.C.No.55513/2023
KABC0C0169892023
Offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Plea of the Pleaded not guilty
accused
Final Order Accused is held guilty & convicted
This complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C,
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Complaint averments in brief:
Complainant and accused are known to each other
for past several years. During first week of October 2022,
accused had approached the complainant for hand loan of
₹5,00,000/- to meet his necessities. Heeding to his
request, complainant lent ₹5,00,000/- to accused by way
of cash on 25.10.2022. Accused had assured that he will
repay the entire hand loan within five months. But, he
has failed to keep up his promise. He went on postponing
the event of repayment by giving lame excuses. After
repeated requests and demands, he has issued cheques
i.e., viz., cheque bearing No.472145 dtd.20.03.2023 and
cheque bearing No.472143 dtd.24.03.2023 for
₹2,50,000/- each, both drawn on State Bank of India,
Nelamangala, favouring the complainant. As per the
instruction of the accused, the complainant has presented
the said cheques on 20.03.2023 and 24.03.2023 through
his banker namely, Canara Bank, Nelamangala Branch.
3
C.C.No.55513/2023
KABC0C0169892023
But to utter shock and surprise of the complainant, both
cheques were dishonored and returned with
endorsements 'kindly contact drawer drawee bank and
please present again', dated 21.03.2023 and 27.03.2023.
Immediately, after coming to know about the dishonor of
the cheques, the complainant informed the same to
accused. Accused had requested the complainant to re-
present the cheques. Accordingly, on 17.04.2023 the
complainant re-presented the cheques. But, this time also
the cheques were dishonored with similar endorsements,
dated 18.04.2023. Therefore, the complainant has caused
a legal notice dated 29.04.2023 through RPAD calling
upon the accused to pay the amount covered under the
dishonored cheques. One of the notices served on
10.05.2023 and the other notice was returned with shara
'insufficient address, returned to sender'.But, he has
failed to comply with the demand made in the notice.
Therefore, this complaint is filed.
3. This court took cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Complainant
was examined on oath. As there were prima facie
materials, criminal case was registered and accused was
summoned.
4. Pursuant to the summons, accused has
appeared before the court and got enlarged on bail. After
4
C.C.No.55513/2023
KABC0C0169892023
compliance of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, this court recorded his
plea. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Sworn statement affidavit of complainant
treated as evidence. Documents at Ex.P-1 to 11 marked
for him.
6. Accused was examined under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. He has denied the incriminating evidence. By way
of defence, he has examined himself as DW-1. 'Nil' defence
document marked. He has not tendered himself for cross-
examination.
7. Advocate for complainant filed written
argument. Defence counsel has neither addressed
argument nor filed notes of argument.
8. I have perused the records.
9. Points for consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant has proved
that the accused has issued two cheques,
viz., cheque bearing No.472145
dtd.20.03.2023 and cheque bearing
No.472143 dtd.24.03.2023 for
₹2,50,000/- each, drawn on State Bank
of India, Nelamangala, in favour of the
complainant towards discharge of legally
recoverable debt/liability and the said
cheques were dishonored for the reason
'kindly contact drawer drawee bank and
please present again' and in spite of
service of statutory notice dated
29.04.2023, he has failed pay the amount
5
C.C.No.55513/2023
KABC0C0169892023
covered under the cheques and thereby
committed the offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I.Act?
2. What order?
10. The above points are answered as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1:- The complainant is contending
that, he has lent ₹5,00,000/- to the accused in cash on
25.10.2022 and that the accused has issued the subject
cheques for repayment of the same and on presentation,
both cheques were dishonored twice with endorsements
'kindly contact drawer drawee bank and please present
again'. The complainant further contending that even after
service of statutory notice, accused has failed to pay the
amount covered under the dishonored cheques.
12. In order to prove the case, the complainant has
filed sworn affidavit in lieu of oral examination-in-chief
reiterating the complaint averments. Of documents
marked through him, Ex.P-1 & 2 are cheques; Ex.P-3 to 6
are bank endorsements; Ex.P-7 is copy of the legal notice
dated 29.04.2023; Ex.P-8 & 9 are postal receipts; Ex.P-10
is unserved postal cover; and Ex.P11 is postal track
consignment report.
6
C.C.No.55513/2023
KABC0C0169892023
13. Learned defence counsel cross-examined PW-
1. It is elicited that PW-1 is a retired lecturer. PW-1 has
reiterated that he has lent money to accused in cash on
25.10.2022 at his residence. It was suggested that the
complainant had stolen signed cheques which are kept on
TV showcase in the residence of the accused. Suggestions
were also given disputing monitory transaction between
the complainant and the accused. PW-1 has denied these
suggestions. Nothing worth is elicited in the cross-
examination of PW-1 to disbelieve the case setup by the
complainant.
14. In the defence evidence, accused/DW-1 has
deposed that he is permanent residence of Tirupati,
Andhra Pradesh. He is residing in Vajarahalli in
Nelamangala Taluk for the past 30 years. He is presently
living near Ganesha Temple, Vajarahalli Village,
Nelamangala Taluk, since 10 years. DW-1 has stated that
he has not received the notice allegedly sent by the
complainant. Further, he has deposed that the notice that
was allegedly sent to his residential address at Tirupathi
is also served on him. Since, DW-1 has not tendered
himself for cross-examination, vide order sheet dated
24.06.2025, it is taken that he has not tendered for cross-
examination.
15. Upon going through the evidence on record, it
is forthcoming that the accused is disputing loan
7
C.C.No.55513/2023
KABC0C0169892023
transaction alleged by the complainant and thereby
denied the case of the complainant that he has borrowed
hand loan of ₹5,00,000/-. His specific defence is that, the
subject cheques were stolen by the complainant which he
had allegedly kept at his residence. But, to substantiate
the same, he has not produced any documents. Had really
cheques were stolen, a prudent man would atleast lodge a
complaint to police. But, it appears that no such attempt
is done by the accused. Therefore, on the mere say that
the cheques were stolen, in the absence of supporting
documentary evidence, the said defence cannot be
accepted as true. The accused has not offered plausible
and acceptable explanation as to how his cheques came to
the hands of the complainant and the circumstances
under which the complainant came in possession of those
cheques.
16. It is to be noted that the accused does not
dispute his signature on the cheques which are marked at
Ex.P1(a) and 2(a). Therefore, it is deemed that signatures
on the cheques are admitted. Once the signature on the
cheque is admitted or proved 'revers onus' clause become
operative. Thereafter, burden shifts on the accused prove
otherwise. In the instant case, though the accused has
cross-examined complainant and stepped into witness-
box to examine himself as DW-1, nothing is brought on
record to discharge the burden casted upon him. His only
8
C.C.No.55513/2023
KABC0C0169892023
defence is that the complainant had stolen the said
cheques. As noted above, the said defence has not been
substantiated by producing supportive document(s).
17. Section 118(a) of NI Act provides for
presumption as to Negotiable Instruments Act whereas,
Section 139 of the Act deals with presumption in favour of
holder. These presumptions favour the complainant.
However, it is open to an accused to raise a defence to
rebut the statutory presumption. He can do so in the
evidence of complainant or by leading independent
evidence. Standard of the proof on the part of the accused
to prove his defence is in the nature of preponderance of
probability. But, in the present case, as noted above, the
accused has not brought out any circumstances to
probabilize his defence.
18. In M/s Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets,
(2009) 2 SCC 513, Hon'ble Supreme court held:-
"20. The accused in a trial under
Section 138 of the Act has two options.
He can either show that consideration
and debt did not exist or that under
the particular circumstances of the
case the non existence of
consideration and debt is so probable
that a prudent man ought to suppose
that no consideration and debt
existed. To rebut the statutory
presumptions an accused is not
expected to prove his defence beyond
reasonable doubt as is expected of the
9
C.C.No.55513/2023
KABC0C0169892023
complainant in a criminal trial. The
accused may adduce direct evidence
to prove that the note in question was
not supported by consideration and
that there was no debt or liability to be
discharged by him. However, the
Court need not insist in every case
that the accused should disprove the
nonexistence of consideration and
debt by leading direct evidence
because the existence of negative
evidence is neither possible nor
contemplated. At the same time, it is
clear that bare denial of the passing of
the consideration and existence of
debt, apparently would not serve the
purpose of the accused. Something
which is probable has to be brought on
record for getting the burden of proof
shifted to the complainant. To disprove
the presumptions, the accused should
bring on record such facts and
circumstances, upon consideration of
which, the Court may either believe
that the consideration and debt did
not exist or their nonexistence was so
probable that a prudent man would
under the circumstances of the case,
act upon the plea that they did not
exist. Apart from adducing direct
evidence to prove that the note in
question was not supported by
consideration or that he had not
incurred any debt or liability, the
accused may also rely upon
circumstantial evidence and if the
circumstances so relied upon are
compelling, the burden may likewise
10
C.C.No.55513/2023
KABC0C0169892023
shift again on the complainant. The
accused may also rely upon
presumptions of fact, for instance,
those mentioned in Section 114 of the
Evidence Act to rebut the
presumptions arising under Sections
118 and 139 of the Act."
19. In Rangappa V/s Sri.Mohan; (2010) 11 SCC
441, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, ordinarily in
cheque bouncing cases, what the courts have to consider
is whether the ingredients of the offence enumerated in
Section 138 of the Act have been met and if so, whether
the accused was able to rebut the statutory presumption
contemplated by Section 139 of the Act.
20. Above said principles have also been
crystallized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418, where
it is held that:-
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid
down by this Court in above cases on
Sections 118(a) and 139, we now
summarise the principles enumerated
by this Court in following manner:
(i) Once the execution of cheque is
admitted Section 139 of the Act
mandates a presumption that the
cheque was for the discharge of any
debt or other liability.
11
C.C.No.55513/2023
KABC0C0169892023
(ii) The presumption under Section 139
is a rebuttable presumption and the
onus is on the accused to raise the
probable defence. The standard of
proof for rebutting the presumption is
that of preponderance of probablities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open
for the accused to rely on evidence led
by him or accused can also rely on the
materials submitted by the
complainant in order to raise a
probable defence. Inference of
preponderance of probabilities can be
drawn not only from the materials
brought on record by the parties but
also by reference to the circumstances
upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the
accused to come in the witness box in
support of his defence, Section 139
imposed an evidentiary burden and not
a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to
come in the witness box to support his
defence."
21. In the case on hand, the accused has failed to
probabalize his defence that the cheques were stolen. Yet
another defence taken by the accused is that statutory
notice was not served on him. It is evident from copy of
notice at Ex.P7 that it was sent to two addresses of
12
C.C.No.55513/2023
KABC0C0169892023
accused, one at Kalahasti, Andhra Pradesh and the other
at Nelamangala Taluk. It is evident from Ex.P10 that
notice sent to second address (Nelamanagala Taluk)
returned with postal endorsement 'insufficient address'.
Postal track report at Ex.P11 shows that notice sent to the
first address i.e., Kalahasti, was delivered. Accused has
baldly asserted that notices sent to both addresses were
not served. This bald assertion does not in any way help
the accused for the reason that the postal track report
shows that the registered article was delivered on
10.05.2023.
22. Section 27 of General Clauses Act deals with
the presumption of service of documents sent by post.
Specifically, it provides that, where any Central Act or
Regulation authorizes or requires any document to be
served by post, service is deemed to be effected by
properly addressing, pre-paying and posting document by
registered post. Unless a different intention appears, this
service is considered as complete. It is pertinent to note
that the accused does not dispute his address appearing
on Ex.P7. Therefore, it can be said that it is his correct
address. Indisputably, Ex.P7 was sent through pre-paying
registered post. Therefore, by virtue of Section 27 of the
General Clauses Act, service is deemed to be affected.
Accused has not produced evidence to the contrary to
rebut the presumption under Section 27 of the Act.
13
C.C.No.55513/2023
KABC0C0169892023
Therefore, it is proved that notice was served on the
accused.
23. Indisputably, the cheques were presented for
encashment well within its validity period and both were
dishonored, vide endorsements at Ex.P3 to 6. Thereafter,
the complainant has sent a statutory demand notice to
the accused within 30 days from Ex.P5 and 6. Ex.P11
proves service of statutory notice on accused. Complaint
was presented on 01.06.2023, which is well within the
period of limitation specified under Clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 142 of NI Act. Therefore, by statutory
fiction, offence is deemed to have committed. Since, the
accused has not made out a probable defence, he has to
be held guilty and liable for conviction for the offence
under Section 138 of NI Act. Accordingly, I answer Point
No.1 in the Affirmative.
24. Point No.2:-Punishment prescribed for the
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
is imprisonment for a period which may extend to two
years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount
of the cheque or with both. Considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, year of the transaction and the
rate of interest stipulated under Section 80 of NI Act, this
court is of the considered view that it is just and desirable
to impose fine of ₹6,00,000/- and out of the said amount,
14
C.C.No.55513/2023
KABC0C0169892023
it is just and proper to award a sum of ₹5,95,000/- as
compensation to the complainant as provided under
Section 357(1) (b) of Cr.P.C and the remaining sum of
₹5,000/- shall go to State. In view of the findings recorded
above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.,
accused is held guilty and convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
₹6,00,000/-. In default to pay fine, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
six months.
Out of the realized fine amount, a sum of
₹5,95,000/- is ordered to be paid to the
complainant as compensation and the
remaining sum of ₹5,000/- shall be remitted
to State.
Bail bonds executed by accused shall
stand cancelled.
Office to supply a free copy of this
judgment to accused.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her,
revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court
on this the 24th day of July, 2025)
( SANTHOSH S.KUNDER )
XIV Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
15
C.C.No.55513/2023
KABC0C0169892023
ANNEXURES
List of witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 S.Nagaraj
List of documents marked for the Complainant:
Ex.P.1 & 2 Cheques
Ex.P.1(a) & Signature of the accused
2(a)
Ex.P.3 to 6 Bank endorsements
Ex.P.7 Copy of legal notice dated 29.04.2023
Ex.P.8 & 9 Postal receipts-2
Ex.P.10 Unserved postal cover
Ex.P.11 Postal track consignment report
List of witness examined for the defence:
DW.1 Ankayya
List of documents marked for the defence: NIL
XIV Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru.